Man you're a legend! I was looking all over trying to figure out how to properly crop my 1.6x footage shot on my 16:9 sensor to a 2.39:1 or 2.35:1 ratio after the desqueeze to 2.8:1 and I couldn't find that ANYWHERE until I found this video. That AR calculator is awesome, thanks for the video!
Brilliant! I had to go through so many videos before I found one that had what I needed. Thanks! Just got my first anamorphic lens so I'm sure I'll be back. Subbed.
You are a legend, sir, thank you! This is so generous of you to share your knowledge like this. Thank you for pointing me here from my question on your other video. This really helps enormously! Great work, keep it up 🙌🏼🙌🏼
Hey thanks for this, great vid and super cool calculator tool! I was getting confused with a drone hyperlapse I shot, but then realised I was working with the full photo image size and not a source video file, so hence different desqueezing result!
Great as always! Thanks for the tutorial. One small tip I've found for Premiere: If we want to zoom into the desqueezed image we have to adjust width and height separately, trying to keep the same ratio, which is annoying. To avoid that we can just add another "motion" effect on top of the existing one and change the scale there. It won't mess with the initial desqueeze.
This is brilliant man. I've actually been using Resolve and leaving the timeline settings normal and then conforming the footage aspect ratio in the output tab simply by putting in the height to width ratio. Of course this gives you the dreaded black bars. But the values you put in the output tab are applied to *all* footage, so any footage you drag to the timeline gets conformed. :) Very nice work.
Tito, in Resolve if you can also go to the color page and a the desqueeze to the timeline vs. each clip. However, the trade off is that because it stretches the entire timeline it will stretch any graphics, etc. So you can then save the timeline as a compound clip to flatten that and use it as a desqueezed timeline in a new timeline and it will fit perfectly. I thought you could do something similar by putting them all into a group, but groups won't accept zoom as a group adjustment. It still applies it individually. Not perfect, but better than having to copy and paste if you have a large timeline to deal with.
Hi Tito Thanks you are always very precise in explaining the work to be done even in post production. I am currently using a GH 16 anamorphic lens SUN 16 (for now I can afford this anamorphic lens) with the help of a 52 HELIOS with good results, also following many of your tips. I wish you a good job. Bye from Rome.
Excellent question. I've recently struggled with that exactly. The solution is to use the effect "Transform" in the Distort folder. It gives you additional separate controls for scale, position, rotation and everything. :)
@@AnamorphicOnABudget I think i got it to work. I added an adjustment layer over the footage and added a 17% crop to that. Then I added transformed to the footage, scaled up from there. The black bars are held, and I can zoom in. Thanks for your help!!!
By pressing the link for the calculator i land on a page with the title " ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - ASPECT RATIO CALCULATOR " But there is no calculator there? its just emty white besides some text. Is the calculator not available anymore?
Great video! Sorry pls can u told us how you desqueeze the video pls :) or the I have the configuration of the sequence I have the s5, anamorphic sirui 24mm and ninja too Pls I´ll appreciate a lot
hi friend and thank you for your video, just a question, I have the sirui anamorphic 24 35 50 mm series and I am a little lost on what definition to put on the gh6 anamorphic if I take the 5.8 k what is the setting that I must put on fcpx? how to calculate to have a nice wide image with reduced height? thank you for your help friend
I need help understanding why I can’t see the video on IPad, Desktop, or IPhone. What I see when trying to review the footage is MPEG 4 Movie (3.09GB). I filmed using my 50mm Anamorphic 1.33 and then used a Sigma 18-50mm Len on a Sony A6700 camera. On my Sony A6700 here’s what was the camera setup: File Format- XAVCS 4K, 100M 422-Bit, JPEG/HEIF. Please help me figure out where I’m going wrong. 🤯
Checked out other vids. Same thing. Makes me wonder if it’s worth the investment. Do you still have the 28? Will you be shooting more with it? Would love to see it in the field again, maybe stopped down a little more.
Tito Ferradans I saw that & do appreciate it! However, I’m more concerned with real world performance on a subject in motion than in charts.... trying to evaluate if it’s worth buying!
@@SpectreSoundStudios Glenn, shooting anamorphic at this price point will generally skew toward a much more vintage look than you may be wanting. An apt analogy is, say, buying three brand new Royer 121's to handle the entirety of the drum tracking on your next record. You put one six feet out from the kick, and the other two as overheads. It sounds massive, and lush, but not at all contemporary. Then you're miserable in mix when you find the Royers don't take eq, they're soft and woolly, and the drummer thinks you're a dumbass 'cause he sounds like Buddy Rich. But if you're actually tracking a jazz group, that same setup is heaven itself. Same with anamorphics. The softness, the various optical distortions, they're the whole appeal. You better be wanting a vintage look, otherwise you're never gonna be able to eq it out, so to speak.
