16:9 Real World Result with PD's and VX's
 

Brooks Reid said that you coud letterbox on the fly by using memory stick but how do you know how big to make the black bands? What is 16:9 out of 720x486? could ? use for 4:3?
Please define 4:3 and 16:9 if anybody could
Thank you

Hello Mario,

Ahh, some basic math will solve this problem... of how big to make your letterbox bands...

The DV frame is 720 pixels wide by 480 pixels high. This is a native 4:3 aspect ratio, and we want to convert it to 16:9. We'll keep the same width of 720 pixels, but get a new, smaller height to make it look like a wide screen.

So, we need to divide 720 into 16 equal units, and then multiply those units by 9 to find out our new height.

720 / 16 = 45

45 x 9 = 405

Thus our new image size is 720 x 405. You'll want to crop the height from 480 down to 405 equally from the top and bottom, so your letterbox bars will be 720 x 38 across the top and 720 x 38 across the bottom... maybe 720 x 40 for each, just to be on the safe side? Hope this helps,

thanks
 

Thanks again

FYI there are some ready-to-go bars here:

http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm

I haven't verified that they are correct, but they look pretty good.

Excellent link -- thanks!

Memory Stick files
 

I downloaded the two jpg files. Shot some test footage. They work great.
Would it be better/easier to do it in post (final Cut or Premeir)?

Wayde Gardner

Wayde -- you're in a better position than I am to know which is easier, but... seems to me like the memory stick option would be a *lot* easier than doing this in post...

masks...
 

I did our family Halloween party yesterday with the 16x9 mask (Chroma Key) from the memory stick with a 30fps frame rate. Added a Tiffen warming filter and dang if it didn't look pretty close to film ( I said PRETTY close). Especially when you consider I used existing lighting. Feed some footage into iMovie and it looked good. I'll play with Premeir this week and see how it turns out there.

One problem: When you turn the camera off you need to remember to reload the mask. :)
(Doah!)

I'm going to try this with some traditional 3 pt lighting and see what happens.


My next question would be how to save the "Picture Viewer" files from Photoshop or another program so that one could creat watermarks or other specialty masks.

16 X 9 (or not!)
 

What a revelation! Since joining the group I read about the "16 x 9 Myth" so today I shot 5 scenes with my VX2000 in 16 x 9 mode. Loaded them onto my VAIO, no problem. Launched Adobe Premiere 6.1, using "DV Widescreen NTSC, 32 Hz" no prob. Edited a 1 minute test video in 16 x 9...no problem. Back onto the 2000, NP.

On My VX2000, at least, I had a nice 16 X 9 video.

But...as soon as I connected the VX2000 to my Sony 1000 S-VHS deck...voila! 4x3! Nothing I did could make it true 16 x 9....it stayed 4x3.

Thanks for clueing me in...I'm glad I knew that 16 X 9 is a myth...before I promised a client a widescreen tape!

VX 2000 audio
 

I have used external microphones for clean sound for some of my docus on the VX2000. Now since I do not have a budget for a sound recordist I was wondering how would the sound be if I did use an ext. mike and keep the audio on Auto how effective would it be. I have tried it for an interview and has worked fine, but I amafraid that if i go to a crowded area there might be a lot of noise interference. Anybody any ideas on this one??

16:9 and FCP 3
 

just wondering if i use my vx2000 in 16:9 mode, if i can edit it in FCP 3 and then show it in 16:9???

i hear mixed opinions on this... and just wanted to know if it is possible...

Sure it's possible, You'll need a widescreen 16x9 monitor to view the image properly or else it'll look "squished." If you want to view it on a normal 4x3 monitor, you'll need to resize the image, stretch it and add a letterbox matte. But you can do all this in Final Cut Pro also.

one more question...
 

i am making a film for my medical school class and we have decided to shoot it in 16:9... my other question is...

can i rent a projector that is able to show it in the "widescreen" or should i use the method you described???

thanks again...

your site is awsome....

Shouldn't be a problem. There are definitely some projectors that have a 16x9 option. I don't know which ones specifically, so you'll have to make absolutely sure when you rent.

...or you could use the chroma key feature on your Sony with the memory card masks Chris has on his main page (link) That way you can shoot on the "wide format", edit it in FCP3 and use any 4:3 monitor without resizing or a squished look.

