Marco: the simple answer is that you can't make something out of nothing. You need 480 vertical lines for a full quality 16:9 image. The VX only has 480 vertical pixels in 4:3 mode. No matter how you convert to 16:9, you're going to lose 120 of those lines (60 off the top and 60 off the bottom).

Kevin: I think the word "reasonable" has to be defined before you can answer the question about the best reasonably priced native 16:9 camcorder. I have a Z1, and agree that the FX1 would be a great choice for 16:9 DV. It has much better image adjustment and manual controls and a great LCD screen. However, if you have a limited budget and want the most bang for the buck then I would suggest the PDX-10. It produces great 16:9 DV, has XLR's and the same mike as the PD-170, records in DVCAM plus some other nice things. It's also part of Sony's pro line so you get a much higher level of service than you would with the VX or FX series. I've had one for about 3 years and shot tons of footage which I'm still very hapy with. For $1,700 it's a terrific deal:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=252192&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

The downside is smaller CCD's, a tendency to vertical smear with bright point light sources, and slightly worse low light response than the FX1. But considering the price, it's a lot of camera.

What a fun subject to be troubled by, lol. What I am thinking is that it will look better enlarged rather than letting the camera remove the top and bottom. Or would it look the same using either method? I understand that both will give you the loss to 360, BUT which "looks" better?

16:9 is indeed getting much more popular, but you can't really say that 4:3 is dead. A lot of TV broadcast is still done in 4:3 and there is no reason to produce the shows in 16:9 if the majority of homes have standard televisions, not wide. It would be absolutely pointless to have all the content in 16:9 and then have the whole channel letterboxed all the time. It's simply wasting of the screen space. As much as I've talked to the real broadcast professionals, they say that 16:9 really becomes the standard when HDTV does. And this is about to happen in the next 4-5 years. Remember, it takes quite a while until the majority of people have those new generation TV sets.


4:3 probably will be dead, but it is not yet :)

George, what you don't realize that most of the programming is shot in 16:9 with framing for 4:3. It's then broadcast digitally in 16:9 and side cropped to 4:3 for standard analog broadcast. All of the primetime network shows and most sports events are now available in HD. Most TV stations are having to broadcast both digital and analog at the moment. Eventually, the analog transmissions will cease at which time the FCC intends to re-allocate those frequencies to other radio services. Latest I've been told is 2009.

-gb-

You're true Greg, but that doesn't apply to all locations. Here they have very expensive 4:3 cameras and it would cost a great fortune to replace them all with 16:9 SDs. Therefore they are waiting for another 4-5 years till HD takes over and then they will buy straight HD cameras. Here it is planned to go over to digital television in 2007, but 4:3 will still stay for a while. At least this is what a professional in the national television said to me.

By the way, it looks like Torino 2006 olympics are also at least broadcasted in 4:3. And as far as I could find from the web, all the clips are 4:3 too. Looking at http://video.msn.com, their website player is designed for 4:3 and so are most of the shows they have up on the site. Same goes for Fox News, Deutsche Welle, Reuters etc... So I am wondering why they do not convert their websites to show in widescreen?

One country that seems to be going especially towards 16:9 is United Kingdom and CNN website really does show videos in wide and so seems to be doing BBC. But if looking at the clips then big part has been filmed in 4:3 and is squeezed into wide by CNN.

Isn't it so that 4:3 footage squeezed onto wide display doesn't really look that bad and it's up to the watcher how he/she prefers to watch it? I think that here we arrive at another little point - the computer users. A lot of people nowadays watch TV programmes via computers and wide monitors are rare and not very useful either. Are they happy if all the videos they watch in full screen are wasting 25% of their monitor space?

Just my thoughts. Feel free to argue ;)

Two things are happening in the US, very soon, that may kick-start a considerable acceleration of mainstream adoption of HD.

The first HD-DVD players from Toshiba will start shipping this month, and apparently Hollywood will produce content to play on it.

