Anamorphic vs. Cropping (mini-DV)

Question

Anamorphic vs. Cropping (mini-DV)

On a DV camera (Canon XL1 and 2, also GL1) is it better to use the anamorphic setting or to record in full frame and then use a letter box filter. I see an advantage of full frame when viewing it on the canon cameras (it's easier) and also, has anybody used anamorphic in "multiclip" in FCP? Does it work as well? Is the image distorted?

Really I think the only reason I would record in anamorphic is if anamorphic produces a slightly higher quality.

Opinions please!
thanks,
james

Posted on Oct 7, 2005 7:39 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Oct 7, 2005 8:18 AM in response to James Pierce1

Hi James and welcome to the forum!

Well if you know your camera's well enough than this should be a simple question to answer. The way final cut works is if you record 16:9 true on a camera FCP 5 will auto detect the screen size and alter it's settings for you. If the camera does not truly shoot 16:9 than you will need to select the "anamorphic" feature in the check box when selecting you canvus and sequesnce settings.

I do know that the XL2 shoots ture 16:9 aspectration, and I do know that the GL1 does NOT! I'm not certain about the XL1, sorry.

If you own a copy of FCP5 in the last manuel there is a whole section on anamorphic and it will describe everything in detail or you could always read up on it from the pdf manuel within FCP under HELP.

Good Luck and welcome!

Reply

Answer 2

Oct 7, 2005 8:58 AM in response to Anthony Maccari

The XL2 has 16:9 ccds (wider than normal) and so records true widescreen. GL1 and XL1 has 4:3 ccds and so when shooting 16:9 on these cameras you are only using the central 75% (horizontally) of the ccds. This image is "blown up" in camera to the full height anamorphic so there is a loss of resolution compared to true 16:9.

If you shoot and then crop with widescreen matte you therefore have the same resolution loss when (if) you blow up to full height anamorphic for widescreen output. You'd have to render everything again once you apply the matte though.

Reply

Answer 3

Oct 7, 2005 11:56 AM in response to James Pierce1

What gets recorded to tape? - I'd presume the camera would record an anamorphic 4:3 image to tape, even though it was set to 16:9. This is true of Digibetas, I'm not an expert at DV.

Steve

Reply

Answer 4

Oct 7, 2005 12:10 PM in response to Steve Archbold

The number of pixels in DV is set. There's no such thing as a 16:9 DV pixel ratio. A 16:9 non-letterboxed image is written as anamorphic. Some cameras write the 16:9 with the letterbox, and then it isn't anamorphic (but you have the black bars actually written to tape).

Reply

Answer 5

Oct 7, 2005 12:27 PM in response to James Pierce1

thanks for the help... after writing this, i remembered that the xl2 had 16:9 chips (it's not mine, it's borrowed). The answers that I got back are what I expected, but I didn't know if anamorphic would yield better results b/c less pixel information is written in the same amount of space on the tape (I didn't know if the compression adjusted somewhat).

Thanks again,
James

PS I don't know why my account says joined oct. 2005... i have posted before but I most have signed in differently (that could be why it says james pierce1)

Reply

Answer 6

Oct 8, 2005 1:41 AM in response to James Pierce1

In fact 16:9 is exactly the same resolution as 4:3 (I'm talking TV here), the pixels are just stretched sideways. This is something alot of people don't realise - go into your local TV shop and ask the assistant 🙂

Steve

Reply