Is the Anamorphic adapter really needed?
 

In shooting with the Pana DVX100 at 24p for eventual theatrical release (i.e., blow up to a 35mm print), is it essential to use the anamorphic adapter? Is it possible to shoot without the adapter and have the footage converted to 16:9 in post with little or no loss in image quality? And is it true that the anamorphic adapter prevents the use of the camera's image stabilization? Many thanks.

If you crop it to 16:9 in post, obviously you are throwing away information... an area equivalent to 120x720 pixels or 25% of the vertical resolution. The anamorphic adaptor lets you use the entire 720x480 frame.

Thanks Boyd. Now what of the rumor I've heard that one cannot use image stabilization with the anamorphic adapter? Is this true?

however, you neglect to mention that the anamorphic lense is also providing a somewhat softer image (from my tests it approaches 30% softer then without) and not to mention all these telephoto focusing issues. and yes, you can use the OIS but its not recomended....just like with everything else (tripod, etc).

i personally think the difference is too minimal for the cost, maybe if the aspect ratio were wider, you'd be getting better pixel quality, but, whatever.

Kevin:

Both Joe and Boyd have a point. In theory, it is absolutely better to use the anamorphic adaptor for blow-up 16:9, film or digital. But in practice, the Panasonic model appears to suffer softness, excessive barrel distortion at wide and serious focus problems at telephoto.

I am not going to buy it. If you shoot projects that rarely use wide or telephoto or handheld, it might work (but I would rent it).

Century Optics is considering a 3 element unit, but cost would be near $2000. The Panasonic is a two element design.

After evaluating some Panasonic anamorphic footage, I went over to the JVC HD forum hear to look at 16:9 from that cam. Lots of pixels, but heavy edge issue, limited color, extremely narrow latitude (think VHS or web-cam) and horrible controls including no manual iris.

So, HQ 16:9 progressive scan under $10K is still the holy grail...

Guys,
Look at this link about this issue:
http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/

yah, seen those tests, look at the book example from anamorphic and letterbox, the letterbox has slightly more resolution to begin with and ends up a bit sharper in the end. thats the main reason i wouldnt buy the anamorphic adapter. if it was a 2.35:1 adapter i would buy it, or even 1.85, just something with more bang for the buck, because the natural image from the dvx is so clean you can make anamorphic from it at little quality loss....of course im not planning to blow up my stuff to film....but i think thats silly from dv2film anyway.

I got actual raw footage (not these shots) but outdoor shots from ICEXPO and made my conclusion. On a 22" inch computer monitor, 15" LCD and 14" NTSC, there was no apparant improvement in the best shots and barrel distortion in the wide. I never did obtain an in focus full telephoto shot because of the problems with the adaptor.

At medium wide, it has a pretty good image and you probably can see the difference on a 40" or larger image. If it just worked better, I would fork out the bucks, but I shoot a lot of full wide and full telephoto, so it's not an option for me.

With the thin setting in 24p, I think you're getting close to the resolution of a PD-150 or Canon XL-1 with an anamorphic lens. With no 60i motion artifacts and cine-gamma and the result I think is a more "pleasing" image. Natural, film-like and suited to narrative storytelling.

If a new version comes out with 16:9 CCD's, I'm jumping ship. If not, I keep shooting and cropping.