Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2:35 in Final Cut?
- Thread starter FSMBP
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm pretty sure most video software, including Final Cut Pro, will let you enter custom pixel dimensions (and thus arbitrary frame aspect ratios) in its sequence settings dialog.
see here:
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/Final_Cut_Pro_7_User_Manual.pdf
p.1873
This does not mean that your hardware or timeline codec will be able to play it back smoothly, however.
It also doesn't mean that other random sh*t won't happen 'cause you've taken the project 'off the reservation' so to speak. FCP's ability to screw w/all the timeline settings is kinda like having the ability to pop open the hood of your car and randomly start messing around w/the engine. Yes, you can do it but unless you know exactly what you are doing you probably shouldn't.
Lethal
I don't personally, but I know main-stream Hollywood movies sometimes are edited with Final Cut Pro - so I was wondering as I've never seen the option for that aspect ratio.
Thanks for the responses guys!
The movies are most likely either letterboxed inside a 16x9 frame when transfered to tape for editing or they are full height 16x9 w/a 2.35:1 mask applied in FCP.
Lethal
You actually can with no problem, However "native" 2.35:1 is actually an anamorphic stretch put on 16:9 film shot with anamorphic lenses. Anything else is just cropping an image (unless it was pulled from a dvd that was shot in that ratio). If you do have source footage shot with anamorphic lenses all you have to do is import it in its 16:9 recorded format and set your clips to "anamorphic" in your bin. This is how the big boys in hollywood do wide aspect ratios(not only in FCP, but on every editor).
However, if you have a 2.35:1 image that is not squeezed into a 16:9 frame it is more than likely already being cropped and I would just recommend cropping it within Final Cut.
What is your output format? DVD? Streaming Internet? Theatrical? Or are you ripping a DVD to put a re-edit together? I would approach each of these differently for output, which is why I ask.
However, if you have a 2.35:1 image that is not squeezed into a 16:9 frame it is more than likely already being cropped and I would just recommend cropping it within Final Cut.
What is your output format? DVD? Streaming Internet? Theatrical? Or are you ripping a DVD to put a re-edit together? I would approach each of these differently for output, which is why I ask.
Ok, that makes sense. So when they shoot in 2:35:1 it's squeezed onto a 16:9 frame and is distorted. However, once imported into Final Cut Pro, set to a 16:9 timeline, the footage needs to be marked anamorphic and then will be undistorted and at the correct aspect ratio.
I should have known that because I once set footage (that was 16:9 already in FCP) to "Anamorphic" and it stretched my image incredibly.
Thanks!
Yes you can
I signed up just to tell you this. I was wanting to know if i could do the same thing. I shoot with a canon XH A1S, and just wondered what it would look like in 2:35..........and it looks wicked!!!
Ok, so, i use final cut express 4, so it could be different, but im sure you can do it in final cut pro too! There is a video filter called 'matte', and inside that group is a filter called widescreen, and it was one of the options! Brilliant right?
I also used made it anamorphic, and the combination, was fantastic!!
hope that helps
I signed up just to tell you this. I was wanting to know if i could do the same thing. I shoot with a canon XH A1S, and just wondered what it would look like in 2:35..........and it looks wicked!!!
Ok, so, i use final cut express 4, so it could be different, but im sure you can do it in final cut pro too! There is a video filter called 'matte', and inside that group is a filter called widescreen, and it was one of the options! Brilliant right?
I also used made it anamorphic, and the combination, was fantastic!!
hope that helps
Actually, when film is shot on 35mm film for the Cinemascope (2.35:1) format, the anamorphic lens used distorts the image in order for it completely fill a standard 35mm frame, which actually isn't 16:9 (but rather, 1.18:1). 16:9 is a television standard that is adapted to in post production (typically through matting).
But some films (especially lower budget ones) shoot on the Super 35 format, which uses standard spherical lenses (as opposed to anamorphic) to fit a wider, non-distorted (but overall, smaller) image over the film stock (using up the space normally reserved on the edges for optical analog audio printing in the process). The idea here is being able to use cheaper, lighter lenses and avoiding a lot of the optical conversion process required in post for films shot in an anamorphic format. But if you ask a hardcore cinematographer, anamorphic is ideal for overall image quality because a significantly larger area of the film is exposed vertically. The image on the right side of this article does a pretty good job of showing the visual differences between popular 35mm filming formats.
In either case, a modern 35mm film will be scanned digitally to either 2K (2048x1080) or 4K (4096x2160) resolution to create a DI (digital intermediate). This in turn would be adapted to an appropriate format and frame size for the editor.
Last edited: