I'm totally out of the world of shooting video so....
has technology advanced to the stage where a consumer unit is capable of
shooting at 16:9 - or even 2.35:1 anamorphic at 24 frames a second?
i see quite a few shot on video movies out there these days but at regular
frame rates they just look like a tv show - i'm thinking ahead and would
want 24fps for the movie look.


--
Gareth
quote of the day
'nostradamus? -sounds like a rock group to me!'
see my ebay auctions a
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F4B314E61

"The dog from that film you saw" wrote in
message ...
I'm totally out of the world of shooting video so....
has technology advanced to the stage where a consumer unit is capable
of
shooting at 16:9 - or even 2.35:1 anamorphic at 24 frames a second?
i see quite a few shot on video movies out there these days but at
regular
frame rates they just look like a tv show - i'm thinking ahead and
would
want 24fps for the movie look.

Do you mean how 24 fps Film looks on 30fps NTSC or how film looks in
Theater?
(If you mean horrid Film to NTSC 3:2 pull down artifacts you can easily
add them in editing!)

For electronic editing and final transfer to film for Theaters a 24 fps
HD video camera is fine.

For viewing on NTSC TV sets a 24fps is a problem. You get horrid 3:2
pull down artifacts (due to one 30 fps TV frame having the two
interlaced halves comming from two different 24 fps frames)

For viewing on PAL you need to electronically lower the pitch of sound
track by 4% as transfer of 24fps to PAL is simply to play it at 25 fps.


So your camera FPS needs to match the majority of the viewing device:
Cinema 48 fps from 24 fps (each frame shown twice to reduce flicker)
NTSC 30fps (possibly 60fps on some 30fps Progressive sets, to reduce
flicker)
PAL 25fps (or 50 fps on 100Hz non-progressive, to reduce flicker)

Also Video for cinema wants to be HD, at least 2000 lines to get 35mm
quality for Cinema, but for TV sets, even projectors:

NTSC has to be 480 lines
PAL has to be 576 lines.


Yes there are NTSC and PAL format domestic cameras that have 16:9 mode.
The image is still output at 720 x 480 (NTSC) or 720 x 576 (PAL), but
anamorphic to analog, firewire/ilink or internal tape by internally
resampling a higher resolution CCD image.

So cinema formats such as 1:66, 1.85, 2.35 or whatever can only be
artifically created later in editing by letterboxing.

In theory you could get an anamorphic lens for an ordinary 4:3 format
CCD camera. Perhaps someone sells one that screws on in front like a
tele- or wide- angle convertor does.

Digital on TV sets (other than HD) is only 4:3 or the same image
resolution regarded as 16:9 animorphic (i.e. the 4:3 and the 16:9
animorphic use exactly the same number of pixels / lines / dots and
encoding, simply the display is told to stretch it a fixed amount for
16:9).
Vertically the resolution has to be either NTSC or PAL (480 or 576). VCD
is a specail case where both the interlace fields are from a single
field so it is 240 line NTSC or 288lines PAL

Horizontally the resolution can be more flexible, assuming the display
device will display it as full width lines on either a 4:3 or 16:9
shaped display.

I hope this helps you understand why the original question has no
straight answer
--
Watty
Ireland.

"The dog from that film you saw" wrote:


has technology advanced to the stage where a consumer unit is capable of
shooting at 16:9 - or even 2.35:1 anamorphic at 24 frames a second?

Depends on your definition of consumer unit. Sub £3,000, no. The Sony
PD150 and the Canon XL1 will do progressive scan and the Panasonic DVX100
will do progressive 24f. None will do true 16:9 without an anamorphic lens
or converter.

Darcy O¹Bree
Digital Media Studios Manager
Staffordshire University

http://www.staffs.ac.uk/directory/vi...person_id=1320
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/vrtour/stoke/media/

"Darcy O'Bree" wrote in message
...
"The dog from that film you saw" wrote:


has technology advanced to the stage where a consumer unit is capable of
shooting at 16:9 - or even 2.35:1 anamorphic at 24 frames a second?

Depends on your definition of consumer unit. Sub £3,000, no. The Sony
PD150 and the Canon XL1 will do progressive scan and the Panasonic DVX100
will do progressive 24f. None will do true 16:9 without an anamorphic lens
or converter.

Er, I thought we had this debate one in here. :-)
The new Sony consumer DV cams *do* support true 16:9
quote from Sony's press release on the TRV60
"The increasing number of users who record and play back material in 16:9 will
welcome the news that Sony has also made significant improvements in this type
of recording. The new 16:9 Mode achieves a much higher image quality with a 30%
increase in resolution to 1094 x 615 pixels by reading a much wider, 16:9 shaped
area of the CCD chip. Thanks to two Megapixel technology, the image
stabilisation capabilities of SuperSteadyShot are preserved and, compared with
conventional 16:9 recording, the process allows the maximum quality to be gained
from the PAL TV standard. Sony 16:9 recordings are anamorphic and users have the
option of playing back in letterbox style on a 4:3 monitor. This makes full use
of the available television resolution and does not add black bars at the
recording stage, which cannot be removed."

Loz

"loz" wrote:


Er, I thought we had this debate one in here. :-)
The new Sony consumer DV cams *do* support true 16:9

Oops, missed that one. Thanks.

Darcy O¹Bree
Digital Media Studios Manager
Staffordshire University

http://www.staffs.ac.uk/directory/vi...person_id=1320
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/vrtour/stoke/media/

"Dave R" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 09:22:41 GMT, "Watty"
allegedly wrote:

I hope this helps you understand why the original question has no
straight answer


Knowing Gareth from other groups, I believe he's well aware of the
differences in speeds, why they are so, and how film is converted.

I took his question to mean: is there a camera available that can
record
at 24fps and in true 16:9 mode.

Well in summary I think yes you can get a consumer 16:9 animorphic at
PAL or NTSC resolution / frame rate but not 24 fps or other aspects as
they are not for TV.

My philosphical question was why would you want 24 fps and non TV Aspect
ratio unless you are transfering HD video to film. It makes no sense for
display on regular TVs....

Of course "professional" 24 fps HD cameras exist. I wouldn't even like
to think how much they cost as even a decent "pro-sumer" camera costs
more than my car is worth... If I had that money to spend I wouldn't
need to post on a NG. I used to work in a company selling Video
solutions (after I left the Beeb) and I imagine if I was serious about
buying HD 24 fps video gear for film work most of the reps would give me
demos and probably take me out for dinner/rugby match/golf/ etc

Sorry if I have telling Granny how to suck eggs...

--
Watty
Ireland.
Internet NG posts are often complete drivel. Ignore all above if
irrelvent.

"Watty" wrote in message
...

My philosphical question was why would you want 24 fps and non TV Aspect
ratio unless you are transfering HD video to film. It makes no sense for
display on regular TVs....

because, maybe it's just me, but if you shoot at regular speed - i.e PAL or
NTSC speed, it doesn't look like film at all - it looks like tv.
I hate buying the latest movie from hong kong on dvd, playing it, and
discovering it's shot on video.
if I could shoot at 24fps, i think it would lose that nasty look.


--
Gareth
quote of the day
'nostradamus? -sounds like a rock group to me!'
see my ebay auctions a
http://makeashorterlink.com/?F4B314E61

"The dog from that film you saw" wrote in message
...

makes you wonder why so many shot on video producers use regular tv frame
rates -is it just me or does that make everything totally un-cinematic?

Weren't people moaning about the opposite recently when C4 Brookside moved to a
"cinematic" look, and viewers didn't like it?

Loz