Second, beginning this summer, ALL new television sets sold in the US, larger than 25", MUST have ATSC tuners. That will start putting large numbers of HDTVs in living rooms that actually have HD content easily available to display on them (significant numbers of people in the US already own HDTV "ready" sets, but without anything connected to them to provide HD content).

As HDTV becomes mainstream, widescreen is going to become mainstream as well (probably on the net too).

But look how many people live in the US! :) That's a hell amount of TVs that have to be bought if at least 50% of US homes want to be HDTV ready. So as the pro's say, also in the UK, HDTV is at least 4-5 years away. But that's true, digiTV is going to be pushed. Here they are mostly focusing on the digital TV tuners than TV sets with tuners built in and currently there are not many sets in the shops that have the tuner built in. However, they still want to go digital in 2007 so will see how they plan to supply homes with the digital tuners. They are rather expensive, at least today.

It won't be 4-5 years here in the US. Our Congress finally set the hard-limit. Analog broadcasts will be turned off on February 17, 2009. No more analog at all. That's three (3) years (almost to the day) from now. In the meantime, new televisions being sold here, will be required to be able to receive the digital broadcasts much sooner than that. The US is the land of consumerism. It won't be long until most living rooms here have real HDTVs, receiving real HD broadcasts.

Congress did not mandate HD television, they mandated digital transmission of television, a far different thing. A cheap set top box will be able to receive the digital transmissions and convert them to the older analog form.

There will be no need to go out a buy a new televison.

What Mike is saying is what I also exactly meant. Digital TV is being pushed here just as in USA, maybe even harder. Much different from HD though. I saw a local TV programme talking about all kinds of electronics and they went to a shop to look what they have to offer regarding to TV sets. When the reporter asked about HDTV support, the salesman answered that most of the available TVs don't support it, but the very expensive large LCD screens do so that the buyer can consider it a longer term purchase and that it will be ready for the newer formats when they arrive. I think the salesman himself wasn't too smart either, but at least it is showing how far HD is here on the consumer level. However, in the same show they introduced digital TV very thoroughly and explained all kinds of aspects people have to know about. It's easy to see what is close and what isn't.

Like Mike said, HD and digital are two different animals. 4:3 won't die ANY time soon. You have to take into consideration the non production or non broadcast uses as well. CC cams, security cams, specialized imaging systems, public educational institutions, etc. Most of those won't need or afford 16:9 or HD until it's dirt cheap. Who's going to put an HD 16:9 security cam in when their b&w 9" 4:3 model still shows a perfectly usable image? How many public schools are rushing to dump their 4:3 cams and televisions? How many security companies want to dump their high end 4:3 equipment just for a few inches on the sides?

It's like VHS vs. DVD. I still know numerous people who have yet to even purchase a DVD player and here we are about to see the next gen come out as HD-DVD....

One thing I have learned about americans, they don't like to give things up easily...

When the reporter asked about HDTV support, the salesman answered that most of the available TVs don't support it, but the very expensive large LCD screens do so that the buyer can consider it a longer term purchase and that it will be ready for the newer formats when they arrive.

This sounds like a reference to the fact that many HDTVs are shipped without a built-in HD tuner, but that's something many people will simply rent from their cable/satellite TV provider -- so paying extra to have this built in isn't necessarily a good thing. And I saw a DVD player recently with an HD tuner for around $250, so this isn't a big deal compared to the cost of a good HDTV.

What I am thinking is that it will look better enlarged rather than letting the camera remove the top and bottom.

Actually, to get the best 16:9 from the VX you should just letterbox it (put a black bar above and below the image inside a 4:3 frame). People with 16:9 TV's can use the "zoom" function on their remotes which will fill the screen with the letterboxed area in the 4:3 image. The hardware scalers on most widescreen/HD TV's will do a better job than the VX built-in anamorphic mode.

I will probably go that route, start in 4:3 from the cam and then do 16:9 in post NLE. What would NOT including the bars at the top and bottom cause?

I will probably go that route, start in 4:3 from the cam and then do 16:9 in post NLE. What would NOT including the bars at the top and bottom cause?

