Frame mode/16 X 9 Resolution Loss
 

So, I'm reading a DV INFO.NET article about progressive scan by Steve Mullen, and he describes how the XL1s frame mode delays the row two green elements by one time line and then added to the row three green elements etc etc yadda yadda yadda which results in reduced vertical resultion only giving 320 lines of resolution. Another article I read stated that using the 16 x 9 function further reduces vertical resolution.

Here's my question: If this is the case, why bother? Doesn't that just defeat the whole purpose of the Canon's superb lens optics and 3 ccd capability? So I should just always shoot interlaced, using the 16 x 9 guides and de-interlace in post?

i'd love to hear the answer to this questions. anybody?

It depends what medium you're shooting for, broadcast, internet, VHS, DVD, film etc. Can you be more specific as to your footage's intended use?

Perhaps you should direct your question to people who are actually bonafide shooters, who actually shoot and make their living with the cameras being talked about.

There is no absolute way to state the absolute resolution from any model of camera as it varies with each application, depending upon what lens is used, filtration used and detail settings used. The glass in front of the image plane is what makes the most difference. Quality glass is key. It can be said that the only true way to measure camera output resolution is by using a professional sharpness indicator chart and literally counting the lines resolved over a high quality broadcast monitor. If you do not even have a high quality professional broadcast monitor to begin with, then you are literally wasting your time obsessing about resolution. In any case, the overall image which people will percieve as high quality and professional is a combination and sum total of many things, not just resolution.

There are many professional shooters here who use the XL1S. Some of these people use it for a certain percentage of their work, while some use it exclusively. In any case, most shooters who use the XL1S will agree that they use Frame Mode more often than not. Everyone I know who shoots with an XL1S uses Frame Mode most of the time.

Personally, I utilize many different cameras, including the XL1S. It all depends upon the intentions of the Director and the needs of the client. When I select a camera to shoot with, it is for various reasons which usually differ from project to project. Many times the XL1S does a wonderful job at fulfilling these requirements. When I do choose to shoot with the XL1S, 99.97% of the time I shoot in Frame Mode with the 16X manual/ Servo lens, Century Optics adaptors and occasionally a PL-XL adaptor with a nice film lens and such...

A good friend of mine who specializes in wildlife footage and shoots for very high profile clients as well also shoots in Frame Mode 99.97% of the time. It's the glass used that matters the most.

As our good friend Jeff Donald suggests, whether or not to use Frame Mode depends upon how your footage will ultimately be utilized and viewed. If you shoot news/ ENG footage then shoot in normal Movie Mode/ 60i. That is what news stations are used to.

Frame Mode has a certain look that many people love. It lends itself well to the overall "cinematic look" sought after by many DV filmmakers and content creators who typically produce long-form projects.

If your footage will be presented via streaming video over the web or CD-ROM, go right ahead and shoot in Frame Mode - it looks great.

How exactly is YOUR footage being used?

- don

"So, I'm reading a DV INFO.NET article about progressive scan by Steve Mullen, and he describes how the XL1s frame mode delays the row two green elements by one time line and then added to the row three green elements etc etc yadda yadda yadda which results in reduced vertical resultion only giving 320 lines of resolution. Another article I read stated that using the 16 x 9 function further reduces vertical resolution.

"Here's my question: If this is the case, why bother? Doesn't that just defeat the whole purpose of the Canon's superb lens optics and 3 ccd capability? So I should just always shoot interlaced, using the 16 x 9 guides and de-interlace in post?"

I don't understand the problem in answering such a simple question. My answer is, no it's not always better to shoot 4x3 60i. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

If what you want is a film-like 16x9 look at 30p, you have several options. For 16x9 you can use s a 16x9 anamorphic lens. It's pricey, but makes a huge difference in resolution.

For framerate one possibility is to deinterlace the footage yourself. The nice thing about 60i is that you can fairly easily go to 24p. But if you want 30p, you're probably better off with using Canon frame mode. 60i to 30p conversion will necessarily blur the image a little bit, or show blocky movement.

A lot of people (including myself) are skeptical of Steve's article. While the technical explanations seem sound, the real world results do not match up. I've seen absolutely no resolution loss in frame mode. None. Yes, there is obviously resolution loss in 16x9 mode, but it's not 25%, it's somewhat less. That's because Canon cameras in 16x9 mode still give you a 480 line image but use less of the CCD to do it. The CCD is actually more than 480 lines, so you're somewhat better off using the camera's 16x9 mode.

