16:9 and Frame Mode Together

Charles King · July 15th, 2003, 08:07 AM

You havn't posted it yet have you? Either way I'll wait 'till you post it if you don't decide to e-mail to me. Thanks again.

Mike Ostracky · July 15th, 2003, 02:42 PM

To Charles:

>Oh, I posted it yesterday. The large post.

To David:

>What I wanted to say was, that they both - used TOGETHER look very good. I don`t want to say - "hey, man - it looks excellent" because then, someone who doesn`t like the "look" would attack me or something, and I don`t want to start flame wars - but yes, If you want my answer, here it is - it looks excellent. I`ve done tests (nothing scientific), just for me - to see do I find it good enough and I was suprised, not only that it was good enough, I found it excellent - saw no quality loss whatsoever.

Charles King · July 15th, 2003, 03:20 PM

If you are referring to the post within this very forum then, I thought I was expecting clips of photos. Am I mistaken?

David Ziegelheim · July 15th, 2003, 03:43 PM

Mike,

Could post a result, preferably an unedit short (10 second) DV of them both used together?

I've been doing some tests, but I never seem to get a usable result from the GL1. Right now, the JVC DV300 seems to make the best images. In my tests so far, the cropped and zoomed image from the camera is the best 16:9 without an anamorphic lens.

Thanks,

David

Bob Benkosky · July 15th, 2003, 04:01 PM

Using my GL2 I did notice that the 16:9 mode was prety darn good looking.

I do however have a statement that needs addressing.

Recently I shot normal outdoor footage and converted it to 24p 3-2 pulldown and it looked pretty film-like. I noticed it does drop some crispness, but it's not blurry.

Now, if I use frame mode, which looks good on it's own, then move down to 24p, I noticed a crazy blurry effect going on. It's really hard to watch. I did use 3-2-2-3 and not 3-2 though.

Also, in Vegas if you use their cropping, effects and colors only affect what's in the letterbox. If the image is already letterboxed, the bars are affected by effects and other stuff. How can u prevent this?

Also, if 16:9 is not wide enough, and you want a panavision ratio of 2:35 what would be better? In camera 16:9 plus some extra cropping or all in Vegas??? And do you crop or compress it down??? I guess you can do either one. At least the GL2 gives you 16:9 guides to shoot with if you don't plan on using their 16:9 mode which is nice.

What have you guys experimented with?

Stefan Barkman · October 25th, 2006, 02:04 AM

I´m going to shoot a dokumentary projects soon and I´m planning to use my old but still working XM1. I have done some testshooting with 16:9 and frame settings on and drag down the sharpness 3-4 steps, it looks great if I watch it straight from the XM1 to the 16:9 TV. This film-feeling is what I´m looking for but...

Is there any better ways to get this filmfeeling than from the frame-mode? I have not tried Magic Bullet.

I understand that this 16:9 streach-thing is not the best way but the anamorphic adapter take to much tele away. Is there better ways?

Stefan Barkman · October 31st, 2006, 09:26 AM

The camera has limits I suppose. Next step maybe is a 16:9 chip camera with progressive mode...

Jarrod Whaley · October 31st, 2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan Barkman

Next step maybe is a 16:9 chip camera with progressive mode...

Yes. You would see a huge improvement.

I have a GL1 and an XL2. The XL2's (true!) 16:9 24p will blow away footage shot in the GL1/2's fame mode with widescreen-crop-n'-stretch in literally every way. I'm sure that's no surprise, but there it is.

Stefan Barkman · October 31st, 2006, 11:37 AM

Jarrod

I think you are right! Are you satisfied with your XL2?

Garrison Hayes · October 31st, 2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Ziegelheim

Both of these involve some image interpolation. Does anyone use them together? How is the image? Do you have samples with them together and them off on the Internet?

Thanks,

David

When it comes to my XL1 i dont even shoot with the 16:9, mainly because it "Cuts" off a good bit of my video on the top and bottom.
I do recomend "Frame Movie Mode" because of the "Film-Like" look......and i like the "strobe" it gives me when my subject moves

Garrison H.

Dale Guthormsen · October 31st, 2006, 10:15 PM

Hello,

I shoot a gl2 and an xl2. I shoot them both in 16:9 and shoot in 30 p with shutter speed at 60 (as much as possible) and I enrich the colors to my liking (it changes depending on the season).
I do not count pixels or resolution, I just want to make it look nice to my eye. I have no complaint with either camera's look.

I would prefer do as much of my work when I shoot and would prefer to do as little as possible in post.

It is a funny thing, I never really intentionall tried to make any footage look like film. I figured video is video, just go with what you got.

As it turns out as I have tweaked things to what looks right to me I have unintentionally made the footage more film like.

Jarrod Whaley · October 31st, 2006, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan Barkman

Jarrod

I think you are right! Are you satisfied with your XL2?

Yes, very much so. :)

David Ennis · December 2nd, 2006, 05:30 AM

Mike, I'd still love to see the pics you refer to in your long post, but that page doesn't seem to exist anymore.

Dale Guthormsen · December 4th, 2006, 03:01 PM

I to would very much like to see some comparison clips along these lines!

The discussion of less resolution is not really an issue as when you letter box I was under the impression portions of the picture are removed (reducing resolution) but the resolution and quality of the picture is the same.

If that is not correct please enlighten me.

Bradley D Barber · December 8th, 2006, 09:56 AM

I just finished a :30 spot with a GL-2 that I used in 16:9 without Frame mode on. It left me the option to go for a "Frame" look if I so chose, but in the end was not needed. I was a little uneasy about how it would stack up to other spots but I was very happy with how it turned out! It looks great next to national stuff!

