VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or Try ConvertXtoDVD and convert all your movies to DVD. Free trial ! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Thread
  1. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Hi all,

    I came accross this forum by accident, and it was empty. I'll start it off
    w/ a good TRV22 CAM article :P

    Yes, I have the TRV22. It's a great little cam, and has many great features.
    (yea, it has pass-through)

    It has a tough-type LCD screen (TTS) vs. those cams that come w/ buttons and
    things that you have to press. I learned quickly, that this TTS is actually a
    beneficial feature. Because there is less chance of unwanted cam move
    ments (when cam is mounted on a tripod) However, it can be clumsy at
    times, but you learn to work around those clumseez. Lots more features of
    this cam Also comes w/ a remote control (zooming for instance)

    I don't use the pass-through feature of this unit because I have the ADVC-100
    for this. I mostly use it for transfering my footage from miniDV tapes.

    I use mine mostly for taking footage of events (parties, lunches and dinners)
    and other things such as test shoots (for when I"m on a hunt w/ an idea)

    I am currently in the making of a tripod (home brew gizmo) but that is still
    on the drawing board - hmmm....

    TIP...

    Stick to one brand of miniDV tapes. Other tapes are coated differently by
    their respetive manufactures, and as such, may be biased as to using their
    own coats (oils) I learned the hard way, that just popping in any brand of
    tapes (which I did zillions of times) coated my cams' heads badly, and caused
    my miniDV tapes to not play right. Warning... this has an distructive use
    too.. this process of switching from one brand of tapes to the next can pass
    those different coats (oils) to other tapes themselve and cause those tapes
    to become useless or damage the presous footage on it !!
    FWIW, I use Fuji - a 6 pk kit that BJ's sells for $27 (went down in price) And,
    I've ben using them for the last year (though I bought many other single or
    double brand tapes (for when I was out or needed right away) It's important
    to keep an extra spare tape around or in your bag.

    Also, I use a cool lens cleaner SIMA LensPEN. Though it smells like
    shoe polish. This gizmo really cleans the lens w/out a speckle. You use it
    in circular motions.

    Lights. . .

    Lighting is so very important. Regular lamps just don't do it, unless you
    scenery as enough brightness (ie, white) to it, and 100watt bults etc. Those
    60watt bulbs aren't enough. The more light you have, the better quality
    your encodes will be. Lower lights, cause lots of image noise - - a CCD
    thing.


    Tripods. . .

    I have several. I've learned that a tripod can make for much better footage
    quality. ie, bitrate, and quality etc. I learned that limiting or depending
    on your cams' built-in stabilizer is not enough. I also learned that there
    is also an art to using a tripod. ie, pannig left/right and up/down. These
    require a learning curve to give smoothest results in footage (hence, quality)
    As I've said, I'm currently working on a home-made tripod project. I can't
    wait to finish it. I'll post a pic of it, if it ever becomes finished (or
    worth looking at :P )
    Holding a cam and w/out any zooming has a better chance of a quality encode.
    But once you go zooming, while panning, you're in for trouble. The further
    (or faster) you pan, the harder or wider your temperal will be between fields.
    That's why its so important to use a tripod in ALL your footage taking.
    Learn how to manage your tripod shots.. and learn how to fluid'ly move and
    pan your shoots, and you'll be amazed at your final encode product!!
    Try and elimenate the hand shooting. I'm thinking about looking into a
    single-pole tripod for the mean time, as this looks easier to carry around
    and take steady'er shoots w/ it. My only concern is the wobbling left/right
    or forward/backwards motions while shooting. I'll think and study some more.

    Couple the above w/ the Lights. . . and you have better results.


    Other encoding and conversions. . .

    In addition to encoding w/ the tipicle formats, ie, 29.970 fps, 720 x 480
    and other such items, I've also ben successful at converting the standard
    29.970 fps to 25 fps (Interlaced) and results are very good.. less bitrate.
    DVD2AVI will report 25 fps PAL w/ Interlace (I can successfully do a great
    looking 29.970 fps Progressive encode) However, I need to find out how
    to convert 29.970 to 25.000 but w/out the Interlace that SelectEvery(4,1,2)
    seems to carry in it's process. Once I figure out how to get the 25 fps
    w/out this bug in SelectEver() I'll have an even better (lower) bitrate
    encode.


    Other notes. . .

    Also all my projects are processed as 16:9 for best quality. No fullscreen
    crap nonsense. I don't even shoot footage in 16:9, because I have learned
    that there seems to be a bug in my cams's (others as well, ie, Canon ZR-10)
    that produces color artifacts and other analimies in this 16:9 mode -- 1.77:1
    So, what I do is I shoot footage in 4:3 mode (fullscreen) and later on,
    during the editing and encoding process, I cut the top 60 and buttom 60
    pixels off, and resize to 720 x 480 and in TMPG I encode to 16:9 and that
    fills the true widescreen tv set (top/bottom/left/right) completely.
    I also do 2.35:1 for maximum quality output. The results are stunning, though
    not Cinema quality. Remember, these cams' are Fields not Frames. They take
    720 x 240 and combine them into 720 x 480 through the method of Interlacing
    the two fields together, making one frame. That's why they are not as sharp
    as a true Frame based cam.. though close, depending upon the lens that is
    inside your cam. In mine, is the ever so popular Carl Zeiss which
    produce great quality images. This accounts for the reason why this model
    cam is so good under low light conditions. Stack against my Canon ZR-10
    under the same conditions, and the TRV22 will outshine in quality.. less
    image noise.. though there is some still. The difference w/ the ZR-10 and
    the TRV22 when taking footage on human skin tones is deffinately noticable.
    You have to see for yourself to judge. And, remember lighting.


    DVDs and Bitrates...

    Given the above, will yield your best Authoring projects..
    * Author w/ 16:9 projects - - some ie, 1.77:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1
    * Use CQ for (bitrate: min 900 and max 9800) and this should cover most
    ...fast panning (if done w/ tripod) in your DVD aurhoring.

    My next cam purchase will be a Frame based one, and hopefully w/ 24p and
    other Cinema style features.. but I'm not their yet.

    I hope you find this article beneficial to some extent in your DV camming
    endeavors

    I reserve the right to make any such changes to this text

    Look for some future sample clips (below) of my footage shoots soon.
    * VHELP's Sample clips...

    From the video workstation of,
    -vhelp 2012
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member racer-x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Search Comp PM
    Nice post!

    Just curious though, why do you encode to wide screen 16:9? Do you have a wide screen TV? If not, then what is the benefit to 16:9 over 4:3?

    Good luck on your home-made tripod, I'd like to see the end result.
    Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
    Quote Quote  
  3. I was thinking about this one or the TVR19. They have the same recording quality and CCD specs.

    Question, how well does it work in low light shots?
    Low light = streetlights/candel light/moon shots

    Currently I have a Hi8 CCD-TR600 (3 lux @ f1.8) and the low light shots are almost completely black...Medium lighting is just barely acceptable

    edit; disabled smilies
    tgpo famous MAC commercial, You be the judge?
    Originally Posted by jagabo
    I use the FixEverythingThat'sWrongWithThisVideo() filter. Works perfectly every time.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Hi racer-x,

    Thanks for your interest and reading my post

    Just curious though, why do you encode to wide screen 16:9? Do you have a wide screen TV? If not, then what is the benefit to 16:9 over 4:3?
    Yeah, the reason I encode to 16:9 is definately for a future ws tv set
    At the moment, I'm strapped for cash for one. But, I am also encoding to
    it to view on my little 13" tv set - it DOES come out looking fine - widescreen
    like it should w/ the black bars on my 13" set. And, that's the way it should
    be if your goal is 16:9 you know. Anyways...

    My DV cam footage encodes are mostly geared to 2.35:1 (for quality reasons)
    though I shoot in 4:3 mode.

    I took one of my 2.35:1 samples to BJ's as a test to view how it would look
    on their ws sets. I was taken by the looks of it. However, I don't think I
    got a good view on a good set. I used whatever tv was hooked up at the
    time, and snuck my own CDR inside the player and pressed play
    It worked very well, and I was pleased at the level of experience I had
    reached thus far w/ ws encodes and things.

