-
PLEASE HELP!!! Widescreen Aspect Ratios!
In FCP5, using the widescreen matte filter, how can I tell what the aspect ratio will be if I increase the “border” setting?
For example, if I set the filter to “1.85:1” and then increase the border setting to “10,” what will the resulting aspect ratio be (“1.95:1”)???
Does anybody know how I could create a letterboxed aspect ratio of “2.00:1” within an Anamorphic 16:9 DV frame?
Thanks in advance for your help!
– Jordan
-
10 Replies
-
Count the pixels and then do the maths.
Ok, back to school, 1 PAL frame 720×576
16:9 ‘real’ width = 1024 therefore 1024×576
so a ratio of 2.1 would be 1024 divided by 2 = 512
576-512 = 64
so crop 32 pixels of the top & bottom of your ANAMORPHIC frame and bingo 2:1 aspect ratio.
No doubt some better mathematician/aspect ratio buff will prove me wrong, but its a startthis is interesting too:-
https://www.panavision.com/aspect_ratio.phpPeter
-
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here (and do check my math!), but this is the solution I have come up with based on a thread from the Apple Discussion Forums:
Producing 2.00:1 “Letterboxed” Matte within Anamorphic 16:9 NTSC DVCAM
16:9 Anamoprhic NTSC DVCAM Video = 720×405 pixels
FCP5 “Crop” Filter:
1% of 405 = 4.05 pixels720 / 2.00 = 360 pixels (desired height)
405 – 360 = 45 pixels (that need to be cropped off)
45 / 2 = 22.5 (need to be cropped off top and bottom)
1 is to 4.05 as X is to /22.5
X = 22.5 / 4.05
X = 5.55% = amount of % to crop off top and bottom.
– Jordan
-
[jordan82] “Producing 2.00:1 “Letterboxed” Matte within Anamorphic 16:9 NTSC DVCAM”
You’ve got to take the anamorphic horizontal size, not the frame width.
Peter
-
Hi Peter,
That’s what I thought at first (the unsqueezed horizontal size is about 854 for NTSC DV), however somebody on the Apple discussions said the way Apple products handle it is that they keep the width at 720 and change the height to 405 (instead of 480). Is this incorrect?
– Jordan
-
so why dont you just use the widescreen filter?
dont get what you;re trying to do with the borders.
if you ‘d like some colour bg, jut put the colour generator behind the clips
(It’s in the “Matte” section of the generators)nick
-
oh, i see…
no 1:2.0 ratio available.
that’s a bit silly.
that was a real ratio, i think “Patton” was shot 1:2.0
nick
-
I’m not sure, but I think super 70mm was 2.05. I think “Patton” may have been 2.35.
Arnie
https://www.arniepix.com -
i knew there was some reason “patton” stuck in my mind as an example..
i remember reading about it at film school in a very obscure technical book on widescreen formats.
it was shot in “Dimention 150” wich was a lens system i believe,
but for sure the format was 70mm
i’d never realised 1:2.whtever was a ratio until i read about this, and that’s i guess why i remember.https://www.in70mm.com/news/2003/patton/after_the_battle.htm
https://www.in70mm.com/news/2002/patton/patton.htmi was really bummed when i visited LA a few years ago,
to find out that there was a widescreen festival on at the Egyptian theatre cinemateque,
and i;d missed all screenings of “Patton” by one day.
the only film left was “Helllo Dolly”!
what a tragedy!(apologies to fans, and for going OT)
nick -
That’s funny, because my DVD of “Patton” is formatted to 2.35. I guess Fox printed it for release in ‘regular’ scope. Was “Dolly” shot in 70mm? I’m not sure.
Arnie
https://www.arniepix.com -
seems to be, when i do a google on “hello dolly” and 70mm
i know that when projected, films are at the mercy of whatever crackpot happens to be running the projector at the time,
but DVDs???
i think even 70mm comes in various formats & ratios.
but while they can change from film to film,
it should change at random, from release to release.nick
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up