I'm shooting a film and want to get a film-like look, including 16:9 aspect ratio. I'm shooting in Frame mode. If you haven't already read Chris' article "The Myth About Widescreen DV", check it out. It turns out that the XL1S creates the 16:9 aspect ration by actually cropping pixels vertically from its standard 4:3 mode. Given that the 16:9 is really a cropped cheat, does it make more sense to shoot at 4:3 using the 16:9 guides and then just crop it yourself in editing? Any thoughts about the comparative cost in resolution between these two options?

Canon's "official" response is, they want you to shoot in 4x3 using the crop guides in the viewfinder.

Take a few minutes to read Adam Wilt's thoughts on this very subject at:
http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

Finally, if you want some *real* controversy, you'll find this link most interesting:
http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/index.html

Hope this helps,

There appear to be different opinions from a lot of people
on this. I say expirement. See what you like better, shoot
4:3 and then crop (and perhaps stretch then). Shooting
16:9 directly with the camera (then it does the crop and
stretch for you) or use an anamorphic adapter (no loss
of resolution, but you do get loss of choice, explained later).

If you go down the first two choices there is a loss of
resolution. The second choice however offers you more
compression bandwidth! This can result in better pictures
then choice 1, why? Because in the first choice you are
compressing the whole picture (even the part you are
going to crop away)! Since DV compression is a dynamic
algorithm, ie it looks at where it THINKS it needs the most
bits and allocates the compression in this manor. If you have
a lot of detail in your picture some things are going to get
more compression bandwidth then others! Now if you shoot
in electronic 16:9 (choice 2) there is less detail to compress
(since it cropped out a stuff and the other information is
stretched -> decreasing detail instead of increasing it)
so there is more bandwidth available for each pixel! This
*can* result in a better picture (all depends on how much
detail there is).

Why are you loosing choice when shooting in 16:9 anamorphic
with an adapter? Because you need to frame your picture
100% accurately. There is no marging for error. What you framed
is what you get, end of story. This also happens with electronic
16:9 (choice 2) ofcourse! If you shoot in 4:3 and crop in the
editting suite you have the choice where to put the "black bars"!
You can shif the image up or down to get perfect framing! This
is what the big boys in hollywood are doing. They are reframing
the pictures to fit best and then crop em (they have the resolution
to spare). A good example of this technique is on the excellent
Se7en special edition DVD!

To sum it all up:

Choice 1, shoot 4:3, crop (and perhaps stretch) later:
Pro: shift the image up & down, also have 4:3 footage if needed
Con: might be a detail loss in complex images. extra work

Choice 2, shoot electronic 16:9
Pro: less detail loss in complex images, less work
Con: no extra choices in the NLE stage

Choice 3, 16:9 anamorphic adaptor
Pro: true 16:9, no resolution loss. Less detail loss in complex images, less work
Con: expensive, no extra choices in the NLE stage

Hope this all made some sense to someone :)

Good luck!

I'm getting ready to start shooting my second film soon and I'd like to get your opinions. There are tons of threads on the 16:9 ratio in the XL1, and about anamorphic adapters, etc. There are opinions from the purists that say you shouldn't even consider shooting 16:9 with the XL1...and there are lots of suggestions to go out buy expensive lenses and adapters. Unfortunately, I can't shell out any cash right now for an adapter, so if I shoot in 16:9 it'll have to be with the built-in feature in the XL1.

My goal on this next film is to shoot something that might actually have a chance at getting in some film festivals. And I want it to have as "cinematic" a look as possible. So, instead of technical "how to" explanations and such, I'm just looking for your opinion.

My question is, for those of you who have experience shooting in both 4:3 and 16:9 with an XL1, is it, in your opinion, worth it for me to shoot it this way (you know...not great, but better than 4:3)? Or is the end result so bad that it's better just to stay in 4:3? (if I did shoot it in 16:9, I'd letterbox it for regular TV viewing).

