16:9 mode on GL2

Boyd Ostroff · April 24th, 2003, 05:40 PM

DV Magazine reviewed both adaptors but did not mention this problem though they did mention some focus issues:

http://www.dv.com/features/features_...questid=157152

http://www.dv.com/features/features_...eview/wilt0202.

Just out of curiosity, what do you base your observations on? Viewing on a computer monitor? On the camera's LCD? On a 16:9 TV? Might it be a pixel aspect ratio issue?

Simon Orange · April 24th, 2003, 05:57 PM

Boyd,

Viewed on combination of 16:9 broadcast monitors, Computer monitor, LCD (obviously anamorphic in this instance but I think you can still tell - doesn't look stretched enough) etc..

Not an pixel aspect ratio problem as the footage shot 16:9 using the camera anamorphic mode (if that makes sense) is fine. I measured the variance by shooting a square (in 4:3 as a control - 16:9 camera - 16:9 lens) and exporting to photoshop....resizing to 1024x576 (PAL widescreen) and overlaying a grid.

The lens is definately out by about 6%. I think this is easily enough to notice - maybe you could get away with it on landscapes, but actors all look a little fatter than reallife. I spoke to Optex and, apart from not being that interested, said that is what they were all like.

I can live with the slight vignetting at wide angles and otherwise the image quality is excellent, but I am not sure that I can live with the incorrect aspect ratio.

simon

Boyd Ostroff · April 24th, 2003, 07:09 PM

That's disappointing. Add yet another item to the list of problems with anamorphic adaptors. Just recently I decided against getting one for my VX-2000 and purchased a PDX-10 instead which has native 16:9.

Simon Orange · April 24th, 2003, 07:22 PM

Coincidentially, just been looking at the PDX-10 myself. If I had know in advance I think that it might have been a better choice of camera.

simon

Raj Anish · April 25th, 2003, 02:58 PM

Hi,

I have some newbie questions for shooting in 16:9 format. I plan to view all shot video on 16:9 HDTV that I have hooked up to my HTPC (Home theater Personal Computer). This is the same computer on which I plan to download minidv tapes and edit content (using something like Vegas Video 4.0). BTW, I plan to burn it on 16:9 DVDs.

Is it better to shoot in 4:3 mode and then later crop in 16:9 format while editing on PC? Or, is it better to shoot directly in 16:9 mode? From what I understand when GL-2 is recording in 16:9 mode, it just takes the 16:9 frame in 4:3 window. So, it does not take full advantage of the entire resolution. Is that correct? In that case, it should not make any diference as to whether I shoot in 4:3 and then crop 16:9 or shoot directly in 16:9, right? Or, will it make difference?

Having just bought GL-2 and many accessories, I do not have money to buy Optex or other anamorphic lens right now, so I am looking for suggestions as to how can I get maximum resolution for 16:9 shoots?

thanks,
Raj

Ken Tanaka · April 25th, 2003, 04:30 PM

Raj,
It's generally better to shoot in 4:3 and crop. Use your WD-58H adapter (you referenced in a separate thread) to boost your horizontal frame coverage when appropriate. (Poor man's anamorphic adapter <g>.)

Alex Knappenberger · April 25th, 2003, 04:41 PM

Either way, you lose resolution. I personally think it's easier to just use the 16:9 mode in the camera, so you know what your framing, but if you really want to do it with software, then use two peices of tape to crop it off on the lcd, so you know what your framing...you get the idea.

Raj Anish · April 25th, 2003, 06:01 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger :
Either way, you lose resolution..
-->>>

Is the loss of resolution same in both approaches?

Raj

Alex Knappenberger · April 25th, 2003, 06:05 PM

Yeah, i'd say so. You could always squeeze the video down to the 16:9 standard, instead of cropping it, you wouldn't loose any resolution that way, but of course, everything would look much fatter. :D

Boyd Ostroff · April 25th, 2003, 07:18 PM

There are some issues regarding where in the process the DV compression takes place. As I understand it, the camera either (1) crops the image to 16:9, compresses it, then stretches it anamorphically or (2) crops the image, stretches it and then compresses it.

Theoretically method (1) would give better results since 25% of the image is the black bars, hence less data to compress. With method (2) you're compressing the whole frame, producing more artifacts. From what I've read, the Canon camcorders use method (1) and the Sony PD-150/VX-2000 use method two.

