Anamorphic vs. in-cam 16:9 motion clips - where?

[Stephen van Vuuren]

I'm trying to decide if I am going to get Century Optics .6 wide & 1.6 telextender or anamorphic. I will be shooting mostly short for digital projection on small/medium screen & DVD.

But I would to have some clips of A/B comparision of footage with and without anamorphic adapter.

I've seen the stills at http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/index.html but they are inconclusive to my eye.

Anything available?

[Glenn Gipson]

Seems like the only REAL benefit of the anamorphic adapter is that it doesn't loose 100 lines of resolution like the in camera 16:9 does.

[Rodger Marjama]

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : I'm trying to decide if I am going to get Century Optics .6 wide & 1.6 telextender or anamorphic. I will be shooting mostly short for digital projection on small/medium screen & DVD.

But I would to have some clips of A/B comparision of footage with and without anamorphic adapter.

I've seen the stills at http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/index.html but they are inconclusive to my eye.

Anything available? -->>>


I will be buying the DVX-100 in a few weeks. I have been waiting to retire as my use for this camera will not happen until I move out to Colorado. I'm also going to order the anamorphic adapter as most if not all I will be shooting will be in 16:9.

I managed to acquire actual footage shot with this adapter and same shots done in letterbox. Since everything I will be shooting is going to 24p DVD, for my comparison, I just placed these clips end to end on a single timeline and cropped the letterbox to 16:9. Added either "16:9 or Letterbox" titling at the start of each clip, and exported to MPEG2 (DVD - high quality settings). Produce to DVD with ReelDVD and played on my 53" TV, and 17" HD monitor.

The resolution difference is very apparent between the 16:9 and letterbox. Also, 16:9 has much fewer artifacts then letterbox. The only barrel distortion I can see is on a portion of one closeup shot showing some foliage and panning up to a house wall 15-20' back, the camera focus goes to the back wall. There is a piece of fence on the extreme left, and way in the foreground. You can see just a minor amount of barrel distortion if your really pay attention. For me this a non-issue as I see no reason it cannot be considered when framing shots.

My recommendation -- Buy it!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Thanks Rodger. I did get someone to send me some clips and I'm leaning to buying it as well. Where are you planning to purchase it from?

[Rodger Marjama]

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : Thanks Rodger. I did get someone to send me some clips and I'm leaning to buying it as well. Where are you planning to purchase it from? -->>>

Good.

I am still looking around. I did have one thought about asking a good friend of mine who owns a large music store if he could possibly order some stuff from his distributor. I haven't asked him yet, as it is still a couple of weeks before I will order.

If I find a good place I guess I can send you an email.

[Mike Morrell]

Rodger Marjama, in your post containing the following:

"I managed to acquire actual footage shot with this adapter and same shots done in letterbox. Since everything I will be shooting is going to 24p DVD, for my comparison, I just placed these clips end to end on a single timeline and cropped the letterbox to 16:9. Added either "16:9 or Letterbox" titling at the start of each clip, and exported to MPEG2 (DVD - high quality settings). Produce to DVD with ReelDVD and played on my 53" TV, and 17" HD monitor."

You mentioned that you are doing 24p and using REELDVD, how is this possible? I cannot import 24p DVD footage into REEL?

[Nic Pesante]

I've asked a lot of people about shooting anamorphic on DV, and they've all said that it's only going to increase the quality if it's transfered to film, but Rodger said that his dvd did look better with the adapter.

Can anyone elaborate?

[Rodger Marjama]

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Morrell : Rodger Marjama, in your post containing the following:

"I managed to acquire actual footage shot with this adapter and same shots done in letterbox. Since everything I will be shooting is going to 24p DVD, for my comparison, I just placed these clips end to end on a single timeline and cropped the letterbox to 16:9. Added either "16:9 or Letterbox" titling at the start of each clip, and exported to MPEG2 (DVD - high quality settings). Produce to DVD with ReelDVD and played on my 53" TV, and 17" HD monitor."

You mentioned that you are doing 24p and using REELDVD, how is this possible? I cannot import 24p DVD footage into REEL? -->>>

Hi Mike,

I use TMPGEnc to provide the 3:2 pulldown flags necessary for authoring DVD in ReelDVD or for any authoring program for that matter. As I don't yet have the DVX-100, the only footage I've used so far are clips found at various places on the net. I use the demo version of DVFilm Maker to convert 24pa footage in to 24p and export as AVI using no compression usually. Then I use TMPGEnc to produce MPEG2 DVD quality using the 3:2 pulldown and frame rate at 23.976 (29.97 internally). Drag the video/audio files in ReelDVD and author.

-Rodger

[Rodger Marjama]

<<<-- Originally posted by Nic Pesante : I've asked a lot of people about shooting anamorphic on DV, and they've all said that it's only going to increase the quality if it's transfered to film, but Rodger said that his dvd did look better with the adapter.

Can anyone elaborate? -->>>

If you are making high rate (high quality) MPEG2 encodes you can see the difference very easily... Especially on HD and >50 in TV playback. I would say it is 10-20% clearer and twitter (artifacts) to my eyes look less prominent then in letterbox.

I could be happy (I think) with letterbox, but as I plan to distribute DVD's for sale, I just want the best I can afford to offer. At $600-$700 more for the anamorphic adapter, I don't see any reason not to buy it.

I am most likely going to have to buy and custom fit a matte box because of it though. This may be OK anyway, because I can get the Cavision pretty cheap and work it over.

[Nic Pesante]

Thanks, I'm starting to get it, I've just read so many contradictory opinions I got really confused. I get that the pixel resolution is better, but won't adding an attachment reduce the optical resoultion?

I shot a feature on the XL1, and I liked the results. I recntly got to see my trailer on a big screen at the multiplex along with 2 other DV trailers, I don't know what the others were shot with, but they were MUCH softer than mine. Mine was a little soft, but it was acceptable, I just want to get every edge i can for the next feature.

[Rodger Marjama]

<<<-- Originally posted by Nic Pesante : Thanks, I'm starting to get it, I've just read so many contradictory opinions I got really confused. I get that the pixel resolution is better, but woun't adding an attachment reduce the optical resoultion?

I shot a feature on the XL1, and I liked the results. I recntly got to see my trailer on a big screen at the multiplex along with 2 other DV trailers, I don't know what the others were shot with, but they were MUCH softer than mine. Mine was a little soft, but it was acceptable, I just want to get every edge i can for the next feature. -->>>

I am really not the best one to answer that question, as I myself do not have this adapter yet. That being said, my guess would be that it neither lowers optical resolution or light. My reasoning for this would be, because it is using all of the CD to pull smaller form factor in 16:9 then would be in 4:3, it is in effect amplifying the available light to the CD as more pixels are being used to gather the same light image as would be gathered in standard letterbox. So, more pixels = more light and more resolution.

I'm sure someone here with first hand experience will want to clarify this with his/her personal observations.