Using VX2000 for a 16:9 film job

NickHope wrote on 4/9/2006, 12:17 AM
I have a customer who has hired me to shoot underwater footage with my PAL Sony VX2000 for a 16:9 job that will be transferred to film.

The VX2000 will not do 16:9 natively and an anamorphic lens is not an option so I reckon the options we have for achieving 16:9 are as follows:

1. Shoot 4:3 (576 lines) and crop in post production. This gives the flexibility to move the cropped area up or down for fine tuning of the composition. In this case I could mask the top and bottom of the underwater housing's monitor so I know I am composing shots correctly for a 16:9 result. Result is 432 lines of resolution.

2. Shoot 4:3 and reduce the aspect ratio ("squeeze" the height). Result is 576 lines of resolution.

3. A combination of 1 & 2. Some cropping, some "squeezing". Result is somewhere between 432 and 576 lines of resolution.

4. Shoot with the camera in 16:9 mode. This "letterboxes" the 4:3 image and gives 432 lines of resolution. One drawback is that the image on my monitor would be stretched vertically to 4:3 so it is not so easy for me to compose shots, but I can still work this way.

5. Tape the lens frame to mask the captured image. This is what the customer has suggested but would be difficult to do accurately. Result is 432 lines of resolution.

Can I ask you guys, are these options correct and which would you recommend? On previous 16:9 jobs I've just shot in regular 4:3 mode and I think the customer has just squashed the height (option2), but they may have cropped too.

Nick

Comments

farss wrote on 4/9/2006, 12:31 AM
How can option 2 work without distorting the image?

From memory if you crop PAL 4:3 to 16:9 the result is 720x480.

Bob.
farss wrote on 4/9/2006, 12:47 AM
My apologies,
you're right. The answer is 720x432. Not good.

My suggestion is to use a HC1, I think we have an Ampibico housing on order for ours. There does seem to be an increasing interest in shooting 16x9 underwater and the small HDV cameras seem ideal for the task.

Bob.
apit34356 wrote on 4/9/2006, 3:47 AM
Bob, I believe HC1 being used underwater will require a lot of light for capturing fish motivement vs the vx2000. I think your right about using HDV format size for 16x9 and the HC1 is small and economical.
farss wrote on 4/9/2006, 6:21 AM
Agree re the low light capability.
Also I'm curious to see how HDV holds up with underwater footage.
I suspect that it'd be a real stress test of the encoding system.

Bob.
BowmanDigital wrote on 4/9/2006, 7:22 AM
I would just use the camera's 16:9 mode, does it automatically crop and stretch on the vx2000 like it does in the pd150? you will lose resolution, but will so you a lot of time not having to crop and do extra rendering. maybe put some sort of effect so that vegas reprocesses the pixels? i used to put a glow in footage that was lower res to help "hide" mission resolution.
Avanti wrote on 4/9/2006, 1:52 PM
I shoot my NTSC VX2000 in 16:9 mode all the time and the shots look great on 50" HDTV.
Spot|DSE wrote on 4/9/2006, 2:03 PM
Lots of great underwater footage with HDV can be seen here. These guys are on the western end of Australia, and their work is apparently quite famous. I know they've used both the A1 and the FX and Z1 cams and had good successes with them, if that helps.
farss wrote on 4/9/2006, 2:11 PM
Guess that answers my concerns about HDV underwater !
riredale wrote on 4/9/2006, 4:56 PM
I've only had my FX1 for about a month, but can confirm that it's not as sensitive as my old VX2000. Various reports on the Internet put it down about 2 stops. However, it's also not nearly as noisy as the VX2000; when I bring the HDV footage into Vegas and boost it (2x) with the color wheel gain control, the noise is still not that bad and it's down maybe a stop from the VX2000.

That said, the smaller Sony HDV cameras are not as sensitive as the FX1, so maybe they'd be best for shallow-water stuff.
johnmeyer wrote on 4/9/2006, 9:30 PM
I've only had my FX1 for about a month, but can confirm that it's not as sensitive as my old VX2000.

I never had the VX2000 or VX2100, but I have the FX1. Have you played around with the Gain control? I have read various tests that claim "near equivalent" light sensitivity results when the FX1 gain is turned up, and with noise that is not bad.

Here is a link to a very brief page that describes one of several tests that I have read. Note that it agrees with your observation (2-stops), but then says that with the gain turned up, the difference is 1 stop or less.

Sony FX1 vs VX2k in low light
DavidMcKnight wrote on 4/10/2006, 8:32 AM
re: your original question, I can only comment that others have suggested to shoot 4:3 (with taped crop marks) - your #1 option - and crop in post. I don't remember why it was said that this is better, but search the forum because I'm sure it was here that I saw the tip.
vitalforce wrote on 4/10/2006, 1:31 PM
And a prime reason to still shoot 4:3 with taped crop marks, as I learned from experience, is that it gives you a further fail-safe against a boom mike or equipment creeping into the edge of the shot.

Avanti wrote on 4/10/2006, 1:36 PM
I’m sure the boom mic will be a big issue while shooting fish. :)
Cliff Etzel wrote on 4/12/2006, 5:45 PM
Wags and Kelly are nice folks - Wags participates periodically on the UWDV forum.

I actually have some questions to him right now and am hoping to hear back from him shortly...
RalphM wrote on 4/12/2006, 6:51 PM
Haven't you heard of Croakers? Put some bait on that boom pole and get sound and dinner....
NickHope wrote on 4/28/2006, 2:48 AM
Thanks very much everyone.

Bob, yes indeed, option 2 would result in distortion.

I'm set up for the memory mix method now but I'm still recommending to the customer that I shoot 4:3 with the external monitor masked top and bottom with black insulating tape.

For film transfer would you shoot interlaced or progressive? Bear in mind my camera is PAL.

Nick