Yes.
It's cropping top and botom and then electronically stretching the image to give a FHA (Full Height Anamorphic) image which widescreen TVs will unstretch to give the 16:9 picture.

Robin

How do you shoot 16:9 format on the GL2. I see a 16:9 setting in the Camera Set Up Menu but the 16:9 mienu item is "pinked out" and I'm unable to set it.

Any suggestions?

Hi Mickey,
Do you have the camera in "green box" program exposure mode? That may be your problem.

Ken,
You are the man. Duh. Amazing how your brain checks out when you are under the pressure of an immediate shoot. You saved the day...and in a timely manner. DVInfo is the greatest.

Mickey

Mickey: keep in mind that shooting in 16:9 on the GL2 does not
give you an increased resolution or expanded Field-of-View since
it is a fake 16:9. You probably already know this, but I just want
to be safe!

Or should I bother? . . . I'm presuming that by the time I get it done the resolution will be uninspiring?

Anybody got a thought on the matter? Apart from stepping up to a native 16:9, anybody got a recipe for success?

Grazie

Try to work in 4:3 mode with 16:9 display markers on. That will give you chance to compose the shot for 16:9 while having 4:3. Works for me. If i somehow decide later that i want 16:9 i just add black bars in posts. Works for me.

Hiyah! - So you don't bother with the 16:9 conversion squash?

Graham,

I always used to swing hot and cold with the in-built conversion option. Sometimes I liked it, others, I hated it. It really depends on your subject. The resolution loss is just too much for any wide shots, but if there are lots of talking heads and general close work, it isn't too bad. I've had interview stuff broadcast with it, so it's certainly no worse than the PD150/170 material that tends to get used straight from the camera,ie. no ARCing done by a Snell & Wlcox box.
Other times, I've been more than happy with shooting 4:3 and post-cropping.
You can of course use the built-in title mix tool to insert black bars top and bottom, which will save any cropping in post. The only drawback with this is if you apply certain effects in editing, you'll be changing the whole image, including the colour of the top and bottom bars!

Robin

HAPPY ST Davids Day! CYMRU!

Robin thanks, I'll get back to yer on these matters too. BUT today I've got a showing of my latest 4:3 work at the British Library! Ahah!

Grazie

There is a program called Photozoom I believe. You can uprez your 4:3 footage into nice 16:9 footage.

I shot my entire trip to Peru in 16:9 and my trip to Catalina Island in 16:9. I love the way that it fills my widescreen TV and it is sharp. The entire Catalina trip was shot with my WD-58H wide adapter in place.

From what i have gathered, on a GL2 a result would be better shotting from the in camera squashed mode of 16:9, instead of cropping, as opposed to where the vx series are better to crop then shoot in the squashed mode. But up to you, in 4:3 with guides you are left with more options, but if you know you want 16:9 go with the incamera mode.

Alex B

I've read that if you use the in camera squashed 16:9 the DV compression stuff is better. There are less dots to share the DV stream...

..and if you had no creative preference between 16/9 or 4/3 but considered there was the CHANCE of your production being taken up by a non-terrestrial tv channel for the uk market...which would you shoot?

I don't know what the "non-terrestrial tv channel for the uk market" would prefere, but I would go for 4:3. I would display the 16:9 framing lines and frame for that. (Every now and then I forget to keep an eye on the framing lines so I have to reframe it in post...)

My brother and I have just bought an XL2 for our new video production business and we would like an additional camera for supplementary footage (ie: cutaways). I know the XM2 is unlikely to produce 16:9 footage on a level with the XL2 but is its "squeeze" mode
of an acceptable quality for DVD? Good 16:9 will be the deciding factor in choosing the 2nd camera.
Thanks in advance.

Nope, the 16:9 mode isn't very good, but it's a lot better than lower model cameras. I don't trust the idea of using the GL1/GL2 for a B camera for the XL2, unless you're shooting strictly for 60i, but that's just my opinion.

You can't use the GL2 for 24p shooting. But 30p might, just "might", look good mixed together. Shooting in 16:9 for DVD has worked really well for me, but you don't really get that fullness that the XL2 16:9 gets, it's stretched of course, so it requires some work to look really good. I hope that helps, if at all.

P.S. I know you're talking about the European models, just replace GL1/GL2 with XM1/XM2 and 24p with 25p in my answer.

You might have a look at the PDX-10 if 16:9 is you primary interest. It has hi-res CCD's which can shoot native 16:9, and at the current price of $1,600 it's a real bargain. Visit our forum (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=43) for more info.

I am an amatuer filmmaker who just bought a GL2 after much research and reading on lenses, etc...my question is, I hope to take some of the things I may shoot with this to festivals and maybe to film...I've read that the 16:9 isn't that great and so I'm going to shoot in 4:3 and letterbox it with magic bullet. Does anyone know if this is stupid and should keep it at 4:3 or just go with the 16:9...has anyone shot like this? Until I have the money to get the XL2, I have to decide what to do...I really don't want to shoot in 4:3...I like the 16:9 framing, etc...if anyone has any ideas on this, it would be much appreciated. If I letterbox it, what will it look like on film? It will be 4:3 with artificial letterbox, I know, but anyway...I hope someone has some ideas...thank you very much.

Personally I would not worry with any of this and just shoot the
way that works for you. Remember, story/content is king!

I shot in 4:3 as well with my XL1S since I wanted the option to
reframe the footage vertically. This was done with Sony Vegas
(NLE) when I was editing. I added a 16:9 mask I had created
and I could vertically shift the footage underneath this mask to
reframe it and look great. I did use the 16:9 guidelines during
shooting to give me a guide for framing.

I also disliked the stretched look in the viewfinder, which was
another reason for me personally to not use 16:9.

How realistic is this film out? If you can't afford the XL2 I assume
you don't have the money for a filmout either (since it is very
expensive).

I would spend my time writing good stories and learning the craft
of movie making. If something ever needs to be transferred to
film let the company doing the transfer and the ones that are
paying for the transfer worry about transfer quality etc.

I agree with rob that it's easier to frame your picture in 4:3 with the guides on than to use the 16/9 function of the camera. It really ain't nice to frame your picture if it's vertically stretched.

Good luck with the cam!
Remember: some movies came in the theater without having a cam that was as good as an GL2, but - as Rob implies - by their good framing, acting,... they came a succes.
Good luck.

Ow, and as Rob says, transferring to film is VERY expensive, you don't have an idea (or maybe you do, I don't know of course) but I think most filmfestivals now really have acces to digital projection because many indie filmmakers can't pay a 35mm transfer anyway.

Thanks for the input, guys, I really appreciate your replies and will concentrate on the story and the delivery before worrying about any of the film transfers...and no, I wasn't completely aware that the film festivals would project digitially...thanks. I mean, I knew, but wasn't sure if they would-anyway...thanks for the encouraging words about the GL2, also...I knew I made the right decision with the resources I had. Thanks again! Keep these awesome forums going!

Hi Brian, I purchased my first digital video camera back in 1998, it was a Panasonic NVDX100 3 Chip Camera, and I decided back then to frame every thing in 16:9 while shooting in 4:3.

When I purchased the XM2 I proceeded to do the same.

The reason I did this was simple I prefered the look of 16:9 over 4:3, now a lot of people get all hung up over reselotion loss, but as the previous contributors have stated, the story is king.

Believe it or not the average audience is totaly oblivious to any small resolution loss as they are to interested in the material being shown.

I have had my work shown on large screens using top of the line projectors and the video looks stunning.

Until 80% of the population have true wide screen monitors/Televisions and the cost of true 16:9 cameras and editing systems drop consderably, Continue to shoot in 4:3 but frame 16:9.

And remember this, to the naked eye, analoge to DV was a quantum leap, DV to HDTV is a frogs jump.

Regards Cliff Elliott

Very weird results from yesterday's shoot. Had the GL2 in 16:9 mode and frame mode, with custom presets for color balance. Shot outside in the chilly winter weather (around 25 degrees F, light precipitation in various forms). Shot several scenes. Several times the red letter message came up about cleaning the tape heads. I don't have a head cleaning tape so I ignored it. Went inside for a clip, then back out. Then a break. Then several more scenes inside. Then several more outside, but by then it was in the low 40's and sunny.

Reviewing the tape, it was void of audio or video for all the initial outside shots. Then there were sections of good audio with video consisting of 5 grey bars and 5 video bars, all horizontal. Very choppy and completely useless.

Later, everything seemed to work, except when i replay it on the GL2, or the Optura Xi, the 16:9 plays back incorrectly, i.e. it stretches vertically to fill the whole frame, instead of letterboxing.

Any ideas?

Scott

The normal ouput in 16:9 from the Canon is full-height anamorphic, so it would appear vertically stretched.
There is no letter-box mode on the camera.

Robin

Hey. I recently did some tests and research and on my GL2, I want to use the in-camera 16:9. My question is this...I know it will come out stretched in a 4:3 television...but I haven't mastered onto DVD yet, so when I do, is there a way to set it so that it will show up letterboxed on the 4:3 television? Just wondering. I'll run some tests, but wondered if there was a chance. I have Adobe Encore DVD.
Thanks!

I do the same. Using the 16:9 mode, master to DVD, and view it on both 16:9 and 4:3 TVs.

Make sure your project settings are 16:9 (in Encore and your NLE). Then the final video will show up letterboxed on a 4:3 TV.

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. Just haven't gone to that final step on DVD yet. So you like the digital 16:9...do you use a GL2 to shoot?

The main reason for me to use 16:9 is that I have a widescreen tv.
But yeah, I think the picture quality is fine.

I use the XM2 (pal GL2)

PAL is a bit better picture quality...(they shot the movie tape with PAL camcorders)...{Richard Linklater directed, Ethan Hawke acted} so it will look better, yeah, but, it's something about squeezing more info onto a smaller part of the chips...so, thanks, and take it easy and good luck shooting and thanks for the input.

I have read a lot and have found anecdotal info to suggest that shooting with 16:9 with a GL2 is both better and worse. Meaning that no one has come to a concensus.

Info:

This thread suggests that it is the way to go, and a great looking trailer (and perhaps movie) was produced from it. Straight from the filmmaker. This theory is pretty radical. Quote: "The theory is that, since there is less actual data hitting the ccds when using in-camera widescreen, less compression is applied. Supposedly there's actually a gain in quality (this does not hold true for all cameras; i've been told to avoid it on a Sony.)
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=40437

This thread suggests that it isn't.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=40325&highlight=16%3A9+resolution

This thread talks about fewer bits in the datastream being better. "There are less dots to share the DV stream..."
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=40325&highlight=16%3A9+resolution

This thread clearly states that it is bad, but the statement comes from someone who has said that 16:9 was less/worse before.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=33743&highlight=16%3A9+resolution

And the most SHOCKING! Actual tests done at a link from the following thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=12000&highlight=16%3A9+resolution
(Supa shocking tests?) http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/resboost.html

So let's hash it out. What's the deal?

DJ Kinney

DJ,
You've basically hit the nail on the head: it's both better and worse.

You've also nicely consolidated many of the salient discussions on the topic.

The GL2 is not an anamorphic camera. Shooting either version of "16:9" with it represents compromise. That is, you will lose some of the recordable image to simulate a larger budget. That's really the "deal".

People get far too hung-up on debating resolution nits with these cameras.

Ive noticed that if you put the widescrenen on you can not fit as much into the picture. i have a widescreen tv i solve this my putting a mask on .

I'm leaning towards Canon's GL1 right now since it's high end but cheaper than the XL1S and Sony VX2000.

Just be aware that none of those cameras shoot native widescreen. Yes, you can do in-camera anamorphic 16:9 that will play back correctly, but the results will be noticeably worse than shooting 4:3 on the same camera.

The camera's native resolution is 720x480. To acheive the 16:9 proportion from their 4:3 CCD's they simply crop the image down. This leaves you with only 720x360 pixels (the other 120 are lost in the black bars above and below the image). Finally, to meet the anamorphic standard, the camera stretches that 720x360 image vertically so it's 720x480 again.

If 16:9 is important to you then the GL-1 (or even GL-2) is probably not your best choice. There are a number of (relatively) inexpensive cameras which do real 16:9 today. They still have CCD chips that are 4:3, and they still letterbox to get 16:9, but the difference is the number of pixels on the CCD's. A camera with megapixel chips will have enough to deliver the full 720x480 anamorphic image.

Have a look at our Optura forum; they are single chip but have real 16:9:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=71

Some of Panasonic's less expensive 3 chippers shoot real 16:9 - check out the GS-400:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=48

Sony's HC-1000 will also give you real 16:9, as will some of their newer single chip models:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=43

But getting back to your original question... I think just about all modern NLE's will handle anamorphic 16:9 without any problem at all. That's the easy part! Getting a camera that can produce reasonable quality for your widescreen TV will take a little more research on your part.

i agree with what he said but with the gl2 to it will work on a wide screen tv so why dont you switch the 16:9 guide lines on and when you come to edit it you can just add the black lines in.

I'd wait on that GL1 and go with something like the new smaller Sony HDV cameras HDR-HC1 / HVR-A1 (whichever one is the consumer one is $2000 MSRP). Yes they're HDV and they don't have the Canon Frame Mode, but trust me, you won't be missing it. Also, you'll be able to find more 37mm lenses than looking around for 58mm stuff, 37mm (consumer) and 72mm (prosumer) seem to be the most common sizes for lenses these days when it comes to video cameras. Plus, you won't be losing anything really, you'll be gaining HD(V) and native 16:9! All for a few hundred dollars more than the GL1 and in a smaller package. I have yet to check one out in person, but on paper the HC1 would be the better deal.

All for a few hundred dollars more than the GL1 and in a smaller package.

Note that he's talking about the GL1 which is a discontinued model that should be considerably less than $2,000 on the used market...

