Personal View site logo
Cinema gear deals, direct from factories - Gear deals and Gear deals section. Also check Cameras, lenses, software, gear deals.
1920x810 -- the new "Cinemascope (2.35:1)" alternative.
  • With all the talk of "anamorphic" and achieving the widescreen look, what do you think of dslr camera or video cameras giving the options of both 1920x1080 and 1920x810 - particularly that of the Samsung NX dslr cameras. I think it would (I don't know) solve all the pros/cons of achieving the widescreen/anamorphic look. I've wondered as to why we're still into the 16:9 mode in the first place since most films are mosly 1.85:1 to 2.40:1.

    I hope I'm not making this an unnecessary post.

    a nice thought though, I can dream can I?

  • 31 Replies sorted by
  • I absolutely agree - all video cameras should have the option to shoot 1080 x 810. And if the camera has a sensor with more photosites, there should be an option to shoot 2540 x 1080. In many respects, 2540 x 1080 would be more useful and practical than 4k.

  • Not to be a broken record, but there is more to anamorphic footage than just the aspect change, most notably (imo) the vertical stretching of OOF areas and Bokeh.

  • it may give the look of letter boxed film, but its just a crop for the most part.. not sure how these cameras process the video etc.. but assume its just a in camera crop... it would take a lens to actually make it anamorphic.. shooting with a anamorphic lens gives you more detail as you get 1920 x 1080 that is stretched, then correct the aspect in post. more pixels = better image quality if the pixels are equal. What has more pixels? 1920x1080 or 1920x810

    As for the ratio.. seems like a balance between the two

  • Hate to keep bringing up the KineRaw like a fanboy, BUT.....

    The KineRaw-S8 can do anamorphic crops in cam and unsquease in the viewfinder. It can also do 4:3 HD ratios so you can use 2x Anamorphic lenses....all at 2k RAW. And that's the entry level model. I'm sure the KineRaw-S16 and S35 will also be able to do similar ratios.

    But it's probably at least a year till they are released outside of China.

  • Anamorphic lenses don't give any more details than cropping when using GH2 AVCHD codec.

    The speciality lenses give the good old anamorphic "looks". Horizontal line flare, oval bokeh, dreamy looking corners, etc. Since a cheap anamorphic lens wouldn't give such looks, I just crop the output.

  • All we need is 4:3 AVCHD. Perfect or 2x cheaper lens.

  • "Anamorphic lenses don't give any more details than cropping when using GH2 AVCHD codec."

    They can, 1.5x or 1.33x, but don't always do depending on the lens and how its setup. I can guarantee you that if you put a hawk 1.33 on even the lowly GH2 you'd end up with more resolution than just by cropping.

    Even if you are just delivering 1920x810 you are supersampling vertical detail into that smaller frame size.

  • @rozroz - agreed!

    Not to be off topic, referring to the patch, the only way to get the 4:3 to take advantage of 2x lens is through MJPEG w/ high bit-rate. I tried the AVCHD with my Sankor 16F, though the 3.55:1, it's cool for some, it's just don't look right IMO for that anamorphic look. I got Sony Vegas, and it's a pain to stretch to get the correct fit.

    Maybe I'm over-thinking this.

  • Personally I see no benefit from shooting in 1920 x 810 (over 1920 x 1080). If I plan to crop I don't mind having the extra information on the edges. It can be very helpful for slight adjustments of shots done in haste. I would like to have frames/guidelines for different aspects in preview though - for shoots I know I will crop.

  • i seriously don't get the 'just a crop with no real anamorphic lens' debate. anamorphic means that you use an anamorphic lens, as stonebat says. just a cropped mode, no matter which size, is pretty useless. why don't you just put a black tape on the lcd?

    if there only was a way to break the 16:9 AVCHD code and make it a 4:3..... it would make the whole x2 lens market go sky high. (lucky i already have a Kowa :) ) BTW- is there a cheap single focus x2 lens? couldn't find one.

  • @rozroz what would make sense is built in guidelines for different frame formats, 1:1, 3:4, 1:85, 2:21:1, 2.35:1, 2.40:1 a.s.o.. Easier and more precise than black tape.

  • @RRRR, ok, if people have serious use for those frame formats and prefer to LOSE ALL THE CROPPED INFO THEY SHOT ANYWAY, fine. just wanted to make sure no one will confuse this with real anamorphic look, because real anamorphic lens take all the sensor info and squeeze it in the 'cropped' frame. that's the whole difference. no use calling it ALTERNATIVE, cause it's not even close.

    if it's just a plain cropping feature, you are right.

  • @rozroz I'm not talking about loosing info, I'm talking about using the native frame and having guidelines (just like the ones already present in the camera but for different frame formats) to help with framing (cropping in post). De-squeezing anamorphic shots for preview would also be nice, granted. But that is an entirely different function. (changing pixel aspect ratio for the preview)

    You are completely correct that frame size alone is no replacement / alternative for the "anamorphic look".

  • oh, you mean like different 'safety zones' to help you while shooting? yea that can be a nice feature.

  • @rozroz: Yeah, that's what he means. The AF100, FS100 (with firmware 2) and most decent monitors (like SmallHD) comes with them. Very practical to have. I often do spherical 2.39:1 (as a 1.33 anamorphic wasn't good enough and I need a system where I can focus during a take) and it works well. Keep in mind a majority of films in 2.39:1 today is shot spherical Super 35, like Lord of the Rings, Kill Bill and anything done by Roger Deakins (who disliked anamorphics) and I don't think it's a "fake" look, it becomes fake once you add in the flares...

  • again, does anyone knows what's my cheapest option for a SINGLE FOCUS x2 anamorphic lens?

  • Guys, wouldn't you like to have a camera that gives you the option to shoot 2540 x 1080, which is a 2.35 aspect ratio. Put your votes in. Remember, camera manufacturers might be reading this thread.

  • @plasmasmp Let's say one uses 35mm lens & 1.33x anamorphic lens. He could use 25mm lens to get similar horizontal FOV from the same standing point. My gut feeling is that the latter would be sharper. Other differences would be the unique looks from anamorphic lens that are hard to be manipulated during post-processing.

  • Going back to the original post, I really see no point in having a 1920x810 mode on a camera. Just shoot 16:9 and crop it if you want the cinemascope aspect ratio. Gives you some wiggle room to reframe, and makes those close-ups even closer :)

  • See the 1st post from this thread about how to draw anamorphic lines on LCD screen protector.

    http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2311/lenses-for-2.351-cropping

  • BTW 1920 x 818 gives 2.35:1.

  • I may be wrong, but I think it's been YEARS, maybe decades, since any "Hollywood" movie was actually 2.35:1, it's really 2.39:1, or just call it 2.4:1 nowadays. Going with 1920X800 is easier math and really a little more accurate for Cinemascope and all. As far as cropping, that's pretty standard, too. Many top notch filmmakers have shot Super 35 and opted for faster spherical lenses cropped later, Scorsese with "Age of Innocence" and "Casino", Tarantino with "Kill Bill", and so on. Same exact principle. 1:85 must only be hanging on for the sake of not replacing every bloody aperture plate in every projection room, otherwise 1:78 is just so close...

  • oops, Gabel said exactly what I did.....

  • Would LPowell's anamorphic settings work on the new PTools? I've tried EOSHD's, and it's okay. I'll post some test shots today and post them here.