Thanks Bon for the quick reply.
I really know very little about all of this stuff, only what I've been researching on the Internet.
So then, the anamorphic 2.0:1 ratio is actuall wider than the 1.78:1 of HDTV, right?
Wouldn't it be nicer to crop from the 2:1 to 1.78 than to take it out of the middle section of the 1.33:1?
Is there a way I could do it myself, like with Final Cut Pro or something?
I understand that shooting without the anamorphic lens would be easier (and yes it is an anamorphic attachment used with another lens.) But seems like filming wide to start gives me more to work with later, less cropping.
I haven't used such an adapter myself, but did research the pros/cons of getting one recently. The impression I got- this forum thread
was one source of info- was that the quality gain of using a larger frame size would be negated by the adapter's impact on lens resolution and contrast. It depends on the quality of the adapter. In the worst case, you'll end up with a worse result than shooting non-anamorphically. In the best case, you'll have a better result, but probably not enough to justify the inconveniences that go with using the adapter.
The benefits are further reduced by the fact that you're using a 1.5x adapter, not a 1.33x. Cropping non-anamorphic 1.33:1 down to 1.78:1 means you're using 75% of the frame. Cropping 2.0:1 down to 1.78:1 means you're still only using ~89% of the frame- at best, an 18% improvement in resolution, hampered by the resolution decrease incurred by the adapter.
There's also the practical issues. Your viewfinder image would be squeezed, which personally I would find very annoying (although not everyone does). And the oddball squeeze factor (1.5x) could lead to confusion during the telecine stage, although you'd have to discuss that with the telecine place.
As I said, I don't actually have any experience with such a setup... I just happen to have looked into this option not long ago, and these were my findings.
It might be worth doing some tests of both options. You may find the quality when using the adapter to be satisfactory, and I'm sure projecting the 2.0:1 image would be fun. You might even prefer a letterboxed 2.0:1 image within your 16:9 transfer, rather than using the whole 16:9 frame.
Edited by Bon Sawyer, 09 October 2005 - 03:37 AM.