Somebodt else jump in, if I got this wrong, but you will end up with distorted video. The editing program will not crop if you bring footage into a 16:9 project. It will be squished. You will have to resize

Workflow I would use in premiere pro if you want add bars in post is:

1. acquire 4:3 footage and open it in a 4:3 project.

2 Edit your project as you normally would, keeping in mind you will eventually add the mask.

3. Now add the mask. See the one I have shown in this thread at #21 I just key the blue part of the mask out, and that lets the video show through.

4. Now you can go back to individual clips and move video around to adjust framing.

5. Now render entire file to DV and you have your 4:3 version with a mask. This will give you a great letterbox production on any 4:3 output

6. If you have to have 16:9, you can open a 16:9 project, import the finished DV 4:3 version, and then resize until bars disappear. Then output to a new 16:9 DV file.

I have to confess I don't have a single 16;9 TV, so I am not sure if the 4:3 project renered to DVD will be read by Tv and made to fill screen.

I was thinking the same thing. But doesn't that show the bars when you watch it on a 4:3 TV? I was thinking to it all in 4:3. Then import the finished product to a 16:9 project, THEN add the bars. Would that work?

I was thinking the same thing. But doesn't that show the bars when you watch it on a 4:3 TV? I was thinking to it all in 4:3. Then import the finished product to a 16:9 project, THEN add the bars. Would that work?

Marco:

You got to remember that when you open a widescreen project in your editor, the frame you will be working with is the 16:9 frame. When you drag you 4:3 DV file into 16:9 project, it will initially show up in the project monitor with bars on each side, or will be squished in some editors. You will have to resize everything to make it fit in the 16:9 frame. But it is another way to go.

Yes when I import 4:3 into a 16:9 project it has the bars on the side. I didn't realize you were talking about bars on all 4 sides at that point. I'm I correct with that statement? Because if there is already a mask on a 4:3 on the top and bottom and you then bring that into a 16:9 you will have mask on 4 sides at that point, right?

When you have a complete 16:9 video, then it will by default not show bars on 4:3 TV, but it will look stretched. This is the DVD player now that will have to letterbox the video for your 4:3 TV. When you import 4:3 footage to 16:9 project in PPro there is an option so that all the clips imported will be automatically zoomed into the 16:9. If you have it turned off the clips you put to the timeline will have black bars on the sides. Then you will have to zoom manually.

The letterboxing of 4:3 footage in post sounds rather interesting. Can Boyd or someone please tell me whether it is good to use such workflow with professional DVD projects too? Do some pro's actually do like that?

Something I've recently noticed when watching Finland television is that when they show 16:9 programmes or films, they now put the channel logo and subtitles also over the video and the black bars are left completely empty. This is probably because of the same thing - to allow widescreen TV owners to use the zoom function.

I will probably go that route, start in 4:3 from the cam and then do 16:9 in post NLE. What would NOT including the bars at the top and bottom cause?

Well I'm a little confused about exactly what you're trying to do...

But you could just shoot straight 4:3 but frame the shot such that it will also look good when cropped to 16:9 - you could use some sort of overlay on your LCD screen for example. Then just burn a regular 4:3 DVD. However, when you watch it on a 16:9 TV, use the "zoom" function on the TV which will crop the top and bottom off the image and make the 720 pixel width fill the screen. From my own experience, this will give you the best looking widescreen footage from the VX. And of course, anyone watching the DVD on a regular 4:3 TV will just see a normal full screen version. But you won't have made a widescreen DVD, and it will be up to the user to figure out how to do this on their own 16:9 TV.

I do this all the time when I watch 4:3 broadcast TV on my plasma screen. It's interesting, because some footage is definitely shot so it will look good when cropped to 16:9, but for other programs you end up chopping off people's heads ;-) Quite a lot of Hollywood films are shot like this as full frame 35mm. This allows them to make two versions - a full frame one for 4:3 TV's and a cropped widescreen version for the theatres and widescreen TV's.

