Widescreen DV

[bira]

Hello people!

I have some questions.

Do I loose picture quality if I set my camera (Sony trv50) to widescreen?

If I shoot 4:3 and later crop top and botton to get 16:9 will I get the same result if setting the camera to 16:9? (quality wise)?

Do I loose picture quality if I use the steadyshot feature of the camera?


Thanks

[Vulcan]

Yes, you lose quality and resolution if you set the camera to 16:9. I have a Sony TRV11 and have done some 16:9 shooting. The quality of my 16:9 footage is not as high as my 4:3 footage. I can't explain why but you will find guidance from the following site:
http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html

I think (i.e. I'm not sure) that SteadyShoot engages some of the pixels, leaving less pixels for the actual footage. However, steadyshoot gives a more stable picture and I think (once again not sure) that the advantage of this is higher than losing some pixels.

[bira]

Are you saying you're better off shooting 4:3 and later cropping to 16:9 or not cropping at all?

From the link you provided:

Since the "wrong way" digitally stretches the image prior to DV compression, the DV codec doesn't have to compress the "wasted" material at the top and bottom of the 4:3 image. As a result, those central 360 (or 432) lines are spread out over the entire height of the picture, and all the DCT blocks are employed in compressing useful bits of the image. As a result, slightly more vertical resolution is preserved through the compression process when shooting the "wrong way" vs. "shoot and protect"

Let me try to put it simpler (correct me if I am wrong).

When shooting 16:9 the camera turns off several pixels from top and botton, then resizes the frame to 4:3, compresses the frame and then send it to tape. ( I am ignoring the fields, interlace stuff here)

When shooting 4:3 the camera, compresses the frame and then send it to tape.

So, as I understand, the differencec in quality (if any) occurs when the camera internally resizes the frame from 16:9 to 4:3.

Now, thing is that I do want 16:9.
So, what to do?

[Vulcan]

I think that you are better off not cropping at all (that's the way I do it, i.e. no cropping). If you crop you will lose 25% of your image and it will be for ever gone, if you don't crop you will see 75% of the 4:3 image if your TV is set to 16:9 and 25% will be invisible (above and below the screen), at least this is the way my 16:9 TV shows the image when set to WideScreen. My experience (it might be that I have been doing something wrong but ...) is that my 4:3 images looks better than my 16:9 images even when I only see 75% of the image (i.e. the TV is set to automatic and fills the screen the best way it can). When I set the TV to 4:3 vision the picture is even better, but I agree that it looks like a waste of space with black bars at the sides.

I also would like to shoot in 16:9 but I'm not prepared to sacrifice picture quality and thus, as long as I have a 4:3 camera I will continue to shoot 4:3 images. I have heard rumors that the new Sony DCR-PDX10P (DV CAM version of the TRV 950) shoots "true" 16:9 and that this is achieved by using the full Megapixel chip (the part that on 4:3 is reserved for stills). This camera is just hitting the market and I think the price is some £2,700 (hopefully it will come down quite soon) and the question is if it is worth it.

[bira]

Vulcan,

Here are two movies I've shot. One using widescreen mode and the other full screen. They are just one frame long.

Tell me what do you think.

Fullscreen:

[bira]

The 5 secs movies were taken directly from the camera, edited to 1 frame and then recompressed using microsoft dv codec.

Widescreen:

[Vulcan]

I don't think a 1 frame shot will give a true indication on the difference in quality (btw, I've only seen the full screen frame) betwen 4:3 and 16:9 footage. My experience is that you notice the difference very clearly if you have 4:3 and a 16:9 footage and both of them includes zooming and side ways panning. I suggest that you shot some minutes which each setting, include some zooming and sideways panning and then encode the footage to VCD/SVCD/DVD (whatever you prefer) and play back on TV.

My camera (TRV11) is a low end DV camera and your camera is substantially better than mine so it might be that your 16:9 footage will look as good as my 4:3 footage but this would be to compare apples with oranges.

It's very hard to get good VCD/SVCD encodes from DV footage (noise and low compression ratios) but if encoded as DVD it can be very, very good. My 4:3 DVD encodes with footage from my camera is high quality (the encodes but maybe not the content as such). My 16:9 encoded are just good/acceptable and especially when there is movement you notice "mosquitos" and that the encodes doesn't really keep up with the movement/moving objects.

