Both of these involve some image interpolation. Does anyone use them together? How is the image? Do you have samples with them together and them off on the Internet?

Thanks,

David

I use frame mode and widescreen mode together, I`ve recently done some tests, and I must say it looks great (to my eye, but then again, I`m not a nitpick :)).

So, I find it great enough.

Here is a link that may help you in some way -

http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/resboost.html

It serves you with a much needed conclusion - you decide. I agree with him.

Enjoy.

Hey Mike, your pics doesn't seem to load or it's taken one helluva time loading. I'm still waiting but nothing appears.

Have you copy-pasted the WHOLE link in the address bar ? I`ve tested it on two computers and the link works.

http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/resboost.html

Try again, and tell if you succeed.

Works fine here!

I guess it's me then because the page comes up(pinkish color right) but then the expolorer icon continues to seach and search like it's trying to load but can't. Weird.

OK, somebody explain to me why everyone suggests using the camera's on board digital 16x9 is so horrible if it actually produces better resolution. Are there any other considerations?

One things for sure though... Frame mode on the GL cameras does produced reduced resolution. Looks good, I think, but it has lowered resolution, no question.

Who says it increases resolution? What it does is use the available
DV bandwidth better. Since you are only encoding what you will
end up using those pixels have "less" compression. However
you will loose:

1) correct aspect ratio in the viewfinder

2) ability to do a 4:3 output of the movie

3) frame your movie in the editing room

So no, you don't increase resolution, you just utilize the band-
width better [this is all related to the Canon camera's!].

The stretch is still electronic and will be the same in camera or
done in post (with the advantage and disadvantages mentioned
above!).

The reason for my question is that both frame mode and 16x9 cause a drop in resolution.

Frame mode is known...it has 360 effective lines. That's a drop of 25%, although stills from individual frames increase 50% (from 240 lines) and you get a film like motion effect.

16x9 also causes a reduction. But since the camera can use the full width of the CCD and its extra 4% vertical resolution over the DV image, the exact loss is not known.

Individually, both are acceptable. But together, is the loss unacceptable. Mike's example shows that using the camera's 16x9 is better than doing it in post. Your 4:3 version would then have to be a crop and zoom with yet lower resolution.

You can always use a DVX100 to get true, full resolution progressive mode and crop and zoom in post.

So has anyone run both at the same time?

In a month or two I`ll buy myself Canons Wide Angle lens, but untill then I`ll use camera`s 16:9 mode. You might ask why, I`ll tell you - because my eyes detect no loss in resolution, it is all subjective but frame mode looks sharper to me than deinterlacing.

So, from my experience, I would say thath using 16:9 and Frame Mode together is the winning combination. Go for it. If you want something that really is better than in-camera 16:9 go for wide angle lens, it is worth it - until then, you`ll (probably be, like me) pleased with the included solution.

Enjoy.

Mike.

Could you please send me a copy of the clip through my e-mail as I still cannot view your page. If it's not too much trouble. Thanks

It`s not a problem, I`ll post it here for you and if anyone else has problem with the site - so it`ll be available here.

***

So, your camcorder has a fake electronic 16x9 option, which reduces your resolution. But you can't afford an anamorphic adapter from Optex or Century Precision Optics any time soon, and you like the widescreen look. Someone might have even advised you to shoot normally and letterbox it later instead of shooting in the digital 16x9 mode. Well, oddly enough, shooting with the digital 16x9 may give you slightly better resolution than shooting normally.(Of course, shooting with an anamorphic adapter is still far better than in-camera 16x9.)

The "16x9 mode" footage is signficantly sharper vertically. Since the image is compressed after it's been enlarged on the vertical axis, it's maintaining detail on the CCD that normally would be "fudged" by the DV compression.


