I've been shooting DV, Hi8, and with various funky digital cameras that shoot 10 & 15 fps because I'd rather be shooting 720x480 (or in the case of my JVC GZ-MG130, even 640x480) than a more modern camera that forces me to compromise and shoot 16:9. However, lately I've been looking for alternatives that can get me a higher resolution end result. I've heard the HVX200 can shoot 976xsomething (don't remember the exact numbers but I'm about to run into work) but I'm curious what else I might be missing. I really, REALLY don't want to crop in post.
OTHER: Looking for the highest resolution camcorder I can get that shoots in 4:3.
- Thread starter 4:3 lover
- Start date
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
My curiousity is, what is your specific aversion to cropping in post? I understand a preference for the 4:3 aspect ratio, but how does the extra step in post affect the end result? Certainly not for the viewer. I just ask because I can't even think how many times over the years I've shot aspect ratios that weren't "native" to a given camera.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Exactly, Charles. You hit the nail in the head. I was thinking the same thing. It's crazy to base/limit your camera choices on something that can be dealt with in post with two clicks of a mouse. There's at least a dozen things more important to consider.
Imamacuser
Veteran
I'm dubious on whether new users are people or bots.
4:3 Lover, you don't have a problem with VGA resolution, dim low res viewfinder/LCD, 15 FPS, low bitrate, BT.601 8-bit 4:1:1 color, 6 stops dynamic range, logging and capturing from tapes to a computer, and deinterlacing, but you draw the line at using 4:3 frame guides and cropping in your NLE?
Using inferior antiquated equipment is the most cumbersome, illogical, and irrational approach to delivering in 4:3 aspect ratio.
Some TV shows from the early 2000s were framed to accommodate both 4:3 and 16:9 for initial 4:3 broadcast and future widescreen DVD release.
People were cropping 4K Red One footage to 4:3 back in 2009, and conversely people were cropping 720x480 footage to 16:9 in the early 2000s.
A bunch of the Panasonic mirrorless cameras have a 4:3 open gate mode, so you need to decide whether you prefer a MFT or full frame sensor.
4:3 Lover, you don't have a problem with VGA resolution, dim low res viewfinder/LCD, 15 FPS, low bitrate, BT.601 8-bit 4:1:1 color, 6 stops dynamic range, logging and capturing from tapes to a computer, and deinterlacing, but you draw the line at using 4:3 frame guides and cropping in your NLE?
Using inferior antiquated equipment is the most cumbersome, illogical, and irrational approach to delivering in 4:3 aspect ratio.
Some TV shows from the early 2000s were framed to accommodate both 4:3 and 16:9 for initial 4:3 broadcast and future widescreen DVD release.
People were cropping 4K Red One footage to 4:3 back in 2009, and conversely people were cropping 720x480 footage to 16:9 in the early 2000s.
A bunch of the Panasonic mirrorless cameras have a 4:3 open gate mode, so you need to decide whether you prefer a MFT or full frame sensor.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I know I've talked about this here before, but yes, this was my life late 90's until late aughts, when 16:9 became the de facto broadcast format and we finally got to ignore 4:3. Every show went about it differently; some were vigilant about protecting the 16:9 "sides", others largely ignored it--I remember "Scrubs" showrunner Bill Lawrence telling us "screw 16:9", and in fact to this day I have never seen the series appear in anything other than 4:3. Still, we had to deal with that pesky dual frameline issue on that show and all others, very distracting. This clip from Scrubs is followed by the tap tape of that shot, showing all the markings we had in the viewfinder. 4:3 safe, 16:9 safe, 16:9 transmission and even 1:85 hash marks thrown in for good measure. Yuck!
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
I despised shooting for both aspect ratios simultaneously. To me, it was a compromise, a waste and PITA, all at the same time. I never understood the trouble and expense that the network went through for us to shoot 16:9 HD on, at the time, cutting edge and very, very expensive F900’s, for the shows to run ONE time in 16:9 HD and then all subsequent re-airs were 4:3 SD.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
To comment.
I have the z cam (e2) and I have been suprised by the 4:3 chip.
The image lens and DOF characterisitcs are significantly different from making a 4:3 crop from the 16:9 mode. (it shoots 120p in 4:3 and 160p in 16:9)
In poor mans world using manual stills lenses the choices for thin DOF and wide FOV get less as chip size reduces. This 4:3 mode does deliver.
(S35 has been pretty well catered for in cine glass world!)
Mix in the new horror of delivering 16:9 (or even 2.35) and 9:16 and you also find significant advantages.
Personally Id go back to my 2003 kodak square chip in todays world of building shonky L brackets as is my new adventure.
My Canon r6 has square blanking and I often use it... especially with a client chimping (the whole image is recorded)
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
But, surely no-one would rightfully go through the machinations of cropping a 4:3 sensor to 16:9 and then down to 4:3 within that again, unless they were going for a specifically small-format look, so that's hardly apples to apples. I think it more logical to compare a 4:3 full sensor image from the Z Cam with a 4:3 crop from a similar range camera with either Super35 sensor or 3:2 open gate (such as the Ursa Cine Doug mentions--not quite native 4:3). And yes, there will be some difference there, roughly similar to the difference between full frame and S35. But all of that is a completely different universe than the DV and Hi8 cameras the OP has been working with.
