Aspect ratio : 4:3 or 16:9 ?

[leon_g]

I have a JVC GR-DVM76U Mini DV camcorder that supports 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios. Currently I use 4:3, but it seems like in a couple of years this aspect ratio will be a history.
Is this a time to switch to 16:9?

[FulciLives]

I have a JVC GR-DVM76U Mini DV camcorder that supports 4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios. Currently I use 4:3, but it seems like in a couple of years this aspect ratio will be a history.
Is this a time to switch to 16:9?

I would use 16x9 because that is the future and for now well it will look WIDESCREEN on a 4:3 TV which is a neat effect.

It boils down to this ... would you rather have a very slight WIDESCREEN effect on 4:3 televisions NOW but have your image 100% fill up a 16x9 TV or would you rather fill up the 4:3 TV now but have black on the sides of the image when viewing on a 16x9 TV (or worse yet cut off the top and bottom or stretch the image to fit 16x9).

Seems clear cut to me.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[leon_g]

16:9 doesn't look so good on 3:4 neither.

[FulciLives]

16:9 doesn't look so good on 3:4 neither.

Well then you have already decided although I think you are being a bit harsh ... 16x9 on a 4:3 TV gives a very slight widescreen effect. Just enough to look neat but not so much as to be annoying to those that don't like widescreen.

Many TV shows such as ER already broadcast this way.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[leon_g]

I don't like both: 3:4 on widescreen TV and 16:9 on a regular one.
But I guess there is no choice. I am moving to 16:9.
Thanks.

[proxyx99]

Make some 16x9 short movies and compare the quality. Although 16x9 may sound tempting remember that you will loose some of your camera resolution (you forfeit some top and bottom lines). Don't feel bad about 4x3 as widescreen is in its infancy (at best) with regard to home movies. I would stick always to better quality as opposed to "better"format. Test it thoroughly and decide then. I also have 16x9 miniDV but frankly have not tested widescreen quality on a good display yet. Until then I will shoot 4x3.

[FulciLives]

Make some 16x9 short movies and compare the quality. Although 16x9 may sound tempting remember that you will loose some of your camera resolution (you forfeit some top and bottom lines). Don't feel bad about 4x3 as widescreen is in its infancy (at best) with regard to home movies. I would stick always to better quality as opposed to "better"format. Test it thoroughly and decide then. I also have 16x9 miniDV but frankly have not tested widescreen quality on a good display yet. Until then I will shoot 4x3.

You can buy a 16x9 lenz attachment for most camcorders so you set the cam to 4:3 but the lenz does the anamorphic "distortion" giving you a full screen 16x9 image.

I think the camcorders that do 16x9 do the same thing internally but some have reported that the lenz attachment seems to work better in that you do get a slightly sharper image. Some people feel the cams don't do as good a job of internal 16x9 scaling as what the lenz attachment can do.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

EDITED FOR SPELLING ERRORS

[proxyx99]

Thanks for suggestion. I'm not too keen on 16x9 at current resol. but can't wait for HD consumer stuff at a reasonable price. HD is super smooth, like a photo.

[FulciLives]

Thanks for suggestion. I'm not too keen on 16x9 at current resol. but can't wait for HD consumer stuff at a reasonable price. HD is super smooth, like a photo.

Well on a standard digital camcorder (be it Digital8 or miniDV) the resolution difference between 4:3 and 16x9 is very little.

The biggest "complaint" is that the cams do an internal resize that seems to create a slight "stair-step" pattern to the video. This really has little to do with resolution but more with the way the cams do the internal resizing. My understanding is you don't get that problem when you shoot 4:3 but with an anamorphic lenz (thus ending up with 16x9).

Please remember that full frame 4:3 is 1.33:1 and 16x9 is 1.78:1 so that really isn't that huge of a difference to really start complaining about "lack" of resolution etc.

In fact if I'm not mistaken (maybe someone else can jump in here) you will end up with a better picture doing anamorphic 16x9 than 4:3 especially when using the lenz attachment method.

And even for those that hate the widescreen look on a 4:3 TV (i.e., the black bars) please try to remember that because 16x9 (aka 1.78:1) is just ever-so-slightly wider than 4:3 (aka 1.33:1) so you really only end up with a very small sliver of black above and below the picture.

