want to shoot 16x9 video on gh2

G

greg sage

Member
Sorry, new, so still a bit mixed up on terms.

I see "anamorphic" being thrown around... though seemingly not always for the same aspect.

Basically, I'm looking to see what the best way is to shoot 16x9 video on a gh2, so if that's a particular lens, lens and adaptor, other modification. Don't care about going wider. Shooting video for youtube at 16x9, 30fps... still haven't figured hacks out enough to know if it will be 720p or 1080p.

... just looking for a starting point and the right terminology, thx. If you do have any recommendations under $1k also quite appreciated.
 
Hi. Here is a quick answer.
You are mixing a lot of things here. Please look through google before asking questions here.

16:9 = HDTV format = out of the box for GH2
Use any non-anamorphic lens you want and you are good to go.

Anamorphic is http://bit.ly/AtJwDx
 
I had googled many related things, read the entire wiki page for "anamorphic", and gone through all the text in a few dozen ebay listings for both gh2 and various lenses.

The one thing I was not clear on is that 16x9 is the standard aspect for GH2... confusion probably caused by the fact that other video cameras list their chips as being "native 16x9" and such whereas the GH2's is often referred to as 4/3... which to a newbie can also sound like an aspect ratio. I had also just finished reading dozens of pages of info about lens adaptors for other cameras to shoot in 16x9... which are referred to in several cases as "anamorphic adaptors" As for discerning that from the lenses I was just looking at, many are listed as being 16x9 with a 4/3 adaptor for the GH2. If your having trouble seeing how that could be confusing to an outsider as the numbers are IDENTICAL to the other aspect ratio commonly seen for video, I don't know what to tell you.

... but the link is just condescending.

Regardless, thank you for the clarification.

Namaste.

greg
 
M 4/3 is just referring to sensor size not aspect ratio. Like for example the 5Dll has a Full-Frame sensor size...the 7D has an ASP-C sensor size...the GH-2 has a M 4/3 sensor and so on. The thing is the aspect ratio for video from all of these cams will be 16:9 no matter what (unless otherswise stated). Even the tiny (in comparison) 1/3, 1.27, 1/2 sensors all shoot a 16:9 aspect ratio. You probably just confused the M 4/3 as being 4:3 aspect ratio or something like that. But Victor is correct about looking through Google or Wikipedia. Very helpful info out there.

By the way....the anamorphic aspect ratio can vary also. So...some things to search for is "anamorphic"..."Sensor Sizes"...."Aspect Ratios"...etc.. to help you get a better understanding.

EDIT: lol...ok...I just seen his link...
 
Last edited:
Yes, thx. I get that now. I had just finished reading more pages than I can count about various other cameras and the "anamorphic adaptors" to get them to squeeze the most out of their 4x3 sensors so that you can get higher quality 16x9 rather than cropping. "Anamorphic" apparently being used in the generic sense there to refer to the changing of the aspect ratio to something wider. For instance, from B&H photo website:

The AG-LA7200 is an anamorphic lens adapter for the AG-DVX100A camcorder. This lens adapter is the highest quality solution for widescreen recording with the AG-DVX100, AG-DVX100A, AG-DVC80 and the PAL versions of those cameras.

Widescreen Recording When attached to the AG-DVX100 or the AG-DVC80 the lens adapter will allow for the highest quality 16:9 aspect ratio recording.




... but what do they know about lenses?



Anyway, I have the opportunity to purchase a GH2 here locally with what I understand is a fairly standard 14-42mm lens kit, and I was just wondering if I should go for that, or just buy the body online, and configure with a lens of my choice. Overall, though, doing mainly static indoor greenscreen stuff with no needs at the moment for extreme zoom or other weirdness, so unless lens quality is bad, seems like it will work.
 
If you are starting in the camera world, just go for the kit with the 14-42mm lens. http://bhpho.to/xSM7SV
Then down the road, if you feel the need for some other lens, you can buy them.

IMHO, your first step is to equip yourself with the camera, try it out, learn how to use it... Then you will worry about all the crazy manual lens, rigs and other anamorphic.

Also know that anamorphic is an extremely specific effect. I have never used it so far on my jobs and have no intention to so far. If a future specific project calls for it then I will look for that. Just leave the anamorphic thin in a corner of your brain, it is irrelevant for your level as of right now.


PS: As a clarification about M4/3 and 4:3.
- M4/3 or micro four thirds system, is the kind of lens mount used by this camera. It is a mirror less (opposed to Nikon and Canon) system. The 4/3" is an inch-based sizing system used for the cameras (1/3", 2/3"... 4/3" are all thirds of inches measurements.) http://bit.ly/wRbNf6
- 4:3 the aspect ratio is also known as 1.33:1 because 4 divided by 3 is 1.33. It means that the image will be 1.33 times wider than high. It's the ratio of your old TV. Same way with 16:9 = 1.77:1 the image will be 1.77 times wider than high. It's the ratio of your new flat screen TV. http://bit.ly/wY9LgK


Good luck
 
I thought the 4/3 cameras do have a 4/3 aspect ratio when shooting stills?

