DV in "true" scope + Magic Bullet

Istvan Toth · August 25th, 2002, 12:54 PM

Hi
I maybe e missed something but I do not understand you right:

<...PAL is 720x576. 720p is 1280x720. If we blow up the anamorphic PAL frame to the 720p frame we only have to stretch it sideways to get the correct size and aspect ratio. If you do this in NTSC you also have to stretch it verticaly since NTSC is only 720x480. ...>

To me in your exsample you have to blow 720 to 1280 and 576 to 720, you have to strech always in both directions. The diference is that in PALyou have 576 to 720 and in NTSC 480 to 720, you never get the 720 lines for free.

Or am I wrong??

Anyway, congarulations for the images, they are very nice

Istvan

Henrik Bengtsson · August 27th, 2002, 01:41 PM

Actually yes, you are wrong =)

Remember, that the 1280x720 is the entire image INCLUDING the black letterbox bars to make it 2.35:1

So if we remove a 4.th of 720 (720/4 = 180) for the letterbox bars, we get 540 (720 - 180 = 540) lines worth of visible image area. Since PAL is 576 high we actually have 26 lines to spare, but NTSC being 480 would mean that we are 60 lines short.

I need an anamorphic lens :) ,
Henrik

Istvan Toth · August 27th, 2002, 02:14 PM

Thanks for helping, I do understand the propotion issue and I see why PAL is more of help.
Where I still have problems is with the question: are we in this case in 720p? I have problems with the progressiv definitions all over, not only here.
Istvan

Martin Munthe · August 29th, 2002, 12:34 AM

I'm in the midst of shooting a feature film using the double 16x9 method so I might not be able to reply for a while. Henrik, you are right (hello neighbour). The method is impossible in NTSC because of the lack of vertical lines. The "gap" betweeen 720 and 576 is the 2.35:1 letterbox.

It's VERY hard to shoot this way. You absolutely have to have a dual monitor setup. One displaying the image straight and one in 2.35:1 image format for checking compositions. I'll post images of my own setup using a PowerBook as a "hub" soon. I use a great app called BTV Pro for displaying the DV stream (via FireWire) in the correct aspect ratio on the fly. I'm also using the PowerBook for vectorscope checks.

We have been shooting for two days (three weeks to go) and have got some absolutely smashing images. I'll post them later too...

Henrik Bengtsson · August 29th, 2002, 07:33 AM

Hi Martin =)

Please post your setup and images. Judging by the images from the music video, it should be worth every bit downloaded :)

I'm also very interested in your setup and how you use this method. It's nice to see that im not the only one using vectorscopes and waveform monitors. (Though for the record, i've noted a lot of the posters here use it aswell =)

I'm shooting a very low budget music video this sunday (on my 30th b-day actually :) but will shoot it in normal 4:3 and crop it to 16x9 manually since i do not have any anamorphic lens yet. (If i had a budget, i would have bought one, but i did get a glidecam :)

Regards,
Henrik

Zac Stein · August 29th, 2002, 10:26 AM

Could these effects be duplicated on a XL1 or XL1s?

Ohh i am about to shoot a small starwars movie (i am gonna get sued *grins*) and we really want that huge feel...

Is there anywhere i can get info on how to set up these lighting rigs to get that real dark atmospheric look...

I am really fresh with all this so i need the ultimate kiddy gloves replies.

kermie

Henrik Bengtsson · August 29th, 2002, 02:02 PM

I dont see why not, the XL1s has incamera 16:9 has it not? But remember that you wont get any resolution gain unless you edit & output your final to 720p (is that the correct name?) which is 1280x720 in image size. If you are outputting back to DV then you will still be using 720x576 (assuming we're talking PAL). So if you want the 2.35:1 ratio you will crop a large portion of that.

So for the easy answer, if you plan to output the finished result only to video then dont bother. If you have any plans to output to HD or even blowup to film, then this will give you the best result without going to a true HD camera.

/Henrik

Martin Munthe · September 10th, 2002, 03:13 AM

Here are some more updates on the project I'm working on. The images are dumps we made from the "god" setup using a PowerBook G4 connected to the PD150 and BTVPro (excellent app!). The images are very low res. These images have not passed through any type of CC or filmlooking yet.

http://www.operafilm.com/campslaughter.html

I'll post more later when I have more time. I'll post images of the camera setup on site.

