16:9 - 4:3

netkoala wrote on 2/23/2004, 7:09 AM
16:9 ratio is this more a projection thing or a TV broadcast thing or Europe and US or Northern and Southern Hemisphere thing.

Whats 4:3 used for ?

Is Panasonic 24p 16:9 truely 16:9.(or 4:3?)

I heard that the because the chip size aint this size on most cams you really need to get a lense to get the 16:9 image without loss of pixels, albeit it small loss if it is pretending to be 16:9. (or 4:3?) (or widescreen)

(Although conversion from NTSC and PAL to 16:9 (or 4:3?) is suppose to be expensive due to great cropping an non ultilisation of horizontal lines)

So the PD170 with an-shatsitname (anamorphic )lense does a 16:9 right ?

If you shoot normal PAL or NTSC and convert to 16:9 the results must be bad, right.
If you shoot widescreen, what then, leave it alone perhaps ?









Comments

RBartlett wrote on 2/23/2004, 8:38 AM
You can convert either 16:9 or 4:3 to 14:9-protected = lossy and pleases neither completely but does look modern.

Or convert 4:3 to have action in the wings of a cropped equivalent on a 16:9. Again in the digital target terms it is lossy.

16:9 is clearly more than a mode or a bolt-on.
pb wrote on 2/24/2004, 7:13 AM
16:9 ratio is this more a projection thing or a TV broadcast thing or Europe and US or Northern and Southern Hemisphere thing.
-- It's Kind of new Millennium

Whats 4:3 used for ?
-- Standard Def TV since the Germans began broadcasting in the 30s

Is Panasonic 24p 16:9 truely 16:9.(or 4:3?)
-- no idea, never tried it nor looked into it.

I heard that the because the chip size aint this size on most cams you really need to get a lense to get the 16:9 image without loss of pixels, albeit it small loss if it is pretending to be 16:9. (or 4:3?) (or widescreen)
-- some cameras are native 16:9 switchable to 4:3; others are 4:3 and produce 16:9 by chopping off the top and bottom of the frame. 2/3 inch chips are superior to 1/4, /13 and 1/4 simply because there is more real estate behind the lens.

(Although conversion from NTSC and PAL to 16:9 (or 4:3?) is suppose to be expensive due to great cropping an non ultilisation of horizontal lines)
-- depends on your personal and/or customer's minimum standards.

So the PD170 with an-shatsitname (anamorphic )lense does a 16:9 right ?
-- yes, but not in the same manner as a DSR 570 or DXC D50 etc.

If you shoot normal PAL or NTSC and convert to 16:9 the results must be bad, right.
-- how much are you going to spend on the conversion? If you do it in Vegas you're just chopping off the top and bottom of the 4:3 picture. I do it all the time to incorporate archival 4:3 in WS shows; quality is adequate for projector display on 12 foot screens.

If you shoot widescreen, what then, leave it alone perhaps ?
-- Yeah, that is an option. Output your stuff as letterboxed 4:3 for viewing on 4:3 TVs.