I'm in the process of looking at purchasing the HVX200 and gear.

We are shooting this summer, and I want to have the final product be "true" 16:9 widescreen. IE, letterboxed because the shot is wide, not cropped to look like letterbox.

I know the HVX200 shoots native 16:9... how wide is the stock lens? Will I need to purchase a wideangle adaptor (if so, how wide and what Brand would you recommend)?

With no wide angle adaptor, what would my final output look like? With a wide angle adaptor, if needed, what would my final output look like?

Nobody can really tell you if you need a wide-angle adapter, but I'm guessing that after the spare battery and some tapes (or P2 cards) the widie is what most shooters crave for.

And with good reason. Modern camcorder zooms go from sort-of wide to pretty good telephoto, so generally a wide converter is a must (the PD170 had one bundled for free, the w/angle coverage of its 12x zoom was so poor).

Some folk buy a widie to 'get more in', but the real reason to get one is to offer the cinematographer far better perspective control. It also doesn't hurt that the shorter the focal length, the less the wobbles appear on screen as you track your talent, OIS or no OIS.

So yes, I'd say you do need a widie for the Panasonic. How powerful is a moot point, but I'd say the hassle factor of fitting a converter lens means that you should be fitting a powerful one, say a 0.5x rather than a mild one like a 0.8x. What would your final output look like? Well, with a 0.5x converter in place you'll see a scene twice as wide as without the lens attached. Saves a lot of hosepiping of groups.

You use some odd terminology Daniel. The HVX shoots true widescreen, and it'll only look letterboxed if shown on an old fashioned 4:3 TV off DVD.

What brand do I recommend? I'll avoid brand names but tell you that if you want full zoom through you'll generally have to put up with noticeable barrel distortion. With a partial zoom-through you can buy a single element aspheric and keep straight lines straight. That's the way I like it.

tom.

The OP seems to be speaking about 16:9 Wide, which requires no adapter, and the respondent seems to be speaking about a 'Wide Angle Adapter' which offers a wider angle of view than the stock lens ... two different topics.

The camcorder shoots true wide, as do many DV camcorders -- there is no letterboxing, though there may in some other cases be imaging chips that are not able to deliver the maximum resolution. Truth is, even the HVX imaging chips are not 1920x1080 ... so they too are a compromise, but they are a true widescreen compromise, no extra lens required.

Nor in fact is there a lens you can add to the HVX200 that would deliver widescreen when in HD mode -- that trick would only work in SD, shot at 4:3 with the 16:9 adapter in place ...

HTH

GB

Daniel's last sentence asks: ''With no wide angle adaptor, what would my final output look like? With a wide angle adaptor, if needed, what would my final output look like?''

That sure sounds to me as if he's asking about a wide angle adapter, and I answered him on that understanding.

GB, you say, ''Nor in fact is there a lens you can add to the HVX200 that would deliver widescreen when in HD mode''. I don't understand your thinking here, as any wide angle lens attachment would ''deliver wide screen while in the HD mode''.

tom.

I repeat, possibly with more clairity: The OP seems to be asking for a conversion lens that will take an SD 4:3 and anamorphically convert it to 16:9. Such lens exist, and are used on SD camcorders to deliver same.

Tom describes what I too would call 'a wide angle convertor' or 'adapter' -- a lens that takes the widest angle of view and makes it wider, i.e. a lens with a stock angle of view like a 35mm lens on a film camera, 'converted' to look like a 20mm lens.

I have no quibble with Tom, beyond a suggestion that the OP seems to be asking about 16:9 convertors, not wide angle 'extenders', to coin a phrase. Tom's advice is entirely sound, should that be what the OP wants -- owning a wide angle 'extender' has always been the first thing I've added to a camcorder.

GB

Ok, I think I'm a little confused and I suppose I'm not sure what I'm asking. Tom - my terminology is strange? Where so? It is most likely because I am not really sure what I'm asking!

