How to achieve true 16:9 widescreen

Boyd Ostroff · March 22nd, 2004, 06:17 PM

Century makes one model for larger camcorder lenses (around 55 to 58 mm) which is rather expensive, maybe $700. There is a smaller version that has 37mm threads and it's much cheaper, around $300. What size are the filter threads on your camera?

Frank Granovski · March 22nd, 2004, 06:27 PM

NTSC TV is 525 lines, though less are visable. miniDV can play back 540 lines, PAL and NTSC. The video effective CCD pixels in the VX2000 are the same as the VX2100's, I recall; the VX2000 was tested to play back 500 lines.

The PDX10's resolution is higher than the VX2100's, and probably has the best affordable widescreen.

The MX500 already has good widescreen, if widescreen is what you're after, Shane.

The MX500 filter thread size is 43mm.

Graeme Nattress · March 23rd, 2004, 07:20 AM

Frank, you've got to be careful when you say NTSC is a 525 line format, and follow that by talk of playback of 500 or 540 line. The two sets of lines we're talking about here run in different directions. NTSC has 486 (DV uses 480 of them) lines visible, out of 525 total. These are horizontal lines and measure vertical resolution.

The measured 500-540 lines on playback are vertical lines measuring horizontal resolution.

Graeme

Marco Leavitt · March 23rd, 2004, 02:36 PM

I have a question about that 500 to 540 horizontal resolution figure. Is that inherent to DV, or just camcorders? In other words, If I import a photo from Photoshop will it effectively lose 180 to 220 pixels of horizontal resolution? The reason I ask, is I wonder if there wouldn't be an advantage to routinely turning off sharpness on the camcorder and then sharpening the footage in the NLE.

Frank Granovski · March 23rd, 2004, 03:14 PM

DV/miniDV is capable of 540 playback lines. Most cams don't reach that.

http://www.dvfreak.com/res.htm

Graeme Nattress · March 23rd, 2004, 06:14 PM

"lines" is a terrible way of measuring the resolution of digital video. DV is 720 x 480 pixels, and that, atleast, is accurate and without ambiguity. "Lines" is an old method of expressing resolution with regards to analogue video .

Graeme

Frank Granovski · March 23rd, 2004, 06:19 PM

You're confusing playback resolution with pixels.

Quote:

TV lines or TVL is a standarised definition of horizontal resolution performance for Television. TV = L/ph (lines of horizontal resolution on a horizontal length which is equal to the pixture height). If the height is 3/4 of the width and the width has 720 lines (pixels) in DV, the number of resolution lines on a horizontal length which equals the height, we get 540 TVL resolution for DV. The (theoretical) max number of pixels of the DV standard in horizontal direction (=max number of vertical lines) equals 720. In video, however, resolution is expressed in "lines per picture height (=l/ph) or TVL and this is 720 x 3/4 = 540. The 800 lines resolution is one of the irelevant specs belonging to the world of the many misleading information used in the semi pro and consumer world. Even if the cam itself had 10,000 lines of resolution it will end up by the 540 TVL limit at the DV output. The more initial resolution however the cleaner (aliasing) the 540 TVL can be reproduced, but the limit is still 540 TVL." ---Andre De Clercq

William Beltran · March 23rd, 2004, 07:50 PM

I just a Pdx10 from B&H. I havent had a chance to play with it too much but I am excited to see what results I will get once I start some serious shooting.
Regaurding the anamorphic adapters, I was wondering what would happen if i were to add one to my Pdx10 and still use its native 16x9?

Graeme Nattress · March 24th, 2004, 06:19 AM

If you add an anamorphic on top of the 16:9 you'll get cinemascope.

Graeme

Marco Leavitt · March 24th, 2004, 07:51 AM

"I was wondering what would happen if i were to add one to my Pdx10 and still use its native 16x9?"

There's been a lot of interest in how this will work out, but so far nobody seems to have to have taken the plunge. If you try this, a number of people in here (especially me) would love to see some screenshots.

