16:9 mode on GL2

[Ken Tanaka]

Century Optics

[Hilary Cam]

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : Century Optics -->>>

Century Optics 16:9 Widescreen Adapter
VS
Canon's WD-58H

Differences?

[Ken Tanaka]

The WD-58H is a (very good) wide-angle adapter that simply broadens the overall view of the standard lens.

The Century 16:9 adapter produces an anamorphically-proportioned image through the lens.

[Peter Moore]

Can anyone confirm how this Century lens performs with the GL2? Do you have to get the Bayonette model or can you get the 58 mm threaded model? Do you lose any zoom range due to focusing problems and is there any vignetting?

[Brad Higerd]

Peter has a good question. How does the redesign of the GL2 influence the functionality of Century Optics 16:9 converter originally designed for the GL1?

[Peter Moore]

Still wondering about this - surely someone must have used one of the 16x9 adapters on their GL2 by now. Anyone?

[Michael Buendia]

i wanted to ask a couple of questions:

1) when i shoot in 16x9 mode am i getting a wider field of view (width wise) than say in the standadrd mode (4x3)? the image will be unsquashed when played back on a 16x9 monmitor but do i gain more room horizontally?

2) i framed and filmed (standard mode) a trophy on a turntable from top to bottom (full frame) through the viewfinder/lcd and also on a field monitor. when i play it back thru my camera to my tv (rca video out) my image is croppped on the bottom and top. what causes this?

thanx,

mb

[Ken Tanaka]

1) No. The width of frame coverage is a function of your lens not the aspect ratio of the presentation frame.

2) Consumer televisions cannot display the full frame captured by your video camera. The area between the edge of the normal tv display and the true edge of the video frame is known as the "underscan". Inversely, the area normally displayed by consumer televisions is often called the "tv-safe" or "action-safe" area. There is also an area within this area called the "title-safe" area which basically represents the most conservative display area. Professional monitors and high-resolution b&w viewfinders can display the full video frame, although lcd color viewfinders (such as the GL2's and the XL1s') generally cannot. Consequently, you must practice to be aware of this limitation and take care to frame your scenes to avoid clipping when displayed on tv.

[Michael Buendia]

in regards to the gl2, what is the advantage or disadvantage of shooting in 16x9 mode? you need a specific monitor to play it back in 16x9 right? is it better to shoot it with the 16x9 guide and then crop your image with mattes in post?

mb4

[Michael Buendia]

"Professional monitors and high-resolution b&w viewfinders can display the full video frame, although lcd color viewfinders (such as the GL2's and the XL1s') generally cannot."

my viewfinder/lcd closely matched the image on the professional field monitor (that wasn't the poblem). i was actually surprised at how accurate the viewfinder and lcd were.

since it was a product tabletop/shot it was very important to have the perfect framing to hide the turntable at the base of my frame.

for the future, would it be a good idea to create mattes for tv safe areas when framing is hyper critical? have you heard of anyone doing it before for the gl2? i believe i read in the forum that different mattes can be created in photoshop.

what are the dimension of tv safe and tv transmission?

mb4

[Ken Tanaka]

Aside from compliance with certain cinematic standards, this is largely a matter of style. There are three ways to produce 16:9 results with the GL2; use an anamorphic adapter, shoot using the GL2's 16:9 mode, or crop 4:3 footage.

There are advantages and drawbacks to each method. As this is a much-discussed topic here you'd be best served by using the Search function to look for "anamorphic" or "16:9". Many people more experienced in this subject than I have already offered much information on this topic.

[Ken Tanaka]

Originally posted by mbuendia4 : my viewfinder/lcd closely matched the image on the professional field monitor (that wasn't the poblem). i was actually surprised at how accurate the viewfinder and lcd were.

I don't know what monitor you used but I can tell you that the GL2's viewfinder and lcd do not display the full video frame. Perhaps you did not have your monitor set to display underscan.

Originally posted by mbuendia4 :for the future, would it be a good idea to create mattes for tv safe areas when framing is hyper critical? have you heard of anyone doing it before for the gl2? i believe i read in the forum that different mattes can be created in photoshop.

It is possible to create an overlay file for use with the GL2 and some people do so as a visual aid when planning to create 16:9 footage by cropping. However, in this case it would be useless since the GL2's viewfinder (and lcd) are not capable of displaying underscan. The solution is really to just practice, practice, practice.

[Tustin Larson]

Why not use the Title Mix Function and download the 16:9 matte file that I have created. Its very simple, you can see the 16:9 Letterbox Bars in the LCD screen, and you dont have to crop it in post.

Here is the Thread.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6136

Hope this helps...
Tustin

[Ken Tanaka]

He's not looking fot 16x9, Tustin. He's looking for an "action-safe" area.

[Simon Orange]

I have recently bought an Optex 16:9 anamorphic adapter for my Canon XM2. Having shot some test footage through it I am a little dissapointed with the results.

The actual aspect ratio isn't quite 16:9, but seems about 5-10% out, nearer 15.5:9. This means that everything is slightly squashed (fat). Noticibly so, in my view. I can of course correct this in After Effects, but it does seem shame to have to loose quality (and time) by doing this. The resizing and cropping involved must smear the image.

I'm starting to wonder if I would have just been better to shoot just using the in-camera anamorphic option despite the slight CCD resolution reduction.

I am not sure if this is just my lens that is at fault but it might explain why the Optex scored a little better than the Century at http://www.megameme.com/vx1609.htm - either way I would suggest potential purchasers of the lens check it out carefully as you might also find it to be a problem.

I would be interested to hear if the Century 16:9 adapter, or even other Optex 16:9 lenses, suffer from this issue.

Simon