Logo Logo
/// 
XL1s + 16:9

XL1S + 16:9



Frage von Langhaarzottl:
August 2008

I have tried to search ... was synonymous find ...
just be honest ... I do not climb all the way through it ...
and just hope that someone here is me ...
so that can explain themselves' s over-DAU since durchsteigt ...* gg *

So ... I film actually is not only since yesterday ... always Webclips
brav in 4:3 format ... for a maximum display size of 640 pixels
Width ...

Now I have an organizer s.der hand ask me whether I
it is not something ... what film could look like in the "movie-style"
at its Page should appear ... ... in short, he wants 16:9
look on his Page.

I have the clear XL1S ... ... olling Knuddelcam ... but for my Webclips
more than sufficient ... and synonymous the manual says:

16:9 on | off

and synonymous 16:9 "Guidelines show"

As for me right now Kirr is the fact that if I
the 16:9 mode ... do not show 16:9 Guidelines can ...

16:9 or Guidelines can only show ... if the 16:9 mode is disabled ...

I look through the viewfinders, I have the following:

When activated, 16:9 mode, I see (obviously) in 4:3 format
... and the viewfinder is the image stretched 16:9 viewfinder ...

do I disable the 16:9 mode ... and hide the Guidelines an ...
I see a normal 4:3 format ... and the Guidelines ...

For me, this gives the following:

I look through the viewfinders active with 16:9 mode
I see the really captured within the area ...
s.TV displayed typical black bars.

The Guidelines show me the whole "TV" s.and the Guidelines
limit the scope of the black bars "covert" is.

Since I do not know how I premiere in the black bars afterwards
could insert ...
I assume that for my purposes just the 16:9 mode
activated
... I will be in this new Premiere project as 16:9 indicates ...
and then dan as usual can edit.

Liege I right or am I so by the wind that I just everything
durcheinanderwürfle?

Greeting

Zottl



Antwort von Meggs:

As I have understood you, you lying right. You must in all cases the 16:9 mode, not the 16:9 Guidelines.

The Guidelines have the following meaning:
You film in 4:3, but you want to keep open the possibility, in addition to the 4:3 version ne synonymous with the 16:9 version that cut produce. When you shoot it then you need to ensure that the important image elements within the Guidelines are 16:9, or did you cut behind as heads. In English you have no black bars to insert, but you make a 16:9 Project, importierst the 4:3 clip, zoom in on until it is as wide as the preview screen, top and bottom of car is what will be truncated. This approach has the aufzoomen course a loss of resolution.

In your case, however, of a priori clear that there is only a version is 16:9. So you go in the 16:9 mode without the Guidelines, see during the actual recording of the image distorted S.4: 3 display, make a 16:9 in Premiere Project, importierst your 16:9 clip and editing it as normal.



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

Meggen Hi ...

Thanks for your loving support.

I've now just look at the Fast in the living room
tried ... ... and jepp fits.

16:9 On ... ... keep it in the premiere widescreen .... is good ... : o)

Class ... again without great expense 's step forward ...

Thaaanks ... : o)

LG

Zottl








Antwort von B.DeKid:

Hi
I work always with the Guidelines and do always s.Ende the Project.

Find the quality of this way of working better.
MfG
B. DeKid



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

Hmm ... okay ...

just ... how do you cope in the premiere in ... You put an
Mask with the black stripes on the finished s.and cut film?

Greeting

Zottl



Antwort von B.DeKid:

Jup
Also my Meihnung after s.Besten from.
...
At that time, I once read that the XL 1 (S) 16:9 film can not. It should remain at 4:3 and edit later.
Because of the process otherwise the camera takes a better PC gewerkstelligen can / could.

Had my mask on I festgelegt.Fand somehow besser.Ließ partly synonymous me a certain "flexibility" at the top / bottom.

To date gabs regarding sollcher shots / techniques never complaints.

MfG
B. DeKid

PS. I film almost exclusively with the Canon WW 3.4 - 10.2 mm, and zoom up to 10.2 or go I do not synonymous. So although you have to move or new place but, once again I can only speak of my impression is the Picture ..... HAMMER. ;-) No preference whether in 4:3 or 16:9. Cleanest DV resolution.



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

Because I honestly do not like me durchsteige Premiere in the black bars can subsequently insert ...
me and the result yesterday for my purposes has convinced think ...
I so that I will maintain.

Sure ... if the time for something different than a Web-video is used
I will be there umstricken, but since I really only useful for Web's
... the work would have hinhauen.

Nevertheless, many thanks for your help.

[edit]

after recently about ...

it may be that I am just a graphic with the black
Bars on another track ... this must be the whole time
can play ... and even then the actual video content
by "implement" in the "motion area" to move it?

So I could imagine ... : o)

... Only if I in 4:3 format with Guidelines include ...
Picture is not just stretched?

That would not really establish myself. When I 16:9
Format ... I have in the finished video
no perceived bias ... but the feeling
really 16:9 s.Monitor to see.

Greeting

Zottl



Antwort von B.DeKid:

Yes it is another track with bar halt.

Or Hilfslinen be displayed on average.

The 4:3 is 16:9 as the only 576 in the Width Height only the changes of 756 yes to 720. Since nothing is distorted.

So S.4: 3 TV here siehts 16:9 after holding out. Have the recordings been synonymous TV s.Plasma devices synonymous seen there looks good.

...............

But as you already said, if you are with the 16:9 mode is clearly kommst ja alles in butter.

MfG
B. DeKid



Antwort von Meggs:

"B. DeKid" wrote:

I work always with the Guidelines and do always s.Ende the Project.

Find the quality of this way of working better.


If they did not. You definitely lose this s.Resolution.



Antwort von Marco:

Resolutionverliert he already synonymous with the internal pseudo-16 :9-mode XL1S, which is nothing more than an extended Letterbox formerly with only 432 lines Resolutionist. As long as the Postpro used in the scaler does a good job, you can not give away when it's only later will be created.

Marco



Antwort von Meggs:

Does not quite so. The XL1S delivers in anamorphic 16:9 mode Picture, no letterbox. The pixels on the chip is not really rich from. You really are not times for a 4:3 picture from Pal. But the XL1S is working with Pixel Shift and interpolated very cleverly, as it is today, many HD camcorder (eg Panasonic) make synonymous. At the end, the anamorphic 16:9 Picture Resolution by more than a later interpolation in Postpro.
BDeKid proposes letterbox so directly before, so faded black bars, but nowhere is what scales exceeding the very end when zooming on the 16:9 television, with the worst security solution.



Antwort von B.DeKid:

So I see the synonymous. So prefer to 4:3 and Guidelines can be displayed and subsequently to 16:9 change.








Antwort von Marco:

My tip would be, from mathematics and technology in the background werkelt, no philosophy, but the practical synonymous circumstances into account. Therefore, I would personally, if the time in the Postpro for such games is available, the subsequent scaling prefer since it synonymous nor the cutout can be optimized.

I want it not too far into the intestines, but if the XL1S still regard 16:9 to work as the XL1, then it is nothing next as a letterbox, the internal again stretched vertically so that it is finally anamorph recorded. What technical gimmicks to potter is more zweitranging, because very much anyway, the quality is not enough. Produce high-quality 16:9 Who wants to be first of a completely different camera access.

Marco



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

Hi Marco,

certainly is more than the XL1S old ... but there are 2 points I s.denen
I firmly believe:

1. I love this camera ... and am his years with the part of happy and satisfied.

2. I work for's web with a width of 600 pixels.

Under the circumstances, makes with the quality of the coal may not be as
fett ... : o)

I can understand your objections certainly understand ... but as long as at
I s.der nature of the images (especially for Web's) nothing will change ...
I will not stop there.

Click here almost like I just about this little clip for the 16:9 Optics
quickly and easily reach ... without brutal Pixel-Peeping for
operate ... : o)

Greeting

Zottl



Antwort von Marco:

It is already clear to me. That's why I think it is absolutely synonymous ok, if the 16:9 only in the Postpro created. I work even more often with the predecessor, the XL-1.

