16:9 vs. 4:3 opinion

Dylan Couper · November 17th, 2002, 10:39 AM

(droooool)

Yeah, we're not jealous.... ;)

Ken Barnes · November 18th, 2002, 02:40 AM

John and others,
Well I did a couple of tests with my XL1 and with both my home theatre and the school's projector, the main difference being the size of projected image and the fact that my home theatre has a 16:9 native aspect ratio whereas the one I used at school does not, and no way that I could find on the latter projector menu to 'stretch' the image. It might be an older projector.

So this raises some questions on shooting 16:9/projecting 16:9 vs. shooting 16:9/projecting 4:3 (and other combinations) I'm not clear about. But I'll skirt that issue for now and tell you what I saw.

I could find no noticeable difference in image quality between the same subject that was shot 16:9 vs. what was shot 4:3 using either projector. That's my eye. I highly recommend doing your own tests before committing one way or another. I'm sure there is some technical difference and if the balance of advice says shoot 4:3 and deal with it in post, then that's probably what I would do despite my own test. Besides, I more than likely didn't account for something or other that will not doubt be pointed out shortly in replies.

I realize my answer isn't very commital, but I'd really hate you to shoot your movie based soley on my test.

Ken

Nathan Gifford · November 18th, 2002, 08:23 AM

I hope this thread keeps going. Right now the biggest downside to the XL-1(S) line is the lack of a anamorphic lens. If the difference between electronic and optical 16:9 is small enough. I may start shooting in that mode.

Derrick Begin · November 18th, 2002, 11:06 AM

I hope this thread does continue...

I am closing in on the end of my short, hopeful, for submission to festivals and the such.

I shot my 20+ minute DV in Frame (16x9) mode. I am definately eager to project it, after a bit of color correcting, and tinkering. There will be one cut for television use/another for projection/ and others I'm sure to be kicked in the pants later on.

Here is the thing about some of the festivals, however, they require different formats. I contacted a few and some want it converted to DigiBeta or HD or something else. This is propably the subject of another thread.

So, please share your results...

Thanks for your work!

Cheers!

Derrick

Paul Sedillo · November 18th, 2002, 01:04 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : Here is the thing about some of the festivals, however, they require different formats. I contacted a few and some want it converted to DigiBeta or HD or something else. This is propably the subject of another thread.
-->>>

DigiBeta or HD?? Good grief do they think that we indie filmmakers are made of money. Were the festivals that you talked with the larger ones out there or were smallers ones making this request?

Derrick Begin · November 18th, 2002, 01:29 PM

Paul,

Tribeca Film Festival and ... Its been awhile, but I know for sure that Tribeca requires you to transfer to DigiBeta/BetaSP or HDCam or 16MM. I was timetabled to finish my DV Short, so I could get it to them, but I decided against rushing it. However, thats if you get into the festival. (I can only imagine the kind of transfer and then the technical tweaking you as the filmmaker, have to do to get the results you want the audience to experience.) It discouraged me, and I am in the middle of the short. There is no time for being wishy washy...

I haven't looked back into it for awhile. About 3 mos. Though I am nearing the completion and I am definately submitting. The big ones and the smalls.

I hear you, Paul loud and clear. I spent the good part of an 8 hour day, tracking down prices at production houses to convert, once I finish it. I found a few people... For the lovely cost of about 80.00 + this + that + the damn plastic case for your tape.

Can't let it stop me though. Saving up my deposit bottles...

Cheers!

Derrick

Ken Barnes · November 19th, 2002, 02:54 AM

Here's a very good link about the 16:9 issue in detail. The entire site is awesome.

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

Ken

November 19th, 2002, 01:00 PM

<<<--

My goal on this next film is to shoot something that might actually have a chance at getting in some film festivals. And I want it to have as "cinematic" a look as possible. -->>>

by no means am I a expert with the XL1s but I have seen some footage shot with the "black bars movie look" and it looks like crap-ola in my opinion. It just shrinks it unlike real 16:9

November 19th, 2002, 02:35 PM

My son-in-law's father owns Foto-Kem in Burbank. They're on top of techno trends in the industry, so I was pretty much blown away when Michael told me they're recommending to people they shoot in the 16:9 mode on the XL-1/Xl-1s if they want to finish 16:9. I had asked him about shooting 4:3 using the 16:9 guides. He said that's the way to go if you think a print might be needed in 4:3, but if all you're going to want is 16:9 then go with what the camera will do.

He also recommended shooting in the Normal Mode, rather than Movie Frame Mode, if your intent is to output to film.

Ken Barnes · November 19th, 2002, 11:09 PM

<<He also recommended shooting in the Normal Mode, rather than Movie Frame Mode, if your intent is to output to film.>>

Given the website I posted earlier, this makes total sense. Except that in PAL, Movie frame mode is okay. It has to do with converting NTSC's (almost)30fps to film's 24, whereas PAL only needs to convert from 25fps to 24fps.

"For the 625/50 XL1s sold in PAL countries, the 25fps video frame rate will make for an even closer match.

This is very exciting, especially for anyone wanting to originate on 25fps DV and transfer to film for release, or for those simply looking for a more film-like motion rendering. The noninterlaced frame-based images should yield a much better film transfer (but be advised that 30fps images show horrible motion problems going to 24 fps film; most transfer houses prefer regular interlaced video when originating in NTSC) For the best tape-to-film work, use a PAL camera in frame mode: the resulting 25 fps images transfer to film very, very nicely... "

QUOTE FROM: http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#filmlook

However, for those of us in the NTSC world, unless we can afford the luxury of a dedicated DV tape-film PAL version camcorder and all the peripherals that may require, our efforts seem destined to be inferior to our PAL brothers (PALS?)

Ken

John Locke · November 29th, 2002, 11:21 PM

<<I had asked him about shooting 4:3 using the 16:9 guides.>>

"16:9 guides"? That's a new one one me. Are you talking about guides generated by the XL-1, on your monitor?

Dean Sensui · December 3rd, 2002, 03:20 AM

Deciding whether to shoot 16:9, or shoot 4:3 and crop to 16:9?

I just picked up a Canon XL1s and looked at the camera's performance through a Panasonic 34-inch HDTV monitor via the Y/C cable. This was a "live" feed and not recorded to tape.

I looked at the 4:3 image with the monitor "zoomed in" to see just the 16:9 portion of the camera's image. This is known as "shoot to protect 16:9" when a program might have to be shown in both formats. For example you're doing a show that might be seen on both standard 4:3 and 16:9-ratio televisions and you want critical compositional elements to remain intact.

Then I set up the camera in the 16:9 mode with the monitor set up to see the camera's 16:9 image unstretched.

Between the two, the image with the camera set up to shoot 16:9 was slightly softer than just cropping the 4:3. Not horrendously softer, but just enough to be noticable.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

Norman Woo · December 4th, 2002, 03:22 PM

Folks

During this summer, I shot some Dragon Boat race footage (Montreal) using my Canon XL1 in 16:9 mode, 4:3 mode and in Frame Mode.

Later this was captured via the Matrox RT2500 using Matrox Media Tool (Firewire connection). Editing was done in Premiere 6.01. To un-squeeze this during the editing, I had to apply a transform effect on the clip using a .75 ratio to maintain 16:9 (top and bottom black bars) (I believe that was the Matrox effect I used). Exporting the timeline back to the XL1 was a breeze as I did not have to do any further "widescreen" trickery.

The final footage contains both 16:9 and 4:3 modes (all shot in Frame Mode).

This was later shown to an audience projected on a 16 x 16 foot screen. The XL1 was connected directly to a video projector via an S-Video cable. Sound was through the standard RCA jacks.

After the showing, all of the member in the audience thought it was shot in film and was quite surprised when I told them it shot in DV. One member was actually a die-hard Sony Betacam SP news videographer. He was quite blown away by the images.

The only thing you have to get use to when shooting in 16:9 is the "squished" image through the viewfinder.

So, in summary, I'm quite happy with the 16:9 mode on the XL1.

Nathan Gifford · December 4th, 2002, 04:01 PM

I may start trying 16:9 for a while and see how it goes. To my way of thinking most audiences are poor judges of how well a system performs. However, it seems that at least one member (news videographer) should know if it were decent or not.

Happy Holidays,

December 4th, 2002, 04:22 PM

man, am i the only one who just turns on the 16:9 guides on my GL-2 (i believe the xl1 also has this feature) and frames all my shots AS IF they were 16:9, then just throws a widescreen filter on it when i'm done editing and let it render overnight?
i would say to do that. 16:9, IMHHHO pays much better respect to the principles and elements of design than 4:3.