Worth dealing with that now so when you get a 16x9 TV your camcorder footage will fit the screen perfectly.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[proxyx99]

Yes and no at the same time. I like miniDV wide aspect ratio (is not like DVD) but you are loosing 60-80 lines of resolution which is substantial. That is why stairstepping is more pronounced. AS I mentioned I would need to judge it on a good largescreen display to finaly decide what to do. In general miniDV enthusiasts stay away from 16x9 so there must be a reason for that. HD or good line doubling technologies that recently emerged may address this issue but for now it is a matter of priorities. I value definition higer then aspect ratio but never said it won't change if test results will prove satisfactory.

[FulciLives]

Yes and no at the same time. I like miniDV wide aspect ratio (is not like DVD) but you are loosing 60-80 lines of resolution which is substantial. That is why stairstepping is more pronounced.

There have been a few threads on this and the overwhelming train of thought is that the stair-stepping is actually caused by the way the cams do the internal resize and really has nothing to do with resolution differences between 4:3 and 16x9. The solution seems to use 4:3 mode on the camera and use an anamorphic 16x9 lenz attachment. How many more times can I state this in the same thread?

I don't want to get into another fight with you here as in another thread but I do think you are wrong on this as well as this:

In general miniDV enthusiasts stay away from 16x9 so there must be a reason for that.

Not a true statement.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[vhelp]

Hi guys - TGIF to all :P

I agree with Fulci in his last post/response..

Many cams are bad in this 16:9 mode (hence, the stair/saw-tooth effect)

That's why I gave up on shooting in 16:9 mode (w/ my TRV-22) and instead,
I shoot in 4:3 (1.333) and then crop top/tobbom 60pix for a home-brew 16:9 1.778
view.
.
.
But, I now (actually ben doing) Aspect Ratio of 2.35 instead, for what I believe
to be the best resolution (not resolution) in quality.

Bare in mind, that the lower your aspect (ie, my 2.35) the better will be the
final encoded quality, due to the less area (pixels) to encode.

I can't remember the exact settings (resizer routines in vdub) that I use
because I haven't done any CAM'ing projects in a while... and I'd have to
do some searching, which I'm not up to at this point. But, I'm planning on
doing some work on this any time soon :P

Note, from my POV, I find my method/process for 2.35 and final encode
from my TRV-22 projects to be the best (at least when done by me) around.

I would say that it will take time and lots of practice before you come to a
good process that yields great results. And what works for one, may not
always work the same for the next person using your setup.

proxyx99 wrote:
In general miniDV enthusiasts stay away from 16x9 so there must be a reason for that.

Not a true statement.

Again, I agree w/ Fulci
I do 16:9, but I don't use my CAM's 16:9 moce (read above)

Have a great weekend everyone,
-vhelp

[proxyx99]

Hi guys - TGIF to all :P

I agree with Fulci in his last post/response..

Many cams are bad in this 16:9 mode (hence, the stair/saw-tooth effect)

That's why I gave up on shooting in 16:9 mode (w/ my TRV-22) and instead,
I shoot in 4:3 (1.333) and then crop top/tobbom 60pix for a home-brew 16:9 1.778
view.
......
Again, I agree w/ Fulci
I do 16:9, but I don't use my CAM's 16:9 moce (read above)

Have a great weekend everyone,
-vhelp

I'm troubled here. You do exactly what I wrote i.e. you decided not to shoot 16x9 and yet you say "I agree with Fulci". How?
What you do afterwards is beyond the point. The issue is shooting in 16x9 and that you decided NOT TO DO.

John, I've "heard" your suggestion about the lens attachment but I'm not going to follow this route, at least not now. This is not the solution I'm looking for. Are you getting angry that I use my camera the way it suits ME? Or should I rather please you? Your angry insistance is not going to change my mind. I said I'll test it and decide then what suits ME. Period.
Lastly, you say that my presumption is false.

Quote:
proxyx99 wrote:
In general miniDV enthusiasts stay away from 16x9 so there must be a reason for that.

Not a true statement.

The poster above just confirmed what I said. Isn't that clear?

[FulciLives]

John, I've "heard" your suggestion about the lens attachment but I'm not going to follow this route, at least not now. This is not the solution I'm looking for. Are you getting angry that I use my camera the way it suits ME? Or should I rather please you? Your angry insistance is not going to change my mind. I said I'll test it and decide then what suits ME. Period.

Now you are just being overtly combative for no good reason.

I simply said that ANY problems with using 16x9 had nothing to do with resolution or lack of resolution etc. but that was a point you seem to have issues with. Funny you decided not to bring it up into further detail but rather berate me with childless abandon.

You obviously don't like WIDESCREEN as we know from that other thread but don't start ripping on 16x9 vs 4:3 in the camcorder realm with inaccurate information on resolution etc.

