Question about 4:3 & 16:9

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm aware that most cameras that have a 16:9 function only mask off the top
& bottom of your picture so all you really have a 4:3 picture masked as
16:9. Does it make any difference in Vegas if your captured video is one
ratio or the other if you set your project size to 16:9?

Do you have to use either the pan crop or track motion tools to end up with
your final project 16:9?

If you were to start to shooting a project intended for 16:9 output does it
make any difference if you have your camera set for 16:9 or not, or does the
16:9 setting just give you a guide through your viewfinder so that your
subject stays in frame?

If you output as 16:9 does your project play on DVD just as if you really
had a 16:9 camera but at a lower quality?

--
Thanks in advance
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Videot" <videot@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:40f47e31$0$18194$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I'm aware that most cameras that have a 16:9 function only mask off the
top
> & bottom of your picture so all you really have a 4:3 picture masked as
> 16:9. Does it make any difference in Vegas if your captured video is one
> ratio or the other if you set your project size to 16:9?
>
That was once more true than it is today. Many cameras have sensors that
have a larger array than 720 X 480 would require to achieve a 1 to 1
relationship between sensor the output image. So they are allready pixel
averageing to get the 4 X 3. 16 X 9 just requires averaging from less Pixels
in consumer cameras. The PD-150 is the cheapest camera that I am aware
of that uses more pixels on the chip for 16 x 9 than it does for 3 x 4.

If you do a test, I think you will find that you get a somewhat better 16 x
9
image by using the camera's pixel averaging than you can by shooting 3 X 4
and then croping and squeezing that in post.

David
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"david.mccall" <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yQbJc.89250$XM6.62996@attbi_s53...
>
> "Videot" <videot@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:40f47e31$0$18194$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > I'm aware that most cameras that have a 16:9 function only mask off the
> top
> > & bottom of your picture so all you really have a 4:3 picture masked as
> > 16:9. Does it make any difference in Vegas if your captured video is one
> > ratio or the other if you set your project size to 16:9?
> >
> That was once more true than it is today. Many cameras have sensors that
> have a larger array than 720 X 480 would require to achieve a 1 to 1
> relationship between sensor the output image. So they are allready pixel
> averageing to get the 4 X 3. 16 X 9 just requires averaging from less
Pixels
> in consumer cameras. The PD-150 is the cheapest camera that I am aware
> of that uses more pixels on the chip for 16 x 9 than it does for 3 x 4.
>
> If you do a test, I think you will find that you get a somewhat better 16
x
> 9
> image by using the camera's pixel averaging than you can by shooting 3 X 4
> and then croping and squeezing that in post.
>
> David
>

You might want to do a Google search on PD150+'16x9'+BBC. There were
several threads a year or so ago about tests that the BBC had done on the
16x9 issue and their approach to the problem you ask about. At that time
they were using PD150s extensively for doc work.

Steve King
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"david.mccall" wrote:
>
> "Videot" <videot@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:40f47e31$0$18194$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > I'm aware that most cameras that have a 16:9 function only mask off the
> top
> > & bottom of your picture so all you really have a 4:3 picture masked as
> > 16:9. Does it make any difference in Vegas if your captured video is one
> > ratio or the other if you set your project size to 16:9?
> >
> That was once more true than it is today. Many cameras have sensors that
> have a larger array than 720 X 480 would require to achieve a 1 to 1
> relationship between sensor the output image. So they are allready pixel
> averageing to get the 4 X 3. 16 X 9 just requires averaging from less Pixels
> in consumer cameras. The PD-150 is the cheapest camera that I am aware
> of that uses more pixels on the chip for 16 x 9 than it does for 3 x 4.

Huh? Some digital cameras resize to 4:3 or 16:9? Do you have any
reference for this (of course they could also crop away the "extra"
pixels which gives better results)?

Wilbert
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Wilbert Dijkhof" <w.j.dijkhof@tue.nl> wrote in message
news:40F54DB9.24D96C79@tue.nl...
>
> Huh? Some digital cameras resize to 4:3 or 16:9? Do you have any
> reference for this (of course they could also crop away the "extra"
> pixels which gives better results)?
>
I would guess that most cameras resize "in camera" at this point.
They likely use the same chips for the PAL and NTSC versions
these days.

There are probably good references out there. You could look
at http://www.techshop.net/PDX-10/ to see how the PDX-10
and the TRV-950 handle it. Actually I misspoke earlier. It was
the PDX-10 that I meant to reference as the cheapest camera
that actually uses more of the chip for wide screen. Just about
everything else is really just "short screen" :)

David
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I have recently bought a Sony HC40 which has the widescreen (16:9)
alternative mode. I assumed that it was simply a cropped top & bottom 4:3
picture, but when I shot a comparison last week, the 16:9 version actually
was a significantly wider angle image.

This startled me and I have since been looking for further information on
this particular camera and its 16:9 mode.

It appears that it uses more pixels in the width if using the 16:9 mode. Is
this true (or even possible)? I would appreciate it if anyone could supply
further information.

Many thanks.


"Videot" <videot@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:40f47e31$0$18194$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I'm aware that most cameras that have a 16:9 function only mask off the
top
> & bottom of your picture so all you really have a 4:3 picture masked as
> 16:9. Does it make any difference in Vegas if your captured video is one
> ratio or the other if you set your project size to 16:9?
>
> Do you have to use either the pan crop or track motion tools to end up
with
> your final project 16:9?
>
> If you were to start to shooting a project intended for 16:9 output does
it
> make any difference if you have your camera set for 16:9 or not, or does
the
> 16:9 setting just give you a guide through your viewfinder so that your
> subject stays in frame?
>
> If you output as 16:9 does your project play on DVD just as if you really
> had a 16:9 camera but at a lower quality?
>
> --
> Thanks in advance
>
>