The lowest quality option will be to do your 16x9 in post, almost guaranteed. That's not true of certain other cameras, but it is of Canon XLS and GL1-2. However certain programs (Vegas for one) can do a good job of this. You may want to do this to have the flexibility of altering the framing of your shots later on (just like filmmakers do!)

So wait, now we like the anamorphic mode in the XL1s? I've been doing it in post. . .it doesn't make sense though, now that I think about it. How could a method that simply chops off 25% of your image have more resolution than a method squeezes all the pixels into the same area?

errrrrrrr,,, ummmmm
 

I was talking solely about Frame Mode in my last post in trhis thread.

I do not recommend using the built-in, electronically interpolated 16:9 from any make or model of camera - it is simply too soft.

The only time I would recommend using built-in electronic 16:9 in any camera would be if you are only purposing your footage to a streaming video or half or quarter-size encode (QuickTime, WMP, Real, etc).

To clarify, I do not recommend using built-in electronic 16:9 (from ANY camera) if you are planning to present your footage full-frame, be it from a video tape, DVD, broadcast over the air or cable or output to film. You can most always get away with the loss of resolution if you are only presenting your footage in a frame size smaller than that of full-frame - such as 320x240, 240x160, etc. If you do shoot this way, make sure you back off on the filtration and diffusion, your image will be soft to begin with. Go ahead and still use Neutral Density filters as needed.

If you are using a camera that does not offer true 16:9 CCD's then your best route to acquire in 16:9 would be as follows:

1) shoot in 4:3 and use Mini35Digital adaptor with a true anamorphic 35mm cinematography lens (well, that WOULD be sweet... if only...) and monitor with a true 16:9 monitor

2) shoot in 4:3 with a Century Optics Anamorphic adaptor and monitor with a true 16:9 monitor

- - the Sony PVM-8044Q will resolve in 16:9 mode, so will the Panasonic/ NebTek NEB70XL LCD panel - -

3) shoot in 4:3 with a Century Optics .6x or .7x Wide Angle adaptor and frame for 16:9, monitoring via a high quality monitor masked with gaffers' tape for 16:9 (or mask your LCD screen with tape for 16:9)

NOTE: the Century Optics Wide Angle adaptor is helping to give you a wider and more 'majestic-looking' field of view which will help in framing for 16:9 to get that 'widescreen' look. Century Optics makes these adaptors for most every camera out there. Keep in mind that Century Optics glass is of the utmost finest quality and more often than not their lens adaptors have more resolving power than the actual lenses on most camcorders. This makes a big difference. Do not substitute the Century Optics adaptor for a lesser brand like Kenko (or any other adaptor not manufactured by Century Optics). I know this sounds like a huge and shameless plug for Century Optics, but I am speaking from experience. Their glass rules and definitely will add to your image rather than being a bottleneck.

- don

Don Berube writes:
> - - the Sony PVM-8044Q will resolve in 16:9 mode, so will the
> Panasonic/ NebTek NEB70XL LCD panel - -

I think Century now offers an anamorphic LCD screen magnifier which will stretch the image into the correct 16:9 proportions. Another option (on the Mac) is a little shareware program called BTV Pro which will take firewire from your camcorder and let you display the full frame in any size and proportion on a powerbook screen.

I agree that the BTV solution is handy if you do not have access to a good monitor that can resolve 16:9. However, you really do benefit from using an NTSC monitor that displays both fields and a true NTSC color space. A VGA screen doesn't do this.

I guess if your footage will never end up on an NTSC screen, then it doesn't matter as much.

- don

Agreed, but just wanted to point out an inexpensive ($45) solution to displaying anamorphic video in the correct proportion. I find it very handy personally. It lets me preview my footage with a director by loading it on my laptop, and I don't need to re-render it in the correct proportions. You are correct that the colors won't be quite right and the resolution is limited a bit. But it does show the full frame, and it's well worth the shareware fee. The program can also do some other cool things, like capture directly to your hard drive and record time lapse video.

Okay wait. . .that Ben Syverson guy says that doing in camera 16:9 (even without the real 16:9 chips) is better than letterboxing in post (obviously not better than buying the anamorphic lens, but screw that). . .you all are saying he's wrong?

It is camera-specific and has to do with how the DV compression comes into play. From what I've read, the Canon's do a better job with in-camera 16:9 while the Sony's are better to crop in post. I don't have a Canon, but did run tests with my VX-2000 and there is a noticeable improvement when you crop in post (see this example).