Here's the address:
http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm

It's funny but people who see my DV shorts in the 4:3 they give it a "ho hum, nice home movie" but if I shoot anamorphic widescreen (from the mem card mask) they're really impressed. All of a sudden, I'm a filmmaker! Sometimes it's all in how you present your product.

Always looking for other VX2000 owners to exchange info, tricks and tips in the Dallas area.

Wayde

thanks...
 

i like the idea of being able to letter box the image...

william

Good site to check
 

Hello there all! I haven't seen anyone post this link but it has some great info for you guys (and gals) considering the jump from video to film. There is also some software for deinterlacing video changing anamorphic to 16:9 or 4:3 to 16:9 and converting PAL to NTSC progressive scan (much cleaner than Cannons will ever shoot)and so on. It works great, is really cheap ($100-$150) and runs in OS X! (or 9 or...choke, choke...Windoze).
Anyway, I live and work in Plano Tx. I shoot a DSR-PD150 and was thinking about buying the PAL version for myself, now I am not so worried about watching it on NTSC!
But I do have one question. Does anyone have experience buying PAL equipment, and will I need to address POWER issues? Will I need to get some kind of power converter for the charger or camera?
Anyone in the area who would like to go film some stuff or chat with coffee, drop a line and I'm game. Thanks all.

Rhett
oh ya, here's the link!
http://www.dvfilm.com/

16:9 Matte with Memory Stick
 

I read about using the memory stick 16:9 matte from www.streamovie.com/vx2000. I tried it, and I think it "looks" better than the built in 16:9 option in the VX2000's menu.

I would like to shoot 16:9 without losing resolution; I want to be able to record an image on all of the CCD's pixels.

Does using the 16:9 memory stick matte do this, or do I "crop" off usable pixels with the horizontal black bands? If this is so, please recommend a good 16:9 lens that I can use.

Thanks.

Not a lens but an anamorphic adapter that attaches to your lens.

See http://www.zgc.com/html/anamorphic_attachment.html

If you choose not to buy this, then your way of doing 16:9 with the memory stick letterbox matte is the next best thing.

16:9 adaptor
 

I went ahead and ordered the Century 16:9 Widescreen Adaptor. I can't wait to get it. Now all I have to do is decide on which 16:9 field monitor to get. I'm looking at Varizoom's 16:9 field monitor (if I need it at all). I'm going to get a Sony studio 16:9 monitor for editing and viewing.

Thanks for your input and the link, it really helped.

I'm full of questions today, so here goes...

1. When I use the 16:9 anamorphic adaptor on my VX2000, will the image look squished through the VX2000's LCD? (I undersand that one should not record in 16:9 mode when they have a 16:9 adaptor on the lens).

If the image does not look "squished", then I guess I won't really need a 16:9 field monitor. I have been unsuccessful in finding an answer to this question anywhere. I have reviewed the posting by smartydraaws, but I can't make a solid conclusion about this question.

Thanks. -jgrzech

Careful using Hard Matte 16:9
 

Hi gang,

I've got my intro up in the neighborhood page.
Anyway, I saw a lot of talk about this Memory Stick 16:9 method.
Just wanted to pipe in from the DVD Authoring world and let you know that by adding the hard matte (letterbox) you're adding to the image size vs using the anamorphic mode in-camera.
When you encode to MPEG2 using the in-camera mode, you're only encoding the image. When you encode using a hard matte, you're also encoding the black bars at the top and bottom.

Just something to think about...kind of like, images shot without a tripod are usually larger per se because there's more activity than would be in a stabalized shot.

- Chip

That's an excellent tip you've made, Chip, and I'd like to add that to the Tips page on my VX2000 Companion site if that's all right with you. So if you encode without the letterbox matte, will some DVD players add the matte for you upon viewing? Otherwise, how would you see this video properly on a 4:3 screen without it? Thanks,

Chris, when a DVD player and 4:3 TV are properly setup, the DVD player will display 16:9 content as letterboxed.
Note, most of the early DVD players were set by the factory to be connected to a 16:9 TV. That was part of the problem with many people accepting widescreen movies...they looked squished when they were displayed on an improperly set 4:3 TV.

Here's another tip.
If your wife won't let you buy a new 16:9 HDTV (like mine) then you can get rid of the grey bars (even the best TVs show them as a really dark grey because they can't selectively turn off illumination in a region).
I made a set of mattes for my TV and now I have a picture that's not disturbed by the grey interfering with the on-screen color in the movie. Again, it's not that the bars bothered me, just that they disturbed the TV.

