I filmed something in 4x3 and am starting to regret not filming it in 16x9 hardware mode. However, I've been experimenting with software 16x9 mode (in Premier, for example, using Pan to chop off the top and bottom and make a 16x9 picture), and it looks to me to be almost just as good as the camera's native 16x9 mode.

Am I right? Is the software version of 16x9 going to be as good as the camera's 16x9 mode? Or should I just live with what I have?

Shoot in 16/9 and you will notice that you have less bleed and blocks in the red color than the 4/3 mode.

Is that less than in 4x3 mode period, or less than in 4x3 mode turned into 16x9 with software?

To have less artifact in the red, you must film in the 16:9 mode of the GL2 (or XM2 if it is PAL).

Menu->Cam setup->16:9 ON

I capture the video with Vegas Video. Vegas adjust automatically the anamorphic format to 16:9

If want to see the difference, try to shoot fix image with red or magenta color.

My video's already shot in interlaced 4x3.

So what's the best way to make it 16x9? Should I use Vegas/Premier's pan and zoom? Or should I live with 4x3?

No zoom, just crop the image to letter box

I'm using different hardware and software from you, but you need to make a distinction between letterboxed 4:3 and anamorphic 16:9. Use letterbox to show it on a regular TV or anamorphic for a widescreen TV. To make it anamorphic first crop as Marc says to create letterboxed 4:3. But then you will need to stretch it in the vertical dimension so it fills the full 720x480 frame. Finally, you need a way to identify it as anamorphic 16:9. Not sure how these software packages handle that. I think Premiere has an option for this. But there's a signal which is embedded in the video which tells a TV that the source material is anamorphic. A widescreen TV will then stretch it horizontally to fill. If you show the video on a regular 4:3 TV however it will look "squished". I don't own a "real" widescreen TV myself (yet ;-), but I gather some of them are intelligent enough to detect letterboxed 4:3 material and rescale it automatically.

Ok I am obviously not making myself clear.

I have 4x3 footage. I want to make it anamorphic 16x9 for a DVD and widescreen TV by cutting off the top and bottom and stretching it, exactly as the GL2 16x9 mode would do.

If I use software to do this, will it be as good as if I had recorded in anamorphic 16x9 to begin with? Or, am I stuck with 4x3 and should just live with that?

I am not interested in letterboxing.

I can't remember where I read it but some guy had this whole big explanation on how the GL2's pixel shift technology does the fake 16x9 better than doing it in post.

Anyone know of the site? It was very informative.

I just shoot 4x3 w/ 16:9 guidelines and do 16x9 post production if my client wants it. They usually can't decide until later.

Otherwise they get stuck with the DVD player letterboxing the 16:9 program.

For personal stuff, my wife won't let me shoot real 16x9. She knows it's fake so she doesn't like stuff being cut off. Maybe if I can convince her we need an HDTV then she'll let me shoot native 16:9.

-Cesar

Maybe this is it? http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

it was actually a link off of the site you posted.

Thanks!

http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/index.html

Both sites say the same thing. If you're going to do fake widescreen, let the camera do it.

That site helps. So the answer is the Canon Gl2's 16x9 mode would be slightly better than making it anamorphic in post, but since I also used two Sony PD150's for the side shots, whose 16x9 modes are no better than doing it in post, I'm better off with 4x3 and then converting to 16x9 if I want to.

Of course, you could always use the Title Mix Function... with the 16x9 matte I made.

Tustin Larson

Tustin. Please tell me how you do the letterbox matte function. You don't seem to cover it in your title mix function. It seems no one else as an answer for it either. Maybe you can e-mail me or something. I'm using the pal version. I've been seaching every where on this site. The links you supply to the updated version of the correct aspect ratio of the matte does not work. So, please tell me how this work. Thank you.

This site actually refers to the VX-2000/PD-150, but I suspect the technique is pretty similar on the GL-2. http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm

Peter wrote: "but since I also used two Sony PD150's for the side shots, whose 16x9 modes are no better than doing it in post, I'm better off with 4x3 and then converting to 16x9 if I want to."

This is true. In a strange way, I wish that were the case for the GL2. I would not have to decide until post.

The title mix function is great unless you want to burn it on the DVD as anamorphic widescreen.

Then you can always use the DVD player to letterbox your output for VHS copies if needed.

I know that this question is asked quite a lot....which is better ? Shoot 16:9 anamorphic or 4:3 and letterbox/resize later.

Check this link

http://www.bbctraining.co.uk/modules/5162/1.asp

page 1 and the chart on page 4...

comments anyone ?

simon

I don't know why they hate the Canon 16x9 so much. Most people say that it's fine, and I think it's acceptable.

It shouldn't matter how you do 16:9 the main problem is they don't use the full CCD so you end up with lower resolution. I would just keep it interlaced that way you can use the extra frame to do other things. More information is always better. You can just keep it 4:3 Kubrick did it. lol.

Rob:D

According to

http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/index.html

It doesn't matter *unless* you are using a Canon GL2 (he says nothing about the GL1).

The GL2's 16:9 anamorphic will yield you a better picture than framing for 16:9 and cropping or letterboxing later.

Based on everything I have read, this is only true for the Canon Gl2. If you're not sure you want 16:9, frame for 16:9 but shoot in 4:3. But if you know that you want to create an anamorphic DVD with a GL2, use its 16:9 option.

You will lose resolution, but other than buying an anamorphic lens, or a true 16:9 camera, this is the best way to get widescreen with a GL2.

Oops, I revisited the site and he mentions the GL1 not the GL2.

Hmm, his conclusions are in direct contradiction to the BBC's.

Maybe there is artifacting introduced in the "stretching" but then wouldn't these go away when squeezed back down by the DVD player or the Widescreen TV?

I'm more confused than ever.

I guess I'll just continue framing in 16:9 and try to forever convince my wife that nothing important is in the upper and lower sections, and that it was framed for 16:9.

She just loves that 4:3 (unless it is a movie that was shot in 16:9... I can't win.)

You will loose resolution when using 16:9 in those cameras always.
No way around it. But then again you also loose resolution if you
add black bars in post later.

Use what you work best with or what your clients want/need!

<<<-- Originally posted by Cesar Ruiz : Maybe there is artifacting introduced in the "stretching" but then wouldn't these go away when squeezed back down by the DVD player or the Widescreen TV? -->>>

I think you have this part backwards. First the cropped image is stretched vertically in the camera to make it anamorphic (everything looks tall and skinny). Then on a widescreen TV it is stretched horizonatally, preserving all 480 vertical lines, to get the correct 16:9 aspect ratio.

It wouldn't get "squeezed back down" unless you were letterboxing it to fit a 4:3 screen. If that's the goal then none of this matters a whole lot because the viewer will only see about 360 vertical lines anyway.

Yes, that's what I meant Barry. Sorry, I wasn't clear.

The DVD player will squeeze the image down if you wanted
to view it on a 4:3 screen. It will letterbox it. This is how I
letterbox my VHS copies for clients. I let my DVD player letterbox my anamorphic image and dub to VHS.

If displaying on a widescreen TV it
will be stretched horizontally to fill the screen.

Right now I frame everything in 16:9 and crop
if my clients want it in anamorphic widescreen.