I used to set my sequence like this. Basically keeping the horizontal resolution and “chopping” the vertical resolution. But I’ve seen in multiple sources that vertical resolution is more important than horizontal resolution- and to keep the vertical resolution as shot. - and instead “expand” the horizontal resolution. Example: a 2:4.1 timeline setting was shot in 4K UHD (3840x2160) will look more like 5760x2160 instead of 3840x1600. Thoughts?
I disagree with that approach and would like to understand the logic behind it. It's EASIER to do the horizontal expansion, multiplying is easier than dividing, but ultimately you're creating more "noise" instead of improving your resolution. When you reduce the height, those pixels are more closely packed together, increasing sharpness and detail. When you stretch the width, you're basically spreading your resolution thinner. Ultimately, when you play a larger than 4K or 2K resolution video on a 4K or 2K screen, the player is resizing it to fit, basically undoing your attempt of creating more pixels. So you stretch it out, the computer applies math and changes pixel values, then the player shrinks it back in, following its own code, and readjusting those pixels again. So two interpolations. If you shrink the height, that's the end of it. Players won't be shrinking it to fit screens and you'll get a file with smaller size and better data rate.
awesome! where or how I get to this calculator, sorry, having a hard time getting to it. I'd appreciate your help. using an anamorphic lens 1.55x and resolve
Great and useful video as always, thanks for that! I was wondering if you can cover a (maybe useless) topic... say you have a great 2x anamorphic lens, but unfortunately none of your cameras have the 4:3 recording mode... It would be interesting to see how many pixels/quality you loose (recording in 16:9), what editing options you have, solutions, comparisons...
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Found the article. Ok makes sense... I naively thought that all cameras would take advantage of the full size of the sensor (in anamorphic mode), but apparently only the GH5 does --- BTW, really great tool the aspect ratio calculator :)
I have already de-squeezed footage from a RED Dragon 6k with the cooke anamorphic lenses. When i render proxy files the desqueeze is gone and it is massivly horizontaly stretched :( i hope someone can help me
Mate this is awesome thanks so much! That calculator has saved me a world of pain! One quick question, my clips in Resolve are automatically listed in their clip attributes as Pixel Ratio- 1.25. However it was shot in 1.33x anamorphic. Should I leave it at the native 1.25 that it defaults to?
Thank you for this. Quick question: In Premiere, setting the de-squeeze with your calculator and copy/pasting that attribute within raw clips located in the sequence is a great/fast solution. However, how would you bring that de-squeezed attribute back into the source footage within the project panel to edit larger projects? What is your workflow? Beyond that, like so many have mentioned, your work and contribution to anamorphic filmmaking is extremely appreciated. Thank you again.
Thanks! If the desqueeze is a preset value (1.33, 1.5, 2.0) then you can use pixel aspect ratio - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-abS7ERDpwKc.html But for 1.8, 1.6, 1.35, 1.42 and other odd values, you can't do that across the original media - at least not as far as I know. :(
Thank you. So appreciate your response. I just learned that the transform filter in effects can be used not only to desqueeze the clip in the time line, but the effect with the desqueeze ratio can be saved as a preset in the filters. Thereafter, it can be easily dragged and dropped right into the source footage.
Thanks so much for making this video! I do however have trouble understanding these many different methods I’ve encountered when trying to wrap my head around this. The footage I have is 3840x2160, and it’s been shot with an anamorphic 1.6x lens. Using your calculator yields one result which appears to work great! However, ANOTHER guide is the first one that shows up when you google “how to de-squeeze 1.6x anamorphic footage,” and in this guide it says to change the scale height to 63.5, and then presents totally different numbers for adjusting the timeline to remove the letterbox effect within the sequence. What separates these two methods, and in what situation would one be superior to the other?
Tito, I’m a bit confused, does a diopter (in the process of changing the close and infinity focus) just magnify (zoom) the image forward a bit and does that zoom flatten the image (longer lens). For example, does a 50mm lens with a .33 diopter actually increase it to 55/60mm?
I started using Davinci Resolve 18 not too long ago. I downloaded some anamorphic 2x footage with 6:5 aspect ratio meant for 2.39:1. All I did was right click the footage on the timeline and went to the clip attributes and changed the pixel aspect ratio to 2.0. This worked perfectly, it seems. Simple enough, but are there any cons to this method?
Nowadays, not really. When I made this video, Resolve had way less options in terms of values for the Pixel Aspect Ratios. 1.33x and 2x have always been there, but the stuff in the middle has been added recently.