There's a picture of it on our humble HT webby.

http://www.geocities.com/chip4bmw/sweetspot.html

- Chip

Sony DSR-PDX10 Real 16:9 Widescreen
 

Just reading a review of Video Camera www.videocamera.com.au (dont think it's online yet) and it's talking about the PDX10P having real 16:9 resolution evidently using the entire 4:3 chips.

If anybody has any information on this topic it would be appreciated.

Regards.
Frank

See the other thread marked ' Sony DSR-PDX10P '.

Sony 16:9 24p
 

If the Panasonic 24p camera does well in the market you can bet that JVC, Canon, and Sony will soon be releasing 24p cameras of their own. My question is this:

Do you (any of you) think that in the next five years we'll see a Sony 24p camcorder with native 16:9 CCDs for less than $5000?

-Dan

You know Dan, this is such a sure thing I think you can almost put money on it. My question is, will it be DV? How much longer is DV going to be around. I don't know personally, that's why I'm asking.

Nice to have you with us by the way. Since you've got an article on the VX2000 Companion website, I've upgraded your user title from "Tourist" to "Contributor." Welcome aboard,

thats exactly what i would look forward to...maybe a
DV camera with full scale 16:9 and 24p options...I certainly agree that
someone, (most likely sony) will continue the 24p DV fad in the pro-sumer
market. But like Chris said, there might not be a market for DV in the upcoming decade.

Chris

Wow...this thread just took an interesting turn. If DV was to be supplanted by some other format...what do you think we're looking at...a native 16:9 format, uncompressed, (or lower compression)...what does the crystal ball say? I know it's all supposition at this point, but, dammit I want to know.

Barry


--------
curiosity killed more than the cat.

My guess is that the next evolution for the digital video format will be some form of "consumer high definition," hope that's not an oxymoron, and other folks are better learned than I am to speculate what such a format might entail. I'll bet we're looking at a completely tapeless, disc-based or drive-based digital media with some rudimentary editing capability built into the camera. Not meant to stray too far off-topic, but there it is.

Chris,

Thanks for the title. :)

Presently I'm amazed at the amount of optomism and excitement generated by the DVX100. While I'm all for a 24p camera (or any camera that can shoot in a progressive scan mode above 15fps . . . darn you Sony!) the amount of hype and enthusiasm surrounding this camera to me seems a bit out of hand. I almost wonder if it's more of a gimmick than a feature.

Perhaps the board members at Panasonic got together one day and said "You know, the XL-1 has gotten a ton of mileage out of it's removable lens system. Many users point to that sole feature and call it THE independent film makers camera of choice. I bet if we add a 24p shooting mode on one of our cameras we could steal that business!"

Maybe I'm just cynical; but to my understanding the 24p mode has to be converted (which causes resolution loss) so a normal editing station can handle it (at least until native 24p editing systems are widely available). So why are people lining up to buy this camera with 4:3 CCDs, a shooting mode that is not widely supported by video editing software, and calling it a film makers dream?

To my mind a 24p camera with native 16:9 (or, if such a thing existed 1.33:1) CCDs would be much closer to a true indie film makers dream. To my understanding throwing a 24p mode on a camera, then converting it so the edititing station can handle it, then letterboxing it (at additional resolution loss), then spitting it back out to tape isn't necessarily going to give you a look closer to film.

Admittedly I'm not expert on the subject, so any feedback on my statements are welcome. If someone could explain to me how the 24p footage will look more film-like after going through the process of editing and letter boxing I'd be very appreciative. :)

-Dan

I think you are correct, Dan.

Furthermore, the current generation of young folk have grown up on crisp, clear, no flicker video images. I am in constant contact with late-teens, early-twenties video makers through the cinema classes at the local community college who shun film as too expensive, too poor an image quality!, and not enough feedback and not enough feedback fast enough.

I personally think that we will continue to 60 fps and probably a 720P or 1081i scan. It would fit right in with high-def consumer video and our computer screen resolution and not cost an arm and a leg. Why go backwards to 24 fps when we've paid so much to go high-quality on our computer screens and are now doing this for our TV screens?

It think we all want Kodachrome image quality (that is, great, high-res color and great luminance graduation) and no flicker.

24 fps is an anachronism for the majority of the younger generation.

Remember, you heard it here first. Wrong or not.

