Keith,

Does your external monitor have a 16:9 switch? If its a 4:3 then it will be squished.

I master off my 16:9 footage (XL1S) and make separate copies for 4:3 (resized 75% and letterboxed at 1:85) Television and 16:9.

Cheers!

The thing is, it shows 16:9 movies in letterbox, but not mine. Mine are squished, so I must not be doing something right?

Keith, if you're watching on a 4:3 TV set, you'll have to create a separate 4:3 video with letterboxes. If you have an HDTV (16:9) set, you can see the 16:9 video full-screen by choosing the widescreen setting.

DVDs that are "anamorphic 16x9" or "enhanced for widescreen TVs" send a signal to your DVD player and/or TV that will display the movie in whichever aspect ratio your TV supports. You might be able to encode this kind of signal into your own DVDs, although I don't know how...

Any idea what that encoding is called? That is probably the critter I'm looking for. Is it even possible in Premiere, or is it a "specialty" thing?

I really want 16:9, because I may screen this at a local theater. Somehow, I don't think letterbox would look right on a theater screen.

I'm sure the signal is called WSS and is recorded by the camcorder to the tape itself. The GL2 supports this and when you select to record in 16:9 I believe it supplies the WSS signal as well. I'm not sure so don't rely on this bit, but this information may be stored in the 8(?) pixel area that non-optical image stabilisers use for the DIS information.

Also, aren't theatre screens 2.35:1?

I'm not sure exactly what the size/ratio is, but I am sure that these screens aren't full width. This is a twin cinema, and the screens were cut down a bit. But that was a very good point.

I was told by my camera salesman that if I set my GL2 to 16:9 and record , it will play back on my regular television in wide screen format with black bars top and bottom.
This does not happen ??
Is my salesman wrong or am I doing something wrong??
Please help
.

Your salesman was wrong; 16:9 footage appears squished on a 4:3 TV set.

However, it's very easy to make your own letterbox 16x9 with the black bars, right in the camera, so that it plays back just like what you're looking for. This trick isn't in the manual, but it's described in detail on our GL2 Son of Watchdog (http://www.dvinfo.net/canongl2/index.php) site. Maybe the salesman saw our site and that's what he was thinking about. Hope this helps,

Does anyone have the "image" of the black bars that effectively matte the view (while filming) so that it appears to be 16:9?

I know there is a tutorial on how to matte the picture in real time, but the link to the image of the black bars is broken.

Any help would be appreciated...

Tustin Larson prepared a video tutorial on how to use the GL2's title mix function (i.e. graphic files stored on the SD flash card) to accomplish this. See the main page (http://www.dvinfo.net/canongl2/index.php) of the "GL2 Son of Watchdog" section of DVInfo.net for a link to Tustin's tutorial.

Well, the link on the 3rd page of that topic is broken...

I would love to have that jpg. of the black bars, or if anyone knows the dimensions...

Adam, try this: http://www.dvinfo.net/canongl2/articles/titlemix.php.

Chris, he's not asking for the tutorial, he's wondering what size the color bars are suppose to be.

I also was wondering about this and Mr. Larson's e-mail didn't accpet my e-mail I sent. I tried making a few ones in Photoshop but look kind of unproportioned. If I find a good looking one I'll post a link of my jpeg for anyone wanting it.

There is no definitive answer to the bar size. "16:9" has become a generic term referring to a wide variety of generally whimsical aspect ratios.

See Rob Lohman's Letter Box Calculator (http://www.geocities.com/robvisuar/calc.htm) for more info and downloadable mattes.

I was looking at some of the accesories that are available for GL2, and see that there is a widescreen 16:9 lens available.

Would a lens give a substantially better 16:9 picture?
It costs about $699, so it would be a very expensive lens to get (for me anyways), but I intend to shoot some documentaries and a short film I want to submit to sundance 2005, so would it be worth it?

How would you set up the camera with one of those? Would you shoot in 60i or 30p?

A quick second question -

I thought I read someplace that it's better to shoot in 60i so you can convert later to 24p in editing later if you want, but you can't do that with 30p without major problems. Is that correct?

A good anamorphic lens will produce better results than the in-camera 16:9 feature. It will, however, take some practice to learn its use.

You can't really convert 60i to 24p in your editor. If what you're really asking is how to shoot for a future film transfer, then the place to get the best answer is from the film transfer shop you plan to use. They each seem to have different opinions and requirements.

I just bought a Century anamorphic adapter off of eBay, and this thing is awesome. The difference in image quality on a native anamorphic television is dramatic. But even with the adapter, if you were just going to display the image letterboxed on a regular television, the difference would be much less pronounced, and might not be noticeable at all. It's easier to use than I had hoped. Autofocus seems to work just fine, maybe slightly slower than without it, but not by much. It also gives a wider angle of view with very little distortion -- much better than the WD-58. I'm also finding that it's a lot easier to adjust the lens than I had feared, as long you don't obsess about getting it perfectly vertical every time. In fact, you generally want to cheat it out to one side or the other just a little, so it's best to trust your eyes and go with it. Keep an eye on eBay, they show up pretty regularly, and generally sell in the mid-$300 range. I paid $390, which included a Century Series 9 sunshade, and even a Series 9 UV filter.

Ken,
Why do you say you can't easily go from 60i to 24p with software? Isn't it just simply reverse pulldown?

Peter,
(We're veering off-topic here, and this really belongs in the "Film Look" forum.)

I am not the last-word expert on this, but no I do not believe the 60i -> 24p conversion is effectively reachable within an NLE program. It would require a 3rd party product like MB (which operates out of After Effects) to simulate such a conversion to the best of my knowledge.

Oh I see, MB would be better as opposed to Vegas or Premier. Thanks! (sorry for OT :) )

Is it better to crop the image while filming via title mix or is it better just to composite the bars in during post?

I know that during filming, you see instant results. But, if you do it in post, you have the choice of wheather or not you want to use the bars.


And, do you guys think it is a wise choice to crop the image. Personally, I like the look of it.

I prefer using the guide lines that you can enable on the GL2 through its viewfinder, and then cropping in post. I think whenever an effect your planning on using, whether it's simply cropping or something more complex, can be done in post, it should always be done in post.

I guess it's also more of a subjective preference in using the bars. I prefer to capture the entire full frame though, in case something does go past the white lines, you can always move the bars in post, by panning up during the editing process, in case you make any mistakes and anything goes out of frame.

I always shoot in 4:3 and sometimes crop down to a 16x9 in post but not always. I think some things are more suited to the 16x9 shape but you have to decide on whether you want to view it later on a TV 16x9 or 4:3 and then shoot accordingly ie. still shoot in 4:3 mode either way but compose the framing of the shots with the aid of the 16x9 bars if you are gonna crop down post.

There have been a ton of posts on this already and I answered
a lof of them, please use our [url=http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?s=]Search[/url[ to find those
(use words like letterbox etc.). Thanks.

With that being said, there is another advantage to doing it in
post. You have the ability to vertically frame your footage.
Sometimes it's hard to shoot exactly within the 16:9 lines when
shooting, or you find out in post that it looks a bit better when
the picture is slightly higher or lower. With adding bars in post
you can still move the footage underneath the bars up & down.

I agree with what John says. I usually have the guidelines because I usually crop it during post. and the guidelines help me see if I need to edit my pans or what not to match the ratio.

I shot a documentary in widescreen on a GL-2, and have finished post in Final Cut Pro 3, yet it is not widescreen on my television.

I am wishing I did not shoot in 16:9.

I have read everything about this thread, yet I continue to deny that my project is scrapped. I know it works, because I've accidentally shot in 16:9 and seen the bars on a 4:3 TV.

Can anyone offer me a positive solution to this mess?

More information is needed.

How are you viewing it on the TV? DVD? VHS? Straight from the computer?

Your project isn't scrapped. Not yet.

We can figure this out. (Though I don't know anything about FCP, in Premiere I could help more.)

I echo Bryan's request for more information. You haven't told us enough about your process or problem to enable much constructive advice.

You say you shot your project in 16:9 mode. How did you capture the footage in FCP?

If you used the in camera 16:9 mode and are viewing your project on a 4:3 TV then the picture will appear sqaushed horizontally. It will appear normal on a widescreen TV. The TV will not compensate for the picture by adding the black bars, the bars will only be present if they are added in post or if you shoot anamorphically.

I posted a topic about cropping in the effects forum with a similar querie. Not entirely sure how you can rectify this.

Well OK. I've shot on GL-2 in 16:9. Everything has appeared squashed in the viewfinder, but my edits have appeared in widescreen in FCP 3.0. So naturally I figured (I was told from a colleague) that when I printed the final cut to tape that FCP would encode it as being shot in 16:9.

That is true, FCP does encode it when printing a final cut to tape. Yet on a TV (a regular TV), it still appears squashed. I trust on a widescreen it would appear as I shot it in letterbox. But who has a 16:9 TV?

So, when I imported files from the tape (remember, shot in 16:9), there was no need to tell FCP to capture in anamorphic...the program saw the 16:9 encoding from the tape.

The only different thing I did was enable my FCP sequences to be anamorphic.

I have found one "solution" since I first posted the question, but it is rather makeshift. When you've shot in 16:9 and capture in FCP, don't work in a 16:9 sequence. Work in a 4:3 sequence (you'll have to render EVERYTHING) and it will appear letterbox on even a normal TV when printed to tape.

Any better solutions are VERY welcome, because I still will have to re-edit the WHOLE project.

It is as simple as the one "solution" you have described. The word to remember is "anamorphic".

You're shooting "anamorphic (squished) 16:9 footage on a 4:3 frame and not 16:9 footage on a 16:9 frame.

OK, take a deep breath, relax, everything is behaving as it should. There is nothing wrong with your project. It makes no difference how you capture the footage in FCP. Checking the "anamorphic 16:9" box only serves to purposes: it enables a flag that tells FCP, other software and widescreen TV's that your footage is anamorphic, and it changes the aspect ratio of the canvas and clip windows within FCP. Even without this flag your footage will look correct on a widescreen TV. And with or without the flag it will look squashed on a 4:3 TV, that's just the way it works.

It sounds like what you're really interested in is letterboxing your material for 4:3 TV's. That's something completely different and there are two simple approaches. Possibly the simplest would be to burn it to a DVD and be sure you have things set properly for 16:9. In this case the DVD player itself will perform letterboxing for 4:3 TV's yet it will display properly and fill the screen on a widescreen TV.

If you don't want to go this route then just create a new emtpy 4:3 sequence in FCP. Now drop your entire completed 16:9 sequence into that. FCP will automatically letterbox it to fit the 4:3 window. This will require rendering the new sequence, but after that you'll have both a letterboxed version plus your original 16:9 anamorphic version.

I know this has been talked about but I need a straight forward answer. I am doing a movie trailer for Hamlet for English class. I was going to do 16x9. Is it better for me to shoot normal 4:3 with 16x9 guides and do the actual cropping in post or shoot in 16x9 straight from the cam. Need help fast because I will be shooting tomorrow.

Hi Joel, you are coorect we have just covered this in another section, but the direct answer is shoot 4:3 framing in 16:9 using the guide lines in the XM2 (GL2).
Then crop to 16:9 in post production.

I have been doing this for years now and it works well.

Something that may be of some use, I run the old Canopus DVRaptor card and as a result I downloaded a free piece of software from Canopus called Video Tools, this piece of software has a built in 16:9 letterbox effect which works well.

Regards, Cliff Elliott

I agree basicly with Cliff, but I would add that if you intend playing the material back on a widescreen set, then I would shoot the original in 16:9 anamorphic. It really all depends on the platform on which the final product is to be viewed.

Robin.

We are going to play it on a normal TV we just want the "Letter Box" look. I will be editing with Premiere Pro. THanks for the help

<<<-- Originally posted by Joel Ruggiero : I know this has been talked about but I need a straight forward answer. I am doing a movie trailer for Hamlet for English class. I was going to do 16x9. Is it better for me to shoot normal 4:3 with 16x9 guides and do the actual cropping in post or shoot in 16x9 straight from the cam. Need help fast because I will be shooting tomorrow. -->>>

Which software are you talking about? Power Tools for the Raptor? I also have a Raptor, an RT2Max to be exact and I think that I'm familiar with the effect, however it's nothing more than crop bars, alpha channel setup for matting out the top and bottom of the screen.

If there is anything on their site that actually takes 4:3 and shifts it to 16:9, let me know! That's what I'm looking for and I'm aware of DV FILMMAKER but I'm not interested in paying for something that only does 1 little thing.

THanks in advance

Hey there,

I recently purchased a GL2. I have been using my JVC GR-DVP3U for years but always knew I was missing a lot in the video quality department.

I love the GL2. Great video quality and lots of neat features.

One thing I have a question about is the 16:9 mode. Basically, what does this do?

Am I getting a wider image or are the tops and bottoms just being hacked off the 4:3 image to make it appear 16:9?

I've tried doing some test shots to compare. It seems I'm seeing more in the 16:9 shots but my tests were pretty basic and I wanted to run this by others and find out what's really going on.

Thanks!

Charlie

I've seen several threads on this. I'm still no expert but basically I can tell you that the GL2 reduces the horizontal lines to get the affect. Some have said you lose some of the video quality while others said it does not and that it just crops off the top and bottom portion.

