Anamorphic Adapter, or 16x9 built-in function?

Matt Pacini · November 17, 2004

OK, I finally broke down and bought a Mini-DV camcorder (my first video camera!), given the fact that:

1. They're now cheap

2. They're pretty advanced and have the bugs worked out.

3. It's just too expensive to keep shooting film for home-movie shots of camping trips!

So, my question is, am I better off using the built-in widescreen function, or getting an anamorphic adapter, and desqueezing in software later (which is no big deal for me)

Matt Pacini

David Mullen ASC · November 17, 2004

Well, first you have to ask yourself if you really need a 16x9 anamorphic recording. If all you need is a 4x3 letterboxed version, then just mask the 4x3 image.

Basically, it's a compromise either way: with an anamorphic adaptor, you get better pixel resolution compared to cropping & stretching to 16x9 (whether in-camera or in post) but you probably get worse optical resolution (some of the same issues are involved in anamorphic 35mm photography -- larger negative with anamorphic versus less-distorted spherical optics and smaller negative area with Super-35 cropped to 2.39). An anamorphic adaptor will also limit your zoom range probably.

The look of the anamorphic adaptor footage in 16x9 could be described as "smoother" rather than sharper than cropping & stretching 4x3 to 16x9.