    Yeah, the benefit is obvious. Less image area to encode for bitrate and
    quality (w/in the eye of the user)

    So, it's no more louzy fullscreen encodes for me, unless it's something that
    is on cable/satellite and only in that format. As far as DV cam footage goes,
    it's really the eye of the Director (me ) If my goal is to ws it, and I exhit
    it to you all in 2.35:1 format, than THAT is the format intended. You never
    see the fullscreen hence, it doesn't exist to you.

    Hope that explains why the ws encodes from DV footage

    Good luck on your home-made tripod, I'd like to see the end result.
    gee, tanx !!

    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    hi stiltman,

    Actually, the TRV19 ( rumor has it.. ) that it's not as good as the TRV22's
    low light.

    As far as what I consider as "low light". . .
    Maybe I idea of it is different than yours. I wish there was a reasonable
    test that I could use for you. One that would be considered close to standard
    and that anyone could do, anytime a test is needed.

    If such a test exhist, please let me know. I'd like to help you if I can. And,
    I won't force the TRV22 on you either

    Oh, right... low light..
    My understanding of low light is basically, when you are inside. There are
    normal 60watt bulbs and other low-wattage floreecent bulbs. These, I do
    consider low light conditions.. actually, a little lower than low light

    But, low light doesn't have to be night.. though, in your case, may be.
    Would be nice if there were such a standard as to HOW to judge what is
    actually considered "low light"

    Well, let me know what you think.
    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  6. The suposedly low light issue I researched on the Sony's while deciding is what made me choose the 22 over the 19 I am not thrilled with the 22's lighting either but I will be getting a flash soon hope it helps.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    Actually, I got one. Only the other day I was looking for it. I lost it
    But the sort tests I did perform w/ it were not so bad.

    It was a Sony Cost was $39 and connects to the Cam's shoe.
    I'll try and dig around for it.

    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  8. I plan on ordering one next week. I have one enviorment I have been trying to shoot in that needs some help with lighting. Specifically straight ahead of the camera.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member racer-x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Search Comp PM
    The best low light digital camcorders are the ones with the largest CCD's. They help capture more light. But even the best digital camcorders are poor quality in low light.

    I read that even movie companies shoot night scenes during daylight and then darken the video to make it look like night time.

    I recently orderd a Panasonic PV-953, but it is still backorderd. I've been waiting over a month now. It is a 3-CCD, 3 MP camcorder. It's a grand cheeper than the Cannon GL-2, but shoots just as good video quality with good lighting, but not as good during poor lighting. It also lets you shoot @ 25 fps. They say maybe sometime in November I should get it. Until then I'll have to chug along with this 3-year old Sharp I've been using.

    Here is a detailed review of the 953:
    http://www.dvspot.com/reviews/panasonic/pv_dv953-review/index.shtml
    Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
    Quote Quote  
  10. Hello all,

    I picked up a sony TRV 25 off ebay brand new for 700 US. Fantastic cam even in low light, not as good as my TRV 608 Hi8 cam in low light but ten times better in every other respectthen my 608. Well im new to the cam and can't offer much more other then easy transfer of video to pc with this unit.

    Duke
    Swing a hammer at it, if it doesn't fix it I gaurantee you will feel better.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by stiltman
    I was thinking about this one or the TVR19. They have the same recording quality and CCD specs.

    Question, how well does it work in low light shots?
    Low light = streetlights/candel light/moon shots

    Currently I have a Hi8 CCD-TR600 (3 lux @ f1.8) and the low light shots are almost completely black...Medium lighting is just barely acceptable

    edit; disabled smilies
    stiltman.

    The LUX rating for the 22 is 5. From my experience with my 22 it does not perform as good as my old Hi8 Sony, but is up with the best in the miniDV ranks. The reason is due to the size of the new miniDV camcorders they have a small CCD. So don't be fooled thinking these cams do better than the old bigger size (CCD) camera's. However they are better in every other area in my opinion.

