Is the Anamorphic adapter really needed? at DVinfo.net

Kevin Peer · May 27th, 2003, 03:57 PM

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.

Boyd Ostroff · May 27th, 2003, 05:06 PM

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.

Kevin Peer · May 28th, 2003, 01:16 PM

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

Joe Russ · July 5th, 2003, 04:59 AM

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.

Stephen van Vuuren · July 5th, 2003, 09:57 AM

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...

Nick Medrano · July 5th, 2003, 10:12 AM

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

Joe Russ · July 5th, 2003, 02:26 PM

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.

Stephen van Vuuren · July 5th, 2003, 03:41 PM

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.

May 27th, 2003, 03:57 PM	#1
Kevin Peer New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lost Coast, California Posts: 14	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.

July 5th, 2003, 09:57 AM	#5
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	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... __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

July 5th, 2003, 03:41 PM	#8
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	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. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

May 27th, 2003, 05:06 PM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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.

May 28th, 2003, 01:16 PM	#3
Kevin Peer New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lost Coast, California Posts: 14	Thanks Boyd. Now what of the rumor I've heard that one cannot use image stabilization with the anamorphic adapter? Is this true?

July 5th, 2003, 04:59 AM	#4
Joe Russ Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 99	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.

July 5th, 2003, 10:12 AM	#6
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	Guys, Look at this link about this issue: http://www.icexpo.com/dvx100/

July 5th, 2003, 02:26 PM	#7
Joe Russ Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 99	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.