why not tell your story in the constraints of whatever shaped box your camera has to offer?
Though I'd much rather shoot in Cinemascope or Panavision, I figure the most economical way to achieve a 2.35:1 aspect ratio for my work at this point is through the open-matte process.
For those of you who don't know (and you call yourselves filmmakers!) the open-matte process (a.k.a. Super 35) creates the illusion of a 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 aspect ratio by cropping the picture, effectively cutting off the top and bottom of the frame (which is actually 1.33:1) creating a somewhat grainier and less dramatic picture. Filmmakers like James Cameron use this format because they prefer to watch their films in 1.33:1 as opposed to the studio's desires.
Anyways, I assume this is possible using my trusty Digi-8 camera but I haven't the faintest on how to do it. Are there any editing programs I can use, or creative ways I can cut off the top and bottom of my frame with the irritating black bars (please don't say duct tape) so the image won't be compressed?
why not tell your story in the constraints of whatever shaped box your camera has to offer?
yep most of them will do this.
Premier has a 'crop' filter that will allow you to crop off bars at the top and bottom if you want to.
Or create a blue graphic with black bars top and bottom and do a blue transparence through that.
loads of ways.
Why not tell your story in the constraints of whatever shaped box your camera has to offer?
Because an artist should never be constrained by their equipment, even if it takes a multitude of creative applications to find ways around a problem such as this. An aspect ratio is very much like a painter's canvas; it was specifically chosen to be a certain size and shape, much like color, contrast, and composition, to convey mood, feeling, and whatever the artist is trying to get across. And I like to think BIG, even when I'm shooting on a budget of zero.
why?
16x9 = 1.78:1
Why?
Because I said so muddafukka
Besides, it's compressed. What's a 2.35:1 aspect ratio without GIGANTIC BLACK BARS?
[img]wink.gif[/img]
if you really do want to go to all the trouble of that aspect ratio then just make two black squares the right size in a photo package and then stick them top and bottom of your footage.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I certainly agree that widescreen has a more cinematic quality.Originally posted by The Cavity:
Why not tell your story in the constraints of whatever shaped box your camera has to offer?
Because an artist should never be constrained by their equipment, even if it takes a multitude of creative applications to find ways around a problem such as this. An aspect ratio is very much like a painter's canvas; it was specifically chosen to be a certain size and shape, much like color, contrast, and composition, to convey mood, feeling, and whatever the artist is trying to get across. And I like to think BIG, even when I'm shooting on a budget of zero.
It won't make better actors though.
who was that wierdo who stalked this board a while back. Von Strasberg or something, does antone remember
anyhow. you want to crop your footage after filming it. not a good idea in my opinoin. as the framing done at filming will be different to the cropped edited stuff. big can of worms buddy.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks