Joined the Club!

Charles Lorch · January 5, 2005

We finally took the plunge and picked up a 900 along with a 930 deck. We had our first shoot with the camera yesterday, and I'm very pleased, :D as was the client. Thanks to all who gave input in my decision process on the forum, it really helped. I still have a ways to go in maximizing the camera and look forward to this forum helping me get there.

The shoot yesterday was a spot for a law firm for broadcast. I shot the spot 30P 50meg 4:3, and used the portrait scene file from the CD w/ the Goodman, treaked a bit. I framed for 16:9 box in post. We are posting on Final Cut via SDI through an AJA IO for now. We take delivery of a Media 100 844XE in two weeks. Any thoughts on record modes or looks based on our NLE situation or does it matter?

Also thoughts or info on 4:3 vs. 16:9 for general broadcast applications such as this. Is there a better way to accomplish 16:9 look in a 4:3 finish space?

We bought an entire package of gear and have a second camera package for sale along with some other gear. All of the gear is in great shape and was used in a studio. Feel free to contact me if you're interested. I attached the list of gear.

Gear_List.doc

John Ealer · January 8, 2005

To achive a letterboxed 16:9 finished product, I would acquire in 16:9 (which takes advantage of the native resolution of the CCD's) and do all your post as 16x9, then just add the letterbox to get you back to 4:3 delivery at the very end.

If you shoot 4:3 then crop for 16:9, you lose on 2 fronts: you don't use all the CCD resolution, then you throw out the top and bottom to boot when you crop and add the box.

IMHO, the only reason to shoot 4:3 when you expect to finish 16:9 is when you need to protect against the need for a full screen 4x3 master, say if the client changes their mind on just before the online. In this scenario I recommend using a "common top" approach, framing your 16:9 extraction at the top of 4x3 so you have the best composition in either realm.

J

Phil Rhodes · January 8, 2005

Hi,

Second all that - that's how most of the stuff I do is done, although we don't frame for common top - much more likely to frame for centre extraction or 14:9.

Phil

Charles Lorch · January 10, 2005

When you say "just add the letterbox to get you back to 4:3 delivery at the very end. " Are you not actually sizing the image within the NLE? We have not been happy with the sizing tool within FCP on some other projects, although they were larger percentages. This made us somewhat concerned that we may actually lose some quality. How can we avoid that loss? Thanks.

John Ealer · January 10, 2005

In FCP, If you take a 16x9 sequence (or clip) and place it in a 4x3 timeline, it's automatically letterboxed. You should never have to use any of the resize or distort tools to make it letterboxed. There's no quality loss issues with this process whatsoever.

J

Phil Rhodes · January 10, 2005

Hi,

There can be quality issues with resizing - it's possible to do it very badly. Premiere certainly did it very badly indeed for years.

Phil

Alessandro Machi · January 10, 2005

If you shoot 4:3 then crop for 16:9, you lose on 2 fronts: you don't use all the CCD resolution, then you throw out the top and bottom to boot when you crop and add the box.

J

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And that is why I kept the image exactly as a 4:3 and just put a vertical box on the HD screen rather than a horizontal box. Resolution actually looks improved. I love the vertical box because it actually creates a separation barrier from the background of the room.

Jason McKelvey · January 28, 2005

I believe that shooting 16:9 native and using the automatic resize effect (avid) in a 4:3 timeline yields the best product. Like said above, you use the FULL resolution of the chip. Correct me if I'm wrong, but using the full resolution of the chip, then compressing that into a 4:3 timeline should yeild a slight oversampling, effectively making it look sharper. That's why when someone wants there footage to look good on the web, they stick it in a tiny window; wow, it all the sudden looks 10 times better than on a big monitor... instant oversampling.

Jason