Hopewell. The BEST Saab and Volvo mechanic in the US is there. Know it pretty well.


Actually, what I understand (and I admit I might be wrong) is that when you set to 16:9 mode you are not "exposing" the full CCD but that lines of the CCD are turned off (or "cropped" as is refered to above) during recording.

And during playback on a 4:3 TV you actually get a full screen image but it looks slightly "stretched". This is the same way you see it in the viewfinder.

Not until you process the footage (I did it in Final Cut Pro) that the bands are added so you get the 'widescreen' look.

This whole topic interests me since I've decided to switch to 16:9 for an upcoming project that will be digitally projected on a large screen. Actually I'm working with Sony equipment instead of Canon but the principles are the same. Have been thinking about getting an anamorphic adaptor for awhile, but they're so expensive considering what you get. You can't zoom through the whole range and maintain focus and you may get vignetting at full wide settings. Plus you can't use wide angle or telephoto adaptors with them, and filters and lens hoods that work with them are also expensive.

I had been considering ZGC's "DV Filmmaker Kit" http://www.zgc.com/html/dv_filmmaker_kit.htm but at $1,200 it's pretty pricey. So after much consideration, I just bought a Sony PDX-10 camcorder. This (to the best of my knowledge) is the only lower priced real 16:9 camera on the market. It has 3 - megapixel CCD's and when you switch to widescreen mode actually uses an expanded area to give you a wider field of view with more image data. I've only had this camera for two days, but have been performing a bunch of test and am very pleased with the results. Soon I'll put some of this stuff on the web if anybody is interested. Specifically, I shot a focus chart in both 4:3 and 16:9 using my VX-2000 and the PDX-10. You can clearly see the improved vertical resolution when you compare them. In "real world" shots you can also see the improvement, specifically in any fine lines (like tree branches for example) and also less "stair stepping" in diagonal edges.

Now I suppose it really depends on what you're shooting and its intended use as to whether the built-in 16:9 on the XL-1s, GL-2, PD-150, etc. is good enough. If you're shooting lots of close ups with faces it may not matter. Also if you're just letterboxing for 4:3 it won't make much difference. But I'm going to be projecting this footage on a 40 foot screen as part of a multimedia production. DV is already pretty "soft" for that sort of application and I want as much resolution as possible.

The PDX-10 costs a little over $2,000 which isn't that much more than the anamorphic lens and a few accessories. The images look very nice, although there are some ergonomic issues with the camera that I'm not completely happy with. I don't know if I'd want it as my only camera; it's very small. Hopefully Canon and Sony with soon introduce new versions that also offer true 16:9 capabilities. But for now if you really need 16:9 and are working on a budget you might want to take a closer look at this camera.

Oh yeah guys... I'm located in Medford, NJ so I guess we're all neighbors :-)

I've read as much as I can about this, and one thing perplexes me.

From most of what I read, people have said that when you shoot 4:3 and then crop in post, you lost 25% image resolution. That info was found here. http://members.macconnect.com/users/...een/index.html

However, Adam Wilt says this about the 16:9 mode in camera:

"The "wrong way" is wrong because the resultant image only uses 360 lines (525/59.94) or 432 lines (625/50) of the CCD instead of the entire 480 or 576. When this is displayed anamorphically on your monitor, the camera has digitally rescaled the lines to fit the entire raster, but 1/4 of the vertical resolution has been irretrievably lost, and the in-camera algorithms used to stretch the image often create ugly sampling artifacts."

The XL1s, VX2000 etc. do it the wrong way.

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen



SO, it appears that both methods do exactly the same in that both end up losing 1/4 verticle resolution? Seems to me the only way to go is to use the adapter.

<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Simmons : SO, it appears that both methods do exactly the same in that both end up losing 1/4 verticle resolution? Seems to me the only way to go is to use the adapter. -->>>

I agree, and you really can't argue with the math; 480 is more than 360. There may be some room for different opinions as to whether one will really notice this in the sort of images that you're shooting however. And that has a lot to do with the composition of the picture and how it's being presented. I'm working on a show where we'll project DV on a 40' wide screen with a 12,000 lumen DLP projector so I don't want to waste a single pixel ;-)

But anamorphic adaptors have their own set of problems. You can't zoom through the full range and maintain focus. You get some vignetting at full wide. According to the reviews, both the Optex and Century have their own form of blurring that occurs under certain conditions. And of course you're stuck with the native field of view that the adaptor offers; you can't add a wide or telephoto adaptor to the anamorphic lens. Then there are also issues of sunshades and filter holders which pretty much force you into another expensive accessory.