Sorry to sound like noob on this; but I guess I am wondering this now:

Standard 4:3 Projector or Television. TV is full screen; 4:3. If I watch a DVD movie, it is widescreen, with letterboxing on top and bottom. My understanding is that there are different aspect rations depending on how wide the shot is, but "true" widescreen is 16:9... is this correct? If this doesn't make sense I think I need a little lesson here :)

It is also my understanding that to have a shot that is wide enough to REQUIRE letterboxing, you have to have a lens that captures an image that wide. I know some cameras have a 16:9 mode and they just chop off the top/bottom of the frame. I don't want that. I want a shot that is truely shot wide-angle, in 16:9 aspect ratio, where it will simply not fit into a standard 4:3 television screen without being letterboxed.

What I was wondering, then, is how wide is the lens on the HVX-200? If I turn the camera to 16:9 mode, what exactly does this do? What does it mean that the camera is 16:9 native? I don't just want black bars added, I want an image that has been captured that is truely wide.

So, is the stock HVX-200 lens a true wide angle lens that shoots in a 16:9 aspect ratio? Or will I need to add a wide angle adaptor to get my image to the proper width?

Is my terminology all messed up here? If so, I'd really appreciate an explanation. Sorry and thanks for the patience!

'Widescreen' is not actually 'wide' ... it just isn't tall. You can take a close up with a widescreen camcorder (which is what every HD camcorder is -- there is no such thing as 4:3 HD, leaving aside the oddball description of 480p as an 'HD' format which some may attempt) -- the final image is exactly the same as a shot from a 4:3 camera that has been masked top and bottom. Widescreen is not, despite the suggestion in the name, wide ...

So you don't need anything to get real widescreen from the HVX -- in HD mode, that's all you can get. It is as good as the imaging chip allows, which is pretty good though some other devices with different imaging chips may offer better ... but no additional lens will change that.

If you want a 'wider angle of view' than the lens is capable of, you can add a wide angle adapter to extend the angle wider than the stock lens delivers -- but it won't change the 16:9 aspect ratio, and is not in fact part of what makes the shot 'widescreen'.

Sorry if this doesn't explain it fully, though in truth I have a hard time understanding how you may be confused. And my apologies to Tom if he felt I slighted his answer in any way.

GB

Daniel,
Here is the specs on the lens on the HVX200
(from the description of the camera on the B&H site)
Leica Dicomar 13 x Zoom
4.2mm to 55mm f/1.6
(35mm Still Film Equivalence 32.5 to 423mm)
82mm Filter Diameter

Since the camera will shoot in 16:9 format then you don't need an adaptor to give you widescreen.
However as for whether or not you NEED a wide angle adaptor as it was said before it depends on the job.
I don't own the camera nor do I have experience using a standard WA angle adaptor on a 16:9 camera so I can't speak as to how the image would look (4:3 or 16:9) but before investing in a decent adaptor I would judge whether or not you need one.
If all you're looking for is true widescreen then the standard lens on the HVX200 will do that for you.

Don

Ok, that seems to make a bit more sense. So it will "look" like a letterboxed DVD by default when shooting in HD. However, how wide that field of view is depends on the lens.

Question then: what about when shooting in SD mode? Will it fill the whole screen of a standard 4:3 television? Can I switch this so that image captured is still wide, or will it require cropping then?

Finally, if I do decide that I need a WA adapotor, I looked at Century Optics site and they have these two listed for the HVX:

0HD-06WA-HVX .6X WA, PANASONIC HVX200 $475.00 EA

0HD-75CV-HVX .75X W/A CONVERTER HVX200 $1,195.00 EA

LINK: http://www.schneideroptics.com/century/prodv/hvx200/hvx200.htm

I was wondering why the 0.75x lens, which is not even as wide, is over twice the price of the wider 0.6x?

I don't believe that the HVX will switch to 4:3 mode. I saw nothing in the description of the camera to indicate that it can be switched to 4:3

Again from the description from B&H

Image Device 3-CCD, 1/3"
16:9 Native Aspect Chips

As for how wide the field of view is yes it depends on the lens, how far away from your subject matter you are and how much if any zoom you use-I can't answer that.