[ronnylov]

You can buy a 16:9 Widescreen Anamorphic Adapter which allows to use all the pixels on a 4:3 camera. It's a lens that squeezes the image to 16:9 anamorphic format. A quick search on internet after "16:9 converter" and you may find one that fits your camera.

[bira]

That would be the best option, but that's expensive. Around 800 dollars I believe.

[TheRipper]

Originally posted by bira
That would be the best option, but that's expensive. Around 800 dollars I believe.

Hi, I have the TRV30, and when switched to 16:9, the camera uses the pixels that are normaly not used in 4:3 mode. The resolution is 1024x576 ( or 1024x480 for NTSC).
it is only anomorphic stored on tape. ( just like widescreen dvd's )
If you shoot on 4:3, and then remove some lines to get to 16:9, the resulting resolution will be much lower !!

just like with dvd-players in widescreen mode, or zoomed pan-scan mode. the widescreen mode is much better, because of the vertical resolution of 576 lines ( or 480 for NTSC ). With pan-scan it will be
324 scaled to 576 ( or 270 scaled to 480 for NTSC )

on the camera it just looks like it's placing black bars on the top and bottom, but in real, it's using more horizontal pixels.

[bira]

Originally posted by TheRipper
The resolution is 1024x576 ( or 1024x480 for NTSC).



What software are you using that shows a resolution of 1024x576?

[TheRipper]

Originally posted by bira
What software are you using that shows a resolution of 1024x576?

I have a Canopus DV Raptor. With that card there was software included to "capture" the dv-data to the harddisk. It automaticly detects that it is 1024x576, and saves it as such.

[bira]

That is so weird to me. Read this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39701), it deals with the same thing.

Could it that be that the board or software is converting non-square pixels to square ones?

I still don't get it.

[TheRipper]

Originally posted by bira
That is so weird to me. Read this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39701), it deals with the same thing.

Could it that be that the board or software is converting non-square pixels to square ones?

I still don't get it.

When you play the 16:9 recorded video on a tv, do you have to enable widescreen mode to have the right aspect ratio ? or is it like a 16:9 broadcast ( with black borders on top and bottom )...

The dv is stored as anamorphic video, so the real resolution is 720x576. Only everything is streched. When you have a widescreen tv, and put it on widescreen mode, is streches the video from 720x576 to 1024x576.

I want to do some tests, but i have no idea how to do that. The source must be identical for both modes, but the only source that is available is the camera's lens.

what i could try is to make a 1024x576 picture wich is good compressible and store that as video in a canopus avi. then i look if the vertical resolution stays at 576 ( and not 324 pixels ). If that is the case, the it is truly 16:9.

[Feuerwehr]

Here is a great easy-to-understand synopsis of DV and 16:9 issues:
http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/16to9.html

[TheRipper]

Hi,

I have made some tests to see what the codec does with the 1024x576 resolution.

First I made a picture :
http://members.chello.nl/~k.doel/before.png

then i converted it to this (http://members.chello.nl/~k.doel/1_frame_dv_file_1024x576.avi) (DVRaptor codec)

when i capture the image from that avi-file it is :
http://members.chello.nl/~k.doel/between.png

after writing to and reading from tape the picture is this :
http://members.chello.nl/~k.doel/after.png

You can see, that the camera stores the picture in an anamorphic format ( squeezes the frame horizontal ) and keeps the full pal-vertical resolution of 576 pixels.

So now we now that the camera stores it in anamorphic format ( without any vertical loss )

But still the question is :
is the 4:3 (720x576) picture cropped to 16:9 (720x324) and then vertical streched (720x576), or is the 4:3 extended to 16:9 ( 1024x576) and then horizontal squeezed to 720x576 ??

[bira]

TheRipper,


I'll try to replicate your test. What software (editor) did you use to convert to DV? Premiere? Ulead?

How did you capture the picture from the AVI?


I guess that the DVRaptor codec(card) is responsible for "enlarging" the output, because all my 16:9 footage is shown as 720xsomething.

Will you do the same test with the wide.zip file attached some posts before. I mean capture the picture to see if it is 1024xsomething. It is a 1 frame 16:9 shot(NTSC) compressed with microsoft AVI.

