Will I need a wide-angle adaptor to shoot widescreen?

Tom Hardwick · January 13th, 2007, 02:01 PM

Daniel - you say, ''We are shooting this summer, and I want to have the final product be "true" 16:9 widescreen. IE, letterboxed because the shot is wide, not cropped to look like letterbox.'' - and this is what I was referring to when I said you used some strange terminology.

I think all the subsequent posts have sorted the situation now, but generally true 16:9 widescreen is taken to mean camcorders that capture the image onto native 16:9 chips, or which take a 16:9 rectangle out of the 4:3 chip (The HDV Sony HC3, for instance).

Cameras that were designed for shooting 4:3 (PD170, say) could only shoot widescreen by electronically compressing the picture and losing info top and bottom. 16:9 shown on a 4:3 TV is ''letterboxed''. whereas 4:3 on a 16:9 set is ''pillarboxed''.

Remember that HDV is 16:9 as part of the specification - there's no 4:3 HDV.

tom.

R Geoff Baker · January 13th, 2007, 02:41 PM

The PD170 and the PD150 before it, have 4:3 chips but use a 16:9 'centre' of the chip to record 16:9 at what I would always call 'true' widescreen -- unlike other devices that actually 'letterbox' straight to tape, so that the 16:9 recording is actually a masked and letterboxed 4:3 signal ...

I understand the preference for a true 16:9 chip (though surely the resolution of the chip is important here -- what if the resolution of the 'true' chip was actually lower than that of a centre-weighted 4:3 chip?) -- but I dispute the contention that the PD170, for example, does not record true 16:9 widescreen.

Cheers,
GB

Tom Hardwick · January 13th, 2007, 03:15 PM

You're quite correct RGB, the PD170 does shoot 'true 16:9' but it does it as a compromise, losing vertical resolution (compared to the 4:3 picture it produces) in the process. Sensibly the v'finders showed the results letterboxed, making composition a lot easier than on the Canons and Panasonics of the day.

The PDX10 went some way to overcoming the resolution limitation by using smaller (1"/5 chips) that had more pixels, so that selecting 16:9 actually gave you more wide-angle coverage. In fact if you see this happening if you switch your 4:3 camera to 16:9 you can be pretty sure you're not losing much vertical resolution in the move to 16:9.

But it's time we forgot 4:3 now - unless you're into IMAX.

tom.

R Geoff Baker · January 13th, 2007, 03:23 PM

I will go on record here -- tongue only loosely in cheek -- predicting the arrival of a terrific new aspect ratio, one that will arrive after we've all discarded our 4:3 sets and camcorders ... one that will deliver a magic experience that must be purchased to be believed, one that satisfies our most primal demand for balance and composition, one that the Ancient Greeks would have discovered if only they'd had access to and an understanding of technological obsolescence cycles ...

The future is 16:12 -- Mark my words.

Cheers,
GB

Martin Iverson · January 13th, 2007, 06:25 PM

That was great RGB. You totally got me there. With the Greek reference I was sure you were going with the perfect ratio (as recently made popular in "The Da Vinci Code") of 1:1.618054.

I needed a laugh today. Thanks.

Daniel Cegla · January 13th, 2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Iverson

That was great RGB. You totally got me there. With the Greek reference I was sure you were going with the perfect ratio (as recently made popular in "The Da Vinci Code") of 1:1.618054.

I needed a laugh today. Thanks.

I don't get it.

Robert Lane · January 13th, 2007, 09:45 PM

I don't get it either, and this thread has become so convoluted it's far from it's mission of actually offering real assistance...

Here's a few books I highly recommend:

- Video Demystified, Fourth Edition (Demystifying technology), Keith Jack
- Lighting for Digital Video & Television, Second Edition, John Jackman
- Video Field Production and Editing (7th Edition), Ronald Compesi

That's a good start. With respect to magazines, just got to your local bookstore and see what they offer in the way of industry rags; they're not always stocked as well as things like Pop Photo but you might get lucky.

Martin Iverson · January 13th, 2007, 09:46 PM

It's a math joke. 16:12 is the same as 4:3. The common denominator is 4.

"I always enjoy a good joke as soon as I know about it."

