16:9 mattes
 

Wayne, you are obviously a salt of the earth kind of guy. I didn't say so previously but I am PC, so it was wasted on me. That said, if you could be close to as generous with PC-friendly advice I'd love to hear it. I understand this is unlikely, given the polarity of user loyalty. I'll keep after it.

Well, just for being so darn nice, David, here is John Beale's advice on saving images to the memory stick for PC users. I hope he doesn't mind me plucking this out of his pages. You can find this and other useful information at:
http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/dvfaq.html

You can modify still frames, and add titles and other graphics on your computer and write them back to videotape, using the floppy disk or memory card. This gives you great flexibility without the expense of a firewire card, but there are a few tricks to keep in mind. First, remember that TV sets have "overscan", meaning about 10% of the image area around the edge of the JPEG picture will not be visible on the TV screen. Each TV is slightly different, you may have to experiment a little. Second, you must use the exact file name format eg: Mvc-0001.jpg and use 640x480 resolution, and do not use interlaced JPEG format.

Specifically: I've had success with modified TRV900 pictures and also scanned images from other sources. I've tried Adobe Photoshop 4.0.1 LE, ULEAD PhotoImpact SE 3.01, and ThumbsPlus 3.30 (shareware from www.cerious.com). Photoshop is the most difficult. Here's what to do:

1) Make sure the image is "True Color" (not greyscale, 256 colors etc.)
2) Scale your image to exactly 640x480 pixels in size, if it isn't already.
3) Make sure you are NOT using jpeg "progressive compression" format.
4) Do not save any image comments, thumbnail previews, etc.
5) Use a filename like MVC00001.JPG for a PC Card or MVC-0001.JPG for a floppy disk.
In Photoshop, turn off image previews: choose File>Preferences>Saving Files and select "NEVER SAVE" in the "Image Previews" box. In JPEG Format Options, choose "Baseline ('Standard'). When you save the file, confirm that the "Save Thumbnail" box is NOT checked. The camera can read Photoshop images with JPEG Quality 1-3, but does NOT work with Quality 5 through 10, I don't know why.

The camera can read files saved from PhotoImpact or ThumbsPlus in any Quality setting from the minimum right up to 100%. However, I have looked closely at the video output with highly detailed test files, and can see no differences above Quality=85%.

None of the programs I know of will generate a valid "index" image for the TRV900 6-photo-per-screen index mode, they just appear as black squares; but the full-screen version of the image should work. All of the above is on a PC/Windows platform. I've been told that for writing JPEG images that the TRV900 can read using the Mac, Photoshop doesn't work, but GraphicConverter from Lemke Software does.

Thanks Wayne, I'll give it a try!

16:9 ratio going back to 4:3 in TV
 

I was recording with 16:9.
I hooked up the camera with RCA cable to a TV and played it .


It came out expanded 4:3.

Why is this happening?



Can I fix this?

16:9 to 4:3
 

You might get some help viewing this well illustrated explanation:

http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/information/anamorphic.htm

When I first used the 16:9 selection in my VX2000 I had the same experience. Once I had properly edited the footage (in Premiere) I got a letterboxed output on a 4:3 TV - not by matting it, but by maintaining the original aspect ratio.

David Hurdon

Interesting link David. As it explains, the reason that everything looks "squashed" is that your camera is creating an anamorphic image. A widescreen TV would detect a special embedded signal in the video and stretch it back to the proper 16:9 proportion. To view on a regular 4:3 set you'll need to letterbox.

What NLE software are you using? In Final Cut Pro there's a very easy way to do this. Drop your clip into the timeline then open it in the viewer. Now click on the Motion tab and click the little triangle next to Distort. Enter a value of -45 in the Aspect Ratio field. Render your video and it will be properly letterboxed.

There are other ways to do this as well, and I'm sure someone else can explain how it would be done in Premiere.