I have a VX-2000 but think these issues are pretty similar on most of the prosumer camcorders. Well, actually I was just looking on Century's website and they don't even list an anamorphic adaptor for the XL-1s. They make one for the GL1/GL2. I guess the issue is the 72mm filter size; ZGC will sell you the Optex with a 52mm step down ring but they say it will vignette if you zoom wider than 10mm.

After pondering these limitations, plus the cost of buying the adaptor and lens shade ($1,240 for ZGC's DV filmmaker kit) I decided against it. Seems like too much of a "kludge" to spend that kind of money on. Instead I spent a bit more and bought a Sony PDX-10 which uses a larger CCD to do 16:9 the "right way". This camera has some compromises of its own, but I'm very happy with the widescreen results I'm getting. And with a 37mm filter size I was able to add a .45x wide adaptor for a bit over $100 which works with the supplied oversized lens hood and accepts inexpensive 49mm filters.

From all that I've read, the XL-1s is a fine camera with lots of strong points. But it sure sounds like the wrong tool to use if widescreen is important to you. Or maybe there's an actual anamorphic lens (not an adaptor) that works with the XL-1s? Bet that would be expensive though ;-)

Posted by Boyd

"There may be some room for different opinions as to whether one will really notice this in the sort of images that you're shooting however. And that has a lot to do with the composition of the picture and how it's being presented."


You make a really good point about composition Boyd.
Regarding those adapters, I believe they do make one for the XL1s which is 72mm.

http://www.zgc.com/html/optex_xlanamorphic_adapter.html

But the cost is $2600. Way out of my budget just to get widescreen. That is different from what you were talking about right? I think I read somewhere else that Century was coming out with one for the xl1s that has full zoom through? Am I wrong about that, or anyone know if that already come out?

I have one quick question.

If you shoot 16:9 on an Xl1s, will is display correctly on a widescreen tv? This may be a dumb quesiton buy you never know...I mean...will it display correctly without image artifacts etc? I don't have access to one and I was just curious.
I know how everyone calls it fake 16:9, so I'm not sure it will be displayed "fake" on a widescreen tv somehow.

If I am not mistaken, then yes. It will play correctly in the widescreen tv.

Yes, the television, at least Sony, recognizes it as 16X9 and fills the screen appropriately. Or stretches it.

Cheers!

This may be somewhat dependent on how you capture and output in your NLE. There's supposed to be a signal embedded in the DV stream to indicate 16:9. Be sure to flag your footage as such to insure that this happens.

hey you guys from jersey, phili and DC.

i'm sorry to interrupt but as i was reading this i thought you might be able to answer my question as well. it has nothing to do with this topic however.

i'm looking to get a camera and am looking for a shop to go look at cameras before i buy a new one.

do any of you know of anything in the b-more, DC, pa, delaware area that i might be able to look at the canons and panasonics?

i know B&H in new york but didn't want to have to make the 4 hour trip up there in i didn't have to.

thanks a lot and sorry to add this off topic reply.

thanks again. J.

Jeremy,

You may want to check out Videosmith in Philly. http://www.videosmith.com Check their website for phone #, address, etc.

HTH,

Bill

excellent thanks. that's about 3 hours from me i think. but closer than new york.

thanks bill.

anyone else have any suggestions?

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Markel : You may want to check out Videosmith in Philly -->>>

Wow, I saw this website long ago but had no idea they were located in Philadelphia, in fact just a couple miles from our production center! They should really advertise somewhere, like one of the trade mags cause I would have gladly dropped a few bucks there instead of dealing with out of town places. I never even saw them listed in the local yellow pages either. Thanks for the tip, will have to check them out.

I've bought some extras for my camera there. They're good people. Very helpful.

Bill

Just a thought.

1) Always shoot in 16:9

2) Post it in 4:3
- Stretch the 16:9 footage to the left and right boundaries of the 4:3 composition. Thus creating the horizonal 16:9 borders which will show up on a regular fullscreen TV.
-If full screen is required, then simply let the 16:9 footage overflow the 4:3 composition workspace? So basically the composition boundaries crop the overflow from the 16:9 footage.

Wouldn't this make sense?

Not sure if I understand the last part. Are you suggesting turning 16:9 footage into 4:3 by chopping off the left and right side. Very bad idea. Using a camera like the XL-1s, you throw away 25% of the available pixels in 16:9 mode, creating a 720x360 image. If you later chop off the sides to recreate a 4:3 image you'd be discarding another 25% of the pixels, effectively reducing your resolution to 480x360. I doubt that you'll be happy with the results after after throwing away 50% of your image data....

If you dropped the left and right extra from the 16:9 it would be just as if you shot in 4:3 originally and the camera didn't capture that extra bits to the left and right that overflow the 4:3.

That's what I do, and it works the same as if I shot originally in 4:3 but now I also have the option of also using 16:9 without having to reshoot.

Here's the problem with this idea. When you switch to 16:9 mode it takes your 720x480 image and crops the top and bottom off, ending up with a 720x360 image. Then it's stretched back into an anamorphic 720x480 image. But you've lost 25% of the vertical resolution.

So if you take the resulting 16:9 and chop off the right and left side to make it into 4:3 you're throwing away another 25% of the original. It has the same effect as though the original image was only 480x360. So you're really not producing an image that comes nearly up to the quality that the camera is capable of. You have literally thrown out 50% of your resolution. If that works for you, fine. From a technical point of view it won't give you very good results.

I would letterbox the footage. That way you "only" loose the
vertical resolution and not the extra loss Boyd talks about.

In premiere just start a 4:3 project, import the 16:9 footage,
drag it to the timeline, right-click on it and select maintain
aspect ratio. Instant letterbox.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : I would letterbox the footage. That way you "only" loose the
vertical resolution and not the extra loss Boyd talks about.

In premiere just start a 4:3 project, import the 16:9 footage,
drag it to the timeline, right-click on it and select maintain
aspect ratio. Instant letterbox. -->>>

This is what I meant. You're maintaining a 16:9 image within a 4:3 comp.

Although now I'm just going to start experimenting with a lot of different ways as talked about in this thread. Thanks for the input.

Okay, but that is different from the effect you described. Because
in this way NOTHING gets chopped off from the sides. The full
image is retained in the horizontal. Only the vertical is un-scaled
and then black bars added.

Right, as in to keep the 16:9 but if fullscreen is desired I would have just cut out the sides and left it rest at 100% vertical.

Kevin, you cannot leave the vertical resolution because it is
scaled. If you do NOT scale this back for a 4:3 TV all people will
look very tall etc. (long faces). You cannot crop the sides to
get a full 4:3 image (technically you can, but the aspect ratio
is incorrect).

A 16:9 image has much higher pixels than they are wide (before
it is unsquashed/scaled) instead of 4:3. Therefor you do either
the followin:

1. output to 16:9 TV -> leave the signal as is

2. output to 4:3 TV -> scale the vertical back and add black bars

3. unknown TV -> do the same as 2

The only exception is when you are going to DVD. Make sure
you author the DVD correctly so that it knows your footage is
16:9 anamorphic. Then the DVD player will either do step 1
or step 2 (in realtime) when the user has indicated it doesn't
have a widescreen TV

Thanks, Rob :)

No problem!

You know I've been planning and shooting in 4:3 for a while now and framing and matting for widescreen but we got hired to shoot part of a BBC documentary and the producer wanted it shot 16:9, so we did.

I have to say I was impressed with the footage and how "filmish" it looked with little effort on our part and with lighting that was beyond our control. (I love the XL1S more all the time!)

The nice thing about Final Cut Pro and the XL1S is that it can communicate with the camera and knows when it's capturing 16:9 and you don't have to reset anything.

I was reading a few things here about no loss of quality shooting either way and honestly if I have a situation where someone or some market wants full screen we'd alter the 16:9- - I"m getting ready to shoot a film and have been going back and forth on a daily basis (my DP has given up on me and says that as long as I tell him that day what we are shooting it that's soon enough for him) but I'm pretty sure we'll shoot 16:9.

LOL! But I might change my mind....

I'm trying to find the best way to shoot 16:9 video with my GL2. From what I have read so far, it seems you get slightly better resolution using the electronic 16:9 mode instead of cropping and scaling 4:3 footage, correct?

When I capture 16:9 footage into Final Cut Pro (version 4.5 HD), will it automatically convert the stretched 4:3 image back into the native 16:9 image that I want to edit with? If not, how do I change the Final Cut canvas to a 16:9 format?

One last thing...
I will be outputting the video to DVD using DVD Studio Pro 3. How can I encode/process the video so that it will automatically play correctly on any TV without making seperate 4:3 and 16:9 versions of the movie? For example, can I have one version of the 16:9 video on a DVD that plays with black bars (letterboxed) on a 4:3 TV, but automatically stretches to fill the entire image of a 16:9 TV?

Rob Lohman mentioned something about authoring your DVD correctly so that the DVD player knows your footage is 16:9 anamorphic. How do I do this in DVDSP3?

Thanks,
Chris

Chris: I cannot help you with your Mac specific questions and
software for that platform since I do not have a Mac. Perhaps it
would best to repost the DVD anamorphic authoring question
as a new thread, I'll try to walk by your other questions as good
as I can.

You will not get better resolution but less compression since
all the pixels being compressed are the ones being used. If
you shoot 4:3 and then crop you will throw away compression
bandwidth you could've used for details in other places. What
you gain with 4:3 and cropping is choice to re-frame your footage
as you see fit.

Usually in your NLE (Final Cut Pro in this case) you select a 16:9
project and the NLE will show you the widescreen image instead
of a distorted picture.

Yes, you can do this with DVD. The DVD system has been setup
to postpone the 16:9 vs. 4:3 option till later in the process,
namely the DVD player.

With VHS recordings for example the decision is made at recording
time. It is stored in 4:3 or letterboxed 4:3. In theory you could
also put 16:9 on a VHS tape, but I've never seen any.

With DVD you store the 16:9 file and indicate that it is 16:9 and
not 4:3. A DVD player checks this on playback and either does
two things. Nothing or scales it back to 4:3 and adds letterboxing.

How does it know how to do this? Through the setup screen
each DVD player has. Here you can indicate whether you have
a widescreen anamorphic 16:9 capable TV/projector etc. attached
or not.

However to get this all to work you must author your DVD's
correctly. I'm 100% sure DVDSP can do this. I don't know what
program does the MPEG2 encoding on the Mac platform but when
this is done a special 16:9 flag must be turned ON. Also when
authoring the DVD this flag must be turned ON so the DVD player
knows what kind of content is on the disc.

This is the best explenation I can give you with my limited
knowledge of the Mac platform. I hope it is of some use to you.

16x9 0n XL1
 

I alwayas use the crop guides

3 X wide - Shoot in 16:9 or 4:3 camera mode
 

Hello, one quick question since i can't find it anywhere else.

When using the canon 3x wide angle lens, do you shoot in 16:9 or 4:3 on the camera?

I always shoot in 4:3 regardless of the lens, then if I want 16:9, I crop it in post.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : I always shoot in 4:3 regardless of the lens, then if I want 16:9, I crop it in post. -->>>

I do too, but I've never experimented much on how to actually crop it in Vegas, where there's the correct aspect ratio, but no black bars. I'm doing a video this weekend, about 400+ import tuner cars on a cruise with a Fall theme, I'd like to do a widescreen piece.

If you open the crop screen for a video piece you can choose a
16:9 widescreen mask to crop it. I usually add a 16:9 mask as
a top track in Vegas so I don't need to set it for every video
piece. You can find some masks etc. on my calculator page

Great page you have there Rob, though I've been trying to completely crop a piece, not just mask it (which I have been doing, but I've never been happy with it). I'm sure it's something simple I'm missing.