How to achieve true 16:9 widescreen
 

Hello
I was wondering what were my options if I wanted to film in true widescreen.

The best option would be to shoot a camera with 16:9 aspect CCDs.

Do you know about the DSR PDX10?

Try an anamorphic adapter by Century Optics.
It compresses the wide image onto your squarish ccds and stretches out the picture verticaly so when you project back the image is 1.78:1 (16:9). Very useful tool for that wide screen maze.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/16x9/16x9.htm

Re: How to achieve true 16:9 widescreen
 

<<<-- Originally posted by William Beltran : Hello
I was wondering what were my options if I wanted to film in true widescreen. -->>>

That would depend on your budget. Cameras with 16x9 chips are typically expensive, like the Sony
DSR-500 or the JVC GY-DV700. The PDX10 that Shawn mentioned is probably as close to true 16x9 as one can get without spending many thousands of dollars. But the PDX10 is on par with the DVX100 and other cameras that simply crop the image to 16x9, if I'm not mistaken.

Your second option is an anamorphic adater for your camera. Centyury Optics and Panasonic both sell them, for around $800 I think. You'll have a few focusing issues, but in general they'll preserve the full resolution of the CCDs.

I guess the question would be:

Why do you need true 16x9?

"But the PDX10 is on par with the DVX100 and other cameras that simply crop the image to 16x9, if I'm not mistaken.
"

The PDX10 widescreen mode is significantly better than the old crop and scale - it's as equivalently as good as using an anamorphic lens because the CCD has more than enough pixels to support 16x9 and a centre-crop for 4x3 without running out of enough pixels. Infact, I'd argue that the 16x9 mode looks better that it's 4x3 mode, not the other way around....

Graeme

If you are really on a budget, the DCR-TRV33 and TRV38/39 also have the "true" 16:9 feature, similiar to the PDX10

How is it accomplished with those TRVs?

The same way it is with the PDX10.

Thank for all your replies.
I ask this question because I'm in the market for a camera and some of the features I would like are XLR inputs and the best 16:9 feature within my budget. I was considering getting a GL2 with an anamorphic adapter running around $700 in addition the xlr adapter, about $160 I think. For this price the AG-DVX100 did catch my attention but I was under the impression that an anamorphic adapter would be better than the DVX100's squeeze mode. I am not sure the significance in quality between the two. Idealy what I would like is to be able to shoot in 16:9 with out loss of my ccd's resolution. ( Also without spending thousands of dollars)

Can you tell me more about the PDX10.

Hi William; to learn more about the PDX-10 just visit our forum and browse through the 11 pages of topics. Most of your questions have probably already been discussed.

But the general thing to keep in mind is the resolution of a camera's CCD's. The DVX-100 has 470,000 gross pixels, GL-2 has 410,000, PD-170 has 380,000 while the PDX-10 has 1,070,000 (there are some discrepancies when you consider "effective pixels", but you get the idea). The DVX-100, PD-170 and GL-2 don't have enough vertical lines within their 4:3 form factor to provide native 16:9 without loss of resolution, so they create the 1.78:1 aspect ratio by chopping off the top and bottom of the image. On these cameras you will have to use an anamorphic adaptor to get results comparable to the PDX-10. But of course each of these cameras has other strengths, so there are going to be trade-offs no matter which route you choose.

Thanks Boyd,
It seems for my needs and wants the pdx10 may be the best choice.

I think I know the answer to this one, but, so, the PDX10 has more resolution than the PD170? They're both rated as having 530 lines...

Both the pixel count and lines of resolution are likely accurate. Remember that you're talking in a different world when referencing lines of resolution; the world of video (i.e. television) display. Since a true 16:9 ccd will be wider than a comparably sized 4:3 ccd it will contain more pixels. Still, both may produce 530 lines of resolution to a television.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dmitri Henry : Try an anamorphic adapter by Century Optics.
It compresses the wide image onto your squarish ccds and stretches out the picture verticaly so when you project back the image is 1.78:1 (16:9). Very useful tool for that wide screen maze.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/16x9/16x9.htm -->>>

Will one of these wide screen adapters fit a Panasonic NV-MX500a? If so it is exactly what I am looking for, for my next project.