Thanks

[bira]

Just occured to me that having a widescreen picture encoded to DV and exported to camera is not the same as shooting video with the camera set to 16:9. You know what I mean? It depends on how the CCD is used. Why don't you print your test picture and make a short film of the picture.

[TheRipper]

your wide.zip has the resolution of 720x480 ( and not 1024x480 )
yoou can test is with GSpot 2.1 ( GSpot 2.1 (http://www.doom9.org/Soft21/Editing/gspot21.zip) )

But i can not load the wide.avi in my program ( "not supported" it says :( ).

but when i play it, it is 720x480.

I used ulead to convert the bmp-picture to avi. I created the png just for small file-size.

I have a special tool for my DV Raptor that can capture and record and take snapshots of the current frame. ( Raptor Video, it came with the capture card ).
But i think any video-editing tool can create a picture out of a video-frame.

And about your last post... I allready said somthing like that in my previous post.


It seems that my program "sees" it is wide screen, and creates a wide-screen avi.
Your program doesn't "see" it that way, and creates just a 4:3 avi.

[TheRipper]

I'll try to create a shot of a piece of paper, and let you know the results.

[bira]

Originally posted by TheRipper
But i can not load the wide.avi in my program ( "not supported" it says :( ).



And I cannot play yours! Even with the Canopus DV Codec installed.


Edit: I can play yours.

[Richard Iredale]

Whoa! Let me get this straight...

Forget about pixel counts for a moment. With a conventional miniDV camera, 4:3 format means that the image that is recorded is 480x720 (assume NTSC here). If I switch my Sony TRV-8 to "Widescreen", all it does is letterboxes out the image, using only 360 scan lines, so the resulting image is 360x720. The vertical resolution thus suffers.

The ideal setup is to use either a 16x9 camera (the actual imager chip measures 16x9 and has a 480x720 CCD matrix), or "cheat" with a conventional 4x3 chip by attaching an anamorphic lens, which horizontally squishes a 16x9 image into the 480x720 CCD.

Now, if a new camcorder with a more-dense 4x3 CCD chip can produce essentially the same resulting 480x720 anamorphic image that an anamorphic lens could produce, then tell me where I can buy such a camera. I want one!

[OvERaCiD23]

Originally posted by Richard Iredale
Now, if a new camcorder with a more-dense 4x3 CCD chip can produce essentially the same resulting 480x720 anamorphic image that an anamorphic lens could produce, then tell me where I can buy such a camera. I want one!

what they're trying to figure out is if the 4:3 cameras are actually recording in 16:9, or taking a 4:3 shot, cropping, then turning it into a 16:9. i don't have a clue as to how to figure this out, all i know is that my Canon ZR20 does not letterbox the image, but creates anamoprhic video. my shots appear better to the naked eye in 16:9 mode, but that doesn't prove that the camera isn't tricking me by taking a 4:3 shot, cropping, then showing me the anamorphic shot. either way, i'll be sticking to 16:9 mode as I despise full-screen video.

[bira]

Originally posted by OvERaCiD23
either way, i'll be sticking to 16:9 mode as I despise full-screen video.

You are absolutely right!

[onesoul]

Hi, Richard was right in what he was saying. The sony trv 8, 11, 16, 18, 25, 30 don't do 16:9 the right way but rather a fake. I could explain but at this link (http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen) which by the way is at the dv faq sticky, explains very well.

edit: Reading it now I seem a bit cocky in this post but I didn't mean it. Btw I learned the 16*9 issue at the fine link provided. I guess I couldn't really explain with the excellence like it is at adamwilt.com.

Cheers

[hanfrunz]

Hello,

in our company we made a lot of tests with anamorphotic lenses -> they all suck! The picture is blury, sometimes the angle of the lens is not correct (you can't attach it to the camera yery well). Then you have reflections when you shoot against light...
We also made resolution-tests with testcharts and the result was that our Sony PD-150 is cropping and resizing before recording.
So the best thing to do, if you want to create a 16:9 film is to shoot in 4:3 (put some Tape on the viewfinder to simulate 16:9). In postproduction you then have the possibility to move the 4:3 picture in the 16:9 frame up and down to find the best framing!