Interesting side note: take a look at the DVD's of Kubrick's films - specifically The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. They were shot this way - full frame 35mm. But the theatrical version was cropped to 1.85:1. However the DVD's are the 4:3 full frame version, and there's a note on the package saying that's the way Kubrick wanted them released. However, if you watch them on a widescreen TV and use the "zoom" function as discussed above, they will look fine (just like the theatrical version). So basically, I'm suggesting that you could do the same thing.

Yep Hollywood does use such technique. In one of the King Kong Production Diaries it can be clearly seen how they have set up the camera monitor. The footage is shot in 4:3 and they have a widescreen guideframe on the display. They will then probably cut out that part from the full frame for cinema use.

This is getting to be a long thread. The question that started this thread was basically asking if a VX2100 was "the best" 3 CCD camera for shooting 16:9.

The short answer is a clear no.

The VX2100 is a camera with many excellent attributes and can shoot great images, but it is really a 4:3 camera. There are quite a few consumer cameras I would choose first, for shooting 16:9. Some of those megapixel consumer cameras have the pixel count needed, even when cropped on a 4:3 CCD, to resolve a 480 line image, wheras, the VX2100 simply does not.

Oooh yeah this is going to be a long thread ;)

The VX2100 is a camera with many excellent attributes and can shoot great images, but it is really a 4:3 camera. There are quite a few consumer cameras I would choose first, for shooting 16:9. Some of those megapixel consumer cameras have the pixel count needed, even when cropped on a 4:3 CCD, to resolve a 480 line image, wheras, the VX2100 simply does not.
And it depends whether you need 16:9 or not. I would say that despite the pushing of 16:9, for several uses 4:3 is even better (top and bottom is needed more than the sides). For example several sports like ski jumping where they bring the person very large over the screen.

Georg -

I was saying that for 16:9, there are consumer cameras I would choose first.

I sure can't imagine any consumer camera being something anyone would choose for 4:3 shooting, over a VX2100 (unless you couldn't carry it where you needed to get it or something like that maybe).

But can anyone please answer whether it would be professional to use the letterboxing with my projects? Meaning that I film and edit in 4:3, then add the bars in post.

I guess that would depend on the client/target audience. If they'd be viewing on a 16:9 display, that could look a little cheesy, I would think. If you know for sure they'll be viewing on 4:3 SD displays, it will look fine.

I have a customer who has hired me to shoot underwater footage with my PAL Sony VX2000 for a 16:9 job that will be transferred to film.

The VX2000 will not do 16:9 natively and an anamorphic lens is not an option so I reckon the options we have for achieving 16:9 are as follows:

1. Shoot 4:3 (576 lines) and crop in post production. This gives the flexibility to move the cropped area up or down for fine tuning of the composition. In this case I could mask the top and bottom of the underwater housing's monitor so I know I am composing shots correctly for a 16:9 result. Result is 432 lines of resolution.

2. Shoot 4:3 and reduce the aspect ratio ("squeeze" the height). Result is 576 lines of resolution.

3. A combination of 1 & 2. Some cropping, some "squeezing". Result is somewhere between 432 and 576 lines of resolution.

4. Shoot with the camera in 16:9 mode. This "letterboxes" the 4:3 image and gives 432 lines of resolution. One drawback is that the image on my monitor would be stretched vertically to 4:3 so it is not so easy for me to compose shots, but I can still work this way.

5. Tape the lens frame to mask the captured image. This is what the customer has suggested but would be difficult to do accurately. Result is 432 lines of resolution.

Can I ask you guys, are these options correct and which would you recommend? On previous 16:9 jobs I've just shot in regular 4:3 mode and I think the customer has just squashed the height (option2), but they may have cropped too.

Nick

You talk of 576 lines Nick, so I guess you're shooting PAL. This is a good start if you plan to finish with a 432 line 16:9 image, and I'd say this - go test out your various options, it really is the only way.

However, I like shooting 16:9 on my VX2k in the 16:9 mode - that way my v'finders both show the correct aspect ratio and I find framing much easier than viewing a vertically stretched image as on a XM2, say. But it sounds as if in your case shooting in 16:9 actually gives you a distorted monitor image - not good.