    Also the TRV19 and TRV22 will perform identically due to the identical optics and CCD between the two.

    Hazza.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Search Comp PM
    I have a TRV39 and just wanted to comment on the 16:9 issue. I shoot exclusively in 16:9 anamorphic (it might really psuedo-anamorphic) and have noticed no problems at all. I've made my first 20-minute DVD from footage and it turned out looking excellent. Shooting this way will give you higher resolution than cropping a 4:3 image. Also cropping additionally to 2.35 from 16:9 will be better than going from 4:3 to 2.35. Question, why do you use 2.35 at all? Are you going for a more cinematic look? Because you are losing some serious resolution by doing that without proper 2.35 anamorphic lenses, etc.

    Can't stress the lighting issue enough though, TURN UP THE LIGHT or get a cam light or something. It's really amazing how much our eyes can deal with vs. a camera...hehe
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    andy2003,

    As far as my home brew 2.35:1 from my 4:3 DV source, have a look at a
    sample I recently posted a few days ago. The link is at the top of this post
    in BLUE. This is from my 4:3 footage, and I cropped
    off some pixels at the top and bottom.

    The built-in 16:9 mode is useless to me becuaes of the artifacts in the video
    when I fireiwre it to my hd. Too many other issues w/ this 16:9 mode.
    .
    .
    After some extensive experimenting and tweaking around some, I finally
    decided on the 2.35:1 format. Thansk for FulciLives, and and to DJRumpy's
    Aspect Ratio guide, I was able to come to this decision w/ my DV footage
    projects.

    Please remember, that when I shoot footage, that I AM the director. So, if
    my vision is an end result of 2.35:1 as my final movie, THATS the scope
    that I want my viewers to invision it from. When I shoot footage in 4:3, I'm
    not seeing 4:3, (in my mind, that is) I'm seeing what I'm "invisioning" at the
    time of shooting, and that is 2.35:1 as such. I have black tape running
    accross my cams viewfinder window (until I find a better alternative) and
    when I shoot, all I see is 2.35:1 and I focus and zoom inside this view.

    Also, a note on a 2.35:1 mode. There is none for the TRV22. In fact, I do
    not think there is a DV cam w/in the price range that includes this sort of
    mode. I've never seen any. So, there is no way of faking it, even w/ the
    built-in 16:9 mode of this cam. (don't forget the issues I have already w/ this
    mode)
    If there were such a lens attachment for (2.35:1) I would sure get it. But
    there isn't. I have to resort to the next best thing. And, to be quite honest
    w/ you, IMO, there is no difference w/ the method that I use
    .
    .
    Hay, but I got this idea, along w/ your statement..
    Are you going for a more cinematic look? Because you are losing some serious resolution by doing that without proper 2.35 anamorphic lenses, etc
    Well, to be honest w/ ya, I don't agree w/ you on this. In any case, just in
    case I have the feeling of what you're talking about, I have an idea w/ a
    lens attachment that I bought a while ago. It's a Wide Angle lens that I got,
    thanks to my misunderstanding of Wide Angle (WA) vs. Wide Screen format
    (ie, 1.777; 1.85; or 2.35) But, I think I understand what you getting at w/
    respect to resolution. I'm thinking of rigging my CAM w/ the WA lens I have
    and taking footage w/ it, and THEN do my home brew of 2.35:1 method and
    seeing how that looks when encoded 8)
    W/ any luck, it'll look just as good, or better.. R U sensing the resolution
    hint here
    .
    .
    In any event either methods would surfice in my view as Director :P
    It should not matter to you (even if you KNOW how I obtain it) ..becuase
    remember, this my vision, and how it's suppose to look

    Oh, yes, please have a look at my latest 2.35:1 sample clip (link at top of
    this thread) - thanks.

