If you used the in camera 16:9 mode and are viewing your project on a 4:3 TV then the picture will appear sqaushed horizontally. It will appear normal on a widescreen TV. The TV will not compensate for the picture by adding the black bars, the bars will only be present if they are added in post or if you shoot anamorphically.

I posted a topic about cropping in the effects forum with a similar querie. Not entirely sure how you can rectify this.

Well OK. I've shot on GL-2 in 16:9. Everything has appeared squashed in the viewfinder, but my edits have appeared in widescreen in FCP 3.0. So naturally I figured (I was told from a colleague) that when I printed the final cut to tape that FCP would encode it as being shot in 16:9.

That is true, FCP does encode it when printing a final cut to tape. Yet on a TV (a regular TV), it still appears squashed. I trust on a widescreen it would appear as I shot it in letterbox. But who has a 16:9 TV?

So, when I imported files from the tape (remember, shot in 16:9), there was no need to tell FCP to capture in anamorphic...the program saw the 16:9 encoding from the tape.

The only different thing I did was enable my FCP sequences to be anamorphic.

I have found one "solution" since I first posted the question, but it is rather makeshift. When you've shot in 16:9 and capture in FCP, don't work in a 16:9 sequence. Work in a 4:3 sequence (you'll have to render EVERYTHING) and it will appear letterbox on even a normal TV when printed to tape.

Any better solutions are VERY welcome, because I still will have to re-edit the WHOLE project.

It is as simple as the one "solution" you have described. The word to remember is "anamorphic".

You're shooting "anamorphic (squished) 16:9 footage on a 4:3 frame and not 16:9 footage on a 16:9 frame.

OK, take a deep breath, relax, everything is behaving as it should. There is nothing wrong with your project. It makes no difference how you capture the footage in FCP. Checking the "anamorphic 16:9" box only serves to purposes: it enables a flag that tells FCP, other software and widescreen TV's that your footage is anamorphic, and it changes the aspect ratio of the canvas and clip windows within FCP. Even without this flag your footage will look correct on a widescreen TV. And with or without the flag it will look squashed on a 4:3 TV, that's just the way it works.

It sounds like what you're really interested in is letterboxing your material for 4:3 TV's. That's something completely different and there are two simple approaches. Possibly the simplest would be to burn it to a DVD and be sure you have things set properly for 16:9. In this case the DVD player itself will perform letterboxing for 4:3 TV's yet it will display properly and fill the screen on a widescreen TV.

If you don't want to go this route then just create a new emtpy 4:3 sequence in FCP. Now drop your entire completed 16:9 sequence into that. FCP will automatically letterbox it to fit the 4:3 window. This will require rendering the new sequence, but after that you'll have both a letterboxed version plus your original 16:9 anamorphic version.

16x9
 

I know this has been talked about but I need a straight forward answer. I am doing a movie trailer for Hamlet for English class. I was going to do 16x9. Is it better for me to shoot normal 4:3 with 16x9 guides and do the actual cropping in post or shoot in 16x9 straight from the cam. Need help fast because I will be shooting tomorrow.

Frame in 16:9
 

Hi Joel, you are coorect we have just covered this in another section, but the direct answer is shoot 4:3 framing in 16:9 using the guide lines in the XM2 (GL2).
Then crop to 16:9 in post production.

I have been doing this for years now and it works well.

Something that may be of some use, I run the old Canopus DVRaptor card and as a result I downloaded a free piece of software from Canopus called Video Tools, this piece of software has a built in 16:9 letterbox effect which works well.

Regards, Cliff Elliott

I agree basicly with Cliff, but I would add that if you intend playing the material back on a widescreen set, then I would shoot the original in 16:9 anamorphic. It really all depends on the platform on which the final product is to be viewed.

Robin.

We are going to play it on a normal TV we just want the "Letter Box" look. I will be editing with Premiere Pro. THanks for the help

Re: 16x9
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Joel Ruggiero : I know this has been talked about but I need a straight forward answer. I am doing a movie trailer for Hamlet for English class. I was going to do 16x9. Is it better for me to shoot normal 4:3 with 16x9 guides and do the actual cropping in post or shoot in 16x9 straight from the cam. Need help fast because I will be shooting tomorrow. -->>>

Which software are you talking about? Power Tools for the Raptor? I also have a Raptor, an RT2Max to be exact and I think that I'm familiar with the effect, however it's nothing more than crop bars, alpha channel setup for matting out the top and bottom of the screen.

If there is anything on their site that actually takes 4:3 and shifts it to 16:9, let me know! That's what I'm looking for and I'm aware of DV FILMMAKER but I'm not interested in paying for something that only does 1 little thing.

THanks in advance

16:9 mode on GL2
 

Hey there,

I recently purchased a GL2. I have been using my JVC GR-DVP3U for years but always knew I was missing a lot in the video quality department.

I love the GL2. Great video quality and lots of neat features.

One thing I have a question about is the 16:9 mode. Basically, what does this do?

Am I getting a wider image or are the tops and bottoms just being hacked off the 4:3 image to make it appear 16:9?