Rather than trying to conceptualize and theorize and ask everyone else's opinion, why not run your own tests? It really isn't that hard. You can download a resolution chart at bealcorner. Shoot a test with your own camera, export some frames and look at them in photoshop. That way you can form your own opinion and not be colored by the prejudice of others. This is absolutely not intended to question any of the great advice people are giving in this forum! But we all have our own personal styles and values, and in the end YOU will need to be happy with the results.

"I do not recommend using the built-in, electronically interpolated 16:9 from any make or model of camera - it is simply too soft."

Well I do, only on Canons, if you're sure you want 16x9 and don't need the freedom to reframe your shots later. Canon's 16x9 mode is better than doing it in post. I don't think you'll find any comparison where doing it in post is better, and if you do, I'd love to know what software you're using.

That is ONLYL true of Canon cameras. Sony's 16x9 mode, for example, is no different than doing it in post, and some say it's worse.

I stand by my statement. It applies to Canon as well. Note: This is by no means meant to denigrate the usefullness of the XL1S, you all know that I still love to shoot with the XL1S! It's just the reality until we see true 16:9 CCD's incorporated (such as the new Optura Xi with a 2 megapixel "True 16:9 High Resolution" CCD)

I can say that I am speaking from experience. I have tried them all, including the DVX100 and much more expensive GY-DV700. You have to define what price point and what output venue you are referring to at this point. I am simply referring to what is acceptable as professional broadcast full frame or film out. It could be said that this also dictates that you should be shooting with a larger 2/3" CCD - but obviously here we are talking about cameras "under $4000", often referred to as the 'minimum acceptable standard' for professional broadcast full frame or film out...

As I stated, built-in 'electronically interpolated' 16:9 Mode (from any camera not using true 16:9 CCD's) is acceptable and useable enough for anything less than full-frame broadcast or film output. Go ahead and use it if you plan to output to a 1/2 or 1/4 frame size MPEG-1 (or any other encode that is 1/2 or 1/4 frame size). It is simply not detailed enough for professional full-frame broadcast or film out. Sure, it may be viewable via full frame broadcast,,, but it just doesn't look as good as it would had the footage been acquired with a higher-end professional broadcast camera with larger, true 16:9 CCD's.

One camera that does not offer true 16:9 CCD's, but does seem to have enough detail and resolution to make shooting with built-in 16:9 worth considering is the DVX100. Most everybody will agree that the DVX100 does technically output the most detail and resolution out of all of the cameras under the $4000 price point. Note: This is by no means meant to denigrate the usefullness of the XL1S, you all know that I still love to shoot with the XL1S! Now, we all know that resolution is not everything,,, but consider it important if you have to output 16:9 internally with a camera that does NOT offer true 16:9 CCD's... This camera has a built-in 16:9 mode that still outputs 4:3 video, but with a letterbox mask applied - much like you would get if you had shot in 4:3, framed for 16:9 and applied a letterbox mask in post. I would still maintain that you should use a Century Optics .6X or .7x wide-angle lens adaptor in front of the lens to create a wider, more cinematic and 'majestic looking' field of view. The extra resolving power of the CO adaptor really does add to the image. This overall combination looks pretty decent and is definitely worth considering if you have limited post-production hours available and you need to absolutely limit the amount of rendering that you do before your output deadline. Of course, when the upcoming 72mm anamorphic adaptor is made available by Century Optics, then that will clearly be the way to go for anamorphic 16:9 video on the cheaps (with either the XL1S or DVX100). The Panasonic Anamorphic is not resolute enough, exhibits some chromatic aberrations and is not rectilinear (too much barrelling). The Panasonic Anamorphic is quite good enough for home and some corporate video applications though. Just not quite good enough for higher-end professional broadcast or film out.

Now let's be clear that we are referring to outputting to a 4:3 video frame with a 16:9 letterbox mask applied. If you want to output and resolve to a true 16:9 frame (with no letterbox mask), then you simply need to shoot with either an anamorphic adaptor or use true 16:9 CCD's.

If you still maintain that built-in electronically interpolated (or stretched) 16:9 is good enough for full-frame professional broadcast or film out, then I would say that we just have different ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't... it may look good enough for you on a smaller 9" or 14" screen,,, but when you blow it up to a big screen it simply dopesn't cut it. It may be 'good enough' for home or corporate video use, but it isn't high enough in detail and resolution for professional broadcast or film out.

