Does not having true 16:9 really matter?

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Search this forum for a bunch of threads on 16:9 and anamorphic adaptors on the DVX100.

Per fish-eye, film vs. video will render the same optical effect once the focal lenght varitions are accounted for.

However, bear in mind (I'm a huge Kubrick fan myself) that DV is much lower resolution than film. The wider the field of view i.e. the smaller the focal length i.e. the wider the lens, the worse DV looks. It's hard to use fish eye in digital video unless you don't mind the degraded resolution.

"Personal Velocity" used almost all telephoto shots to hide this weakness as well as smoke and diffusion to cover up DV resolution artifacts. Tadpole just let it look crappy and allowed the story and characters to have the focus, not the imagery.

Wide angles and DV do not detailed images make. If that's what you want, you need to shoot HD or film for "Kubrick" shots.

Note that "Julien Donkey Boy" used lots of fish eye and DV but took advantage (maybe to extreme effect, depending on your taste) of the survellience-camera look of degraded DV fish eye footage.

[Bogdan Apetri]

Stephen,

Thanks so much for your very valid points. I was aware myself of the resolution limitations (quite significant, unfortunately), but I have a story that hopefully takes advantage of this. I was just wondering about what lens to choose if I want to get that particular effect, forgetting the detail loss.

Thanks!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Get the Century Optics lens - best quality.

[Bogdan Apetri]

Sorry for being so insistent: fish-eye (the less wide one) or wide angle (the widest one)? Thanks Stephen

[Stephen van Vuuren]

I have not used either one - so it just depends on how extreme an effect you want.

[Saturnin Van]

i just got the cenutry optics wide .6x and its awesome.....it does curve a bit..but not too extreme....fish eye is great..but for a whole friggin' movie..eheheh....i would stick wif the wide angle...

[Deniz Turkmen]

I'm using the 100a to film a short this summer. I plan on sending the movie out to festivals (it won't be transfered to film) and putting it onto DVD. There is one thing I'm not sure of...

What is the best way of shooting to achieve the highest picture quality on a large theater screen? Do I need to shoot 16:9 or could I get by in 4:3?

If I use an anamorphic lens, how will the image look on a non-widescreen television?

Thanks

[Peter Sieben]

I did a 16:9 letterboxed (with black bars) short movie with the DVX100 (PAL) in 25P mode. The movie was converted to interlaced NTSC video using only Vegas 4. The movie looked well on the big screen. The movie was played back on a NTSC dvd player and projected with a large beamer in a room with around 120 people. The letterboxed mode and the PAL>NTSC conversion didn't prevent us from winning the grand prize of the festival project the movie was part of.

With the DVX100a there is a squeeze option in the widescreen area. So no black bars but all the lines are used for the widescreen footage. I think it depends on the equipment that plays the footage from dvd if it can screen the pseudo anamorphic footage in the right proportions on the screen.

Peter Sieben

[Carlos E. Martinez]

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Sieben : . The movie was converted to interlaced NTSC video using only Vegas 4. -->>>

You mean Vegas 4 can convert PAL to NTSC? I didn't know that.


Carlos

[Peter Sieben]

Yes, it can.

I first tried to convert 25P PAL to 24P NTSC, but -despite of all the good advices I got- nothing worked for that special conversion route, too much motion problems.
But going from 25P PAL to interlaced NTSC video works very well for me.

Peter

[Todd Deece]

Hi there.

First I'd like so stress that I'm not a total newbie to DV (video/film in general) but there actually is something everybody seems to understand but me.

I'm talking about 16:9 (in-camera or adapter).
When we look at a PAL DV-frame we have a 720x576 image. If we want to mask this 4:3 frame to 16:9 we simply insert black bars at the bottom and the top. Every bar is 72 pixels in height. That makes 144 pixels of black bars - leaving 432 vertical lines for the footage to be displayed (was 576, minus 144 = 432).
So now we have 720x432 film, plus black bars at the bottom and the top. Okay.

Now let's shoot anamorphic 16:9 (in-camera or adapter). We're ending up with a vertically stretched 720x576 image that needs to be squeezed a little to look right (which of course can be done with many TV sets out there or almost every NLE when we're talking post production).

And now my point of confusion: What is our anamorphic footage actually good for? Okay we used all available vertical lines to capture the image (576), but when we watch it on a TV, the visible image is squeezed down to 432 lines again (the rest, of course, black bars). When we make a DVD with our footage, all our 576 vertical lines are AGAIN squeezed down to 432. And when we distribute our footage over the Inet we also convert our anamorphic 720x576 16:9 footage to 720x432 to make it look right.

My conclusion is that,however you're shooting, you're ending up with 432 vertical lines of imagery when you finally WATCH your masterpiece. So why is masking worse than in-camera- or adapter-16:9? Okay, I think shooting anamorphic is an advantage if you want to transfer four footage on 16 or 35mm FILM! But only a few people do that.

Maybe I'm making some mistakes there... so please correct me and explain it. Don't wanna die dumb :-)

Thanks!
Todd

[Barry Green]

You're exactly right on all counts.

What you're leaving out of the equation is the (currently microscopic) market for widescreen televisions and HDTV's. A widescreen 16:9 TV will display the anamorphic image in full resolution, no squeezing, etc. Most home theater projectors are now 16:9-native, aren't they? DVD's are primarily authored in widescreen now. So in years hence, widescreen could very well be the way to go (although the last time I heard the statistics quoted, 98% of the TV's in America are still 4:3). In Europe there's much wider adoption of the 16:9 television format, so it will be more relevant in Europe, sooner.

[Tommy Haupfear]

What you're leaving out of the equation is the (currently microscopic) market for widescreen televisions and HDTV's.

Unless you're in the market for a new set over 40". Then your choices in 4:3 TVs are microscopic.

Todd, are you saying that no matter whether you capture letterbox or anamorphic in-camera that you're always going to display it as letterbox on a 4:3 set? Here in North America you would want at least a widescreen TV that supports enhanced definition (480p) to get the most out of high quality in-camera 16:9.

Sounds like you're PAL (720x576) but here is a nice read on comparing in-camera 16:9 modes (anamoprhic and letterbox) and how each looks on 4:3 or 16:9 sets.

http://www.maxent.org/video/16x9.html

[Barry Green]

I was referring to market penetration, not new product available for sale. Last time I heard the stats, it was 98% 4:3, 2% 16:9.

But yes, there are definitely more widescreen sets on the market, and as such, the percentage of widescreen sets will be climbing.

[Tommy Haupfear]

I was referring to market penetration

No denying that but I just wanted to add a different angle on how things are beginning to change (even if microscopic).