I've done some of my own tests with a VX-2000 and it does appear that cropping the image yourself gives slightly better quality than using the builtin 16:9. I haven't tried this with a GL-2 however. But if my assumptions are correct then you might see slightly better results using the built-in 16:9 on your GL-2. See the following link for some more discussion http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

Also consider what you want the final product to be. Do you want anamorphic 16:9 to show on an HDTV or do you want letterboxed 4:3? If you want anamorphic then using the built-in 16:9 creates it automatically, saving you the step of cropping and stretching in your NLE. However if you want letterboxed 4:3 and shoot with built-in 16:9 you'll need to vertically "squash" it in the NLE, which will require another render.

Ronnie Grahn · August 24th, 2003, 08:17 PM

Well, here's a crazy question for you.
What about mounting a 16:9 adapter (century etc) on the XM2 and then shooting with the camera 16:9 option on?

What would the result be like?

Back to insomnia...
/Ronnie Grahn

Boyd Ostroff · August 24th, 2003, 08:56 PM

2.35:1

Ronnie Grahn · August 25th, 2003, 09:19 AM

That's what I thought.
But what are the drawbacks? Will it be possible to se anything in the lcd/viewfinder? Will you be able to focus? Will the image be any good at all?

Anyone here tried it?

Boyd Ostroff · August 25th, 2003, 10:04 AM

Actually there's somebody named Martin Munthe who has gotten some nice results with this technique on a PD-150. He is doing a horror film called "Camp Slaughter" (I think). And I believe he is even in your part of the world. Search around a bit using his name, this was discussed a lot here at DVInfo.net...

Ronnie Grahn · August 25th, 2003, 04:45 PM

Yes, I'm familiar with Martin Munthe (we're both from Sweden) and it was his technique with this that got me thinking if it was possible in some way to do it on the XM-2.

I guess a field monitor of some sort is a must to be able to focus and so.
The question is if the 3x 1/4 ccd chip can handle it.

April 25th, 2003, 02:58 PM	#35
Raj Anish New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 7	16:9 content for HDTV Hi, I have some newbie questions for shooting in 16:9 format. I plan to view all shot video on 16:9 HDTV that I have hooked up to my HTPC (Home theater Personal Computer). This is the same computer on which I plan to download minidv tapes and edit content (using something like Vegas Video 4.0). BTW, I plan to burn it on 16:9 DVDs. Is it better to shoot in 4:3 mode and then later crop in 16:9 format while editing on PC? Or, is it better to shoot directly in 16:9 mode? From what I understand when GL-2 is recording in 16:9 mode, it just takes the 16:9 frame in 4:3 window. So, it does not take full advantage of the entire resolution. Is that correct? In that case, it should not make any diference as to whether I shoot in 4:3 and then crop 16:9 or shoot directly in 16:9, right? Or, will it make difference? Having just bought GL-2 and many accessories, I do not have money to buy Optex or other anamorphic lens right now, so I am looking for suggestions as to how can I get maximum resolution for 16:9 shoots? thanks, Raj

April 25th, 2003, 04:30 PM	#36
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Raj, It's generally better to shoot in 4:3 and crop. Use your WD-58H adapter (you referenced in a separate thread) to boost your horizontal frame coverage when appropriate. (Poor man's anamorphic adapter <g>.) __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

August 24th, 2003, 08:17 PM	#41
Ronnie Grahn Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Helsingborg, Sweden Posts: 77	Anamorphic lens and shooting 16:9 at the same time Well, here's a crazy question for you. What about mounting a 16:9 adapter (century etc) on the XM2 and then shooting with the camera 16:9 option on? What would the result be like? Back to insomnia... /Ronnie Grahn __________________ www.ninjafury.com \| www.ronniegrahn.com

August 25th, 2003, 09:19 AM	#43
Ronnie Grahn Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Helsingborg, Sweden Posts: 77	That's what I thought. But what are the drawbacks? Will it be possible to se anything in the lcd/viewfinder? Will you be able to focus? Will the image be any good at all? Anyone here tried it? __________________ www.ninjafury.com \| www.ronniegrahn.com

August 25th, 2003, 04:45 PM	#45
Ronnie Grahn Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Helsingborg, Sweden Posts: 77	Yes, I'm familiar with Martin Munthe (we're both from Sweden) and it was his technique with this that got me thinking if it was possible in some way to do it on the XM-2. I guess a field monitor of some sort is a must to be able to focus and so. The question is if the 3x 1/4 ccd chip can handle it. __________________ www.ninjafury.com \| www.ronniegrahn.com

April 24th, 2003, 05:40 PM	#31
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	DV Magazine reviewed both adaptors but did not mention this problem though they did mention some focus issues: http://www.dv.com/features/features_...questid=157152 http://www.dv.com/features/features_...eview/wilt0202. Just out of curiosity, what do you base your observations on? Viewing on a computer monitor? On the camera's LCD? On a 16:9 TV? Might it be a pixel aspect ratio issue?

April 24th, 2003, 05:57 PM	#32
Simon Orange Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: London, UK Posts: 48	Boyd, Viewed on combination of 16:9 broadcast monitors, Computer monitor, LCD (obviously anamorphic in this instance but I think you can still tell - doesn't look stretched enough) etc.. Not an pixel aspect ratio problem as the footage shot 16:9 using the camera anamorphic mode (if that makes sense) is fine. I measured the variance by shooting a square (in 4:3 as a control - 16:9 camera - 16:9 lens) and exporting to photoshop....resizing to 1024x576 (PAL widescreen) and overlaying a grid. The lens is definately out by about 6%. I think this is easily enough to notice - maybe you could get away with it on landscapes, but actors all look a little fatter than reallife. I spoke to Optex and, apart from not being that interested, said that is what they were all like. I can live with the slight vignetting at wide angles and otherwise the image quality is excellent, but I am not sure that I can live with the incorrect aspect ratio. simon

April 24th, 2003, 07:09 PM	#33
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	That's disappointing. Add yet another item to the list of problems with anamorphic adaptors. Just recently I decided against getting one for my VX-2000 and purchased a PDX-10 instead which has native 16:9.

April 24th, 2003, 07:22 PM	#34
Simon Orange Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: London, UK Posts: 48	Coincidentially, just been looking at the PDX-10 myself. If I had know in advance I think that it might have been a better choice of camera. simon

April 25th, 2003, 04:41 PM	#37
Alex Knappenberger High School Student Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canton, Ohio, USA Posts: 609	Either way, you lose resolution. I personally think it's easier to just use the 16:9 mode in the camera, so you know what your framing, but if you really want to do it with software, then use two peices of tape to crop it off on the lcd, so you know what your framing...you get the idea.

April 25th, 2003, 06:01 PM	#38
Raj Anish New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 7	<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Knappenberger : Either way, you lose resolution.. -->>> Is the loss of resolution same in both approaches? Raj

April 25th, 2003, 06:05 PM	#39
Alex Knappenberger High School Student Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canton, Ohio, USA Posts: 609	Yeah, i'd say so. You could always squeeze the video down to the 16:9 standard, instead of cropping it, you wouldn't loose any resolution that way, but of course, everything would look much fatter. :D

April 25th, 2003, 07:18 PM	#40
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	There are some issues regarding where in the process the DV compression takes place. As I understand it, the camera either (1) crops the image to 16:9, compresses it, then stretches it anamorphically or (2) crops the image, stretches it and then compresses it. Theoretically method (1) would give better results since 25% of the image is the black bars, hence less data to compress. With method (2) you're compressing the whole frame, producing more artifacts. From what I've read, the Canon camcorders use method (1) and the Sony PD-150/VX-2000 use method two. I've done some of my own tests with a VX-2000 and it does appear that cropping the image yourself gives slightly better quality than using the builtin 16:9. I haven't tried this with a GL-2 however. But if my assumptions are correct then you might see slightly better results using the built-in 16:9 on your GL-2. See the following link for some more discussion http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen Also consider what you want the final product to be. Do you want anamorphic 16:9 to show on an HDTV or do you want letterboxed 4:3? If you want anamorphic then using the built-in 16:9 creates it automatically, saving you the step of cropping and stretching in your NLE. However if you want letterboxed 4:3 and shoot with built-in 16:9 you'll need to vertically "squash" it in the NLE, which will require another render.

August 24th, 2003, 08:56 PM	#42
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	2.35:1

August 25th, 2003, 10:04 AM	#44
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Actually there's somebody named Martin Munthe who has gotten some nice results with this technique on a PD-150. He is doing a horror film called "Camp Slaughter" (I think). And I believe he is even in your part of the world. Search around a bit using his name, this was discussed a lot here at DVInfo.net...