1) If you want to output 16:9 anamorphic video but you do not have true 16:9 CCD's, then: shoot in 4:3 using a Century Optics anamorphic adaptor and monitor with a quality 16:9 NTSC monitor. If you have a flip-out LCD screen on your camera, then also consider using the Century Optics Widescreen Magnifier
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/lcd/lcd_ws.htm

2) If you want to output in 16:9 Letterbox (in a 4:3 video frame, viewable on any 4:3 monitor), then:
a) Shoot in 4:3, use a Century Optics Wide Angle adaptor in front of the lens and frame for 16:9 and resolve to an anamorphic 16:9 frame in post via Final Cut Pro
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...ding_16_9.html

b) -or- shoot in 4:3, use a Century Optics Wide Angle adaptor in front of the lens and frame for 16:9 and apply a letterbox matte to the 4:3 footage in post.
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...ding_16_9.html

This is all changing of course and will inevitably be moot point. Most every new camera model being offered from this point on will provide true 16:9 Modes (either true 16:9 CCD or via megapixel CCD's) so that it will be upwards compatible with the upcoming HDTV broadcast frame size standard(s). Do you think we will ever see one standard fully and universally adaopted world wide? In this lifetime? Hmmmmmm...

- don

"but it just doesn't look as good as it would had the footage been acquired with a higher-end professional broadcast camera with larger, true 16:9 CCD's."

I believe the original question was whether using the XL1S's 16x9 mode was better than shooting with an XL1S in 4x3 and performing the stretching in post. I certainly was not comparing the XL1S 16x9 mode to a higher end camera or to the use of an anamorphic adapter.

If all you have to choose from is built-in 16x9 and post-16x9, and you're using the same camera either way (a Canon) I think the choice is definitely to use built-in 16x9. I have compared using the GL2's 16x9 against taking a 4x3 shot from the GL2 and stretching it myself. The result is definitely better with the in-camera 16x9.

I don't endorse using it over an anamorphic lens or a true 16x9 CCD, of course. Nothing beats a true 16x9 CCD.

As for whether it's good enough for broadcast, I happen to think it is, but it's very subjective.

Okay. . .seems I understand what you guys are saying now. I will try the tests, just the same. I looked at it on my NTSC monitor (not a good enough test?) and they looked the same to me.

Now, let us all hope and pray for our 24p, HD, true 16:9 XL2 to come out. . .come on, bow your heads. . .okay, you're not all bowing. . .ah. . .there. Much better.

Thank you all!
 

I thank you all for the passionate responses. Over the weekend, after my original post, I took my XL1s to a scenic location and shot 15 minutes of video in interlaced mode with the 16 x 9 guides. Upon arriving home, I played the raw footage on a JVC high resolution monitor. Then, via fire wire, I loaded the footage onto my computer utilizing Vegas 4.0 with the properties set to deinterlace. Furthermore, I activated the pan/crop tool, and chose the 16 x 9 letterbox mask from the drop down menu. Here are my findings:

1) The raw footage viewed on my hi resolution JVC monitor looked fabulous even though it was interlaced. It had a soft, filmic quality even though it lacked that "progressive scan" look. I was almost convinced to just shoot all my short features interlaced.

2) For some reason, even though my Vegas 4.0 properties were set to de-interlace, the footage still looked interlaced and when I tried a frame capture, the image shook as if I had made an interlaced frame capture. Rats.

3) The letterboxing mask on the pan/crop dropdown menu did a FABULOUS (and I mean FABULOUS) job.

So, gentle friends, based partially on my own tests and the priceless advice offered by my DV INFO colleagues who had rigorously tested these theories prior to my quest for answers, my wedding videos will be shot entirely in FRAME mode and my indepedent films will be shot entirely in FRAME mode with 16 x 9 guides to facilitate masking in post.

NOW... here's stupid question #436: Did I read on this thread that applying a letterbox mask in post (specifically with the pan/crop tool on Vegas) reduces picture quality/resolution? I kinda thought that the mask just innocently covered the top and bototm of the screen.

HAAAALLLLLP!

I think what they mean by that is that you're throwing away the information at the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame when you apply the letterbox in post, thereby reducing the total number of lines of resolution being used in your picture by 25%. . .not that the portion you WANT to see becomes less sharp.

