Personally I would not worry with any of this and just shoot the
way that works for you. Remember, story/content is king!

I shot in 4:3 as well with my XL1S since I wanted the option to
reframe the footage vertically. This was done with Sony Vegas
(NLE) when I was editing. I added a 16:9 mask I had created
and I could vertically shift the footage underneath this mask to
reframe it and look great. I did use the 16:9 guidelines during
shooting to give me a guide for framing.

I also disliked the stretched look in the viewfinder, which was
another reason for me personally to not use 16:9.

How realistic is this film out? If you can't afford the XL2 I assume
you don't have the money for a filmout either (since it is very
expensive).

I would spend my time writing good stories and learning the craft
of movie making. If something ever needs to be transferred to
film let the company doing the transfer and the ones that are
paying for the transfer worry about transfer quality etc.

I agree with rob that it's easier to frame your picture in 4:3 with the guides on than to use the 16/9 function of the camera. It really ain't nice to frame your picture if it's vertically stretched.

Good luck with the cam!
Remember: some movies came in the theater without having a cam that was as good as an GL2, but - as Rob implies - by their good framing, acting,... they came a succes.
Good luck.

Ow, and as Rob says, transferring to film is VERY expensive, you don't have an idea (or maybe you do, I don't know of course) but I think most filmfestivals now really have acces to digital projection because many indie filmmakers can't pay a 35mm transfer anyway.

Thanks for the input, guys, I really appreciate your replies and will concentrate on the story and the delivery before worrying about any of the film transfers...and no, I wasn't completely aware that the film festivals would project digitially...thanks. I mean, I knew, but wasn't sure if they would-anyway...thanks for the encouraging words about the GL2, also...I knew I made the right decision with the resources I had. Thanks again! Keep these awesome forums going!

Hi Brian, I purchased my first digital video camera back in 1998, it was a Panasonic NVDX100 3 Chip Camera, and I decided back then to frame every thing in 16:9 while shooting in 4:3.

When I purchased the XM2 I proceeded to do the same.

The reason I did this was simple I prefered the look of 16:9 over 4:3, now a lot of people get all hung up over reselotion loss, but as the previous contributors have stated, the story is king.

Believe it or not the average audience is totaly oblivious to any small resolution loss as they are to interested in the material being shown.

I have had my work shown on large screens using top of the line projectors and the video looks stunning.

Until 80% of the population have true wide screen monitors/Televisions and the cost of true 16:9 cameras and editing systems drop consderably, Continue to shoot in 4:3 but frame 16:9.

And remember this, to the naked eye, analoge to DV was a quantum leap, DV to HDTV is a frogs jump.

Regards Cliff Elliott

16:9 mode won't play back
 

Very weird results from yesterday's shoot. Had the GL2 in 16:9 mode and frame mode, with custom presets for color balance. Shot outside in the chilly winter weather (around 25 degrees F, light precipitation in various forms). Shot several scenes. Several times the red letter message came up about cleaning the tape heads. I don't have a head cleaning tape so I ignored it. Went inside for a clip, then back out. Then a break. Then several more scenes inside. Then several more outside, but by then it was in the low 40's and sunny.

Reviewing the tape, it was void of audio or video for all the initial outside shots. Then there were sections of good audio with video consisting of 5 grey bars and 5 video bars, all horizontal. Very choppy and completely useless.

Later, everything seemed to work, except when i replay it on the GL2, or the Optura Xi, the 16:9 plays back incorrectly, i.e. it stretches vertically to fill the whole frame, instead of letterboxing.

Any ideas?

Scott

The normal ouput in 16:9 from the Canon is full-height anamorphic, so it would appear vertically stretched.
There is no letter-box mode on the camera.

Robin

In-camera 16:9 and 4:3 television
 

Hey. I recently did some tests and research and on my GL2, I want to use the in-camera 16:9. My question is this...I know it will come out stretched in a 4:3 television...but I haven't mastered onto DVD yet, so when I do, is there a way to set it so that it will show up letterboxed on the 4:3 television? Just wondering. I'll run some tests, but wondered if there was a chance. I have Adobe Encore DVD.
Thanks!

I do the same. Using the 16:9 mode, master to DVD, and view it on both 16:9 and 4:3 TVs.

Make sure your project settings are 16:9 (in Encore and your NLE). Then the final video will show up letterboxed on a 4:3 TV.

Sweeeeett!
 

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. Just haven't gone to that final step on DVD yet. So you like the digital 16:9...do you use a GL2 to shoot?

The main reason for me to use 16:9 is that I have a widescreen tv.
But yeah, I think the picture quality is fine.

I use the XM2 (pal GL2)

Yeah...
 

PAL is a bit better picture quality...(they shot the movie tape with PAL camcorders)...{Richard Linklater directed, Ethan Hawke acted} so it will look better, yeah, but, it's something about squeezing more info onto a smaller part of the chips...so, thanks, and take it easy and good luck shooting and thanks for the input.

A final word on the 16:9 better/worse res?
 

I have read a lot and have found anecdotal info to suggest that shooting with 16:9 with a GL2 is both better and worse. Meaning that no one has come to a concensus.

Info:

This thread suggests that it is the way to go, and a great looking trailer (and perhaps movie) was produced from it. Straight from the filmmaker. This theory is pretty radical. Quote: "The theory is that, since there is less actual data hitting the ccds when using in-camera widescreen, less compression is applied. Supposedly there's actually a gain in quality (this does not hold true for all cameras; i've been told to avoid it on a Sony.)
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=40437

This thread suggests that it isn't.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...3A9+resolution

This thread talks about fewer bits in the datastream being better. "There are less dots to share the DV stream..."
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...3A9+resolution

This thread clearly states that it is bad, but the statement comes from someone who has said that 16:9 was less/worse before.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...3A9+resolution

And the most SHOCKING! Actual tests done at a link from the following thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...3A9+resolution
(Supa shocking tests?) http://members.macconnect.com/users/.../resboost.html

So let's hash it out. What's the deal?

DJ Kinney

DJ,
You've basically hit the nail on the head: it's both better and worse.

You've also nicely consolidated many of the salient discussions on the topic.

The GL2 is not an anamorphic camera. Shooting either version of "16:9" with it represents compromise. That is, you will lose some of the recordable image to simulate a larger budget. That's really the "deal".

People get far too hung-up on debating resolution nits with these cameras.

Ive noticed that if you put the widescrenen on you can not fit as much into the picture. i have a widescreen tv i solve this my putting a mask on .

Just be aware that none of those cameras shoot native widescreen. Yes, you can do in-camera anamorphic 16:9 that will play back correctly, but the results will be noticeably worse than shooting 4:3 on the same camera.

The camera's native resolution is 720x480. To acheive the 16:9 proportion from their 4:3 CCD's they simply crop the image down. This leaves you with only 720x360 pixels (the other 120 are lost in the black bars above and below the image). Finally, to meet the anamorphic standard, the camera stretches that 720x360 image vertically so it's 720x480 again.

If 16:9 is important to you then the GL-1 (or even GL-2) is probably not your best choice. There are a number of (relatively) inexpensive cameras which do real 16:9 today. They still have CCD chips that are 4:3, and they still letterbox to get 16:9, but the difference is the number of pixels on the CCD's. A camera with megapixel chips will have enough to deliver the full 720x480 anamorphic image.

Have a look at our Optura forum; they are single chip but have real 16:9:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=71

Some of Panasonic's less expensive 3 chippers shoot real 16:9 - check out the GS-400:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=48

Sony's HC-1000 will also give you real 16:9, as will some of their newer single chip models:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=43

But getting back to your original question... I think just about all modern NLE's will handle anamorphic 16:9 without any problem at all. That's the easy part! Getting a camera that can produce reasonable quality for your widescreen TV will take a little more research on your part.