Update it. Or, if you're using Resolve (non studio), it won't open H265 files. So you need to either convert your source footage, or get Resolve Studio.
Would You incorporate anamorphic video to normal/ordinary lens and format videos timeline? Would this not be a huge difference in video quality and even possible? I’ve notice similar (at least to my eye) mixture in many film productions, but personally want to use as a spice for wedding videos. Thanks for all comments.
Question... To adjust the Y zoom, would it be better to do it using the "input sizing" on the color page? I noticed that if you do the correction on the edit page transform and zoom in, the the relative ratio between X and Y changes
Tito a new fan here! Quick question, now with your Surui’s review. I’m looking for a vintage anamorphic look with warm flares an analog look (not cirúrgical modern sharps that I have to alter in post). I was planing on the kowa or Sankor 2X adaptor paired up with my nocticron 42.5 on pen-f 4:3, perhaps other lens options helius and super Tanaka + single focus adapt, how do you compare that with the new kid on the block? Also how bad is recording or taking pics on a squeezed viewfinder/ no monitor, to keep a portable setup outdoors. Thank you!
In premiere, what is the advantage of manually desqueezing a squeeze factor of 2x compared to using the drop down menu and conforming it to the 2x option? did you manually do this because there wasnt a 1.8 option?
Hey Tito, can I get your help. I’m editing my vazen footage in an FCPX timeline of 3820x 1440 exactly the same as your example to give a 2.66:1. All good. But when I export to Vimeo there’s no black bars, it just fits the footage, I can’t change the timeline and there’s no option I can see to export in another aspect than I’ve edited it. It works when I upload my 3820x1440 footage to RU-vid - I get the black bars. But it doesn’t work with Vimeo, I just get the 2.66:1 footage with no black bars. Call me a heathen but I actually like the black letterboxes to give it some context. Help haha?!!
Tito Ferradans in this case a lav mic and recording audio separately using Rode Rec app (on a phone) is a simple option. You'll need just to sync audio in post. It is not the ideal solutions but much better comparing to any build-in mics. Always remember human mind is much tolerant to a bad video than a bad audio.
Tito Ferradans than I guess your place needs acoustically treated and/or you need to upgrade to a shotgun mic and a docent recorder. Please check Curtis Judd’s channel, absolute a treasure!
Thank you, thank you and thank you very much!. Great Content. I've applied the same concepts with 3840x2160 content which was taken from a 1.33 anamorphic lens with aspect ratio 1.85:1, however, I'm not getting the desqueeze properly. As per your calculator timeline settings W 3840 H 2072 and footage resize H 127.5 and V 95.9. Is this correct?
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Please check the above my calculations, desqueeze not happened properly. If i keep footage resize H 75 V75 then it shows / desqueeze correctly.
Hello, I shouted a short film in 5888 X 3312 anamorphic 1.8 and I would like finished on 2.40:1 I don't understand the final frame width. Can you help me?
The final frame width is how big you want your final image to be. Some people want to finish in resolutions higher than 4k, I'm happy with 3840 as my final frame width. Your choice! :)
Hey, I'm from Brazil - Rio de Janeiro, but now I live in South Carolina - USA, where did you stay in Brazil? I'm addicted to anamophic lenses, and that's your fault, hahahhah, I really like your videos. Congratulations!
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Então voce fala português , eu cresci no Rio, mudei Para São Paulo e Agora mo aqui em SC, Muito Feliz pelos seus videos são Excelentes e estou aplicando em meus testes, Sou Design Gráfico e de interiores e estou me aventurando nos videos...Abraço!
So when you're doing your output, do you recommend exporting 16:9 with black bars, or exporting the anamorphic video as is--allowing quicktime to add the blackbars when viewing?
It depends on the goal. If it's for a festival and people will screen it right, then no black bars. If it's for youtube, then some features (end screens) only work for 16:9 videos. Then I add black bars.
Hi Tito You customized your footage for fcpx from 3840×2160 to 3840×1440. Is it same for 2x de-squees as well? I saw one you tuber says when you do a customize let s say if a footage 2x de-squeese you just 3840×2=7680 so you customize your footage 7680×2160 is it correct? Thanks bro
Either works. I'm not a fan of creating a 5K+ timeline (7680), as the result is stretching out pixels and not making the best use of your acquisition data.
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Thanks Tito. I used your Aspect Ratio Calculator...it says 25% discrarded footage area. Final frame width 3840 Final aspect ratio 2.66:1 Anamorphic squesse 2.0 Footage size width 4240,height 2385 Timeline settings Width 3840 Height 2385 Footage rescale Horisontal 120.8% Vertical 60.4% Interesting if it is the best result i can squeese from sony a7siii+orion 40mm You have vazen 1.8× as an example on this video and you ve got 10% of discarded footage area...hmm interesting...
