16:9 Real World Result with PD's and VX's

Laurence Kingston · February 15th, 2006, 07:22 AM

Well if you start with 4:3 and generate 16:9 you lose the top and bottom and if you start in 16:9 and generate 4:3 you lose the sides. Since as a general rule, widescreen sets are bigger, I think that the framing looks more natural if you shoot for 16:9, chop off the sides and pan and scan to get the 4:3 version. If you are mixing footage from both 16:9 and 4:3 cameras and want to do both aspect ratios as options on the final product, it is best to shoot full frame in the 4:3 footage as well as the 16:9 so as to best be able to do both version. That way you can crop the sides of the 16:9 for the 4:3 version and the top and bottom of the 4:3 for the 16:9 version. Of the two of those options, cropping the sides of the 16:9 looks better both from framing and quality perspectives.

Laurence Kingston · February 15th, 2006, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

With any 4:3 camera, you can purchase a 16:9 anamorphic adapter to preserve and use all pixels. This type of lens will squish the picture in. WHEN SHOOTING, IT WILL APPEAR DISTORTED. However when you edit, if you edit in a 16:9 mode, it will come out right. In fact, that is how 35mm was turned into wide screen. The adpter was used on the camera, and on the projector too. Adapters are expensive, though.

Century Optics is one manufacturer

I have one of these adapters and I hate it. You can't go all the way wide or you get barrel distortion. You can't zoom in more than about a third of the way either before it will no longer focus. Autofocus gets confused by the stretched image and it is extremely difficult to focus manually as well. For the run and gun stuff I do it is totally impractical.

If you are doing more of a movie type thing, can live with the reduced zoom and are using the aspect ratio converting adapter over the screen or an external 16:9 monitor and focusing manually through this, it might be of some use, but that is not how most of us work.

Chris Barcellos · February 15th, 2006, 11:40 AM

Using the matte method I referenced above, if you play it, it is detected as 4:3.

I ve been told that all the 16:9 selection on the camera does is add the bars, like I do in manual method, and the add whatever signal is required to designate it as 16:9. Any body know how this works ? I seem to end up with a better image wiyh my manual method.

Georg Liigand · February 15th, 2006, 04:02 PM

The 16:9 in the PD and VX series is produced so that the aspect ratio is set to 16:9, 4:3 video is zoomed to fill the sides of the new image and therefore top and bottom are simply discarded (cropped). The camera actually does not add any black bars. They only appear on the LCD and are not recorded.

I don't know yet whether it's possible, but I plan to keep my VX2100 for a few more years until HD becomes standard and then get a modern HDV camera. I hope that I can continue producing mostly in 4:3 too until that time arrives.

Boyd Ostroff · February 15th, 2006, 06:00 PM

FWIW, I did a comparison of the 16:9 modes on the VX-2000 and PDX-10 a couple years ago. You can view the results here:

http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9/

Quote:

"In fact, that is how 35mm was turned into wide screen. The adpter was used on the camera, and on the projector too."

That is true in some cases, but you will also find a lot of 35mm film shot full frame and simply matted to 16:9 in post. This gives them two versions of the film: one for 4:3 TV and a 1.85:1 version for projection. Look at the tech specs at IMDB to see what method was used.

In fact, I recently "discovered" something interesting on the DVD's of The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. They were shot full frame and cropped as described above for theatrical release. The DVD's are full frame 4:3 however and there is a note that this was the format which Kubrick wanted them presented in since it included the full frame from the negative. I never came across anything like that before!

Chris Barcellos · February 15th, 2006, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

FWIW, I did a comparison of the 16:9 modes on the VX-2000 and PDX-10 a couple years ago. You can view the results here:

http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9/

Boyd: I knew the VX2k 16:9 was not very good but the smaller chipped PD 10 sure beat it up. So, using my matte method, and based on those tests, do you think there would be same result. I guess you would still have to stretch it to fill the 16:9 DV frame, right ?

Richard Zlamany · February 15th, 2006, 06:16 PM

I hear all your points but this type of arguement erupts often on these forums and continues for some time.

