How to flag 4:3 MPEG file to 16:9 (1 Viewer)

[John_Berger]

Recently, Sonic sent me a copy of DVDit Professional Edition 2.5.2 which supports the writing of 16:9 Enhanced DVDs. This is a God-send for me because my old Sony 8mm camcorder performs true anamorphic recording, and I want to convert some of those videos to 16:9 DVDs.

Unfortunately, the software that I use (Ulead's Media Studio Pro) has no way that I know of to flag files as anamorphic. So, even thought the video image is 16:9, the recorded file is flagged as 4:3. As such, any files that I import to DVDit under 16:9 are rejected.

I've looked for something that might help to reset the 4:3 flag to 16:9, but I can't seem to find anything. Does anyone know what could do this?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Your camcorder does not do TRUE 16:9

It's a 4:3 CCD that masks off and blows up a 16:9 area and performs the anamorphic squish. You lose a LOT of resolution(as much as you gain with a true anamorphic title)

You probably need a plugin for premiere, or a new MPEG-2 encoder. Also check the DVD-It readme files.

 

[John_Berger]

Your camcorder does not do TRUE 16:9

Sorry, Jeff, but I'm afraid that my Sony CCD-TRV52 8mm analog camcorder does do true anamorphic compression. I've performed multiple visual tests with targets like stages, outdoor scenery, and so forth. There is no loss on the top and bottom and I do gain extra information on the side.
Needless to say I was very pissed off when shopping for a new digital camcorder that they all do what you're referring to. I even sent Sony and JVC a snot-gram accusing them of false advertising for calling it "widescreen" when it's not. But I can assure you that my little ol' 8mm does do true anamorphic compression.
Regardless, I don't use Abode premiere, but since my initial post I (finally) found some places that mention that Premiere can do a 16:9 project. I'm guessing that this might be what I want, so I'll look into it.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

John: Adobe offers a 30-day fully functional preview of Premiere from their website (or atleast they did). Check it out and see if it does what you want. Premiere is a pretty pricey program... make sure it's what you want first.

 

[Dave Preston]

No "old 8mm camcorder" performs true 16:9 shooting. Yes the image is in the 16:9 aspect ratio and anamorphically squished, but it is not truly anamorphic. To do this, you need an anamorphic lens or a camera with 16:9 CCD's. These are only found on very high end cameras.

If you want to flag your footage as 16:9 anamorphic, I suggest you use Final Cut Pro for editing.

 

[John_Berger]

No "old 8mm camcorder" performs true 16:9 shooting. Yes the image is in the 16:9 aspect ratio and anamorphically squished, but it is not truly anamorphic. To do this, you need an anamorphic lens or a camera with 16:9 CCD's. These are only found on very high end cameras.

Okay, I'm going off topic, but that's okay because my curiosity is killing me now.

My camcorder provides 16:9 with more visual information than the false 16:9 provided with current camcorders. Since I am getting anamorphic compression AND I'm truly getting more visual information, then how does that qualify as not being "truly" anamorphic? Just because it doesn't yield 2.35:1???

 

[GregK]

Regarding 16X9, there's three ways of doing it in video:
1)Electronic 16x9 This is when the pick up device is
1.33:1. For 16x9, it simply recomposes (crops and yes
wastes some pixels) the 1.33:1 pick up device for 1.78:1.
Is it ideal? No. Is it nice if you have a 16x9 set, or
if shooting for 16x9 is real important? IMHO: yes.
2)Anamorphic 16x9 This is a small attachment that
applies the anamorphic squeeze before the pick up
device, so in this case no pixels are wasted. A co-worker
with the number of 3-chip cameras owns one of these lenes
and after A/B'ing it to Electronic 16X9, finds it superior.
3-Chip cameras do seem to do Electronic 16X9 better than
single chips, but the anamorphic lens of course wastes no
pixels.
3)A True 16x9 Pickup Device ..In this case the CCDs
or alternate form of pick-up device are optimized for 16x9.
These, as far as I'm aware of, are still limited to pro-
fessional uses, and have the downside of no longer being
optimized for 1.33:1. Of course if it's a HDTV camera,
there's more lines (pixels) to work with, so a down-
conversion when shooting for 1.33:1 works out better.

 

[John_Berger]

Hmmm... Intriguing. Based on what you've said, I don't really know that this model camcoder fits into any of the three categories.

It could be electronic, but there's no cropping involved. It really is widescreen.

I doubt it's anamorphic.

It's possible, all be it remotely, that it's 16x9 pickup because I've noticed that the 4x3 results are a bit granier than previous camcorders I've owned, but it's obviously not a professional camera. Since I only recent got a 16x9 TV and becase I'm the only one in my family to have one, I never really played with the 16x9 function of the camcorder for "compatibility" with other family members. I should start playing with it to see whether the image is better in 16x9 or 4x3.

Food for thought. Thanks!

 

[Troy LaMont]

John,
I do believe that you're camera falls into category 1 as outlined by GregK's post. I have a $2,000 Sony mini-DV camcorder that does anamorphic widescreen, but it isn't TRUE anamorphic and you do lose pixels when in 16:9 mode.

If you want to flag your footage as 16:9 anamorphic, I suggest you use Final Cut Pro for editing.

I'm not sure if John specified what editing system was being used, but it sounds like a PC (especially given that DVDit!, isn't available for the MAC). In that case, Final Cut Pro would be of not value because it isn't available on the PC side.
Troy

 

[GerardoHP]

I do believe that you're camera falls into category 1 as outlined by GregK's post. I have a $2,000 Sony mini-DV camcorder that does anamorphic widescreen, but it isn't TRUE anamorphic and you do lose pixels when in 16:9 mode.