Wouldn't using the 16:9 method only matter if the camera in question recorded a true 16:9 signal, meaning that the CCD is capable of capturing all the line resolution and then formating it to a 16:9 ratio?

Since the PD150 "16:9" is fake, it just stretches or squishes the image electronically, would the "Hard Matte" be an equal solution to using the "16:9" mode? It should be the same number of lines being recorded on the dvd, shouldn't it?

Ian

combatvideo,

When using a 16:9 adapter on your camera, the image it records WILL appear "squished" in the viewfinder. To see it correctly your field monitor needs to be 16:9 switchable.

Ian

More info
 

Tokyo, JP - Reports from CEATEC Japan, the Image, Information and Communications trade show held near Tokyo, say JVC is displaying a new consumer camcorder capable of recording high definition (HD) signals.

The camcorder is reported to record high definition 720 x 480 progressive scan mode in a 16:9 aspect ratio (480p) and 1280 x 720 progressive in a 16:9 aspect ratio (720p), as well as standard 720 x 480 mini-DV interlaced video (480i). The new camcorder records the video as MPEG-2 onto new, special mini-DV tapes, it is described.

The camcorder uses a 1 1/3" megapixel CCD, and includes a special high definition lens as well as optical image stabilization. The lens has both zoom and focus rings, but apparently no markings are available, as it is a fully automatic lens, like the Sony VX2000 and many others.

The camcorder has a hand grip that rotates, allowing the body of the camcorder to be positioned for low- and high-angle shots easily; however the camcorder itself is a standard horizontal format, similar in shape and size to the Sony VX2000 or the Canon GL2.

The camcorder can transfer the digital video to a computer, although it was not specified if this was done through a standard FireWire port. The camcorder does have an SD card slot, often used for digital stills and Web movies.

Reports cite the manufacturer as saying the camcorder will be available next year, for 200,000 - 300,000 yen or approximately $1,623.38 to $2,435.06 dollars.

For more information, visit
www.ceatec.com

Whatever the next format is, I think it is likely that it will still use magnetic tape. It's compact, and holds lots of data.

The new Hitachi cam that writes to a regular DVD-R is cool, but who really wants to edit anything in the camera?

Interesting thread

Here's my 2 zorkmids worth...

I foresee an Mpeg4 or DIVX type compression scheme which is native AVI and therefore editable with current crop of NLE (similar to the JVC prosumer HDCAM).

My calculations show that full band DVD quality but at HDCAM image proportions/size would be possible if variable bit encoding was used and it would fit inside a 4.0 meg/s data stream, which is very similar to DVstream (3.65 meg/s).

1394 firewire would still be used so the current connectors and capture devices would not be made obsolete. Furthermore at 4meg/s hard disk requirements could remain as they are for DV. Also current computer based NLE would be compatible.

Most likely disc based DVD-RW type or mini variant as tape is expensive requiring high quality control costs (have you noticed not much DV tape is produced outside of Japan).

The stumbling block is that variable bit rate encoding at this image size is processor or DSP intensive and would have a cooling penalty. This might bring about a reversal in the camcorder concept back to a camera section and over the shoulder recording device concept. But these devices will be slim and light plus they will allow fullsize 18GB DVD-RW - about one hours worth HDCAM

My best guess is two years to market - however they may be working on this as we speak

Are you watching Ikegami San?

yeah...
souns nice, but:
using variable bitrate in handheld cameras can be really hard. VBR looks for changes in picture, if they are small, it reduces bitrate. If you shoot handheld like most people do, there are ALWAYS big changes. So it will use max bitrate all of the time. And camera will need huge amount of cache memory for VBR.
MPEG is a exellent choice for delivering end product, but it's very bad for editing (excl. I-frame only MPEG, which has bitrates comparable to same quality JPEG).

gimme 2 zorkmids:)

regards, Margus

Someone enlighten me on the 3CCD vs. 1 CCD issue here:

I've heard it said that a good 1CCD camera will have better low-light performance than a good 3CCD one. I assume this is because most 1 CCD cameras are using bigger chips (more surface area) but I'm not a techie so I don't know. If JVC is releasing a HDTV, 24p camera why are they only releasing a 1 CCD version? Any ideas on this one? Why not just add another $1000 or so to the price and make a 3CCD model?

-Dan Ballmer

We can only hope they'll use the Foveon chip
 

Foveon chip is kind of like 3-in-1, and resolves finer detail.

Let's petition Sony to come out w/an HD vx2000 replacement!! (oh, sure)