Selection of progressive video and 16:9 modes at DVinfo.net

Frank Granovski · November 9th, 2002, 12:00 AM

On another board, a poster was quite upset over not being able to get a MX500 display model to record in both 16:9 and progressive mode (at the same time), and so decided to go with a MX350 instead. I couldn't understand this either, so I pulled out my MX500 manual and began reading. The only thing I discovered was that while in progressive mode, "Effects 1" could not be used. That's strange, I thought, and then I pulled out my MX300 and fired it up. I wanted to see if progressive and 16:9 were possible with this model, like the poster mentioned was possible with the MX350. (Sorry, I only have one MX300 right now, not a MX350 or MX500). Guess what, I couldn't get into progressive and 16:9 either! Progressive and cinema mode, yes, but not progressive and 16:9. Well, it was about 2:00 am, and having 2 progressive scan CCD cams, I got a little confused. (Nothing new.)

Now here's the deal. In the MX300, MX350 and MX500, "Progressive Mode" is for stills. It is "Frame Mode" which should be selected for progressive video mode. Confusing, huh? Anyways, if you want to shoot with progressive video and 16:9 at the same time, no problem! Just remember to select "Frame Mode," instead of "progressive." And that's it! (I'm sure Canon users wouldn't get confused with this one.)

Graham Baker · November 24th, 2002, 03:29 AM

Correct Frank. Also I think there is some sort of 'interlock' on the main 'setup' menu in camera mode that *can* prevent selection of frame mode under some circumstances - IIRC, you have to set progressive to 'auto' and not to 'on' or something like that...

Worth experimenting with if you have an MX500 - i would imagine that the software/firmware is very similar for all the 300/350 & 500 models - it even seems that the single chip Panas have very similar settings...

Yow Cheong Hoe · November 24th, 2002, 03:59 AM

Yup, I was confused then. Just wondered WHY can't 16:9 (cinema) can't be 'progressive' (film-like). Well, it's FRAME mode.

I take back the line on the MX500 not able to take progressive and 16:9.

But I did not go for the MX350 just due to this fact. Other things mattered, too. :-)

My other posts here and in DV.com will show my list of pros and cons of the MX500 and MX350.

But thanks to Frank working overtime to clarify the 'Frame' mode. I should have asked for the manual at the camera test-drive :-)

Frank Granovski · November 24th, 2002, 04:08 AM

Again, the MX350 is also a great 3 chip cam. You did well in buying it---plus it was cheaper than the MX500. If I was in your shoes at the time, I too might have gone with the MX350.

And I did appreciate your side by side review on both cams. This is something I can't do, due to the fact that they are not brought into North America. However, I did see a MX350EN at a local store here about 5 months ago. Only one was brought in. And yes, my mouth watered!

Yow Cheong Hoe · November 24th, 2002, 07:31 PM

And if I'm not close to 30 but nearer 16, I may buy the MX8 or 350 simply for the big-gun look!

Like what Allan said in the other post, the MX300 does look like an ice-cream cone stuck on a box!

One more side by side comparison, the centre-of-gravity. The CG of the MX500 is best, as most of the weight is in the centre, and using various battery sizes doen't really matter. The MX8 is still quite OK, as the lens barrel is not too heavy. The worst of the lot is the MX350, which needs a minimum 3 hour battery (included) to balance the camera, and it still tips forward. So, my preference for CG design will be MX500 (best), MX8 and MX350 (worst). I have not used the MX300 (extinct by now) but looking at the shape, it should be pretty well balanced.

Frank Granovski · November 26th, 2002, 03:12 AM

Re: " the MX300 does look like an ice-cream cone stuck on a box!"

I find the shape of the MX300 classic. It's shape is very similar with the shape of my JVC GR-DVL9500s.

So you see why I bought the MX300? (The same reason why you went with the MX350---because it looks a lot like your MX8.)

December 10th, 2002, 05:24 PM

Is the 16:9 on the MX500 a true 16:9 or is it 4:3 with the top and bottom chopped off?