The in-camera anamorphic mode squeezes the pixes from the top and bottom into that 16:9 portion, so it makes use of them instead of chopping them away.

Thanks Josh
 

Thank you. That clarified it. I mean, who cares if you cover up pixels as long as the portion that shows looks crisp and sharp, right? I will continue to shoot frame mode with the viewfinder guides then mask in post.

Once again, excellent job on your clay animation short, boychic!

L'Chaim

Thanks. That's "award winning" claymation short. About anamorphic, seems more pixels = more resolution, so I'll do the tests when I stop being lazy, and give a final ruling.

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Bass :The in-camera anamorphic mode squeezes the pixes from the top and bottom into that 16:9 portion, so it makes use of them instead of chopping them away. -->>>

Sorry John, you lost me there. You would need a higher resolution CCD to do that since the field of view would need to get wider in order to use those pixels at the top and bottom. Otherwise you wouldn't end up with the correct 16:9 proportion. The only way to use those pixels on the XL1s would be with an anamorphic lens.

In-camera 16:9 works by first cropping the image to 720x360, discarding pixels from the top and bottom. Then it stretches the result back to 720x480 to create an anamorphic image. So the image that's recorded is indeed 480 lines high, but the vertical resolution will only be 360 lines.

So then it DOES do the same thing you're doing when cropping in post. . .albeit with a lower resolution. . .how could this possibly be so confusing?

No no! I understand! I understand what Boyd said. It's amazing that Canon engineers it's 16 x 9 that way. What comes to mind is that old joke: How many idiots does it take to screw in a lightbulb? TEN. One to hold the bulb and nine to lift the house and turn it. Why crop, then fill the screen again? It almost seems like Canon does that on purpose to "zetz" us! makes no sense.

Isn't another drawback in letterboxing in post the corruption of the DV data?

From what I understand, DV only maintains its quality if you don't touch it during editing. As soon as you add titling, adjust color or anything else, you get a drop in quality.

<<<-- Originally posted by Hugh DiMauro : Why crop, then fill the screen again? -->>>

Because you have to change the shape of the video, or it isn't 16:9.

Look, all DV is 720 x 480. That's mandatory, that's what's regulated by the DV spec. It's all 720 x 480 (speaking strictly NTSC here). 4:3 video is 720 x 480. 16:9 video is 720 x 480. What changes to make it be widescreen? The SHAPE of the pixels. The # of pixels doesn't change, but the shape does.

In 4:3, the pixels are slightly tall and skinny. In 16:9, the pixels are slightly short and wide.

So to execute in-camera 16:9, the camera will extract a 16:9-shaped patch from the center of the CCD (which is a 720 x 360 piece of video) and then stretch it to fill the full 720 x 480 frame (because it must be 720 x 480, the laws of DV demand it). The result is video that would look quite squished horizontally if you tried to view it on a 4:3 TV, it requires a widescreen 16:9 TV to be displayed properly.

<<<-- Originally posted by Victor Muh : Isn't another drawback in letterboxing in post the corruption of the DV data?

From what I understand, DV only maintains its quality if you don't touch it during editing. As soon as you add titling, adjust color or anything else, you get a drop in quality. -->>>

Yes, that is technically correct. But the question is, does the in-camera 16:9 damage the video quality more than the post-production uncompress/16:9 stretch/recompress process? In Canon cameras, they do a really pretty good job of the 16:9 process, so even though there is necessarily a resolution loss, it's not too bad, and the stretch is performed before compression. If you know you will want 16:9, and you're shooting on a Canon XL1/GL2, it's probably best to just go ahead and use the in-camera mode.

On a Sony VX2000, it's a different story. The in-camera 16:9 mode is vastly inferior, so you will actually get much better results if you perform the 16:9 conversion in post (assuming you use an excellent resize algorithm, such as provided by Vegas 4.0). Even though there's a decompress and recompress cycle, the results are still much cleaner than the in-camera 16:9 process on that camera.

Oh man! That sucks! I just started shotting my movie in 4 x 3 with the electronic guides and I cropped in post. I'd HATE to have to re-shoot everything in electronic widescreen. Rats!

Oh, by the way, when I letterbox in post, I am just applying a mask in Vegas 4.0 through the pan/crop tool. Are you saying that when I do it that way, it is stretching and squeezing and fondling and all of that? Or is it just covering the top and bottom of the frame? Remember, I'm doing it with one mouse stroke: pan/crop 16 x 9 dropdown letterboxing.