I've tried doing some test shots to compare. It seems I'm seeing more in the 16:9 shots but my tests were pretty basic and I wanted to run this by others and find out what's really going on.

Thanks!

Charlie

I've seen several threads on this. I'm still no expert but basically I can tell you that the GL2 reduces the horizontal lines to get the affect. Some have said you lose some of the video quality while others said it does not and that it just crops off the top and bottom portion.

You could use the search feature and you'll have a few hours worth of threads to read through.

The gl2 uses the classic crop and stretch technique (same as virtually every miniDV camcorder with a 16:9 feature. (except the new xl2). It crops the image to a 16:9 frame size, jettisoning the upper and lower pixels. Then the camera stretches the image vertically to fill the 720x480 DV pixel dimension. In post your software, or television will stretch the image horizontally to fill the 16:9 frame. Both of these stretches cause a visible softening of the image, but depending on your viewing medium, this may or may not be a problem. You may also try setting the 16:9 guides, and then adding a letterbox in post. I've blown this type of image up on my HD set...and it looks pretty good.

Barry

so, your recomending shooting in 4:3 and converting or croping to 16:9 later? is you are, how would you apply this 16:9 ratio in adobe premiere? if anyone knows, it would really help me out, thanks!

I don't use Premiere but in case you didn't know, there is a 16:9 frame you can turn on in the GL2 to guide your shots while youre' shooting in 4:3 mode.

Matt,

The method I'm offering (not necessarily recommending over the crop and stretch method) really doesn't involve a 16:9 output in premiere. Its a simple letterbox technique, that will play on a 4:3 set with black bars on the top and bottom. When playing on a widescreen tv, you would use one of the zoom options for playback. I do it on a 34" widescreed HD Sony Wega, and it looks very nice. There are occasional jaggies in high contrast areas and fast movement, but typically it looks better than most SD broadcast sources...

Realistically there isn't a lot of difference between the two methods..they are both using the same area of the ccd's...the difference is doing the blow up in camera and software, versus using the monitor's hardware...if I had to guess, the crop and stretch method would produce a slightly softer, less pixelated image, whereas the letterbox might be a tad crisper with occasional jaggies (this would depend on the monitor's conversion method.)


Barry

Ok, so this is what I thought. The 4:3 image is just being cropped.

My other cameras have a "widescreen" mode butt he quality was terrible so I never used it. The picture quality with this GL2 in 16:9 mode is much better.

While my TV can handle the widescreen pictures most of the people who would ever see my video don't so I'm going to keep everything in 4:3 and use the 16:9 guides as you've suggested. If I want a "widescreen" version later I can make one in Premiere easy enough.

Thanks for the replies!

Charlie

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : The gl2 uses the classic crop and stretch technique (same as virtually every miniDV camcorder with a 16:9 feature. (except the new xl2). It crops the image to a 16:9 frame size, jettisoning the upper and lower pixels. Then the camera stretches the image vertically to fill the 720x480 DV pixel dimension. In post your software, or television will stretch the image horizontally to fill the 16:9 frame. Both of these stretches cause a visible softening of the image, but depending on your viewing medium, this may or may not be a problem. You may also try setting the 16:9 guides, and then adding a letterbox in post. I've blown this type of image up on my HD set...and it looks pretty good.

Barry -->>>

One followup question I failed to ask last week is:

In the 16:9 shooting mode I'm not actually seeing any more image on the sides, correct? It's the same 4:3 image with the top and bottom cropped, correct?

I did some test shots. I think it's the same width, just stretched for the 16:9 ratio. My friend swears he sees a wider image.

I think he's just easily misled.

<In the 16:9 shooting mode I'm not actually seeing any more image on the sides, correct? It's the same 4:3 image with the top and bottom cropped, correct?>

Correctamundo. No extra coverage.

Barry

Ok, sorry if these are all novice/rookie questions. Since I'm a novice/rook, especially with a GL2, please forgive.

So my plan is to skip shooting in 16:9 mode. I can always change it in Premiere should the "need" come up. Which I don't think will happen. No one in the family even has a true widescreen display anyhow.

Thanks for the responses. This has been a great resource for DV info in general and the GL2 in particular.

Charlie

16x9 Output Question
 

After buying a widescreen HDTV, I started shooting some video on my GL-2 in 16:9 format. When viewing this video on the tv I found that the tv autoswitches to full screen (which it should do) but the apparent sharpness and definition of the video suffers greatly. When I shoot in 4:3. the video does not fill the screen but is razor sharp.

What exactly happens when you switch to 16:9? Is the camera disposing of some pixels (and thus reducing resolution) just to arrive at a 16:9 ratio?

Bob Reed

Yes.
It's cropping top and botom and then electronically stretching the image to give a FHA (Full Height Anamorphic) image which widescreen TVs will unstretch to give the 16:9 picture.

Robin

16:9 on GL2
 

How do you shoot 16:9 format on the GL2. I see a 16:9 setting in the Camera Set Up Menu but the 16:9 mienu item is "pinked out" and I'm unable to set it.