Shooting 4:3 is probably your safest bet. That way you can still produce 4:3 DVDs as well as mask within the frame in post. Have you checked to see if this post production reduces your picture quality?

Your last paragraph has me confused. It sounds as if the customer has accepted a distorted image just to have it in 16:9. Amazing. But then underwater things are a bit unusual anyway, so some one-sided compression might not go unnoticed by your average land-lubber.

tom.

On my VX2K, if I want to shoot for cropped 16:9, I add a mask from a file on the chip, and use MEMORY MIX to pull it up from the chip.

I like it because the mask shows up on screen, and on the monitor. I believe using that method, you get a better overall picture.

On my VX2K, if I want to shoot for cropped 16:9, I add a mask from a file on the chip, and use MEMORY MIX to pull it up from the chip.

I like it because the mask shows up on screen, and on the monitor. I believe using that method, you get a better overall picture.
Thanks for the replies guys.

This sounds like my best option. How do I get hold of or create a suitable mask? Would it just be a JPEG of a pair of black bands (top and bottom) created in Photoshop or similar? What dimensions do I need (for PAL)?

Nick

Nick:

If you haven't done one yet, I have a file posted here:

http://www.makeyourfilm.net/downloads/DSC00027.jpg

Thanks very much indeed Chris.

Chris,

When importing that footage used with your mask, I am assuming that you import it as 16:9 and have a 16:9 project loaded to accept it, correct? Are there any problems you have come across with this? Do DVD players ignore the black bars? Any issues trying to go from that 16:9 mask to a 4:3 project?

I actually really wouldn't want to shoot in 16:9 on the camera...It's really not wide screen at all, you don't fit more information into the picture than 4:3, so you aren't actually gaining anything except for pure superficial cosmetics..True widescreen works because it's shot in a way that's easier on your eyes, it is truly wide in regards to more objects in the periphreal being visible, fake 16:9 just takes the 4:3 picture and squishes it...

For instance, if you have want a wideshot of a mountain with two peaks on either end, a 4:3 picture just wont do that justice, you need true 16:9 to fit in the peaks and the actual mountain top for it to look any good.

I seriously stay stick with 4:3 on the VX...

If I may add another option for shooting 4:3, you can do what I did: pick up some Sharpie markers designed for dark surfaces (I got some silver ones, and they're metallic to boot! Fancy lookin', lemme tell ya). Turn the in-camera 16:9 mode on, make four little dashes on the black plastic of your LCD panel that roughly correspond to the corners of the 16:9 frame, turn 16:9 back off, and use that for framing. Still leaves the problem of the viewfinder, but I find it's fairly easy to eyeball it with some practice.

Those familiar with the Memory Mix mask technique, let me ask you, does that mask get recorded to tape? I've been doing the method described above on the assumption that it does (with the mask on tape, I wouldn't be able to reposition my image in post, something I had to do for my DV Challenge short film), but if it's not true, it would certainly make for more accurate compositions.

Truth be told, I've tried the built in widescreen option, and I've been quite happy with the results. Looks pretty darned good, of course I've never been faced with a film transfer. The slight quality hit is hard to notice for most of us, with video on the web (small windows, high compression), but I imagine it may make a difference in your situation. And I'm no expert, but it's been my understanding that the VX2000 widescreen mode, while letterboxed on the viewfinder and LCD, is actually crop-and-stretch when going to tape (or through the cam's outputs); that is, the image isn't simply recorded to tape with the black bars, it's cropped to a 16:9 resolution and then stretched, vertically, back to 4:3. A 4:3 monitor will, therefore, show a distorted image. I suppose you may know that already, but based on the content of your first post, I thought I should chime in just in case. If you can get your hands on a 16:9 capable monitor, you should be able to use the built in option AND get an accurate picture for framing and composition.

Chris,

When importing that footage used with your mask, I am assuming that you import it as 16:9 and have a 16:9 project loaded to accept it, correct? Are there any problems you have come across with this? Do DVD players ignore the black bars? Any issues trying to go from that 16:9 mask to a 4:3 project?
Sorry, missed this post.

