I ran some more tests. If I print to tape then I do end up with genuine anamorphic 16:9 i.e. fills the DV frame with squashed people like it should.

Still leaves the question of using a 16:9 monitor with VV. It's a good thing I found this by accident, I've ben toying with buying a good monitor and one of the things I definately included in the specs was it being 16:9. That pushes the price up no end but at least I thought I could preview in native format but if VV will not output true 16:9 to preview it would have been a big waste of money. Not really a winge as it's nice to have it do the letterbox trick on preview, saves the expense of buying a 16:9 monitor but it would be nice if you could turn it off! Guess when I play the tape back then having a 16:9 monitor would be handy.

Getting back to my original problem I just discovered that during the songs in the movie they've put the lyrics in the bottom black mask. All the other subtitles or within the image area, so I'm going to have to spend ages panning the ARC so I don't loose bits. Me thinks I'm going to leave it as it is, the client thinks it will be OK, after all they're not charging admission.

On the preview monitor issue - lets see if I explain this right. You have to do it backwards in a way.

1> Your source material must be at 16:9. Make sure the "maintain aspect ratio" button is checked
2> Putting this into a "DV Widescreen" template will put the anamorphic out via firewire.

3> Changing the template to 4:3 will change the output to 4:3 letterbox.
4> If you uncheck the "maintain aspect ratio" button you will get the anamorphic again., in a 4:3 project.

I did both of these methods right now and they are fine.

Now one other important thing - if you are taking 4:3 and converting to 16:9 in order to preview, along with what I said above, you need to go into the settings and make sure "Recompress Edited Frames" is checked in the Video Device pane.

Thanks,
I'll give it a go in the morning, PC and me going to have much needed stress release (sleep). Editing video in a language I don't understand gets a bit tiring.

At the moment I don't have any genuine 16:9 footage to play with so I was making some up and probably getting myself confused no end. These things always seem to work out better in the morning.

It would seem to me it would be far easier to replace the projector lens (if your projector supports that). I have not seen much released in a 16x9 anamorphic format. I have two lenses for my projector to handle this situation. They are both Zooms so I can handle anything from 1.33:1 (4x3) up to 2.35:1 (CinemaScope). I originally tried to do it with a single lens but that would not focus at the wide angle position. It physically ran into the housing.

Good luck with whatever you do.

Farss,

your second post is a known problem "I think"

I used 16:9 media in Vegas, have the project set to widescreen and uncompressed frames display correctly on an external 16:9 monitor. Any frames that are compressed are letterboxed which is incorrect.

It only happens on external preview and I think it only happens when working in PAL which makes some posts confusing.

Regards, Paul

Catwell,
not my projectors, they are part of the cinema setup and are fitted with very nice cinema lenses. But the problem is even if I could zoom it to fill the screen cutting off th black top and bottom it's going to look rather bad. And then there's the issue of also having to project full frame 4:3 on the same reel.

PAW,
I'll try exactly what Filmy is saying and see if it works or not in PAL (which is where I'm at) I did a bit of a search beofre and found nothing prior about this. Maybe it should be given a bit more prominance, if it really is a problem only in PAL then it's one that's likely to be overlooked in the next round of bug fixes.

Farss, I have been flagiing this for a long time - if it is the same problem

there have been 5 releases since with no change but the funny thing is in my posts nobody else ever seemed to pick up on it - maybe there aren't many PAL users :-0

If you want me to test this send me a veg file with a clip of three frames so it can be email easily. In your veg file do a crossfade of one frame so you can reproduce the problem and I'll see if it is the same.

tothewhites at yahoo.co.uk

PAW

PAW,
I'd love to send you something but I think the wires have gotten crossed. The problem I'm talking about is not being able to send anamorphic 16:9 to a 16:9 preview monitor.

Don't quite see what a crsoofade has to do with this or do you mean...nope can't quite see any clue there either.

Catwell:
My Cinemasope lens says 2.66 X 1. Why is your Cinemascope different then mine? After it is processed for Ntsc letterbox the overscan changes it to 2.35 x 1.
Someday I will figure out how to keep the letterbox scope at 2.66 x 1 as it should be.

JJK

This wasn't shot cinemascope!

It was shot 16:9.

Catwell,
just zooming though will not take care of the difference in aspect ratio unless it's letterboxed.

Re the observation that there may not be a lot of PAL users - I can assure everyone that there are indeed. I know of many here in Australia, and quite a lot of us Vegas newbies are about to get into 16:9 work - so subjects like this are very relevant. Off topic, I know, but I have to say this is one of the best forums I have encountered in years. Keep up the good work!