Way to convert 4:3 to anamorphic

[Captain Mench]

Matt — just want you to know I’m not trying to be confrontational with you…

But what you are saying doesn’t make sense to me.

Remember, we’re talking about filming in anamorphic:

1) I’m saying only 75% of the CCD is being used to fill 100% of the image. How is that not an image loss?

2) Why wouldn’t my native size of 16:9 not be reflected as 720 if the image wasn’t being stretched to get to 16:9?

3) Letterbox is 720×480 and when editing stays 720×480. Anamorphic is 720×480 but when editing it goes to 853ishx480.

3) Any way you look at it, some pixel is being distorted. Distortion has to lead to quality loss. Just to what degree?

I’m like Pooh, a bear of little brain, so once I’ve got my head wrapped around something it’s hard to switch.

OH — unless you are talking about SHOOTING with an ANAMORPHIC lens… which I’m not.

CaptM

[Matt Sandström]

[CaptainMench] “Remember, we’re talking about filming in anamorphic:
we are? i thought this was an fcp forum. 😉 ok, fair enough, it doesn’t matter. the facts are the same.

1) I’m saying only 75% of the CCD is being used to fill 100% of the image. How is that not an image loss?
that’s a design flaw of your camera. i think you should call your camera manufacturer to complain, not use it to draw conclusions. 🙂 the rest of the discussion becomes academic since this seems to be where the misunderstanding lies. there are plenty of ways to gather footage in native 16:9 including many dv cameras, all higher end sd cameras, all hd cameras, film, cgi, and so on. sorry if you’re camera isn’t one of them.

3) Letterbox is 720×480 and when editing stays 720×480. Anamorphic is 720×480 but when editing it goes to 853ishx480.
no, anamorphic is 720×480. whatever fcp might do to display the footage on your computer monitor obviously doesn’t change the quality.

3) Any way you look at it, some pixel is being distorted. Distortion has to lead to quality loss. Just to what degree?”
i’ve no idea what way you’re looking and i don’t understand what you mean by distortion. they were always rectangular, and rectangular they will remain. converting them to square pixels is what would distort them. keeping them anamorphic doesn’t.

/matt

https://www.mattias.nu/

[Captain Mench]

Matt —

I think you hit me right between my eyes with the “well, that’s your camera’s problem.” Ya — cost of doing a $3600 deal on a camera. My entire video world has the DVX as it’s center of the world. ALL decisions and understanding of shooting/editing comes from that camera – what? Varicam? Anamorphic lens? All foreign.

I’ve never let the magic smoke out of my camera — and even TALKING about it gives me the willies.

I thought I understood this whole thing, but realize I don’t. I’m gonna sulk into my corner and draw little pictures on roles of toilet paper trying to figure this out.

Kind of reminds me of the 30 hours of solitude figuring this one out: Three guys rent a $30 hotel room for $10 a piece. After they get to the room, the desk clerk realizes the room was only $25. He gives the bellhop $5 to return to the men. On the elevator up the bellhop realizes splitting $5 with 3 guys is gonna be tough… so he knocks on the door and says, “we overcharged you for your room… here’s a dollar back each.”

Now — each man paid $9 for the room… $9×3 is $27, but the bellhop had kept only $2… $27 + $2 = $29…. who has the other dollar?????

BTW – this is a rhetorical joke… I don’t need the answer to this.

I thank you for your calmness.

CaptM

overheard as slinking away…
Ok… so here’s a ‘distorted’ picture in 720×480… ok… now it’s showing up on my widescreen tv as STILL 480 tall… but it fills the darn tv… where did those extra ‘lines’ of horizontal space comefrom….???

lol