    From the desk of,
    -vhelp 2055
    Quote Quote  
  14. Caution: the TRV-19 does not have a passthrough feature. The TRV-22 does have a passthrough feature.

    vhelp, have you tried the passthrough feature of the TRV-22? Are you happy with it? The reason that I am asking is that I remember that you were unahappy about the passthrough feature of your Canon digital camcorders. I was wondering if you were happier with the passthrough of the Sony TRV-22. Do you still experience colour bleeding?
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    TGIF all

    @ yg1968,

    Actually, I have the TRV-22 :P and the pass-through works fine on my
    end here. I don't use though, because I have my ADVC-100 doing (IMO)
    better job at my Satellite tv projects (when I do them) over here.
    .
    .
    The only time I use my pass-through (or direct-connect) w/ the CAM is
    when I'm transfering my home footage, which seems to be lots these days

    Color washout. . .
    Noop. Don't have any of that old nonsense, like I did w/ my Canon ZR-10.
    But, my last theory on that was, that it had either a bad DV codec chip,
    (they all did)
    or, it was setup that way (standard'wise) and that it's just the nature
    of the cam (for the ZR-10)
    I had another theory too, but I don't know if I ever shared it. ..that
    it did not actually record (DV compress) the source when I recorded
    any of my satellite programs onto the miniDV tapes. And, when I did
    my mini TIVO (I mean) S-Video Analog captures from it, the quality was
    always very good, as if it never got DV'ed But, like I said, my
    ADVC-100 does the work that my mini TIVO did then, these days now.
    .
    .
    Yes, I'm happier w/ my TRV-22's pass-through (w/ what little experience
    I've had w/ it) though I had a TADD in one experience w/ it some time
    ago, but not worth mentioning about here.

    I've ben learning lots about my 22. I've learned a few secrets, and
    maybe then some, but there's still lots to figure out (as w/ any cam)
    but I'm sure there are obvious'ness of the cam, waitin to byte at me,
    but in any case, I'm quite happy for the time being. I love Interlace,
    I hate Interlace. I have my days w/ it.

    I learned just recently that people that de-Interlace there footage
    and encode it as such, consider the strobbing (if noticable, and pending
    on the "level" of it, per the way they shoot (ie, shaky hands etc)) that
    they consider the stobbing to be more of a "movie" feel.. for whatever
    that is worth. I always thought it was a nue-sense, but perhaps I need
    to relook at it from another perspective ?? ..anyways.., I'm toying w/
    the idea as I learn and play some more w/ my many de-Interlace techniques
    that I apply to my source.. of which you can test for yourself blue link
    above, in first post.

    ..and see for yourself how things look, considering it's dark, lots of fast
    action etc etc etc. :P
    Yes, these are some of the things I do w/ my TRV-22's footage. Let me know
    what you all think.

    One more thing...

    Tripod, Tripod, Tripod, Tripod, Tripod, Tripod, .. .. ..
    It's time we all waik up and go "..dahh, why didn't I.. .."

    Well, there are LOTS more DV'ing intrikets that I've learned since, and also
    concogeonattions w/ both my CAMS and other gizmos and things.

    -vhelp 2057
    Quote Quote  
  16. Thanks for the feedback. Interesting thread.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Dear vhelp -

    I am considering buying a Sony TRV22. I find your posts very informative. I downloaded your high school football sample video. I didn't have an MPEG-2 player, so I downloaded VLC Media Player. When I play the video, I think the aspect ratio is off--the players and the ref look really squat. Is this from the VLC Player, the Sony, or some of the transfers in between? Other than the aspect ratio, I thought the quality was very good for a digital video at night.

    Thanks.

    Steve
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member racer-x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Search Comp PM
    Hey vhelp,

    After watching your Football clip, I started getting some ideas. What does that look like on a TV? I assume a standard 4:3 TV will show the black bars on top and bottom, but what about a widescreen TV?

    The reason I ask, is my new camera(Panasonic DV-953) will let you shoot in Cinema Mode. It looks just like what you have there. If the black bars remain, it may be an option I could use for sports. I could use the black bars for my scorebugs, lower thirds and logos. That way, they won't interfer with the action. But of course if the widescreen covers them up, it won't do me any good.

