Jump to content


Photo

Resolution on the small screen


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 ESchackne

ESchackne

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:07 PM

I am currently prepping a short film to be shot on Super 16. I know it will finish on DV and likely seen mostly on people's own tv sets or laptop dvd players.

Now, I am a huge fan of the 2.35 aspect ratio and would love to frame for it on this short. However, a colleague of mine mentioned that it could cause a resolution loss. His reasoning: A 2.35 close up is basically a cropped 1.66 medium shot, meaning the face is actually smaller in the frame. And since the smaller objects get in the frame the less sharp they become, a 2.35 close up will not be as crisp as a 1.66 or 1.85 close up - on tv, not projected film.

How drastic will the difference be? And is it any better when the DV is projected (eg at a festival)?

Thank you very much for your advice.

Elliott Schackne
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20074 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 May 2005 - 09:46 PM

For a 2.35 letterboxed transfer, there's no resolution loss because all it means is more scan lines are devoted to black bars -- but the picture itself has the same resolution, it's just smaller on the same screen as something not letterboxed as much. It didn't get "softer" by being letterboxed, just smaller vertically.

However, if you ever ENLARGE this image for any reason, or transfer it to film, THEN you'll see a resolution loss because of the fact that the actual 2.35 image is made up of fewer lines of video.
  • 0

#3 ESchackne

ESchackne

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 06 May 2005 - 12:09 AM

Right. Technically it's the same. But I think he meant that to eye, the image isn't as crisp because it's smaller on the screen. Does this seem significant enough to worry about?

Thanks again.
  • 0

#4 Rik Andino

Rik Andino
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 783 posts
  • Electrician
  • New York City

Posted 06 May 2005 - 01:55 AM

Why would you shoot a 2.35:1 aspect ratio if it's destined for TV?
  • 0

#5 Mark Allen

Mark Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 591 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 May 2005 - 03:52 AM

If you're worried about resolution and your program will be shown off DVD and not, in fact, DV.... you can gain a little for your resolution by creating it anamorphic for the dvdplayers to decipher. Talk to your DVD authoring person about this if that's your final destination. DVD players will play it wide on wide screens and letterboxed on normal screen. I'm always surprised that more people don't take advantage of this.
  • 0

#6 Riku Naskali

Riku Naskali
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Other
  • Finland

Posted 15 May 2005 - 02:45 PM

Why would you shoot a 2.35:1 aspect ratio if it's destined for TV?

Ever heard of aesthetic reasons? :rolleyes:
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Tai Audio

Glidecam

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

The Slider

CineLab

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Willys Widgets