I'm trying to figure out the best way of getting 16:9 720x576 from my Sony DCR-TRV330E. When set to 16:9, video resolution remains 720x576 as with 4:3, output image width remains the same, but height is reduced (see the two attached samples). I.e. with 16:9 there's an apparent increase in vertical resolution. However, surely the camera has no way of rearranging its CCD pixel matrix to achieve this?
Is it then correct to assume that the camera likely captures the same image size at the same resolution as for 4:3, then crops top and bottom for 16:9 display aspect ratio, and then scales the result to 720x576 for encoding? I.e. there's an actual loss of vertical resolution during cropping?
In other words, if I wanted the best quality 16:9 720x576 output I'd probably be better off shooting at 4:3 and then cropping and scaling using high-quality software? (Taking into account the dangers of framing for 16:9 with 4:3 ).
If this is all wrong please set me straight!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
It certainly looks like the 4:3 has been cropped & resized to produced a 16:9.
The 16:9 looks dreadful and has lost resolution.
You could see if doing it yourself will get a better end result, although be careful when framing for 16x9 using 4:3.
That's how all standard definition DV cams work when you set them to 16:9, they simply blank off the top and bottom 80 lines. A high end camera will be fitted with an anamorphic lens which uses the full 720x576 frame but squashes the video. When authored as a 16:9 DVD then the player does the un-squashing and stretches it out to fill the 16:9 frame on the display device.
You might be able to find a 16x9 anamorphic lens attachment for your camera and if you can then you would set the camera to 4:3 but because of the lens attachment you will actually be shooting in 16x9 but I don't know if they make such lens attachments for your camera.
If you can find one that it would give you full resolution and would be the best solution (aside from maybe buying a new camera)."The eyes are the first thing that you have to destroy ... because they have seen too many bad things" - Lucio Fulci
EXPLORE THE FILMS OF LUCIO FULCI - THE MAESTRO OF GORE
that cam had a small low quality sensor. not much of anything will make the video look like today's cams do.--
"a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
and anamorphic lenses are bloody expensive. Been looking at getting one for my VX2100 but decided it isn't worth it.
this link for more info...
@fvisagie, to see whether this is really done right or not, you could cap it to a PC with WinDV and then run through Enosoft enhanced DV decoder which will tell you for sure whether it was in 16:9. But you could probably get away with even MediaInfo reading the AR in the file also. A "letterboxed" 16:9 is still in essence a 4:3 image and so would be listed as 4:3, or a cropped image resized to become 16:9 would show evidence of vertical blending. Only a true 16:9 "anamorphic" DV (which made use of the extra pixel sensors) would be listed as 16:9 AND not-show evidence of vertical blending.
Opening the DV in Vdub and showing the preview when set as 4:3 DAR will show whether it truly was anamorphic or not (anamorphic 16:9 pixels would show as tall & skinny image).
Unfortunately, it looks like that camera does the fake, cropped & resized variety (from snippets of the manual that I can find).
I don't have much experience spotting and identifying artifacts - where can I see examples of vertical blending (and preferably other artifacts too)?
Many thanks for all the helpful responses so far.
PS. The camera's manual is at http://pdf.crse.com/manuals/3065263121.pdf.
Last edited by fvisagie; 2nd Feb 2013 at 08:24. Reason: PS.