16:9 Real World Result with PD's and VX's

Robert J. Wolff · October 8th, 2004, 04:38 AM

Gareth,

Across the pond, here in the US of A, probably most commercial stations will have to be 16:9 HD by sometime in 2K6, by government edict. I can't speak for the rest of North & South America.

Therefore, I would suggest, that SD is no longer a useable tool.

And, thus, my reason for not buying the XL-2, at this time.

I believe that within 6 months time, we will all see the announcement of the first "pro-sumer" cam in 16:9 HD.

2K6 is not that far off. I can wait.

Gareth Watkins · October 8th, 2004, 04:48 AM

Hi Robin

thanks for that reply....

Would you then suggest an XL2 would be a better and more logical choice? as a small sized camera, for use exclusively in Europe.

If the 16:9 format is now becoming the norm... I suppose we'll see a Sony update of the 170 fairly soon...???

regards

Gareth

Andre De Clercq · October 8th, 2004, 05:01 AM

16:9 is indeed becoming the standard in Europe, but all programs are transmitted in LETTERBOX mode (for 4/3 compatibility reasons) So only about 450 lines are active and the 16:9 receivers do the uprez internally (and much better the most cams do internally). This is about what the Sony 170 outputs when croped to letterbox in post

Gareth Watkins · October 8th, 2004, 05:10 AM

So what you are saying is that for the forseeable future.. Television isn't going to start upping its output quality, not until the 4:3 ratio disappears....

Cheers

Gareth

Andre De Clercq · October 8th, 2004, 06:33 AM

Not quite Gareth... Correct for analog, but a lot of things are changing with DTV expected in the years to come... mostly for those who have the equipment and want to pay. Digital TV will allow transmission of real 16:9 (anamorphic) images.

Robin Davies-Rollinson · October 8th, 2004, 06:42 AM

Gareth,
I would indeed recommend the XM2 for a good few years yet for use in Europe. It's a case of bread and butter today, jam tomorrow...

Robin

Bob Zimmerman · November 9th, 2004, 08:59 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : 16:9 can also be achieved by using the slim digital effect. Treat your footage as anamorphic

This is basically what the DVX100a is doing -->>>

I haven't decide on a camera yet so I don't have the manual. Can you tell me what the slim digital effect is?

Tom Hardwick · November 9th, 2004, 10:40 AM

If you get the Century 1.33:1 anamorphic lens Ruben both your viewfinders will look vertically stretched (ie tall, thin people) but when the footage is played out to a 16:9 TV it'll fill the frame perfectly, no black bars anywhere.

Of course you'll be restricted slightly in the amount of zoom you can use (at both ends) but the anamorphic will give you more wide-angle coverage anyway - though only horizontally of course.

tom.

Scott Shama · February 1st, 2005, 05:03 PM

Hi all,

Does anyone know if the VX2100 shoots true 16:9 like I believe the PDX10 and the Pana GS400 do? I read else where on this forum that it doesn't but I thought that it did. Please enlighten me.

Thanks,
Scott

Jeff Toogood · February 1st, 2005, 06:28 PM

To put it simply, it doesn't.

It just does digital stretch

Boyd Ostroff · February 1st, 2005, 07:12 PM

Jeff is correct. The VX-2000, VX-2100, PD-150 and PD-170 just crop the image to 720x360 then stretch it vertically back to 720x480 to make it anamorphic. It's "true 16:9" in the sense that it's an anamorphic image that will display properly on a widescreen TV, but you lose 25% of the vertical resolution so it looks much more softer than the PDX-10.

The following tests show the difference between the PDX-10 and VX-2000: http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9

Scott Shama · February 1st, 2005, 09:42 PM

Thanks for the explanation! So it's really no different than if I shoot 4:3 and crop it my self to 16:9 in Final Cut Pro. I have been looking at maybe getting a used VX2000 since I am looking to get into shooting weddings on the side.

Cheers,
Scott

Boyd Ostroff · February 1st, 2005, 09:51 PM

Yes, this is true. You'll get about the same quality by cropping/stretching in post. Plus you have the option to adjust the framing this way.

Advil Dremali · March 19th, 2005, 02:23 AM

I already know that the 2100 doesn't have native 16:9.. Just fake 16:9, but how does it look? Is it distorted at all?

For shooting random videos of just friends and such, not actual short film shooting or anything, would you reccomend shooting 16:9?

Sorry, I'm a newb and any help is appreciated, thanks

Oh and.. if theres any sample footage of 16:9 from a 2100, that'd be great.. thanks again

Boyd Ostroff · March 19th, 2005, 05:43 AM

It isn' t "fake" or "distorted"... it is proper anamorphic 16:9. Its weakness comes from the fact that the camera's CCD's are in the 4:3 proportion and can only capture 480 vertical lines. So when you shoot in 16:9 it chops off the top and bottom of the image to acheive the proper proportion. That only uses 360 of the vertical lines, so you're throwing away 25% of your vertical resolution (120/480). The camera then stretches the image vertically back to 480 lines so it's in the proper anamorphic 16:9 format.

It will display correctly on a widescreen TV, but you will notice a loss of detail. It has a lot to do with the sort of stuff you're shooting. For closeups it isn't too bad. For wide shots with a lot of detail you'll notice that it looks sort of out of focus. Give it a try and see what you think...

