Safe Areas?

[Graham Bernard]

Who frames their work in the XM2, taking into account the safe areas needed to be finally seen on a tv?

Grazie

[Brad Higerd]

Hey Grazie,

I say we do, but only because Canon made ours with the entire picture unviewable through the LCD. Our LCD screen pretty much frames the 10-20% right out of the picture.

The viewfinder may be another story, but I haven't paid enough attention to comment.

As a follow-up, do you have any experience with "squeezing" your image into the viewable range when you want people to see everything?

Brad

[Graham Bernard]

Hiyah Brad!

Please fly that past me again. I've got to many converse sets of understandings from what you say. Please . . . .

Grazie

[Bud Kuenzli]

I don't shoot with the assumption that I need to provide a safe area, but I rarely have an important object right against the edge. But it does happen. It's a mistake, but it happens. I'm currently working on a video that will indeed be put to VHS and there is some critical images that I want inside the frame to I wil be moving it to the side in post. I use FCP and it's just a matter of setting the image to Image and Wireframe and then you can move it by dragging it. I test this on a TV and try to make sure I get as much as I can without creating a black sideline. This is just hit and miss, however because not all televisions show the same area.

[Ken Tanaka]

Since the GL2's viewfinder and lcd do not show the underscan areas of your image you have little choice but to frame for the action-safe area. (I'm speculating that this must also be true for the XM2.) There is a difference between the resolution of the lcd panel and the lcd in the viewfinder, with the latter being just a bit more restrictive.

I -think- that this is basically what Brad was indicating.

[Graham Bernard]

Bud & Ken thank you,

What is now very clear to me and you, is that I've always thought that, that which I shoot is that which will be available through my whole edit process. Now it is obvious it is not true. Using my preferred NLE, Vegas4, it is not true to an amount of 10% of the Action - all the way round the screen area.

Example: I shot a piece that included an arch window looking into a marquee. I'd framed it the way I wished. The top of the window arch was nicely curving around and fitted the way I wanted it to. Only on final edit and PTT did I notice that the top of the arch's curve had been "sliced-off" - boiled egg style - yeah? Not what I wanted - dramatic - but not the whole picture. Now if I'd known and had been more aware of this I would have compensated. The problem then arises is that with the chap I give my footage too for "other" work, ostensibly he will see TOO much of a gap about the arch. So, not only do I have to film for my own editing BUT I must now film for this other fellow's editing. Is this the case for the rest of you? Do you in fact film for the edit deck/set-up that will need THE footage shot in THE way for it?

I can understand if this is the case - it's a bit more to consider when out on a shoot and makes for a more unwieldy solution. But I would understand if this is in fact what is required.

Thanks again,

Grazie

[Ken Tanaka]

The actual size of your image (that is, the amount of coverage in the image) is a constant. The amount of visible image will depend on the device being used to view the footage. A professional monitor set to underscan will show the entire picture. A digital version of the image, such as a straight Quicktime or Windows Media file of the footage, will also show the wall-to-wall footage.

Consumer televisions will clip the edges of the image to varying degrees.

But if someone else is editing your footage s/he should see the whole image on their computer screen just as you do.