You could use the search feature and you'll have a few hours worth of threads to read through.

The gl2 uses the classic crop and stretch technique (same as virtually every miniDV camcorder with a 16:9 feature. (except the new xl2). It crops the image to a 16:9 frame size, jettisoning the upper and lower pixels. Then the camera stretches the image vertically to fill the 720x480 DV pixel dimension. In post your software, or television will stretch the image horizontally to fill the 16:9 frame. Both of these stretches cause a visible softening of the image, but depending on your viewing medium, this may or may not be a problem. You may also try setting the 16:9 guides, and then adding a letterbox in post. I've blown this type of image up on my HD set...and it looks pretty good.

Barry

so, your recomending shooting in 4:3 and converting or croping to 16:9 later? is you are, how would you apply this 16:9 ratio in adobe premiere? if anyone knows, it would really help me out, thanks!

Originally posted by Matt Babinec : so, your recomending shooting in 4:3 and converting or croping to 16:9 later? is you are, how would you apply this 16:9 ratio in adobe premiere? if anyone knows, it would really help me out, thanks!

I don't use Premiere but in case you didn't know, there is a 16:9 frame you can turn on in the GL2 to guide your shots while youre' shooting in 4:3 mode.

Matt,

The method I'm offering (not necessarily recommending over the crop and stretch method) really doesn't involve a 16:9 output in premiere. Its a simple letterbox technique, that will play on a 4:3 set with black bars on the top and bottom. When playing on a widescreen tv, you would use one of the zoom options for playback. I do it on a 34" widescreed HD Sony Wega, and it looks very nice. There are occasional jaggies in high contrast areas and fast movement, but typically it looks better than most SD broadcast sources...

Realistically there isn't a lot of difference between the two methods..they are both using the same area of the ccd's...the difference is doing the blow up in camera and software, versus using the monitor's hardware...if I had to guess, the crop and stretch method would produce a slightly softer, less pixelated image, whereas the letterbox might be a tad crisper with occasional jaggies (this would depend on the monitor's conversion method.)


Barry

Ok, so this is what I thought. The 4:3 image is just being cropped.

My other cameras have a "widescreen" mode butt he quality was terrible so I never used it. The picture quality with this GL2 in 16:9 mode is much better.

While my TV can handle the widescreen pictures most of the people who would ever see my video don't so I'm going to keep everything in 4:3 and use the 16:9 guides as you've suggested. If I want a "widescreen" version later I can make one in Premiere easy enough.

Thanks for the replies!

Charlie

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : The gl2 uses the classic crop and stretch technique (same as virtually every miniDV camcorder with a 16:9 feature. (except the new xl2). It crops the image to a 16:9 frame size, jettisoning the upper and lower pixels. Then the camera stretches the image vertically to fill the 720x480 DV pixel dimension. In post your software, or television will stretch the image horizontally to fill the 16:9 frame. Both of these stretches cause a visible softening of the image, but depending on your viewing medium, this may or may not be a problem. You may also try setting the 16:9 guides, and then adding a letterbox in post. I've blown this type of image up on my HD set...and it looks pretty good.

Barry -->>>

One followup question I failed to ask last week is:

In the 16:9 shooting mode I'm not actually seeing any more image on the sides, correct? It's the same 4:3 image with the top and bottom cropped, correct?

I did some test shots. I think it's the same width, just stretched for the 16:9 ratio. My friend swears he sees a wider image.

I think he's just easily misled.

<In the 16:9 shooting mode I'm not actually seeing any more image on the sides, correct? It's the same 4:3 image with the top and bottom cropped, correct?>

Correctamundo. No extra coverage.

Barry

Ok, sorry if these are all novice/rookie questions. Since I'm a novice/rook, especially with a GL2, please forgive.

So my plan is to skip shooting in 16:9 mode. I can always change it in Premiere should the "need" come up. Which I don't think will happen. No one in the family even has a true widescreen display anyhow.

Thanks for the responses. This has been a great resource for DV info in general and the GL2 in particular.

Charlie

After buying a widescreen HDTV, I started shooting some video on my GL-2 in 16:9 format. When viewing this video on the tv I found that the tv autoswitches to full screen (which it should do) but the apparent sharpness and definition of the video suffers greatly. When I shoot in 4:3. the video does not fill the screen but is razor sharp.

What exactly happens when you switch to 16:9? Is the camera disposing of some pixels (and thus reducing resolution) just to arrive at a 16:9 ratio?

Bob Reed