Hardware 16x9 vs. Software 16x9 from 4x3 at DVinfo.net

Peter Moore · April 15th, 2003, 08:48 AM

I filmed something in 4x3 and am starting to regret not filming it in 16x9 hardware mode. However, I've been experimenting with software 16x9 mode (in Premier, for example, using Pan to chop off the top and bottom and make a 16x9 picture), and it looks to me to be almost just as good as the camera's native 16x9 mode.

Am I right? Is the software version of 16x9 going to be as good as the camera's 16x9 mode? Or should I just live with what I have?

Marc Martin · April 15th, 2003, 11:49 AM

Shoot in 16/9 and you will notice that you have less bleed and blocks in the red color than the 4/3 mode.

Peter Moore · April 15th, 2003, 12:08 PM

Is that less than in 4x3 mode period, or less than in 4x3 mode turned into 16x9 with software?

Marc Martin · April 15th, 2003, 07:34 PM

To have less artifact in the red, you must film in the 16:9 mode of the GL2 (or XM2 if it is PAL).

Menu->Cam setup->16:9 ON

I capture the video with Vegas Video. Vegas adjust automatically the anamorphic format to 16:9

If want to see the difference, try to shoot fix image with red or magenta color.

Peter Moore · April 16th, 2003, 04:08 PM

My video's already shot in interlaced 4x3.

So what's the best way to make it 16x9? Should I use Vegas/Premier's pan and zoom? Or should I live with 4x3?

Marc Martin · April 17th, 2003, 07:58 AM

No zoom, just crop the image to letter box

Boyd Ostroff · April 17th, 2003, 08:27 AM

I'm using different hardware and software from you, but you need to make a distinction between letterboxed 4:3 and anamorphic 16:9. Use letterbox to show it on a regular TV or anamorphic for a widescreen TV. To make it anamorphic first crop as Marc says to create letterboxed 4:3. But then you will need to stretch it in the vertical dimension so it fills the full 720x480 frame. Finally, you need a way to identify it as anamorphic 16:9. Not sure how these software packages handle that. I think Premiere has an option for this. But there's a signal which is embedded in the video which tells a TV that the source material is anamorphic. A widescreen TV will then stretch it horizontally to fill. If you show the video on a regular 4:3 TV however it will look "squished". I don't own a "real" widescreen TV myself (yet ;-), but I gather some of them are intelligent enough to detect letterboxed 4:3 material and rescale it automatically.

Peter Moore · April 17th, 2003, 08:50 AM

Ok I am obviously not making myself clear.

I have 4x3 footage. I want to make it anamorphic 16x9 for a DVD and widescreen TV by cutting off the top and bottom and stretching it, exactly as the GL2 16x9 mode would do.

If I use software to do this, will it be as good as if I had recorded in anamorphic 16x9 to begin with? Or, am I stuck with 4x3 and should just live with that?

I am not interested in letterboxing.

Cesar Ruiz · April 17th, 2003, 09:43 AM

I can't remember where I read it but some guy had this whole big explanation on how the GL2's pixel shift technology does the fake 16x9 better than doing it in post.

Anyone know of the site? It was very informative.

I just shoot 4x3 w/ 16:9 guidelines and do 16x9 post production if my client wants it. They usually can't decide until later.

Otherwise they get stuck with the DVD player letterboxing the 16:9 program.

For personal stuff, my wife won't let me shoot real 16x9. She knows it's fake so she doesn't like stuff being cut off. Maybe if I can convince her we need an HDTV then she'll let me shoot native 16:9.

-Cesar

Boyd Ostroff · April 17th, 2003, 01:04 PM

Maybe this is it? http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

Cesar Ruiz · April 17th, 2003, 02:25 PM

it was actually a link off of the site you posted.

Thanks!

http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/index.html

Both sites say the same thing. If you're going to do fake widescreen, let the camera do it.

Peter Moore · April 17th, 2003, 03:13 PM

That site helps. So the answer is the Canon Gl2's 16x9 mode would be slightly better than making it anamorphic in post, 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.

Tustin Larson · April 17th, 2003, 05:02 PM

Of course, you could always use the Title Mix Function... with the 16x9 matte I made.

Tustin Larson

Charles King · April 27th, 2003, 05:48 AM

Tustin. Please tell me how you do the letterbox matte function. You don't seem to cover it in your title mix function. It seems no one else as an answer for it either. Maybe you can e-mail me or something. I'm using the pal version. I've been seaching every where on this site. The links you supply to the updated version of the correct aspect ratio of the matte does not work. So, please tell me how this work. Thank you.

