Hello everyone! The last contact I had with this group regarded asking
for some guidance around dedicated home video software. I have now
taken the plunge and opted for Adobe Premier Elements 3.0. I have
installed this and launched for the first time.

On the settings tab on the first window that opens, I am asked to
select between two ratios (one being widescren). I think the other is
4.3 aspect ratio. My question is which setting? I normally use a
widescreen TV. what I am not sure about is the capture ratio of my
camcorder. I posess a Sony Handycam DCR/HC35E. I have looked at the
manual briefly and it appears that I can select either option. I
suspect that this depends whether I use the Easy Handycam mode or
not.

I have not had much opportunity recently to start shooting and editing
and I am generally at the complete novice stage at the moment! I am
looking forward to learning about this new found hobby and trust that
with you guys behind me - things will be a bit less daunting!

Any help will be gratefuly received.

melianbriggs

"melianbriggs" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello everyone! The last contact I had with this group regarded asking
for some guidance around dedicated home video software. I have now
taken the plunge and opted for Adobe Premier Elements 3.0. I have
installed this and launched for the first time.

On the settings tab on the first window that opens, I am asked to
select between two ratios (one being widescren). I think the other is
4.3 aspect ratio. My question is which setting? I normally use a
widescreen TV. what I am not sure about is the capture ratio of my
camcorder. I posess a Sony Handycam DCR/HC35E. I have looked at the
manual briefly and it appears that I can select either option. I
suspect that this depends whether I use the Easy Handycam mode or
not.

I have not had much opportunity recently to start shooting and editing
and I am generally at the complete novice stage at the moment! I am
looking forward to learning about this new found hobby and trust that
with you guys behind me - things will be a bit less daunting!

Try both, and see which you like best. Whatever you do, maintain the same
aspect ratio through shooting, editing, burning and viewing.

If you shoot 4:3, you'll get the best detail, as that's the native aspect
ratio of your camera. You'll get black sidebars when viewing, though (unless
your TV stretches the 4:3 footage to file a 16:9 screen).

If you shoot 16:9, or if you crop your 4:3 footage to 16:9 during the edit,
you'll lose detail.

The *only* way to get full detail for both aspect ratios without changing
cameras is to use an anamorphic lens.

In message , G Hardy
writes
If you shoot 16:9, or if you crop your 4:3 footage to 16:9 during the edit,
you'll lose detail.

The *only* way to get full detail for both aspect ratios without changing
cameras is to use an anamorphic lens.



.... or a camera with a "true" 16:9 mode, ie it's got all the pixels
needed to capture the 16:9 image, and isn't just stretching a lesser set
of pixels to do it. SOME little, recent Sony camcorders do this; many
more serious ones do; but not all!
--
David Pearson

"David Pearson" wrote in message

In message, G Hardy writes

If you shoot 16:9, or if you crop your 4:3 footage to 16:9 during the
edit,
you'll lose detail.

The *only* way to get full detail for both aspect ratios without changing
cameras is to use an anamorphic lens.

... or a camera with a "true" 16:9 mode, ie it's got all the pixels needed
to capture the 16:9 image, and isn't just stretching a lesser set of
pixels to do it. SOME little, recent Sony camcorders do this; many more
serious ones do; but not all!

I did say "full detail for both aspect ratios".

If you have a 16:9 CCD, then your 4:3 footage will crop the left/right of
the image, losing quality.

In message , G Hardy
writes
"David Pearson" wrote in message

In message, G Hardy writes

If you shoot 16:9, or if you crop your 4:3 footage to 16:9 during the
edit,
you'll lose detail.

The *only* way to get full detail for both aspect ratios without changing
cameras is to use an anamorphic lens.

... or a camera with a "true" 16:9 mode, ie it's got all the pixels needed
to capture the 16:9 image, and isn't just stretching a lesser set of
pixels to do it. SOME little, recent Sony camcorders do this; many more
serious ones do; but not all!

I did say "full detail for both aspect ratios".

If you have a 16:9 CCD, then your 4:3 footage will crop the left/right of
the image, losing quality.

I'm not sure if that's the case.