True, but in my opinion, no matter who you are, it would be better to go with something more modern, even the GL2 if need be. I'm using a GL1 right now and I feel so restricted on all fronts compared to all of these other people with their DVX100's, XL2's, FX1's, and such. It would be a shame to see somebody else make the same mistake twice. The GL1 is a bargain, but with everything else coming out, wouldn't it be wiser to wait and, if not, go with something better?

Agreed, which is why I suggested some less expensive DV cameras which shoot true 16:9.

But wait a minute... I just noticed that the original question in this thread dates back to 2002! Ha, ha, I don't think "mdreyes23" is reading any of our words of wisdom, especially since the real name policy has gone into effect since then.

Nothing like timely responses ;)

i agree with what he said but with the gl2 to it will work on a wide screen tv so why dont you switch the 16:9 guide lines on and when you come to edit it you can just add the black lines in.
This method still "stretches the picture" on a 16:9 TV. But adding black bars makes a pretty good letterbox on a 4:3 TV. U can resize an image and then export it in ur pc software as 16:9, but u have to tweak the settings alot, & the picture quality will go down some.

Hey again people: What would you say is the best way to make a 16:9 project using the GL2? Now, I know it doesn't have true 16:9, but I would like to have a final product that has a decent widescreen look and feel. So far everything I've taken from the GL2, through Final Cut Express, and through DVD Studio Pro has come out kind of...I don't know, lacking. The picture is always fullscreen, and a bit of picture that was there when I recorded it and put it on the computer is no longer there after I author it to a dvd. So which part of the process is the most important to get that letterbox, widescreen look? The filming, the editing, or the dvd authoring? Or is it all equally important? Thanks!

Steve

You can shoot in the 16/9 mode of the GL2, but then you get a cropped image in your viewfinder/LCD which makes it difficult to frame or compose your shot.
What I always do (I think the GL2 has this too, I have the xl1s) is, I put on the 16/9 guides on the viewfinder, so I frame my shot in 16/9, but it's recorded in 4:3.
So afterwards, in postproduction (I use Premiere Pro, so I can't comment on how to do it with Final Cut Pro), I put the black widescreen bars, so my composition is right and I have the widescreen.

You can choose between this two ways of doing it, but I prefer the second because it makes it much easier to frame your shot.

Is this process Mathieu is talking about the one explained on the main page of the GL2 Son of Watchdog? I think it is, but can anyone confirm? And does anyone know whether there's anything I need to do when I'm authoring the dvd in DVD Studio Pro? Change any settings, I mean. Thanks for the info, Mathieu

Steve

I read a few threads that made a fairly convincing argument for using 16:9 because (so the theory goes) there is less information being encoded, and so the information that is has less compression. I don't know, but I have been shooting the last twenty hours straight (documentary) with 16:9, and at this point I can tell you that it's just as easy to frame a shot with it elongated as it would be at 4:3. The eye has been trained.

Of course, you lose the benefit of being able to move the image up and down in the visible frame to fix any slightly framing that was slightly "off." That's a very nice feature of shooting 4:3 with guides.

Finally, I want to say that many of the Hollywood films I've watched lately on DVD aren't even using 16:9. They are using the much wider 2.35:1. It has gone beyond just the "epic" ratio and has gotten into many others.

What I always do (I think the GL2 has this too, I have the xl1s) is, I put on the 16/9 guides on the viewfinder, so I frame my shot in 16/9, but it's recorded in 4:3.
So afterwards, in postproduction (I use Premiere Pro, so I can't comment on how to do it with Final Cut Pro), I put the black widescreen bars, so my composition is right and I have the widescreen.

You can choose between this two ways of doing it, but I prefer the second because it makes it much easier to frame your shot.
This will work fine on a 4:3 television, but on a 16:9 television the picture will still be "stretched" during playback.

I'm still searching for the perfect solution, I have heard many theories, I have tried them all, and none work too well. Here's my advice if you're planning on having a "true 16:9" picture then record on the GL2 using 16:9 mode. Yes, you lose some quality, but you don't have to fumble around in post with things that probably won't work.

After shooting in 16:9, make sure you set your project in your DVD authoring program to 16:9, then when it's viewed on a 16:9 television it will fill the screen w/correct proportions, and on a 4:3 television black bars will be placed on the top and bottom. *ALSO, make sure the DVD player's menu is set to the correct type of television too (16:9 or 4:3).

Tyler's technique sounds like it's the best option - especially as widescreen TVs are now almost standard in homes.

Is this the way other people are doing it?

My first camera was a GL1, which we've been using as a second cam to the XL2. lately I've been shooting in 16:9 on the XL2, and would also like to use the GL1 in real 16:9. Is there an additional adapter for the GL1 that would let us get a closer match?
Thanks
Bruce Yarock

Century Optics has a 16:9 adapter, if you don't like the menu setting of your GL1:

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/16x9/16x9.htm