Are you able TO RENT a Sony DSR500? It has true 16:9 CCDs. Just a suggestion. (I'd go 16:9, but not with the XL1's built in feature.) Off topic: you're in Japan. Why not check out the Panasonic MX500? I mean, just check it out and give us your thoughts.

How is the MX500's 16:9 function different to that of the XL1? Remember the XL doesn't crop it stretches/squeezes the image. There is a loss of resolution but when viewed on a standard TV it still looks nice.

I knew it. I knew this would become yet another thread suggesting alternate equipment. You guys can't help yourselves! ;)

Actually, consider me dead broke. No chance at renting anything. So, any opinion? In-camera 16:9...or stick with 4:3?

What will you be doing with the final footage? If it is for web consumption, I don't see a problem with the XL1s 16:9 mode. All though not perfect, it still looks fine when viewed on the web. The alternative is to crop in post, which I am sure you already thought of.

Yeah, Paul...I'd thought about both ways...but would prefer doing it in-camera this time, if at all. And I agree with you that just about anything, done right, will look good on the web...just because it's so dense due to it's small size.

But the reason I'm thinking of shooting 16:9 is because, IF it turns out good enough (and that's a big IF), I'd like to submit it to some festivals and also some of the local indie viewing theaters. They put it up on a fairly big movie screen. That's why I figured 16:9 would give it at least a bit more cinematic flair. But not if it looks as crappy as some attest.

Next time you are coming down to my place, bring your camera we'll plug it in to our big arse tv and see just how "bad" it really looks.

It's fun to think that our camera is cool enough or technical enough to truly capture 16:9 with just a simple press of a button, but I have talked to TV engineers and other producers/videographers about this. I have been told to shoot the cleanest, most crisp and straight-forward 4:3 video there is and then do your effects in post. The 16:9 feature on the xl1s is for your own guidelines only. Guideline only. Key word.

Here's what I'm gonna do for you (I'm such a swell guy... well actually I have my own curiousity) since you're a fellow ex-pat. I'll shoot some footage on my XL1 in both 4:3 AND 16:9 modes, then plug my cam into my home projector (have to wait until dark) and see how it looks. If that isn't a good enough test, I'll take it to my work and project it to theater size tomorrow. I'll shoot a variety of lighting conditions in 'movie mode' and in regular as well.

But I suspect that some of the other post-ers are right and that it is a compromise unbecoming of the big screen.

PS. Let me know if you need a hand on your new movie. I have some gear and knowledge I might be able to share, time permitting.

Wow...what kind of setup do you have, Ken? You actually have access to equipment that can "project it to theater size"?! Fantastic! I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting to hear the results. Talk about taking the guesswork out of it!

I've got several shorts lined up over the next few months, so we'll have to talk more about combined efforts...maybe get the whole DVJapan group to work together on something. Adrian? Rik? What do you think?

Shoot 4x3.

16x9 in the camera just does a crop and stretches the height to fill frame. You can do the same thing in post quite easily.

You have much more framing leeway if you shoot 4x3, as you can reframe in post if needed.

Adrian

John,
I work at a University and there are 3 or 4 high resolution projectors set up in various rooms that can be made dark. One room is a mini-theater that seats about 100 people with the sloping seats -actually benches- and a decent projector that projects to about 4X3 metres or so. DVD's look pretty good even through S-video, which is the connection that I will also be using tomorrow (or as soon as I can). But a component signal is so much better. Unfortunately, I'll be going out of the S-video on the camcorder and through the projector, so don't expect miracles.
Most decent DVD players have a component out and if you plan to burn a DVD from your movie, the image should be projected better. I play component out DVD's on my home theatre system and it looks great, even though the projector is not an expensive one. I haven't yet seen a completely digital projection system, but I think they might exist (??? it might not even be possible for all I know). I know they're making firewire Plasma TV's now.
My University also has a complete Media 100 editing suite (not upgraded to firewire in, only S-video and Component in), a small TV studio/sound booth with lights and old cameras and lousy sound equipment. They hesitate to upgrade because no one is using it except little old me. BUT they did stock another 'theatre' with newer portable digital recording gear (mixer/MD recorder/?) (on a trolley) and I could wheel it down to the studio without too much trouble.
So, if you're in need for some post studio sound work, you could come by and use it. I also have a good friend who would be into helping with sound.
But be warned, in return I might ask you and your gear to commit a couple of weeks next summer to an 'indie' I have in the works.