Any suggestions?

Hi Mickey,
Do you have the camera in "green box" program exposure mode? That may be your problem.

Ken,
You are the man. Duh. Amazing how your brain checks out when you are under the pressure of an immediate shoot. You saved the day...and in a timely manner. DVInfo is the greatest.

Mickey

Mickey: keep in mind that shooting in 16:9 on the GL2 does not
give you an increased resolution or expanded Field-of-View since
it is a fake 16:9. You probably already know this, but I just want
to be safe!

16:9 on XM2 for Grazie?
 

Or should I bother? . . . I'm presuming that by the time I get it done the resolution will be uninspiring?

Anybody got a thought on the matter? Apart from stepping up to a native 16:9, anybody got a recipe for success?

Grazie

Try to work in 4:3 mode with 16:9 display markers on. That will give you chance to compose the shot for 16:9 while having 4:3. Works for me. If i somehow decide later that i want 16:9 i just add black bars in posts. Works for me.

Hiyah! - So you don't bother with the 16:9 conversion squash?

Graham,

I always used to swing hot and cold with the in-built conversion option. Sometimes I liked it, others, I hated it. It really depends on your subject. The resolution loss is just too much for any wide shots, but if there are lots of talking heads and general close work, it isn't too bad. I've had interview stuff broadcast with it, so it's certainly no worse than the PD150/170 material that tends to get used straight from the camera,ie. no ARCing done by a Snell & Wlcox box.
Other times, I've been more than happy with shooting 4:3 and post-cropping.
You can of course use the built-in title mix tool to insert black bars top and bottom, which will save any cropping in post. The only drawback with this is if you apply certain effects in editing, you'll be changing the whole image, including the colour of the top and bottom bars!

Robin

Happy St Davids Day!
 

HAPPY ST Davids Day! CYMRU!

Robin thanks, I'll get back to yer on these matters too. BUT today I've got a showing of my latest 4:3 work at the British Library! Ahah!

Grazie

uprez
 

There is a program called Photozoom I believe. You can uprez your 4:3 footage into nice 16:9 footage.

I shot my entire trip to Peru in 16:9 and my trip to Catalina Island in 16:9. I love the way that it fills my widescreen TV and it is sharp. The entire Catalina trip was shot with my WD-58H wide adapter in place.

From what i have gathered, on a GL2 a result would be better shotting from the in camera squashed mode of 16:9, instead of cropping, as opposed to where the vx series are better to crop then shoot in the squashed mode. But up to you, in 4:3 with guides you are left with more options, but if you know you want 16:9 go with the incamera mode.

Alex B

I've read that if you use the in camera squashed 16:9 the DV compression stuff is better. There are less dots to share the DV stream...

..and if you had no creative preference between 16/9 or 4/3 but considered there was the CHANCE of your production being taken up by a non-terrestrial tv channel for the uk market...which would you shoot?

I don't know what the "non-terrestrial tv channel for the uk market" would prefere, but I would go for 4:3. I would display the 16:9 framing lines and frame for that. (Every now and then I forget to keep an eye on the framing lines so I have to reframe it in post...)

16:9 on XM2 - any good?
 

My brother and I have just bought an XL2 for our new video production business and we would like an additional camera for supplementary footage (ie: cutaways). I know the XM2 is unlikely to produce 16:9 footage on a level with the XL2 but is its "squeeze" mode
of an acceptable quality for DVD? Good 16:9 will be the deciding factor in choosing the 2nd camera.
Thanks in advance.

Nope, the 16:9 mode isn't very good, but it's a lot better than lower model cameras. I don't trust the idea of using the GL1/GL2 for a B camera for the XL2, unless you're shooting strictly for 60i, but that's just my opinion.

You can't use the GL2 for 24p shooting. But 30p might, just "might", look good mixed together. Shooting in 16:9 for DVD has worked really well for me, but you don't really get that fullness that the XL2 16:9 gets, it's stretched of course, so it requires some work to look really good. I hope that helps, if at all.

P.S. I know you're talking about the European models, just replace GL1/GL2 with XM1/XM2 and 24p with 25p in my answer.

You might have a look at the PDX-10 if 16:9 is you primary interest. It has hi-res CCD's which can shoot native 16:9, and at the current price of $1,600 it's a real bargain. Visit our forum for more info.

GL2 4:3 with 16:9 letterboxing
 

I am an amatuer filmmaker who just bought a GL2 after much research and reading on lenses, etc...my question is, I hope to take some of the things I may shoot with this to festivals and maybe to film...I've read that the 16:9 isn't that great and so I'm going to shoot in 4:3 and letterbox it with magic bullet. Does anyone know if this is stupid and should keep it at 4:3 or just go with the 16:9...has anyone shot like this? Until I have the money to get the XL2, I have to decide what to do...I really don't want to shoot in 4:3...I like the 16:9 framing, etc...if anyone has any ideas on this, it would be much appreciated. If I letterbox it, what will it look like on film? It will be 4:3 with artificial letterbox, I know, but anyway...I hope someone has some ideas...thank you very much.