16:9 ratio going back to 4:3 in TV
 

I'm using Premiere 6.02, Boyd, which because of its PAR bug requires a tedious work-around to properly export a 16:9 project. Version 6.5 fixed that so the only requirement is to set footage in the timeline to "maintain aspect ratio". At least that's my understanding from other sources.

David Hurdon

Thanks,

I have Avid Xpress 3.0.




I can keep 16:9 ratio with this program.


Will this keep the output with 16:9?

VX-2000 16:9 tests
 

On another site someone was asking if it's better to use builtin 16:9 vs cropping/stetching in post on the vx-2000 or pd-150. I've seen this question before, and long ago did some of my own tests. But I thought it was worth revisiting, so I repeated the test, realizing that I already had the needed images from a comparision I had done between the vx-2000 and pd-150.

I was surprised that there appears to be such a clear cut answer. Cropping and stretching in post appears to yield almost 50% higher vertical resolution (360 vs 240 lines)! I invite others to perform their own tests on this; I used still frame grabs and resized them in Photoshop. But it appears that the way in which DV compression is applied to the image with builtin 16:9 causes considerable degradation. You will find my tests here.

Boyd

have you tried the slim effect on the VX2K? to produce an anamorphic image in camera - it will save you some time.

I tried that quite awhile ago, and IIRC the results were similar to the builtin 16:9. Also, is the aspect ratio correct using this method or is it slightly distorted? Sorry, don't really have time to run this test at the moment...

Using Progressive Scan at the same time as 16:9... possible?
 

The two settings that make raw footage on the PD150 look like film... progressive scan and 16:9 seem to disable each other when they are turned on. Widescreen mode isn't listed as an option once progressive scan is on.

Is there any way around that?

Sure, just crop it afterwards. Alternately you could probably use a memory mix matte, or "slim" mode (do these work in prog scan.?.. can't remember). It appears that the wide mode on the VX-2000 yields significantly worse results than cropping anyway... see this test

I believe cropping it afterwards is the only solution. I just tried, and you cannot use the memory stick for mattes in progressive scan mode. I did so by putting it in progressive mode first, then trying to matte (which it rejected me from doing) and then by putting the matte up and then trying progressive scan, but it would no longer allow to click to enable it. So it appears as though there is no way around from within the normal camera functions, but cropping in post is always a good option.

Robbie

How is Progressive Scan on the PD150 in lowlight? Do event videographers use it often, especially in lowlight receptions?

Thanks,
Lucas

I'm pretty sure the progressive scan is only 15fps. More like film in that it's progressive, but surely not enough fps for anything other than maybe web streaming. I guess you could also use it if you know for certain you're going to slo-mo or stobe the footage in post later...

Exact 16:9 capabilities of PD170 ?
 

Hello All

Was thinking about getting a second PDX10 so as to multicam in 'true' 16:9. Then I saw this the following is on the Sony spec sheet for the PD170P. (PAL version) [ I know that the PAL 170 has been withdrawn so as to fix an audio bug]

"The DSR-PD170 is capable of widescreen 16:9 acquisition image capturing (video only), producing true 16:9 images. This is different from the letterboxing view commonly used in many equivalent models. "

I am surprised because, initially, the PD170 was not being hailed as a TRUE 16:9 device as the PDX10 is heralded.

I would have thought that true 16:9 capabilities would be a HUGE thing for the PD170P (especially since the PD150 did not have true 16:9)

Is there really any difference filming 16:9 between the PDX10 and the PD170?

May get a PD170 if there is not.

Thanks P

I did a bit of research on the sony Broadcast & Professional site
and the camera is being said to have the following feature:

" 16:9/4:3 aspect ratio switchable. 4:3 aspect ratio native "

This tells you that the chips are 4:3 native and thus the 16:9
aspect ratio must be an electronic stretch. Also the chips resolution
and photo resolution doesn't suggest a true 16:9 chip.

Technically I guess they are correct in that it is a "true" anamorphic image that's been vertically stretched instead of just letterboxed in 4:3. But the important thing is how it was created, which is evidently the same as the VX-2000 and PD-150 since the CCD's are still the same.

