|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 13th, 2006, 06:32 PM | #211 |
RED Problem Solver
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
|
Assuming the scaling in your NLE is decent, then that will produce a better picture, and you can reframe your shot in post by selecting which region from the 4:3 you blow up to 16:9
Graeme
__________________
www.nattress.com - filters for FCP |
February 13th, 2006, 06:39 PM | #212 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Saint Cloud, Florida
Posts: 1,043
|
Nice. I use Premiere Pro 1.5. I am assuming I still start the project as a widescreen project. I'll play around with some footage from my XL1s. Thanks!
__________________
www.facebook.com/projectspecto |
February 13th, 2006, 10:04 PM | #213 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 234
|
I'm currently shooting with a PDX10, and while the smearing issue does occasionally rear it's ugly head, it's not as often as you'd think...and it's very easy to avoid. The poor low light performance, however, is not something you can avoid, unless your needs are like mine (100% outdoor daylight shooting).
As for 'best' 16:9 standard DV camera (non-HD), my answer would be the Canon XL2. But of course it's all subjective, isn't it? |
February 13th, 2006, 10:59 PM | #214 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
Vx2000
With he Vx2000, I have letter boxed by adding matte consisting of the bottom and top bar. I superimpose that over what I am shoooting to come up with a 16:9 letterbox production. The matte is loaded from the memory stick. You do have to reload it every time you turn off the camera. I assume Vx2100 has same capability,
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
February 13th, 2006, 11:30 PM | #215 |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Clermont, FL.
Posts: 941
|
I went from primarily using a VX2000 to using an HVR-A1. I did this mainly for the better quality 16:9, though I am using the HD. I still use the VX2000 for low light shots, but that's about it. The VX2000's 16:9 is not high quality by any standards. There is an absolutely huge difference between the fake 16:9 that cameras like this use and a real native 16:9. I've had a lot of great use out of my VX2000 and have loved using it over the last few years, but I wouldn't buy it or any non-native 16:9 camera at this point in time. Like it or not, 4:3 is a dead format.
|
February 14th, 2006, 12:35 PM | #216 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 214
|
Quote:
As many use the same camera for max. 1-2 years, then I think it's rather safe to get a good 4:3 cam at the moment. 16:9 can be certainly considered dead by filmmakers, but it isn't for documentaries and such. 4:3 probably will be dead, but it is not yet :) |
|
February 14th, 2006, 12:47 PM | #217 |
RED Problem Solver
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
|
Depends where you live. In Europe, 4:3 has been dead for a while, especially in the UK.
Graeme
__________________
www.nattress.com - filters for FCP |
February 14th, 2006, 12:52 PM | #218 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Clermont, FL.
Posts: 941
|
Quote:
I find that my VX2000 still gets good use as an indoor dim lighting camera. Outdoors, things like leaves and faces from a distance look really bad with the VX2000 fake 16:9, but indoors with solid walls and head and shoulders closeups, the interpolation looks just fine: much better than the low light grain from my HVR-A1. |
|
February 14th, 2006, 01:00 PM | #219 |
Wrangler
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vallejo, California
Posts: 4,049
|
Laurence, that is absolutely correct with one major exception.
The framing for 16:9 vs 4:3 is not the same. So one would have to frame for 4:3 to insure the important bits will be in-frame for both aspect ratios. Otherwise it may require pan and scan work to make the 4:3 work if you framed in 16:9.
__________________
Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel! |
February 14th, 2006, 06:55 PM | #220 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Saint Cloud, Florida
Posts: 1,043
|
I would have to agree with Georg, 4:3 isn't dead, just dying -thankfully. There are still people using rabbit ear TV sets that you have to turn the dial to change the channel! Then there is the whole HDCP issue that is causing some trouble for certain folks. Of course you also have many stations not sending full HD signal, but compressed, sometimes badly. Not a majority of people want to stop using their $200 37+" 4:3 to switch to a $600 27" 16:9, beside me. I paid $2000 for my 42" plasma HD. While it was a chunk of change it was worth it to me. But how many people have that money to throw away on a wideHD when their nasty 5 year old projection is still doing fine? It'll take a long while to get rid of the 4:3 standard. Last I checked they still make cassette & VHS tapes too.
Right now my cons for HDw/16:9 outweigh my pros. Me and like 2 other people are the only ones out of a number of folks I interact with that have an HDTV AND HD service. A couple of my friends have the TV and think that's it. I have to explain the service and enhanced cable issues to them. What a waste of a TV, lol. My budget didn't allow for me to get one of the two Sony HD cams, aside bare bones. Who wants to save for months just to get a decent battery, filter, lens, etc.? All to be one of the only people viewing your footage in full HD glory...
__________________
www.facebook.com/projectspecto |
February 14th, 2006, 08:13 PM | #221 |
Wrangler
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vallejo, California
Posts: 4,049
|
Speaking of VHS. I had to make 50 copies of one of my training tapes and didn't want to wait for a shipment. So I went to the local Costco. They had only 12 packs of 10 tapes each. I bought them all and the clerk said that was the last they would stock because now that DVD recorders were under $200, nobody was buying VHS anything. Decks or tape and certainly not pre-recorded movies.
I haven't been back to see if they restocked. I now can charge less for a DVD than I do for a VHS tape because I can buy almost 3 printable 2 hour DVD blanks for a dollar. VHS is still more than a dollar a 2 hour tape.
__________________
Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel! |
February 14th, 2006, 08:23 PM | #222 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Saint Cloud, Florida
Posts: 1,043
|
I heard about the Costco VHS thing too! My wife keeps on insisting we reconnect a VHS to our plasma. I finally won that battle when I insisted she give me a list of movies she planned to watch on VHS, when her list consisted of all but ONE movie we already have on DVD -bingo! Get with the times people ( i hear a lot), lol, cassettes have been replaced, what twice now! I don't know a whole lot of people that even use CDs, everyone has a friggin' ipod jammed in their head. I purchased our first 20GB MP3 player like 5 years ago, for less than an equally sized iPod too!
__________________
www.facebook.com/projectspecto |
February 14th, 2006, 10:27 PM | #223 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 62
|
Quote:
|
|
February 14th, 2006, 11:29 PM | #224 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
Adding 16:9 mask.
Quote:
I have this file on the memory stick I carry in my vx2k at all times. This what you do on the 2k: turn camera on, and make sure you have 16x9 should be set to off with the chip in camera with the file on it, open display door so you use the various buttons. Select memory mix and then use + or - to scroll to the matte. On the 2K, a small representation of the file is in bottomm right coner. To select it on tke 2k, I then just press the rotor button to select matte and it will then overlay on the the screen. Here is site:http://www.makeyourfilm.net/downloads/DSC00027.jpg
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
|
February 14th, 2006, 11:42 PM | #225 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
|
Anamorphic lens.
With any 4:3 camera, you can purchase a 16:9 anamorphic adapter to preserve and use all pixels. This type of lens will squish the picture in. WHEN SHOOTING, IT WILL APPEAR DISTORTED. However when you edit, if you edit in a 16:9 mode, it will come out right. In fact, that is how 35mm was turned into wide screen. The adpter was used on the camera, and on the projector too. Adapters are expensive, though.
Century Optics is one manufacturer
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|