And that said, I think your recommendation for the Z Cam (honestly, with your fondness for comedically renaming things I am surprised you don't call it Zicam or Z-pack etc) is a good answer for the originally posed question--1:33 native, high resolution and relatively inexpensive, which I imagine helps.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
At 160p the sensor is 16:9. Being the top bottom is cropped.
At 120p the sensor is 4/3
Im just saying that if you are shooting to deliver any taller format than 16:9 then the ‘crop’ mode (160p) forces quite a significant move back and change of dof.
On paper i didn't consider it - in use one feels it.
Contrary to the thoughts of various posts here just saying chop the sides off 16:9
At 120p the sensor is 4/3
Im just saying that if you are shooting to deliver any taller format than 16:9 then the ‘crop’ mode (160p) forces quite a significant move back and change of dof.
On paper i didn't consider it - in use one feels it.
Contrary to the thoughts of various posts here just saying chop the sides off 16:9
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Gotcha. The question would then be, how often do you need to shoot faster than 120p? My (possibly unpopular) opinion is that a decent amount of the time, the interpolation software available today does a fantastic job converting slow motion footage into even slower motion, especially when you start with a respectable 120 fps. More likely to be a concern if one is doing product photography, splashing liquids and the like, but then aren't the chances are that the need for the large sensor look (particularly shallow depth of field) is going to be minimized along with it...? Just thinking real-world application here.
Also. That's a very specific use case, based around the pecularities of the Z Cam. I don't know offhand of other cameras that do the same thing, cropping the aspect ratio of the sensor for overcranking (windowing sure, but retaining the shape). Then again, I'm not keeping up with every camera and their pecularities in this regard, is this more common than I think?
And finally, outside of this one particular scenario that our esteemed gentleman from Blighty has presented us with...given the more common practice of pillarboxing a 16:9 sensor to 4:3, does anyone who does this feel particularly stifled by that process? Speaking as one who is about to do precisely that in a week on the short film I'm about to make (we are actually doing Academy format of 1:37...and today decided to cheat it a little bit to 1:45, as few will notice the difference but helps in terms of the location), I feel just fine about it. Chuffed, even.
Also. That's a very specific use case, based around the pecularities of the Z Cam. I don't know offhand of other cameras that do the same thing, cropping the aspect ratio of the sensor for overcranking (windowing sure, but retaining the shape). Then again, I'm not keeping up with every camera and their pecularities in this regard, is this more common than I think?
And finally, outside of this one particular scenario that our esteemed gentleman from Blighty has presented us with...given the more common practice of pillarboxing a 16:9 sensor to 4:3, does anyone who does this feel particularly stifled by that process? Speaking as one who is about to do precisely that in a week on the short film I'm about to make (we are actually doing Academy format of 1:37...and today decided to cheat it a little bit to 1:45, as few will notice the difference but helps in terms of the location), I feel just fine about it. Chuffed, even.
Last edited:
Imamacuser
Veteran
A convoluted ways to get close to 4:3 with a 16:9 sensor, is to mount a 2x anamorphic lens at 90° rotation, so that the squeeze is applied vertically, however you can rotate the camera 90°s to effectively squeeze horizontal edges.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I believe one would use a 1.3x anamorphic to achieve that effect.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
In terms of hfr (the zcam is excellent) do you think a shutter agnle change is desirable?
If shooting 240 for 480 in post would you go for a 90 shutter angle?
------------------
The zcam crop methodology is unusual for sure. It just brought home what a big reframe was required when swapping aspects. from 3:4 to 16:9
If you ever have to frame with possible upright delivery you are gonna be loving the extra top/bottom space.
Does it matter?
Well I would say..
If the taller is available in the menu.. use it for many projects. (arri has it no?)
There might be some consideration to consider a 4:3 camera for certain projects (panasonic Sh vs many other mirrorless??)
The panicsonic has come up on some threads..
-good with my canon glass
-full size hmid
-4:3 chip
Might be better for me than an R5 as my next body.
The down side of course is very specific framing is always desired by us 'artists'. A fixture skimming the frame top will deliver a certain flare. If one shoots multi aspect and allows more headroom then that flare (or other compositional element) will be lost/compromised.
Yes I do social. Yes I do liquids. Yes im usually doing thin DOF.
Im sure your film trailer will be delivered social upright?
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Its good to chat this has inspired me form a little experiment!
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Mathematically, one would think so. My experiences with late model speed interpolation is that it doesn't seem to matter once you are already slowing down the motion to that degree.
Oh, MANY things are compromised when one has to compose for multiple deliveries. It's a sad state of affairs. I came up with some creative solutions for this on a commercial with a number of doggies in a circle, in that we shot the over-the-shoulder elements of the foreground pups against green screen (at the same location, immediately after shooting each piece of action) so that the shots could be massaged for each delivery format: a tighter version of the over-the-shoulder composition for 1:1, eliminate the foreground entirely for the 9:16. It still left compromises but, could have been worse. https://sandwich.co/work/petmeds-tricks/
I have no intent to do so. I can't stand seeing my 16:9 narrative work turned into 9:16 clips and reels. I just say no when it's my own project.
And we all thought pan-and-scan was a perversion. Who knew what laid ahead?
Last edited: