True Widescreen...

Is there anyway to get true widescreen using a consumer / prosumer cam?
Even my GL1 only has the 'squish to 4:3 aspect ratio' recording that only plays back to widescreen on a widescreen TV.
Are there tweaks to stretch it out and shrink it so it fits the screen in Premiere or After Effects?

Otherwise, I think I'll have to opt for a lens adapter...

 

only downside is, Century's adapters are upscale of $700.

 

That expensive anamorphic adapter is the only way to go as far as I know. The only other option is a high-dollar camera that has a true 16:9 chip.

Maybe if you're in or near a big city, you could rent the adapter from a camera rental house.

 

Wait a sec.

Art, you can't get it to look right in AE or Premiere?

I think you need to "interpret" your footage as DV Widescreen with 1.2 pixel size.

Also, I thought that Premiere 6.5 was going to handle DV Widescreen as animorphic so it displays properly through DVD (if you go that route)

 

The widescreen adapter isn't going to help you anyway. Using the adapter, you'll still get a full frame picture that looks "squished" on a regular TV set.

Doing it in After Effects is very simple. Start a new composition and then import your video. Under "Interpret Footage" set the Pixel Aspect Ratio to DV Widescreen.

Put your video into the composition, and then Scale it to 100% of the composition width. Preserve the Current Aspect Ratio, and check the "Include Pixel Aspect" checkbox.

That way, whatever format your composition is in (eg DV resolution, or a different size for the web) the video will always be undistorted.

Make sure to set the quality to Best.

 

huh, so, Mister X...
once I export back to tape, it'll be viewable on a standard TV as 'widescreen'?

 

Yup.

 

The best way to go would be to use the anamorphic adapter to get true widescreen then use Mister-X's method to make it letterbox style on regular tv's. Using the lens adapter will let you have full resolution in your widescreen picture. The in-camera 16:9 reduces resolution.

 

Debatable. If the workflow is strictly geared towards producing a 4:3 letterboxed image, there'll be only fairly marginal differences in the final image between using a widescreen adapter, using the built-in 16:9 and shooting full frame and cropping in post anyway. Additionally, maximum vertical clarity isn't always desirable for video; think newsreaders in plaid jackets...

 

"Preserve the Current Aspect Ratio, and check the "Include Pixel Aspect" checkbox."

I couldnt find these options...
help...................

 

In-Camera 16:9 on a GL1 gains resolution.

On a VX2000 you lose resolution....so i've heard.

 

Heh the GL-1 does not gain resolution, neither does the XL-1 or the VX or any prosumer camera without a 16:9 chip. The thing people forget is that the image is limited to a datarate that it has to stay within. That is why there is no true MiniDV 24P or 16:9, it just does not fit into the data rate for the codec that the camera/computer uses. The Canon series 16x9 is throwing away resolution which is then squished back down. Im an avid supporter of the method of shooting full screen 4:3 and then cropping to your desired aspect ratio in post since this will allow you some leeway in your framing for adjustments in post, where as if you shoot 16:9 mode you are throwing away usable image =)

 

They (GL1) do in fact have higher-vertical resolution:

Unfortunately, only the Canons and Panasonics look as good as Ben's pictures show. These cameras employ "pseudo-frame" resampling courtesy of vertical pixel shift, in the same way they get decent frame mode images. As a result, the images have more vertical resolution than purely field-based resampling provides, even if they aren't as good as using an anamorphic or a true 16:9 CCD.

Sonys do a much poorer job of fake 16:9; they look equivalent to performing the same resampling in a field-based NLE like Final Cut Pro, with an added and excessive vertical edge enhancement used in a losing battle to retain perceived sharpness.

from:
http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

 

So you can make it look right (ie: look letterboxed) in After Effects right? But what about other editing programs?

Also I found this article a while back, its quite interesting if not a little long.

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/understanding_16_9.html

 

Absolutely.

Any NLE worth its salt can do it to.

In Premiere you just need to be sure and use the DV Widescreen Template. Import your 16:9 footage and work with it.

In After Effects you must import the footage then interpret it as DV Widescreen. For some odd reason AE won't automatically do it. The drop it into a DV Widescreen comp and your all set.

If you re-import your AE footage into premiere you will need to interpret it in Premiere as a pixel ratio of 1.2

This worked really well for me a few weeks ago.

 

hey, i can't find the
"Preserve the Current Aspect Ratio" option and "Include Pixel Aspect" checkbox.

 

Mister-X

I disagree. Using an anamorphic lens or adapter isn't debatable, its commonplace. You can see some of the benefits HERE.

The suggestion to Art-Vandelet to use the anamorphic adapter was in response to his first question:

"Is there anyway to get true widescreen using a consumer / prosumer cam?"

I personally shoot in 4:3 and matte to 16:9 in FCP3 and that works fine for my purposes.

I agree with ShawnPTH that this method allows a lot of room to play with in post (moving the image around under the matte) allowing more control over the composition.

 

I have found the perfect way....you use the widescreen on your camera(the squish) then you import it into iMovie...if you have it....and you download an effect....I'll hve to search for the name....that will stretch it to widescreen...I have used it before....it works....the one perticular effect is free....and the company sells more for a cost....I'll searchr the name and post it here.....

 

ExFilms, I don't mean it's debatable whether anybody ought to use a Widescreen adapter, I mean it's debatable whether using a widescreen adapter would be "the best way to go" in this case.

For shooting 16:9 which will eventually be displayed on a 16:9 screen, the Century Optics adapter will undoubtedly be an improvement over the alternative methods, but, since Art_Vandalet intends to display his video on a 4:3 television set, it simply does not matter that the built-in 16:9 isn't using every available row of the CCD matrix. If he used the 16:9 adapter, he'd end up doing exactly the same thing that the camera does internally on his computer anyway.

If he were to invest in the Century Optics adapter, then at best, on the final TV image, he might see a very marginal improvement in the vertical resolution of the image, which, for interlaced video, isn't always desirable anyway, since, as I already suggested, it increases the possibility of unwanted moire or strobing effects.

In this case, I really don't see that the very small - and somewhat contentious - improvement in picture quality justifies the investment in the adapter. As Century Optics stresses on that webpage, their adapter also increases the field of view, but, should this be desirable, the same effect can be achieved much more economically with a wideangle adapter.

 

Ahhh, really good point Mister-X.

I must have just misunderstood your earlier post.

Sorry.