sony pd 170

Craig Seeman · November 2nd, 2004, 08:05 PM

I can see in Final Cut Pro that the image is actually squeezed (stretched) rather than simply cropped. FCP software sees it as anamorphic whereas if I input from my ancient TRV-9 it's simply cropped 4:3.

There are two "wrong ways" to do anamorphic. One is cropped. The other is stretched. The VX 2000 series and PD Series does it the stretch method.

See this from Adam Wilt's web page.

Many cameras have a 16:9 switch, which when activated results in either a "letterboxed" image and/or an anamorphically-stretched image. But be careful; there's a right way and a wrong way to do this.

See the full discussion here

http://adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

BTW I have used that anamorphic mode on the 170 as requested by one client so I've experienced the post process. The client wanted widescreen for DVD release but needed 4:3 for approvals and I had to put 16:9 sequence in 4:3 sequence and rerender. Wouldn't have to have done that if it were simply cropped. Client didn't have the cost of anamorphic lense in the budget so they got the "inexpensive" in camera method.

Frederic Segard · November 2nd, 2004, 08:12 PM

Yes, prioritize is key. You can't get it all in a small form, sub $5000 camcorder. If one is looking for more pro features, then one has to wait for the pro version of the FX1. Perhaps it will outclass the PD170 in many ways (HD aside). It might surprise us. Until then, it's all speculation.

Bob Zimmerman · November 2nd, 2004, 11:25 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Shawn Mielke : Still, 16:9 sure is pirty.

Why don't you get the 170, make the money, pay the camera off, make the money, all the while suffering through all of those lowly 4:3 images, and if you find that you really can't shoot a movie with it, get a second camera that possess more of the movie making characteristics you want. How 'bout that? -->>>

That sounds like a good plan........

Ian Thomas · November 11th, 2004, 02:10 PM

All this talk of 16.9, I possibly have chance of a 16.9 converter made by optex for my pd170 will it give me the same results as the camera's with it built in, or will i lose some of the camera's zoom.

Tom Hardwick · November 15th, 2004, 09:46 AM

You'll lose some zoom, gain some weight and add some hassles. It's better than using the in-built 16:9 feature, but in my view only just.

Ian Thomas · November 18th, 2004, 02:17 PM

Thanks Tom,

Just to let you know i bought a raynox2x2 tele converter for my pd170 and it works very well, got some lovley shots of roe deer.

The picture is very good but has a blue (cold) look to it, the camera is in manual mode with the WB set to out door, Its not easy to white card it becaues it is early morning and the light is not to good, any suggestions.

Tom Hardwick · November 18th, 2004, 02:31 PM

If you've set the white balance to the 'sun' symbol and the pictures look blue then it would suggest that it was a cold blue morning. If you'd left the w/b on auto it would have tried to 'correct' this and warmed up and falsified the colours. I'd say you were correct to use the daylight preset.

tom.

Ian Thomas · November 18th, 2004, 03:07 PM

Thanks again Tom.

Iv'e been useing the XL1 for my wildlife filming which produced a very good picture it seemed to be a bit warmer than the sony, but the sony is crystal clear.

Iam useing Dvcam tapes now and although the picture should be the same as dv tapes, to me it looks as though the dvcam tapes picture seems cleaner, when i use mini dv i use panasonic pro tapes .

November 11th, 2004, 02:10 PM	#49
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	All this talk of 16.9, I possibly have chance of a 16.9 converter made by optex for my pd170 will it give me the same results as the camera's with it built in, or will i lose some of the camera's zoom. __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

November 18th, 2004, 02:17 PM	#51
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	Thanks Tom, Just to let you know i bought a raynox2x2 tele converter for my pd170 and it works very well, got some lovley shots of roe deer. The picture is very good but has a blue (cold) look to it, the camera is in manual mode with the WB set to out door, Its not easy to white card it becaues it is early morning and the light is not to good, any suggestions. __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

November 18th, 2004, 03:07 PM	#53
Ian Thomas Major Player Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: York, North Yorkshire, England. Posts: 472	Thanks again Tom. Iv'e been useing the XL1 for my wildlife filming which produced a very good picture it seemed to be a bit warmer than the sony, but the sony is crystal clear. Iam useing Dvcam tapes now and although the picture should be the same as dv tapes, to me it looks as though the dvcam tapes picture seems cleaner, when i use mini dv i use panasonic pro tapes . __________________ Ian Thomas. Thomas Video Productions

November 2nd, 2004, 08:05 PM	#46
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	I can see in Final Cut Pro that the image is actually squeezed (stretched) rather than simply cropped. FCP software sees it as anamorphic whereas if I input from my ancient TRV-9 it's simply cropped 4:3. There are two "wrong ways" to do anamorphic. One is cropped. The other is stretched. The VX 2000 series and PD Series does it the stretch method. See this from Adam Wilt's web page. Many cameras have a 16:9 switch, which when activated results in either a "letterboxed" image and/or an anamorphically-stretched image. But be careful; there's a right way and a wrong way to do this. See the full discussion here http://adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen BTW I have used that anamorphic mode on the 170 as requested by one client so I've experienced the post process. The client wanted widescreen for DVD release but needed 4:3 for approvals and I had to put 16:9 sequence in 4:3 sequence and rerender. Wouldn't have to have done that if it were simply cropped. Client didn't have the cost of anamorphic lense in the budget so they got the "inexpensive" in camera method.

November 2nd, 2004, 08:12 PM	#47
Frederic Segard Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 209	Yes, prioritize is key. You can't get it all in a small form, sub $5000 camcorder. If one is looking for more pro features, then one has to wait for the pro version of the FX1. Perhaps it will outclass the PD170 in many ways (HD aside). It might surprise us. Until then, it's all speculation.

November 2nd, 2004, 11:25 PM	#48
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	<<<-- Originally posted by Shawn Mielke : Still, 16:9 sure is pirty. Why don't you get the 170, make the money, pay the camera off, make the money, all the while suffering through all of those lowly 4:3 images, and if you find that you really can't shoot a movie with it, get a second camera that possess more of the movie making characteristics you want. How 'bout that? -->>> That sounds like a good plan........

November 15th, 2004, 09:46 AM	#50
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	You'll lose some zoom, gain some weight and add some hassles. It's better than using the in-built 16:9 feature, but in my view only just.

November 18th, 2004, 02:31 PM	#52
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	If you've set the white balance to the 'sun' symbol and the pictures look blue then it would suggest that it was a cold blue morning. If you'd left the w/b on auto it would have tried to 'correct' this and warmed up and falsified the colours. I'd say you were correct to use the daylight preset. tom.