Does not having true 16:9 really matter?

[Andre De Clercq]

Allmost all high end TV set in Europe are 16:9. And...many 4:3 set just reduce the vertical deflection amplitude by 25% and keep the 625(Pal) lines. Only some "digital" 4:3 sets remap to the reduced line number. Also remember that the storry of lines on displays is fading away. All flatscreens remap and many highend CRT TV's do. Mostly on much higher resolution frames than the original 720x576.

[Tommy Haupfear]

Mostly on much higher resolution frames than the original 720x576.

Agreed. NTSC fixed pixel displays almost always display any input at their native resolution. My TV displays everything at 1386x788.

[Andre De Clercq]

Not only fixed pixel displays these days ...Even (scanned) CRT high-end TV's remap everything on a new fixed raster. Like Philips 16:9 "pixel plus" allways scans about 800 lines and remaps everything what comes in (625, letterbox, PC graphics..). Remapping today is cheaper and more reliable than switched deflection systems.

[Jeremy Bond]

I heard that the camera can do

1. Letterbox - Good
2. Digital squeeze - Better

And then one can buy an Anamorphic Lens - Best quality.

So my question is. 1. Is this correct? 2. What is letterboxing and digital squeeze? Thanks

[Tommy Haupfear]

1. Letterbox - Good
2. Digital squeeze - Better

And then one can buy an Anamorphic Lens - Best quality.

Thats pretty much it but I'll also add that in Digital Squeeze its better to have the DVX100A set to either 30p or 24p (not 60i).

2. What is letterboxing and digital squeeze?

The link below should answer your second question.

Click here


** I'll also add that I just received my DVX100A yesterday and I intend to shoot primarily in 16:9 squeeze mode (in 30p) until I can save up for the anamorphic adapter. So far this is an amazing piece of equipment! **

[Bob Zimmerman]

Why would panasonic not make the DVX with real 16:9?

[Chris Hurd]

Probably because at the time the DVX was developed, there was no such thing as a native 16:9 CCD in the 1/3rd-inch size. And although Canon was willing to adapt standard 4:3 CCD's for this purpose, perhaps Panasonic was not inclined to go that route.

I think these decisions are primarily based on how the manufacturer perceives the marketplace for these camcorders. Most likely Panasonic took a long, hard look at it and decided that it was easier and/or more economical to offer an optical anamorphic adapter rather than develop a 16:9 CCD in the 1/3rd-inch size.

My guess is that the majority of DVX shooters, and I suspect the majority of shooters using any other DV camcorder in the same class as the DVX are producing most of their material in 4:3 out of choice anyway.

[John Hudson]

I do Chris; then mask later. Just felt the need to validate

[Charles Papert]

I shoot mostly in 16:9, but I have to admit that I miss the XL1s' 16:9 frame line without applying letterbox shooting mode--it's nice to be able to adjust headroom as needed. Or am I missing that on the DVX erronously? John H.?

[Peter Jefferson]

another thing to note is that the dvx was in development long before it was released.. at least 2yrs.... so costs back then were a factor to the features it would carry....

back then 16:9 was a pipe dream.. .

[Michael Struthers]

Next one will have it in 3 months.

[Boyd Ostroff]

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Jefferson : back then 16:9 was a pipe dream.. . -->>>

Not sure it's really that simple... The Sony PDX-10 was introduced in 2002 and it has "real" 16:9. No doubt it began development even before the DVX-100. I think Chris is right, it was a cost/benefit sort of thing. The higher pixel count CCD's on the PDX-10 need more light and are more prone to smearing. I imagine the desire for true progressive scan also factored into the equation.

[Cary Lee]

Personally I like the option of having the anamorphic adapter as an option because by adding that feature built in...it would increase the price point to as much as the XL2. The sales of the DVX is still strong in that point over the XL2. In addition there is a rumor that Century might be coming out with another anamorphic lens that will solve the DOF problems of the Pany Anamorphic. Also you can uprez your final image using Photozoom pro and get a clearer picture if you keep it at just letterboxed for DVD's sake. If your final output to 35mm film then it is best just to shoot with the Anamorphic or 4:3 and have the transfer house put in the bars in post, Since they would unsqueeze it first before the blowup anyways.

I currently have a XL2 and have been very happy with it, but am thinking about getting a new DVX100B because of its size and because of some of the footage I've seen on-line shot with the DVX100A's.

When shooting in 16:9 mode, how big of a difference will be noticed between the two?

As on Panasonic's site it says the DVX100B is:

16 x 9 anamorphic - letterbox and digital squeeze

- - [Side note - I'm keeping the XL2, the DVX100B would be an addition.] - -

[Dennis Wood]

Well, your XL2 (assuming NTSC) should have 480 lines of horizontal res. in 16:9 progressive modes. The DVX100a/b will lose about 20% of that in the letterboxing of its 4:3 progressive image. I would expect that difference to be pretty noticeable if you're comparing resolutions.