And I would disagree with you Robert, this thread didn't become convoluted, it started out that way.

Robert Lane · January 13th, 2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Iverson

It's a math joke...

There's a place for things of that nature on this forum, it's called "Area 51". Everyone likes good humor; using someone's post who is looking for help isn't the appropriate place to share them.

R Geoff Baker · January 14th, 2007, 07:12 AM

Sorry I offended.

It is my opinion that the query was answered thoroughly, even exhaustively, and the new request for general advice on how to become better informed is really a new thread -- perhaps the OP should consider starting a new one.

And I can't help but note that the poster that was offended ... didn't get it.

Cheers.
GB

Martin Iverson · January 14th, 2007, 03:20 PM

My apologies.

Thank you for clarifying forum protocol.

Giroud Francois · January 14th, 2007, 04:07 PM

anyway, discussions about aspect ratio are always tricky , especially when noobs come in.
the fact is that in video there is no 16/9 format.
everything is 4/3 with a pixel ratio from 1 to X.
if it is 1 (or close, currently DV is not exactly equal 1), it is 4/3 or letterboxed (black bars are used to fill empty space)
if it is bigger than 1 , it is anamorphic, it can be anything, 16/9, 16/10, 2.35 cinemascope, depends de ratio that was used.
People are reasoning optically, when you need to see the electronic aspect of things that is why most of people are lost.
now if you really want HDV with 4/3 , you just purchase an anamorphic lens, you turn it 90 degrees from normal position anf you get 1080 with square pixel.
or if you shoot an goold old time western-like, you add the same 16/9 anamorphic lens (in normal position) to you HDV camera, and you got a true 2.35 picture.
Next , the problem is signal compatibility.
since a screen is not alway able to read the aspect ratio written in the signal and display the picture accordingly, you can expect some disappointement. And to make things more complex, others devices like the DVD player can also decide the way the signal will be displayed or allows to setup which kind of screen is used.
That is why many DVD used to come with one side "wide" and one side "letterboxed".

R Geoff Baker · January 14th, 2007, 05:35 PM

The issue of aspect ratio is sure to confuse even those that think they've got it all right ... but your point on PAR is critical, as is an understanding of the difference between recorded signals and playback choices.

Cheers,
GB

January 13th, 2007, 09:45 PM	#22
Robert Lane Go Go Godzilla Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA Posts: 2,788 Images: 15	I don't get it either, and this thread has become so convoluted it's far from it's mission of actually offering real assistance... Here's a few books I highly recommend: - Video Demystified, Fourth Edition (Demystifying technology), Keith Jack - Lighting for Digital Video & Television, Second Edition, John Jackman - Video Field Production and Editing (7th Edition), Ronald Compesi That's a good start. With respect to magazines, just got to your local bookstore and see what they offer in the way of industry rags; they're not always stocked as well as things like Pop Photo but you might get lucky. __________________ Robert Lane Producer/Creator - Bike Pilots TV

January 13th, 2007, 02:01 PM	#16
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Daniel - you say, ''We are shooting this summer, and I want to have the final product be "true" 16:9 widescreen. IE, letterboxed because the shot is wide, not cropped to look like letterbox.'' - and this is what I was referring to when I said you used some strange terminology. I think all the subsequent posts have sorted the situation now, but generally true 16:9 widescreen is taken to mean camcorders that capture the image onto native 16:9 chips, or which take a 16:9 rectangle out of the 4:3 chip (The HDV Sony HC3, for instance). Cameras that were designed for shooting 4:3 (PD170, say) could only shoot widescreen by electronically compressing the picture and losing info top and bottom. 16:9 shown on a 4:3 TV is ''letterboxed''. whereas 4:3 on a 16:9 set is ''pillarboxed''. Remember that HDV is 16:9 as part of the specification - there's no 4:3 HDV. tom.

January 13th, 2007, 02:41 PM	#17
R Geoff Baker Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 471	The PD170 and the PD150 before it, have 4:3 chips but use a 16:9 'centre' of the chip to record 16:9 at what I would always call 'true' widescreen -- unlike other devices that actually 'letterbox' straight to tape, so that the 16:9 recording is actually a masked and letterboxed 4:3 signal ... I understand the preference for a true 16:9 chip (though surely the resolution of the chip is important here -- what if the resolution of the 'true' chip was actually lower than that of a centre-weighted 4:3 chip?) -- but I dispute the contention that the PD170, for example, does not record true 16:9 widescreen. Cheers, GB

January 13th, 2007, 03:15 PM	#18
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You're quite correct RGB, the PD170 does shoot 'true 16:9' but it does it as a compromise, losing vertical resolution (compared to the 4:3 picture it produces) in the process. Sensibly the v'finders showed the results letterboxed, making composition a lot easier than on the Canons and Panasonics of the day. The PDX10 went some way to overcoming the resolution limitation by using smaller (1"/5 chips) that had more pixels, so that selecting 16:9 actually gave you more wide-angle coverage. In fact if you see this happening if you switch your 4:3 camera to 16:9 you can be pretty sure you're not losing much vertical resolution in the move to 16:9. But it's time we forgot 4:3 now - unless you're into IMAX. tom.

January 13th, 2007, 03:23 PM	#19
R Geoff Baker Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 471	I will go on record here -- tongue only loosely in cheek -- predicting the arrival of a terrific new aspect ratio, one that will arrive after we've all discarded our 4:3 sets and camcorders ... one that will deliver a magic experience that must be purchased to be believed, one that satisfies our most primal demand for balance and composition, one that the Ancient Greeks would have discovered if only they'd had access to and an understanding of technological obsolescence cycles ... The future is 16:12 -- Mark my words. Cheers, GB

January 13th, 2007, 06:25 PM	#20
Martin Iverson Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Anacortes, WA Posts: 78	That was great RGB. You totally got me there. With the Greek reference I was sure you were going with the perfect ratio (as recently made popular in "The Da Vinci Code") of 1:1.618054. I needed a laugh today. Thanks.

January 13th, 2007, 09:46 PM	#23
Martin Iverson Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Anacortes, WA Posts: 78	It's a math joke. 16:12 is the same as 4:3. The common denominator is 4. "I always enjoy a good joke as soon as I know about it." And I would disagree with you Robert, this thread didn't become convoluted, it started out that way.

January 14th, 2007, 07:12 AM	#25
R Geoff Baker Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 471	Sorry I offended. It is my opinion that the query was answered thoroughly, even exhaustively, and the new request for general advice on how to become better informed is really a new thread -- perhaps the OP should consider starting a new one. And I can't help but note that the poster that was offended ... didn't get it. Cheers. GB

January 14th, 2007, 03:20 PM	#26
Martin Iverson Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Anacortes, WA Posts: 78	My apologies. Thank you for clarifying forum protocol.

January 14th, 2007, 04:07 PM	#27
Giroud Francois Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: switzerland Posts: 2,133	anyway, discussions about aspect ratio are always tricky , especially when noobs come in. the fact is that in video there is no 16/9 format. everything is 4/3 with a pixel ratio from 1 to X. if it is 1 (or close, currently DV is not exactly equal 1), it is 4/3 or letterboxed (black bars are used to fill empty space) if it is bigger than 1 , it is anamorphic, it can be anything, 16/9, 16/10, 2.35 cinemascope, depends de ratio that was used. People are reasoning optically, when you need to see the electronic aspect of things that is why most of people are lost. now if you really want HDV with 4/3 , you just purchase an anamorphic lens, you turn it 90 degrees from normal position anf you get 1080 with square pixel. or if you shoot an goold old time western-like, you add the same 16/9 anamorphic lens (in normal position) to you HDV camera, and you got a true 2.35 picture. Next , the problem is signal compatibility. since a screen is not alway able to read the aspect ratio written in the signal and display the picture accordingly, you can expect some disappointement. And to make things more complex, others devices like the DVD player can also decide the way the signal will be displayed or allows to setup which kind of screen is used. That is why many DVD used to come with one side "wide" and one side "letterboxed".

January 14th, 2007, 05:35 PM	#28
R Geoff Baker Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 471	The issue of aspect ratio is sure to confuse even those that think they've got it all right ... but your point on PAR is critical, as is an understanding of the difference between recorded signals and playback choices. Cheers, GB