Hi all. I'm brand new to this world but have been doing extensive research for weeks. I'm dying to get my hands dirty but have yet to decide on a DV Camcorder to buy.

I'm leaning towards Canon's GL1 right now since it's high end but cheaper than the XL1S and Sony VX2000.

Anyway, on to my question. I have a widescreen TV and I know the GL1 has the 16x9 squeeze mode which is perfect so that I can playback on my widescreen TV without any loss of resolution. However, my question is regarding video editing. I'm not as familiar with most of the popular video editing software out there but am just now starting to learn. Eventually, what I want to be able to do is transfer the 16x9 footage I've recorded on to my computer to edit. To edit on my pc the software would have to unsqueeze the footage of course. Once I've edited, i'd want to squeeze the footage back (or 'anamorphically encode it' is the other terminology) and either transfer back to my miniDV tape or onto DVD.

So, I'm wondering if that's possible with the current video editing software out there? If so, which video editing software would you recommend?

Thanks for the help!

On the PC Adobe Premiere supports 16:9 anormphic
footage. It will display the footage correctly! Most
products have a demo version available, try them before
you buy!

Does the GL2 - 16:9 Electronic Anamorphic mode crop the image or does it act more like the Century Optics 16:9 widescreen adapter and take in a larger image?

I need to get another MiniDV camcorder within the next 8 months and if possible would love to have the truer 16:9 built-in.

http://www.canondv.com/gl2/f_aspect_ratios.html
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/video/digital/dig16-9.html

The electronic 16:9 process on any of these prosumer camcorders, including the GL2, VX2000, PD150, XL1S etc. is always inferior to an optical anamorphic adapter solution.

You only get "true" 16:9 chips when you step up to the professional 2/3" CCD cameras such as the Sony DSR500, JVC GY-DV700, and Panasonic AJ-D600, each more than $10,000 plus lens. Hope this helps,

Thanks Chris, yes that helps, I can't afford the "true" 16:9 yet, but I can afford a GL-2 with a Century Optics 16:9 lense.

I see you're in the Big Apple -- drop by the Javits Center in two weeks for MacWorld and say hi at the Canon booth!

Will do!

hello there,
well, I cant take the suspense any longer.
How did that century 16:9 work out for you?

I was also wondering about the best low cost 16:9 solution.
What about shooting in 4:3 and changeing the ratio in an edit program like FCP. A masking option here will presumably be better than a compression solution, no?
Also seems like the GL2 comes with 16: 9 guide lines in the flip out as an option.

nida sinn

Haven't gotten it yet, it's on my list of future acquisitions.

I have tried shooting some scenery in Normal 4:3 mode and then in 16:9 mode. I find that the quality of the 16:9 image is inferior to the 4:3 mode by quite a margin. I actually find that shooting in 4:3 mode and stretching it using the TV's 16:9 mode to 16:9 retains all the sharpness albiet with a slightly unnatural look to the picture. Has anyone else found this to be their experience shooting in 16:9 mode or do I need to adjust some setting to fix this problem. What difference would I have if I bought a 16:0 lens adapter for this camera.

This thread might be helpful:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2591

A 16:9 anamorphic attachment will not degrade your quality
(if the quality of the attachment is okay ofcourse).

I was wondering if anyone has tried either the Century or Optex 16:9 anamorphic lens adapter with the GL2? What were your experiences? Specifically I'm curious if there was a bad vignetting effect and if so what zoom-ranges were actually usable with the lens? Did you have to zoom in very close?

Thanks!

I've never used one of these, but from what I know The Century is the best one. Perhaps contact Century and ask them for the details.

Does it exist, and who sells it?

Century Optics (http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/1/16x9_adapter/index.htm)

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : Century Optics (http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/1/16x9_adapter/index.htm) -->>>

Century Optics 16:9 Widescreen Adapter
VS
Canon's WD-58H

Differences?

The WD-58H is a (very good) wide-angle adapter that simply broadens the overall view of the standard lens.

The Century 16:9 adapter produces an anamorphically-proportioned image through the lens.

Can anyone confirm how this Century lens performs with the GL2? Do you have to get the Bayonette model or can you get the 58 mm threaded model? Do you lose any zoom range due to focusing problems and is there any vignetting?

