@EOSHD
Ok, thank You, I understood. I'm not use anamorphic but if we can change the mode of MJPEG from720p to 1080p and will not look upscaled it may in the future would be possible to exploit this knowledge to try to gain 4K? I'm only dreaming :-)

Hello everyone, I'm new to this board.

I have been using X/Y settings in the "Scale" properties of most editing and compositing programs to get whatever aspect I wanted from a Kowa 2X anamorphic lens for Bell and howell. I have been using it for a while with the Canon 7D.


Shot with Nikon 50mm f1.8 AIS lens Handheld at F/5.6 ISO between 100 to 160 On Panasonic GH1(7) with Kowa 2X anamorphic lens for Bell and Howell

Used "Smooth" setting: -2,+1,0,-2

with "Auto white balance"

Again,
images must be focused using the in-camera 10X magnification function of both the GH series cameras and Canon DSLR cameras or a hi-res external monitor so that no discernible difference will be noticed as the X/Y values increase in value.

These settings will only work in and for 1920X1080 and 1280X720 footage

But isn't the nature of 1080p 16X9 and not 4:3? I believe what you are trying to do, please correct me if I am wrong, is get a Hi-definition image within a standard definition image, you have been able to get the width but not the height and only from upscaling a lower resolution image/format . I know you could probably get enough pixels and resolution theoretically speaking directly from a 4:3 cropped portion of a Hi-Res Camera sensor, but how would that image be interpreted and played within most editing and compositing programs.

A 4:3 standard definition TV couldn't play it because of the resolution. It would probably confuse a 16X9 aspect Hi-def TV because it would see 1920x1080 but within a 4:3 format. Also, there is no current standard for it within any editing or compositing program, only a custom setting that would eventually have to be translated back into one of current standards again.

for the video above, my rule of thumb for using the higher X/Y values is as I go higher I simply use wider angled lenses. You won't get the the perspective or compression of a standard or more telephoto lens from the wider lenses, but you will get the width.

great stuff. been waiting for this. couple things though. 4:3 isn't the aspect ratio of 35mm film when you account for the soundtracks. So you're footage should really be 2.66:1. What's needed is an AR of 1.19:1 -- that will give you 2.39:1 when used with a 2x anamorphic lens. (1.19 x 2 = 2.39.) Also, a 1.59:1 for using the 1.5x Iscos would be much appreciated (1.59 x 1.5 = 2.39.), as would 1.37:1 for 1.75x lenses.

Question: have you tried smaller image circle lenses, such as wide-angle c-mounts and 16mm lenses, with this aspect ratio? Does it permit full sensor-coverage now?

Eos,

I understand that 4:3 is an aspect ratio not standard definition, sorry for my mistake above maybe i am not explaining this correctly. What I am saying is that currently,That I am aware of, only 16X9 aspect ratios, or close to this, are being used as the standard aspect to display Hi-Def footage in most areas of final distribution (Television, Web, Dvd ). I realize that Hi-def is defined as any resolution above 720 x 480 for Ntsc, However even if you were able to get 1440x1080" or "1280x960" from the GH2 in its 4:3 MJPEG mode, I don't mean to be a pessimest, I hope you achieve this, what computer program/ video hosting web encoder would correctly display the 2X /1.5X anamorphic image, completely stretched, in 2.35:1 or 2.66:1, in a 4:3 aspect ratio non cropped or upscaled. Hopefully, it would be potentially adopted as one of the new standards for video distribution, but its not now.

Mattc,

I thought the whole point of this patch was to capture a high bit rate 2X anamorphic image correctly, in-camera in a 2.35:1 or 2.66:1 aspect ratio, within the MJPEG 4:3 mode of the GH2, with no further need of processing within an NLE?

I gotcha now,

So it does have to be processed in post? The Mjpeg 4:3 mode would allow you to get more closer to a 2.35:1 image than the Avchd 16x9 using a similar stretch factor in post due to the proportions of the 4:3 mode in relation to the proportions of the 16x9 mode.You learn something new everyday, I always wondered why everyone was craving a 4:3 mode to capture 2X/1.5X anamorphic images in.

@bleach551 I feel you are not really on topic. Try to test GH2 hack settings instead of anamorphic workflow. The anamorphic workflow stuff is already known.

Trying crop mode in 480p MJPEG mode with 1280x960 and high bitrates listed in OP. Resolution seems a little better than in full sensor mode, but still softer than it should be. Good thing is I can now use Iscorama with Voigtlander 25mm Nokton at F0.95 without vignetting.

Edit:

Is actually quite revealing to look at resolution comparisons in crop mode between MJPEG 480p, MJPEG 720p and 1080/24p AVCHD when all 3 modes are set to 1920x1080.

Magnification is different, so tighter crop on sensor in MJPEG 480p compared to AVCHD 1080p. That is expected.

However in crop mode MJPEG 480p (4:3) seems to be equal in resolution to MJPEG 720p (16:9) mode which is not the case normally. And when you crop 1080p AVCHD as tightly as in MJPEG, per pixel resolution is actually close but AVCHD still has slight edge.

plus one for the Voigt-iso-beast footage. People will pass out after watching it.

Yes @stefanos if it is one thing I can't stand about DSLR revolution it is abuse and overuse of gimmicks like HDR and timelapse. Both are valid techniques but they need to be used in the right way and not as the blanket artistic statement or image quality enhancer many seem to think they are.

Anamorphic is different, you see a long line of directors who have it as their staple 'look', as much as 24p or 35mm. Blade Runner for me is cinematic partly because of the anamorphic lenses it was shot with.

Anamorphic is a 'look', and timelapse is more of a a 'technique'.

Koyanisquatsi makes good use of timelapses to tell a story, generate a feel, and show the human race like ants. 35mm film has a wide dynamic range, to the benefit of the image - but in both cases they are means to an end, used subtly and appropriately, the style is behind the substance not in front! With most HDR stuff it seems to be style ahead of substance, the technique ahead of the voice.

For me it is not what filmmaking, and indeed art (or life!) is about. It is just milking one minor technique over and over again.

Well, the LOMO and Iscoramas are actually in same league as the 'big boys' anamorphic. The LOMO certainly not mechanically but the image is very good. The guy who designed for LOMO went onto create anamorphic optics for Hawk (current anamorphic industry big boys). The Iscorama 36 1.5x is much more practical but more expensive and the flare is a bit more muted. But certainly if they made these lenses today they'd cost $20k+