Consider the 'norm' of 720 x 576 (achieving a 4:3 ratio).
By my calculations that works out at 720 x 576 px = 414,720 px.

It varies from camcorder to camcorder, but (for example) my DCR-TRV80E
comes with 2.1 Mpx CCD. This obviously gives a huge overhead when only
414,720 px is used. Even very low-end camcorders come with 800 Kpx.

If we extrapolate to a 16:9 widescreen image, we're then talking
1024 x 576 to achieve the same resolution., i.e. 1024 x 576 = 589,824
px. Even with our low-end camcorder with an 800 Kpx CCD then there's
still an appreciable overhead.

Obviously in practice the camcorder's DSP uses all the available CCD
pixels by interpolation to give the best possible resolution. But the
bottom line is that there are more than sufficient CCD pixels to resolve
both 16:9 and 4:3 display ratios - so why should there be a drop in
resolution.

In practice with my 80E, shooting in WS (16:9) and in 4:3 show no
discernible drop in resolution - at least not to my tired old eyes :-)

Having said all that, all the MiniDV camcorder specs/reviews that I've
seen seem to quote between 510 and 520 lines resolution - both for 4:3
and for 16:9. So the limiting factor seems to be the media (i.e.
MiniDV). And since the line resolution is in the horizontal axis, it
seems to suggest that whether 16:9 or 4:3, there's no difference.

If my logic is flawed perhaps you can point out just where it falls
down?

But to the OP, the answer has already been given - if he shoots at 4:3,
then he should edit and produce his video at 4:3 - if he shoots at 16:9
then he should edit and produce his video at 16:9. And the 'banding' L/R
or top/bottom will depend on the aspect ratio of his TV screen (or his
PC display).

--
Tony Morgan

On Feb 2, 10:44 pm, Tony Morgan wrote:
In message , G Hardy
writes



"David Pearson" wrote in message

In message, G Hardy writes

If you shoot 16:9, or if you crop your 4:3 footage to 16:9 during the
edit,
you'll lose detail.

The *only* way to get full detail for both aspect ratios without changing
cameras is to use an anamorphic lens.

... or a camera with a "true" 16:9 mode, ie it's got all the pixels needed
to capture the 16:9 image, and isn't just stretching a lesser set of
pixels to do it. SOME little, recent Sony camcorders do this; many more
serious ones do; but not all!

I did say "full detail for both aspect ratios".

If you have a 16:9 CCD, then your 4:3 footage will crop the left/right of
the image, losing quality.

I'm not sure if that's the case.

Consider the 'norm' of 720 x 576 (achieving a 4:3 ratio).
By my calculations that works out at 720 x 576 px = 414,720 px.

It varies from camcorder to camcorder, but (for example) my DCR-TRV80E
comes with 2.1 Mpx CCD. This obviously gives a huge overhead when only
414,720 px is used. Even very low-end camcorders come with 800 Kpx.

If we extrapolate to a 16:9 widescreen image, we're then talking
1024 x 576 to achieve the same resolution., i.e. 1024 x 576 = 589,824
px. Even with our low-end camcorder with an 800 Kpx CCD then there's
still an appreciable overhead.

Obviously in practice the camcorder's DSP uses all the available CCD
pixels by interpolation to give the best possible resolution. But the
bottom line is that there are more than sufficient CCD pixels to resolve
both 16:9 and 4:3 display ratios - so why should there be a drop in
resolution.

In practice with my 80E, shooting in WS (16:9) and in 4:3 show no
discernible drop in resolution - at least not to my tired old eyes :-)

Having said all that, all the MiniDV camcorder specs/reviews that I've
seen seem to quote between 510 and 520 lines resolution - both for 4:3
and for 16:9. So the limiting factor seems to be the media (i.e.
MiniDV). And since the line resolution is in the horizontal axis, it
seems to suggest that whether 16:9 or 4:3, there's no difference.

If my logic is flawed perhaps you can point out just where it falls
down?

But to the OP, the answer has already been given - if he shoots at 4:3,
then he should edit and produce his video at 4:3 - if he shoots at 16:9
then he should edit and produce his video at 16:9. And the 'banding' L/R
or top/bottom will depend on the aspect ratio of his TV screen (or his
PC display).

