Frage von LinusL:
Tachchen again!
Although I have some insightful questions format can clarify for me, but a few were still open:
Suppose I use the 16:9 mode of the XL1S, then I get quite an anarmorph distorted picture to the full use of Height. Since our videos on the Internet, however, offer to download, so there is more for the layman with a 4:3 letterbox to keep the widescreen format, and not surprisingly have to shrink to Picture, huh?
AP Pro recognizes this fact fake 16:9 format of the XL1S, or until the final format in the export set? Say: As the AP imported material?
Can I afterwards Letter Boxes in this format "purely push" and the movie for media player users (or 4:3-TV 'ler) as a quasi-4: 3 export?
And one last, important question: The difference between the two modes s.der XL1S, namely the 16:9 mode and the Guidelines, as does the in the overall coverage of the screen noticeable? Lieg I correct that the 16:9 mode it gets more than a LB version, based s.den Guidelines?
Pooh, many questions, I hope someone can help me! Thanks a lot!
Antwort von beiti:
Suppose I use the 16:9 mode of the XL1S, then I get quite an anarmorph distorted picture to the full use of Height. The XL1S scaled only an excerpt of the 4:3-chip high, so you lose even Height (and resolution). For 16:9-Recording XL1S is generally the wrong choice.
Since our videos on the Internet, however, offer to download, so there is more for the layman with a 4:3 letterbox to keep the widescreen format, and not surprisingly have to shrink to Picture, huh? You can page any relationship online, do so no black bars. The only important thing is that the format in square pixels is converted.
AP Pro recognizes this fact fake 16:9 format of the XL1S, or until the final format in the export set? Say: As the AP imported material? The format is not fake, just the nature of its production in the XL1S is not optimal, and the XL1S it yourselves in the Viewfinder display incorrectly. AP Pro interprets it correctly as 16:9 pixel page with a ratio of 1: 1.43 and it provides undistorted dar. if you are off again on tape or on DVD ausgibst, the Resolutionunverändert spent the 16:9 flag is then synonymous in the DVD player for correct interpretation.
Can I afterwards Letter Boxes in this format "purely push" and the movie for media player users (or 4:3-TV 'ler) as a quasi-4: 3 export? Yes, but there you have the whole movie to about 430 lines side of what some render time. (Ask me not now how to make the APP. It's somehow.) But if you ever want to letterbox, take equal to 4:3 in the leg in APP and black bars over it, which is less expensive.
But letterbox bars are, as I said before, in the media player unnecessarily. The video can be in, for example, 720 x 405 pixel size to play.
The conversion to square pixels you need for the web one way or another, because synonymous in 4:3 DV format provides no square pixels (720 x 576 is not exactly 4:3 - the pixel aspect ratio is 1:1,07).
And one last, important question: The difference between the two modes s.der XL1S, namely the 16:9 mode and the Guidelines, as does the in the overall coverage of the screen noticeable? Lieg I correct that the 16:9 mode it gets more than a LB version, based s.den Guidelines? I think the images are identical.
Antwort von dukebtd:
Aha aha!
So the thing I can bzgl.meiner last question to mean:
The internal 16:9 mode the XL1S provides a distorted picture because the s.Calculator but not different than the 4:3-Picture, which I s.den Guidelines orients and finally with letter boxes or has to 16: 9 convert?! Is the 16:9 mode practically only for the somewhat lazy people who do NOT want to be kept open, possibly a 4:3 version to keep? No larger image? If the number of lines and pixels, therefore, synonymous with both variants of the same?
Gruß, LinusL
Antwort von beiti:
What you as a "distorted" title, is merely what happens when the aspect ratio is not correctly interpreted. PAL Digital Video has almost always rectangular pixels, the pixel aspect ratio and the actual aspect ratio So soft. (The search should be here in the forum relating to rectangular / square pixels provide all the necessary info. The video is basic.)
The XL1S produces true 16:9 in 720 x 576 pixels. That will s.Calculator in the correct aspect ratio (no black bars, like on a 16:9-Television) will be displayed. Only the XL1S itself, it can not correctly interpret displays and therefore distorted (ie is a pure representation of the XL1S problem, not a recording problem).
That the quality of the 16:9-recordings of the XL1S is not optimal (because it is only a low-4:3-chip), is a completely different topic and hat with the formal format question nothing to do. For your purpose (web video) you can largely ignore.
The 16:9 mode is for all filmmakers, who - despite the chip technical quality Disadvantages - 16:9 genuine need, such as it is in 16:9-cut with images from other camcorders to mix, or with no special post-detours the Picture a 16:9 TV to fill completely.
Who has filmed 4:3, of course, can subsequently letterbox bars fitted, but this is not a true 16:9 draus. You could post the picture on the full line of pull, which would be in the XL1S probably close s.die quality recording with a 16:9-mode ran, but cumbersome and time consuming so all rendering process.
So much for the basics. Now to your specific case. You want yes 16:9 videos on the Internet. That should in fact be qualitatively no preference whether you use the 4:3 mode with guides or the true 16:9 mode.
In both cases you have the material s.Ende in a web-compatible square-pixel format conversions. This should be directly in 16:9, as letterbox bars on the Web would be totally unnecessary and costly when streaming only unnecessary bandwidth.
If you've rotated in 4:3, the video circumcision You then click the 16:9 screen (720 x 732 pixels). If you rotated in 16:9, you can let the video untrimmed. In both cases, do you then in a 16:9 encoder web format-A.
I assume that the processing with real 16:9 is easier, because then the curtailment and therefore an additional step removed (unless you have an encoder, which itself can prune).
Everything clear?
Antwort von LinusL:
Oh man, thanks for the detailed reply, which I probably should initially help ..
Still not entirely clear, I have not yet asked question: The material that we are currently "collecting", we shoot in 16:9 mode the XL1S. Now, however, we have already rotated a few minutes, dubbed, cut, but in 4:3. Can I use this material later in the 16:9-whole mount and when you export the 4:3 - Video quasi self-cut? Above and below 12% image loss would be absolutely no theme. Of course, assuming I use this "web-enabled square pixel format"?
Thanks in advance, LinusL
Antwort von beiti:
Self-prune Premiere does not. It is either 4:3 or dragged with the left and right beams attached (I'm not sure what the attitude is of APP). If you want to prune it, you have to adjust the manual somewhere.
The topic "How can one 4:3 and 16:9 mix in a movie?" was, incidentally, has repeatedly asked and answered. The forum search should help.
The Web format will only be the very last step, after you already have a finished cut DV - video on the hard drive have produced. Until that time, Your video is still rectangular pixels. In order to square pixel conversion then takes care of the encoder, so you have the ideal situation to do nothing.
So put it another way: You give a DV-AVI to 16:9 and from importierst for example, in the Riva Encoder (or Real Producer, or Windows Media Encoder, or whatever you want). In the encoder you choose as the output format size with a pixel aspect ratio of 16:9, for example, 640 x 360 pixels.
Antwort von Wiro:
... But in 4:3. Can I use this material later in the 16:9-whole mount and when you export the 4:3 - Video quasi self-cut? Hello,
nor a complement to this never-ending story:
When a 4:3 clip into a 16:9 timeline inserted, it is in the monitor window with bars left and right. Thus he gets the full width must be increased to 133.3% (inflated) are. It goes up and down logically something lost, especially when heads were to make it above the heads cut off. To avoid this, the picture as the last step vertically shifted slightly downward until the image "fits".
It's easy and logical, not rocket science.
Here is a picture, as shown on the monitor looks Premiere:
