Switch to widescreen?

[Star Video]

Some of you may already know, I have a 4:3 digibeta camera. I have two clients I shoot this format for, and I got the camera for a ridiculously low price (I guess since it was 4:3)

Whenever I get calls from other non-regular clients for the format (which is not very often, I usually get called for SP), one time I got asked if it shoots 16:9, but we shot 4:3 anyway, and the other time was for PAL, so I had to rent.

I was wondering if I sold this one and bought a widescreen version, without spending extra money, or very little extra money, would it be worth the investment this late in the ballgame? My other two cameras, my Z1U (which shoots PAL), and my D-35, both do 16:9. Should I make my 3rd camera widescreen as well? Would this be wise for the future and make my company more marketable? Or, since I shoot with it for one client regularly and the other semi-regularly, i'm just wasting my time thinking about this? I'm not sure, it seems nice to say I can do widescreen for everything...

[PHX Shooter]

What's the final destination for the video? Is it still going to be shown on 4:3 NTSC screens? If so, just letterbox in post. I don't see the need to buy another camera if you already have a D-35 w/16:9, just shoot it with that. If you are going to buy another camera, HD seems to be the only sensible option as the spec is 16:9 anyway.

I think you should check out an HDV handycam for your pro shoots, they're great!


(Just kiddding, I said that to piss off Warren and Nino :-P)

[Canonman]

I think you should check out an HDV handycam for your pro shoots, they're great!

Did you not read that he has a Sony Z1U?

[Ruff]

Just take a look at what your clients or potential clients are watching your footage on. If they have big 50" widescreen plasmas in the boardroom, or at home... it may make sense to shoot widescreen. If there is little cost in making the change, I would do it. DigiBeta is still a great format.

Cheers,

Ben Ruffell
Cameraman
www.ruff.co.nz

[Star Video]

Well, the main client is the producer of Your House and Home, a syndicated TV show, for SD broadcast. I don't even edit it...yet.

The second gig is doing stories for Retirement Living TV Network, which is also standard def 4:3, just cable.

[Run&Gun]

If you can make the swap for little or no money, I don't see the harm, you're more versatile, and hopefully, more marketable, then. Like Ruff said, digi is still good format, but this is a weird time, where cameras and formats are concerned. When I bought my D-50WS a couple of years ago, I went with the widescreen switchable version so that I could be more versatile, and I was thinking that people would at least start acquiring in 16:9 so that the down the road, the SD footage shot now, could be more easily used with true HD footage. But in the 3 years or so that I've had the camera, I've only shot with it in 16:9, 2 maybe 3, times. Heck the four days that I did with my Varicam this week were still 4:3 center-cut and two more were 4:3 Beta. Even shooting HD, you can't get away from 4:3...:mad:

[Mike]

Much like Run&Gun, when I got my first BVW-D600, I got the WS version for the same reason. To this day, I think I have switched to 16:9 while on an assignment only ONCE. But, 99% of my work is network news and news magazine work, so it doesn't surprise me. The key is to anticipate your clients' needs. If you did the type of work I do, I would say, don't do it. Remember, your angle of view is amplified by 20% on your lens if you do not have a switchable lens...it will make a difference. Remember, as good as Digi-Beta is, it is not a "new" format that people will most likely be changing to, so if your clients don't need it now, I would stick with a camera that you know is in good condition.

The bottom line is that your client base will dictate what camera you need, so look to them.

--Mike

[joecam147]

Dont do it, DigiBeta is just slightly ahead of Beta SP on the road to extinction. Sure you still use it but for how long ? Sell what you have if people want 16X9 SD.

[Stoney]

Just rent it. Not many people ever ask for SD in 16:9 unless it is for DV footage (DVCam, DVX, etc.).

The exception to that is in the PAL world, where I think most Digibeta footage is shot in 16:9. I own a PAL DVW790wsp camera and I love it. I bought it for a long term client that is in Australia but shoots in the US. It paid for itself but is sort of a lame-duck now that job is over. Occasionally, a PAL client gets referred to me but not very often. It's always 16:9 when it happens.

Ironically, I had a shoot last week that used my D35ws BetaSP in 16x9 but they would have been just as happy to have a Prosumer camera in 16:9... which I don't own... but have access to for free. Still, I would rather use what I like... and they paid for it.

I am starting to feel like the D35 is a clunky dinosaur. It's so heavy and is hard to shoot with since I have been on the PAL Digi and PDW F350 for most of the last year.

[dhart]

I have a 4:3 D 600. In the few times the client requested 16:9 I just mask off the monitor to a 16:9 aspect ratio. The client uses a black wipe during post-production. Problem solved. This whole "transition" to 16:9/Hi Def" is a mess. My advise is don't do anything until your clients start really asking for it. Doesn't really pay to get ahead of the curve.

[Canonman]

I have a 4:3 D 600. In the few times the client requested 16:9 I just mask off the monitor to a 16:9 aspect ratio. The client uses a black wipe during post-production. Problem solved.

You take a resolution hit by doing it that way. A true 16:9 camera will maintain the full vertical resolution and the client can still letterbox the 16:9 but have a higher quality image to work from. Maybe you don't care, just an FYI.

The other option that one could use if they had 4:3 only and got occasional requests for widescreen would be to rent a high quality anamorphic adapter for the front of the lens. It will squish everything in the viewfinder image but when flagged as anamorphic in the NLE, it will appear in widescreen without the loss of vertical resolution. A switchable production monitor would also show the image correctly.

cm

[Star Video]

That's true, however, when I watch TV on my 16:9 Panasonic 32" HDTV, and I watch SD programs, both broacast and satellite, all of the SD 16:9 is still letterboxed and shown on a 4:3 screen, not on the full size of the screen. Even on the digital channels, I see digital 16:9, but still on a 4:3 screen, unless it's HD, which fills the screen.

Seeing as both of my clients shoot 4:3, with rarely any other clients asking for digibeta (and when they do, it's usually still 4:3), it doesn't seem wise to switch. Besides, my lens is non-switchable to deal with widescreen, so i'm not loosing my maximum wide shot by center-punching the 16:9 chips to shoot 4:3. My wide-shots are ever-so important, especially since I shoot a home improvement show!

Also, seeing as I have a D35 widescreen, with beta and dv backs, plus a z1U, my clients have a widescreen SD option anyway. (The only cameras I ever rent are HDCAM and Varicam) So, I think i'm fine this way.

Thanks for your input!

[Run&Gun]

That's true, however, when I watch TV on my 16:9 Panasonic 32" HDTV, and I watch SD programs, both broacast and satellite, all of the SD 16:9 is still letterboxed and shown on a 4:3 screen, not on the full size of the screen. Even on the digital channels, I see digital 16:9, but still on a 4:3 screen, unless it's HD, which fills the screen.



That's because it's still a 4:3 picture that the TV is receiving. The bars are actually part of the picture(frame) being broadcast(I don't know anyone broadcasting 16:9 SD), not like on some DVD's (depending on the aspect ratio) where the bars are actually generated by the DVD player itself to display properly on a 4:3 set. There's probably some type of "zoom" function on the TV that will blow the picture up and minimize the "bars", but you'll sacrifice picture quality(by blowing it up and/or stretching it to fit the screen or by other similar means) and it probably won't eliminate them entirely. On mine, I just watch 4:3 content in 4:3 and HD content in 16:9(I believe I have my set, set to detect the aspect ratio automaticaly), I can't stand watching a picture being displayed in it's improper aspect ratio, it looks like crap. A 4:3 image just becomes so "flat" when it's stretched to 16:9.

[dhart]

You take a resolution hit by doing it that way. A true 16:9 camera will maintain the full vertical resolution and the client can still letterbox the 16:9 but have a higher quality image to work from. Maybe you don't care, just an FYI.

The other option that one could use if they had 4:3 only and got occasional requests for widescreen would be to rent a high quality anamorphic adapter for the front of the lens. It will squish everything in the viewfinder image but when flagged as anamorphic in the NLE, it will appear in widescreen without the loss of vertical resolution. A switchable production monitor would also show the image correctly.

cm


All of what you say is true, but come watch some TV @ my house on my new HD tuner. 4:3 stretched out to 16:9, now that's some good looking video. Yeah, I know I can watch it 4:3 but that's not how the family likes it. Not to mention the awsome amount of bandwidth DirecTV devotes to everyone of their 999 SD channels.

I work the middle of the market and quite frankly the quality of the picture is not the producers number one concern (it's mainly getting back to airport to make their flight out of our little burg :-)

[Canonman]

All of what you say is true, but come watch some TV @ my house on my new HD tuner. 4:3 stretched out to 16:9, now that's some good looking video.

Dennis,

I was not advocating watching 4:3 material stretched out to 16:9 that was shot as 4:3. That looks like total crap and there are some channels doing it here in DFW (not the main networks, they pillar box 4:3 but send out a 16:9 signal). On my HDTV, I have a format control, but it's disabled when watching digital OTA. The aspect ratio is set in the digital stream and is therefore not user adjustable.

What I WAS referring to is a lens adapter that will allow a native 4:3 camera to shoot an image that can later be viewed in widescreen without distortion. The image will be captured during acquisition (horizontally squeezed) into the camera and when later stretched out, will appear normal. It's how they created Cinemascope from 35mm in the old days. The projector had to be fitted with a lens that stretched the 35mm frame so that it matched what the camera shot. In today's world, that back end transformation happens in the NLE.

cm