If you want good quality, avoid the 16:9 stretch mode. Electronic stretch is fine... if you like fine! If you want true pristeen 16:9 with a PD170 or 150, then get yourself an anamorphic lens, such as the Century Optics.

Speaking of CO 16:9...
 

Thought I'd tack my question onto this related, recent, and shortlived thread.

I'm very curious about the Century Optics 16:9 adaptor for the pd150/170.
I just did a search on it and got mixed general comments mostly from people who only knew ABOUT it's performance, and hadn't actually used it.

Is anyone using this piece of glass?
Is it the Bee's knees?
Have you used others, such as the other well recommended one from Optex?
Can you point me in the direction of competent articles/reviews about
it/them?
Tom? ;-)
If, in the next year, I decide to pick up the PD170, will an adaptor 16:9 cut well with PDX10 16:9?
Are adaptors often more trouble than they're worth? Do they take away more than they give?
If you were stuck on a desert island, which kitchen appliance would you, uh, um, oh, never mind, wrong forum.
;-]

Did you see the reviews in DV magazine?

Century: http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?Loo...turyoptics0901
Optex: http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?Loo...eview/wilt0202

(you may need to register in order to read these)

Thanks, Boyd.

Any users out there?

16:9
 

Read a lot lately about reasons not to us widescreen setting on my VX2000. Are all these things true. My tests don't look bad.

Should I forget the widescreen setting and shoot masking the top & bottom of my monitor.?

I am about to start shooting a short, but I have HIGH expectations (don't we all) for its use. What should be my approach, in this regard, for it being accepted for competition and whatever other showing it might enjoy.

Thanks,

Douglas

I've used the 16x9 mode on PD150 (same video quality as 2000).

It's not as good as a true anamorphic lense. BUT you get full use of zoom and no focus problems etc. that a lense might cause.

As built in 16x9 stretch goes, it's one of the better ones. It's not as good as true 16x9 CCDs.

BTW I saw a review of the DVX100A recently and it said that its stretch looked very good in progressive but in interlace it looked corser than the PD170.

Do understand that 16x9 is not simply masked. It will look streched unless played on 16x9 monitor.

I'm actually working on a music documentary and we're shooting the whole thing in 16x9 stretch with PD150/170. I converting it to 4x3 with black bands on top and bottom for VHS screening copies.

I've shot the electronic 16:9 with a DSR250 and while there is just a little extra softness and noise when compared to the 4:3 mode, overall it looks pretty good, assuming your exposures and focus are good.

As mentioned, true 16:9 is anamorphic and must be played on a 16:9 monitor or video projector with 16:9 mode. Otherwise it will be distorted. You can do your project in 16:9 and make a letterboxed version, which is easy with most NLEs. Be aware that if you crop your 4:3 footage, you end up with a 16:9 shape, but it's still a 4:3 chunk of video. If you label a tape 16:9 and somebody at a festival switches their video projector to 16:9, then your tape will be distorted (I speak from experience here).

Why don't you shoot some tests and see for yourself whether you think the 16:9 mode is good enough.

VX2100 16:9 + Software
 

I just shot a concert in 16:9 format, no lense attachments, just what was built into the machine, and was moderately impressed. How much of a difference does it make to have the lense attachment do it for you? Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.


Another question I have is about the best rendering, editing, production software for a PC. I have played with Vegas 5 and Pinnacle 8.5 and wonder which one you guys think is the best? Or is there a third and better option I have not looked at yet?

Thank you all so much, I really appreciate any and all assistance with this.

James

Re: VX2100 16:9 + Software
 

According to the Sony DV guru (at least I think he is) Adam Wilt, the best way to get 16:9 in DV aquisition format is to shoot with a 16:9 camera such as the Sony DSR 570 (or in more realistic terms the PDX-10) the next best thing is to use a GOOD anamorphic lens adapter (IMO, the Century Optics 16:9 widescreen adapter is the best I've seen) and then using the internal anamorphic as a last resort.