Ken

(droooool)

Yeah, we're not jealous.... ;)

John and others,
Well I did a couple of tests with my XL1 and with both my home theatre and the school's projector, the main difference being the size of projected image and the fact that my home theatre has a 16:9 native aspect ratio whereas the one I used at school does not, and no way that I could find on the latter projector menu to 'stretch' the image. It might be an older projector.

So this raises some questions on shooting 16:9/projecting 16:9 vs. shooting 16:9/projecting 4:3 (and other combinations) I'm not clear about. But I'll skirt that issue for now and tell you what I saw.

I could find no noticeable difference in image quality between the same subject that was shot 16:9 vs. what was shot 4:3 using either projector. That's my eye. I highly recommend doing your own tests before committing one way or another. I'm sure there is some technical difference and if the balance of advice says shoot 4:3 and deal with it in post, then that's probably what I would do despite my own test. Besides, I more than likely didn't account for something or other that will not doubt be pointed out shortly in replies.

I realize my answer isn't very commital, but I'd really hate you to shoot your movie based soley on my test.

Ken

I hope this thread keeps going. Right now the biggest downside to the XL-1(S) line is the lack of a anamorphic lens. If the difference between electronic and optical 16:9 is small enough. I may start shooting in that mode.

I hope this thread does continue...

I am closing in on the end of my short, hopeful, for submission to festivals and the such.

I shot my 20+ minute DV in Frame (16x9) mode. I am definately eager to project it, after a bit of color correcting, and tinkering. There will be one cut for television use/another for projection/ and others I'm sure to be kicked in the pants later on.

Here is the thing about some of the festivals, however, they require different formats. I contacted a few and some want it converted to DigiBeta or HD or something else. This is propably the subject of another thread.

So, please share your results...

Thanks for your work!

Cheers!

Derrick

<<<-- Originally posted by LHORIZON : Here is the thing about some of the festivals, however, they require different formats. I contacted a few and some want it converted to DigiBeta or HD or something else. This is propably the subject of another thread.
-->>>

DigiBeta or HD?? Good grief do they think that we indie filmmakers are made of money. Were the festivals that you talked with the larger ones out there or were smallers ones making this request?

Paul,

Tribeca Film Festival and ... Its been awhile, but I know for sure that Tribeca requires you to transfer to DigiBeta/BetaSP or HDCam or 16MM. I was timetabled to finish my DV Short, so I could get it to them, but I decided against rushing it. However, thats if you get into the festival. (I can only imagine the kind of transfer and then the technical tweaking you as the filmmaker, have to do to get the results you want the audience to experience.) It discouraged me, and I am in the middle of the short. There is no time for being wishy washy...

I haven't looked back into it for awhile. About 3 mos. Though I am nearing the completion and I am definately submitting. The big ones and the smalls.

I hear you, Paul loud and clear. I spent the good part of an 8 hour day, tracking down prices at production houses to convert, once I finish it. I found a few people... For the lovely cost of about 80.00 + this + that + the damn plastic case for your tape.

Can't let it stop me though. Saving up my deposit bottles...

Cheers!

Derrick

Here's a very good link about the 16:9 issue in detail. The entire site is awesome.

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

Ken

<<<--

My goal on this next film is to shoot something that might actually have a chance at getting in some film festivals. And I want it to have as "cinematic" a look as possible. -->>>

by no means am I a expert with the XL1s but I have seen some footage shot with the "black bars movie look" and it looks like crap-ola in my opinion. It just shrinks it unlike real 16:9

My son-in-law's father owns Foto-Kem in Burbank. They're on top of techno trends in the industry, so I was pretty much blown away when Michael told me they're recommending to people they shoot in the 16:9 mode on the XL-1/Xl-1s if they want to finish 16:9. I had asked him about shooting 4:3 using the 16:9 guides. He said that's the way to go if you think a print might be needed in 4:3, but if all you're going to want is 16:9 then go with what the camera will do.

He also recommended shooting in the Normal Mode, rather than Movie Frame Mode, if your intent is to output to film.

<<He also recommended shooting in the Normal Mode, rather than Movie Frame Mode, if your intent is to output to film.>>

Given the website I posted earlier, this makes total sense. Except that in PAL, Movie frame mode is okay. It has to do with converting NTSC's (almost)30fps to film's 24, whereas PAL only needs to convert from 25fps to 24fps.

"For the 625/50 XL1s sold in PAL countries, the 25fps video frame rate will make for an even closer match.

This is very exciting, especially for anyone wanting to originate on 25fps DV and transfer to film for release, or for those simply looking for a more film-like motion rendering. The noninterlaced frame-based images should yield a much better film transfer (but be advised that 30fps images show horrible motion problems going to 24 fps film; most transfer houses prefer regular interlaced video when originating in NTSC) For the best tape-to-film work, use a PAL camera in frame mode: the resulting 25 fps images transfer to film very, very nicely... "

QUOTE FROM: http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#filmlook

However, for those of us in the NTSC world, unless we can afford the luxury of a dedicated DV tape-film PAL version camcorder and all the peripherals that may require, our efforts seem destined to be inferior to our PAL brothers (PALS?)

Ken

<<I had asked him about shooting 4:3 using the 16:9 guides.>>

"16:9 guides"? That's a new one one me. Are you talking about guides generated by the XL-1, on your monitor?

Deciding whether to shoot 16:9, or shoot 4:3 and crop to 16:9?

I just picked up a Canon XL1s and looked at the camera's performance through a Panasonic 34-inch HDTV monitor via the Y/C cable. This was a "live" feed and not recorded to tape.

I looked at the 4:3 image with the monitor "zoomed in" to see just the 16:9 portion of the camera's image. This is known as "shoot to protect 16:9" when a program might have to be shown in both formats. For example you're doing a show that might be seen on both standard 4:3 and 16:9-ratio televisions and you want critical compositional elements to remain intact.

Then I set up the camera in the 16:9 mode with the monitor set up to see the camera's 16:9 image unstretched.

Between the two, the image with the camera set up to shoot 16:9 was slightly softer than just cropping the 4:3. Not horrendously softer, but just enough to be noticable.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

Folks

During this summer, I shot some Dragon Boat race footage (Montreal) using my Canon XL1 in 16:9 mode, 4:3 mode and in Frame Mode.

Later this was captured via the Matrox RT2500 using Matrox Media Tool (Firewire connection). Editing was done in Premiere 6.01. To un-squeeze this during the editing, I had to apply a transform effect on the clip using a .75 ratio to maintain 16:9 (top and bottom black bars) (I believe that was the Matrox effect I used). Exporting the timeline back to the XL1 was a breeze as I did not have to do any further "widescreen" trickery.

The final footage contains both 16:9 and 4:3 modes (all shot in Frame Mode).

This was later shown to an audience projected on a 16 x 16 foot screen. The XL1 was connected directly to a video projector via an S-Video cable. Sound was through the standard RCA jacks.

After the showing, all of the member in the audience thought it was shot in film and was quite surprised when I told them it shot in DV. One member was actually a die-hard Sony Betacam SP news videographer. He was quite blown away by the images.

The only thing you have to get use to when shooting in 16:9 is the "squished" image through the viewfinder.

So, in summary, I'm quite happy with the 16:9 mode on the XL1.

I may start trying 16:9 for a while and see how it goes. To my way of thinking most audiences are poor judges of how well a system performs. However, it seems that at least one member (news videographer) should know if it were decent or not.

Happy Holidays,

man, am i the only one who just turns on the 16:9 guides on my GL-2 (i believe the xl1 also has this feature) and frames all my shots AS IF they were 16:9, then just throws a widescreen filter on it when i'm done editing and let it render overnight?
i would say to do that. 16:9, IMHHHO pays much better respect to the principles and elements of design than 4:3.

The XL-1 does not have the guidelines. It's available only on the XL-1s.

<<It's available only on the XL-1s.>>

I thought I'd overlooked something pretty basic here. Dang. Actually, Adrian had pointed this fact out to me yesterday. Anyone know the exact measurements on a Varizoom TFT monitor that I should mask out to shoot at 16:9? (In order to take into account how much cropping is already being done on the monitor itself as opposed as what's being shot?)

John...

If you're shooting with an XL1s then turn on the 16:9 guides and mask off your monitor where the lines fall.

If you're using an older XL1, then measure your monitor's width and divide that measurement by 16. Take that result, multiply it by 9 and that will be the "depth" of the area you'll have to mask off to get a 16:9 ratio on your monitor. Just have to center the masked area to make sure

"Shooting to protect" 16:9 has the advantage of allowing one to easily re-purpose a program for either viewing environment. However it's a half-measure in that it doesn't allow a director to compose specifically for either aspect ratio. Personally, I really prefer the artistic aspect of 16:9 over the nearly square 4:3.

Hope this helps.
Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

I was just about to ask this question and searched and found the exact question and answers I needed.

We're shooting for direct-to-video/DVD and widescreen and our feeling was that we go 4:3 (we can't afford the anamorphic adapter right now) and post widescreen it.

One advantage to this is that a number of European markets ask for full screen versions and although it's a major pain framing for both widescreen and full at least it's no extra work.

Thanks for reconfirming my feeling.

There are also a pile of posts on this subject here on the Watchdog. Just use the search feature and then sit down and read the posts.

Definately experiment with both...

I like shooting in 16.9. I agree that framing should be dead on. I like shooting in this mode because of that disciplined restriction. Besides, I never use the whole image anyways. With exception to outdoor vista/panorama shots, then I like the whole thang.

I can't wait for the board to see my short. Soon. Real soon.

Cheers!

Derrick

I have heard that:

Version 1) if you use the camera built-in function of widescreen in camcorder then u are not using full range of CCDs.

Version 2) But recording in normal and then adding bars in post produces loss of detail.

I am not a technician on these matters, but I would have thought that using version two one resulting in loss of detail would be just the same as the loss of full range of CCDs in version 1 and so producing loss of detail as well in that version.

So my question is....which is the lesser of the two evils????And so the best one to use?

sorry it should have said a bit more clearer (sorry my mind is speaking in spanish and trying to write in english)

"I am not a technician on these matters, but I would have thought that using VERSION TWO, resulting in loss of detail, would be just the same as the loss gained due to the lack of full range of CCDs in VERSION ONE and so producing loss of detail as well in that version.

which is the lesser of the two evils????And so the best one to use? Or is this just one continous argument?

"I am not a technician on these matters, but I would have thought that using VERSION TWO, resulting in loss of detail, would be just the same as the loss gained due to the lack of full range of CCDs in VERSION ONE and so producing loss of detail as well in that version.

A question I asked myself and decided that for the reason of using the full CCD footprint and if I need a full screen version I'd shoot 4:3 and have been happy with it.

We got hired to shoot part of a documentary and the producer requested we shoot 16:9. (he's paying the bill so we do what he wants.)

On top of being extremely pleased with the final result, footage-wise, I didn't notice any detail loss in the video.

Does that mean it wasn't there? I don't know.

Is there some techno-reason why it's not different. Again-- don't know.

I liked the way it looked and was happy with the end result but I'm going to continue shooting my projects in 4:3 and matting for 16:9 for now.

BUT... I will say that if I could affort an Anamorphic Lens set up--- I'd shoot 16:9 in a heartbeat.

Hey Kevin, I'm right around the corner from ya! Fancy that.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong. If you shoot 16:9 electronic on a XL1s, the camera simply removes the top and bottom pixels from the image. If viewed on a 4:3 TV, black bars are added to fill the voids. There is NO LOSS in image quality what so ever. The image on the screen is still the wonderful Canon image, just less of it. Think covering your screen with cardboard at top and bottom. Now if you view the same footage on a 16:9 monitor, the image fills the screen. If the viewing area is larger on the 16:9 TV, then the image is degraded (like blowing up a photo). If you've shot with an anamorphic adapter, the camera has used all its availible pixels to record the image ( nothing removed to get the 16:9 aspect) , and when expanded to 16:9 the image looks better. It should, you used more pixels on the chip. End of story.

Hopewell. The BEST Saab and Volvo mechanic in the US is there. Know it pretty well.


Actually, what I understand (and I admit I might be wrong) is that when you set to 16:9 mode you are not "exposing" the full CCD but that lines of the CCD are turned off (or "cropped" as is refered to above) during recording.

And during playback on a 4:3 TV you actually get a full screen image but it looks slightly "stretched". This is the same way you see it in the viewfinder.

Not until you process the footage (I did it in Final Cut Pro) that the bands are added so you get the 'widescreen' look.

This whole topic interests me since I've decided to switch to 16:9 for an upcoming project that will be digitally projected on a large screen. Actually I'm working with Sony equipment instead of Canon but the principles are the same. Have been thinking about getting an anamorphic adaptor for awhile, but they're so expensive considering what you get. You can't zoom through the whole range and maintain focus and you may get vignetting at full wide settings. Plus you can't use wide angle or telephoto adaptors with them, and filters and lens hoods that work with them are also expensive.

I had been considering ZGC's "DV Filmmaker Kit" http://www.zgc.com/html/dv_filmmaker_kit.htm but at $1,200 it's pretty pricey. So after much consideration, I just bought a Sony PDX-10 camcorder. This (to the best of my knowledge) is the only lower priced real 16:9 camera on the market. It has 3 - megapixel CCD's and when you switch to widescreen mode actually uses an expanded area to give you a wider field of view with more image data. I've only had this camera for two days, but have been performing a bunch of test and am very pleased with the results. Soon I'll put some of this stuff on the web if anybody is interested. Specifically, I shot a focus chart in both 4:3 and 16:9 using my VX-2000 and the PDX-10. You can clearly see the improved vertical resolution when you compare them. In "real world" shots you can also see the improvement, specifically in any fine lines (like tree branches for example) and also less "stair stepping" in diagonal edges.

Now I suppose it really depends on what you're shooting and its intended use as to whether the built-in 16:9 on the XL-1s, GL-2, PD-150, etc. is good enough. If you're shooting lots of close ups with faces it may not matter. Also if you're just letterboxing for 4:3 it won't make much difference. But I'm going to be projecting this footage on a 40 foot screen as part of a multimedia production. DV is already pretty "soft" for that sort of application and I want as much resolution as possible.

The PDX-10 costs a little over $2,000 which isn't that much more than the anamorphic lens and a few accessories. The images look very nice, although there are some ergonomic issues with the camera that I'm not completely happy with. I don't know if I'd want it as my only camera; it's very small. Hopefully Canon and Sony with soon introduce new versions that also offer true 16:9 capabilities. But for now if you really need 16:9 and are working on a budget you might want to take a closer look at this camera.

Oh yeah guys... I'm located in Medford, NJ so I guess we're all neighbors :-)

I've read as much as I can about this, and one thing perplexes me.

From most of what I read, people have said that when you shoot 4:3 and then crop in post, you lost 25% image resolution. That info was found here. http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/index.html

However, Adam Wilt says this about the 16:9 mode in camera:

"The "wrong way" is wrong because the resultant image only uses 360 lines (525/59.94) or 432 lines (625/50) of the CCD instead of the entire 480 or 576. When this is displayed anamorphically on your monitor, the camera has digitally rescaled the lines to fit the entire raster, but 1/4 of the vertical resolution has been irretrievably lost, and the in-camera algorithms used to stretch the image often create ugly sampling artifacts."

The XL1s, VX2000 etc. do it the wrong way.

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen



SO, it appears that both methods do exactly the same in that both end up losing 1/4 verticle resolution? Seems to me the only way to go is to use the adapter.