Peter has a good question. How does the redesign of the GL2 influence the functionality of Century Optics 16:9 converter originally designed for the GL1?

Still wondering about this - surely someone must have used one of the 16x9 adapters on their GL2 by now. Anyone?

i wanted to ask a couple of questions:

1) when i shoot in 16x9 mode am i getting a wider field of view (width wise) than say in the standadrd mode (4x3)? the image will be unsquashed when played back on a 16x9 monmitor but do i gain more room horizontally?

2) i framed and filmed (standard mode) a trophy on a turntable from top to bottom (full frame) through the viewfinder/lcd and also on a field monitor. when i play it back thru my camera to my tv (rca video out) my image is croppped on the bottom and top. what causes this?

thanx,

mb

1) No. The width of frame coverage is a function of your lens not the aspect ratio of the presentation frame.

2) Consumer televisions cannot display the full frame captured by your video camera. The area between the edge of the normal tv display and the true edge of the video frame is known as the "underscan". Inversely, the area normally displayed by consumer televisions is often called the "tv-safe" or "action-safe" area. There is also an area within this area called the "title-safe" area which basically represents the most conservative display area. Professional monitors and high-resolution b&w viewfinders can display the full video frame, although lcd color viewfinders (such as the GL2's and the XL1s') generally cannot. Consequently, you must practice to be aware of this limitation and take care to frame your scenes to avoid clipping when displayed on tv.

in regards to the gl2, what is the advantage or disadvantage of shooting in 16x9 mode? you need a specific monitor to play it back in 16x9 right? is it better to shoot it with the 16x9 guide and then crop your image with mattes in post?

mb4

"Professional monitors and high-resolution b&w viewfinders can display the full video frame, although lcd color viewfinders (such as the GL2's and the XL1s') generally cannot."

my viewfinder/lcd closely matched the image on the professional field monitor (that wasn't the poblem). i was actually surprised at how accurate the viewfinder and lcd were.

since it was a product tabletop/shot it was very important to have the perfect framing to hide the turntable at the base of my frame.

for the future, would it be a good idea to create mattes for tv safe areas when framing is hyper critical? have you heard of anyone doing it before for the gl2? i believe i read in the forum that different mattes can be created in photoshop.

what are the dimension of tv safe and tv transmission?

mb4

Aside from compliance with certain cinematic standards, this is largely a matter of style. There are three ways to produce 16:9 results with the GL2; use an anamorphic adapter, shoot using the GL2's 16:9 mode, or crop 4:3 footage.

There are advantages and drawbacks to each method. As this is a much-discussed topic here you'd be best served by using the Search function to look for "anamorphic" or "16:9". Many people more experienced in this subject than I have already offered much information on this topic.

Originally posted by mbuendia4 : my viewfinder/lcd closely matched the image on the professional field monitor (that wasn't the poblem). i was actually surprised at how accurate the viewfinder and lcd were.
I don't know what monitor you used but I can tell you that the GL2's viewfinder and lcd do not display the full video frame. Perhaps you did not have your monitor set to display underscan.

Originally posted by mbuendia4 :for the future, would it be a good idea to create mattes for tv safe areas when framing is hyper critical? have you heard of anyone doing it before for the gl2? i believe i read in the forum that different mattes can be created in photoshop.
It is possible to create an overlay file for use with the GL2 and some people do so as a visual aid when planning to create 16:9 footage by cropping. However, in this case it would be useless since the GL2's viewfinder (and lcd) are not capable of displaying underscan. The solution is really to just practice, practice, practice.

Why not use the Title Mix Function and download the 16:9 matte file that I have created. Its very simple, you can see the 16:9 Letterbox Bars in the LCD screen, and you dont have to crop it in post.

Here is the Thread.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6136

Hope this helps...
Tustin

He's not looking fot 16x9, Tustin. He's looking for an "action-safe" area.

I have recently bought an Optex 16:9 anamorphic adapter for my Canon XM2. Having shot some test footage through it I am a little dissapointed with the results.

The actual aspect ratio isn't quite 16:9, but seems about 5-10% out, nearer 15.5:9. This means that everything is slightly squashed (fat). Noticibly so, in my view. I can of course correct this in After Effects, but it does seem shame to have to loose quality (and time) by doing this. The resizing and cropping involved must smear the image.