I have dabbled with Vegas and have friends that love it (can't say anything about the Pinnacle products since I haven't ever used them) but it is not the tools that make the end result, it's how you can use them that counts. As far as a third option, it really depends on how much you want to spend and what you want to do that needs to be know before a knowledgeable answer can be obtained.

HTH,

Doug

Thank you for the advice on the 16:9. I've heard it too, but was honestly so impressed with what was built in that I was starting to think it didn't matter much.

As for the software, I would like effects, transitions, and I'd like software that had the ability to give interlaced more of a progressive film look.

I'm fairly experienced with editing, just curious if there are better tools for what I'm trying to do. Which is mainly a documentary and some humorous shorts.

I suggest you go peruse the editing forums for both the PC and Mac or just that forum that covers the computer type you have.

I was never very happy with the 16:9 mode on my VX-2000 but haven't tried the VX-2100. However it has a lot to do with the sort of stuff you're shooting I suppose. Around a year ago I did a comparison with the PDX-10 which you will find here. Some quick tests convinced me that you would get better 16:9 on the VX-2000 by shooting 4:3 then cropping and stretching in post. But I would encourage you to shoot your own tests, compare them, and see what works best for you.

The nice thing about shooting using the in-built 16:9 mode James is that your viewfinders are undistorted, you retain all your zoom range, the camera's autio foucs and Steadyshot behave themselves and you don't have a big blob of cylindrical glass hanging on those filter threads. OK, the technical quality is slightly worse, but overall your film might look better. Just think of the mistakes you could make with an anamorphic (see list above).

tom.

16:9 stretch mode and interlacing.
 

I've had my VX-2000 a couple of years now, but I never actually tried the 16:9 mode until today. I didn't realize it stretched the video before recording it, and that leads me to the following question.

I know resolution wise, it makes just as much sense to shoot at 4:3 and letterbox, but aren't there also interlace issues that might make the camera stretch better looking.

How do the Sony cameras deal with interlacing the stretched pixels. Are pixels on adjacent lines just doubled every third line or so, or are they recaptured 1/60th of a second later from the same CCD pixel. It seems to me that depending on the algorythm Sony chose for their 16:9 video capture, there might be some advantage to using this mode instead of letterboxing, especially on motion shots. Is this a real consideration or am I just thinking too much?

16:9
 

I'm new to the forum and to Mini Dv in general, but I was under the impression that a dvd player would recognize the 16:9 format and play it correctly, the black bars appearing at the top and bottom, even on 4:3 screen.

Most festivals I know about don't project DVD, and many of the big theatrical projectors require an anamorphic lens and menu-switching to 16:9.

16:9
 

Thanks Bill, but if one had no plans for release to the big screen, and only in dvd format, wouldn't the dvd player correctly display the film in the 16:9 ratio?

Yes, assuming the user has properly configured their player. The DVD player should have an item on the menu to identify the kind of TV it's hooked up to. If you choose 4:3 then the player will provide a letterbox as needed. All the players I've seen default to a 4:3 screen unless deliberated changed by the user to 16:9.

Regarding 16:9 on the PD-150/VX-2000, have you seen the resolution tests I did here? http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9 Of course the builtin mode may be just fine for you, depending on what you want/what you expect.

My experience is that you could crop/stretch in post with these cameras and get equivalent results to the in-camera 16:9, but of course that requires rendering. Actually, I think the best results will come from simply letterboxing in post, then let your widescreen TV expand this to full screen. My Sony 16:9 LCD has a mode called "zoom" which does this. The hardware scaler in the monitor does a better job of stretching the image than either the NLE software or the in-camera 16:9.

Take a look at Andre's comments and the link he posted in this thread

16:9 can also be achieved by using the slim digital effect. Treat your footage as anamorphic

This is basically what the DVX100a is doing

Thanks to all.

16:9 vx2100
 

can you explain SLIM and ANAMORPHIC effect

i have vx2100 and triyng to shoot 16:9 , somebody told me about a special anamorphic lens,

thank you

Ruben Senderey