Making 16:9 Movies that look good

A forum to share ideas and opinions on the equipment and technical aspects of film, video and AV making.
Post Reply
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Making 16:9 Movies that look good

Post by billyfromConsett »

A techy piece that I'll send to our mag - unless you people feel it's a load of rubbish :oops:

I’ve recently made my first proper movie in 16:9, on my Sony VX2100, which meant simply setting the menu just to record in 16:9.
Now the Sony VX2100 is a well respected standard definition cam, with a proven reputation for amongst other things its image quality, reliability, and low-light performance.
When my movie was edited and shown on a widescreen tv, I was extremely disappointed with the image quality – the pictures were so soft, especially the wider angle shots, and looked more like VHS without colour bleed. I’ve since found that it turns out that most, if not all, standard definition cams just throw away 25% of their image chips’ pixels when 16:9 recording is used. So the pictures, with less resolution in them than when the cam is set to 4:3, are then blown up to fill a much bigger widescreen. And so I found on my made wedding DVD, that low res pictures were the order of the day. So much of a smooth transition to widescreen!

I asked some friends who have made some impressive 16:9 movies of how they get their movies to look so good. I was given some useful tips, such as:

• Skilled use of framing
• Using extreme telephoto with big close-ups
• Big apertures which throw the background out of focus.
• Where possible close the manual exposure a stop or two...the difference can be seen in the Lcd Viewfinder - the colours and shadows are enriched and red faces can be adjusted easily in post.
• With a multi-cam shoot, try to stick with one brand – to save some colour correcting in post
• Aim to capture in high definition, then edit in either SD or HD before exporting to now great-looking SD

How cameras can handle various resolutions, see an illustration :-

Image

The navy box is the native image size of 1080i high definition that is on the original tape, though stretched to 16:9.

The green almost hidden box with thick black border is the amount of pixels in a standard definition 4:3 image - what we're all used to.

The orange box inside it shows the smaller amount of information standard definition cameras use when an SD camera is set to 16:9. They actually waste 25% of their image chips; then the projector or TV blows up what's left of the smaller image. So the picture will look 16:9 but softer – a bit like how VHS looks. And from personal experience on my last wedding movie, its not that good on the discerning eye!

So for making full resolution (1024 x 576) standard def 16:9 movies, they're needed to be filmed with cams that have native 16:9 image chips. So to avoid soft-looking images from a standard def camera used for 16:9, a camera upgrade may be needed. That really means getting a high def cam, then shooting in either standard or high def, then finally making a standard def tape or DVD from the source camera SD/HD tape.

Today's HDV camera technology is not as expensive as I would have thought, and what you can get from reasonably priced modern HDV cams does allow for stunning visuals in films. When true HD movies can be widely shown on tapes or disks, then the image quality may be even better, though some eminent film-makers have claimed that standard def movies (though shot in HD) viewed with a DVD player with an upscaler built in, then the difference may be very slight indeed. In other words standard definition video may have a much longer life than what some of us were thinking.
All that's needed after applying any of the above tips is subject material worth watching...
Graeme Webb

Post by Graeme Webb »

• Using extreme telephoto with big close-ups
• Big apertures which throw the background out of focus.
Hi Billy you mentioned a couple of things that are quite interesting (above). We have always tried to utilise what DOF was available in a shot often changing the focal length or moving the camera around to enable us to 'focus' on what was important in a scene, I must admit that it only rarely worked and then only in closeups. Then about a year ago we came across this.

Are you familiar with

http://www.sgpro.co.uk/

We have just finished our first short using this technology and it has a serious affect on the look of the image and great depth of field even with a 35mm lens.


some stills here:

http://borderlineblog.typepad.com/the_sign_of_success/


Graeme
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Post by billyfromConsett »

I've had a quick look at those site, and will look at them with a bit more time after tomorrow. The SGPro looks an interesting tool for getting those 35mm DOF shots. Not sure of its limitations that would be have to be coped with though.

I saw a few items that Practical Digital Video magazine had about getting cool looking shots - like fancy focus pulls and fast pans etc. That was until the mag seemed to go under.

I didn't state properly that I've tried - sometimes it worked - to use one of ND filters - to make sure the apeture is wide open, though these attention to fine details slows down the shoot big style.
daveswan
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:22 am

Post by daveswan »

RE: 16:9
PAL SD is always 720x 576, the widescreen format is simply obtained by stretching the pixels. A DVD will have a flag to tell the player what shape the pixels are.
To film in 16:9 SD, you need a cam with 16:9 CCDs (As you said), however you don't have to buy a HD cam to get this, since some SD cams (eg the old PDx10) have them, you have to read the spec sheet closely, since it will often be hidden in marketing gobldegook.
RE 35mm lens addaptors
I've several times thought of getting an SG Pro but had a budget crash each time! now I think I will wait and see how the Scarlet cam will turn out, I can wait that long, and finances may dictate it.
DAve
Graeme Webb

Post by Graeme Webb »

I think I will wait and see how the Scarlet cam will turn out

Yes Dave thats going to be interesting I have been keeping my eye on this for a while and cutting down my pub time in anticipation.

G
    User avatar
    billyfromConsett
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
    Location: Consett

    Post by billyfromConsett »

    Hi Dave - you make a couple of interesting points
    daveswan wrote:PAL SD is always 720x 576, the widescreen format is simply obtained by stretching the pixels. DAve
    That is what I was hoping my VX2100 would do, being a highly rated SD cam. I quoted 1024 x 576 from Adobe Premiere 6.5 output settings, so maybe there's a technical error.
    daveswan wrote:To film in 16:9 SD, you need a cam with 16:9 CCDs (As you said), however you don't have to buy a HD cam to get this, since some SD cams (eg the old PDx10) have them. DAve
    If there are any currently available SD cams with native 16:9 chips then I've yet to hear of them. But for the price of new HD models, I find it hard if people want to embrace 16:9 to recommend that people stick with SD.
    The Sony Handycam HDR-SR8 or SR12 (around £740) are highly recommended, as is the Sony HD1000 - by people who use their cams professionally, and it come in at around £1000.

    I suppose that after having seen with my own eyes what SD movies look like after being shot with native 16:9 chips, well IMO, that's the way to go.
    daveswan
    Posts: 72
    Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:22 am

    Post by daveswan »

    Hi.
    After some thought I'm inclined to agree with you re: HD cams. Since they have come down in price to the point of undercutting SD cams with 16:9 chips, unless one is thinking in terms of high-end (Digibeta say) then it probably is better to get one of the cams you mentioned, even though I'm more a Panny chap!
    Dave
    chrisk

    Post by chrisk »

    To shoot and maintain full 16:9 widescreen resolution video in SD, I use two methods.

    1. My Canon XL2 has a native 16:9 SD 3 chip set. Actually 960 x 576 pixels when used in 16:9 mode and using the centre 720 x 576 of these in 4:3 mode. To fit the DV standard of 720 x 576, the 960 pixels of each widescreen line are rescaled in the camera to produce 720 'squashed' pixels which would then be 'stetched' by the widescreen TV or projector used for the display. (Even 4:3 DV signals are stretched to effective 768 pixels to provide the correct ratio of square pixels)

    The display device has no way of knowing the aspect ratio of the signal and must be informed either by a user setting or automatically. As I understand it, automatic widescreen switching when used with compatible equipment is performed in two different ways:

    By a signal on pin 8 of a SCART connector. This signal has three defined voltage levels, 0V - 2V for an inactive source, 4.5V - 7V for a 16:9 source and 9.5V - 12V for a 4:3 source. This is obviously only appropriate when SCART connectors are used and the signal is not embedded in the original source

    By a code embedded into line 23 of a video frame. This coded signal can switch the display device to one of eight different aspect ratio formats of 4:3, 14:9, 16:9, >16:9 in various screen positions. I think that this widescreen signalling method must be used by the Canon XL2 because the signal is recognised by Premier as 16:9 or 4:3 as appropriate for the shooting format and stretched by a factor of 1.422 to produce 1024 pixels or by 1.067 to produce 756 pixels accordingly.

    2. My other method of shooting video in full 16:9 is by using an anamorphic lens on my Sony TRV900 4:3 SD camera. In this case the camera doesn't know that it is filming 16:9 so no widescreen signalling is applied and the picture must be manually stretched in the edit process to continue in widescreen

    The two methods can be seamlessly edited together and full 16:9 resolution retained.

    Chris
    daveswan
    Posts: 72
    Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:22 am

    Post by daveswan »

    Knowing that SD PAL is 720 x 576 no matter what, having shot in 16:9 and imported into MC, I edit per normal, then in the export settings tick "Same as Source".
    During the coding to DVD I make sure the program knows it is dealing with 16:9 material by ticking the relevent box, and that is exporting 16:9, Lower First again by tickeng the relevfent box, then let the Prog get on with it.
    I use either ProCoder 2 whenI'm at work, or Sorrrensen 4.5 at home.
    Dave
    User avatar
    Dave Watterson
    Posts: 1879
    Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
    Location: Bath, England
    Contact:

    Post by Dave Watterson »

    The display device has no way of knowing the aspect ratio of the signal and must be informed either by a user setting or automatically ... by a signal on pin 8 of a SCART connector or a code embedded into line 23 of a video frame.
    This is currently a problem for a great many film makers. Trying to ensure that an appropriate signal is present is not easy. You may think you have it there ... but the final tape or DVD does not seem to carry it.

