Widescreen on DV bluff

[Reggie]

Interesting;

http://www.farnfilm.com/widescreen.html

Regnards


Reggie

[jeff b]

Yes, it's true, the "16:9" mode on DV camcorders is a bit wasteful and really just a cheap trick, but... an anamorphic lens attachment is just the opposite: extremely expensive.

Jeff B

[Dr Mordrid]

eyup...and there are very few true 16:9 digital formats around, Sony's HDCAM being one at only $65,000 a copy

Dr. Mordrid

[hippie91]

agreed that dvcams do suck on the 16x9 mode, however, it's not quite as bad as that article makes it out to be. on quality dvcams, the ccd(s) actually capture at slightly more than the dv standard can hold on the tape, essentially downsampling the image slightly during compression. if you're using 16x9 mode, it crops the image PRIOR to compression and uses nearly all the bandwidth on the croped portion (pure black doesn't use much bps)

so basically, you're using slightly less ccd (not a full 1/5th less) and you're getting a lower effective compression ratio (ie: less compression artifacts) so although it's still far better to go wide with a lense, it's still fairly acceptable to do it on a decent camera (generally 3ccd consumer cameras are fine).

(forget exactally where i read all this but a couple years ago when i was lookng for a 3ccd cam that could do everything on manual i read a few sites that went over the differences in detail)

wg

[hippie91]

actually, if you put the camera into "stretch" mode (one of the crappy effects they give you that are never used) it would be essentially the same as using an anamorphic lense ie: the video would be stretched vertically and when you do the final output you need to adjust the pixel shape to compensate. haven't had a chance to play with it but i was thinking about this the other day and it should work almost the same. (yeah i know what can be done with a lense will never look quite as good when done with a filter, but this should still work just fine)