--
Tony Morgan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hello again. I wondered if anyone may posess a Sony Handycam DCRHC35E
and if so is there a way of switching 16.9 aspect ratio on and off? It
mentions something in the user guide regarding this but I found it a
bit confusing! What is "letterbox" and basicaly if I want to view in
widescreen (my tv is widescreen) and edit my footage/create DVDs in
widescreen (using adobe premier elements 3.0) having first selected
this option, what setting should I use initially on my camcorder -
assuming this "setting" exists?

regards melianbriggs

"Tony Morgan" wrote in message
...
In message , G Hardy
writes
"David Pearson" wrote in message

In message, G Hardy writes

If you shoot 16:9, or if you crop your 4:3 footage to 16:9 during the
edit,
you'll lose detail.

The *only* way to get full detail for both aspect ratios without
changing
cameras is to use an anamorphic lens.

... or a camera with a "true" 16:9 mode, ie it's got all the pixels
needed
to capture the 16:9 image, and isn't just stretching a lesser set of
pixels to do it. SOME little, recent Sony camcorders do this; many
more
serious ones do; but not all!

I did say "full detail for both aspect ratios".

If you have a 16:9 CCD, then your 4:3 footage will crop the left/right of
the image, losing quality.

I'm not sure if that's the case.

Consider the 'norm' of 720 x 576 (achieving a 4:3 ratio).
By my calculations that works out at 720 x 576 px = 414,720 px.

It varies from camcorder to camcorder, but (for example) my DCR-TRV80E
comes with 2.1 Mpx CCD. This obviously gives a huge overhead when only
414,720 px is used. Even very low-end camcorders come with 800 Kpx.

If we extrapolate to a 16:9 widescreen image, we're then talking
1024 x 576 to achieve the same resolution., i.e. 1024 x 576 = 589,824 px.
Even with our low-end camcorder with an 800 Kpx CCD then there's still an
appreciable overhead.

There's a very slight flaw in your maths, because you're mixing square and
nonsquare pixels. Extrapolating 720x576 at 4:3 to a 16:9 equivalent gives
960x576.


Obviously in practice the camcorder's DSP uses all the available CCD
pixels by interpolation to give the best possible resolution. But the
bottom line is that there are more than sufficient CCD pixels to resolve
both 16:9 and 4:3 display ratios - so why should there be a drop in
resolution.

For DV or DVD cameras, the number of pixels is a red herring. If you have
more than 720x576, they will be sampled down. Ideally, as you state, the
sampling should take place after the crop (although the cynic in me wonders
if this happens, because it's cheaper* to crop after the sampling).

The statement I made is very much subjective - a bit like saying that a DVD
encoded at 7mbps will be better quality than the same footage at 6.5mbps. A
high pixel count CCD on a video camera will most likely be a 4:3 aspect
ratio. Assuming that's true, and assuming square pixels, a 2.1MP CCD equates
to 1673x1255px. For 4:3 footage that works out at 5 CCD pixel samples per
DVD pixel output. To get the best 16:9 footage out of the same CCD, you'd
only be using 1673x941px - which when translated to DVD resolution works out
at 3.8 CCD pixel samples per DVD pixel output.

The same is true if you start with a 16:9 ratio CCD, but it's the 4:3 mode
that "loses" quality. The figures work out differently if you use the actual
resolution of the CCD rather than my "worked back" figures that are based on
2.1MP, they are also different if your CCD has nonsquare pixels, but the
principle is the same.

So that's the basis of saying that the only way to get equal quality between
4:3 and 16:9 footage recorded using the same CCD is to use bendy glass on
the front of the camera, not electronics within it... That way you're using
_all_ of the CCD (whatever its dimensions) to record _both_ aspects.


* I'm working from a basis of assumption & ignorance, but the maths holds
true. For example, I've assumed (as you have) that the camera companies will
attempt to use all of the CCD output to its best. I reckon it's cheaper to
sample a big CCD down to 720x576 and then crop the resulting video to
widescreen because the routines already exist in older cameras to crop
footage of that size.