Boyd all your comments are accurate but generally people don't watch resolution charts when watching video.

I feel if the video is good on all levels than vx2100 is acceptable for 16x9. I have been more than happy with my results on a HD monitor.

Marco Wagner · February 15th, 2006, 07:30 PM

Richard,

So you have found good 16:9 results on the VX2100 with an HD monitor? Any special settings or things to consider?

Georg Liigand · February 16th, 2006, 11:28 AM

I found out that turning sharpness to the lowest level in CP the widescreen video comes out pretty nice. I will try to post some tests.

Chris Barcellos · February 16th, 2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georg Liigand

The 16:9 in the PD and VX series is produced so that the aspect ratio is set to 16:9, 4:3 video is zoomed to fill the sides of the new image and therefore top and bottom are simply discarded (cropped). The camera actually does not add any black bars. They only appear on the LCD and are not recorded.

I don't know yet whether it's possible, but I plan to keep my VX2100 for a few more years until HD becomes standard and then get a modern HDV camera. I hope that I can continue producing mostly in 4:3 too until that time arrives.

I shot test footage last night with the matte method, and the 16:9 selected. I also shot 16:9 in DV on my FX1. The FX1 was obviously better overall, but I think the matte method came in second. Everything was shot on auto, so that might have something to do with it.

Boyd Ostroff · February 16th, 2006, 03:25 PM

Richard, your point is very well taken and I agree that you shouldn't get hung up on res charts. If you already have a VX-2100 then there will be many ways to produce nice work. I haven't tried this myself, but someone else here posted some screen shots from an HDTV with VX-2000 16:9 footage vs letterboxed 16:9 in a 4:3 frame. He used the "zoom" feature on the HDTV to fill his screen when viewing, and it looked better than the VX-2000's built-in anamorphic. I have a plasma screen and a couple smaller 16:9 LCD's. Given the scaling hardware in these screens today, I don't doubt that they will do a better job enlarging the image than the VX-2100's crop/stretch in-camera mode.

However if you were buying a new camera today, I think it would be a different story unless you only want to shoot 4:3 in dark places. The PDX-10 may be had very inexpensively, has XLR's, the same mike as the PD-170 and support from Sony's pro division. The FX1 would give you an even better widescreen SD image, slightly better low light response, much better manual controls and menus, a fantastic LCD screen and HDV as a bonus.

Bigo Hoggins · February 21st, 2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Below is a url to download the one i use. I am not certain it is exactly accurate, but it is the one I use. You could add this same mask in post, but this method provides a guide during shooting.

I have this file on the memory stick I carry in my vx2k at all times. This what you do on the 2k:

turn camera on, and make sure you have 16x9 should be set to off

with the chip in camera with the file on it, open display door so you use the various buttons. Select memory mix and then use + or - to scroll to the matte. On the 2K, a small representation of the file is in bottomm right coner. To select it on tke 2k, I then just press the rotor button to select matte and it will then overlay on the the screen.

Here is site:http://www.makeyourfilm.net/downloads/DSC00027.jpg

hey thanks Chris that worked perfect. but one quik ???? whenI start editing in adobe premiere do start project as widescreen or just crop ? thanks alot

Kevin Shaw · February 21st, 2006, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Zlam

I feel if the video is good on all levels than vx2100 is acceptable for 16x9. I have been more than happy with my results on a HD monitor.

I'd be pleasantly surprised to see any 16x9 footage from a 4x3 DV camera which looks good on a large HDTV. It's hard enough to get SD footage to scale well without further compromising it by using in-camera anamorphic processing, but I suppose with care that might look okay. And I've tried processing 4x3 to 16x9 in post with less than ideal results, so I'm not too keen on that solution either. As far as I can tell it's just as well to stick to 4x3 delivery from 4x3 cameras, unless you're sure you can get an acceptable 16x9 output.

