16:9 or 4:3 and later in post 16:9 at DVinfo.net

Julian Jansen · July 28th, 2006, 04:45 PM

What is better to do?

Shoot directly in 16:9

Shoot 4:3 , mask 16:9 with tape on monitor while shooting , and then pan & scan to 16:9

Equipment: Sony DCR-VX2100E PAL - Sony Vegas 6

Kevin Shaw · July 28th, 2006, 06:58 PM

I doubt it would make much difference in terms of final image quality with your camera. When I was using the Canon GL1/GL2 I shot 4:3 in case I wanted output in that format, then could process either way from there. But shooting 16:9 would save you some time during editing if you know 16:9 is your intended output.

Justine Haupt · July 30th, 2006, 04:02 PM

I don't know anything about your camera, but I would say it depends on what the cam shoots natively, wouldn't it? If it's a native 4:3 camera, than you have nothing to loose shooting 4:3 and changing to 16:9 in post (whereas the opposite would cause resolution loss). And the opposite for a native 16:9 camera, where cropping a 16:9 frame to 4:3 in post will result in the same resolution as having shot 4:3 in cam.

Julian Jansen · July 30th, 2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin Haupt

[...] And the opposite for a native 16:9 camera, where cropping a 16:9 frame to 4:3 in post will result in the same resolution as having shot 4:3 in cam.

So , the only thing that changes is the pixel aspect ratio...

Correct me if I'am wrong.

Julian Jansen · July 30th, 2006, 04:14 PM

But if I shoot in 4:3 and then pan & scan to 16:9 I'll cut of almost 1/3 of the original image...

Chris Barcellos · July 30th, 2006, 04:19 PM

You camera is key. Which camera are you using, it makes a difference. With the VX2000, I believe the pan and scan method is better than the camera's 16:9 mode. I now have a "native" 16:9 in the FX1m and that will make a difference.

July 28th, 2006, 04:45 PM	#1
Julian Jansen Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 38	16:9 or 4:3 and later in post 16:9 What is better to do? Shoot directly in 16:9 Shoot 4:3 , mask 16:9 with tape on monitor while shooting , and then pan & scan to 16:9 Equipment: Sony DCR-VX2100E PAL - Sony Vegas 6

July 30th, 2006, 04:02 PM	#3
Justine Haupt Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 208	I don't know anything about your camera, but I would say it depends on what the cam shoots natively, wouldn't it? If it's a native 4:3 camera, than you have nothing to loose shooting 4:3 and changing to 16:9 in post (whereas the opposite would cause resolution loss). And the opposite for a native 16:9 camera, where cropping a 16:9 frame to 4:3 in post will result in the same resolution as having shot 4:3 in cam. __________________ ~Justine "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams" -Arthur O'Shaunessey (as quoted by Willy Wonka)

July 30th, 2006, 04:19 PM	#6
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	You camera is key. Which camera are you using, it makes a difference. With the VX2000, I believe the pan and scan method is better than the camera's 16:9 mode. I now have a "native" 16:9 in the FX1m and that will make a difference. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

July 28th, 2006, 06:58 PM	#2
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	I doubt it would make much difference in terms of final image quality with your camera. When I was using the Canon GL1/GL2 I shot 4:3 in case I wanted output in that format, then could process either way from there. But shooting 16:9 would save you some time during editing if you know 16:9 is your intended output.

July 30th, 2006, 04:14 PM	#5
Julian Jansen Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 38	But if I shoot in 4:3 and then pan & scan to 16:9 I'll cut of almost 1/3 of the original image...