August 25th, 2002, 12:54 PM	#16
Istvan Toth Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Venice-Italy Posts: 52	Hi I maybe e missed something but I do not understand you right: <...PAL is 720x576. 720p is 1280x720. If we blow up the anamorphic PAL frame to the 720p frame we only have to stretch it sideways to get the correct size and aspect ratio. If you do this in NTSC you also have to stretch it verticaly since NTSC is only 720x480. ...> To me in your exsample you have to blow 720 to 1280 and 576 to 720, you have to strech always in both directions. The diference is that in PALyou have 576 to 720 and in NTSC 480 to 720, you never get the 720 lines for free. Or am I wrong?? Anyway, congarulations for the images, they are very nice Istvan __________________ Istvan Toth RED #1161

August 27th, 2002, 02:14 PM	#18
Istvan Toth Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Venice-Italy Posts: 52	Thanks for helping, I do understand the propotion issue and I see why PAL is more of help. Where I still have problems is with the question: are we in this case in 720p? I have problems with the progressiv definitions all over, not only here. Istvan __________________ Istvan Toth RED #1161

August 29th, 2002, 12:34 AM	#19
Martin Munthe Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 331	I'm in the midst of shooting a feature film using the double 16x9 method so I might not be able to reply for a while. Henrik, you are right (hello neighbour). The method is impossible in NTSC because of the lack of vertical lines. The "gap" betweeen 720 and 576 is the 2.35:1 letterbox. It's VERY hard to shoot this way. You absolutely have to have a dual monitor setup. One displaying the image straight and one in 2.35:1 image format for checking compositions. I'll post images of my own setup using a PowerBook as a "hub" soon. I use a great app called BTV Pro for displaying the DV stream (via FireWire) in the correct aspect ratio on the fly. I'm also using the PowerBook for vectorscope checks. We have been shooting for two days (three weeks to go) and have got some absolutely smashing images. I'll post them later too... __________________ Martin Munthe VFX Supervisor/DP/Director

September 10th, 2002, 03:13 AM	#23
Martin Munthe Major Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 331	Here are some more updates on the project I'm working on. The images are dumps we made from the "god" setup using a PowerBook G4 connected to the PD150 and BTVPro (excellent app!). The images are very low res. These images have not passed through any type of CC or filmlooking yet. http://www.operafilm.com/campslaughter.html I'll post more later when I have more time. I'll post images of the camera setup on site. __________________ Martin Munthe VFX Supervisor/DP/Director

August 27th, 2002, 01:41 PM	#17
Henrik Bengtsson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Borås, Sweden Posts: 167	Actually yes, you are wrong =) Remember, that the 1280x720 is the entire image INCLUDING the black letterbox bars to make it 2.35:1 So if we remove a 4.th of 720 (720/4 = 180) for the letterbox bars, we get 540 (720 - 180 = 540) lines worth of visible image area. Since PAL is 576 high we actually have 26 lines to spare, but NTSC being 480 would mean that we are 60 lines short. I need an anamorphic lens :) , Henrik

August 29th, 2002, 07:33 AM	#20
Henrik Bengtsson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Borås, Sweden Posts: 167	Hi Martin =) Please post your setup and images. Judging by the images from the music video, it should be worth every bit downloaded :) I'm also very interested in your setup and how you use this method. It's nice to see that im not the only one using vectorscopes and waveform monitors. (Though for the record, i've noted a lot of the posters here use it aswell =) I'm shooting a very low budget music video this sunday (on my 30th b-day actually :) but will shoot it in normal 4:3 and crop it to 16x9 manually since i do not have any anamorphic lens yet. (If i had a budget, i would have bought one, but i did get a glidecam :) Regards, Henrik

August 29th, 2002, 10:26 AM	#21
Zac Stein Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 730	Could these effects be duplicated on a XL1 or XL1s? Ohh i am about to shoot a small starwars movie (i am gonna get sued grins) and we really want that huge feel... Is there anywhere i can get info on how to set up these lighting rigs to get that real dark atmospheric look... I am really fresh with all this so i need the ultimate kiddy gloves replies. kermie

August 29th, 2002, 02:02 PM	#22
Henrik Bengtsson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Borås, Sweden Posts: 167	I dont see why not, the XL1s has incamera 16:9 has it not? But remember that you wont get any resolution gain unless you edit & output your final to 720p (is that the correct name?) which is 1280x720 in image size. If you are outputting back to DV then you will still be using 720x576 (assuming we're talking PAL). So if you want the 2.35:1 ratio you will crop a large portion of that. So for the easy answer, if you plan to output the finished result only to video then dont bother. If you have any plans to output to HD or even blowup to film, then this will give you the best result without going to a true HD camera. /Henrik