Hi there, and thanks for taking time to respond. Chienworks, I'm rendering for TV (widescreen NTSC) and wanted to render a project as 2.35:1 in the resolution 720x480.
I'd like to render the visual area or the whole thing letterboxed (like the movies we sse on DVDs anamorphic 2.35:1. Can you please tell me how to do it? I just don't get it where to configure this. Thanks for the multiples of 8 for MPEG2 - I knew multiples of 16 work great for XviD :) I've learned one more thing, thanks to you.
Thanks so much in advance :P

Basically you have to use a 16:9 frame and mask out the top and bottom of it. So you're rendering at 16:9 with a 2.35:1 active area inside that frame.

I do have a camera that shoots 2.35:1, to the DCI 2K spec and horror of horrors, that's exactly how that works too, it only scan a smaller area of the sensor and that's how digital projection works as well.

The only other scenario where you'd need to do anything fancy is if you actually shot 2.35:1 by say putting a 16:9 anamorphic adaptor on the front of a 16:9 camera but that's a really unlikely possibility.


Bob.

Well you could go into pan/crop and set the aspect whereever you want to to infinity then when you get the aspect you desire then save it and label it as 2.35 x 1. Then apply this crop to the entire project. Try a bunch of small sections burned to DVD and see what it looks like and then re-do it untill it is perfect. Anamorphic is another story.
JJK

Thanks to all

farss
"Basically you have to use a 16:9 frame and mask out the top and bottom of it. So you're rendering at 16:9 with a 2.35:1 active area inside that frame."

What's the size of the active area for 2.35:1 in 16:9??

Thanks a lot, but what are the correct proportions (the figures? lolol) This is what I'm trying to find. Or better yet, a simple guide on how to do it - that'd do it all right ;-) Thanks in advance.

Well it really doesn't matter as you're just masking out part of the frame. Technically the height would be 817 pixels, do the maths to work out how much to mask off top and bottom.
So all you do is mask out enough of the frame top and bottom to leave an areas 817 pixels high. Don't sweat the exact numbers too much, the AR for scope has wandered quite a bit over the years.

If you really want the 'look' of cinemascope the only way to do it is with expensive anamophic lenses. If you have a camera with a B4 mount Canon make an optical adaptor to go from 16:9 to scope.
If you're fudging it in post then I'd suggest shooting wider in the first place and have a suitable guideframe in the viewfinder.

Or are you rendering out of say Lightwave?
If so the just match the width of the 16:9 frame, the rest should take care of itself as most CGI apps render to square pixels.

Bob.

Thanks for taking time to respond, Bob... Man, that's a bit tricky to make Vegas render any video at 2.35:1, but it works lolol. Here's what I did.

Since I'm using pictures and some LW sequences, first of all I go to Files> Properties and configure the whole project as 720x480 NTSC Widescreen (16:9 - 1.78:1) at 23,976 (that's my case here).
Second of all, for each picture, I click on the Pan/Crop button and unclock the aspect ratio button, setting the figures for width and height such as the following: 720x304 (in fact, 306, but this figure is not a multiple of 8, so let's use 304 :P )
Then I get back and press the same button again and lock the aspect ratio. Now I'm able to zoom etc, etc.
Problems: titles and media generators such as spheres etc, that are out of place overriding the aspect ratio of the screen. Here's a workaround for this: insert 2 video tracks, both filled with color (black - media generator) adjusting pan/crop for both, putting one above and the other one at the bottom of the screen.
The only problem with no workaround are the transitions in Boris Red or even in Vegas that will show the letterbox along with the effect. I don't know if this is the right thing to do, but it seems to work here. If any of you guys have a better and easier solution for this, please let me know, will ya?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Mark

You're making this way too complex.
Just do EVERYTING in 16:9 and mask the final output to 'scope.
All you need to do is to be conscious of your safe areas.
In LW just use 16:9 with a wider lens and be aware that the top and bottom of the frame will be masked out.

What you're sort of trying to do is wrangle the pixel aspect ratio. That is NOT how 'scope is done in the digital domain. It's even rarely done that way on film and certainly not during projection. All you need to do and can do is wrange the Screen Aspect Ratio by masking, that exactly what is done in 35mm projection. The image on the print is not anamophic.