If you want real 16:9 you have to use professional camcorders with real 16:9 chips (like SONY DSR-500WSL or DVW-790WS)

hanfrunz

[nFury8]

@hanfrunz
Hi

Mind if I jump in. This thread is getting more interesting to me,since I have a Panasonic DV cam and have been lately agonizing over the 16:9 format and how it is being offered in the consumer/prosumer arena. I've been shooting in 4:3 and I want to start using 16:9 for some sort of future-proofing, display viewing-wise. Now let's just narrow our options down to the consumer DV cheap trick of cropping and adding black borders to the frame, or what Adam Wilt lovingly refer to as 'the wrong way'.I'm just a poor dork who can't afford to spend on a true anamorphic cam or even an anamorphic lens attachment.Having said this, there are only two options available to me when going the 16:9 way.The first is the in-camera electronic conversion, 2 black bars slapped at the top and bottom of the frame. Then the second would be to do it in post using NLE,where you extract a 16:9 image out of the 4:3 shot footage. At first I thought I'd be better off using the second method of 'shoot and protect',quoting Adam Wilt. But he's got a striking argument about the in-camera electronic conversion vis-a-vis shoot and protect:

So what's a poor DV shooter to do, if he or she can't afford a true 16:9 camera like the AJ-D610WA or DSR-500WS, and can't find an anamorphic lens? First, try using a Canon or Panasonic camera; as explained below, they do a better-than-expected job in 16:9.
Otherwise, Shoot and protect 16:9 on 4:3. Use the entire, non-widescreen 4:3 image, but protect your future revenue streams by ensuring that all important visual information is contained vertically in the center or upper 3/4 of the screen. That way you have the full resolution 4:3 image for use today, and you can always upconvert to HDTV later in the 4:3 aspect ratio or the 16:9 aspect ratio if you can accept the reduced vertical resolution. Should you need to repurpose the material into a 16:9 SDTV format later, you can letterbox it in post by setting up a vertical shutter wipe, putting black bands at the top and bottom of the screen just like on MTV.
You're no worse off than with 16:9 material shot "the wrong way", but you have the freedom and flexibility of a full-resolution 4:3 image that's compatible with today's broadcast and non-broadcast standards.
Or are you? Since the "wrong way" digitally stretches the image prior to DV compression, the DV codec doesn't have to compress the "wasted" material at the top and bottom of the 4:3 image. As a result, those central 360 (or 432) lines are spread out over the entire height of the picture, and all the DCT blocks are employed in compressing useful bits of the image. As a result, slightly more vertical resolution is preserved through the compression process when shooting the "wrong way" vs. "shoot and protect"
Im no DV expert so I had to have some authoritative knowledge guide, so I guess I'll go for the 'wrong way' to have my 16:9 shoots. My point in posting this,is I would agree with you on shooting 4:3 then get 16:9 in post, but, only with a Sony DV cam. But for the Panasonic and Canon users, the alternative would be 'the wrong way'(basing again from Adam Wilt). And Ben Syverson has some really informative data on this whole 16:9 affair,here:http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/index.html (http://)
So to end my long rant, I would just settle for the in-camera 16:9 method to get my anamorphic footage, unless of course I intend to have both 4:3 and 16:9 options, in which case I'd just shoot normally in 4:3 then crop in post for that mischievous 16:9. Indeed, what's a poor DV shooter to do.

Just my 2 cents
Cheers

[onesoul]

Just an add on of some more words by Adam Wilt.
Sonys do a much poorer job of fake 16:9; they look equivalent to performing the same resampling in a field-based NLE like Final Cut Pro, with an added and excessive vertical edge enhancement used in a losing battle to retain perceived sharpness.

I'd rate the quality of 16:9 images as follows:

- True 16:9 cameras, like the Sony DSR-500WS, The JVC DV700, and the Panasonic AJ-D610WA.
- 4:3 cameras with an anamorphic lens attachment.
- Fake 16x9 from a Canon XL1 or GL1, or a Panasonic AJ-EZ1, AJ-D200 series, or the like.
- 4:3 cropped and stretched in post using an NLE
- Fake 16x9 shot on a 4x3 Sony.

Mind you, this ranking does not take into account the fundamental quality differences in the different camera heads and lenses. I'm only discussing the relative qualities of the different means of generating a 16:9 image in what's still largely a 4:3 world.

Ben Syverson's Shooting in Widescreen DV (http://members.macconnect.com/users/b/ben/widescreen/index.html) is worth a look for more info.