Video University: Video University Forums: Filmmakers & Screenwriters: Native 16X9


Home	Free Library	Store
Free Catalog

Save with a Two Year Membership

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.
Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members

Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index	Search Posts
Who's Online	Log In

Home: Video University Forums: Filmmakers & Screenwriters:
Native 16X9

moviedude
Novice

Jul 18, 2004, 9:25 PM

Post #1 of 9 (3055 views)
Shortcut

Native 16X9	Can't Post

Hi,

What exactly does this mean? Is this a better format to shoot in? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

Thanks.

grinner
User

Jul 18, 2004, 9:41 PM

Post #2 of 9 (3048 views)
Shortcut

Re: [moviedude] Native 16X9 [In reply to]	Can't Post

It means that the aspect ratio in wich the project is shot is at 16X9 or that screen you watch movies on at the thatre. $X3 is what you watch the news on. The advatages and disadvatages of this or pretty ovbious after knowing what it is. If the end destination is 16X9, shoot it in such. Otherwise it's just limiting in post. Being married to a 16X9 sequence or even random shots on some case makes it tough sometimes to salvage later on.
Nothing is ever imossible though so shoot, have fun and make some killer stuff, man.

;)

grinnerhester.com

moviedude
Novice

Jul 19, 2004, 2:37 AM

Post #3 of 9 (3039 views)
Shortcut

Re: [grinner] Native 16X9 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Thanks Grinner.

So shooting in native 16X9 is might be good for something to be screened at a film festival, right?

The Panasonic DVX100a has native 16X9, I think.

Postal_Boy
Veteran

Jul 21, 2004, 12:31 PM

Post #4 of 9 (3002 views)
Shortcut

Re: [moviedude] Native 16X9 [In reply to]	Can't Post

To get true "native" 16:9 you need 16:9 chips. The DVX100A, Sony PD-170/VX2100, Canon XL1-s, GL series, do not have native 16:9. They use a "stretch" technique to try to stretch the image out. You can buy an anamorphic adaptor that actually distorts the image going into the camera to use more pixels. Then the software can re-arrange the captured pixels into the clear, sharp 16:9 image. This "distortion" method, however, can limit your zoom capability (on Sony models a good anamporphic lense, around $800, reduces your zoom range by half from what I have heard). But samples I have seen show a great improvement in sharpness as more pixels are actually captured as opposed to the digital "stretching" of most cameras.
__________________________

PD-170, Dual athlon 2200+, 1gig ram,, Vegas, Combustion, Photoshop, dual monitor (ashamed of the video card, so I won't mention it), Samson wireless, and a couple of one-chippers (sony) just for the heck of it. - And an IRIVER

nexis1
Novice

Sep 6, 2004, 2:24 AM

Post #5 of 9 (2825 views)
Shortcut

Re: [moviedude] Native 16X9 [In reply to]	Can't Post

shooting 16x9 can cause complications you don't need right now. Steven Speilberg shoots in 16x9, he also shoots on film.
The best bet with the DVX is to shoot in standard mode 4x3 and mask off the top and bottom of your monitor or viewer. This gives you the best of both worlds. You can safely crop the picture in your editor and lose no resolution whatsoever and you can show it on tv without any problems.

videobear
Veteran

Sep 6, 2004, 6:18 AM

Post #6 of 9 (2818 views)
Shortcut

Re: [nexis1] Native 16X9 [In reply to]	Can't Post

You do lose resolution. While the picture doesn't become blurrier or anything, you are masking off the top and bottom 12% of the image. The remaining "useful" image contains fewer pixels than if you'd been able to use all of the pixels on the CCD for your image.

Still, letterboxing the image is the simplest way of doing 16:9 with a 4:3 camcorder.

Regards,
Doug Graham
Panda Productions

nexis1
Novice

Sep 6, 2004, 1:11 PM

Post #7 of 9 (2813 views)
Shortcut

Re: [videobear] Native 16X9 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Actually resolution is based on pixels per square inch. In this case the resolution remains the same. You lose part of your picture yes, but that is what you intended.

Postal_Boy
Veteran

Sep 13, 2004, 3:37 PM

Post #8 of 9 (2768 views)
Shortcut

Re: [nexis1] Native 16X9 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Yup...basically. But most people that have an HDTV or a 16:9 TV will "zoom in" so that the black bars are gone...when they do that the pixels will be blown up and become chunkier. You don't really "lose resolution", but you encourage zooming in on the picture. Still, it can have a nice look
__________________________

PD-170, Dual athlon 2200+, 1gig ram,, Vegas, Combustion, Photoshop, dual monitor (ashamed of the video card, so I won't mention it), Samson wireless, and a couple of one-chippers (sony) just for the heck of it. - And an IRIVER

bdombrowski
Novice

Nov 26, 2004, 11:24 AM

Post #9 of 9 (2485 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Postal_Boy] Native 16X9 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Yes, postal_boy is right. You do lose resolution by masking to get 16x9 unless you view the video letter boxed on a 4:3 TV screen. Why shoot 16x9 if you don't intend to make the footage available for decent true 16x9 playback on 16x9 monitors?

I shoot underwater stock video using a Sony PDX10. This is a 3-chip DVCAM that shoots native 16:9 at full resolution (no loss of pixels using the masking technique.) It makes a significant difference in results when viewing on large wide screen monitors.

The housing I use can switch between native 16x9 and 4:3 underwater, which allows me to collect full resolution stock shots for both 16x9 and 4x3 aspect ratios on the fly.

Brian
Sony PDX10, USVH Housing, custom light rig, VX1000 with amphibico VH1000 housing. Premiere 6.5.