As far as the CO WA and the differences;
(Less expensive one)
Ideal for shooting situations in which zooming isn’t needed. The .6X attaches to the front of your video zoom lens for 40% wider angle of view and minimal distortion.

It allows partial zooming up to mid-range while in Auto Focus (loses focus beyond 5X). The resulting focal length is 2.5-14.9mm with a 87.7°-18.3° horizontal angle of view).

Comes in our popular Bayonet Mount that attaches with a twist to the front of your HVX200 13X lens.

(More expensive one)
Wide Angle Converter, the right tool for shooting situations that require both a wider angle of view and full zoom capability. Increases the field of view by 25%. This professional add-on lens produces crisp, high resolution images with low distortion, and superior contrast edge-to-edge. Interfaces directly to the bayonet mount on the front of the lens for quick and easy mounting & removal

The more expensive is a full zoom thru lens adaptor the other isn't.

Don

The HVX200 will record 4:3 SD but only in DV -- maybe also in DVCPro50, another SD format -- but not in any HD mode. Theoretically, that is the one time you could use a 16:9 anamorphic optical lens ... though I don't know why you would.

GB

Thanks for the info about shooting 4:3-like I said all that I know about the camera is from reading the description on B&H.
Learn something new everyday and maybe the manufacturer should re-write their decriptions ;-)

Don

Daniel,

The HVX200 is not only native 16:9 (widescreen) but the lens is literally, quite wide at 4.2mm. So you can get close and do some tight shooting if you need to. I haven't heard a lot of complaints about the HVX lens not being wide enough.

But the moral of this story is that a wide aspect ratio and a wide lens are two different things.

Daniel,

My recommendation is that before you make ANY equipment purchases that you first spend some time researching both the hardware and format options in the video world. A great place to start is: http://www.adamwilt.com . On that site you will find a great deal of basic and easy-to-understand explanations of many of the concepts you'll need to understand - including what 16:9 and 4:3 really is and how they both translate to how different TV's display those formats.

I'd also suggest picking up some industry magazines and books about the subject.

The HVX is one of the most complex handheld cameras on the market today and from what I've read in your posts you are going to get completely lost unless you get a good foundation of video standards knowledge first.

Thanks Robert, I appreciate that.

Can you recommend some magazines and books to me? (and anyone else as well!)

Daniel - you say, ''We are shooting this summer, and I want to have the final product be "true" 16:9 widescreen. IE, letterboxed because the shot is wide, not cropped to look like letterbox.'' - and this is what I was referring to when I said you used some strange terminology.

I think all the subsequent posts have sorted the situation now, but generally true 16:9 widescreen is taken to mean camcorders that capture the image onto native 16:9 chips, or which take a 16:9 rectangle out of the 4:3 chip (The HDV Sony HC3, for instance).

Cameras that were designed for shooting 4:3 (PD170, say) could only shoot widescreen by electronically compressing the picture and losing info top and bottom. 16:9 shown on a 4:3 TV is ''letterboxed''. whereas 4:3 on a 16:9 set is ''pillarboxed''.

Remember that HDV is 16:9 as part of the specification - there's no 4:3 HDV.

tom.

The PD170 and the PD150 before it, have 4:3 chips but use a 16:9 'centre' of the chip to record 16:9 at what I would always call 'true' widescreen -- unlike other devices that actually 'letterbox' straight to tape, so that the 16:9 recording is actually a masked and letterboxed 4:3 signal ...

I understand the preference for a true 16:9 chip (though surely the resolution of the chip is important here -- what if the resolution of the 'true' chip was actually lower than that of a centre-weighted 4:3 chip?) -- but I dispute the contention that the PD170, for example, does not record true 16:9 widescreen.

Cheers,
GB

You're quite correct RGB, the PD170 does shoot 'true 16:9' but it does it as a compromise, losing vertical resolution (compared to the 4:3 picture it produces) in the process. Sensibly the v'finders showed the results letterboxed, making composition a lot easier than on the Canons and Panasonics of the day.

The PDX10 went some way to overcoming the resolution limitation by using smaller (1"/5 chips) that had more pixels, so that selecting 16:9 actually gave you more wide-angle coverage. In fact if you see this happening if you switch your 4:3 camera to 16:9 you can be pretty sure you're not losing much vertical resolution in the move to 16:9.

But it's time we forgot 4:3 now - unless you're into IMAX.

tom.

I will go on record here -- tongue only loosely in cheek -- predicting the arrival of a terrific new aspect ratio, one that will arrive after we've all discarded our 4:3 sets and camcorders ... one that will deliver a magic experience that must be purchased to be believed, one that satisfies our most primal demand for balance and composition, one that the Ancient Greeks would have discovered if only they'd had access to and an understanding of technological obsolescence cycles ...

The future is 16:12 -- Mark my words.

Cheers,
GB

That was great RGB. You totally got me there. With the Greek reference I was sure you were going with the perfect ratio (as recently made popular in "The Da Vinci Code") of 1:1.618054.

I needed a laugh today. Thanks.

That was great RGB. You totally got me there. With the Greek reference I was sure you were going with the perfect ratio (as recently made popular in "The Da Vinci Code") of 1:1.618054.

I needed a laugh today. Thanks.

I don't get it.

I don't get it either, and this thread has become so convoluted it's far from it's mission of actually offering real assistance...

Here's a few books I highly recommend:

- Video Demystified, Fourth Edition (Demystifying technology), Keith Jack
- Lighting for Digital Video & Television, Second Edition, John Jackman
- Video Field Production and Editing (7th Edition), Ronald Compesi

That's a good start. With respect to magazines, just got to your local bookstore and see what they offer in the way of industry rags; they're not always stocked as well as things like Pop Photo but you might get lucky.

It's a math joke. 16:12 is the same as 4:3. The common denominator is 4.

"I always enjoy a good joke as soon as I know about it."

And I would disagree with you Robert, this thread didn't become convoluted, it started out that way.

It's a math joke...

There's a place for things of that nature on this forum, it's called "Area 51". Everyone likes good humor; using someone's post who is looking for help isn't the appropriate place to share them.

Sorry I offended.

It is my opinion that the query was answered thoroughly, even exhaustively, and the new request for general advice on how to become better informed is really a new thread -- perhaps the OP should consider starting a new one.

And I can't help but note that the poster that was offended ... didn't get it.

Cheers.
GB

My apologies.

Thank you for clarifying forum protocol.

anyway, discussions about aspect ratio are always tricky , especially when noobs come in.
the fact is that in video there is no 16/9 format.
everything is 4/3 with a pixel ratio from 1 to X.
if it is 1 (or close, currently DV is not exactly equal 1), it is 4/3 or letterboxed (black bars are used to fill empty space)
if it is bigger than 1 , it is anamorphic, it can be anything, 16/9, 16/10, 2.35 cinemascope, depends de ratio that was used.
People are reasoning optically, when you need to see the electronic aspect of things that is why most of people are lost.
now if you really want HDV with 4/3 , you just purchase an anamorphic lens, you turn it 90 degrees from normal position anf you get 1080 with square pixel.
or if you shoot an goold old time western-like, you add the same 16/9 anamorphic lens (in normal position) to you HDV camera, and you got a true 2.35 picture.
Next , the problem is signal compatibility.
since a screen is not alway able to read the aspect ratio written in the signal and display the picture accordingly, you can expect some disappointement. And to make things more complex, others devices like the DVD player can also decide the way the signal will be displayed or allows to setup which kind of screen is used.
That is why many DVD used to come with one side "wide" and one side "letterboxed".

The issue of aspect ratio is sure to confuse even those that think they've got it all right ... but your point on PAR is critical, as is an understanding of the difference between recorded signals and playback choices.

Cheers,
GB