PLEASE HELP!!! Widescreen Aspect Ratios!

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear. I have video that is Anamorphic 16:9, shot on Super16mm film with a negative aspect ratio of 1.78:1. The final output will be letterboxed / matted / cropped (but NOT distorted) within the 16:9 video frame. I am simply trying to matte the image to meet the cinematographer's arbitrary aspect ratio of 2.0:1.

The widescreen matte filter in FCP5 has presets for 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, and as you will see, there is also a setting called "border." What I want to know is, how does the border setting affect the aspect ratio, for example, if I set the filter to 1.85:1 and then increase the matte to 10 (or any other number), what is the resulting aspect ratio?

OR

What crop settings are nesessary to acheive the 2.0:1 matte that the cinematographer desires? How can I measure this on my own?

- Jordan

Thanks - I think your math is right! So,.. If I understand you correctly, I divide the pixel width (720) by the desired aspect ratio (let's say, 2.0:1) which gives me the desired pixel height (in this example: 360). Since there are 480 pixels in DV NTSC, I'd then subtract 360 from 480 (which gives me 120), which I'd then divide in half (60) which tells me the amount of pixels that I need to crop off both the top and bottom to generate the 2.0:1 matte.

Please confirm if my logic is correct... and my other question; does this make sence for Anamorphic 16:9 video material, where the "unsqueezed" proportions are closer to 854x480???

- Jordan

It was telecined "full frame" as 1.78:1 with no mattes onto 16:9 Anamorphic NTSC DV.

- Jordan

In that case don't you want to use the distort
function to bring it back to the correct ratio?

I'm not sure I understand this comment. 1.78:1 film telecined to 16:9 has no noticeable distortion (16:9 = 1.777...).

- Jordan

Please confirm if my logic is
correct... and my other question; does this make
sence for Anamorphic 16:9 video material, where the
"unsqueezed" proportions are closer to
854x480???

You logic seems sound to me. Just a few points to
remember...

1. Anamorphic DV is actually closer to 720x405 - at
   least in terms of how the pixels work in all the
   QuickTime related apps - in my experience.
   
2. If you're using the Filters > Matte >
   Widescreen filter, the border is limited to 10
   pixels. You can input more in the text field,
   and even though it might accept 15 or 20, but that
   doesn't actually work (you'll only get a 10 pixel
   border)
   
3. When you crop, remember that the crop
   functionality in FCP is percentage-based, not
   pixel-count based. (Placing a 1.85:1 matte with a 10
   pixel border is about equal to a crop of value of
   3 - top and bottom - on an Anamorphic DV
   clip)

OK, SOOOOO..... If cropping is percentage based and the widescreen matte filter tops out at a 10 pixel border, what is the best way to make my image 2.0:1 letterboxed (within the Anamorphic 16:9 frame, of course).

Also, regarding our aforementioned math, would you suggest that I use "405" as my height instead of "480" and redo our above calculations?

- Jordan

This statement confuses me:

It was telecined "full frame" as 1.78:1 with no
mattes onto 16:9 Anamorphic NTSC DV.

To me full frame means 4:3 aspect ratio, no mattes
means no black bars at top and bottom, and 16:9
anamorphic means squeezed to fit...

So I am trying to imagine what you are looking at.

Sorry to be confusing. 4:3 has never entered into this project. Film was shot 1.78:1 "full frame" Super16mm film (NOT squeezed using anamorphic lenses).

Telecine squeezed the above image onto 16:9 Anamorphic DVCAM NTSC. The result is a "full-16:9-frame" (e.g. no mattes). When editing in FCP, or when viewing on a Widescreen TV, there is no distortion, and the image fills the entire screen.

The cinematographer's desired output is 2.0:1 letterboxed WITHIN the Anamorphic 16:9 frame. This would be no different than if you went out and shot 16:9 video, then put a "widescreen" matte on that video, EXCEPT, in FCP there is no matte preset for 2.0:1, so I'm trying to figure out how to calculate and create one.

Thanks!

- Jordan

Basically, Jordan, you'll have to use Crop settings
to get your 720x360 (2.00:1) composition.

Using 405 as your height, that means that a crop
value of 1 will trim about 4 pixels. Since you
need to trim about 22 pixels from top and bottom, I'd
suggest trying a crop of 5.5 top and bottom.

Of course, this is just me doing the number crunching
in my head. Let us know how it actually works.
If it does work, that is - there are potential issues
with your cropped edge falling between scanlines
(causing a very noticeable and annoying flicker) so
you'll probably need to adjust your crop value(s)
accordingly.

Thanks, you're extremely helpful! I apologize to anybody else if my descriptions or questions were confusing or incomplete. I am glad that somebody understands! 🙂

Regarding scanlines, will this problem be noticeable on all types of displays, or only interlaced (I just need to make sure I can correctly monitor and catch this potential issue)?

- Jordan