16:9 mode on GL2 - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders > Canon GL Series DV Camcorders

Canon GL Series DV Camcorders
Canon GL2, GL1 and PAL versions XM2, XM1.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 24th, 2003, 06:40 PM   #31
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
DV Magazine reviewed both adaptors but did not mention this problem though they did mention some focus issues:

http://www.dv.com/features/features_...questid=157152

http://www.dv.com/features/features_...eview/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 Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2003, 06:57 PM   #32
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 48
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
Simon Orange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2003, 08:09 PM   #33
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
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.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2003, 08:22 PM   #34
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 48
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
Simon Orange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2003, 03:58 PM   #35
New Boot
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 7
16:9 content for HDTV

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 Anish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2003, 05:30 PM   #36
Retired DV Info Net Almunus
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,943
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>.)
__________________
Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission.

Hey, you don't have enough stuff!
Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really!

See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com
Ken Tanaka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2003, 05:41 PM   #37
High School Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 609
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.
Alex Knappenberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2003, 07:01 PM   #38
New Boot
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 7
<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger :
Either way, you lose resolution..
-->>>

Is the loss of resolution same in both approaches?

Raj
Raj Anish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2003, 07:05 PM   #39
High School Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 609
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
Alex Knappenberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2003, 08:18 PM   #40
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
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.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2003, 09:17 PM   #41
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Posts: 77
Anamorphic lens and shooting 16:9 at the same time

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
__________________
www.ninjafury.com | www.ronniegrahn.com
Ronnie Grahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2003, 09:56 PM   #42
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
2.35:1
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2003, 10:19 AM   #43
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Posts: 77
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?
__________________
www.ninjafury.com | www.ronniegrahn.com
Ronnie Grahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2003, 11:04 AM   #44
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,542
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...
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2003, 05:45 PM   #45
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Posts: 77
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.
__________________
www.ninjafury.com | www.ronniegrahn.com
Ronnie Grahn is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders > Canon GL Series DV Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:02 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network