Methodology:
These are details from a standard resolution chart (EIA Chart 1956), shot with a Canon GL1. They were taken from identical viewpoints, with identical settings. (I can't recall the exact numbers, but they were both shot with manual exposure, manual focus, and in progressive Frame mode.) The only difference between the two samples is that in the one on the right, the electronic 16:9 was activated. They were both transfered via Firewire to my Mac G3. In Adobe After Effects, in their native DV format, they were both de-anamorphized (from 1.125:1 for the normal DV to account for pixel aspect ratio, and from DV-ratio 16:9 for the electronic widescreen DV), while being magnified to show detail. Both of these image transformations happened at the same time, by one high-quality (spline-based) scale transformation. What does this mean? It means that these images have only been touched by the software once, and that you're seeing nearly 100% of the detail in the original image, with as few as possible artifacts. The resulting images were saved as uncompressed PICTs (lossless), cropped, and finally exported as high-quality JPEG files for viewing on the web. What you see on your screen is both an extraordinarily good representation of the detail in the images, and a nice demonstration of a phenomenon which I've observed first-hand a number of times.


FAQ:


Q: Did you screw up?
No, I ran this test several times. This set of samples is indistinguishable from the others. However, while my methodology is solid and backed up by a strong technical theory, this was not a scientific (or heavily researched) test, so I would be reluctant to draw empirical data from the results. In short, no, I did not screw up.


Q: You just blew my mind. Why is there a difference?
It's really not that surprising; when in 16:9 mode, the 16:9 area (~720x360 pixels) of the image is enlarged digitally to 720x480 before being compressed, therefore allowing all of the Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) compression blocks to be utilized in compressing the image. When the digital 16:9 is turned off, the 16:9 area only occupies 75% of the total image, which means there aren't as many DCT blocks working on that area, thereby lowering the image quality.

***

There are two enlarged pictures with the article - one is without 16:9 mode, it is, blurry, and other is with 16:9 mode, that one is really quite sharper. If you still want mail with whole article I will e-mail it to you as soon as I`ll can.

Now we know the 16:9 electronic anamorphic feature is better than cropping a 4:3 image.

But is it still ok in frame mode with another 25% image resolution loss? Not necessarily compared to making the same resolution it self but compared to an interlaced 4:3?

Film exactly the same thing (under decent lighting conditions) with manual controls with frame mode on, and off - upload them onto computer - see what you like, now deinterlace the interlaced image and see do you like more frame mode image or deintarlaced.

Like I said, I find frame mode sharper and overall more pleasing.

Hope this helps.

Mike,

I'm sure frame mode by itself looks good, and frame mode stills look better than interlaced stills.

And 16:9 mode looks better than 4:3 mode cropped and zoomed.

But what about both together?

The Canon is the only one that has both together. The Panasonic has true progressive but no 16:9 mode. The JVC has neither progressive, frame, nor 16:9 mode (both support letterbox). And the PDX10 supports a superior 16:9 mode but no progressive or frame mode.

The GL2 comes to the table with great promise. Does it also have great reality?

David

You havn't posted it yet have you? Either way I'll wait 'till you post it if you don't decide to e-mail to me. Thanks again.

To Charles:

>Oh, I posted it yesterday. The large post.

To David:

>What I wanted to say was, that they both - used TOGETHER look very good. I don`t want to say - "hey, man - it looks excellent" because then, someone who doesn`t like the "look" would attack me or something, and I don`t want to start flame wars - but yes, If you want my answer, here it is - it looks excellent. I`ve done tests (nothing scientific), just for me - to see do I find it good enough and I was suprised, not only that it was good enough, I found it excellent - saw no quality loss whatsoever.

If you are referring to the post within this very forum then, I thought I was expecting clips of photos. Am I mistaken?

Mike,

Could post a result, preferably an unedit short (10 second) DV of them both used together?

I've been doing some tests, but I never seem to get a usable result from the GL1. Right now, the JVC DV300 seems to make the best images. In my tests so far, the cropped and zoomed image from the camera is the best 16:9 without an anamorphic lens.