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Great! I want to learn Premiere, now a PC user for the power and price G14...Ill go try it! Currently I just been using resolve 1.8x in attributes then export. Thanks for helping me condense my Ana workflow Sir.Your the Best!
Lots of monitors and most Panasonic cameras offer 1.8x desqueeze or some sort of custom desqueeze. I've been using a SmallHD 702 Bright for the longest time and it has never let me down.
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Thanks! I just needed to do a firmware update on my 702. I can now dial in the desqueeze number. So that is working! My issue now is that I can not get the output from my 702 to mirror what I am seeing on the 702 screen. It is just working as a passthrough. Do you know of a way to get the 702 to output the desqueeze to a larger monitor for video village?
In Davinci,I set my timeline to be the right resolution, than I stretch my footage by 2x to fit the screen, but when I start grading it the footage changes to some overstretched format and I don't know why
I do have a question, I own a red Komodo and also 50mm 1.6 sirui anamoprhic lens, and i use davinci resolve, now the camera already has the desqueeze availability, and i select 6k, 3:2, 1.6, what should my in project setting screen size should be? 4860X2025? for to achieve 2.4:1 without loosing resolution from my red komodo. Because the metadata shows on the footage 4860X3240 hope this make sense, any help would be appreciated.
If you're using the calculator at www.tferradans.com/arcalc/go , that will give you the most accurate answer and a little graph of how the video area is being used.
Files are all desequeezed, but my time line resolution is 4K which I believe 3820x2640? I believe but the original footage is 4860x3240 so that’s why I was confused and didn’t want to loose any resolution so my final resolution I came up with was 4860x2025 to achieve 2.4:1
If the files are desqueezed, why are you changing the timeline resolution? Also, why is the recording mode 6k, but the output is 4860? Regardless, 4860x2025 is correct, although most codecs don't like odd numbers for resolution, so I'd round 2025 down to 2024.
Nice one! I've never actually done any one of these myself. I'd just drag my footage into Premiere, change the height of the clip to 50% (for 2x), and then change the height in the sequence settings. Anyway, the timestamps seem to be wrong: 03:23 - Premiere 08:50 - After Effects they should be 03:23 - After Effects 08:50 - Premiere
You can do that in Output Scaling, in the Color tab. Or, once you adjust the squeeze ratio, you re-link the Zoom properties on the Inspector and rescale at will (I haven't tried this method yet).
Tito... overstrech on pixels especially on lesser codecs like H264 is not something to teach people to do. I'm sorry. Also reframing in 2.40:1 (your timeline should be set to inthe first place...) will cut out enough image on sides already. Why in heaven do you want to cut top/bottom also?? Simple rule of thirds: "1" is your original image, in that example "1.8" is the anamorphic compression. Sooo... (1/1.8)x100 = 55% and that is the one and only strech to be applied to vertical. I mean... a simplier example: if anamorphic compression is 2x: (1/2)x100 = 50% ;) ;) Last thing prepare your timeline into the right resolution: in case of 2x anamorphic on a 4:3 aspect ratio clip. 4/3 = 1.33. Anamorphic 2x makes it 2.66:1, right? Simply do height of original footage divided by 2.66 = max height. Then multiply max height by the desired framing (like 2.4 or 2.39 or 2.35) and you have your width. So you'll have a fully reframed perfectly centered desqueezed footage (one got to understand what is anamorphic framing when shooting...), you will not loose a single pixel from top/bottom and you won't have overstreched pixels breaking apart. Best.
Erratum on reframing... Of course divide height by the lens anamorphic ratio (not 2.66) or multiply by 1/100 of percentage you previously found... Then multiply to desired framing.
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Of course reducing size reduces quality. Do you think reducing a 4K video to HD keeps the 4K quality? The only resize that doesn't really reduce the quality is upscaling 2:1 pixels to 1:1, assuming it's done sensibly, by interpolating every 2nd line.
@@AnamorphicOnABudget Huh? How can this be difficult to understand? Let's say you have a 1920 pixels wide picture where every second pixel line is white and every second pixel line is black, so you have 960 white and 960 black lines. Now resize it to, say, 1280 pixels wide. How could you possibly make 960 black and 960 white lines fit onto a 1280 pixels wide picture? In reality the result will be a weird grey moire pattern that will look nothing like the original.
@@AnamorphicOnABudget I’m a little confused cause just like you I love Cinescope but I’m tryna find out how to calculate my film shot in 4k 4096x2160 Anamorphic 2.0 how do I calculate the numbers to see what my timeline should be and what my horizontal and vertical scaling should be also using a 2.39:1 aspect ration
