How to achieve true 16:9 widescreen at DVinfo.net

William Beltran · March 10th, 2004, 12:07 AM

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

Dylan Couper · March 10th, 2004, 12:31 AM

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

Shawn Mielke · March 10th, 2004, 12:43 AM

Do you know about the DSR PDX10?

Dmitri Henry · March 10th, 2004, 06:52 AM

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

Jaime Valles · March 10th, 2004, 08:06 AM

<<<-- 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?

Graeme Nattress · March 10th, 2004, 08:46 AM

"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

Jeff Toogood · March 10th, 2004, 11:44 AM

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

Dave Largent · March 10th, 2004, 01:16 PM

How is it accomplished with those TRVs?

Jeff Toogood · March 10th, 2004, 02:03 PM

The same way it is with the PDX10.

William Beltran · March 10th, 2004, 04:45 PM

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.

Boyd Ostroff · March 10th, 2004, 05:01 PM

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.

William Beltran · March 10th, 2004, 05:23 PM

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

Shawn Mielke · March 10th, 2004, 11:39 PM

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...

Ken Tanaka · March 10th, 2004, 11:51 PM

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.

Shane Kinloch · March 22nd, 2004, 06:07 PM

<<<-- 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.

March 10th, 2004, 12:07 AM	#1
William Beltran New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montclair, Ca Posts: 10	How to achieve true 16:9 widescreen Hello I was wondering what were my options if I wanted to film in true widescreen.

March 10th, 2004, 12:31 AM	#2
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	The best option would be to shoot a camera with 16:9 aspect CCDs. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

March 10th, 2004, 12:43 AM	#3
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Do you know about the DSR PDX10? __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

March 10th, 2004, 08:06 AM	#5
Jaime Valles Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York City, NY Posts: 316	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?

March 10th, 2004, 08:46 AM	#6
Graeme Nattress RED Problem Solver Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 1,365	"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 __________________ www.nattress.com - filters for FCP

March 10th, 2004, 06:52 AM	#4
Dmitri Henry Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: NC Posts: 34	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

March 10th, 2004, 11:44 AM	#7
Jeff Toogood Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: St.Thomas, Ontario, CANADA Posts: 428	If you are really on a budget, the DCR-TRV33 and TRV38/39 also have the "true" 16:9 feature, similiar to the PDX10

March 10th, 2004, 01:16 PM	#8
Dave Largent Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,483	How is it accomplished with those TRVs?

March 10th, 2004, 02:03 PM	#9
Jeff Toogood Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: St.Thomas, Ontario, CANADA Posts: 428	The same way it is with the PDX10.

March 10th, 2004, 04:45 PM	#10
William Beltran New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montclair, Ca Posts: 10	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.

March 10th, 2004, 05:01 PM	#11
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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.

March 10th, 2004, 05:23 PM	#12
William Beltran New Boot Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montclair, Ca Posts: 10	Thanks Boyd, It seems for my needs and wants the pdx10 may be the best choice.

March 10th, 2004, 11:39 PM	#13
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	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... __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

March 10th, 2004, 11:51 PM	#14
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	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. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

March 22nd, 2004, 06:07 PM	#15
Shane Kinloch Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Victoria, Australia Posts: 29	<<<-- 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.