1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

16:9 issues

Discussion in 'Camcorders, Action Cams & Video Editing Forum' started by goldenfleece, Jun 7, 2002.

  1. goldenfleece

    goldenfleece
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Is it better to record in standard 4:3 or the widescreen option. I know some cams have CINEMA and FULL/WIDE mode. My Sony 240 has 16:9 wide (anamorphic) which seems to use all the CCD??? When I play it in 4:3 on any TV I get the squashed pciture, but no black bars. So I assume this version of 16:9 does not waste any space and there is no loss of resolution on FULL mode on a widescreen tv?

    When you import footage to the PC, can you change the aspect ratios if you want to do a letterbox version or a 'pan and scan' version, etc
     
  2. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,040
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,111
    I don't think there are any cameras below 20K that have 16x9 CCDs so if you are using the 16x9 mode on yours it is highly likely that its a 16x9 crop out of the 4x3 CCD followed by a digital resize and squish.

    There are a couple of 16x9 optical adaptors but they are around the 500quid mark.

    as to reformatting on a PC its down to the package.
     
  3. alan8477

    alan8477
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2001
    Messages:
    574
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Pershore
    Ratings:
    +5
    I always used to use the 'widescreen' option on my camcorder. Then I realised what a bonehead I was. Mr.D is correct, all that happens on a camcorder is that the 4:3 is cropped, which means you either lose some of the scene, or you lose resolution because you have to zoom out.
     
  4. Doubledoom

    Doubledoom
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I've just checked my comcorder and have the options 4:3, 16:9full and cinema and 16:9 full is giving me width which is not present on the 4:3 mode.
     
  5. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,040
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,111
    whats the camera doubledoom ?
     
  6. Doubledoom

    Doubledoom
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's a Sony CCD-TRV64E

    Of course, what it may be doing when it goes into 16:9 mode is adjusting the zoom to compensate but there is a noticeable increase in the width when switching between the modes.
     
  7. goldenfleece

    goldenfleece
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    On my Sony hi-8 machine the TRV748 there is a choice of 16:9 FULL or 16:9 cinema. The latter just black bands the picture so when it is zoomed for the TV you lose resolution. On my Sony TRV140 and 240 D8 machines it is simply called 16:9 WIDE mode, but having just tested it with carefully framed shots marked out, there appears to be no cropping of the image at all, it is simply squashed into the 4:3 area and expanded on the TV. I can't honestly see any noticeable drop in picture quality shooting the same test scene in 4:3 or 16:9 and expanding to fill the TV screen. There does not seem to be loss of picture area. In 16:9 mode my camcorder actually captures more of the area it is looking at.

    I expected to see some loss of quality expanding a 4:3 image to unsquash the anamorphic image, like playing back VHS widescreen recordings for example, when expanding the squashed image is very obvious loss of resolution. On my D8's I am happy to say can't see any difference at all. This must say something about the 140 and 240.

    Of course, the CCD is still using macimum data area as it is capturing in 4:3 but being digitally squashed horizontally, or is this in fact done optically?
     

Share This Page

Loading...