Jump to content

shooting 16:9 with xl1


sebastian

Recommended Posts

So I?m going to shoot a short film in an XL1 and want to shoot 16:9.

 

But the thing is.. I wanna know the basics. What to have in mind.

 

And to be more specific, I wanna know how I can actually make the 16:9 format shrink so it can fit in a normal tv, but with the black bars.

 

Thanx

 

Ciao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I?m going to shoot a short film in an XL1 and want to shoot 16:9.

With the release of the XL2, this is much more easy.

 

And to be more specific, I wanna know how I can actually make the 16:9 format shrink so it can fit in a normal tv, but with the black bars.

 

Well, when you bring the streatched 16:9 image to the editing software, usually you can choose to "Letterbox" it. That will add the Black bars on top and bottom, and present the v16:9 video correctly on a 4:3 monitor.

 

But the thing is.. I wanna know the basics. What to have in mind.

 

My question is this, do you know how to get 16:9 with the XL1? you have 3 options:

 

#1: Shoot in the cameras "16:9" mode, which mask's the top and bottom of the CCD's, you WILL loose a good amount of resolution.

 

#2: Shoot in 4:3, then crop to 16:9 in post. Same thing as using the In-camera 16:9 really.

 

#3: Shoot with an anamorphic adapter, that will streatch the 16:9 image to fill the 4:3 CCD's. While this allows to keep the full resolution, I hear it can be pretty hard to get things just right when using an anamorphic adapter.

 

Personally thats why I'd shoot with the Canon XL2 if I could, The CCD's shoot native 16:9.... So you wont loose resolution or have to worry about usuing anamorphic adapters.

 

Just my uneducated opinion, and some facts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the XL 1 has the option to do 16:9 on the camera. But with no black bars, it actually squeezes the image to achieve the 16:9 in post, were the image is stretched. Isn?t this right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont know about "Squeezing" anything, but I know that using the in-camera 16:9 feature will cut off aboout (I think 30%) of your resolution.

 

It may cut off 30%, then "Streatch" itself to record onto the minidv tape @ 4:3, but still you will loose 30% (Or something like like) of your resolution.

 

Thats why people use the Anamorphic adapters. I do think I'm correct here.

 

PS) I dont know for sure, but I think you got "Squeez" and "streatch" in the wronge places. I think the camera "Streatchs" the image when recorder, sort of like Anamorphic film to fit the 1.33:1 CCD, then in post the 1.33:1 Streatched image is "Squeezed" back to 16:9 w/ letterrbox's added. But I'm not sure, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I'll make up a graphic and post it here to show you what I mean.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is how the In-Camera 16:9 mode on XL1 works. Im still un-sure on if the camera records the thing with the letter boxes or without, so that part of the step may be wrong.

 

clint_eastwood10.jpg

 

*** Notice you loose the picture in the black bars, along with the picture, you loose resolution, making MiniDV even more "Resolution-less" than it already is.

 

If you can get ahold of an XL2, you will be able to keep your resolution without using anamorphic adapters. The XL2 is only about $500 more than the XL1s on Ebay, sometimes not even that. And to rent it is like $50.00 more a day. (Do people actually rent the Pro-sumers? :huh: )

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Im absolutly sure you loose resolution. How else would the camera work? If you have a 1.33:1 CCD w/ 300,000 pixels and want a 1.78:1 Aspect ratio and still keep 300,000 pixels, you would need an anamorphic adapter to squeez the 1.78:1 onto the 1.33:1 CCD, to use all the photosites.

 

If not, the only thing the camera can do is cut off the top and bottom of the 1.33:1 ccd to get a 1.78:1 CCD, which takes away 33% of your resolution.

 

the only other way it would be possible to keep all 300,000 pixels is to use a Native 16:9 (1.78:1) CCD camera, like the XL2.

 

 

I dont have any links available, but I know for a solid fact that you will loose resolution using the in-camera 16:9 mode. Other wise, why would you ever want to use an anamorphic adapter or use a 16:9 native chip camera for that matter?

 

The point is, you will loose resolution unless you use the XL2 or an anamorphic adapter on the Camera.

 

Personally, with the XL2 having 16:9 native AND 24p mode, I see no use for the XL1 or XL1s anymore.

 

See this picture from www.saferseas.com to back up my claim:

AnaFish2.jpg

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...