William Beltran · March 24th, 2004, 06:20 PM

Refresh me on cinemascope.

Boyd Ostroff · March 24th, 2004, 06:22 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by William Beltran : Refresh me on cinemascope. -->>>

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs1.htm

William Beltran · March 24th, 2004, 07:46 PM

After achieving cinemascope what would you do?
Can you still edit as you would 16x9?
What would you play it back on?

Boyd Ostroff · March 24th, 2004, 08:47 PM

Well I think you've cut right to the heart of the matter. If you want to stay with DV then you're pretty much forced to letterbox the 2.35:1 image in the 1.78:1 frame. And if that's the case, well you would achieve pretty much the same results by just cropping a 16:9 image. Of course this negates anything you may have gained by the anamorphic compression which preserves all 480 scan lines.

If you want to watch on a computer monitor you could render at 1128 x 480. You can render DV at any resolution you want, but from my own experiments it's interesting that the files don't get any larger. So you're just spreading the same data over a larger area evidently.

Another approach might be to leave it anamorphically compressed and digitally project as 16:9 but also add an anamorphic lens to the projector. Might be a bit difficult to find the right lens for this.

Otherwise I think you'd need to upconvert to HD and letterbox within a 1280x720 frame. That's what Martin Munthe has done with a movie he's discussed here. Do a search for his name and you will find someinfo on his techniques.

Also, you will be viewing a "squished" anamorphic image on the camera's LCD and viewfinder as you shoot. A possible solution to that is to use a program like BTV Pro. It allows you display and capture DV via firewire on a Mac laptop, and you can set any size/proportion frame that you want. Again, I believe Martin discussed this as well.

So there are definitely a number of issues to consider with this, not the least of which is the conceptual one: Cinemascope was conceived as a way to fill huge theatre screens (something that DV isn't so ideally suited for), and not just an unusual aspect ratio.

Nevertheless, I'm also intrigued by the whole thing myself. Perhaps when I have some time this summer I'll spring for the $300 37mm version of the Century anamorphic lens that fits the PDX-10 and see what I can do with it...

Guy Bruner · March 25th, 2004, 07:22 PM

I shot some frame mode (30p) video in DV widescreen on the DV953 then brought it into Vegas. I then rendered it in WMV 9 HD 1280x720. This gives a look like 2.35:1. If you would like to see this video, click here. It is the first video on the lower left of the album page. You will have to download the clip to see it better in WMP.

March 23rd, 2004, 07:20 AM	#18
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	Frank, you've got to be careful when you say NTSC is a 525 line format, and follow that by talk of playback of 500 or 540 line. The two sets of lines we're talking about here run in different directions. NTSC has 486 (DV uses 480 of them) lines visible, out of 525 total. These are horizontal lines and measure vertical resolution. The measured 500-540 lines on playback are vertical lines measuring horizontal resolution. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

March 23rd, 2004, 06:14 PM	#21
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	"lines" is a terrible way of measuring the resolution of digital video. DV is 720 x 480 pixels, and that, atleast, is accurate and without ambiguity. "Lines" is an old method of expressing resolution with regards to analogue video . Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

March 24th, 2004, 06:19 AM	#24
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	If you add an anamorphic on top of the 16:9 you'll get cinemascope. Graeme __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

March 22nd, 2004, 06:17 PM	#16
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,801	Century makes one model for larger camcorder lenses (around 55 to 58 mm) which is rather expensive, maybe $700. There is a smaller version that has 37mm threads and it's much cheaper, around $300. What size are the filter threads on your camera?

March 22nd, 2004, 06:27 PM	#17
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	NTSC TV is 525 lines, though less are visable. miniDV can play back 540 lines, PAL and NTSC. The video effective CCD pixels in the VX2000 are the same as the VX2100's, I recall; the VX2000 was tested to play back 500 lines. The PDX10's resolution is higher than the VX2100's, and probably has the best affordable widescreen. The MX500 already has good widescreen, if widescreen is what you're after, Shane. The MX500 filter thread size is 43mm.

