Video Of Aspect Ratio Comparisons

Jay Gladwell wrote on 8/27/2010, 10:35 AM

Friday’s are usually slow. Today is no different.

Here is a simple comparison for those who like to shoot and/or present their videos in a more “cinematic” format. It includes the aspect ratio, the name, and the height to width dimensions in pixels, in case you want to add any of them to your event pan/crop presets or create a mask.

Sorry! I found a typo in the Todd-AO example and the corrected version is being uploaded. Will provide the correct link shortly.


Comments

Grazie wrote on 8/27/2010, 10:52 AM
Excellent MrJ! - Very excellent. I am definitely going to signpost people to it when I get asked all the differences and just WHY their friggin' flatties don't fill up with media.

Gorgeous photo too. Beautiful lighting. Well balanced.

Now, I want one of those

W - i - d - e - S - c - r - e - e - n . . .

options as a Vegas Edit Monitor. - What was that last one? BTW, have people seen widescreen flatties?

Thanks Jay . . .

Grazie
Jay Gladwell wrote on 8/27/2010, 11:02 AM

What are "widescreen fatties"?

The last one, Ultra Panavision 70, was the process used to shoot films like Ben Hur and How the West Was Won, just to name a couple.

Thanks, Grazie!


Grazie wrote on 8/27/2010, 11:10 AM
lol . . I meant Flatties . . .

BenHur . . There is a sequence where Charlton is arriving back to the Citadel for the 1st time, and just inside the door way, with all the millions of people, the trumpets going the drums beating out that war like beat . stands . . stands a geyser, flat cap hands in pockets smoking a fag! - that's a cigarette BTW. Hysterical . . . .

Grazie
farss wrote on 8/27/2010, 4:18 PM
Only two days ago I saw a w-i-d-e-s-c-r-e-e-n flat panel made by Panasonic. It was probably wider than Cinerama and curved.
Today with the new almost edgeless LCDs or things like Christie's Microtiles, displays of any size and dimension can be built and with staggering resolution.

Bob.
Chienworks wrote on 8/28/2010, 5:50 AM
Bob, yes, we had a lively discussion about that monitor at work a while back. One of the things that amused us most was that it was a "flat panel" that curved, so it was hardly flat anymore. The other thing that seemed odd was that the vertical resolution was only 768, which seems pretty low by today's standards. I do just as well with a pair of 21" 16:10 monitors side by side. Of course, that Panasonic model eliminates the gap in the middle, but i'd still rather have vastly greater resolution at a fraction of the price.
ushere wrote on 8/28/2010, 6:08 AM
thanks jay, most illuminating....
farss wrote on 8/28/2010, 7:32 AM
"The other thing that seemed odd was that the vertical resolution was only 768, which seems pretty low by today's standards"

Shockingly enough not really.
The DCI standard masks the frame to create the wider screen aspect ratios. 2K 'scope is only 854 pixels vertical resolution so 768 is not too shabby by comparison to what you might see in a cinema.

Bob.