I'm starting to wonder if I would have just been better to shoot just using the in-camera anamorphic option despite the slight CCD resolution reduction.

I am not sure if this is just my lens that is at fault but it might explain why the Optex scored a little better than the Century at http://www.megameme.com/vx1609.htm - either way I would suggest potential purchasers of the lens check it out carefully as you might also find it to be a problem.

I would be interested to hear if the Century 16:9 adapter, or even other Optex 16:9 lenses, suffer from this issue.

Simon

DV Magazine reviewed both adaptors but did not mention this problem though they did mention some focus issues:

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml;jsessionid=FU1V01QRVJUC0QSNDBGCKH0CJUMEKJVN?LookupId=/xml/review/centuryoptics0901&_requestid=157152

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/review/wilt0202.

Just out of curiosity, what do you base your observations on? Viewing on a computer monitor? On the camera's LCD? On a 16:9 TV? Might it be a pixel aspect ratio issue?

Boyd,

Viewed on combination of 16:9 broadcast monitors, Computer monitor, LCD (obviously anamorphic in this instance but I think you can still tell - doesn't look stretched enough) etc..

Not an pixel aspect ratio problem as the footage shot 16:9 using the camera anamorphic mode (if that makes sense) is fine. I measured the variance by shooting a square (in 4:3 as a control - 16:9 camera - 16:9 lens) and exporting to photoshop....resizing to 1024x576 (PAL widescreen) and overlaying a grid.

The lens is definately out by about 6%. I think this is easily enough to notice - maybe you could get away with it on landscapes, but actors all look a little fatter than reallife. I spoke to Optex and, apart from not being that interested, said that is what they were all like.

I can live with the slight vignetting at wide angles and otherwise the image quality is excellent, but I am not sure that I can live with the incorrect aspect ratio.

simon

That's disappointing. Add yet another item to the list of problems with anamorphic adaptors. Just recently I decided against getting one for my VX-2000 and purchased a PDX-10 instead which has native 16:9.

Coincidentially, just been looking at the PDX-10 myself. If I had know in advance I think that it might have been a better choice of camera.

simon

Hi,

I have some newbie questions for shooting in 16:9 format. I plan to view all shot video on 16:9 HDTV that I have hooked up to my HTPC (Home theater Personal Computer). This is the same computer on which I plan to download minidv tapes and edit content (using something like Vegas Video 4.0). BTW, I plan to burn it on 16:9 DVDs.

Is it better to shoot in 4:3 mode and then later crop in 16:9 format while editing on PC? Or, is it better to shoot directly in 16:9 mode? From what I understand when GL-2 is recording in 16:9 mode, it just takes the 16:9 frame in 4:3 window. So, it does not take full advantage of the entire resolution. Is that correct? In that case, it should not make any diference as to whether I shoot in 4:3 and then crop 16:9 or shoot directly in 16:9, right? Or, will it make difference?

Having just bought GL-2 and many accessories, I do not have money to buy Optex or other anamorphic lens right now, so I am looking for suggestions as to how can I get maximum resolution for 16:9 shoots?

thanks,
Raj

Raj,
It's generally better to shoot in 4:3 and crop. Use your WD-58H adapter (you referenced in a separate thread) to boost your horizontal frame coverage when appropriate. (Poor man's anamorphic adapter <g>.)

Either way, you lose resolution. I personally think it's easier to just use the 16:9 mode in the camera, so you know what your framing, but if you really want to do it with software, then use two peices of tape to crop it off on the lcd, so you know what your framing...you get the idea.

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger :
Either way, you lose resolution..
-->>>

Is the loss of resolution same in both approaches?

Raj

Yeah, i'd say so. You could always squeeze the video down to the 16:9 standard, instead of cropping it, you wouldn't loose any resolution that way, but of course, everything would look much fatter. :D

There are some issues regarding where in the process the DV compression takes place. As I understand it, the camera either (1) crops the image to 16:9, compresses it, then stretches it anamorphically or (2) crops the image, stretches it and then compresses it.

Theoretically method (1) would give better results since 25% of the image is the black bars, hence less data to compress. With method (2) you're compressing the whole frame, producing more artifacts. From what I've read, the Canon camcorders use method (1) and the Sony PD-150/VX-2000 use method two.