    The evidence of this is the number of 16x9 films being shown 4x3 in clubs and at festivals all round the world.

    Too many organisers/projectionists put their faith in the automated systems despite the evidence of their eyes. At UNICA this year, for example, national representatives were arguing with the projection team as audience and jury sighed to see a squashed film presentation.

    Things get more complicated when some widescreen films seem to present themselves to projectors in a way which screens the central 4x3 part of their picture. That means the image is not distorted but that you lose the edges. Last year you may have seen Altrincham's "The Pinnacle" shown like that all over the place, even though that actually trims part of the main title lettering.

    Presumably working consistently in 16x9 with all your edit programs and DVD authoring programs set to 16x9 should give you the best of chance of having the film shown the right way.

    Dave
    User avatar
    billyfromConsett
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
    Location: Consett

    Post by billyfromConsett »

    Dave Watterson wrote: The evidence of this is the number of 16x9 films being shown 4x3 in clubs and at festivals all round the world.
    Obviously these babies, notice it has an aspect button, need to catch on....

    Image
    I remember seeing a wonderful film made by a filming team from my old school, St Cuthbert's, infact it won the Daily Mail trophy, being shown 4:3 at my club - and I sat with embarrassment. Thankfully, the club have worked hard to (most of the time) get it right on the night.
    User avatar
    Stephen
    Posts: 223
    Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:36 pm
    Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
    Contact:

    Post by Stephen »

    That is precisely why I ditched the 4 year old Sony TV..... absolute garbage at trying to work out the aspect ratio it was presented with... errrrr... we are talking straightforward TV broadcasts here... the DVD, DVtape presentation was an complete lottery... despite the presence of a so called smart setting.....

    but all is not lost.... the new 42" Panasonic plasma is an absolute dream ... and yes with an aspect button if needed.... I have thrown every aspect I can get at it and it gets it right every time up until now.......

    it would also be a good habit for peeps to state on their films for presentation a note for the projectionist on the format, lead in time, amount of black if countdown etc ......

    but I agree 100% with Dave's comment !!!!

    it is what your eyes tell you ..... !!!!!
    Stephen

    Film making is not a matter of Life and Death
    It's much more important than that.
    User avatar
    billyfromConsett
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
    Location: Consett

    Post by billyfromConsett »

    Graeme Webb wrote:We have always tried to utilise what DOF was available in a shot often changing the focal length or moving the camera around to enable us to 'focus' on what was important in a scene, I must admit that it only rarely worked and then only in closeups. Then about a year ago we came across this.

    Are you familiar with http://www.sgpro.co.uk/
    I've since noticed a device called the Letus Extreme. Examples of it are here on vimeo
    http://www.vimeo.com/1114483
    http://www.vimeo.com/2024226

    IMO this is the best I've seen http://www.vimeo.com/1136065

    It looks simply too expensive to use for the likes of me, and I'me not sure if it can be used on a cam with a fixed lense.
    tom hardwick
    Posts: 914
    Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

    Post by tom hardwick »

    The whole point about the Letus is that it's designed to be used with video cameras with fixed lenses, Billy. There are losses of course (light and added grain), but the gains in pictorial quality make for very interesting pictures.

    I liked reading your 'techy piece' and hope you get it in FVM. By now you'll have realised that DV is by definition 720 x 576 (PAL) and widescreen exactly the same. Your VX2100 was never really designed to shoot 16:9, but does so with the 25% loss in vertical resolution - as you've noticed.

    This is only visible on widescreen sets of course - as a letterboxed image on a 4:3 set the resolution is exactly the same as in the 4:3 mode.

    The PDX10 was a half-hearted attempt to take a higher res 16:9 rectangle out of the camera's 4:3 CCDs, but at least it was a start in the right direction. Of course (by definition) all HDV camcorders use true 16:9 chips.

    I'd never advise 'closing the iris a stop or two' as one of your bullet points states - not unless your camera consistently over-exposes.

    tom.
    User avatar
    billyfromConsett
    Posts: 489
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
    Location: Consett

    Post by billyfromConsett »

    Thank you Tom for reminding me about our magazine, I've sent a version of it to Garth.

    I read a couple of your latest Positive Image pieces from the last two FVM's last night. Without doubt, worth anybody's time to view, and so readable. Cheers.
    Post Reply