Marco



Antwort von Meggs:

"Marco" wrote:
My tip would be, from mathematics and technology in the background werkelt, no philosophy, but the practical synonymous circumstances into account.


Practically, I can at the XL1S not really judge. The XM2 any case, the same modes (16:9 and 4:3 with 16:9 Guidelines). And here is the anamorphic 16:9 mode sharper detail and richer.



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

Actually I was quite satisfied with the test I in the domestic
Living room had carried out AAAAB ... ... ... I think I come
not around me the whole thing again anzutun order in 4:3 format film times and to test how it works with the faded Guidelines
to work in Premiere and then to convert to 16:9 ...

For my purposes, the first result was enough ... let's see what
the difference is ... if I only s.Calculator create the 16:9 ...

Greeting

Zottl



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

And again I am on the whole something came next ...

Attempt number 2 was now a compilation of several recordings 4:3
which I then premiere in 16:9've packed-post ...
PSD file with the black stripes drübergelegt ... and of course
the video material on the appropriate size placed ...

Here I must clearly establish that the picture quality to me premiere
... spends in direct contrast to the 16:9 recordings with the XL1S ...
definitely worse ...
and of course requires more work ...

For me, it is clear here is the conclusion that if I 16:9 in future
Material ... I would like to spend it directly on the camera handle
will ... no words ... Guidelines in 4:3 format but displayed ...
drekt 16:9 recording.

The workflow easier for me ... the time savings is immense ...
clear ... I have no room every intersection within the black
Bars to move ... but I think movies that I'm fit enough mathematically
to know what I was recording ...

Of I will therefore for the next Webclips this type of production
for me to think ...

I would without question for anything s.TV probably be shown next
for the ideal opportunity ... looking for our clip, however, I am
Now That's probably where I hinwollte ... and have the certainty that I
with the XL1S can do exactly what the customer wants.

I would like to thank everyone here and I have latched your
Knowledge and tips have to remove.

Greeting

Zottl



Antwort von Meggs:

"Langhaarzottl" wrote:

Here I must clearly establish that the picture quality to me premiere
... spends in direct contrast to the 16:9 recordings with the XL1S ...
definitely worse ...
and of course requires more work ...


Your findings are in line with my - at the XM2 is exactly the same way.
With the Guidelines, while more flexible, but has the worst outcome.



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

This allows you my findings in 2 pack sets ...* gg *

... looked so ... and so in the future will gewurschtelt ... : o)

LG

Zottl



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

And again, I must in the thread here ... People News : o)

Last weekend was the big day ... and it came like it had come ...
completely differently than planned.

The pictures set with light brought me pure horror ...
the quality of the XL1S in 16:9 mode on the series were given
but not what we in comparison to the living room had ...

In short ... who's responsible for web clips in good quality wishes
does not come around at 4:3 and subsequently incorporated ...
black bars must be set.

16:9 The Guidelines are a good help ... with my bar
Video for the "free hand" had set ...

and this can be even less scope for material's actual ...
Therefore, the organizer of the tongue with geschnalzt ... when he first
Results to view it.

Why in the first tests of the impression arose that the XL1S better "converts"
when the calculator is unclear to me ... just looked good ...
but ultimately can not be compared ... : o (

So remember ... in the future to invest more work ... and then still stuck purely handmade ...
but a super nice present result ... : o)

Greeting

Zottl








Antwort von Meggs:

"Langhaarzottl" wrote:

In short ... who's responsible for web clips in good quality wishes
does not come around at 4:3 and subsequently incorporated ...
black bars must be set.


How are you to believe that these specific shots in 4:3 letterbox would be better? Do you have it out?



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

I have tried the following options:

once with 4:3 displays Guidelines and post-processing
in Premiere

and recording in 16:9 mode (the XL1S do not actually showing)

One must say that I ... ... to the ultimate result to come
no 4:3 material to 16:9 have inflated ...
but only the 4:3 screen it by black bars restrain ...

it seems as if the the XL1S with the only acceptable option
... is to contribute to this qualitative result to come ...

Greeting

Zottl



Antwort von Meggs:

If your video clip now as 4:3 with black bars on the Internet?

As already mentioned next - the XL1S's nothing I can say. The XM2 is certainly the 16:9 recording much better than 4:3 letterbox. You can virtually try it and it is technically understandable. I am amazed already, that the XL1S to be different. What would the 16:9 mode, then for a purpose? It is inflexible set to 16:9, and then synonymous nor a worse picture.



Antwort von Langhaarzottl:

Just ... just a black bar "circumcised" 4:3 Recording ...

Strangely the test was in the living room
(under low light conditions) the result on the first
Look "acceptable" ...

than we s.Wochenende then viewed the first pictures
We were shocked more than ...
quality is absolutely not usable ...

we showed the clips to the organizer ... and he said now ...
synonymous that if the property only as a Webclip be published
in "this" quality have no value.

So we have set up new 4:3 format ... and stop in retrospect
the black bars drübergepackt ...

It may be the thing to see ... and like you say ...
it was synonymous with us ... we were of 16:9 used "out of the Cam
more than disappointed.

Since we now know that we are so synonymous with our results
solls us right ... and will be synonymous in the future, halt wenns because geforderta
is ... with the same procedure ...

I would like to link to the pictures ... but I still can not ...
since these have not yet been released to the ...
in the next few days, I can but then if you are interested to do ...

Greeting

Zottl



Antwort von Meggs:

What exactly was so bad in the 16:9 recordings? The sharpness? The colors? Grieseln?



Antwort von B.DeKid:

"Megger" wrote:
What exactly was so bad in the 16:9 recordings? ......


Everything ;-)

Said, but - with the XL1S Guidelines should be 4:3 in the procedure used. It is and remains a "no 16:9 Camera.

MfG
B. DeKid



Antwort von B.DeKid:

Gude boys and girls

Sorry that I am the thread again excavate

We discuss here just

- How wide is a pixel in LetterBox say the black bars?

- Which Softwear scaling brings the best qualities with itself, when video footage of 133.3% would like to scale the highest (; or higher)

PLEASE answer or a link with info

Output was the question whether it 4:3 with letterbox which can then order it separately or in 16:9 HDV or HD speed / scaling can

to comb then just how wide a bar is and what Softwear / script / plugin s.besten to be suitable.

MfG
B. DeKid


The bar had Powermac had written something - ie their pixel width - but now I find no more.

EDIT: Even I do not question always 4:3 with effects and etc. and then I was then perhaps in a different format .... now asked my friend if there was no better example, the format of 4:3 to 16:9 to convert and then edit it?



Antwort von Meggs:

The letterbox is as wide as the video. In other words SD 720 pixels.
The inflation on HD is always modest. Already inflating to SD-16: 9 is not so great (vertical resolution loss in comparison to real 16:9).
I would be with Premiere and possibly try a few filters.



Antwort von B.DeKid:

Thank you

So we could agree.

4:3 interlaced material in the process as a reference letterbox mask drüber

When everything is finished, the material can be either 4:3 with letterbox output or if it is desired to inflate 16:9.
And it deinterlace for web - that is IMO the best way s.saubersten effect and is good.

MfG
B. DeKid
























weitere Themen:
Spezialthemen


16:9
ARD
AVCHD
AVI
Adobe After Effects
Adobe Premiere Pro
After effects
Apple Final Cut Pro
Audio
Avid
Avid Media Composer
Cam
Camcorder
Camera
Canon
Capture
Capturing
Clip
EOS
Editing
Effect
Error
Export
File
Files
Film
Final Cut
Format
Formate
HDR
Import
JVC
Layer
Light
MAGIX video deLuxe
Magix
Microphone
Monitor
Movie
PC
Panasonic
Pinnacle
Pinnacle Studio
Player
Premiere
RAM
RED
Recording
Red
Software
Sony
Sound
Studio
TV
Tape
Video
Videos