Boyd Ostroff · April 27th, 2003, 08:20 AM

This site actually refers to the VX-2000/PD-150, but I suspect the technique is pretty similar on the GL-2. http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm

April 15th, 2003, 08:48 AM	#1
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Hardware 16x9 vs. Software 16x9 from 4x3 I filmed something in 4x3 and am starting to regret not filming it in 16x9 hardware mode. However, I've been experimenting with software 16x9 mode (in Premier, for example, using Pan to chop off the top and bottom and make a 16x9 picture), and it looks to me to be almost just as good as the camera's native 16x9 mode. Am I right? Is the software version of 16x9 going to be as good as the camera's 16x9 mode? Or should I just live with what I have?

April 17th, 2003, 09:43 AM	#9
Cesar Ruiz Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 182	gl2 is better I can't remember where I read it but some guy had this whole big explanation on how the GL2's pixel shift technology does the fake 16x9 better than doing it in post. Anyone know of the site? It was very informative. I just shoot 4x3 w/ 16:9 guidelines and do 16x9 post production if my client wants it. They usually can't decide until later. Otherwise they get stuck with the DVD player letterboxing the 16:9 program. For personal stuff, my wife won't let me shoot real 16x9. She knows it's fake so she doesn't like stuff being cut off. Maybe if I can convince her we need an HDTV then she'll let me shoot native 16:9. -Cesar

April 17th, 2003, 02:25 PM	#11
Cesar Ruiz Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 182	ahh yes it was actually a link off of the site you posted. Thanks! http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/index.html Both sites say the same thing. If you're going to do fake widescreen, let the camera do it.

April 27th, 2003, 05:48 AM	#14
Charles King Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: sweden Posts: 795	Tustin. Please tell me how you do the letterbox matte function. You don't seem to cover it in your title mix function. It seems no one else as an answer for it either. Maybe you can e-mail me or something. I'm using the pal version. I've been seaching every where on this site. The links you supply to the updated version of the correct aspect ratio of the matte does not work. So, please tell me how this work. Thank you. __________________ Charles 'What we perceive to be may not be what we believe to be.'

April 15th, 2003, 11:49 AM	#2
Marc Martin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 80	Shoot in 16/9 and you will notice that you have less bleed and blocks in the red color than the 4/3 mode.

April 15th, 2003, 12:08 PM	#3
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Is that less than in 4x3 mode period, or less than in 4x3 mode turned into 16x9 with software?

April 15th, 2003, 07:34 PM	#4
Marc Martin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 80	To have less artifact in the red, you must film in the 16:9 mode of the GL2 (or XM2 if it is PAL). Menu->Cam setup->16:9 ON I capture the video with Vegas Video. Vegas adjust automatically the anamorphic format to 16:9 If want to see the difference, try to shoot fix image with red or magenta color.

April 16th, 2003, 04:08 PM	#5
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	My video's already shot in interlaced 4x3. So what's the best way to make it 16x9? Should I use Vegas/Premier's pan and zoom? Or should I live with 4x3?

April 17th, 2003, 07:58 AM	#6
Marc Martin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 80	No zoom, just crop the image to letter box

April 17th, 2003, 08:27 AM	#7
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I'm using different hardware and software from you, but you need to make a distinction between letterboxed 4:3 and anamorphic 16:9. Use letterbox to show it on a regular TV or anamorphic for a widescreen TV. To make it anamorphic first crop as Marc says to create letterboxed 4:3. But then you will need to stretch it in the vertical dimension so it fills the full 720x480 frame. Finally, you need a way to identify it as anamorphic 16:9. Not sure how these software packages handle that. I think Premiere has an option for this. But there's a signal which is embedded in the video which tells a TV that the source material is anamorphic. A widescreen TV will then stretch it horizontally to fill. If you show the video on a regular 4:3 TV however it will look "squished". I don't own a "real" widescreen TV myself (yet ;-), but I gather some of them are intelligent enough to detect letterboxed 4:3 material and rescale it automatically.

April 17th, 2003, 08:50 AM	#8
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Ok I am obviously not making myself clear. I have 4x3 footage. I want to make it anamorphic 16x9 for a DVD and widescreen TV by cutting off the top and bottom and stretching it, exactly as the GL2 16x9 mode would do. If I use software to do this, will it be as good as if I had recorded in anamorphic 16x9 to begin with? Or, am I stuck with 4x3 and should just live with that? I am not interested in letterboxing.

April 17th, 2003, 01:04 PM	#10
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Maybe this is it? http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

April 17th, 2003, 03:13 PM	#12
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	That site helps. So the answer is the Canon Gl2's 16x9 mode would be slightly better than making it anamorphic in post, 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.

April 17th, 2003, 05:02 PM	#13
Tustin Larson Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Palm Springs, CA Posts: 86	Of course, you could always use the Title Mix Function... with the 16x9 matte I made. Tustin Larson

April 27th, 2003, 08:20 AM	#15
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	This site actually refers to the VX-2000/PD-150, but I suspect the technique is pretty similar on the GL-2. http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm