Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sebastian

shooting 16:9 with xl1

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

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


  • Metropolis Post



    Paralinx LLC



    CineLab



    Tai Audio



    FJS International



    The Original Slider



    Glidecam



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Wooden Camera



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Abel Cine



    Ritter Battery



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Visual Products



    G-Force Grips



    Just Cinema Gear



    Serious Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...