Down side of NAtive 16:9

TimurCivan

TimurCivan

Director of Photography
Staff member
As much as we all long for Native 16:9. i just realised, if we shot native 16:9 we would lose all that lovely ability to do post production tilts, zooms, and reframes.

thoughts?

is the freedom more useful, or the sharper picture?
 
TimurCivan said:
As much as we all long for Native 16:9. i just realised, if we shot native 16:9 we would lose all that lovely ability to do post production tilts, zooms, and reframes.

thoughts?

is the freedom more useful, or the sharper picture?
Click to expand...
I used to believe that the ability fo reposition the shot in post was paramount. After shooting with khmuse on our Horrorfest entry I have come to believe that when the DP really knows what he's doing, the need for those kind of post adjustments are greatly minimzed.

If it were me doing the shooting though, I need that crutch. If I was better, I'm not sure I would.
 
i mean i prefer to shoot straight 16:9, but almost everyone i shoot for wants me to shoot 4:3 so they have the options. (They are usually editing) I kinda like having "no room" for failure. it makes me shoot better. You cant get lazy.

Just thought it was interesting, that shooting HVX or Xl2, means you lose that.
 
TimurCivan said:
Just thought it was interesting, that shooting HVX or Xl2, means you lose that.
Click to expand...

Umm... I think you still have the option to shoot 4:3 on the above mentioned camera's. I'm certain with the XL2.
 
if you going to view it on an SD tv, sure, shoot 4:3. I do. But i shoot with the hopes of projection, and if I had native 16x9 as opposed to letterboxing in post, I'd get almost TWICE the rez.

I always watchmy stuff on my 16x9 projector and go 'jeeze, I'm losing HALF the rez! look how soft it is now, I sure wich i had native 16x9"

Although I'm going to get the andromeda which has so much extra rez that you can shoot 4x3, crop in post, and STILL have more rez then anamorphic SD. Yay for me
 
Oh I love the reposition in post. Spoiled? Lazy? Or just the best all round option until I go native 16x9. If I had a 16x9 camera (DVX-100 now), I would shoot 16x9.

I for sure get lazy knowing I have some wiggle room.
 
I can't really identify. Composition is one of the most paramount parts of filmmaking in my book. A well composed shot can make me forget about all sorts of problems with lighting, color, and resolution. I pay really close attention when I compose so, for me, if I had to change the shot in post that means I didn't do my job in the first place.
 
How many shots are they going to need to fix in post? Geez If you need to shoot 4:3 just to fix it in post you've already got a mutlitude of problems that reframing and tilts aren't going to fix.
 
I just cut some video that my girlfriend had shot (old JVC shooting 50i) and if I hadn't been able to crop for 16:9 then the footage would have been unusable. It was handheld and her first time holding a camera.

But now because of all the work I put into smoothing out the motion it looks horrible when compressed for DVD (seems to be having trouble with the frame by frame adjustments)

David is right though - you should be thinking about composition when you shoot. It's great to have that fall back for the occasional shots but if you rely on it all the time you'll never get a handle of what to include within the frame and why.

Composition is an art form that's essential to good story telling and whilst you could argue that the editor is composing the shot with this technique I would argue that only by thinking about it when shooting will you be correctly staging and composing.

For the record. I'm not critising people who use this fallback - if you're shooting anything then most days you're more dedicated than I am.

I would also add that if the director isn't deciding what to include/exclude then maybe the shooter should just be thinking about the cleanest most inclusive shots and letting someone else worry about the art.
 
How about making a mega-HD camera with fisheye lens and doing all framing/sizing/panning/tilting/zooming in the post? THAT sure would make shooting easy!

For god's sake, you have to make the framing etc desicions somewhere. What is more natural than to do it while shooting? Especially as long as we do not have cameras that allow reframing without a loss of quality (exept non-native 4:3 to 16:9 tilts where quality is bad to begin with.).
 
DavidBeier said:
Composition is one of the most paramount parts of filmmaking in my book... I pay really close attention when I compose so, for me, if I had to change the shot in post that means I didn't do my job in the first place.
Click to expand...


Composition is terribly important to me to, which is WHY shoot 4x3 and crop in post. I DO make all my composition decisions when I shoot (2.35 guide over the LCD and tape on my production monitor) but in a scene with a lot of movement, ppl trying to hit marks, whatever, you often dont have total control over everything. The ability to adjust head room even the tiniest bit is a technique I'm happy to have.

If your shooting something in 16x9 or 2.35 on a DVX, one way or another your chopping off rez, so you might as well have the flexability of cropping it later. I can't think of any reason NOT to shoot 4x3 and chop in post. The only reason to shoot letterbox or squeeze is because you don't have the time to make sure its perfect later.
 
I've shot more than a few things and I've to have wished I could have recropped in post. If they don't hit there marks I have them do it again (and they glare at me and I make some joke how I'm a terrible actors director and point out that my girlfriend is making them lunch). That said, I can understand how it's nice to have that extra flexibility. Ultimatly though, I don't think it's worth the price in resolution. Not when we already don't have all that much to work with with the DVX. The bottom line is that until RED comes out and we have resolution to burn, we still need to use all the resolution we can get. I understand it makes more sense to shoot DVX footage with guidlines but I hardly think the native 16x9 chips of the XL2 or HVX are a negative. As for 2.35, I've never shot anything epic enough to warrent it and it's kind of a pain to compose for.

I also don't mean to imply that those who like having the flexiblity don't take composition seriously. I just get annoyed with guys who shoot regular 4:3 16mm and then, at the last minute, decide to add a 2.35 filter in Avid because they can't compose worth ****. Or that guy who constantly claimed he was a very visual director and later, when peolpe asked him why some of his characters were half off the screen, said, "I must have looked in the wrong box on the viewfinder." I'm so glad I'm done with film school.
 
DavidBeier said:
Or that guy who constantly claimed he was a very visual director and later, when peolpe asked him why some of his characters were half off the screen, said, "I must have looked in the wrong box on the viewfinder." I'm so glad I'm done with film school.
Click to expand...

Amen to that David! There's nothing worse than listening to whinning, snobby film school "directors" that really don't have a clue. :-Mad(DBG):
 
DavidBeier said:
I understand it makes more sense to shoot DVX footage with guidlines but I hardly think the native 16x9 chips of the XL2 or HVX are a negative.
Click to expand...

ah, I misunderstood the argument. Of course I'll take native 16x9! lol more rez is much more important than wiggle room (at least when we're talking about us lowly SD user (andromeda here I come). I was just saying that people who use the DVX and take composition seriously should always shoot open matte and crop in post. If you get it perfect, awesome, but if for some reason you didn't, now you can correct it.

But again, yes, I totally agree I'd take the extra rez over wiggle room. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top