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

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.

Shooting in 16:9 or 4:3
 

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?

Keith,

Does your external monitor have a 16:9 switch? If its a 4:3 then it will be squished.

I master off my 16:9 footage (XL1S) and make separate copies for 4:3 (resized 75% and letterboxed at 1:85) Television and 16:9.

Cheers!

The thing is, it shows 16:9 movies in letterbox, but not mine. Mine are squished, so I must not be doing something right?

Keith, if you're watching on a 4:3 TV set, you'll have to create a separate 4:3 video with letterboxes. If you have an HDTV (16:9) set, you can see the 16:9 video full-screen by choosing the widescreen setting.

DVDs that are "anamorphic 16x9" or "enhanced for widescreen TVs" send a signal to your DVD player and/or TV that will display the movie in whichever aspect ratio your TV supports. You might be able to encode this kind of signal into your own DVDs, although I don't know how...

Any idea what that encoding is called? That is probably the critter I'm looking for. Is it even possible in Premiere, or is it a "specialty" thing?

I really want 16:9, because I may screen this at a local theater. Somehow, I don't think letterbox would look right on a theater screen.

I'm sure the signal is called WSS and is recorded by the camcorder to the tape itself. The GL2 supports this and when you select to record in 16:9 I believe it supplies the WSS signal as well. I'm not sure so don't rely on this bit, but this information may be stored in the 8(?) pixel area that non-optical image stabilisers use for the DIS information.

Also, aren't theatre screens 2.35:1?

I'm not sure exactly what the size/ratio is, but I am sure that these screens aren't full width. This is a twin cinema, and the screens were cut down a bit. But that was a very good point.

16:9 GL2 question
 

I was told by my camera salesman that if I set my GL2 to 16:9 and record , it will play back on my regular television in wide screen format with black bars top and bottom.
This does not happen ??
Is my salesman wrong or am I doing something wrong??
Please help
.

Your salesman was wrong; 16:9 footage appears squished on a 4:3 TV set.

However, it's very easy to make your own letterbox 16x9 with the black bars, right in the camera, so that it plays back just like what you're looking for. This trick isn't in the manual, but it's described in detail on our GL2 Son of Watchdog site. Maybe the salesman saw our site and that's what he was thinking about. Hope this helps,

16:9 Camera Guidelines... help please...
 

Does anyone have the "image" of the black bars that effectively matte the view (while filming) so that it appears to be 16:9?

I know there is a tutorial on how to matte the picture in real time, but the link to the image of the black bars is broken.

Any help would be appreciated...

Tustin Larson prepared a video tutorial on how to use the GL2's title mix function (i.e. graphic files stored on the SD flash card) to accomplish this. See the main page of the "GL2 Son of Watchdog" section of DVInfo.net for a link to Tustin's tutorial.

Well, the link on the 3rd page of that topic is broken...

I would love to have that jpg. of the black bars, or if anyone knows the dimensions...

Adam, try this: http://www.dvinfo.net/canongl2/articles/titlemix.php.

Chris, he's not asking for the tutorial, he's wondering what size the color bars are suppose to be.

I also was wondering about this and Mr. Larson's e-mail didn't accpet my e-mail I sent. I tried making a few ones in Photoshop but look kind of unproportioned. If I find a good looking one I'll post a link of my jpeg for anyone wanting it.

There is no definitive answer to the bar size. "16:9" has become a generic term referring to a wide variety of generally whimsical aspect ratios.

See Rob Lohman's Letter Box Calculator for more info and downloadable mattes.

What gives a better 16:9? Lens or in camera?
 

I was looking at some of the accesories that are available for GL2, and see that there is a widescreen 16:9 lens available.

Would a lens give a substantially better 16:9 picture?
It costs about $699, so it would be a very expensive lens to get (for me anyways), but I intend to shoot some documentaries and a short film I want to submit to sundance 2005, so would it be worth it?

How would you set up the camera with one of those? Would you shoot in 60i or 30p?

A quick second question -

I thought I read someplace that it's better to shoot in 60i so you can convert later to 24p in editing later if you want, but you can't do that with 30p without major problems. Is that correct?