November 18th, 2002, 08:23 AM	#18
Nathan Gifford Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tickfaw, LA Posts: 1,217	I hope this thread keeps going. Right now the biggest downside to the XL-1(S) line is the lack of a anamorphic lens. If the difference between electronic and optical 16:9 is small enough. I may start shooting in that mode. __________________ Nathan Gifford Southern Cyclist Magazine & Productions For quick answers try our Search! To see me and Rob Lohman click here

November 18th, 2002, 11:06 AM	#19
Derrick Begin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York Posts: 329	*** * ME TOO! * *** I hope this thread does continue... I am closing in on the end of my short, hopeful, for submission to festivals and the such. I shot my 20+ minute DV in Frame (16x9) mode. I am definately eager to project it, after a bit of color correcting, and tinkering. There will be one cut for television use/another for projection/ and others I'm sure to be kicked in the pants later on. Here is the thing about some of the festivals, however, they require different formats. I contacted a few and some want it converted to DigiBeta or HD or something else. This is propably the subject of another thread. So, please share your results... Thanks for your work! Cheers! Derrick

November 18th, 2002, 01:04 PM	#20
Paul Sedillo Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 607	Re: * * ME TOO! * * <<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : Here is the thing about some of the festivals, however, they require different formats. I contacted a few and some want it converted to DigiBeta or HD or something else. This is propably the subject of another thread. -->>> DigiBeta or HD?? Good grief do they think that we indie filmmakers are made of money. Were the festivals that you talked with the larger ones out there or were smallers ones making this request? __________________ Paul Sedillo Image::Studio http://www.image-studio.com Houston, Texas

November 19th, 2002, 01:00 PM	#23
gateway1 Posts: n/a	Re: 16:9 vs. 4:3 opinion <<<-- My goal on this next film is to shoot something that might actually have a chance at getting in some film festivals. And I want it to have as "cinematic" a look as possible. -->>> by no means am I a expert with the XL1s but I have seen some footage shot with the "black bars movie look" and it looks like crap-ola in my opinion. It just shrinks it unlike real 16:9

November 19th, 2002, 02:35 PM	#24
Guest Posts: n/a	16:9 vs 4:3 My son-in-law's father owns Foto-Kem in Burbank. They're on top of techno trends in the industry, so I was pretty much blown away when Michael told me they're recommending to people they shoot in the 16:9 mode on the XL-1/Xl-1s if they want to finish 16:9. I had asked him about shooting 4:3 using the 16:9 guides. He said that's the way to go if you think a print might be needed in 4:3, but if all you're going to want is 16:9 then go with what the camera will do. He also recommended shooting in the Normal Mode, rather than Movie Frame Mode, if your intent is to output to film.

November 17th, 2002, 10:39 AM	#16
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	(droooool) Yeah, we're not jealous.... ;)

November 18th, 2002, 02:40 AM	#17
Ken Barnes New Boot Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 24	John and others, Well I did a couple of tests with my XL1 and with both my home theatre and the school's projector, the main difference being the size of projected image and the fact that my home theatre has a 16:9 native aspect ratio whereas the one I used at school does not, and no way that I could find on the latter projector menu to 'stretch' the image. It might be an older projector. So this raises some questions on shooting 16:9/projecting 16:9 vs. shooting 16:9/projecting 4:3 (and other combinations) I'm not clear about. But I'll skirt that issue for now and tell you what I saw. I could find no noticeable difference in image quality between the same subject that was shot 16:9 vs. what was shot 4:3 using either projector. That's my eye. I highly recommend doing your own tests before committing one way or another. I'm sure there is some technical difference and if the balance of advice says shoot 4:3 and deal with it in post, then that's probably what I would do despite my own test. Besides, I more than likely didn't account for something or other that will not doubt be pointed out shortly in replies. I realize my answer isn't very commital, but I'd really hate you to shoot your movie based soley on my test. Ken

November 18th, 2002, 01:29 PM	#21
Derrick Begin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New York Posts: 329	Paul, Tribeca Film Festival and ... Its been awhile, but I know for sure that Tribeca requires you to transfer to DigiBeta/BetaSP or HDCam or 16MM. I was timetabled to finish my DV Short, so I could get it to them, but I decided against rushing it. However, thats if you get into the festival. (I can only imagine the kind of transfer and then the technical tweaking you as the filmmaker, have to do to get the results you want the audience to experience.) It discouraged me, and I am in the middle of the short. There is no time for being wishy washy... I haven't looked back into it for awhile. About 3 mos. Though I am nearing the completion and I am definately submitting. The big ones and the smalls. I hear you, Paul loud and clear. I spent the good part of an 8 hour day, tracking down prices at production houses to convert, once I finish it. I found a few people... For the lovely cost of about 80.00 + this + that + the damn plastic case for your tape. Can't let it stop me though. Saving up my deposit bottles... Cheers! Derrick

November 19th, 2002, 02:54 AM	#22
Ken Barnes New Boot Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 24	Here's a very good link about the 16:9 issue in detail. The entire site is awesome. http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen Ken

November 19th, 2002, 11:09 PM	#25
Ken Barnes New Boot Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 24	<<He also recommended shooting in the Normal Mode, rather than Movie Frame Mode, if your intent is to output to film.>> Given the website I posted earlier, this makes total sense. Except that in PAL, Movie frame mode is okay. It has to do with converting NTSC's (almost)30fps to film's 24, whereas PAL only needs to convert from 25fps to 24fps. "For the 625/50 XL1s sold in PAL countries, the 25fps video frame rate will make for an even closer match. This is very exciting, especially for anyone wanting to originate on 25fps DV and transfer to film for release, or for those simply looking for a more film-like motion rendering. The noninterlaced frame-based images should yield a much better film transfer (but be advised that 30fps images show horrible motion problems going to 24 fps film; most transfer houses prefer regular interlaced video when originating in NTSC) For the best tape-to-film work, use a PAL camera in frame mode: the resulting 25 fps images transfer to film very, very nicely... " QUOTE FROM: http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#filmlook However, for those of us in the NTSC world, unless we can afford the luxury of a dedicated DV tape-film PAL version camcorder and all the peripherals that may require, our efforts seem destined to be inferior to our PAL brothers (PALS?) Ken

November 29th, 2002, 11:21 PM	#26
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	<<I had asked him about shooting 4:3 using the 16:9 guides.>> "16:9 guides"? That's a new one one me. Are you talking about guides generated by the XL-1, on your monitor? __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

December 3rd, 2002, 03:20 AM	#27
Dean Sensui Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 2,054	Deciding whether to shoot 16:9, or shoot 4:3 and crop to 16:9? I just picked up a Canon XL1s and looked at the camera's performance through a Panasonic 34-inch HDTV monitor via the Y/C cable. This was a "live" feed and not recorded to tape. I looked at the 4:3 image with the monitor "zoomed in" to see just the 16:9 portion of the camera's image. This is known as "shoot to protect 16:9" when a program might have to be shown in both formats. For example you're doing a show that might be seen on both standard 4:3 and 16:9-ratio televisions and you want critical compositional elements to remain intact. Then I set up the camera in the 16:9 mode with the monitor set up to see the camera's 16:9 image unstretched. Between the two, the image with the camera set up to shoot 16:9 was slightly softer than just cropping the 4:3. Not horrendously softer, but just enough to be noticable. Dean Sensui Base Two Productions

December 4th, 2002, 03:22 PM	#28
Norman Woo Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Brossard, Quebec, Canada Posts: 147	Folks During this summer, I shot some Dragon Boat race footage (Montreal) using my Canon XL1 in 16:9 mode, 4:3 mode and in Frame Mode. Later this was captured via the Matrox RT2500 using Matrox Media Tool (Firewire connection). Editing was done in Premiere 6.01. To un-squeeze this during the editing, I had to apply a transform effect on the clip using a .75 ratio to maintain 16:9 (top and bottom black bars) (I believe that was the Matrox effect I used). Exporting the timeline back to the XL1 was a breeze as I did not have to do any further "widescreen" trickery. The final footage contains both 16:9 and 4:3 modes (all shot in Frame Mode). This was later shown to an audience projected on a 16 x 16 foot screen. The XL1 was connected directly to a video projector via an S-Video cable. Sound was through the standard RCA jacks. After the showing, all of the member in the audience thought it was shot in film and was quite surprised when I told them it shot in DV. One member was actually a die-hard Sony Betacam SP news videographer. He was quite blown away by the images. The only thing you have to get use to when shooting in 16:9 is the "squished" image through the viewfinder. So, in summary, I'm quite happy with the 16:9 mode on the XL1.

December 4th, 2002, 04:01 PM	#29
Nathan Gifford Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tickfaw, LA Posts: 1,217	I may start trying 16:9 for a while and see how it goes. To my way of thinking most audiences are poor judges of how well a system performs. However, it seems that at least one member (news videographer) should know if it were decent or not. Happy Holidays, __________________ Nathan Gifford Southern Cyclist Magazine & Productions For quick answers try our Search! To see me and Rob Lohman click here

December 4th, 2002, 04:22 PM	#30
doctorxex Posts: n/a	man, am i the only one who just turns on the 16:9 guides on my GL-2 (i believe the xl1 also has this feature) and frames all my shots AS IF they were 16:9, then just throws a widescreen filter on it when i'm done editing and let it render overnight? i would say to do that. 16:9, IMHHHO pays much better respect to the principles and elements of design than 4:3.