October 8th, 2004, 04:38 AM	#136
Robert J. Wolff Major Player Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Adirondacks of New York Posts: 210	Gareth, Across the pond, here in the US of A, probably most commercial stations will have to be 16:9 HD by sometime in 2K6, by government edict. I can't speak for the rest of North & South America. Therefore, I would suggest, that SD is no longer a useable tool. And, thus, my reason for not buying the XL-2, at this time. I believe that within 6 months time, we will all see the announcement of the first "pro-sumer" cam in 16:9 HD. 2K6 is not that far off. I can wait. __________________ Himself

February 1st, 2005, 05:03 PM	#144
Scott Shama Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Beaverton, Oregon Posts: 399	VX2100 "true' 16:9..? Hi all, Does anyone know if the VX2100 shoots true 16:9 like I believe the PDX10 and the Pana GS400 do? I read else where on this forum that it doesn't but I thought that it did. Please enlighten me. Thanks, Scott

February 1st, 2005, 06:28 PM	#145
Jeff Toogood Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: St.Thomas, Ontario, CANADA Posts: 428	To put it simply, it doesn't. It just does digital stretch __________________ Toogood Studios

March 19th, 2005, 02:23 AM	#149
Advil Dremali New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 70	Vx2100 16:9 shooting I already know that the 2100 doesn't have native 16:9.. Just fake 16:9, but how does it look? Is it distorted at all? For shooting random videos of just friends and such, not actual short film shooting or anything, would you reccomend shooting 16:9? Sorry, I'm a newb and any help is appreciated, thanks Oh and.. if theres any sample footage of 16:9 from a 2100, that'd be great.. thanks again

October 8th, 2004, 04:48 AM	#137
Gareth Watkins Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: France Posts: 578	Hi Robin thanks for that reply.... Would you then suggest an XL2 would be a better and more logical choice? as a small sized camera, for use exclusively in Europe. If the 16:9 format is now becoming the norm... I suppose we'll see a Sony update of the 170 fairly soon...??? regards Gareth

October 8th, 2004, 05:01 AM	#138
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	16:9 is indeed becoming the standard in Europe, but all programs are transmitted in LETTERBOX mode (for 4/3 compatibility reasons) So only about 450 lines are active and the 16:9 receivers do the uprez internally (and much better the most cams do internally). This is about what the Sony 170 outputs when croped to letterbox in post

October 8th, 2004, 05:10 AM	#139
Gareth Watkins Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: France Posts: 578	So what you are saying is that for the forseeable future.. Television isn't going to start upping its output quality, not until the 4:3 ratio disappears.... Cheers Gareth

October 8th, 2004, 06:33 AM	#140
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Not quite Gareth... Correct for analog, but a lot of things are changing with DTV expected in the years to come... mostly for those who have the equipment and want to pay. Digital TV will allow transmission of real 16:9 (anamorphic) images.

October 8th, 2004, 06:42 AM	#141
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	Gareth, I would indeed recommend the XM2 for a good few years yet for use in Europe. It's a case of bread and butter today, jam tomorrow... Robin

November 9th, 2004, 08:59 AM	#142
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : 16:9 can also be achieved by using the slim digital effect. Treat your footage as anamorphic This is basically what the DVX100a is doing -->>> I haven't decide on a camera yet so I don't have the manual. Can you tell me what the slim digital effect is?

November 9th, 2004, 10:40 AM	#143
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	If you get the Century 1.33:1 anamorphic lens Ruben both your viewfinders will look vertically stretched (ie tall, thin people) but when the footage is played out to a 16:9 TV it'll fill the frame perfectly, no black bars anywhere. Of course you'll be restricted slightly in the amount of zoom you can use (at both ends) but the anamorphic will give you more wide-angle coverage anyway - though only horizontally of course. tom.

February 1st, 2005, 07:12 PM	#146
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Jeff is correct. The VX-2000, VX-2100, PD-150 and PD-170 just crop the image to 720x360 then stretch it vertically back to 720x480 to make it anamorphic. It's "true 16:9" in the sense that it's an anamorphic image that will display properly on a widescreen TV, but you lose 25% of the vertical resolution so it looks much more softer than the PDX-10. The following tests show the difference between the PDX-10 and VX-2000: http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9

February 1st, 2005, 09:42 PM	#147
Scott Shama Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Beaverton, Oregon Posts: 399	Thanks for the explanation! So it's really no different than if I shoot 4:3 and crop it my self to 16:9 in Final Cut Pro. I have been looking at maybe getting a used VX2000 since I am looking to get into shooting weddings on the side. Cheers, Scott

February 1st, 2005, 09:51 PM	#148
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Yes, this is true. You'll get about the same quality by cropping/stretching in post. Plus you have the option to adjust the framing this way.

March 19th, 2005, 05:43 AM	#150
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	It isn' t "fake" or "distorted"... it is proper anamorphic 16:9. Its weakness comes from the fact that the camera's CCD's are in the 4:3 proportion and can only capture 480 vertical lines. So when you shoot in 16:9 it chops off the top and bottom of the image to acheive the proper proportion. That only uses 360 of the vertical lines, so you're throwing away 25% of your vertical resolution (120/480). The camera then stretches the image vertically back to 480 lines so it's in the proper anamorphic 16:9 format. It will display correctly on a widescreen TV, but you will notice a loss of detail. It has a lot to do with the sort of stuff you're shooting. For closeups it isn't too bad. For wide shots with a lot of detail you'll notice that it looks sort of out of focus. Give it a try and see what you think...