Vegas does anamorphic just fine, there's even presets for it. Make sure to turn on "Simulate device aspect ratio" in Video Preview window (called "Display Square Pixels" in Vegas 3). You have complete control over pixel count (up to 800x800) and pixel aspect ratio, which together dictate the frame aspect ratio.
///d@

JB,

"And, I just realized my camera was capable of shooting anamorphic."

Just out of curiosity, what make and model of camcorder are you using? There are a few "true" 16:9 camcorders that actually have 16:9 CCDs and a wide lens to cover them, but most camcorders aren't made like that. My "old" Sony DCR-TRV510 does not have a 16:9 CCD but it does have a "Wide Mode" that records in the 16:9 aspect ratio. When the Wide Mode is "on", black bars show up at the top and bottom of the LCD display, and what's left is 16:9. Wide Mode fills a 4:3 TV screen with a horizontally compressed image. On a wide screen display it can appear as either a horizontally compressed image with black bars at the sides, or as a fullscreen widescreen display, depending on whether the widescreen TV recognizes the video ID (ID-1/ID-2).

I am just concerned and curious about to what extent this "Wide Mode" in my camcorder is "fake". By "fake" I am referring to the APS (Advanced Photographic System) film cameras that make "panoramic" pictures by simply masking off the top and bottom of the image. The APS panoramic mode doesn't add anything at all to the horizontal field of view (FOV), it merely subtracts quite a bit from the vertical FOV. That's not my idea of panoramic. Cropping a telephoto shot to 16:9 doesn't make it a panorama. I question whether the Wide Mode of my camcorder, and perhaps yours, isn't doing the same sort of monkeyshine to get a 16:9 ratio. The author who wrote the article on the following webpage expresses my concerns:

Shooting Widescreen on DV

I have been thinking about getting an anamorphic lens adapter for my camcorder in order to take higher quality widescreen DV. They are not cheap, but an anamorphic lens preserves your vertical resolution and actually gives you a wider FOV by using wider pixels in the fixed 720x480 pixel NTSC DV format. The following website illustrates the advantages of an anamorphic lens adapter. Follow its instructions to touch the "Sample" picture and click on it to see a comparision.

Create True Widescreen on Mini DV

Do you have any information on how your camcorder shoots anamorphic? As I understand it, all the "in-camera" widescreen solutions, such as my TRV510's "Wide Mode," all lose a significant amount of vertical resolution, although not quite as much as just lopping off the top and bottom of the frame and resampling the letterbox in a video editor like Vegas. Does SoFo have a white paper on Widescreen in Vegas? I think we need one.

-- Seeker --

More on that topic

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html

Holy #!*-+& !!!
I've been shooting 16:9 since I got my Sony PD100. After reading the links you gave I feel like... no comment. I checked for the price of the adapter: $895 !!! OUCH !!!
SO, I asked before but , still, I'll ask again: Would I get a better picture quality if I shot "progressive scanned" in 4:3 mode then add the top and bottom black bars later to simulate the 16:9 look? (cause I ***really*** like to frame and view in 16:9...)

My only suggestion is to try it and see what happens. My dream is to
install an anamorphic adapter lens on the front of my XL1-S with a ratio of 2.66
x 1 but the problem is to find one big enough to fit the Canon lens..also
cheap enough, maybe an anamorphic 35mm projection lens. 16 x 9 is really
1.85 x 1 and doesn't do a thing for me. Most Cinemascope and Panavision
widescreen ratios are 2.66 x 1. I don't understand why they are screwing
around with 16 x9 and not go to 2.66 x 1 like they should have. After
you frame up and edit the 2.66 x 1 it comes out about (safe)2.3 x 1 on your tv set.
I assume I could change the aspect on the timeline to not loose each end of
the picture.
The Europeans messed around with a 2 x 1 ratio for a while but it was a dud.
Century already has 16 x 9 anamorphic adapters for popular camcorders but they
ain't cheap.

JJK

No, it ain't cheap like I noticed... (the adapter)
16:9 isn't going to disapear. The tv sets are more and more getting into this ratio so I guess you'll have to deal with, again, black bars if you shoot this way.
Even better: I've seen 16:9 tv's with widescreen pictures displayed and it's distorted: can you imagine? Paying that much for a distorted picture?
Aspect ratios, what a jungle! I can't imagine it couldn't be simple and efficient...or standardised in some way. A simple button or selector and you have what you want.