I've done some of my own tests with a VX-2000 and it does appear that cropping the image yourself gives slightly better quality than using the builtin 16:9. I haven't tried this with a GL-2 however. But if my assumptions are correct then you might see slightly better results using the built-in 16:9 on your GL-2. See the following link for some more discussion http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

Also consider what you want the final product to be. Do you want anamorphic 16:9 to show on an HDTV or do you want letterboxed 4:3? If you want anamorphic then using the built-in 16:9 creates it automatically, saving you the step of cropping and stretching in your NLE. However if you want letterboxed 4:3 and shoot with built-in 16:9 you'll need to vertically "squash" it in the NLE, which will require another render.

Well, here's a crazy question for you.
What about mounting a 16:9 adapter (century etc) on the XM2 and then shooting with the camera 16:9 option on?

What would the result be like?

Back to insomnia...
/Ronnie Grahn

2.35:1

That's what I thought.
But what are the drawbacks? Will it be possible to se anything in the lcd/viewfinder? Will you be able to focus? Will the image be any good at all?

Anyone here tried it?

Actually there's somebody named Martin Munthe who has gotten some nice results with this technique on a PD-150. He is doing a horror film called "Camp Slaughter" (I think). And I believe he is even in your part of the world. Search around a bit using his name, this was discussed a lot here at DVInfo.net...

Yes, I'm familiar with Martin Munthe (we're both from Sweden) and it was his technique with this that got me thinking if it was possible in some way to do it on the XM-2.

I guess a field monitor of some sort is a must to be able to focus and so.
The question is if the 3x 1/4 ccd chip can handle it.

I´m making a film that I hope will be shown in film festivals as well as on television. My question is this is, it better to film in the 16:9 format or the 4:3 format. I had read somewhere that this could be dealt with in the editing process but I don´t know. Maybe some one can help me with this. This is my first film with a DV camera. I hope it is clear what I´m talking about.

Yes Crystal it's quite clear. Creating 16:9 in post is usually done by adding black bars as a matte on the top and bottom of the image. This creates the effect of 16:9 on a 4:3 TV without any loss of resolution. The way it's done in camera varies, some cameras crop others squeeze and stretch. The Canons use the squeeze/stretch method which results in a slight loss of resolution. If you do a search on '16:9' or 'widescreen' you will find quite a number of threads that discuss this topic.

Hi Crystal,

16x9 in post is a double edged sword. By placing a black matte on top an bottom of your footage, you are cutting 25% of resolution. However, this gives you a lot of flexability as far as framing and composition goes.

Sometimes cameras have an option for 16x9 format, but you need to investigate what it is actually offering. Some cameras (like Canon's) digitally stretch the image and save to tape. Some cameras just put the black bars on top and bottom and leave it at that. Some cameras, however, actually have more pixals on the ccd that can capture true 16x9. Your best bet for 16x9 is an anamorphic adapter that mounts on your camera, but since these cost $800+ dollars, this is not a feasable solution for most people.

I have two Canon's, a GL2 (primary camera) and a ZR20 (secondary camera), both offer the digital stretching option. When I need the 16x9 format, I will use this option. You might say "Whats the point? You still lose 25% of your image." Well, that's kind of true, but let me explain: If you just crop your video in post, you truely loose 25% of the image. If you shoot in anamorphic most where the image is digitally streched, the image is saved to tape in that format, which leaves more video information available on the tape. This results in a crisper image because those bits that would've been used for the whole image are now used for the stretched video.

Adam Wilt gives a really good treatment on the 16x9 vs 4x3 controversy. You should read his article at:

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

to get a better feel for this subject. This will allow you to make your own informed discision on this topic. Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Mark

I also prefer the in-camera 16:9 with the GL2. The interpolations done in camera are a little better quality than I have been able to accomplish when cropping and resampling vertically back out to 16:9 in post. That isn't to say that I haven't had that one take which would have been perfect if the camera operator would have framed it a little higher or lower. 4:3 cropped in post would have fixed those issues.

I asked to be pointed towards the threads that covered this, as I was having trouble finding them on my own. I guess I'll jump on this one!

I'm experimenting with the 16:9 on my GL1. My desired result, is true widescreen, not a black bars cheat. Using Premiere offers 16:9 as an option. In the program, it looks right. However, when it goes to my external monitor or tape, it is squished. Where is my problem coming from?