No, import as 4:3. It is still 4:3. Just has black bars. As I understand it, 16:9 DV is just cropped 4:3. Still 720 wide, but with tops and bottom trimmed.

Robert - I shoot with my PAL VX2000 in the 16:9 mode. I appreciate the fact that both v'finders are undistorted (unlike a lot of Canons and Panasoniocs in the widescreen mode), and the footage plays back off DVD onto my ancient 1990 Sony Trinitron 34" set looking very good indeed.

Of course only the middle 432 lines are being used for the display, but as a lot of braodcast TV arrives anyway in this format, it looks perfectly 'normal' now. If I play the same DVD through the 16:9 Philips TV it automatically switches to fill the screen.

tom.

I must be honest, Tom, I'm not sure what you're getting at; I agree with you, the 16:9 mode looks great to me, and I'm using the NTSC version, lower resolution and all. I'm not sure what it looks like when transferred to film (in the examples I've seen comparing the standard 4:3 image and the built-in 16:9 image, there is just the tiniest drop in quality in certain areas of the picture; complex lines, patterns, and the like, which I imagine will look much worse when blown up to film dimensions), but other than that I'm all for shooting that way. You can't nudge the shot after the fact, in post, but that just encourages care and planning during production, which we should all pay attention to anyway. The big kids, with their VariCams and CineAltas, have to frame it right the first time, we should hold ourselves to the same standard. The only reason I haven't is, I suppose, peer pressure. "Cropping in post provides superior quality", "You've gotta be able to move the frame around during post production", and so on. In fact, I think I'm gonna shoot my next movie with the "inferior" technique, just for the hell of it.

As for the displays automatically identifying the proper aspect ratio of the signal, well, what you describe is the way I thought it was supposed to work; Nick said he had problems with it working correctly, however, and I thought I knew the answer. Apparently not, if 4:3 TVs, even from the era you're dealing with, display things properly. Any idea what his problem might be?

And my marker lines suggestion, well, you ultimately told Nick his best bet would be to shoot 4:3, and I offered my method so he wouldn't have to deal with a permanently recorded letterbox on his footage (using the "Memory Mix" trick). Perhaps there was a miscommunication somewhere, my apologies if I seemed to be contradicting your advice in some way.

To all:

I've noted what I call a "strained" look when shooting the VX2K in 16:9 mode. I don't understand why, because you would think Sony would be doing the same thing as we do with the Memory Stick mask. But for some reason they don't. In fact, it appears some sort of manipulation is being done over and above what normally happens in the 4:3 capture. Some tech Guy can explain it, and the reason, I'm sure.

It is a pain in the neck to have to use memory stick for a mask all the time, and I've often shot just full screen and then masked in post. But thats what we have with this beast. I shot this cam next to my FX1 in some recent things, and I still love the low light latitude versus the FX1.

Trying to get this all:


shooting 4:3 with memory mix = permanent black bars
shooting 16:9 with built in bars = permanent black bars?
shooting 4:3 with marker lines = no permanent black bars, and more adjustable?

Good summary. Works for me.

Trying to get this all:


shooting 4:3 with memory mix = permanent black bars
shooting 16:9 with built in bars = permanent black bars?
shooting 4:3 with marker lines = no permanent black bars, and more adjustable?

The second one is incorrect; the viewfinder and LCD are given a letterbox, but the footage is not recorded that way. Some cameras DO record that way, but the VX2000 (and 2100, and PD-150/170) crop the top and bottom of the image, stretch the result vertically to fill the 4:3 frame, and write that to tape (with a flag of some sort that tells monitors and other devices "this footage is stored anamorphically, please unsqueeze it"). The footage as recorded is distorted, and is only unstretched on playback. You may very well NEVER see the distorted version, if all of your equipment is set up properly, but it's there.

More details can be found on Adam Wilt's website (http://www.adamwilt.com/), but the important point can be found at http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html, where he discusses the right and wrong ways to do 16:9 ("right" and "wrong" at least from an engineering standpoint; the quality may be acceptable for your tastes):

"The "wrong way" is for the camera to simply chop off the top and bottom scanlines of the image to get the widescreen picture. When you throw the switch on these cameras, the horizontal angle of view doesn't change, but the image is cropped at the top and bottom compared to the 4:3 image (it may then be digitally stretched to fill the screen, but only 75% of the actual original scanlines are being used)."

Emphasis mine. The VX2000 and its family are among the cameras that do the digital stretch he describes.

Which method does everyone think will yeild the most options. I am thinking this.

Use memory mix and just have those with 16:9 use the zoom function.

OR
Use built in 16:9 and hope that it doesn't look like sh^t on 4:3 displays

???? It seems like such a simple answer but I feel like I am making it harder than it is.

I have far too little real world experience to offer advice regarding potential problems with either approach, so someone (namely Tom, since he's participated in this thread already) wiser will have to chime in.

I'm not one to have a big ego, and I'm not looking to push anybody, but if you're looking for versatility, I highly recommend at least trying to frame for 16:9 without any masks from the Memory Mix function. Whether you want to do the little grey marks with the pens that I did is up to you, but I believe the most options would come from a 4:3 source composed so that all major action falls within 16:9 frame boundaries. You can always crop it during editing, compositing, or compression, and if not you'll still have a pleasing 4:3 composition to use for full screen video.

"The "wrong way" is for the camera to simply chop off the top and bottom scanlines of the image to get the widescreen picture. When you throw the switch on these cameras, the horizontal angle of view doesn't change, but the image is cropped at the top and bottom compared to the 4:3 image (it may then be digitally stretched to fill the screen, but only 75% of the actual original scanlines are being used)."

Emphasis mine. The VX2000 and its family are among the cameras that do the digital stretch he describes.

Well, whether you shoot 16:9 with the built-in stretch or shoot 4:3 and crop and stretch to 16:9 in post, it's going to look about the same. That is it will look like 4:3 resolution footage letterboxed rather than the tighter anamorphic 16:9 pixel pattern. It really comes down to convenience.

If you are working with other 16:9 footage and want to pop some VX2000 16:9 footage directly on the timeline without rerendering it, shooting stretch 16:9 will save you a step and look about the same.

If you are using all VX2000 footage you can really do it either way. Cropping and stretching in post will give you more options (you can move the 16:9 frame up or down) and you can do both 16:9 and 4:3 final renders if you want.

Just remember a couple of things. Some things look terrible stretched and interpolated and some things look pretty good. Things like a talking head against an interior background look almost as good cropped and stretched as if they were shot anamorphically while things like leaves or grass look absolutely horrible cropped and stretched. If the points being interpolated are part of a larger line they usually look quite good, but if they are defining a smaller pattern like leaves, grass or a patterned shirt, they can look terrible.

Also, remember that true 16:9 footage and cropped and stretched footage look the same on a 4:3 monitor since the extra lines of resolution are thrown away anyway. The difference between letterboxed and anamorphic footage has more to do with formatting on both aspect ratio televisions than it does with quality considerations. Cropped and stretched 4:3 to 16:9 footage will look no worse than letterboxed anamorphic footage does on a 4:3 set.

Fortunately, in the case of underwater video the interpolation will usually look pretty good. What I would do is just shoot with the VX2000 and not worry about it. If you are doing an all VX2000 project, shoot 4:3 and crop and stretch in post, but if you are mixing the underwater VX2000 footage with topside anamorphic footage, just shoot 16:9 and save yourself an intermediate step.

Also, if you do crop and stretch and slide the 16:9 frame up or down, remember to move it two lines at a time so as not to screw up the interlacing pattern. I do this by zooming out to 50% in Vegas as this automatically means that my movements up or down are going to be an even number.

If you are working with other 16:9 footage and want to pop some VX2000 16:9 footage directly on the timeline without rerendering it, shooting stretch 16:9 will save you a step and look about the same.

If you are using all VX2000 footage you can really do it either way. Cropping and stretching in post will give you more options (you can move the 16:9 frame up or down) and you can do both 16:9 and 4:3 final renders if you want.



