I'm working on a project and I'm looking for the first ever consumer or prosumer camera that could record real 16:9 footage, or some lame widescreen that was actually 4:3 cropped. The best I could find is the Sony DVW 970, released in 1993, but something before that would be better for me.
can i ask why?
>>50796213
I'm working on a movie set before 1993, and I'd like to have a short part with found footage in it. The footage would fill the whole screen, so I'd prefer if it did that in 16:9 instead of 4:3.
>>50796248
you could just drop 4:3 footage to 16:9, since you're recording it it won't be hard to keep content in-frame
even if the viewfinder doesn't into 16:9 you could use a simple paper cutout or similar to cover the top and bottom so you don't mess up
>>50796302
s/drop/crop/
>>50796302
Yeah, thats kind of like my plan B for it, but I've got really curious about finding the earliest 16:9 digital camcorder. Google and wikipedia was sadly of no use, so I hoped you guys would know a website or something for this kind of thing.
>>50796302
also should be mentioned that early widescreen (i'm talking 50's) was done with standard film, with a simple distorted "anamorphic" lens attached to the camera, which is vertically "compressed", then later streched when played back
this obviously requires a special lens to record, cropping is simpler but has a resolution loss
>>50796412
I know, but I'm looking for a digital consumer or prosumer camcorder. 8, 16 and 35mm films are not an option.
>>50796412
Also a special lens to project
>>50796491
i didn't mention it on the last line because it wouldn't apply to op, as he'd just be streching the image with software
>>50796248
Wouldn't it be a bit more realistic to keep the found footage 4:3?
>>50796975
It would, but the other people involved in the project voted against it. So I'm stuck with zoomed in 4:3 or finding a very early 16:9 camera.
