Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

DSR 300 4:3 converted to 16:9 vs PD150 16:9 mode
(1 viewing) (1) Guest
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: DSR 300 4:3 converted to 16:9 vs PD150 16:9 mode

DSR 300 4:3 converted to 16:9 vs PD150 16:9 mode 8 years, 4 months ago #20536

  • betabbaker18
  • OFFLINE
  • 3rd Assistant Director
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: 0
Hello,

After much web-research, I come to this forum looking for answers to the follow question:

What is the difference between the 16:9 mode used by SD DV cameras such as my PD150 and FCP conversion of 4:3 video to 16:9 aspect ratio?


My research has yielded a number of confusing results.  Some claim that the 16:9 mode used by SD DV cameras represents the same "quality loss" as the aspect ratio conversion used by FCP when you import 4:3 footage into a 16:9 sequence.

When working with 4:3 material in a 16:9 sequence, I have changed the ratio value under the 'video' tab in FCP to be 33.33 or -33.33.

I know this is not true 16:9 aspect ratio, nor is the video output by the SD DV camera in 16:9 mode.  As I understand it, only cameras with a native 16:9 design produce true 16:9 video.

So, is the 16:9 mode process that occurs within the SD DV camera any more of a loss issue than the FCP ratio change applied to 4:3 footage in a 16:9 sequence?

I have a PD150 which I shoot a lot of 16:9 mode projects.  I have the opportunity to buy a Sony DSR 300 for a very reasonable price.  How would the 16:9 mode footage shot with the PD150 compare to the 4:3 DSR 300 footage converted to 16:9 in FCP?

I apologize in advance for any mis-use of terminology here.  I am willing to display a lack of knowledge in order to receive an answer I can understand.

Thanks,

db

Re: DSR 300 4:3 converted to 16:9 vs PD150 16:9 mode 8 years, 4 months ago #20538

  • TrevAnder
  • OFFLINE
  • 1st Assistant Director
  • Posts: 312
  • Karma: 0
16x9 in dv is stretched to fit into a 4x3 space. If the camera uses a 16x9 imaging sensor then that will be better than blowing up the 4x3 image to fit into 16x9 space in final cut. If it doesn't then it just blows the image up itself. How this works depends on the type of image sensor that the camera has. Some have 4x3 sensors, but if those sensors have a large amount of pixel output then you could grab a 16x9 area of the chip without blowing anything up.

Anamorphic video works just like anamorphic film. It gives you a higher resolution because you are using more of the pixels in the image to make up the final image. Instead of cropping the image to be 16x9 you are stretching it to fit into the 4x3 space and then stretching it back out to 16x9.

Most low cost cameras crop and stretch the image to fit into 4x3 in 16x9 mode. I'm not sure what the PD150 does, but I have heard that's how it works as well. You'd have to figure out what type of ccd it has in it.

If you view 16x9 material on a standard 4x3 tv then both anamorphic and nonanamorphic material will look the same. If however you watch them on a hd 16x9 tv then you will be able to see the difference in image quality.

Changing the aspect ratio of a 4x3 clip to fit into a 16x9 sequence wouldn't be the ideal way of doing the conversion, depending on what the shot is I guess. Normally you would blow the 4x3 image up, thus cropping off some of the top and bottom. You can move the image up and down to better select the area of interest. This is basically pan & scan but backwards.
DVShade - Color Grading and Live Action to Cartoon Plugins for FCP/Motion/AfterEffects/FCE
www.dvshade.com

Movie Mavericks - Movie Reviews & More
moviemavericks.com

Re: DSR 300 4:3 converted to 16:9 vs PD150 16:9 mode 8 years, 4 months ago #20541

  • Duane_Martin
  • OFFLINE
  • Executive Producer
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: 9
In my experience the worst method used by a standard definition camera sensor to create an anamorphic image looks better than blowing up standard definition 4x3 clip to fill a standard definition 16x9 frame in FCP.
Duane E. Martin
Earth to Sky Pictures Inc.
Apple Certified Trainer - Final Cut Pro
Copyright - all rights reserved.

Re: DSR 300 4:3 converted to 16:9 vs PD150 16:9 mode 8 years, 4 months ago #20546

  • betabbaker18
  • OFFLINE
  • 3rd Assistant Director
  • Posts: 78
  • Karma: 0
Hello,

Thanks for the input.  The DSR 300 has a 2/3" imaging block, somewhat larger than the PD150.  Based on this I thought perhaps it might mix well with 16:9 "wide mode" footage shot on the 150's small imaging block.

What is the opinion on programs like the Sony Vegas software?  I researched this option, but again would really like to hear from someone who has worked with it in converting 4:3 to 16:9 in post.

Thanks again for having this forum!

db

Re: DSR 300 4:3 converted to 16:9 vs PD150 16:9 mode 8 years, 4 months ago #20547

  • TrevAnder
  • OFFLINE
  • 1st Assistant Director
  • Posts: 312
  • Karma: 0
Blowing up an image takes more work that simply resizing it in final cut or vegas. Those algorithms are very basic. Cameras have decent sharpening and resizing algorithms built into their hardware. I have seen cameras that will output 16:9 stretched up from 4:3 that look far worse than doing so in final cut, but these were $200 cameras. You'll be pretty safe if the camera costs more than half a grand.

If you are going to do this and want the best looking image you may be interested in some plugins.
Instant HD Is a good choice and costs $99. It also comes with Resizer, which is good as well.
FxFactory comes with an upres filter that works well, it costs $399 but you get many other filters along with that one.

Or you could simply try and sharpen and denoise the image using stock filters in final cut or vegas. Prepping and doing the clips in After Effects is also a possibility of getting a better looking image. No matter what you do the image won't look as good as something shot on a native 16:9 sensor.
DVShade - Color Grading and Live Action to Cartoon Plugins for FCP/Motion/AfterEffects/FCE
www.dvshade.com

Movie Mavericks - Movie Reviews & More
moviemavericks.com
  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.37 seconds