March 23rd, 2004, 02:36 PM	#19
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	I have a question about that 500 to 540 horizontal resolution figure. Is that inherent to DV, or just camcorders? In other words, If I import a photo from Photoshop will it effectively lose 180 to 220 pixels of horizontal resolution? The reason I ask, is I wonder if there wouldn't be an advantage to routinely turning off sharpness on the camcorder and then sharpening the footage in the NLE.

March 23rd, 2004, 03:14 PM	#20
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	DV/miniDV is capable of 540 playback lines. Most cams don't reach that. http://www.dvfreak.com/res.htm

March 23rd, 2004, 07:50 PM	#23
William Beltran New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montclair, Ca Posts: 10	I just a Pdx10 from B&H. I havent had a chance to play with it too much but I am excited to see what results I will get once I start some serious shooting. Regaurding the anamorphic adapters, I was wondering what would happen if i were to add one to my Pdx10 and still use its native 16x9?

March 24th, 2004, 07:51 AM	#25
Marco Leavitt Inner Circle Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Albany, NY 12210 Posts: 2,652	"I was wondering what would happen if i were to add one to my Pdx10 and still use its native 16x9?" There's been a lot of interest in how this will work out, but so far nobody seems to have to have taken the plunge. If you try this, a number of people in here (especially me) would love to see some screenshots.

March 24th, 2004, 06:20 PM	#26
William Beltran New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montclair, Ca Posts: 10	Refresh me on cinemascope.

March 24th, 2004, 06:22 PM	#27
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,801	<<<-- Originally posted by William Beltran : Refresh me on cinemascope. -->>> http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs1.htm

March 24th, 2004, 07:46 PM	#28
William Beltran New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montclair, Ca Posts: 10	After achieving cinemascope what would you do? Can you still edit as you would 16x9? What would you play it back on?

March 24th, 2004, 08:47 PM	#29
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,801	Well I think you've cut right to the heart of the matter. If you want to stay with DV then you're pretty much forced to letterbox the 2.35:1 image in the 1.78:1 frame. And if that's the case, well you would achieve pretty much the same results by just cropping a 16:9 image. Of course this negates anything you may have gained by the anamorphic compression which preserves all 480 scan lines. If you want to watch on a computer monitor you could render at 1128 x 480. You can render DV at any resolution you want, but from my own experiments it's interesting that the files don't get any larger. So you're just spreading the same data over a larger area evidently. Another approach might be to leave it anamorphically compressed and digitally project as 16:9 but also add an anamorphic lens to the projector. Might be a bit difficult to find the right lens for this. Otherwise I think you'd need to upconvert to HD and letterbox within a 1280x720 frame. That's what Martin Munthe has done with a movie he's discussed here. Do a search for his name and you will find someinfo on his techniques. Also, you will be viewing a "squished" anamorphic image on the camera's LCD and viewfinder as you shoot. A possible solution to that is to use a program like BTV Pro. It allows you display and capture DV via firewire on a Mac laptop, and you can set any size/proportion frame that you want. Again, I believe Martin discussed this as well. So there are definitely a number of issues to consider with this, not the least of which is the conceptual one: Cinemascope was conceived as a way to fill huge theatre screens (something that DV isn't so ideally suited for), and not just an unusual aspect ratio. Nevertheless, I'm also intrigued by the whole thing myself. Perhaps when I have some time this summer I'll spring for the $300 37mm version of the Century anamorphic lens that fits the PDX-10 and see what I can do with it...

March 25th, 2004, 07:22 PM	#30
Guy Bruner Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Ashford, AL Posts: 937	I shot some frame mode (30p) video in DV widescreen on the DV953 then brought it into Vegas. I then rendered it in WMV 9 HD 1280x720. This gives a look like 2.35:1. If you would like to see this video, click here. It is the first video on the lower left of the album page. You will have to download the clip to see it better in WMP.