DV 4:3 to 16:9 aspect ratio conversion

[hysteriah]

I really don't know if the "advanced conversion" section in this forum is the right place for this topic. I'm sorry if it should've been posted somewhere else.

My problem is:
I'm planing to shoot a low budget short movie. The budget restrictions doesn't allow me to invest in new equipment so I'm planning to shoot it with my old Canon XL1 camera. I think it's a great camera except from the one thing that it only allows me to shoot in 4:3 aspect ratio. It does allow me to to shoot in 16:9 aspect ratio but it's not true 16:9 which means that the CCD shoots it as 4:3 and reduces the vertical resolution and then stretches it up to a full frame. I've read that letting the camera do this will produce a lower quality end result than if I do the 4:3 to 16:9 conversion in the editing process.

-Is this true or just another myth?
-Will there be a higher quality end result if I do the 4:3 to 16:9 conversion in the editing process?
-If if should do the 4:3 to 16:9 conversion in the editing process, then I really wonder what's the absoluteley best way to acheive the highest quality possible on the final movie in the editing?

I'm planning to use Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 for editing and I wonder if this software is suitable for making this pixel aspectratio conversion. If not, then I'm really interested in what software to use for acheiving the absolutely highest possible quality on the final 16:9 movie And should I do all the editing first, before converting it to 16:9 or afterwards?

I'm shooting in PAL (720x576) format.

Thank you verry much

[mats.hogberg]

If your camera only shoots in 4:3 but can mask out top & bottom to make a faux 16:9 recording then creating a 16:9 at the editing stage will be exactly the same thing.

/Mats

[hysteriah]

Thank you verry much, mats.hogberg

This is the URL to an article that describes how my camera shoots in 16:9 aspect ratio and at the bottom of the article it's suggested to do this aspect ratio conversion in the editing process:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canon/articles/article52.php

Is this article just gossip?

[mats.hogberg]

...just because "at any rate your source tapes will have preserved the full-frame full-resolution image."
But in the end, you'll have to reduce the video to 720x360 (by cropping), then resize back to 720x480 (this example is NTSC, we're using PAL res, but the principle is the same) to create a 16:9 DVD.
I'd say it will be hard to shoot in 4:3, and keep it in your head to keep all interesting stuff within the 16:9 rectangle that will remain after cropping.

/Mats

[hysteriah]

Ok... and thank you verry much, Mats
So I guess I'll just shoot the movie as 16:9 with my camera then

Anyway, I guess my Canon XL1 is quite old and outdated now these days, but I'm quite satisfied with the image quality. I think it produces verry clean and good looking high quality video. So I do hope the final movie still will look better shot with a semiprofessional camera like that without true 16:9 aspect ratio, than if I buy a low budget consumer model camera with true 16:9 aspect ratio? Anyone with some clevor words about this?

[MysticE]

If your camera only shoots in 4:3 but can mask out top & bottom to make a faux 16:9 recording then creating a 16:9 at the editing stage will be exactly the same thing.

/Mats

This was pretty common a few years ago even with commercial films. The FS version of Lethal Weapon actually showed more than the WS version.

[guns1inger]

If your camera only shoots in 4:3 but can mask out top & bottom to make a faux 16:9 recording then creating a 16:9 at the editing stage will be exactly the same thing.

/Mats

This was pretty common a few years ago even with commercial films. The FS version of Lethal Weapon actually showed more than the WS version.

The format is called Super-35. James Cameron used it for The Abyss and a few other films. You frame for the widescreen print, but have head room top and bottom so you don't have to pan and scan it for 4:3. Technically you see more image than the widescreen version, however for the most part it is simply dead space and still isn't the framing intended for the movie.