A good anamorphic lens will produce better results than the in-camera 16:9 feature. It will, however, take some practice to learn its use.

You can't really convert 60i to 24p in your editor. If what you're really asking is how to shoot for a future film transfer, then the place to get the best answer is from the film transfer shop you plan to use. They each seem to have different opinions and requirements.

I just bought a Century anamorphic adapter off of eBay, and this thing is awesome. The difference in image quality on a native anamorphic television is dramatic. But even with the adapter, if you were just going to display the image letterboxed on a regular television, the difference would be much less pronounced, and might not be noticeable at all. It's easier to use than I had hoped. Autofocus seems to work just fine, maybe slightly slower than without it, but not by much. It also gives a wider angle of view with very little distortion -- much better than the WD-58. I'm also finding that it's a lot easier to adjust the lens than I had feared, as long you don't obsess about getting it perfectly vertical every time. In fact, you generally want to cheat it out to one side or the other just a little, so it's best to trust your eyes and go with it. Keep an eye on eBay, they show up pretty regularly, and generally sell in the mid-$300 range. I paid $390, which included a Century Series 9 sunshade, and even a Series 9 UV filter.

Ken,
Why do you say you can't easily go from 60i to 24p with software? Isn't it just simply reverse pulldown?

Peter,
(We're veering off-topic here, and this really belongs in the "Film Look" forum.)

I am not the last-word expert on this, but no I do not believe the 60i -> 24p conversion is effectively reachable within an NLE program. It would require a 3rd party product like MB (which operates out of After Effects) to simulate such a conversion to the best of my knowledge.

Oh I see, MB would be better as opposed to Vegas or Premier. Thanks! (sorry for OT :) )

16:9 Bars in post, or during filming?
 

Is it better to crop the image while filming via title mix or is it better just to composite the bars in during post?

I know that during filming, you see instant results. But, if you do it in post, you have the choice of wheather or not you want to use the bars.


And, do you guys think it is a wise choice to crop the image. Personally, I like the look of it.

I prefer using the guide lines that you can enable on the GL2 through its viewfinder, and then cropping in post. I think whenever an effect your planning on using, whether it's simply cropping or something more complex, can be done in post, it should always be done in post.

I guess it's also more of a subjective preference in using the bars. I prefer to capture the entire full frame though, in case something does go past the white lines, you can always move the bars in post, by panning up during the editing process, in case you make any mistakes and anything goes out of frame.

I always shoot in 4:3 and sometimes crop down to a 16x9 in post but not always. I think some things are more suited to the 16x9 shape but you have to decide on whether you want to view it later on a TV 16x9 or 4:3 and then shoot accordingly ie. still shoot in 4:3 mode either way but compose the framing of the shots with the aid of the 16x9 bars if you are gonna crop down post.

There have been a ton of posts on this already and I answered
a lof of them, please use our [url=http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?s=]Search[/url[ to find those
(use words like letterbox etc.). Thanks.

With that being said, there is another advantage to doing it in
post. You have the ability to vertically frame your footage.
Sometimes it's hard to shoot exactly within the 16:9 lines when
shooting, or you find out in post that it looks a bit better when
the picture is slightly higher or lower. With adding bars in post
you can still move the footage underneath the bars up & down.

I agree with what John says. I usually have the guidelines because I usually crop it during post. and the guidelines help me see if I need to edit my pans or what not to match the ratio.

project entirely shot in 16:9 ruined?
 

I shot a documentary in widescreen on a GL-2, and have finished post in Final Cut Pro 3, yet it is not widescreen on my television.

I am wishing I did not shoot in 16:9.

I have read everything about this thread, yet I continue to deny that my project is scrapped. I know it works, because I've accidentally shot in 16:9 and seen the bars on a 4:3 TV.

Can anyone offer me a positive solution to this mess?

More information is needed.

How are you viewing it on the TV? DVD? VHS? Straight from the computer?

Your project isn't scrapped. Not yet.

We can figure this out. (Though I don't know anything about FCP, in Premiere I could help more.)

I echo Bryan's request for more information. You haven't told us enough about your process or problem to enable much constructive advice.

You say you shot your project in 16:9 mode. How did you capture the footage in FCP?