<<<-- Originally posted by Brad Simmons : SO, it appears that both methods do exactly the same in that both end up losing 1/4 verticle resolution? Seems to me the only way to go is to use the adapter. -->>>

I agree, and you really can't argue with the math; 480 is more than 360. There may be some room for different opinions as to whether one will really notice this in the sort of images that you're shooting however. And that has a lot to do with the composition of the picture and how it's being presented. I'm working on a show where we'll project DV on a 40' wide screen with a 12,000 lumen DLP projector so I don't want to waste a single pixel ;-)

But anamorphic adaptors have their own set of problems. You can't zoom through the full range and maintain focus. You get some vignetting at full wide. According to the reviews, both the Optex and Century have their own form of blurring that occurs under certain conditions. And of course you're stuck with the native field of view that the adaptor offers; you can't add a wide or telephoto adaptor to the anamorphic lens. Then there are also issues of sunshades and filter holders which pretty much force you into another expensive accessory.

I have a VX-2000 but think these issues are pretty similar on most of the prosumer camcorders. Well, actually I was just looking on Century's website and they don't even list an anamorphic adaptor for the XL-1s. They make one for the GL1/GL2. I guess the issue is the 72mm filter size; ZGC will sell you the Optex with a 52mm step down ring but they say it will vignette if you zoom wider than 10mm.

After pondering these limitations, plus the cost of buying the adaptor and lens shade ($1,240 for ZGC's DV filmmaker kit) I decided against it. Seems like too much of a "kludge" to spend that kind of money on. Instead I spent a bit more and bought a Sony PDX-10 which uses a larger CCD to do 16:9 the "right way". This camera has some compromises of its own, but I'm very happy with the widescreen results I'm getting. And with a 37mm filter size I was able to add a .45x wide adaptor for a bit over $100 which works with the supplied oversized lens hood and accepts inexpensive 49mm filters.

From all that I've read, the XL-1s is a fine camera with lots of strong points. But it sure sounds like the wrong tool to use if widescreen is important to you. Or maybe there's an actual anamorphic lens (not an adaptor) that works with the XL-1s? Bet that would be expensive though ;-)

Posted by Boyd

"There may be some room for different opinions as to whether one will really notice this in the sort of images that you're shooting however. And that has a lot to do with the composition of the picture and how it's being presented."


You make a really good point about composition Boyd.
Regarding those adapters, I believe they do make one for the XL1s which is 72mm.

http://www.zgc.com/html/optex_xlanamorphic_adapter.html

But the cost is $2600. Way out of my budget just to get widescreen. That is different from what you were talking about right? I think I read somewhere else that Century was coming out with one for the xl1s that has full zoom through? Am I wrong about that, or anyone know if that already come out?

I have one quick question.

If you shoot 16:9 on an Xl1s, will is display correctly on a widescreen tv? This may be a dumb quesiton buy you never know...I mean...will it display correctly without image artifacts etc? I don't have access to one and I was just curious.
I know how everyone calls it fake 16:9, so I'm not sure it will be displayed "fake" on a widescreen tv somehow.

If I am not mistaken, then yes. It will play correctly in the widescreen tv.

Yes, the television, at least Sony, recognizes it as 16X9 and fills the screen appropriately. Or stretches it.

Cheers!

This may be somewhat dependent on how you capture and output in your NLE. There's supposed to be a signal embedded in the DV stream to indicate 16:9. Be sure to flag your footage as such to insure that this happens.

hey you guys from jersey, phili and DC.

i'm sorry to interrupt but as i was reading this i thought you might be able to answer my question as well. it has nothing to do with this topic however.

i'm looking to get a camera and am looking for a shop to go look at cameras before i buy a new one.

do any of you know of anything in the b-more, DC, pa, delaware area that i might be able to look at the canons and panasonics?

i know B&H in new york but didn't want to have to make the 4 hour trip up there in i didn't have to.

thanks a lot and sorry to add this off topic reply.

thanks again. J.