The reason for shooting in 16:9 is for watching on the TV set you will own in the future. I started shooting anamorphic widescreen a couple of years ago so that the programs I produce will have a longer shelf life. I create and archive two versions: one letterboxed for 4:3 and one anamorphic for the few people out there who have wide screen TV's today. Technically, I should be shooting "protected 4:3" so that it could be cropped to full frame rather than letterboxed, but I think it's just too much trouble and takes a lot of the fun out of shoooting widescreen. Plus viewers are getting used to the letterbox on network shows.

But if the camera you are using creates simulated widescreeen by cropping off the top and bottom of the image, then you are throwing away resolution. And the price of an anomorphic lens could be used to help buy a camera that shoots true 16:9, which is probably the better solution.

And futz: the distorted image you saw was 4:3 video displayed in "stretch mode." 4:3 video on a 16:9 TV should have black bars on the side.

No, it was probably 2.66x1 displayed on a 16x9 screen. It was just a little dostorted but also just a little annoying... It wasn't as radical as displaying a stretched 4x3...but , hey, they could've put black bars and brought back the ratio, hahaha!
Concerning the anamorphic lenses, are there other brands than Century that could be a little less expensive than 895 U$ ? And what happens if we want to use full zoom or a 3x adaptor?

When I was into widescreen a few years back you had to find a cheap
projection lens the right size usually about $160.00. Then you had to mount it
in front of the normal lens. To obtain a custom
taking lens was about $35,000.00 from Arri or Schnieder. Unless you are
the winner of the lottery or a criminal the price is a bit much. A 35mm
projection lens might be the way to go for something like the 58mm front
of your existing lens. The anamorphic lens has to be larger than the
fixed lens on the camera or you will get vignetting. Oh well, like I
said its a nice dream right now.

JJK

futz,

"Concerning the anamorphic lenses, are there other brands than Century that could be a little less expensive than 895 U$ ?"

Well, I can get the Century anamorphic for $395 list (and hopefully discounted less) for my Sony DCR-TRV510, because my front lens filter thread is only 37mm and the smaller 37mm anamorphic lens costs less than those big honkin 58mm jobs. As far as I know, the Century brand anamorphics are the "cheapest". There are other "higher quality" anamorphic lenses, like those from OpTex, that can cost even more or less depending on which camcorder you are outfitting.

OpTex Digital Video Products

OpTex DV Anamorphic Attachments

Maybe Spiratone will get into this field.

-- Seeker --

vonhosen,

Thanks for that link. That was helpful. And it had a link to Ben Syverson's site, which is chuck full of interesting widescreen stuff. Syverson's "tricked out" 2.35:1 GL1 is a sight to behold.

Shooting 2.35:1 DV using Canon GL1 & Kowa PA-35 anamorphic adapter

-- Seeker --

futz,

Would I get a better picture quality if I shot "progressive scanned" in 4:3 mode then add the top and bottom black bars later to simulate the 16:9 look? (cause I ***really*** like to frame and view in 16:9...)

Probably not. There is apparently some advantage in using your camcorder's 16:9 mode as compared to "manual" letterboxing. Once again, I would like for SoFo to weigh in on this, because the tutorials did not use Vegas. See, for example, Ben Syverson's letterboxing tutorial:

Ben Syverson's letterboxing tutorial

This page explains the advantages of using your camcorder's internal 16:9 feature over the letterboxing approach:

16x9 incamera mode is slightly better than letterboxing

Interestingly, you can combine a 16:9 anamorphic lens with your incamera 16:9 mode to get 2.35:1 widescreen. Or you can buy a humongous 2.35:1 anamorphic. Will wonders never cease? Incidentally, I think there is a dead link on this page, the one referring to using your 16:9 anamorphic with incamera 16:9. Oh well. Sometimes wonders do cease.

Burn up the screen with 2.35:1

-- Seeker --

Hmm! 2.66 to one ratio. That means for every foot high my TV screen is, it would be 32 inches wide.

Currently, my old clunker is 3 feet high on the screen, so in 2.66 it would be 96" (8 feet) wide, instead of 48". Think of how hard it would be to blow glass shaped like that. Even projection sets would have one heck of a time with lenses with that much spread.

The ONLY things that would be able to handle it would be johnnie come lately LCDs and Plazma screens, for the VERY well to do. Maybe that has something to do with why they didn't go to 2.66 to one ratio. 16:9 is already expensive enough.

Just try finding a 20-24 inch glass screen 16:9 CRT type TV at a reasonable price. Think of what a big one would be like. Then think 2.66. Even MORE expensive.

wcoxe1,

Well. It was only 2.35:1. Maybe we should get some 16:9 anamorphic eyeglasses to make this work better. (grin)

-- seeker --