Bob.

In some formats of film projection, it is anamorphic. see the 2.35:1 Technirama specifically.

http://hsvmovies.com/static_subpages/formats/shooting_formats.html

Dave T2

Thanks for that link.
I was wrong, the cinema 35mm projectors carry two lenses. One is 1:1 and the other does a 2:1 unsqueeze. If you have a print that requires any different unsqueeze, good luck!

Digital projection uses only one lens, so for scope only part of the system is active. I assume only the screen masks are adjusted to suit. Oddly enough when I've projected from DV the projector did need an anamophic lens. However that was in reality a data projector. Going by the weight and no doubt the cost I can see why the cinemas were in no hurry to continue using such lenses.
For a trip down memory lane:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm#menu

Bob.

Thanks to both of you who time to respond. Maybe you're right farss and I'm making a tempest in a glass of water as we are used to saying here :)
FitCD is a wonderfull little applicatin that helps to calculate aspect ratios, includding for MPEG2. You can download it for free at VideoHelp.com.
Here's what I've found: your way seems good. Making the whole thing as 16:9 and then using AviSynth to crop (lettebox) and resize the video using Laczos or Lanczos4 would be a great idea. My age is making me more stupid, but please I hope you understand that in this case, I would have to use AviSynth + HC encoder since I'd be encoding again to MPEG2 and these 2 applc work with no colro space covnertions, something that is not supported by Vegas. Besides, HC encoder (also freeware) works only with AviSynth scripts.
The other option would be making the project in Vegas (on the fly) the way I was trying: click on pan/crop button, unlock the aspect ratio button, set the values for width and height respectively at 720x368 (368 is a multiple of 8 - better for MPEG2). Lock the button again, pan/crop as you wish (zoom/wide), finish the project, render as MPEG2 NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (used here in my case), done.
Thanks a lot.

I'd just do the whole thing in Vegas and use generated media to add black bars top and bottom. That's it, job done. I don't know why you're trying to fiddle with aspect ratio, the PAR for scope is the same as it is for 16:9, it has to be as the DVD and video specs don't have a PAR for 'scope. If they did the outcome would be horrible anyway from stretching the pixels so much.

Bob.

Yep. Play any 'scope DVD on a CRT television and look carefully. You'll see two sets of black bars, darker ones on top and bottom that mark out the 16:9 area of the DVD signal itself, and slightly lighter bars between those and the picture that show where the extra 16:9 area was masked out around the 2.35:1 frame. The DVD was created as 16:9 because it has to be for DVD playback. The movie was dropped into this 16:9 frame and sized to fit within it, which is Vegas' default behavior.

In other words, set up a 16:9 project, put your 2:35:1 material on the timeline, and do nothing else.

Chienworks,
I have created a turmoil at VideoHelp, but the result is good and it works great :P
In Vegas go to menu bar and choose> File> Properties, choose the template for NTSC Widescreen at 23,976 or 29,97 etc... and change the resolution for 720x368 (for 2.35:1).
Open your footage and/or pictures/image sequences> pan/crop> match output aspect ratio. For titles/media generators (bars, objects, circles, gradients): same thing: set the resolution at 720x368.
Menu bar again> File> Render as> Choose DVDA Widescreen at 23,976 or 29,97 according to what you've configured on the properties guide. Done. Thanks to VideoHelp users. Hope it helps people around here.
For other displays, you just have to follow the same rule for MPEG2 ex:
1.85:1,
2.20:1, etc..
Divide 852 / 2.35 (let's take this example) = 362,55 (using the nearest multiple of 8 = 368). Resize the value 852 to 720. That will make 720x368 (2.35:1) + 56 + 56 (120) of letterbox. The final result as shown above will be anamorphic.
Cheers

In the old days our 16mm projectors had 2.66 x 1 lenses (unsqueeze)fitted in front of the normal lens. I also had one of those lenses as a taking lens on my custom made camera. (by me)
JJK

Wow, what a lot of work for nothing.
And in the end you deliver 368 lines of Vertical resolution, if you're lucky!
By the way, you are not delivering anamorphic, well no different to 16:9. To truly do that you'd need to change the PAR, all you've done is change the SAR and done it the unduly hard way.

The correct answer would be 720x480 with a PAR of 2.35 for NTSC. Of course no player can do that, well I don't think they can. Vegas can though, I just tried it :)

Bob.

Bob said this:
The correct answer would be 720x480 with a PAR of 2.35 for NTSC. Of course no player can do that, well I don't think they can. Vegas can though, I just tried it :)

Thanks,
And where do I configure this, please??? What screen/guide, please?


Edit:
Did you insert the figure 2,35 on Project Properties (Video Guide) on Pixel Aspect Ratio? If your answer is yes, the outcome I'm seeing here is not 2.35:1 in a 16:9 resolution.
I hope you understand that what we're doing is rendering a video at 720x480 NTSC widescreen (16:9 - 1,2121) but showing a visual area of 720x368 (letterbox: 56 at the top + 56 at the bottom = 480-120 = 368). That's why the visual area must be 720x368 while keeping the pixel at 1,2121. Doing the whole thing your way, you are rendering 720x480 with a pixel value of 2,3500. I guess it doesn't work since the visual result is too, too thin. So I guess you must leave the correct value of 1,2121. Thanks in advance.

2,35:1 is the screen aspect ratio, not the pixel aspect ratio. In order to find the correct PAR for an SAR of 2,35 you have to do some math. 480 x 2,35 is 1128, which has to fit into 720 pixels, so 1128/720 = 1.566666666667. Set the PAR to 1.5667 and you'll have anamorphic 2,35:1 in a 720x480 format.

But, as Bob says, no DVD player will understand this and will probaby play it as 16:9 or (heavens!) even 4:3, stretching your image out vertically to make everyone look like they're 2.5 metres tall and weigh 25Kg.

So, don't mess with the PAR. Just simply create a 16:9 project. Mask your material to fit the shape you want with pan/crop, but don't adjust any ratios. Alternatively i suppose you could set Vegas to 2,35:1(720x368) and use match output aspect on all the cropping, but it won't make any different result. Render to 16:9 and you're done. this is exactly what Hollywood does for it's cinemascope DVDs, as you can see by studying the two sets of black bars i mentioned before.

I was just making a point that if you really wanted it as true anamorphic that'd be what you'd do. Anamorphic means the image is compressed and stretched optically in the past, digitally today.
My 2.35:1 PAR would only be correct IF you shot with a 1:1 par and a square frame. No digital or film camera works this way. That's why the unsqueeze for scope is 2:1 not 2.35:1, which is still anamorphic i.e. what you see on the 'film' is not how it looks on the screen.

Bob.

Thanks to both of you who took time to respond.
Chienworks, thanks so much for the excellent explanation... I really appreciate it. That's what I was asking for - the correct screen/guide to configure this, even though I don't know what happend to me in school, beacuse my math is always a disaster.

"2,35:1 is the screen aspect ratio, not the pixel aspect ratio. In order to find the correct PAR for an SAR of 2,35 you have to do some math. 480 x 2,35 is 1128, which has to fit into 720 pixels, so 1128/720 = 1.566666666667. Set the PAR to 1.5667 and you'll have anamorphic 2,35:1 in a 720x480 format. But, as Bob says, no DVD player will understand this and will probaby play it as 16:9 or (heavens!) even 4:3, stretching your image out vertically to make everyone look like they're 2.5 metres tall and weigh 25Kg."

-I understand, but I was doing this way: since my project is 720x480 NTSC widescreen, 2.35:1 has to fit into that format 720x480. Here's what I did:

480 times 1,78 = 854,4 (nearest multiple of 4 = 852).
852/2.35 = 362,5531 (nearest multiple of 8 = 368).
852x368 won't work, so I resized 852 to 720, so we have now 720x368 (56 above + 56 at the bottom of the screen = 120; the whole thing will make 16:9.

So, your math points out to the same result I've found, as you have put it. Both ways may be correct. Just one thing: you said that Bob had stated that "no DVD player will understand this and will probaby play it as 16:9" and then you conclude that "Alternatively i suppose you could set Vegas to 2,35:1(720x368) and use match output aspect on all the cropping, but it won't make any different result. Render to 16:9 and you're done. this is exactly what Hollywood does for it's cinemascope DVDs (...)"

-So, does it work or not??? I think both ways work. Besides, I've tried rendering your way and the result is the absolutely the same, even though I have played the file using Power DVD and not a real DVD player. I saved also 2 pictures with Power DVD (your way and mine): both look the same thing (the height of your screen is a little bigger, maybe a line, something too thin). Also, both images are a little squeezed, an indication that both were correctly fit into the 720x480 widescreen format. Anyway, I guess your way and my way will create anamorphic DVD as you have also agreed (a bit confusing, though) overthere (righ above).

"But, as Bob says, no DVD player will understand this and will probaby play it as 16:9"

-I guess it will. It will work (I hope so) - just have to test it ;-) Anyway, thanks so much for your help.

Bob,
Thanks a lot. I understand your point.

Hmmm. Seems like you're still missing the point a bit. My math above wasn't there to show you how to accomplish the task. It was there to show you why it wouldn't work. DVD players won't understand 1.556PAR. We've been filling in a lot of extra info about the problem and you've been taking that as instructions rather than as sideline information.

OK, so ignore EVERYTHING so far .... breath deep ... do this:

1 - New project, NTSC widescreen 16:9
2 - Drag cinescope 2.35:1 file to timeline.
3 - Render to widescreen 16:9
4 - Burn widescreen 16:9 DVD

Note that the resulting file will be 16:9, not 2.35:1. This is not only OK, it's required! You must make it this way. Your file will have black bars on top and bottom. This is not only ok, but it is required! If you play it on a 16:9 TV then the 16:9 frame will fill the TV screen as it should, you'll see the black bars, and your 2.35:1 material will be in the middle of the screen displayed correctly.

If you play it on a 4:3 TV the DVD player will add it's own black bars above and below the 16:9 frame so that the 16:9 frame will be in the middle of the screen with space above and below, and your 2.35:1 material will be centered in that 16:9 area that's in the middle of the screen, hence the 2 sets of black bars that you can see on a Hollywood cinemascope DVD.

The only issue you might have is if your material isn't 2.35:1. If this is the case then you will have to crop to the right shape. The problem is that the vertical size of the right shape depends on the size and PAR of the material. To calculate it, multiply the width of the material (not Vegas' frame, but the original source clip) by it's PAR, divide by 2.35 to get the vertical size. In the PanCrop window enter this horizontal and vertical size in the width and height fields. This won't be restricted to multiples of 8 so if you end up with something like 371.4 then type it in.

If your source material is 2.35:1 then you don't have to do any of that math at all, just do the 4 steps i listed.

I understand Chienworks, thanks a lot. I don't have any source material at 2.35:1 (I'm doing it from scratch with pictures and Lightwave sequences at 720x480 16:9 Widescreen).
That's why I was configuring my project as NTSC Widescreen (1,2121), changing the vertical resolution to 368, since a small application called FitCD (a calculator) gave me the result for 852x360 as 720x368. That's the closest figure (2,3667) to 2,35.
Cheers and thanks,
Mark

I undesrtatood everything Chienworks has explained, but....
Well. I'm back here again to say that it doesn't work changing figures for widht and height (720x480 - as I had suggested), leaving them both at 720x368.

At a certainn point in the timeline, as you render the porject as MPEG2, the image start trembling, shaking (as you zoom or wide using pan/crop - remember I'm working from scratch with pictures)...

I guess that'd be a good idea to leave everything at 720x480, adding black bars above and at the bottom, simulating that aspect 720x368 (please see the discussion above). The calculus offered by Cheinworks seems to find a value for the pixel that leave the image too stretched.

Anyway, my question here is: does any of you guys know where I can get a calculus to find the pixel aspect ratio for the following resolutions - or any other one (using MPEG2 files)?

2.35:1
2.20:1
1.85:1

Besides, I would like to find the correct width and height for any of them or any other one. Maybe it's a good idea to render the whole thing as AVI uncompressed and then follow Chienworks advice on how to encode at 16:9, dropping the file in the timeline... For God's sake, I can't find any definiteive answer on the web and i know Vegas can render at any display and pixel aspect ratio. Does any of you have a chart on this?

Help will be greatly appreciated - and please, I hope you understand I am a newbie. ;-)