Shutter speed Slow motion Widescreen

[Abreu]

Can I record at a shutter speed of for instance 200 f/s and then capture all the frames in order to play in slow motion?
Can I cut a video after being captured into the format I want (for instance 16:9)?

ps I'm talking in general terms of desktop editing.

Thank you for any information

[jeff b]

Are you confusing shutter speed with frame rate, or do you have a Sony Super Slo-Mo, or something like that?

[pederbc]

If you're talking 'bout a CAM-corder the shutterspeed just mean how long (short) the shutter is open. It will still produce 25 (30) frames/sec. This is mainly used for the possibilty of getting better picture quality of fastmoving objects.

[Aryko]

Actually, I think what he means is record with a very _high_ shutter speed, in an attempt to get more frames per second, and then play the new "high" number of frames at the regular fps rate and get a slow-mo effect. To my knowledge, no, you can't do that on normal camcorders. The camcorder records at a specific frame rate. A different shutter speed will just influence the look of each frame, or record the same image on subsequent frames if it's a very slow shutter (AFAIK).

For the widescreen question, yes, you can crop your video to produce a 16:9 effect, but you'll (of course) lose some of the video information on the top and bottom. Most camcorders these days come with a 'widescreen effect' or 16:9 option, but these are accomplished normally with a matte function - ie, the CCD just captures less pixels by turning off rows on the top and bottom. A 'real' widescreen CCD would turn on pixel columns to the left and right, but I don't know of any camcorders which work that way.

That said, I'd much prefer shooting the scene with the widescreen function of the camera, as it saves re-rendering time, and is easier to edit later - you don't risk chopping off the heads of your subjects.

- Aryko

[fluggo99]

My picture isn't cropped when I go to widescreen. Sometimes I have to do this to capture a wider field.

This is a (dum dum dum) Sony Digital Handycam...

[Abreu]

That's what I meant Aryko but I see now that you must be right (all of you) the camera should always record the same number of frames just with different times for the shutter openess(?). I was thinking about a Canon Ex1 that goes up to 1/10000 s speed. (That would be a lot of frames per second)
So much for slow motion.

[Aryko]

fluggo: I'm not sure what you mean, by definition, widescreen is going to crop the top and bottom of your screen. I guess the point I was trying to make was that with prosumer camcorders (and I'd even venture a guess that _all_ camcorders) mimic a widescreen effect by recording a thinner horizontal image, ie., turning off rows of pixels on the CCD array above and below a set area. In real 'film' movies, it's actually a much higher fidelity image because your frame is physically wider. Of course, it probably won't make a difference either way because the end result is viewed on a television with limited vertical resolution anyway.

Abreu: a user by the name of dedushka (or perhaps his other name, Grigory) posted a link to a very technical method of separating the interlacing frames of a standard NSTC signal to individual frames. That is, a standard NSTC signal consists of 30 frames per second, made up of 60 interlaced frames. Apparently there's a way that you can de-interlace them to get 60 frames per second of half-size frames, I think he used Adobe Premier to do it. Do a search and see if you can find it.

You'll get your Matrix-like effect yet

- Aryko

[fluggo99]

No, it's true, anisotropic widescreen. When played back from the camcorder's video out, it comes out pinched in the horizontal, but taking up all 480 lines vertical rez.

PS -- minor point -- Widescreen movies don't use wide film. They use lenses that shrink the image to fit into a 35mm frame.

[Aryko]

fluggo: I don't follow what you mean by "pinched in the horizontal", especially when you say it takes up all 480 lines.

As for your minor point, I guess I wasn't making myself very clear (I had a hard time explaining this one to myself). The point I was trying to make was that consumer camcorders can't simulate "widescreen" to the same fidelity that a widescreen movie is going to give you, because there simply aren't enough pixels in the CCD compared to the relative "pixel density" of, say, Panavision filmstock.

As for "wide film", well, a 35mm film cell typically has a 1.85 aspect ratio, compared to the 1.3 ratio of the NSTC television standard, so I guess even though you're comparing apples to oranges, it's still "wider".

- Aryko

[fluggo99]

I'm not entirely sure how seriously to take you, since you refer to the North American system as NSTC....

When setting my camcorder to 16:9 mode, I get a wider view, no other settings changed. That is, if I'm all the way zoomed out, I can gather still more picture my setting 16:9 mode. Granted, yes, the number of CCD pixels is limited, but so are the number of the pixels in the format, 740x480.

Every last one of those pixels is used to record a 16:9 picture. Thus the camcorder will send a horizontally-scrunched picture out its TV-out connector. (anisotropic-- unevenly scaled) It's scrunched because the camera has fit a 16:9 picture into a 4:3 space. Thanks to this system, however, there is no loss of vertical or horizontal resolution where video is concerned.

Does it make sense now? Do I have to post example captures?

[Aryko]

fluggo,

> I'm not entirely sure how seriously to take you, since you refer to the North American system as NSTC....

NSTC, NTSC, I always get it confused. You know what I meant, and if we're going to quibble over acronyms and proper grammar, then I'll just point to the next sentence of your reply. Personally, I'll opt for content rather than structure.

> When setting my camcorder to 16:9 mode, I get a wider view, no other settings changed.

My impression was that consumer camcorders simulated a widescreen effect by using a matte effect on the top and bottom of the frame, effectively capturing less video information. You're telling me that some camcorders use the whole CCD, fine.

The point I was trying - and am continuing to try to make, is, simply put, you're not going to get anywhere near the fidelity of a movie image by just using the widescreen effect of a camcorder, because the CCD isn't as sensitive as a Panavision camera.

Looking back at the thread, I also see that I might have miscommunicated what I meant. Original poster said he wanted to use a program to cut his project to "widescreen". If you're filming in 4:3 and filling the screen with your subjects, cutting your frames later will mean they lose their foreheads if you introduce black bars to simulate letterbox.

> Granted, yes, the number of CCD pixels is limited, but so are the number of the pixels in the format, 740x480.

I wonder, given the aspect of that particular format (1.54:1) if that's what the 16:9 option indicated by Sony would actually give you when played back on a widescreen TV. I read a post a while back on rec.video where a guy played back some video he'd recorded in 16:9 on a widescreen TV, and it still had the black bands. Led me to believe that it was just a matte effect, not true widescreen.

> a horizontally-scrunched picture out its TV-out connector. (anisotropic-- unevenly scaled) It's scrunched because the camera has fit a 16:9 picture into a 4:3 space.

Ok, I finally understand what you mean now - I was thinking "scrunched" in the other direction. If that was the effect a widescreen option gave me when I played it back on a non-widescreen television, I'd never use it - I'd much prefer fake letterbox bars.

- Aryko