Thanks,

David

Using my GL2 I did notice that the 16:9 mode was prety darn good looking.

I do however have a statement that needs addressing.

Recently I shot normal outdoor footage and converted it to 24p 3-2 pulldown and it looked pretty film-like. I noticed it does drop some crispness, but it's not blurry.

Now, if I use frame mode, which looks good on it's own, then move down to 24p, I noticed a crazy blurry effect going on. It's really hard to watch. I did use 3-2-2-3 and not 3-2 though.

Also, in Vegas if you use their cropping, effects and colors only affect what's in the letterbox. If the image is already letterboxed, the bars are affected by effects and other stuff. How can u prevent this?

Also, if 16:9 is not wide enough, and you want a panavision ratio of 2:35 what would be better? In camera 16:9 plus some extra cropping or all in Vegas??? And do you crop or compress it down??? I guess you can do either one. At least the GL2 gives you 16:9 guides to shoot with if you don't plan on using their 16:9 mode which is nice.

What have you guys experimented with?

I´m going to shoot a dokumentary projects soon and I´m planning to use my old but still working XM1. I have done some testshooting with 16:9 and frame settings on and drag down the sharpness 3-4 steps, it looks great if I watch it straight from the XM1 to the 16:9 TV. This film-feeling is what I´m looking for but...

Is there any better ways to get this filmfeeling than from the frame-mode? I have not tried Magic Bullet.

I understand that this 16:9 streach-thing is not the best way but the anamorphic adapter take to much tele away. Is there better ways?

The camera has limits I suppose. Next step maybe is a 16:9 chip camera with progressive mode...

Next step maybe is a 16:9 chip camera with progressive mode...Yes. You would see a huge improvement.

I have a GL1 and an XL2. The XL2's (true!) 16:9 24p will blow away footage shot in the GL1/2's fame mode with widescreen-crop-n'-stretch in literally every way. I'm sure that's no surprise, but there it is.

Jarrod

I think you are right! Are you satisfied with your XL2?

Both of these involve some image interpolation. Does anyone use them together? How is the image? Do you have samples with them together and them off on the Internet?

Thanks,

David

When it comes to my XL1 i dont even shoot with the 16:9, mainly because it "Cuts" off a good bit of my video on the top and bottom.
I do recomend "Frame Movie Mode" because of the "Film-Like" look......and i like the "strobe" it gives me when my subject moves

Garrison H.

Hello,

I shoot a gl2 and an xl2. I shoot them both in 16:9 and shoot in 30 p with shutter speed at 60 (as much as possible) and I enrich the colors to my liking (it changes depending on the season).
I do not count pixels or resolution, I just want to make it look nice to my eye. I have no complaint with either camera's look.

I would prefer do as much of my work when I shoot and would prefer to do as little as possible in post.

It is a funny thing, I never really intentionall tried to make any footage look like film. I figured video is video, just go with what you got.

As it turns out as I have tweaked things to what looks right to me I have unintentionally made the footage more film like.

Jarrod

I think you are right! Are you satisfied with your XL2?Yes, very much so. :)

Mike, I'd still love to see the pics you refer to in your long post, but that page doesn't seem to exist anymore.

I to would very much like to see some comparison clips along these lines!

The discussion of less resolution is not really an issue as when you letter box I was under the impression portions of the picture are removed (reducing resolution) but the resolution and quality of the picture is the same.

If that is not correct please enlighten me.

I just finished a :30 spot with a GL-2 that I used in 16:9 without Frame mode on. It left me the option to go for a "Frame" look if I so chose, but in the end was not needed. I was a little uneasy about how it would stack up to other spots but I was very happy with how it turned out! It looks great next to national stuff!

I will post some photos of the diifference when I went back and forth in and out of Frame mode to see what I liked best. To my eye the Frame mode looks less crisp overall, but warms the shot alot.

Tere is my 2 cents