Canon zr800: Why 853 x 480??? at DVinfo.net

Micky Hulse · January 16th, 2008, 12:36 PM

Could someone tell me more about the Canon zr800 and why the "widescreen" footage is 853 x 480?

Is this faux-HD for consumers?

Is this a (sub)standard HD aspect ratio?

Thoughts?

I am not a fan of faking HD.

Thanks. :)

Micky Hulse · January 16th, 2008, 12:54 PM

Hmmm, 853 x 480 scales-down nicely to 480 x 270... But still... Is 853 x 480 considered to be low-end or faux-end HD? :D

Chris Harris · January 16th, 2008, 02:50 PM

It's not HD, or pretending to be HD. 853x480 is the resolution of true widescreen SD. The ZR800 is an SD camera, no questions about it.

Ervin Farkas · January 16th, 2008, 04:17 PM

Wide screen footage on ANY miniDV camcorder is 720x480 (same as 4x3) with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.2 (0.9 for 4x3). Now if your video player software can't play properly wide screen on your computer, then you have to resize to 853x480 square pixels.

Good grief, would be nice to get a Canon HD camera for $200! The ZR800 is the cheapest of the cheap SD camera! You have to open your wallet about 5 times wider to get the least expensive miniDV HD camcorder.

Greg Boston · January 16th, 2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ervin Farkas

Wide screen footage on ANY miniDV camcorder is 720x480 (same as 4x3) with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.2 (0.9 for 4x3). Now if your video player software can't play properly wide screen on your computer, then you have to resize to 853x480 square pixels.

And even if you shoot anamorphic wide screen SD with the 1.2 PAR, any graphic elements included such as titles or stills have to be sized to 853x480 because they all use square pixels. That being said, I use 854 for the horizontal because the compression algorithms like things evenly divisible by 8.

-gb-

Micky Hulse · January 16th, 2008, 11:40 PM

Chris, Ervin, and Greg -- many many many thanks for the fast replies! Very informative.

I did not realize there was a SD widescreen format.

Just to clarify: Is 853 x 480 considered to be "anamorphic wide screen SD"?

I was using Quicktime Pro to view the video... When I got the video info, I think it said "853 x 480 (720 x 480)"... Why does it put the second ratio in parenthesis? Why does it have both ratios?

Greg, could you give me a bit more info about your workflow? Maybe an example of when/why/how you resize your graphic elements? Are you talking about when you edit in an application like Final Cut Pro/Premiere?

Sorry if odd questions... I am just used to working with SD (720 x 480) and/or HD (1440 x 1080) footage.

Again, many thanks!!!!

Ervin Farkas · January 17th, 2008, 06:06 PM

For an excellent explanation of the different formats, aspect ratios, and more, see http://www.helerab.fi/widescreen/

Micky Hulse · January 18th, 2008, 08:09 PM

Ervin, thanks! Great linkage.

Do you (or any other folks) have more links like that? Is there a links thread around here?

Thanks again Ervin!

Cheers,
M

Ervin Farkas · January 21st, 2008, 10:20 AM

A good place to start for understanding the basics: http://www.adobe.com/motion/primers.html

Micky Hulse · January 22nd, 2008, 01:30 AM

Ervin... You rock! Thanks!!! :)

Thanks all, I really appreciate the help.

Have a great night/day.

Cheers,
M

January 16th, 2008, 12:36 PM	#1
Micky Hulse Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA Posts: 213	Canon zr800: Why 853 x 480??? Could someone tell me more about the Canon zr800 and why the "widescreen" footage is 853 x 480? Is this faux-HD for consumers? Is this a (sub)standard HD aspect ratio? Thoughts? I am not a fan of faking HD. Thanks. :)

January 16th, 2008, 04:17 PM	#4
Ervin Farkas Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta/USA Posts: 2,515	Wide screen footage on ANY miniDV camcorder is 720x480 (same as 4x3) with a pixel aspect ratio of 1.2 (0.9 for 4x3). Now if your video player software can't play properly wide screen on your computer, then you have to resize to 853x480 square pixels. Good grief, would be nice to get a Canon HD camera for $200! The ZR800 is the cheapest of the cheap SD camera! You have to open your wallet about 5 times wider to get the least expensive miniDV HD camcorder. __________________ Ervin Farkas www.AtlantaLegalVideo.com

January 17th, 2008, 06:06 PM	#7
Ervin Farkas Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta/USA Posts: 2,515	For an excellent explanation of the different formats, aspect ratios, and more, see http://www.helerab.fi/widescreen/ __________________ Ervin Farkas www.AtlantaLegalVideo.com

January 21st, 2008, 10:20 AM	#9
Ervin Farkas Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Atlanta/USA Posts: 2,515	A good place to start for understanding the basics: http://www.adobe.com/motion/primers.html __________________ Ervin Farkas www.AtlantaLegalVideo.com

January 16th, 2008, 12:54 PM	#2
Micky Hulse Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA Posts: 213	Hmmm, 853 x 480 scales-down nicely to 480 x 270... But still... Is 853 x 480 considered to be low-end or faux-end HD? :D

January 16th, 2008, 02:50 PM	#3
Chris Harris Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 487	It's not HD, or pretending to be HD. 853x480 is the resolution of true widescreen SD. The ZR800 is an SD camera, no questions about it.

January 16th, 2008, 11:40 PM	#6
Micky Hulse Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA Posts: 213	Chris, Ervin, and Greg -- many many many thanks for the fast replies! Very informative. I did not realize there was a SD widescreen format. Just to clarify: Is 853 x 480 considered to be "anamorphic wide screen SD"? I was using Quicktime Pro to view the video... When I got the video info, I think it said "853 x 480 (720 x 480)"... Why does it put the second ratio in parenthesis? Why does it have both ratios? Greg, could you give me a bit more info about your workflow? Maybe an example of when/why/how you resize your graphic elements? Are you talking about when you edit in an application like Final Cut Pro/Premiere? Sorry if odd questions... I am just used to working with SD (720 x 480) and/or HD (1440 x 1080) footage. Again, many thanks!!!!

January 18th, 2008, 08:09 PM	#8
Micky Hulse Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA Posts: 213	Ervin, thanks! Great linkage. Do you (or any other folks) have more links like that? Is there a links thread around here? Thanks again Ervin! Cheers, M

January 22nd, 2008, 01:30 AM	#10
Micky Hulse Major Player Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA Posts: 213	Ervin... You rock! Thanks!!! :) Thanks all, I really appreciate the help. Have a great night/day. Cheers, M