Okay, one more crack at this. When you use the 4:3 setting, and either lay down the letter box matte in the camera, or lay down the letter box matte in post, you will not have any "stretching" when you rerender it as a 4:3 project. There is no loss of resolution in the picture area. And it plays great on any 4:3 monitor, whether or not it can detect flags for 16:9. Even at this point, the major percentage of TV are still 4:3 aspect ratio.

Now, if you are going to take the 4:3 letterboxed file into a 16:9 timeline, and render as a 16:9 file, you will have to stretch, and the strech will result in eliminating all of the bars at top and bottom.

I think I have it. I am going to film 4:3 with the 16:9 guide marked on the view finder. Than do the rest in post. Thanks a bunch!

Also, remember that true 16:9 footage and cropped and stretched footage look the same on a 4:3 monitor since the extra lines of resolution are thrown away anyway. The difference between letterboxed and anamorphic footage has more to do with formatting on both aspect ratio televisions than it does with quality considerations. Cropped and stretched 4:3 to 16:9 footage will look no worse than letterboxed anamorphic footage does on a 4:3 set.

I think we're all misunderstanding one another, and further confusing the issue, so let me try and simplify what I was trying to say: if you shoot some footage with THIS camera (I'm not speaking in general terms, referring to any other manufacturer, or any other Sony product) in 4:3, then shoot the exact same footage with the built in 16:9 mode, and compare the two closely, there will be a slight difference. Different, or rearranged artifacts. The nature of the process this camera uses (internal scaling of the picture) produces sometimes-less-than-optimal results.

Is the difference objectionable? Perhaps not, depending on your point of view. Does the picture look okay from a distance? Yeah, sure. Are the two pictures functionally identical as far as most audiences are concerned? It's very likely. Do both versions of the footage look great on a 4:3 monitor? Hell yes! But are we talking about televisions? No. The original poster said he got hired to shoot some footage, with this camera, intended for film. Knowing that a difference in quality, however small and insignificant on television, may have larger repercussions for film--or at least knowing that that's what I've been told by people with more experience than I--I merely meant to caution the gentleman. That's all.

There's an excellent article at DV.com that explains all of this widescreen stuff quite well: http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_item.jhtml?articleId=59100233 Pay attention to the "Digital Stretch" section, and the part about the PD150 (identical to the VX2000 as far as the image is concerned); the "edgy-yet-soft" detail of the sharpened digital stretch in these cameras is what I was warning Nick about, as while it's true the effect is hard to see in real world shooting conditions when displayed on a production monitor, I have no idea what they'd look like blown up to a thirty-foot screen.

Robert:

I don't think anyone has a problem with the 2 cents everyone is putting in. My problem with this whole thing is I don't get the technical side of it.

From what I can make out, DV 16:9 in the Sony still comes packaged inside a 720 wide frame. And so does 4:3. So it seems to me you should avoid the 16:9 hocus pocus in the camera, and stretch into your 16:9 frame in post where you have more control over the output. Thats why if I know I am going out to 16:9 I would rather choose a matte in camera, over the 16:9 selection. Others just put a tape or guide over LCD to approximate letter box and do it on time line in post. But no matter what you choose, if you go to 16:9 you loose use of some of the pixels, and that is an effective loss of resolution.

I know what you mean; it's hard enough to try and understand this stuff, let alone explain it well enough for others to also get it. Especially since I'm not an engineer.

I believe the article I posted (just edited my post, check it out if you missed it the first time around) does a much better job of sorting all this out than I do--though if you're anything like me you'll have to go over the article several times to fully understand it all. And I think you and I are using the word "stretch" to refer to different concepts. The one I'm talking about is the one presented in the DV.com article.

As for losing resolution, well, as far as I know the only way around that is a 16:9 anamorphic adapter, like the one from Century Optics. Barring that, the only way to get a 16:9 image is to get rid of some scanlines, so "throwing away" resolution isn't so bad: you couldn't use it otherwise. You lose image dimensions when you apply some sort of mask, sure, but not detail in the remaining image area.