Chris Barcellos · February 21st, 2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigo Hoggins

hey thanks Chris that worked perfect. but one quik ???? whenI start editing in adobe premiere do start project as widescreen or just crop ? thanks alot

With the mask method, you just edit as regular 4:3. If you take it into a regular 16:9 Project, it will have to be resized to fill frame, if I recall right.

Marco Wagner · February 21st, 2006, 06:00 PM

Is that mask on the memory stick recorded to the actual footage? I just bought a stick and a card reader, waiting for the reader to ship.

February 15th, 2006, 11:40 AM	#228
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Selecting 16:9 on VX2K Using the matte method I referenced above, if you play it, it is detected as 4:3. I ve been told that all the 16:9 selection on the camera does is add the bars, like I do in manual method, and the add whatever signal is required to designate it as 16:9. Any body know how this works ? I seem to end up with a better image wiyh my manual method. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

February 15th, 2006, 07:30 PM	#233
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	Richard, So you have found good 16:9 results on the VX2100 with an HD monitor? Any special settings or things to consider? __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto

February 21st, 2006, 06:00 PM	#240
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	Is that mask on the memory stick recorded to the actual footage? I just bought a stick and a card reader, waiting for the reader to ship. __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto

February 15th, 2006, 07:22 AM	#226
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	Well if you start with 4:3 and generate 16:9 you lose the top and bottom and if you start in 16:9 and generate 4:3 you lose the sides. Since as a general rule, widescreen sets are bigger, I think that the framing looks more natural if you shoot for 16:9, chop off the sides and pan and scan to get the 4:3 version. If you are mixing footage from both 16:9 and 4:3 cameras and want to do both aspect ratios as options on the final product, it is best to shoot full frame in the 4:3 footage as well as the 16:9 so as to best be able to do both version. That way you can crop the sides of the 16:9 for the 4:3 version and the top and bottom of the 4:3 for the 16:9 version. Of the two of those options, cropping the sides of the 16:9 looks better both from framing and quality perspectives.

February 15th, 2006, 04:02 PM	#229
Georg Liigand Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Estonia Posts: 214	The 16:9 in the PD and VX series is produced so that the aspect ratio is set to 16:9, 4:3 video is zoomed to fill the sides of the new image and therefore top and bottom are simply discarded (cropped). The camera actually does not add any black bars. They only appear on the LCD and are not recorded. I don't know yet whether it's possible, but I plan to keep my VX2100 for a few more years until HD becomes standard and then get a modern HDV camera. I hope that I can continue producing mostly in 4:3 too until that time arrives.

February 15th, 2006, 06:16 PM	#232
Richard Zlamany Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hamden CT Posts: 470	I hear all your points but this type of arguement erupts often on these forums and continues for some time. Boyd all your comments are accurate but generally people don't watch resolution charts when watching video. I feel if the video is good on all levels than vx2100 is acceptable for 16x9. I have been more than happy with my results on a HD monitor.

February 16th, 2006, 11:28 AM	#234
Georg Liigand Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Estonia Posts: 214	I found out that turning sharpness to the lowest level in CP the widescreen video comes out pretty nice. I will try to post some tests.

February 16th, 2006, 03:25 PM	#236
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Richard, your point is very well taken and I agree that you shouldn't get hung up on res charts. If you already have a VX-2100 then there will be many ways to produce nice work. I haven't tried this myself, but someone else here posted some screen shots from an HDTV with VX-2000 16:9 footage vs letterboxed 16:9 in a 4:3 frame. He used the "zoom" feature on the HDTV to fill his screen when viewing, and it looked better than the VX-2000's built-in anamorphic. I have a plasma screen and a couple smaller 16:9 LCD's. Given the scaling hardware in these screens today, I don't doubt that they will do a better job enlarging the image than the VX-2100's crop/stretch in-camera mode. However if you were buying a new camera today, I think it would be a different story unless you only want to shoot 4:3 in dark places. The PDX-10 may be had very inexpensively, has XLR's, the same mike as the PD-170 and support from Sony's pro division. The FX1 would give you an even better widescreen SD image, slightly better low light response, much better manual controls and menus, a fantastic LCD screen and HDV as a bonus.