DVX100 fake anamorphic or XM1 w/16:9 adaptor at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Techniques for Independent Production
The challenges of creating Digital Cinema and other narrative forms.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 19th, 2004, 10:58 AM   #1
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
DVX100 fake anamorphic or XM1 w/16:9 adaptor

I was just thinking about more versitle ways of using my camera on the next shoot. My own camera is a Canon XM1 with an Optex 16:9 adaptor. But I will have access to a Panasonic DVX100 if I wanted to use it. Now, I would love to use the DVX100 not just because of the progressive scan, but also because it affords a much wider variety of controls for setting up the image. The problem is that I need to shoot the project in true 16:9 as it will be made into an anamorphic DVD.

Now I was just thinking about resolution, as well as the fact that the DVX100 has a pretty wide field of view at the minimum zoom setting.

In Frame Mode on the XM1 it is said that we lose something like 25% of the available resolution.. But with the Panasonic in Progressive mode we get full resolution. So taking that into account, as well as the fact that in fake anamorphic mode we also lose something like 25-30% of the available resolution, would I be remotely correct in the following logic. That being that if I was to put the DVX100 into it's built in fake anamorphic mode in progressive scan that I would pretty much be getting the same resolution as the XM1 with an anamorphic adaptor?
Simon Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19th, 2004, 11:12 AM   #2
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,315
Well I've never seen anywhere that the DVX's 16:9 squeeze mode drops you 25-30% in resolution. That statement will probably be sorely contested here on this forum.

But even if that were true, you still have the fact that the DVX provides a much, much better picture then the XM1, and provides you better flexibility and image control in the field. (All other things being equal - i.e., lighting, etc.)

In addition, the XM1 has a 30fps frame mode, whereas the DVX can be 24 or 30 fps progressive, or 60i.

I personally would choose the DVX in the scenario you described for the above reason.
Imran Zaidi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19th, 2004, 11:19 AM   #3
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
Well, the reason why I stated that the fake DVX squeeze would lose resolution is because it would be stretching the image vertically cutting off the top and bottom of the picture to create what amounts to a stretched letterbox picture. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume this is how the anamorphic mode that is built into the DVX100 works? So in effect because the top and bottom of the picture is being cut off some of the usable lines in the picture are being cut off. I could be wrong though as I have never personally tried the DVX100 widescreen mode.
Simon Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2004, 02:53 AM   #4
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
So anyone? Any opinions on whether the DVX100 in squeeze mode on progressive scan setting gives the final displayable resolution as the XM1 in frame mode and an anamorphic adaptor?
Simon Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2004, 09:25 AM   #5
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Plainfield, New Jersey
Posts: 927
If you're worried about losing resolution then you have already lost by using the XM1's FAKE progressive mode. The only cameras to do true progressive or the DVX100, the XL2, and the JVC HDV cam. And I think you might be confusing the DVX100's squeeze mode with it's letterbox mode. The letter box mode is the mode which loses 25% of its resolution.
Glenn Gipson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2004, 12:47 PM   #6
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
Hi Glenn,

Yes, I realise that frame mode loses resolution. But I was considering continuing the shoot using a DVX100. The problem is that I don't have an anamorphic adaptor for the DVX so I was wonding if it was put into letterbox, or squeeze mode or whatever in progressive mode if it would lose more resolution than Frame Mode with a true anamorphic lens, or whether it would in fact have the same or even more?
Simon Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21st, 2004, 02:58 PM   #7
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Plainfield, New Jersey
Posts: 927
Ahh, I see. I wouldn't know the answer to that.
Glenn Gipson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23rd, 2004, 11:17 AM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Camarillo, CA
Posts: 340
Simon, I suggest you post your question in the DVX forum where the experts will know the answer. For what it's worth, I just finished an eight week (plus) doc with the DVX, and my 90 hours of footage was shot 24pA and framed for 16:9 but not actually set that way. I went that route owing to feedback I'd gotten, that doing it that way afforded me the most flexibilty down the line. I've had inquiries from Sony, Paramount, and PBS, which means it could go either way in the end... film out or television. And what I was told was that framing 16:9 meant that I didn't lose any information should it be effectively cropped for the big screen later. That info could be incorrect, but that's what I was told. Also, on a Birns and Sawyer DVD which covers the DVX (which I bought from the ACE website) a feature film cinematographer that used the DVX for an indie talked about doing it that way. She said that's what they did. Basically I put a clear plastic LCD protector on the LCD screen and black camera tape over that, where the 16:9 framing would be. We then just had to get used to where it would fall (just above the TC) on the EVF, as that's what we used nearly all the time.

Don't know if this helps any...
Marcia
Marcia Janine Galles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2004, 04:17 PM   #9
Barry Wan Kenobi
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,863
(using NTSC numbers here...)

The XM1 has a maximum possible resolution of 360 lines. Using "frame mode" cuts that by somewhere around 10%, so you'll get maybe about 320 lines. Using the anamorphic adapter should give you 16:9 with about 320 lines of resolution.

The DVX in progressive scan is capable of a full 480 lines, if you shoot with THIN or MID line detail. Put it in squeeze mode and you'll lose a little over 25% - the central 75% of the CCD is stretched to fill the screen. The result is that you get about 350 lines of resolution from a DVX100A in squeeze mode, when shot in progressive and with THIN line detail (or MID). (if you shoot interlaced, or THICK, the results will be much lower).

So the answer should be pretty clear: the DVX100A in progressive/THIN/squeeze will give you just as much resolution, but all the other picture benefits you get from a DVX.
Barry Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2004, 02:50 AM   #10
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
Excellent Barry, that was precisely the answer I was looking for. Thanks! :-))
Simon Wyndham is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Special Interest Areas > Techniques for Independent Production

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:06 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network