Personal View site logo
80Mbit MJPEG 4:3 for 2x anamorphic shooting
  • 100 Replies sorted by
  • Both 1280x720 and 1920x1080 are 16:9, the main point of MJPEG for me is to use 4:3 aspect ratio in VGA 480p mode, with a higher resolution like 1280x960. The problem at the moment is that resolution looks upscaled, not true so hopefully we can work on that next and change the MJPEG sensor mode?

    No use using 720p for anamorphic, you may as well use 1080p instead.
  • @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 :-)
  • Yes agree it would be good to see 'true' resolution changes in MJPEG mode instead of current upscaling-style.
  • 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"

    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

  • Thanks for the test. Nice work and to see practical example is good.

    However one of the aims in this test is to get the GH2 patch producing true 1080p 4:3 in-camera and really what you have shown is more a workflow technique rather than hack based and you could do this with any camera.

    It also has the effect of cropping the width of the image, so you do lose a wider field of view and horizontal resolution which is a shame.
  • 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.
  • No 4:3 is an aspect ratio not standard definition resolution. True 1440x1080 or 1280x960 is what I desire out of MJPEG (or even future AVCHD crop mode patches if possible).
  • 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?
  • @mattc you make some very good points. 2.66:1 it is indeed. I was wrong initially.

    4:3 is not really better for avoiding vignettes on c-mount lenses. A lens that should benefit is the Computar 12mm F1.3 but I get more in the corners since 4:3 uses more of the image circle vertically (more of the sensor) than in 16:9 mode. It would need to be a custom crop in all directions (width and height) for it to be useful.
  • 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.
  • @EOSHD huh. that's makes sense though a shame. sounds like the interchangeable scarlet with its 2/3rds sensor will be the best bet for such lenses, should it ever arrive.

    @bleach551 the correct aspect ratio of the 4:3 footage (it actually should be 1.19:1 footage, as explained above) after desqueeze in an NLE at 2x would be 2.39:1. Then let's say you output to DVD or Blu-Ray. When displayed on TV it will be letterboxed just like any 'scope movie you see properly on TV. (By "properly" I mean it hasn't been cropped or panned and scanned).

    NLE's can handle 4:3 footage. There's no question about that. But I am wondering now whether you can drop in unusual AR footage such as 1.19:1 for example ...
  • 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?
  • bleach551,

    The point of the patch is to avoid the extreme 3.55:1 aspect ratio you get when using a 2x anamorphic lens, to get at final output the more common AR of approx 2.35:1.

    The patch enables 4:3 in camera. Add an anamorphic lens to the camera and the in-camera footage is still 4:3 but now is squeezed, bringing more image from the horizontal plane into the field of view. (2x as much in the case of the Lomo here.) The de-squeeze occurs only in post.
  • 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.
  • I can't say that I follow what you are doing with the X/Y values. It seems complicated, and unecessarily so. That's not to say you're not onto something, just that I'm not sure what.
  • @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.
  • mattc,

    Nobody really ever does. Its just a much simpler way to derive various anamorphic aspect ratios from a 2X anamorphic lens within a 1920X1080 or 1280X720 video frame without all of the exotic mathematical equations.What you guys are doing seems complicated and unnecessary to me.


    I do believe I have gone off topic and I apologize. I hope you find the solution you are looking for for this particular patch, I know it will be greatly appreciated by many.
  • 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.


    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.
  • "Good thing is I can now use Iscorama with Voigtlander 25mm Nokton at F0.95 without vignetting."

    would love to see some footage of this. maybe you could post on your website. thanks
  • plus one for the Voigt-iso-beast footage. People will pass out after watching it.
  • slightly derailing topic:) concerning your latest DR article-finally someone without shit for brains:) I can't stand people obsessed with super high dr and technicolor. Life is about contrast, in scripts/novels/painting/sketching/acting/film/music. I'm perfectly satisfied with the gh2 DR in Nostalgic/Smooth. As long as highlights blow nicely (and I have receipes where they blow beautifully on gh2) I love blown out. One of the most visually striking films I've seen:Battle in heaven by Carlos Reygadas has huge amount of overexposure and high contrast. Motion/color/compression characteristics are what dslrs need to improve on and public faces need to spread the word. sorry for the parenthesis
  • 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.
  • I assume, then, you have seen Super8? Thoughts? (also, is there any way to get hands on, even if expensively renting, true cinema anamorphics like Panavision, etc.? These adapted anamorphics are great, but the big boys' toys would be even better.)
  • 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+
  • gotcha. so LOMO is actually of a very high image quality (especially for the price) :) Any more developments in the 4:3 mjpeg stuff?