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.

i agree with what he said but with the gl2 to it will work on a wide screen tv so why dont you switch the 16:9 guide lines on and when you come to edit it you can just add the black lines in.

I'd wait on that GL1 and go with something like the new smaller Sony HDV cameras HDR-HC1 / HVR-A1 (whichever one is the consumer one is $2000 MSRP). Yes they're HDV and they don't have the Canon Frame Mode, but trust me, you won't be missing it. Also, you'll be able to find more 37mm lenses than looking around for 58mm stuff, 37mm (consumer) and 72mm (prosumer) seem to be the most common sizes for lenses these days when it comes to video cameras. Plus, you won't be losing anything really, you'll be gaining HD(V) and native 16:9! All for a few hundred dollars more than the GL1 and in a smaller package. I have yet to check one out in person, but on paper the HC1 would be the better deal.

Note that he's talking about the GL1 which is a discontinued model that should be considerably less than $2,000 on the used market...

True, but in my opinion, no matter who you are, it would be better to go with something more modern, even the GL2 if need be. I'm using a GL1 right now and I feel so restricted on all fronts compared to all of these other people with their DVX100's, XL2's, FX1's, and such. It would be a shame to see somebody else make the same mistake twice. The GL1 is a bargain, but with everything else coming out, wouldn't it be wiser to wait and, if not, go with something better?

Agreed, which is why I suggested some less expensive DV cameras which shoot true 16:9.

But wait a minute... I just noticed that the original question in this thread dates back to 2002! Ha, ha, I don't think "mdreyes23" is reading any of our words of wisdom, especially since the real name policy has gone into effect since then.

Nothing like timely responses ;)

This method still "stretches the picture" on a 16:9 TV. But adding black bars makes a pretty good letterbox on a 4:3 TV. U can resize an image and then export it in ur pc software as 16:9, but u have to tweak the settings alot, & the picture quality will go down some.

16:9 letterbox recording - possible how?
 

Hey again people: What would you say is the best way to make a 16:9 project using the GL2? Now, I know it doesn't have true 16:9, but I would like to have a final product that has a decent widescreen look and feel. So far everything I've taken from the GL2, through Final Cut Express, and through DVD Studio Pro has come out kind of...I don't know, lacking. The picture is always fullscreen, and a bit of picture that was there when I recorded it and put it on the computer is no longer there after I author it to a dvd. So which part of the process is the most important to get that letterbox, widescreen look? The filming, the editing, or the dvd authoring? Or is it all equally important? Thanks!

Steve

You can shoot in the 16/9 mode of the GL2, but then you get a cropped image in your viewfinder/LCD which makes it difficult to frame or compose your shot.
What I always do (I think the GL2 has this too, I have the xl1s) is, I put on the 16/9 guides on the viewfinder, so I frame my shot in 16/9, but it's recorded in 4:3.
So afterwards, in postproduction (I use Premiere Pro, so I can't comment on how to do it with Final Cut Pro), I put the black widescreen bars, so my composition is right and I have the widescreen.

You can choose between this two ways of doing it, but I prefer the second because it makes it much easier to frame your shot.

Is this process Mathieu is talking about the one explained on the main page of the GL2 Son of Watchdog? I think it is, but can anyone confirm? And does anyone know whether there's anything I need to do when I'm authoring the dvd in DVD Studio Pro? Change any settings, I mean. Thanks for the info, Mathieu

Steve

I read a few threads that made a fairly convincing argument for using 16:9 because (so the theory goes) there is less information being encoded, and so the information that is has less compression. I don't know, but I have been shooting the last twenty hours straight (documentary) with 16:9, and at this point I can tell you that it's just as easy to frame a shot with it elongated as it would be at 4:3. The eye has been trained.

Of course, you lose the benefit of being able to move the image up and down in the visible frame to fix any slightly framing that was slightly "off." That's a very nice feature of shooting 4:3 with guides.

Finally, I want to say that many of the Hollywood films I've watched lately on DVD aren't even using 16:9. They are using the much wider 2.35:1. It has gone beyond just the "epic" ratio and has gotten into many others.

This will work fine on a 4:3 television, but on a 16:9 television the picture will still be "stretched" during playback.

I'm still searching for the perfect solution, I have heard many theories, I have tried them all, and none work too well. Here's my advice if you're planning on having a "true 16:9" picture then record on the GL2 using 16:9 mode. Yes, you lose some quality, but you don't have to fumble around in post with things that probably won't work.

After shooting in 16:9, make sure you set your project in your DVD authoring program to 16:9, then when it's viewed on a 16:9 television it will fill the screen w/correct proportions, and on a 4:3 television black bars will be placed on the top and bottom. *ALSO, make sure the DVD player's menu is set to the correct type of television too (16:9 or 4:3).

Tyler's technique sounds like it's the best option - especially as widescreen TVs are now almost standard in homes.

Is this the way other people are doing it?

GL1 in 16:9?
 

My first camera was a GL1, which we've been using as a second cam to the XL2. lately I've been shooting in 16:9 on the XL2, and would also like to use the GL1 in real 16:9. Is there an additional adapter for the GL1 that would let us get a closer match?
Thanks
Bruce Yarock

Century Optics has a 16:9 adapter, if you don't like the menu setting of your GL1:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/16x9/16x9.htm

That adaptor should give you nice 16:9, but with some limitations on zoom. However, $750 is a lot of money to put into a camcorder of that age...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont....x=0&image.y=0

Is the 16X9 lens adapter something that can enhance a GL2 abilities, or can the GL2 offer the same results with the standard GL2 lens?

Click on I gave up here and see the difference they state to offer, and judge for yourself.

Any 16:9 adapter for the GL1 will be better than the 16:9 menu setting, but that doesn't mean the 16:9 menu setting is useless, just remember to crop it in post accordingly.

I've seen the 16:9 adapter for the GL1 in action at NAB 2005 and it does make a difference, however, to be safe there's always the option of buying the Panasonic Anamorphic adapter, about the same price, and using a 72mm-58mm step down ring and using that on the GL1 for a time and then getting a used DVX100A/B a few years down the line for cheap. But that depends on how much you want to spend on the ol' GL1 I suppose.

Maybe I'm confused on how this works exactly (read some info on the product pages for the adapter). But wouldn't putting a WideAngle adapter on the camera and switching it to 16:9 via the menu give the same effect as shooting in 4:3 with the 16:9 adapter?

16x9 "in camera" vs 16x9 cropped
 

I've searched and searched for a clear answer to this, but I haven't found one yet. Maybe there isn't one?

My question: will I get a better looking video image if I shoot 4:3 and just crop to a 16x9 look in post, or a better image if I shoot in the GL2's 16x9 mode and edit the video in 16x9 format in post?

Do you mean letterboxed 16:9 mode? i.e., the camcorder puts black bars on a 4:3 image to simulate 16:9?

If so, in theory, it would be better to do it "in camera" since the cam's DV encoder can dedicate more of the available bit space to the active parts of the frame. Encoding the black bars uses very little bit space. But it depends on whether the cam is that smart or not.

Actually, I meant the GL2's 16x9 mode, where the image is "stretched" in the viewfinder. I hope that makes more sense.

Travis;

This has been subject of a lot of debate in the Sony PD/VX line too. Essentially, the consensus is that the electronic 16:9 as good as real 16:9 dedicated chips (seems obvious). There is a bit more debate about the choice between the pseudo 16:9 and just adding bars in camera (as in the VX and PDs) or in post. I started a thread and I think the responses apply to the Canon side of things too. Here is thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=88405

Thanks, Chris . . reading that thread now . . .