XL1s and 16x9

[Benjamin Morgan]

Ok... So im new to the game, and have recently purchased an XL1s to shoot docco and short work.

I have been playing with the camera recently, and love everything about it.

However, I do not understand the 16x9 functionality of the camera.

I would like the work that I have shot to be in widescreen for DVD production, and as far as I can tell, there is two ways of doing this. Which one is the best;

a) Do i use the internal 16x9 widescreen function to record; or

b) Do I not use it and perform 16x9 cropping in Final Cut Pro 4 after shooting?

Your thoughts are appreciated...

[Rob Lohman]

Everybody seems to have a different opinion. I would say form
your own through careful testing. Go through the entire pipeline
for both and see what works.

I personally like shooting in 4x3, then doing the rest in post.
Ofcourse your DVD application must support 16x9 native footage
for it to work correctly, which ever way you go.

[David Slingerland]

I have been looking in to that recently and have come to this conclusion. Shoot in 4:3 and add letterbox (so shoot with extra headroom etc..) 16:9 in canon-mode or after in FCP cost you resolution in a big way... You won't be shooting native 16:9 but then none of the mini-dv can do that... The difference is not so bad under ideal circumstances but if you have to shoot under not so controlled circumstances the quality drops rather fast and especially if you are shooting in 16:9

[Sharon Fraats]

If you are talking of widescreen not 16:9 then the best way for this is we use a lens adaptor from Century Optics.

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/index.htm

This is also mentioned on another thread as well...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=19080

[Rob Lohman]

I think you are talking about wideangle, Sharon. Widescreen is
basically 16:9 (although it can also be 2.35:1 etc.).

[David Slingerland]

But she is right about using an anamorphic lens, it is however the more expensive option.. I shot some material for the AVRO(broadcaster in Holland) and they were not to keen about the canon xl1 16:9 capabilities. I know the S is better but I would stay away from it.

[Rob Lohman]

Electronic 16:9 is never the preference. The problem with
anamorphic attachments is that they are expensive, you loose
light and are not completely zoom-through.

I believe there is one true native 16:9 DV camera (forgot which
one). Otherwise a higher end camera would be a better choice.

Still, the things Sharon linked to were wideangle adaptors. Not
widescreen/anamorphic ones.

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

The Sony PDX10 have a native 16X9 mode.

[Sharon Fraats]

Sorry on the link yet true 16:9 is only in the lens such as the DSR500 when we film with the 500 importing and converting to other formats are a breeze. However when I have clients use 16:9 anamorphic settings on their cameras there are far greater problems in post. As it is not true 16x9, anamorphic widescreen, enhanced for widescreen TVs… the list goes on and on. They're all referring to the same thing. Simply put, anamorphic widescreen is a special feature of DVD, which means that the video on the disc packs the most resolution possible.

[Rob Lohman]

While that is true (with DVD), 16x9 coming from any camera is the
same as 16x9 coming of a DVD (in technical terms). The only issue
when going to DVD is that you MUST tell your mpeg encoder and
authoring package that the footage is in 16x9 so the DVD gets
authored properly.

The only "problem" as far as I know with in-camera 16x9 is that
you simply loose resolution since it's just an electronic stretch.

True 16x9 can also be outside of the lens IF (and only if) you have
a CCD block that has a widescreen aspect ratio (only one
prosumer DV camera has that yet). Then you won't need an
anamorphic lens or adaptor.

Ofcourse almost no-one has this and must resort to either an
anamorphic attachment, in-camera electronic stretching, post
stretching or faking the look by adding black bars (probably
better to stretch in post if output is DVD).