As for this comment:

In general miniDV enthusiasts stay away from 16x9 so there must be a reason for that.

I still feel this is just not true. Sure maybe the average Joe doesn't do 16x9 (unless he has a 16x9 TV) but surely the enthusiasts do because it just makes sense now-a-days. Look how many commercials and TV shows are now in 16x9 ... it's taking over. No one ... especially the serious enthusiasts ... want to shoot footage now that will not look good later. I'm sure in 5 more years or so there will be more 16x9 televisions in A/V stores for sale then 4:3 televisions. Once HDTV totally takes over no one will have a new 4:3 TV for sale.

But whatever ... one could argue that point for a while as it is somewhat objective or at least not as clear cut as technical information.

Which brings us back to the resolution thing.

If you want to debate the resolution thing somemore than fine we can get very technical if you want ... otherwise I don't see what else you could add to this here thread that would be of value.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[proxyx99]

There is nothing really technical about 16x9 on miniDV. I have shot about 1 hr and although it still qualifies as really good quality I prefer keeping it 4x3. MiniDV has anywhere from 500 to 530 resolution lines. Cams are not resizing the 4x3 but rather clipping top and bottom lines. At the same time you loose some of the wide angle so it is less attractive for indoor filiming. Interlace lines are a bit more visible as well. All in all my preference is 4x3. I'm not trying to sway anyone this or the other way. I'm expressing my private opinion. As to my attitude, I'm not too comfortable with expression like "How many more times can I state this in the same thread? " (your post). As I said, remark noted and that is all there is to it. You don't need to insist on me agreeing with your point of view. My tone is in clear response to your anger (which is unnecessary). I think I can weigh arguments for my own use and as far as I recall I have politely even thanked you for your input. Now you're talking about my "combative" approach? John, get real. You seem to push issues that you believe in a bit too hard. I'm asking you to leave some room for other points of view. Let me remind you what you said in the other thread: "shoot them in the head...". Is this how you argue your case? Have you patented "the truth"? All I want is to maintain the distance to the discussed issues and take things "easy".

If you repeat my arguments be true to the spirit of my posts. I said widescreen is good on a large screen whereas you would watch it on a 13 inch TV. This is where we disagree. The resolution issue is, as per manufacturer info. lost 1/4 of vertical resolution what brings line number to below 400 (less then Hi8) about 60 lines less on top and the same at the bottom (ca. 120 lines less). The picture is also as I said slightly enlarged by interpolation. You end up with a less defined picture.

[FulciLives]

Poor proxyx99

You still don't get it!

You can get a 16x9 lenz attachment and get 16x9 while the cam is in 4:3 mode.

All your supposed "lack of reoslution" problems with 16x9 go away using this method.

So again your problem with 16x9 appears to be due to loss of quality.

I have given you a solution.

Sorry that it does involve extra equipment aka more money but hey what can you do ... such is life.

Anyways the point is you can get very nice quality 16x9 if that is a format you truely are interested in using.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[proxyx99]

There is no money shortage here. Wide picture squeezed into 4x3 will have to be interpolated when saving it to 16x9 (where all those missing pixels will come from, a blue sky?) is it not? Only true 16x9 will make me happy and HD cam is my solution as I posted way before. John it is not that I don't get it. Seems it is you and your solution brings nothing new here.

PS out of pure curiosity I checked the anamorphic adapter and opinions are devided here. Some swaer by it, some say resolution suffers. Cost ca. 600 bucks. No. thanks. I'd rather walk the HD path.

[leon_g]

"PS out of pure curiosity I checked the anamorphic adapter and opinions are devided here. Some swaer by it, some say resolution suffers. Cost ca. 600 bucks."

I would say that put a period. An anamorphic adapter is not an option for a regular user (professionals use a different level equipment anyway).
Regarding the possible resolution loss I am not so sure about.
All descent camcorders have 2 methods of wide screen implementation:
a cinema (which cuts a picture from a bottom and a top) and a squeeze method that resize a picture. There is no resolution loss with a cinema method because the same number of pixels are used to store a smaller amount of information (An effective picture is smaller but not a less detailed).
Regarding the squeeze method I am not sure. Can anyone shred some light on a technology used?
Thanks.

[proxyx99]

Opinions are divided here. Some encounterded focus issues, stronger barrel, picture softness, some are elated (although cautiously). Prices vary for consumer miniDV 395,- semi-pro 995-1495,- pro grade 2500-3000. I'd rather wait and commit to HD which is a true blessing qualitywise. For cheaper solutions we'll have to wait few years. I'm very happy with my camera. Definitely plan to do some takes and tests be4 summer. Cams and large displays are getting cheaper and that is a very good news.

