Peter wrote: "but since I also used two Sony PD150's for the side shots, whose 16x9 modes are no better than doing it in post, I'm better off with 4x3 and then converting to 16x9 if I want to."

This is true. In a strange way, I wish that were the case for the GL2. I would not have to decide until post.

The title mix function is great unless you want to burn it on the DVD as anamorphic widescreen.

Then you can always use the DVD player to letterbox your output for VHS copies if needed.

I know that this question is asked quite a lot....which is better ? Shoot 16:9 anamorphic or 4:3 and letterbox/resize later.

Check this link

http://www.bbctraining.co.uk/modules/5162/1.asp

page 1 and the chart on page 4...

comments anyone ?

simon

I don't know why they hate the Canon 16x9 so much. Most people say that it's fine, and I think it's acceptable.

It shouldn't matter how you do 16:9 the main problem is they don't use the full CCD so you end up with lower resolution. I would just keep it interlaced that way you can use the extra frame to do other things. More information is always better. You can just keep it 4:3 Kubrick did it. lol.

Rob:D

According to

http://members.macconnect.com/users/...een/index.html

It doesn't matter *unless* you are using a Canon GL2 (he says nothing about the GL1).

The GL2's 16:9 anamorphic will yield you a better picture than framing for 16:9 and cropping or letterboxing later.

Based on everything I have read, this is only true for the Canon Gl2. If you're not sure you want 16:9, frame for 16:9 but shoot in 4:3. But if you know that you want to create an anamorphic DVD with a GL2, use its 16:9 option.

You will lose resolution, but other than buying an anamorphic lens, or a true 16:9 camera, this is the best way to get widescreen with a GL2.

Oops, I revisited the site and he mentions the GL1 not the GL2.

Hmm, his conclusions are in direct contradiction to the BBC's.

Maybe there is artifacting introduced in the "stretching" but then wouldn't these go away when squeezed back down by the DVD player or the Widescreen TV?

I'm more confused than ever.

I guess I'll just continue framing in 16:9 and try to forever convince my wife that nothing important is in the upper and lower sections, and that it was framed for 16:9.

She just loves that 4:3 (unless it is a movie that was shot in 16:9... I can't win.)

You will loose resolution when using 16:9 in those cameras always.
No way around it. But then again you also loose resolution if you
add black bars in post later.

Use what you work best with or what your clients want/need!

<<<-- Originally posted by Cesar Ruiz : Maybe there is artifacting introduced in the "stretching" but then wouldn't these go away when squeezed back down by the DVD player or the Widescreen TV? -->>>

I think you have this part backwards. First the cropped image is stretched vertically in the camera to make it anamorphic (everything looks tall and skinny). Then on a widescreen TV it is stretched horizonatally, preserving all 480 vertical lines, to get the correct 16:9 aspect ratio.

It wouldn't get "squeezed back down" unless you were letterboxing it to fit a 4:3 screen. If that's the goal then none of this matters a whole lot because the viewer will only see about 360 vertical lines anyway.

Yes, that's what I meant Barry. Sorry, I wasn't clear.

The DVD player will squeeze the image down if you wanted
to view it on a 4:3 screen. It will letterbox it. This is how I
letterbox my VHS copies for clients. I let my DVD player letterbox my anamorphic image and dub to VHS.

If displaying on a widescreen TV it
will be stretched horizontally to fill the screen.

Right now I frame everything in 16:9 and crop
if my clients want it in anamorphic widescreen.