What's the difference between the anamorphic widescreen your camera does and true anamorphic?

 

[John_Berger]

What's the difference between the anamorphic widescreen your camera does and true anamorphic?

I'm having difficulty with their explanations as well. I am not losing pixel resolution on my camera. I am retaining the same pixel resolution but I am getting an anamorphic-style compression that is allowing me to also see what would be off the sides of a 4:3 frame.
My camcorder doesn't do that ridiculous cropping of the top and bottom, then expanding the image vertically to fake 16:9. Every digital camcorder that I looked does this fake 16:9 mode, which of course will result in a loss of pixels because the camera is just stretching the vertical resolution. I do understand that analogy.
However, I am not talking about digital camcorder. Everyone seems to think that it is or else they're comparing it with digital CCDs. It is NOT. It's an ANALOG 8mm (not even Hi-8)camcorder. The number of pixel resolution on the tape is the same under 16:9 recording as it is under 4:3, so I'm also trying to figure where this distinction is.
It's starting to look more and more like the potential resale value of my camcorder is going up and up. From what everyone else is saying, my camcorder should not be able to do what it is doing! I might have one of those diamonds in the rough.

 

[Brian-W]

Bottom line is Sony nor any other company has ever offered a consumer or pro-sumer camcorder (VHS->DV) that has 16:9 CCDs. There was one camera produced by RCA that had 16:9 CCDs and was shown at CES back in 1992, but it never shipped.
As pointed out in previous posts, you either need a 16:9 anamorphic lense (I have one by Optex, although Century Optics also makes one) or a 16:9 CCD.
To show you your camera while producing a true 16:9 anamorphic image, it is NOT capturing true 16:9 information. Set your camera on a tri-pod, record some footage. Then switch to 16:9, and upon playback, you will see that there is NO additional information on the sides, and you are in fact losing information on the top/bottom of the image. Yes, it is squished into 16:9, but the image contains LESS information than the 4:3.
In answer to your 16:9 flagging question, the MPEG file is not flagged in any way. The authoring portion (DVDit) flags the disc so that the DVD player knows it's a 16:9 video source.

 

[Troy LaMont]

DV) that has 16:9 CCDs.

Let the truth be known!
Troy

 

[John_Berger]

To show you your camera while producing a true 16:9 anamorphic image, it is NOT capturing true 16:9 information. Set your camera on a tri-pod, record some footage. Then switch to 16:9, and upon playback, you will see that there is NO additional information on the sides, and you are in fact losing information on the top/bottom of the image. Yes, it is squished into 16:9, but the image contains LESS information than the 4:3.

So, you're saying that it only did anamorphic compression with extra information on the sides through the viewfinder?? But I'm going to try to find out for sure tonight. I'll at least admit that I never tried to record that way because as I mentioned before I wanted to maintain compatibility with family members to do not have 16:9 TVs.
But, I know what I saw and -- damn it -- my camcorder gave me additional information on the sides WITHOUT losing information on the top and bottom through the viewfinder. I know becuase I did testing at a theatrical stage a few times. With 4:3 I could just barely get the entire stage. With the "wide" mode as it was called, I was not only able to get the entire stage, but also the stairs on the sides that lead from the stage - again, through the viewfinder. Ever since I realized that, I've been looking into different ways of converting that into 4:3 letterbox.
Now, whether or not it actually records that way is another matter, and I'm going to find out tonight if I can, because this is really starting to aggravate me now! I've seen the fake 16:9 of digital camcorders. I know the difference.
So either you're wrong and my camcorder does do anamorphic recording or else it only shows the anamorphic compression through the viewfinder.
My mission is clear. I must know the truth.

 

[John_Berger]

In answer to your 16:9 flagging question, the MPEG file is not flagged in any way. The authoring portion (DVDit) flags the disc so that the DVD player knows it's a 16:9 video source.

This doesn't have anything to do with the disc because I never get the files added in the first place. The instructions themselves say that the file must be flagged somehow as a 16:9 file. I tried to create a 16:9 project but as soon as I went to add a standard 4:3 (letterboxed to 16:9) file, DVDit returned an error that the file is not 16:9. Resolution apparently doesn't have anything to do with it either since DVDit expects resolutions of 720x480 or 702x480 for DVD-ready MPEG files whether the DVD project is for 4:3 or 16:9.

 

[Kyle McKnight]

This sounds like the argument..er discussion I was having with a person over IRC who claimed that the Green Day International Supervideos DVD they bought from Best Buy had all the songs with the curse words present, that it didn't drop sound on them.

 

[John_Berger]

This sounds like the argument..er discussion I was having with a person over IRC who claimed that the Green Day International Supervideos DVD they bought from Best Buy had all the songs with the curse words present, that it didn't drop sound on them.

I'm going to find out! I swear it! I must know! I NEED to know!

 

[Brian-W]

Quote:

Scary, isn't it?

 

[Joshua Moran]

John I am pretty positive your camera is capturing a 4:3 widescreen image and is not 16x9 at all. If that is the case you will get more information on the sides but you are not getting an Anamorphic picture. I am sure you have your TV setup in Standard mode you should notice the image to be distorted a bit but it will fill your entire screen. Best thing to do for measurement is take 2 sheets of paper and put them at the edge of the view finder and start changing your modes you will then see were your camera is croping the image.

 

[Brian-W]

For those actually interested in making their own movies in 16:9, here's some information.
http://www.road-dog-productions.com/widescreen.html
http://www.centuryoptics.com/product...nchor%20images