GL2 Widescreen

[Dan Kutler]

Can anyone tell me what my options are for getting widescreen from the GL2? Would love a true 16:9 but doubt that's possible. Or is it?

Also, does anyone have any other suggestions for getting great shots from the GL2?

I have one on loan and want to try to get some reel-friendly footage from it.
Thanks,
Dan

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Real widescreen footage is only possible with an anamorphic adapter with the GL2.

Otherwise you can choose: letting the GL2 do it in camera, cropping the 4/3 footage (so not a 'real' 16/9 frame) or let the LCD/viewfinder show you 16/9 guidelines on the 4/3 screen, so you can do the cropping in post.
It costs extra render time, but it gives you extra options (you can move your image up and down in post) and you don't see a stretched image in the viewfinder/LCD screen.

[Dan Kutler]

Mathieu: you said "letting the GL2 do it in camera, cropping the 4/3 footage (so not a 'real' 16/9 frame) or let the LCD/viewfinder show you 16/9 guidelines on the 4/3 screen, so you can do the cropping in post"

so you're saying the GL-2 has guides that show me what WOULD BE 16:9 once i do it in post?

how do i access that functionality?

thanks,
Dna

[Alan Craven]

Fourth item in the display Set Up Menu - page 35 in the manual (which answers most of your questions).

[Graham Bernard]

The Guidelines only assists you to "visually" locate, frame and proportion your shot. Period. It doesn't create 16:9. You will still end up with 4:3 footage - although that portion that you HAD visually excluded while you videoed, you NOW have an option within your NLE to then "crop" your 4:3 material DOWN to 16:9 - you are basically removing lumps of information ABOVE the higher guide line and BELOW the lower guideline.

In Camera 16:9 does the cropping in-camera, and for the sake of actually seeing the results, although distorted, the camera "stretches" to fill the LCD. Now, if you wish to see how this looks you can slap on an external widescreen LCD - this works very well for actually "seeing" in the correct 16:9 format. This is the way I've been using 16:9 in-camera format. I decided in going this route after seeing "Sundowner" by Jim (?) and was blown away. It is also less work for me! I don't need to letterbox the 4:3 to get 16:9 from the centre.

Look, ultimately the best/correct way is to shoot onto an enabled 16:9 chip. However and in the meantime, I get to see my 16:9 in-camera results and am training myself into this option should EVER Mrs/Mr Canon gets an HD/16:9 XM3HD ! Yeah?

Anyways, do try both approaches and YOU decide which - at present - suits you?

[Cengiz Ozgok]

Well I just have the xm2 for a 6 weeks now and expriment with the 16:9
function.
With a help of a friend who owns the dream camera dvx100 he told me to shoot in the function 16:9 with the xm2
The xm2 will get these in 4:3 and strech the screen top and the bottom side.
But if you put these in the edit software (I use the Final Cut Pro)
And choiche easy set up anamorphic and the sequence settings also anamorphic.
Then you will get a very fine 16:9 screen the results are realy very good
So no cut and without the black borders top and bottom side.
Export this with the option QuickTime conversion to mpeg2 and than put it in DVD studio pro.
So here you have more options to get 16:9 or letterbox etc.

[Zack Birlew]

Well, I've been using 16:9 on my GL1 without the aid of guidelines like the GL2 has. But in any case, the 16:9 is VERY good, maybe not DVX-level, but still very good.

Also, I tried a Century Optics anamorphic adapter at NAB '05 and it looked pretty much like the regular 16:9 mode does in the LCD, but since it isn't doing anything to the image, there will be less noise and resolution-loss versus doing the in-camera mode when it is unsqueezed and displayed on TV.

[Gregg Sullivan]

So if I go to the expense of purchasing an $800 bayonet mounted 16x9 adaptor to get true anamorphic widescreen shots on the GL2, what do I see in the viewfinder/LCD display?

Anamorphic? Letterbox 16x9? God?

What will it look like so I know if I need to reun the anamorphic back out to a $400 16x9/4x3 switchable monitor as well?

Picture that: $1200 of equipment to make the $1650 camera I bought do proper widescreen. Maybe I just should've waited and got a Z1U?

Thanks for the advice!

-G.

[Bob Thieda]

Gregg....watch e-bay. I just picked up a Century 16:9 adapter for just over $300.
And I don't use an external monitor. I just use the squished image in the camera LCD.

I'm very happy with the set up. One thing to understand about the Century lens is you do lose the top 20-30% of your zoom.

HTH.
Bob T.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Hi Gregg,

Before spending another $800 you might want to analyze this from a strictly financial point of view. How much could you get if you sold your GL2? I've seen a couple advertised here for around $2,000 (with lots of accessories though). That might be a little optimistic, I don't know...

For the sake of argument, let's say it's worth $1,500. So if you buy the $800 adaptor now you have the equivalent of $2,300. That money would go pretty far towards getting you a camera with native 16:9 chips - you might find a used XL2 for a little more than that. Or you could buy a new Sony A1 for something like $2000. You could probably find a Sony PDX-10 (native 16:9 also) for $1,500 or less.

If you really want to shoot 16:9 then I think the GL2 is just a bad choice in today's world, even with the anamorphic lens. The lens will make it more difficult to work with the camera - limited zoom range, distortion issues, no filter threads, inability to use telephoto or wide convertors, etc.

Even if you have to spend a little more I think it would be a better investment for the future if 16:9 is important to you. Just some food for thought!

[Gregg Sullivan]

To Bob & Boyd-

Gentlemen, your two posts are perhaps the most valuable pieces of information feedback I have ever gotten on a discussion forum, no joke.

That the lens can be had so cheaply is very good to know, as is the fact that only if it is to be had so cheaply would it begin to be worth it given the potential return on investment.

You guys know your stuff. Thanks SO Much!

-G.

P.S.> really looked over the Sony A1U before purchasing my GL2. Love the capacities of the camera, but (and I know this sounds weird to a lot of folks), it is just too damn small. Love the Z1U and V1U though. Debating Canon vs. Sony for next camera purchase, because the studios I work at use Sony everything.

[Bob Thieda]

Gregg, Boyd makes a very good argument. If I'd of had over 2K to spend I would not have gone with the GL2 as I much prefer 16:9.

I only went this route because my little PanaGS250 was acting up and I found a GL2 for $1200 with wide angle lens and extra batteries.
And with the deal on the anamorphic lens I found, I'm only into it for $1500.

It is a great camera, especially for a beginner, but I wouldn't have invested over $2K into it.

Bob T.

[Dale Guthormsen]

Bob,

do not think that your gl2 wide screen is rreally unacceptable. I shoot wide in almost everything with my gl2 and my xl2 which is native. I have combined footage from both and as we watch the footage on the 50 inch plasma most people do not even notice the difference!!!

The gl2 is an awesome camera and can put out very high quality images as you become more familiar with it!!!!

[Travis Cossel]

Do any of you find that your lighting requirements change when using the in-camera 16x9 setting?