The GH2 uses a larger-than-4/3 sensor but only uses part of it based on the selected aspect ratio, to maintain the same image circle regardless of the selected aspect. It may be 16:9 for video, but I believe there is a choice of 3 different aspect ratios that can be selected when shooting stills.
 
EOSHD, Andrew Reid's web site, has an Anamorphic Shooters Guide available. The cost is reasonable, though with some digging you can get the same information for free. Still, the convenience of having everything together might be worth it for you.

http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide

Good luck.
 
Ian-T said:
M 4/3 is just referring to sensor size not aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

Although it is the way we now label sensors with this image circle, the name originates from their (original) aspect ratio, not from their size.

Edit: actually, it seems I am wrong here - or half-wrong. Since the M4/3 sensor is NOT 4/3" I have always believed the name came from the aspect ratio. But Wikipedia says this:

The Four Thirds system used a 4:3 image aspect ratio, in common with other compact digital cameras but unlike APS-C or full-frame DSLRs which usually adhere to the 3:2 aspect ratio of the traditional 35 mm format. Thus "The Four Thirds refers to both the size of the imager and the aspect ratio of the sensor".[SUP][4][/SUP] Note that actual size of the chip is considerably less than 4/3 of an inch, the length of the diagonal being only 22.5 mm. The 4/3 inch designation for this size of sensor dates back to the 1950s and vidicon tubes, when the external diameter of the camera tube was measured, not the active area.
 
Last edited:
greg sage said:
Yes, thx. I get that now. I had just finished reading more pages than I can count about various other cameras and the "anamorphic adaptors" to get them to squeeze the most out of their 4x3 sensors so that you can get higher quality 16x9 rather than cropping. "Anamorphic" apparently being used in the generic sense there to refer to the changing of the aspect ratio to something wider. For instance, from B&H photo website:

The AG-LA7200 is an anamorphic lens adapter for the AG-DVX100A camcorder. This lens adapter is the highest quality solution for widescreen recording with the AG-DVX100, AG-DVX100A, AG-DVC80 and the PAL versions of those cameras.

Widescreen Recording When attached to the AG-DVX100 or the AG-DVC80 the lens adapter will allow for the highest quality 16:9 aspect ratio recording.




... but what do they know about lenses?



Anyway, I have the opportunity to purchase a GH2 here locally with what I understand is a fairly standard 14-42mm lens kit, and I was just wondering if I should go for that, or just buy the body online, and configure with a lens of my choice. Overall, though, doing mainly static indoor greenscreen stuff with no needs at the moment for extreme zoom or other weirdness, so unless lens quality is bad, seems like it will work.
Click to expand...

Ok- it sounds like you need some video aspects 101 here.
Before HD video was standard, everything was shot in in standard definition, 720x480 (at least, here in NTSC land). Originally televisions were designed to have a 4:3 ratio, which is what most video cameras shot in (including the legendary DVX100).
"Widescreen" televisions stretched the image to a 16:9 ratio, but did so while still using 720x480. They just used wider shaped pixels.

Originally, if shooting with a standard aspect 4:3 camera, the image would look stretched on a 16:9 display. The only way to get around this was to have vertical black bars on the right and left of the image, or crop the image inward, cutting off the top and bottom until you reached a 16:9 shaped image. The problem is that you are then zooming in and losing resolution.

Using an anamorphic lens actually recorded a squashed image to the 4:3 camera. If you played it back in the camera or on an old TV, it looked like a fun house mirror; everything squashed inward. But when stretched for playback at 16x9, it actually looked normal and filled the entire screen without having to crop inward. This was really more of a workaround for 4:3 sensor sized cameras, however. Future cameras recorded natively in 16:9 and have no need for adapters or special squashing lenses.

Now- none of this is relevant for HD cameras, because HD came out after 16:9 was already the new standard. I'm pretty sure there are no HD cameras that record in 4:3, as that aspect ratio was very much retired by then. The lenses you are looking at from B&H are from a time before that.
 
Last edited:
M. Gilden said:
Now- none of this is relevant for HD cameras, because HD came out after 16:9 was already the new standard. I'm pretty sure there are no HD cameras that record in 4:3, as that aspect ratio was very much retired by then. The lenses you are looking at from B&H are from a time before that.
Click to expand...

Arri Alexa Studio has 4:3 sensor... I'd love to put my Lomo anamorphics on it... sigh
 
Ok - that camera is an exception. It was specifically designed for anamorphic shooting.
You won't find anything like that in prosumer gear.
 
I thought the 4/3 cameras do have a 4/3 aspect ratio when shooting stills?
Click to expand...
absolutely not. at least from a semantics standpoint...

4/3 is a measurement
4:3 is an aspect ratio.