I will post some photos of the diifference when I went back and forth in and out of Frame mode to see what I liked best. To my eye the Frame mode looks less crisp overall, but warms the shot alot.

Tere is my 2 cents

July 15th, 2003, 08:07 AM	#16
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	You havn't posted it yet have you? Either way I'll wait 'till you post it if you don't decide to e-mail to me. Thanks again. __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

July 15th, 2003, 02:42 PM	#17
Mike Ostracky Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 30	Answers... To Charles: >Oh, I posted it yesterday. The large post. To David: >What I wanted to say was, that they both - used TOGETHER look very good. I don`t want to say - "hey, man - it looks excellent" because then, someone who doesn`t like the "look" would attack me or something, and I don`t want to start flame wars - but yes, If you want my answer, here it is - it looks excellent. I`ve done tests (nothing scientific), just for me - to see do I find it good enough and I was suprised, not only that it was good enough, I found it excellent - saw no quality loss whatsoever.

July 15th, 2003, 03:20 PM	#18
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	If you are referring to the post within this very forum then, I thought I was expecting clips of photos. Am I mistaken? __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

July 15th, 2003, 04:01 PM	#20
Bob Benkosky Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Lake Park, Florida Posts: 202	Using my GL2 I did notice that the 16:9 mode was prety darn good looking. I do however have a statement that needs addressing. Recently I shot normal outdoor footage and converted it to 24p 3-2 pulldown and it looked pretty film-like. I noticed it does drop some crispness, but it's not blurry. Now, if I use frame mode, which looks good on it's own, then move down to 24p, I noticed a crazy blurry effect going on. It's really hard to watch. I did use 3-2-2-3 and not 3-2 though. Also, in Vegas if you use their cropping, effects and colors only affect what's in the letterbox. If the image is already letterboxed, the bars are affected by effects and other stuff. How can u prevent this? Also, if 16:9 is not wide enough, and you want a panavision ratio of 2:35 what would be better? In camera 16:9 plus some extra cropping or all in Vegas??? And do you crop or compress it down??? I guess you can do either one. At least the GL2 gives you 16:9 guides to shoot with if you don't plan on using their 16:9 mode which is nice. What have you guys experimented with? __________________ http://www.veoh.com/channels/filmmaker My clips and films.

October 25th, 2006, 02:04 AM	#21
Stefan Barkman Tourist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 4	16:9 and frame looks great I´m going to shoot a dokumentary projects soon and I´m planning to use my old but still working XM1. I have done some testshooting with 16:9 and frame settings on and drag down the sharpness 3-4 steps, it looks great if I watch it straight from the XM1 to the 16:9 TV. This film-feeling is what I´m looking for but... Is there any better ways to get this filmfeeling than from the frame-mode? I have not tried Magic Bullet. I understand that this 16:9 streach-thing is not the best way but the anamorphic adapter take to much tele away. Is there better ways?

July 15th, 2003, 03:43 PM	#19
David Ziegelheim Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Warren, NJ Posts: 398	Mike, Could post a result, preferably an unedit short (10 second) DV of them both used together? I've been doing some tests, but I never seem to get a usable result from the GL1. Right now, the JVC DV300 seems to make the best images. In my tests so far, the cropped and zoomed image from the camera is the best 16:9 without an anamorphic lens. Thanks, David

October 31st, 2006, 09:26 AM	#22
Stefan Barkman Tourist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 4	The camera has limits I suppose. Next step maybe is a 16:9 chip camera with progressive mode...

October 31st, 2006, 11:37 AM	#24
Stefan Barkman Tourist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sweden Posts: 4	Jarrod I think you are right! Are you satisfied with your XL2?

October 31st, 2006, 10:15 PM	#26
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	Hello, I shoot a gl2 and an xl2. I shoot them both in 16:9 and shoot in 30 p with shutter speed at 60 (as much as possible) and I enrich the colors to my liking (it changes depending on the season). I do not count pixels or resolution, I just want to make it look nice to my eye. I have no complaint with either camera's look. I would prefer do as much of my work when I shoot and would prefer to do as little as possible in post. It is a funny thing, I never really intentionall tried to make any footage look like film. I figured video is video, just go with what you got. As it turns out as I have tweaked things to what looks right to me I have unintentionally made the footage more film like. __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

December 2nd, 2006, 05:30 AM	#28
David Ennis Fred Retread Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 1,227	Mike, I'd still love to see the pics you refer to in your long post, but that page doesn't seem to exist anymore. __________________ "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence..." - Calvin Coolidge "My brain is wired to want to know how other things are wired." - Me

December 4th, 2006, 03:01 PM	#29
Dale Guthormsen Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 3,048	clips resolution I to would very much like to see some comparison clips along these lines! The discussion of less resolution is not really an issue as when you letter box I was under the impression portions of the picture are removed (reducing resolution) but the resolution and quality of the picture is the same. If that is not correct please enlighten me. __________________ DATS ALL FOLKS Dale W. Guthormsen

December 8th, 2006, 09:56 AM	#30
Bradley D Barber Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Washington Posts: 117	I just finished a :30 spot with a GL-2 that I used in 16:9 without Frame mode on. It left me the option to go for a "Frame" look if I so chose, but in the end was not needed. I was a little uneasy about how it would stack up to other spots but I was very happy with how it turned out! It looks great next to national stuff! I will post some photos of the diifference when I went back and forth in and out of Frame mode to see what I liked best. To my eye the Frame mode looks less crisp overall, but warms the shot alot. Tere is my 2 cents