    Just curious.
    Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    After watching your Football clip, I started getting some ideas. What does that look like on a TV? I assume a standard 4:3 TV will show the black bars on top and bottom, but what about a widescreen TV?
    Please remember the analigy.. that I'm the Director.. as such, you'll
    be getting my so called, "Director's Cut" version hence, my 2.35:1 Cinema format.


    Well first.. I know I've posted this elswhere's before, but here goes
    again..

    Widescreen TV viewing (16:9 AR)
    ------------------------------------------------
    A-Source: (1.77:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - none - widescreen FULL
    B-Source: (1.85:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - some black bars - widescreen
    C-Source: (2.35:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - more black bars - widescreen
    D-Source: (1.33:1) - 04:3 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - crop 60/60 top/bot (FS Wide)

    Normal TV viewing (4:3 AR)
    ----------------------------------------
    E-Source: (1.77:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - some black bars
    F-Source: (1.85:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - more black bars
    G-Source: (2.35:1) - 16:9 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - lots more black bars
    H-Source: (1.33:1) - 04:3 AR (Encode or Pure DVD) - - FS (no bars)


    The reason I ask, is my new camera(Panasonic DV-953) will let you shoot in Cinema Mode. It looks just like what you have there. If the black bars remain, it may be an option I could use for sports. I could use the black bars for my scorebugs, lower thirds and logos. That way, they won't interfer with the action. But of course if the widescreen covers them up, it won't do me any good. ..
    Lets walk in assumption here...
    * Well, (I'm assuming) your cam will be "Pure" 16:9 and by that I mean 1.77:1 AR,
    ...which means 60/60 cropped or (720 x 360 ratio) and to bring it to a perfective
    ...for firewire (FW) transfer, it's oriented to (720 x 480) (but still maintains
    ...the 16:9 AR)
    * When you FW it to your hd, you see 720 x 480. To properly encode this for
    ...widescreen view, you have to (in TMPG) select Video/Aspect Ratio: [16:9 display]
    ...and under the Advanced tab, select Source Aspect Ratio: [16:9 525 line (NTSC)],
    ...and then select the Video Arrange Method: [Full screen (keep aspect ratio)]

    Note, when you encode this way, your source will be widescreen w/ 16:9 AR. Then,
    depending on your Viewing Medium (see above) Widescreen: (A) or Normal TV: (E) w/ bars.

    I have yet to see a CAM w/ other than 1.77:1 AR features, for the home budget'est.
    So, there's not point in discussing 1.85:1 or worse, 2.35:1 processes. Just assume
    that ALL home-budget cams are Pure 1.77:1 16:9 AR (see above) as (A) - - so when
    you FW your DV source, you'll see 720 x 480, but then you encode it (give the above
    method) your source will be properly stretched w/ in the 1.77:1 AR for your given
    Viewing screen, be it Widescreen (A) or Normal TV (E) !!
    .
    .
    So, you wanna write "inside" your black bars (if I gotcha right) This you can do,
    as long as you perform it ie, in vdub (or avisynth) but it's probably gonna be messy.
    Maybe you can do it under Ulead or other bigger package. But, you can write inside
    those black bars - taking advantage of the features. However.. warning..
    .
    .
    If you do such, then you won't see it on a Widescreen TV set (for obvious reasons
    (above)) But, you can, or might see it on a Normal TV set (I think) - - Only test
    will prove for sure.
    .
    .
    Actually, I think you can, provided that you encode to 4:3 AR (but keeping the black
    bars) and then including them in the encode - - as you'll be encoding the black bars
    (and w/ any writing in them) as such. This might require some resing guggling around.
    Hope that made sense.

    From the Video Workstation of,
    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member racer-x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    3rd Rock from the Sun
    Search Comp PM
    Well I was just looking through my manual and it lists 3 shooting modes. 4:3, 16:9 and a Cinema mode. It doesn't give resolution numbers for the Cinema mode(crapy manual), it puts black bars on the top and bottom. It also says that it requires a widescreen TV with a S-video connection for viewing.

    You're probably right in that it would be easier to put the black bars on after the transfer to PC. It was just an interesting idea at the time.
    Got my retirement plans all set. Looks like I only have to work another 5 years after I die........
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads