How to get best 16:9 footage

Rob Hester · December 14th, 2003, 11:32 PM

I didn't even think about the colour correction and the letterbox mask...thanks!

"I don't really understand what you mean by "...if you use the title, you are already blocking out some useless data which would otherwise degrade picture quality for the middle..." I think with either method you are going to end up using 432 lines out of 576 - (full vertical height minus 25% letterboxing - erm, different numbers if you are in NTSC) there ain't really any way around that"

What I mean is not that I would get a better resolution, but the important stuff (the picture inside the letterbox mask -whether I did it in post or camera) would show less compression artifacts. I am wondering this because there would be less resolution of colour, complex data to encode - a lot of info can be saved if part of the image is just black...at least that is my theory.

Thanks again for the support...when I get back maybe I will post some videos or snaps.
Rob

Patrick Falls · December 23rd, 2003, 10:20 AM

i recently purchased the jvc3000, i only had it for a month and took it back. i now have an xl1. i purchased a brand new four and a half hour battery that i didn't even use. i charged it up but didn't use it. i have only had it for a two weeks, i have the original packaging and reciept. it was $125.00 with shipping. if you want it e-mail me an offer. it is the BN-V428U.

Kevin A. Sturges · February 3rd, 2004, 05:00 PM

Here's what I'm doing with my Sony single chip cam. It works great without resolution loss in achieving a letterboxed image for viewing on a 4:3 TV. (I assume that's what your aiming for).

I shoot in the Sony's 16/9 mode. Using Vegas Video, I convert to standard 4:3 when I render out the project. The difference is - this DOES NOT just cut off the top and bottom of the picture, throwing away almost a third of your resolution - it simply resamples the whole frame down without aliasing, and squeezes it inside the 4:3 frame. you effectively end up with a letterboxed image, but actually with MORE resolution, because you used the entire width of the CCD, then downsample your precious little pixels to look effectivley a bit sharper.

I really can't understand why anyone would do it the opposite way (if their camera can do an anamorphic wide image) and throw away a third of their picture.

Rob Hester · February 3rd, 2004, 07:12 PM

Quote:

this DOES NOT just cut off the top and bottom of the picture, throwing away almost a third of your resolution - it simply resamples the whole frame down without aliasing, and squeezes it inside the 4:3 frame

the d.wide mode on my camera uses the entire width of the CCD. the squeeze mode doesn't. This is why they advertise it as d.wide...it uses the full ccd and in relation to the squeeze/normal modes, it has the equal width of using a 0.7x adapter.

that's why...if that makes any sense? I totally understand your thinking behind your method...and it seems right...but my camera downsample's the full ccd in d.wide mode and that is what is recorded to tape.

December 14th, 2003, 11:32 PM	#16
Rob Hester Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 113	I didn't even think about the colour correction and the letterbox mask...thanks! "I don't really understand what you mean by "...if you use the title, you are already blocking out some useless data which would otherwise degrade picture quality for the middle..." I think with either method you are going to end up using 432 lines out of 576 - (full vertical height minus 25% letterboxing - erm, different numbers if you are in NTSC) there ain't really any way around that" What I mean is not that I would get a better resolution, but the important stuff (the picture inside the letterbox mask -whether I did it in post or camera) would show less compression artifacts. I am wondering this because there would be less resolution of colour, complex data to encode - a lot of info can be saved if part of the image is just black...at least that is my theory. Thanks again for the support...when I get back maybe I will post some videos or snaps. Rob __________________ JVC DV3000U - 30P (non-interlaced) capture on a budget - tests@http://robvideo.netfirms.com

December 23rd, 2003, 10:20 AM	#17
Patrick Falls Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Augusta georgia 15min. from Aiken S.Carolina and 2 hours from Atlanta Posts: 105	hey Rob i recently purchased the jvc3000, i only had it for a month and took it back. i now have an xl1. i purchased a brand new four and a half hour battery that i didn't even use. i charged it up but didn't use it. i have only had it for a two weeks, i have the original packaging and reciept. it was $125.00 with shipping. if you want it e-mail me an offer. it is the BN-V428U.

February 3rd, 2004, 05:00 PM	#18
Kevin A. Sturges Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 167	Here's what I'm doing with my Sony single chip cam. It works great without resolution loss in achieving a letterboxed image for viewing on a 4:3 TV. (I assume that's what your aiming for). I shoot in the Sony's 16/9 mode. Using Vegas Video, I convert to standard 4:3 when I render out the project. The difference is - this DOES NOT just cut off the top and bottom of the picture, throwing away almost a third of your resolution - it simply resamples the whole frame down without aliasing, and squeezes it inside the 4:3 frame. you effectively end up with a letterboxed image, but actually with MORE resolution, because you used the entire width of the CCD, then downsample your precious little pixels to look effectivley a bit sharper. I really can't understand why anyone would do it the opposite way (if their camera can do an anamorphic wide image) and throw away a third of their picture.