16:9 on camcorder or during post?

F

filmman21

Should I set the 16:9(letterbox) on my camcorder(3ccd miniDV) or should I record the footage full size(normal) then set to 16:9 using my pinnacle studio software? I don't want to lose any (vertical)resolution, I've heard I could if I use the camera's settings. Thanks!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
You're going to lose vertical resolution, either way. If you do it in post, you'll just be cropping the image, and in doing so, creating the exact same effect that the in-cam letterbox would do. Only difference is that it will be a supreme pain in your butthole doing it in post.

Use your camera's 16:9 mode.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If it's true 16:9, then the camera's sensor may be widening the image sideways as well as/instead if cropping it vertically. I know my old MiniDV camera would do this - what's your camera model name/number? Whatever you do, I'd always recommend doing any cropping in post - better to have more control over what you cut off.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What camera do you have?

I would assume "true 16:9" is just meant to say that that is the camera's native resolution. On the camcorder I used to have, it's native resolution was 4:3, so when I shot 16:9, many of the vertical pixels that I would've had were just cropped out of the image. Contrarily, if your camera's native format is 16:9, you'll lose horizontal resolution if you choose to shoot 4:3. (EDIT: That's my general understanding, anyway; could be wrong)

So, it could be really bad if your camera was native 16:9, but you lost resolution shooting 4:3, and then lost further resolution cropping in post.

Regardless, then, of whether your camera is native 4:3, or 16:9, if you want 16:9, it's better to shoot 16:9.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I just googled that camera. I couldn't find it's specs, but I'm highly inclined to believe it's native 4:3. So, if that's the case, you'll lose the same amount of resolution, either way, camera or post, doesn't matter.

chilipie brings up a good point. If you do it in post, you have greater control. Let's say you get a shot in which you accidentally cut somebody's head off. Well, if you shot in 16:9, that's it, that's what you got. But if you shot in 4:3, you have room to move the image up or down, before cropping.

So, there is an advantage to doing it in post. But as I mentioned earlier, the downside is that it can really be a time-consuming pain in the ass (and not all software crops as easily as you'd like to hope), because not only are you talking about cropping, but using footage that was shot in a resolution different from what your resolution setting is, in your editing project. Some software makes this a non-issue; some software makes it very difficult to work with.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
So, there is an advantage to doing it in post. But as I mentioned earlier, the downside is that it can really be a time-consuming pain in the ass (and not all software crops as easily as you'd like to hope), because not only are you talking about cropping, but using footage that was shot in a resolution different from what your resolution setting is, in your editing project. Some software makes this a non-issue; some software makes it very difficult to work with.
Click to expand...

That last point's a good one… I'm used to matting 16:9 to 2.35:1 in Final Cut, which is a piece of cake as I'm exporting in 16:9 for DVD/web, but letterboxed 4:3 looks a bit naff in this day and age.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chilipie said:
That last point's a good one… I'm used to matting 16:9 to 2.35:1 in Final Cut, which is a piece of cake as I'm exporting in 16:9 for DVD/web, but letterboxed 4:3 looks a bit naff in this day and age.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't have to letterbox. If you import your 4:3 footage into a 16:9 project, you can essentially convert it into 16:9, but it requires many steps, and not all software does it the same. In Premiere CS5, I wouldn't lose any image quality at all, and it wouldn't take too long (but still many steps). But I've tried the same method on older software, and it'd be a major understatement to call the process a hassle.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Well, you don't have to letterbox. If you import your 4:3 footage into a 16:9 project, you can essentially convert it into 16:9, but it requires many steps, and not all software does it the same. In Premiere CS5, I wouldn't lose any image quality at all, and it wouldn't take too long (but still many steps). But I've tried the same method on older software, and it'd be a major understatement to call the process a hassle.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think that was a half-finished sentence :D Meant to say that matting/letterboxing is relatively easy to do, whereas cropping the workspace can be a bit of a pain in comparison (especially when working with DV sequences).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top