Frank Granovski · December 10th, 2002, 07:30 PM

Chopped I believe. For an explaination go check the Power Point slide brochure on this page:

http://www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.htm

November 9th, 2002, 12:00 AM	#1
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Selection of progressive video and 16:9 modes On another board, a poster was quite upset over not being able to get a MX500 display model to record in both 16:9 and progressive mode (at the same time), and so decided to go with a MX350 instead. I couldn't understand this either, so I pulled out my MX500 manual and began reading. The only thing I discovered was that while in progressive mode, "Effects 1" could not be used. That's strange, I thought, and then I pulled out my MX300 and fired it up. I wanted to see if progressive and 16:9 were possible with this model, like the poster mentioned was possible with the MX350. (Sorry, I only have one MX300 right now, not a MX350 or MX500). Guess what, I couldn't get into progressive and 16:9 either! Progressive and cinema mode, yes, but not progressive and 16:9. Well, it was about 2:00 am, and having 2 progressive scan CCD cams, I got a little confused. (Nothing new.) Now here's the deal. In the MX300, MX350 and MX500, "Progressive Mode" is for stills. It is "Frame Mode" which should be selected for progressive video mode. Confusing, huh? Anyways, if you want to shoot with progressive video and 16:9 at the same time, no problem! Just remember to select "Frame Mode," instead of "progressive." And that's it! (I'm sure Canon users wouldn't get confused with this one.)

November 24th, 2002, 03:29 AM	#2
Graham Baker Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 43	Correct Frank. Also I think there is some sort of 'interlock' on the main 'setup' menu in camera mode that can prevent selection of frame mode under some circumstances - IIRC, you have to set progressive to 'auto' and not to 'on' or something like that... Worth experimenting with if you have an MX500 - i would imagine that the software/firmware is very similar for all the 300/350 & 500 models - it even seems that the single chip Panas have very similar settings...

November 24th, 2002, 03:59 AM	#3
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	Yup, I was confused then. Just wondered WHY can't 16:9 (cinema) can't be 'progressive' (film-like). Well, it's FRAME mode. I take back the line on the MX500 not able to take progressive and 16:9. But I did not go for the MX350 just due to this fact. Other things mattered, too. :-) My other posts here and in DV.com will show my list of pros and cons of the MX500 and MX350. But thanks to Frank working overtime to clarify the 'Frame' mode. I should have asked for the manual at the camera test-drive :-)

November 24th, 2002, 04:08 AM	#4
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Again, the MX350 is also a great 3 chip cam. You did well in buying it---plus it was cheaper than the MX500. If I was in your shoes at the time, I too might have gone with the MX350. And I did appreciate your side by side review on both cams. This is something I can't do, due to the fact that they are not brought into North America. However, I did see a MX350EN at a local store here about 5 months ago. Only one was brought in. And yes, my mouth watered!

November 24th, 2002, 07:31 PM	#5
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	And if I'm not close to 30 but nearer 16, I may buy the MX8 or 350 simply for the big-gun look! Like what Allan said in the other post, the MX300 does look like an ice-cream cone stuck on a box! One more side by side comparison, the centre-of-gravity. The CG of the MX500 is best, as most of the weight is in the centre, and using various battery sizes doen't really matter. The MX8 is still quite OK, as the lens barrel is not too heavy. The worst of the lot is the MX350, which needs a minimum 3 hour battery (included) to balance the camera, and it still tips forward. So, my preference for CG design will be MX500 (best), MX8 and MX350 (worst). I have not used the MX300 (extinct by now) but looking at the shape, it should be pretty well balanced.

November 26th, 2002, 03:12 AM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Re: " the MX300 does look like an ice-cream cone stuck on a box!" I find the shape of the MX300 classic. It's shape is very similar with the shape of my JVC GR-DVL9500s. So you see why I bought the MX300? (The same reason why you went with the MX350---because it looks a lot like your MX8.)

December 10th, 2002, 05:24 PM	#7
El Pollo Loco Posts: n/a	Is the 16:9 on the MX500 a true 16:9 or is it 4:3 with the top and bottom chopped off?

December 10th, 2002, 07:30 PM	#8
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Chopped I believe. For an explaination go check the Power Point slide brochure on this page: http://www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.htm