I've heard that Sonic Foundry's codec is really . . .um. . .good, and you lose a lot less with it when tweaking (letterbox, color correction, etc) than with some other codecs. Personally, I don't notice any quality loss from letterboxing after the fact. Granted, I'm looking on my NTSC monitor (14 inches) or a small TV. . .never seen it on a real big screen. I believe as long you render only once, that is, apply all your effects, tweaks, blips, bloops and blops to the raw footage and then render, as opposed to applying some tweaks, then rendering, then applying bloops and blips and re-rendering, you'll be okay. Only time I ever saw a serious loss in quality is when I converted 60i to 24p.

Hugh, you're probably fine, don't even worry about it, you won't have to re-shoot anything. If you're looking for actual anamorphic footage, and you're doing it in post, Vegas is a great place to do it... I'm sure the results of stretching the footage will be competitive with in-camera 16:9.

As far as what you're doing in Vegas, with the drop-down 16:9, if your project has an overall aspect ratio of 4:3, then all that does is add the black bars. If you change your project to be 16:9, then Vegas will automatically stretch the footage to be 16:9.

"Oh man! That sucks! I just started shotting my movie in 4 x 3 with the electronic guides and I cropped in post. I'd HATE to have to re-shoot everything in electronic widescreen. Rats!"

Yeah I told you last week that was the case! :)

But no I wouldn't reshoot anything either. However, given the choice between a simple 16x9 matte and an anamorphic stretch using Vegas, I'd choose the latter. Why? A 16x9 matte is perfect if you'll always be showing on 4x3 screens, but that will no longer be the case.

16x9 Matte:
On a 4x3 TV, it will look perfect. All the lines will be precisely where they should be.
On a 16x9 TV, you will literally only see 360 lines instead of 480 (assuming you're using a Theater Wide crop). Those 360 lines will be used to form the entire image. And let me tell you, with DV video and less than professional-grade MPEG encoding, you can see lots of flaws in the video in this mode on a large TV.

Anamorphic Stretch:
On a 4x3 TV, it will look virtually identical to a 4x3 mask. The anamorphic stretch adds additional lines through interpolation and slight softening. Those lines are just taken out by the DVD player when showing anamorphic material in letterboxed format, so you basically end up with the same 360 viewable lines you would have had had you used the matte.

On a 16x9 TV, you'll fill up the entire TV screen's 480 lines. The image will have been upconverted by the software and thus will look better than just watching 360 lines forming the same image, and any DV or MPEG compression artifacts you might have will be much less apparent.


So in the end, I think you're better off doing the stretch. A final note, you can easily combine footage that you used 16x9 mode for and that which you artificially made anamorphic.

I have heard people put forward the argument to use 4:3 letterboxed to 16:9 rather than an anamorphic stretch. The reason for this is that the encoding will concentrate it's work on the areas that are not black and hence the bitrate will be better in that area. Using anamorphic the bitrate specified for encoding is spread out over the whole image and so as a whole, any one part will get less than the letterbox version.

Aint done any tests myself, just something I've heard.

Aaron

That's right, anamorphic DVDs require about 30% more bandwidth than letterboxed ones.

Also, you should use a higher bitrate for 16x9 material versus 4x3 material anyway, letterboxed or not, because in 16x9 mode those same 720 pixels are being stretched wider than they are in 4x3 mode. So those pixels had better be more accurate because they need to fill up a wider area of the screen.

Bottom line, of course, is that you should use the highest bitrate you can possibly afford on the disk, and the best, 2-pass encoder you can afford. In general, though, 4 mbps is acceptable for 4x3 letterboxed material, whereas you need 5 or more mbps for anamorphic 16x9.

You get the added option to reframe if you shoot in 4:3 . . .

Thanks for all of your help, guys.

wow. good thread guys. i was just wondering about this th other day and in other threads i posted but i guess ya'll just answered my question =D... now is the issue of cost. how much is mini35, century lenses?

Mini35 is around $8,000.00, lenses are additional. You can find all the info you want about it right here on dvinfo.net, in the P+S Technik forum.

whoa... that is wicked expensive. you can get nearly 2 XL1s for that. worth it?

There's nothing wrong with the stock or manual lens, follow focus and matte box. With good lighting the XL1s makes superb pictures.

you mean if i use stock lens and crop top+bottom to make 'widescreen' it'll still be OK>?