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

[Bill Pryor]

I've shot the electronic 16:9 with a DSR250 and while there is just a little extra softness and noise when compared to the 4:3 mode, overall it looks pretty good, assuming your exposures and focus are good.

As mentioned, true 16:9 is anamorphic and must be played on a 16:9 monitor or video projector with 16:9 mode. Otherwise it will be distorted. You can do your project in 16:9 and make a letterboxed version, which is easy with most NLEs. Be aware that if you crop your 4:3 footage, you end up with a 16:9 shape, but it's still a 4:3 chunk of video. If you label a tape 16:9 and somebody at a festival switches their video projector to 16:9, then your tape will be distorted (I speak from experience here).

Why don't you shoot some tests and see for yourself whether you think the 16:9 mode is good enough.

[James Lilly]

I just shot a concert in 16:9 format, no lense attachments, just what was built into the machine, and was moderately impressed. How much of a difference does it make to have the lense attachment do it for you? Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.


Another question I have is about the best rendering, editing, production software for a PC. I have played with Vegas 5 and Pinnacle 8.5 and wonder which one you guys think is the best? Or is there a third and better option I have not looked at yet?

Thank you all so much, I really appreciate any and all assistance with this.

James

[Doug Okamoto]

According to the Sony DV guru (at least I think he is) Adam Wilt, the best way to get 16:9 in DV aquisition format is to shoot with a 16:9 camera such as the Sony DSR 570 (or in more realistic terms the PDX-10) the next best thing is to use a GOOD anamorphic lens adapter (IMO, the Century Optics 16:9 widescreen adapter is the best I've seen) and then using the internal anamorphic as a last resort.

I have dabbled with Vegas and have friends that love it (can't say anything about the Pinnacle products since I haven't ever used them) but it is not the tools that make the end result, it's how you can use them that counts. As far as a third option, it really depends on how much you want to spend and what you want to do that needs to be know before a knowledgeable answer can be obtained.

HTH,

Doug

[James Lilly]

Thank you for the advice on the 16:9. I've heard it too, but was honestly so impressed with what was built in that I was starting to think it didn't matter much.

As for the software, I would like effects, transitions, and I'd like software that had the ability to give interlaced more of a progressive film look.

I'm fairly experienced with editing, just curious if there are better tools for what I'm trying to do. Which is mainly a documentary and some humorous shorts.

[Mike Rehmus]

I suggest you go peruse the editing forums for both the PC and Mac or just that forum that covers the computer type you have.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I was never very happy with the 16:9 mode on my VX-2000 but haven't tried the VX-2100. However it has a lot to do with the sort of stuff you're shooting I suppose. Around a year ago I did a comparison with the PDX-10 which you will find here. Some quick tests convinced me that you would get better 16:9 on the VX-2000 by shooting 4:3 then cropping and stretching in post. But I would encourage you to shoot your own tests, compare them, and see what works best for you.

[Tom Hardwick]

The nice thing about shooting using the in-built 16:9 mode James is that your viewfinders are undistorted, you retain all your zoom range, the camera's autio foucs and Steadyshot behave themselves and you don't have a big blob of cylindrical glass hanging on those filter threads. OK, the technical quality is slightly worse, but overall your film might look better. Just think of the mistakes you could make with an anamorphic (see list above).

tom.

[Laurence Kingston]

I've had my VX-2000 a couple of years now, but I never actually tried the 16:9 mode until today. I didn't realize it stretched the video before recording it, and that leads me to the following question.

I know resolution wise, it makes just as much sense to shoot at 4:3 and letterbox, but aren't there also interlace issues that might make the camera stretch better looking.

How do the Sony cameras deal with interlacing the stretched pixels. Are pixels on adjacent lines just doubled every third line or so, or are they recaptured 1/60th of a second later from the same CCD pixel. It seems to me that depending on the algorythm Sony chose for their 16:9 video capture, there might be some advantage to using this mode instead of letterboxing, especially on motion shots. Is this a real consideration or am I just thinking too much?

[John Norman]

I'm new to the forum and to Mini Dv in general, but I was under the impression that a dvd player would recognize the 16:9 format and play it correctly, the black bars appearing at the top and bottom, even on 4:3 screen.

[Bill Pryor]

Most festivals I know about don't project DVD, and many of the big theatrical projectors require an anamorphic lens and menu-switching to 16:9.

[John Norman]

Thanks Bill, but if one had no plans for release to the big screen, and only in dvd format, wouldn't the dvd player correctly display the film in the 16:9 ratio?

[Boyd Ostroff]

Yes, assuming the user has properly configured their player. The DVD player should have an item on the menu to identify the kind of TV it's hooked up to. If you choose 4:3 then the player will provide a letterbox as needed. All the players I've seen default to a 4:3 screen unless deliberated changed by the user to 16:9.

Regarding 16:9 on the PD-150/VX-2000, have you seen the resolution tests I did here? http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9 Of course the builtin mode may be just fine for you, depending on what you want/what you expect.

My experience is that you could crop/stretch in post with these cameras and get equivalent results to the in-camera 16:9, but of course that requires rendering. Actually, I think the best results will come from simply letterboxing in post, then let your widescreen TV expand this to full screen. My Sony 16:9 LCD has a mode called "zoom" which does this. The hardware scaler in the monitor does a better job of stretching the image than either the NLE software or the in-camera 16:9.

Take a look at Andre's comments and the link he posted in this thread

[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

[John Norman]

Thanks to all.

[Ruben Senderey]

can you explain SLIM and ANAMORPHIC effect

i have vx2100 and triyng to shoot 16:9 , somebody told me about a special anamorphic lens,

thank you

Ruben Senderey