DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Alternative Imaging Methods (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/alternative-imaging-methods/)
-   -   mini 35 and dvx100: 16:9 ?? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/alternative-imaging-methods/17646-mini-35-dvx100-16-9-a.html)

Othello Khanh November 26th, 2003 09:34 PM

mini 35 and dvx100: 16:9 ??
 
Hi there,
I'm wondering how to achieve a 16:9 frame without cropping shooting on dvx100 and mini35 using carl zeiss lenses.
1) panasonic 16:9 anamorphic lens between camera and mini 35, or
2) 16:9 anamorphic lens in front of carl zeiss, in this case which one?
Thanks for input

Mizell Wilson November 28th, 2003 12:25 PM

Othello,

There are currently 2 ways to achieve 16x9 with the DVX100, but unfortunately they both involve cropping, either in camera or in post.

You are able to get a scoped image by using anamorphic primes from Hawk, Panavision, et. al. but there is currently no way to achieve it with just Zeiss lenses.

Mizell

Dennis Hingsberg November 28th, 2003 12:48 PM

For what its worth, there was a post I read once somewhere (who knows where now) that proved to me when I saw the images that there is very little difference between optically achieving 16:9 on a 4:3 CCD or using a cameras built in 16:9 electronic option.

I would question introducing additional optics to a camera with its own built in fixed lens though - but with the DVX100 you don't have the electronic 16:9 option either so the only option using a DVX100 would be to letterbox in post.

Mizell Wilson November 28th, 2003 12:56 PM

Actually, I just used a DVX100 for the first time Wednesday and it does have an in camera letterbox. I wasn't sure it did, but it turns out it does.

The only, and best as far as I'm concerned, argument I've heard about using either one is towards the compression engine.

Theoretically, whether you use the in camera or box in post, you are losing the exact same amount of scan lines. If you use the in camera (and this argument was for the XL1s) then even though you are losing those lines, since the camera knows it's chopping them off, it re-adjusts the compression engine to only work on those lines still existing. With boxing in post, the compression engine was working on the full chip, so if there was significant information in the top and bottom area, then you've lost some resolution in the area you keep.

The big advantage to shooting 4:3 and boxing in post is that you have the opportunity to re-frame in post if necessary, because all the frame information is there whereas with in camera, it's gone for good.

mizell

Othello Khanh November 29th, 2003 12:02 AM

Mizell,
I''ve been reading in another thread that the new dvx100 A (for advanced) has a squeeze mode for 16:9.
Using this mode what will the ccd capture?
Thank for your help.

Mizell Wilson November 29th, 2003 04:55 PM

I'll be meeting with Panasonic reps this week in Alberta, Canada and I'll try to get the full scoop.

For any Canadian readers in the Calgary or Edmuntun areas should check out www.scorchedice.com for more information on my presentations to AMPIA this week.

cheers,

mizell

Othello Khanh November 30th, 2003 01:37 AM

Mizell,
Have a good trip to Alberta.
Look forward to know if dvxa in squeeze mode using mini35 and non anamorphic prime lens will capture 16:9.

Another question: Will mini35 need different adaptor to fit dvxa.

Regards from Saigon.

Barry Green November 30th, 2003 11:26 PM

"if dvxa in squeeze mode using mini35 and non anamorphic prime lens will capture 16:9."

That is exactly what it will do.

"Will mini35 need different adaptor to fit dvxa."

Barring some inconceivable difference, the existing mini35 should fit directly on the DVX100/A.

Having used the mini35 on the DVX, the lack of 16:9 was the only real gripe I had -- other than that I LOVED the system. I had to shoot letterbox. Now that the DVX/A will have in-camera 16:9 (and hopefully it will be a GOOD implementation) that might be the ideal solution.

Sean Porter January 3rd, 2004 09:10 PM

i need to find the website again, but I did at one point see a side by side comparison of a dvx100 with the panny 16:9 anamorphic and that of the 4:3 version cropped and stretched using Vegas 4.0... upon enlargement it was difficult to see marked inprovement with the 16:9 lens.. it was really interesting.. I'd want to see some resolution chart tests tho.

Wesley Wong July 5th, 2004 11:08 PM

old thread digger, :)

so now that we have the DVX-100A , my question is, are we able to use the 16:9 anamorphic adaptor lens on the DVX , with the mini 35 ? instead of using the 16:9 squeeze mode in the camera ?

Would this be possible to achieve a widescreen video with no loss of the vertical resolution ?


many grateful thanks for the answers out there.

Barry Green July 6th, 2004 10:58 AM

If you can mount the anamorphic in front of the mini35's lens, it should probably work. If you're using still-camera lenses with front lens threads, you could probably mount it with a step-up ring, but if the lens threads rotate when you focus then it might be a nightmare.

If you made some sort of custom bracket to hold the anamorphic adapter, perhaps leveraging off the mini35's existing rod system, then it might be possible.

Wesley Wong July 6th, 2004 11:28 AM

thanks guru Green, I get what you mean.

Thank you for the help in clarifying this.

Eric MacIver July 6th, 2004 12:51 PM

I'd be interested in hearing what Panasonic says about their 16:9 squeeze mode in the new "A" model, but I read through the materials they have on it and they say:

"Use the optional 16:9 conversion lens, sold seperately, to take full advantage of the higher image quality made possible by using all of the CCD pixels".

So, it sounds li ke there's no benefit to using the squeeze mode other than perhaps the compression issue. However, their materials make it look like it is recording the same amount of pixels if you squeeze or if you letterbox...

As a side note - we've been using the "A" model with our Mini35 400 series and T1.3 Ziess SuperSpeed Primes - and it looks amazing, especially with the "A" model's new CineGamma settings.

After a few trials, I prefer to shoot in 4:3, because the slight compression benefits you get, in my opinion, are outweighed by some of that extra flexibility in post... After all, with that extra image room at top an bottom you can shoot on a tripod and simulate some image movement in post, for a shaky cam or slight tracking shot.

Barry Green July 6th, 2004 09:30 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric MacIver : However, their materials make it look like it is recording the same amount of pixels if you squeeze or if you letterbox... -->>>

Correct. They use the same pixels, the same area of the CCD. The difference is that "letterbox" is designed to output to a 4:3 television, whereas "squeeze" is designed to output to a 16:9 TV. But they're the same resolution using the same area of the CCD. The anamorphic adapter lets you output to a 16:9 TV while using ALL of the CCD pixels.

Ignacio Rodriguez July 6th, 2004 10:13 PM

> Correct. They use the same pixels, the same area of the CCD.
> The difference is that "letterbox" is designed to output to a 4:3
> television, whereas "squeeze" is designed to output to a 16:9
> TV. But they're the same resolution using the same area of the
> CCD. The anamorphic adapter lets you output to a 16:9 TV
> while using ALL of the CCD pixels.

BUT you are using less of DV's bandwidth with in-camera letterboxing. I don't have a DXV, but if I did I would prefer "squeeze" mode, 30P or 24P and see what happens. Also, remember to turn of the vertical LPF (I don't remember the exact name of the setting) when in proscan, this probably makes a big difference, especially when doing 16:9 where vertical resolution is the main issue.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:53 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2019 The Digital Video Information Network