/ and : mean different things

output aspect ratio is not always (id even say rarely) directly related to sensor size.

another thing not to get too worried with at this point are things like actual vs effective resolution. if you have to ask the question, its highly unlikely the answer is going to matter to you one way or another.
 
Last edited:
Um... yeah.

I hadn't misread anything actually.

It is a 4:3 sensor which is what I thought I had read in the first place.

... like the dvx100b is a 4:3 sensor

... which can shoot 16x9 by cropping (not using the whole sensor)

... or by using an "anamorphic lens adapter"


Turns out I hadn't misread anything.

... or gotten any terms mixed up.


I just made the mistake of believing someone when they told me I had.



The only part I wasn't clear on is what is happening what is happening with the kit lenses... whether they are squishing the image, or whether it is getting 16x9 by cropping. I've got that now. As for the rest, apparently, I didn't make it clear enough that I already get all that stuff. Just hadn't ever looked at this camera before or others in this family, and wasn't sure which method was being used to get to 16x9.

It's just like I thought.

It crops.

It doesn't use the whole sensor for 16x9... although not quite as much due to being slightly "oversized."

It is, however, not a native 16x9 sensor, and there are unused pixels on the sensor.

Other cameras have developed lens adapters to achieve the same ratio while using the whole sensor. Wasn't sure if something like that existed for this type of camera.

Not sure how that got twisted.
 
Last edited:
greg sage said:
The only part I wasn't clear on is what is happening what is happening with the kit lenses... whether they are squishing the image, or whether it is getting 16x9 by cropping. I've got that now. As for the rest, apparently, I didn't make it clear enough that I already get all that stuff. Just hadn't ever looked at this camera before or others in this family, and wasn't sure which method was being used to get to 16x9.

It's just like I thought.

It crops.

It doesn't use the whole sensor for 16x9... although not quite as much due to being slightly "oversized."

It is, however, not a native 16x9 sensor, and there are unused pixels on the sensor.

Other cameras have developed lens adapters to achieve the same ratio while using the whole sensor. Wasn't sure if something like that existed for this type of camera.

Not sure how that got twisted.
Click to expand...

The 'natural' aspect ratio of movie film, 35mm/16mm/8mm has traditionally been 4:3. With cropping/masking, the various aspect ratios are obtained. Cameras shooting for IMax are using a 4:3 aspect ratio. There are some formats that have the 1.85:1 ratio, etc. directly, such as 3 perf Super 35mm, and are used to 'save money', because the 3 perf removes the 'wasted' space of shooting 1.85:1 on 4:3 4 perf film.

I think the point is that many cameras whether film or electronic sensor, have a 'native' 4:3 size, but with cropping, will yield a given aspect ratio. Anamorphic 'squeezes' the image, and requires an 'anamorphic' projection lens (in the olden days with film...), to unsqueeze the image... The benefit of using an anamorphic lens on film film, is that the full frame of 35mm movie film, that is 4:3. (not to be confused with still film 35mm which has a 3:2 aspect ratio...), can be used to give the 'widescreen' look, where as a spherical lens would require cropping.

Some directors and the cinematographers they choice prefer the spherical lenses, others make the anamorphic their 'signature' style.

As far as I know, there is no way for such cameras as the GH-X 'full frame' sensor in 'movie mode', which would justify the use of a anamorphic lens, on a 'best' resolution basis. As it is, its use with cameras that naturally 'crop' to get the 16x9 frame, is probably more of a 'stylistic' choice than anything else.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I get that.

The only reason I asked the question is because I had just been reading about some other cameras where people were talking about how they could get higher quality out of it by using an anamorphic adapter to utilize the full sensor than they could by using the camera's internal cropping mechanism.

Seems a dead issue for this type of camera, so question answered, I guess.

Anyway, I've already ordered it with the 14-140 kit lens. It's on it's way.

thx.
 
greg sage said:
Yeah, I get that.

The only reason I asked the question is because I had just been reading about some other cameras where people were talking about how they could get higher quality out of it by using an anamorphic adapter to utilize the full sensor than they could by using the camera's internal cropping mechanism.

Seems a dead issue for this type of camera, so question answered, I guess.

Anyway, I've already ordered it with the 14-140 kit lens. It's on it's way.

thx.
Click to expand...

Here's my philosophy for 'this level' of effort, that is for people, like myself learning how to shoot movies... take the camera 'as it is', find out what it can do, and use it as best as possible. So, when I was using the DVX100, i decided not to get some sort of 35mm adapter, but rather, use the 'deep focus' that the camera 'naturally' delivered. Since I've not had to use the DVX100 and cut in with my GH-1, I didn't really worry about using the DVX100's '16x9' option.

With the GH-1, since I do have Nikon still lenses, I did by a 'cheap' adapter. But really I've used the 14-140mm 'kit' lens... now I would like a 'faster lens' but I'd probably go for a 2.8 and 'reasonable' price, perhaps an older Nikon, and use the adapter. I'd probably not spend the $1K for a Voigtländer sub f/1 lens...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top