Edirol V4 - can it do 16:9 or only 4:3?

[panot]

I am looking at a Edirol V4 - can it do 16:9 or only 4:3?

Thanks,
Jesse

[waynehoskins]

I believe it can do anamorphic 16:9 (which is 16:9 sped up to fit in the horizontal time of 4:3). I think most analog gear will handle it, because as far as it's concerned it is regular 525-line video.

[zactommo]

Wayne is correct, all standard definition gear using the same resolution for both 16:9 and 4:3, so as long as your cameras and your output gear support 16:9, everything in the middle doesn't matter at all.

[MusicManRyan]

I have used this switcher for years now. If it has the capabilities to output at 16:9, I would appreciate someone helping me understand how this works.

I use the switcher in a multi-camera setup for a live internet streaming audience. I am inputing feeds from Canon GL2's. The only thing I can get the V4 to output is 4:3.

In addition, when it outputs at 4:3, it doesn't fill an entire 4:3 sequence screen. When I put the raw captured footage on a timeline in Premiere CS5.5, I have to adjust the screen size to 104% to fill the entire 4:3 screen.
____________

If I set the GL2's to output at 16:9, the V4 STILL outputs at 4:3. If I import this raw footage into a 16:9 Premiere CS5.5 project, I can stretch the 4:3 footage (outputted by the V4) into 16:9, but it loses all clarity. The screen is filled, but the footage is not sharp.
____________

If I can figure out how to make the V4 output at 16:9, maybe it will save me $10k from having to upgrade to an HD switcher that outputs HD or native 16:9.

[Brad Weber]

Anamorphic 16:9 essentially horizontally 'squeezes' the 16:9 image to a 4:3 form, thus allowing standard video devices to be used after that, then at the display 'stretches' that image back out to the original 16:9 format. It is manipulating the 16:9 image to make it compatible with 4:3 devices, and not making 4:3 device 16:9.

While you can address the 16:9 format for composite or S-Video via anamorphic 16:9 or letterboxing at the source, you are still dealing with the limited resolution of standard video. When you take a lower resolution format and then start manipulating the image within it or using only part of the overall image area, the result is typically an even lower resolution image. Displaying that on a large format digital display that not only makes the image large but that also has to scale it to its native resolution can easily result in a less than expected image quality.

[waynehoskins]

Originally Posted by MusicManRyan

In addition, when it outputs at 4:3, it doesn't fill an entire 4:3 sequence screen. When I put the raw captured footage on a timeline in Premiere CS5.5, I have to adjust the screen size to 104% to fill the entire 4:3 screen.

That sounds like you're experiencing "safe area" effects. It's a historic holdover in analog video from the way CRTs scanned the image; they would overscan, paint part of the picture outside the screen, so the safe area of the image filled the screen. Many modern devices don't acknowledge the safe area conventions and comparatively underscan the safe area, putting the entire image including the unsafe area into the frame. If something in the chain blanks the unsafe area, then you get the black border effect when it's fully scanned.

You can do anamorphic 16:9 if the sources and destinations are capable of it; everything in the middle is unaware of what the source aspect ratio is, only how many lines there are. To capture anamorphic, the capture device needs to be able to properly scan anamorphic since it's what pixelizes the image. It's the same concept as Cinemascope, of compressing a widescreen image to fit a standard-definition film frame, where it takes a Cinemascope lens train on the film projector to re-stretch the image to widescreen.

Anamorphic 16:9 is generally a band-aid, not a good substitute for a real HD chain. It can work, and it has worked, in the broadcast field where engineers are familiar with it and its peculiarities, but it's a poor long-term choice, especially outside the broadcast field. And as Brad said, if you're doing imag or displaying on a large screen, 525 lines may likely be too low resolution.

The Edirol V4 is a consumer-grade switcher; you will probably be happier in the end if you can upgrade to a pro switcher, either 4:3 analog or 16:9 HD. Blackmagic's Atem line might be promising, particularly the Atem Studio using software control panel. Older HD offerings from Grass Valley and others might be worth consideration as well; they're about a decade old now and probably beginning to be replaced. Those all take SDI or HD-SDI, which the cameras would have to be capable of generating and the destinations using, so going HD would really take a reconsideration and redesign of the whole video chain, and it may or may not be worthwhile at this point.

How important is 16:9 in your application?

[MusicManRyan]

Just to be clear: (this is a question)

The only way to use the Edirol V4 fader at 16:9 is to set the capturing camera up to capture at anamorphic 16:9.

Is this correct?



I am currently capturing with Canon GL2's. I know the view finder can be switched to preview at 16:9, but does this output at anamorphic 16:9?