|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 21st, 2005, 08:00 PM | #16 | |
New Boot
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17
|
Quote:
|
|
December 21st, 2005, 10:06 PM | #17 |
New Boot
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 17
|
I just thought of something right now. I'm able to turn on the "fake widescreen" as well as the stretch kind at the same time. Would this mean I could have a 2.35 image?
|
January 3rd, 2006, 08:55 AM | #18 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 55
|
Quote:
Also, note that the Canon XL2 uses true 16:9 CCDs. Happy New Year! Adam |
|
January 3rd, 2006, 09:06 AM | #19 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,195
|
Quote:
You would loose much resolution... and with DV you haven't got much to even begin with... But for watching on a usual television screen it can be enough. |
|
January 3rd, 2006, 09:08 AM | #20 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albany, NY 12210
Posts: 2,652
|
"This is not necessarily true. For example, the Sony DCR-TRV33 and Canon XL2 shoot true anamorphic 16:9, and will display the video in letterboxed format on their LCDs."
Ditto for Optura 60. "I just thought of something right now. I'm able to turn on the "fake widescreen" as well as the stretch kind at the same time. Would this mean I could have a 2.35 image?" I experimented with this on our old GL1 and it does indeed seem to work, but keep in mind with the pronounced resolution loss that you get that a 2.35 image isn't going to look so hot. DV in general isn't real well suited to wide panoramas IMHO. |
January 3rd, 2006, 09:37 AM | #21 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: US
Posts: 1,152
|
Quote:
|
|
January 3rd, 2006, 09:42 AM | #22 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,802
|
This topic comes up regularly, see the following:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&threadid=3069 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=18917 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=39732 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=23390 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=22798 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=18905 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=13696 |
January 3rd, 2006, 08:01 PM | #23 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PAL Zone
Posts: 188
|
Hello
can the FX1/Z1 be up scale to 35mm without loss? also are these cams true widescreen? how can you tell? |
January 3rd, 2006, 08:30 PM | #24 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,802
|
By definition, high definition is widescreen (16:9). It should be a safe assumption that any camera which shoots HD (Sony HC1, A1, FX1, Z1, Canon XLH1, JVC HD10, HD100, Panasonic DVX200) all have native widescreen chips.
Look at the aspect ratio that they work in: 1920/1080 = 1.778 1280/72 = 1.778 16/9 = 1.778 Not really sure what you mean by "upscaling to 35mm without a loss"... |
January 3rd, 2006, 09:22 PM | #25 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PAL Zone
Posts: 188
|
Quote:
|
|
| ||||||
|
|