[vhelp]

Good morning guys.

Yes, I agree, please, no arguments here lets keep it friendly.

@ proxyx99,

I don't recall remembering you mentioning your CAM. May I ask what brand
you have please ?? ..thanks.

As far as actually buying a special lens, monie IS an opbject (at least in the
prices that I checked for my CAM) and, I don't think they even make these
lens for my TRV-22 (all the lens that I've seen, never mentioned my cam
make/model) but, I think that the cheapest one I saw was for around $250.
And, even if the lens were not for my cam, I'd be willing to give this WS lens
a shot, by rigging up a contraption to keep the lens in place w/ my cam (using
a platform yada yayda)
.
.
But, thats assuming that the lens was either a 1.85 or better yet, a 2.35
type., because I want all my footage to be 2.35.
.
.
I would like to demonstrate a sample of a 2.35 of my encodes to you all,
and hopefully, a template of how I do it, and anyone can comment on it,
and/or whatever. I'd be intertested to hear, if I'm doing it right, or wrong
or in-between :P But, I' have to find my templates first.

I'm also interested in this thing refered to as "squeeze". I'd like to know
how this process works, and also, does it fit my theory about how they do
the same with DVD's - they "squeeze" a 852 res to a 720.. .. .. then, when
your dvd player plays this disk, it re-stretches (un-squeeze) it back out.
BUT, the problem is, ARE THEY restretching it out to 852, or does it depend
on the TV set (ie, WS vs. 4:3)

Well, this IS a very interesting thread, and I'd like to hear and learn more
from these interesting questions.

Thank you all, and have a great sunny Sundy (it is here, in NY)
-vhelp

[proxyx99]

It's DCR PC1. Prices are from Century Optics (supposed to be very good quality) http://www.centuryoptics.com/buying/prices/index.htm.
Don't trust my post as I did a limited search. You may find either a better deal or better quality. What I've learned from reading groups is that glass quality is extremely important here (cam may pickup flaws as it's sitting on top of the lense, plus gotta be careful with other filters and attachments). DCR TRV type filters are are sold by them as well.

[leon_g]

"Many cams are bad in this 16:9 mode (hence, the stair/saw-tooth effect)
That's why I gave up on shooting in 16:9 mode (w/ my TRV-22) and instead,
I shoot in 4:3 (1.333) and then crop top/tobbom 60pix for a home-brew 16:9 1.778
view. "

Why not to use a Cinema (Letterbox) mode and after that to crop the picture to remove the black bars on a bottom and top.
If you shoot in 3:4 mode how do you use a screen? It is quite difficult not to use a bottom an top, isn't it?

[flaninacupboard]

Just wanted to chip in with something,

in the UK HD is non existant but the change to wide is massive. just counted the models in Argos (a general home catalogue) to find 5 4:3 TV's and 37 Wide models!! this is different for LCD and plasma, 5 4:3 models and only 4 wide models, but plasma is a more specialist thing over here.

As for the 16:9 versus 4:3 debate.

DV is 720X576 pixels. now, if you shoot using the anamorphic lens as suggested by fulci the image is horizontally compressed and covers the whole CCD. you record 576 lines of pixels. Using an internal 16:9 mode the camer picks up info from the middle of the CCD only, ignoring the top and bottom. this data is then resized from 720X384 to 720X576. this method is not great as it does indeed have a porrer reolution and can look very bad if resizing is poor. Using an anamorphic lens however, there CANNOT be a quality/resolution difference over 4:3 as you are still using the whole CCD.

For me (looking to buy a camera now) i only want a camera that is native 16:9, as all our TV's are 16:9. if there was something i anted to shoot though i would still take my 720X576, crop to 720X384 and resize to 720X576, simply so i can view it nicely on my wide sets.

For me it feels more natural when looking at a wide display anyway.


*Resolutions quoted are obviosuly PAL.

[FulciLives]

@flaninacupboard

My understanding with PAL is that 16x9 is 720x432 thus cutting off 72 from the top and bottom of the full 720x576 image.

But you said 720x384 ... not 720x432

So ...

Where are you getting that figure from?

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[flaninacupboard]

Erm.... Not entirely sure. Ignore that bit!
Think it sprang from thinking about the resize function, adding a third line to each pair of lines (thus turning 384 into 576) but there we go. i stand corrected.