Thanks for the replies!
What's the best audio solution for a loud environment like a concert:
AGC audio or manual audio?

Cheers!

That's a great question, Chris!

I shot an indoor "rock concert" and I felt that the camera microphone (AGC style) on my Digital-8 camcorder resulted in slightly distorted audio but was actually acceptable if I absolutely had to use it. However since I shot with three cameras I decided not to use the sound from the Digital-8 camera other than to find sync with the other cameras.

(I primarily used the sound from the BetaCam SP and S-VHS ENG cameras instead because the Digital-8 camera was not left on at all times...argh, syncing was a bit annoying and as a result if I had tryed to mix in the audio from the Digital-8 camera it would suddenly disappear because the camera was mistakenly turned off at times.)

I'd say the single most important thing you can do is rig a wireless audio transmitter to send a feed from the board to one of your cameras. (I'm assuming you'll have more than one camera available?)

You'll probably need to "Pad" any on camera microphone that you use. My belief is that a -40 menu selection for microphone sensitivity should work really well in a loud environment (-60 being the normal setting) but many cameras don't allow one to set the sensitivity of their microphones in this manner.

I'm real curious if the Canon cameras with the manual audio inputs have internal padding, that would be awesome for your application.

My opinion is your best option would be an externally mounted camera microphone that allows you to pad the audio down signficantly before the audio recording signal actually reaches the camera audio record heads.

Low-Light Camera Recomendations?
 

I've been searching the internet for hours to learn as much as I can on this subject. Hopefully I can get some good suggestions from y'all.

My church wants to start video recording the services. The problem is finding a good video camera. I will be using it with my Mac to produce DVDs on a weekly basis. The biggest issue is light: The majority of use from this camera will be on a tripod in the church which is not very well lighted.

Which dv cam gives the most bang for the buck in low light? We were looking to spend $500-1000. I MIGHT be able to talk them into spending $2,000. Is something like the GL-2 really worth the price? If people tell me that the extra $1,000 is a must to get good video indoors, I'll swing for it. But honestly, will something around $1,000 or less be THAT much worse?

I don't want the DVDs I make from the camera to look like the Blair Witch Project. I want something that looks professional.

Other requirements (which most camera have anyway): Audio in from our sound board and analog video in to convert some old VHS tapes.

Your help is greatly appreciated!

The Sony VX2100 is your very best bet, if you aren't going to light your stuff.

$2400 US

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=303956&is=REG

The difference in light sensitivity between this camera and and anything less expensive that's not a 3CCD cam is, well, night and day! Several fstops worth, anyway. This camera is the entry level of light sensitive, professional image making instruments.

WARNING: do not attempt to go and find a cheaper price for this camera. You will undoubtedly be buying gray market or from an otherwise irresponisble dealer.
I promise.

If money is really tight and if you're comfortable with used equipment then you might look for a VX-2000. One recently sold in our Private Classifieds forum for $2,000, including accessories.

Speaking of which, don't forget to budget for the other things you're going to need: larger batteries, a decent tripod, carrying case, audio adaptors, etc. These things will be needed and will cost several hundred dollars over and above the cost of the camera. You might also consider a service policy/extended warranty.

What about these 3CCD cameras that are around $1,000? Like the Panasonic PV-GS200? It would be a lot easier for us to swing for one in that price range.

We'll need the cables and a good tripod and whatnot. Probably not a fancy case since the camera will rarely go anywhere.

My American Express gives me an extended warranty for free, so I can avoid the expensive service plans.

See what you can do about bumping up the light level without creating a hazard. Just switching to higher wattage bulbs will help. Have an electrician look around and see what can be safely done with the present system, but see what installing a few more fixtures can do. Perhaps installing a couple of 1K lights high on the walls or ceilings to light up the altar area would help. Theatrical fixtures should be fine and they'll be cheaper. Altman or Source Four are two good examples, Strand.

It would be worth the extra bucks to have the lighting upgraded so that the video will be well lit and therefore look good.

And then there's sound...

The NUMBER you want to look at is LUX rating. (I think 2100 is rated at 1 Lux) This will roughly provide light sensitivity comparisons among different cameras. But there is no absolute number. If you do not have enough light for the camera, it will degrade into grainier image long before it disappears or goes to the blair witch/infrared look. Your best bet is to see if you can try out any of them, maybe find someone who has one to come shoot for 10 minutes in actual lighting you will be using. Maybe you have some wedding videographers who have shot in your church before (or coming soon) under identical conditions?

You should probably try to buy all one camera model to make combining them into a dvd easier.

Another consideration is copyrights. While your church may have licensed certain music for performance purposes, it does not give you the right to make a recording or synchronization rights needed for an edited video. Especially if you are issuing/selling DVDs, this should be a concern. There have been cases lately of churches getting sued just for photocopying hymnal pages, so churches are in the attorney target zone these days. (easy to find, collectible judgements). You could also be personally liable for copyright infringement if it comes to that.

John is correct on all counts, but I'll add this: there is no standard for LUX measurement, so a lot of manufacturers try to compete on paper by claiming unrealistically low LUX numbers (actually Sony tends to err high). You're concerned not only with actual sensitivity, but also video noise, chroma noise and saturation, all of which tend to suffer at low light. I'll second (third?) the recommendation for a VX2000 or VX2100. I have a VX2000 and am constantly amazed at how well it does in extremely lowlight situations. If you want to get an idea, I have a couple of short clips here:

www.ruyitang.com/venice at night - 9.wmv

www.ruyitang.com/florence.wmv

I guess that's what I was trying to get across, Spencer. You want professional looking but aren't willing, apparently, to turn the lights up. Lighting is what makes for a professional look. Also, these $1000 3CCD cams have tiny sensor chips, making for dismal and grainy images in less than optimum lighting conditions, something we wedding videographers face often (which is why the VX2100/PD170 models are so popular with event videographers: 1/3 inch CCDs, light sensitive, clean gain...)
You get what you pay for.

sensor size has such influence on things as:

- depth of field (how large the area is that is in focus)
- how large the pixels are (depending on the amount of pixels), this can change the light sensitivity of the camera
- resolution (number of pixels) in combination with light sensitivity

mathew,
i might sound bias but bigger ccd do give you better image. in terms of setting and control, xl2 is no way near gy-dv5000.

ed

Hey,

Now I'm reading this thread, I'm very interested, just out of curiosity: does anyone has samples of such a 1/2 inch CCD cam?
I really want to see once how much difference it now actually is.

I suppose bigger CCD gives you shallower DOF or is it the opposite?

Thanks for the information

BTW: I'm not asking because I want to buy a new cam, but now I'm reading this I'm rather wondered that a 1/2 CCD cam is offered at the same price of a 1/3 inch CCD cam...
Does that JVC has interchangible lens system?
What would be the best for filmmaking? The XL2 I suppose?
Are the 1/2 inch CCD cams more used for the news broadcast?

Thanks,

mathieu,
i'm not sure whether dof got anything to do with ccd size but i've compare different ccd size camera on a side by side basis. the result is tremendous especially when working in low light enviroment. 2/3"ccd is very much sharper compare to the smaller one.
if you compare jvc gy-dv5000 with canon xl2, gy-dv5000 would definately be more superior as it was design for professional. xl2 is popular with indie and profesional because its the only affordable camera wtih interchangeable lens. with the pricing gap coming closer, i think indie and professional have a better option of choice.
i don't think 1/2"ccd is only use for news broadcast. its a matter of how the person behind the camera uses it. i have seen even, 1/3"ccd footages used for tv program.

ed

From the samples I've seen, the XL2 footage is "filmier". Not sure, but it might pack as much 16:9 resolution into the smaller chip than the 1/2" DV5000 CCD cropped to 16:9.
Bigger chips always win in low light though. I'd pick the XL2 for indie film where you can control your own lighting, but probably the DV5000 for everything else.

Thanks for the information, Ed.

PAL version which are the Best Camera Options!
 

I'm shooting PAL for my up comming project but I wonder about my camera choice because of budget and the choices I have.

I was set on the XL2 PAL with true 16:9 being the main factor.
2nd best was DVX 100A PAL The warm colors being main factor.

Both 24 fps a MUST but now I'm wondering if I'm shooting 25fps anyway. Why would that be important? I'm not taking advantage of that feature anyway.

So can any one give me CAMERA PAL options for a feature FILM? I'm transferring to Film is the XL2 still the best option or I'm I spending to much money on a camera that could easily be replaced by a cheap one if shooting 25fps.

Don't ask me why I'm not shooting 16mm or why I'm going PAL. Please just concentrate on the question a thousand thanks,....

forgive me, are you shooting at 24 or 25?

I wouldn't go for the DVX100 if it's only for the warm colours. I think you can achieve that with the camerasettings of the XL2 also, and in postproduction, where it's the best to adjust your colours.

Both cameras will do the job. But if you're shooting PAL, you will get 25 fps, not 24 fps. So if you need to transfer to film, you will end up with hassle. Contact your transferhouse to discuss the conversion issues, they sure will have some good advices and examples.

I use the PAL DVX100 and really like the machine. The DVX100A is even better. Use the squeeze mode or the anamorphic adapter with the DVX100A and you will have a great picture. The progressive video settings combined with the cinegamma color features will give you a good filmlook, as long as you light your shots properly and have a good DP.

I don't have any experiences with the XL2. Based on info on these kind of forums, I understand it has a nice widescreen feature and interchangable lenses. But it's more expensive than the DVX100(A) and it's cinegamma settings won't bring you as far as the DVX100 can.

Check the following webpage, it's about a comparisation between the DVX100A, XL2 and Sony minidv HD camcorder:
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

one disadvantage the gy-dv5000 have compare to xl2 when working on indie production, you can't use it in alot of places such as shopping complexes, theme park... without getting into trouble with the authorities:o(

ed

<<<-- Originally posted by Ed Liew : one disadvantage the gy-dv5000 have compare to xl2 when working on indie production, you can't use it in alot of places such as shopping complexes, theme park... without getting into trouble with the authorities:o(

ed -->>>

If you are doing that, the DVX100 is even a better choice, as the XL2 will still draw serious attention. Of course, shooting in those places is questionably legal at best anyway.

<< whether a standard DV tape actually has better quality than miniDV >>

You mean , whether a full-size DV tape actually has better quality than miniDV. And the answer is no. The only difference is the size of the cassette shell. Mini DV is not a format -- it's just the size of the cassette -- the same tape load goes into the full size cassettes as well. The format is still DV.

If you are going to transfer the footage to film I would urge you
to find the transfer facility first. Talk them through everything and
they will help you with the best camera for your shoot and what
mode to shoot in. From what I hear the facilities are able to better
work with certain type of footage than others etc.

If you get a PAL camera you cannot shoot in 24p, since those
camera's do not have that option (in response to your "Both 24
fps a MUST"). It is either PAL or 24p, not both. Ofcourse, most
PAL footage that is transferred to film is simply interpreted as
24p footage instead of 25p and the audio is stretched by 4% to
match the now sped up motion (which you will not see).

Please stop cross-posting Gladys. I've merged your two PAL
threads together and moved them to our Open DV Discussion
(general) forum where it belongs.

DVX with warm colours?? first ive heard of that one.. moreso cool colours as the CCD has been specifically designed to crush reds as red is the Bane of DV..

persoanlly i think the DVX100 kicks ass for this.. the whole look is just so damn right..

The XL2 requires intricate configurations, and a decent wide lense to really be abel to take advantage of it..

however if your shooting digital to specifically go to film, i woudl recommend teh Z1.. the higher rez, and larger frame size of HDV will reproduce a nicer, cleaner filmic transfer.

the PD1 (JVC) is also very suitable for filmout.. shoots 25p, true 16:9 and has incredible res.

I THINK MY QUESTION WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING Let me try again......

I want to shoot my project with the XL2 PAL on 16:9 I have two questions:


1) Is it possible to convert 16:9 to 3:4 for DVD distribution?
Will the movie loose resolution. How much? Is it better to shoot 3:4 then even though I want to go to Film initially but then I want to go into DVD rental market.


2) PAL or NTSC I know the dv film LAB transfer in TEXAS has the software to go from PAL to NTSC conversion and that it does not cause any effect on quality or resolution. BUT the 20% that everyone talks about that you gain by shooting PAL when compared to NTSC is always done at 25fps to 30fps. I guess because 24fps is fairly new it is never expalined if 25fps and 24fps are compatable or how different are the resolution gap betwwen both.


My question is if we compare 24fps NTSC and 25fps PAL is there still a 20% gain in reslolution?


Thanks
Gladys

Graham Jones Senior THANKS FOR THE TIP ON THE CAMERA!!!!!!!!!!!! I always get excited when there's a new possibility.

Are there other cameras DV that are true 16:9? out there?

I though the only one was the XL2

Thanks

Sure! I only saw our footage on a progressive 16:9 monitor last week. The guys in the post house thought it looked like HD. It doesn't - but it doesn't look like SD either. The res is very surprising, possibly because it captures HD and downconverts, but also it's the progressive quality. No interline blur. When we get our 60 sec 35mm test back I will post again.

> possible to convert 16:9 to 3:4 for DVD distribution?
> Will the movie loose resolution. How much? Is it better to
> shoot 3:4 then even though I want to go to Film initially but
> then I want to go into DVD rental market.

You can make 16:9 anamorphic DVDs, very similar to the way DV handles 16:9. If you want you can crop for 4:3 and in that case the answer is yes, you will lose some resolution. You can even program pan and scan so that DVD players move around a window in the frame when outputting to 4:3. At least so I have learned. But I have never done such a thing. I have only tested 16:9 letterboxed DVD from 16:9 PDX10 material. Looked great.

If for no other reason, go for PAL and the speed change so when you uprezz to HD in the future or transfer to film you will get the added resolution of PAL over NTSC.

Have you considered HDV? If you deinterlace HDV you should also get no interlace effects. And the higher resolution will help future-proof your material.

vx2100
 

My good buddy is a fantastic guy with a lot of talent. He is always on the phone on a well known radio show in NYC here. He has appeared on the show in person too. He has a lot of ambition. He does comedy. He had a rap song out well before Eminem was a "White rapper". He is a jack of all trades. People look at him in awe when he constantly lives up to his promises of bringing another celebrity around the neighborhood. In between, he drives a cab, owned a bagle store and what ever else to pay the bills. Recently he went to Vegas and met with the producers of some of the well know reality DVD's that go around. I won't name them. They use the VX2100. They gave him money towards making a movie. It could be about anything but they actually love his background. They want it to be about who he is. He has about 150 hours of his past life in DV from a Canon zr10 and high 8 from a Sony. He also has various footage that was donated to him from several shows that he has been on. One recent show featured a rapper that has since died. It was supposed to be a weekly show on the big music video channel we all know. The show was canceled of course. He has the un-aired footage of him. Since I have been a friend over the years, and the only one who has shown him what I have learned so far, he came to me to partner up with him. I have Sony Vegas and Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5. However, I know squat about the programs. I have been too busy to learn. I own a Canon Optura 300. Over the last six months, I have taken about 30 hours of family video and transfered it to DV on the computer I built. I have a decent rig. It has two WD Raptors in 74Gb. One 250Gb WD 7200 rpm SATA hard drive too. It is an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ s939. I have 1gb of Cas2 gamers ram. The video card is one under tops for gaming (not a matrox). For video rendering I have had no dropped frame rates. I never defragged in the 9 months since I had the machine and it stills renders video fast. I am basically new at this. I teach HS in Brooklyn NY. I want to help my buddy as best as I can. I hope to get a lot advice from anyone who wants to help with this project. BTW, I went to his house last night. When I walked in, he had a brand new Sony VX2100 sitting on a remote control tripod. He had about 2000 bucks in accesories laying beside it. My eyebrows went straight up. We both sat there and stared at it until I realized that we were both too scared to touch the camera. He said he threw out the box right away. I save boxes. When I asked why, he said, "I gotta stay positive. This movie will be made with this camera." This guy has talent and cajones. I read the manual for the vx2100 all day today. I would appreciate any advice from those who have used the camera before. I never used zebra striping before. It has built in ND filters too. So, does this idiot have any questions? Sure I do. Day two here ;) A few I could think of for now are;

1) What is your opinion on trying to edit on a PC. I never got past the artifacts that I get on the PC when rendering to a final DVD format. The motion artifacts. I know about DVD being lossy but I see better results from the work of others. Is a MAC needed in this business? I have had mixed opinions. Some one told me that I need Canopus and some time to play with settings. Man, I would need two lives for that. I have Canopus and I can't seem to get rid of the artifacting when the cam pans fast.

2) I'll ask about other's success in mixing different video cam's footage into one project. I know that the topic has been discussed before on this site.

3) My buddy told me that the guys who edited the movies in the reality DVD scene that he has hooked up with offered him to help me out. Yet, I still want advice from those who know anything about this camera.

Anyway, thanks for reading all of this if you did. I'll be back!

Michael,
You might want to post your questions in its own thread as it doesn't quiet exactly pertain to this thread. In any case, I think a moderator here will likely split it off into its own thread.

My crack at your questions:
1- Ideas are the #1 thing. Have a good idea of what you want to do and the story you want to tell. It might change when you start shooting, but if you don't have a good idea going in then you might lack focus.

2- You still need to pay a little attention to the technical aspects to make sure your footage is good. The first thing you should work on is keeping the camera steady. If you pay attention to this, it should be fine. Don't do the family video thing and run around with the camera and zoom in and out everywhere.

3- The next thing you should work on is audio. The goal is usually to pickup dialogue that is easily understandable and not muddied by echo/reverb or high background noise.

You need to get an external microphone and some support accessories for it. For run and gun stuff, it's likely that you'll have to settle with mounting the microphone on the camera unless you have a sound guy with a boom. The microphone on the camera is the worst place to put the microphone and will give you the worst sound. If you can use a handheld mic, wireless lav on the interviewee, or boom mic you will get better sound. But this may not always be practical, so you'll need to mount the microphone on the camera. You'll need a shotgun (or hypercardioid) microphone, windscreen, and shockmount.

Check the "now hear this"/audio forum here for equipment recommendations, as you will pull up lots of information if you search through the forum.

To learn more about getting good audio, I recommend you get Jay Rose's book "Great Sound for Digital Video" (see dplay.com for information on how to get it for $30). Apparently Ty Ford's book is good too, but I haven't read it so I can't say. There are also good resources on the internet.

4- The next most important thing IMO is to learn how to use your camera right. The BBC online training site has some great information on how they use the VX2000.
http://www.bbctraining.com/onlineCou...=5160&cat=2781

Learn how to get proper exposure, how to get proper focus, how to shoot things right so life is easier in post (i.e. avoiding timecode breaks).

5- If you are interviewing people, there are certain ways to interview people to get interviews. Ask open-ended questions instead of yes/no questions so you don't get one-word responses. Make the interviewee comfortable so they're more likely to open up to you. Start off with easy questions, try to minimize distractions, don't scare them with your gear (boom mic, camera in their face can be intimidating). People and interpersonal skills also really help, although you may not learn too much by reading about them. One way you might be able to get better at them would be to watch people and figure out what is going through their minds, try to see things from their point of view.

---

Those are the most important things in my opinion.

Editing: The button pushing/technical side of editing makes very little difference on your final product. You still need to know how to push those buttons though.

Do you need a Mac? No. PC/Premiere and PC/Vegas are very good tools for editing. They give the same quality as other systems more or less. Both are fairly stable and you can be quite productive with either as long as you figure out how to use them. There are various resources for learning how to use the programs... try the editing/post production forums here. I personally prefer Vegas, but that program may not make sense to you (you'll have to relearn things if you are used to Premiere or Final Cut).

DVD: Try posting in the appropriate post production forum here with information on what program you are using to make your DVD, and how long your video is. You just need to increase the bitrate you're using to encode.

If there are consumer cameras involved, you should likely try to match the footage as the consumer stuff will stand out. You can see an example of what Vegas can do at my website:
http://www.glennchan.info/matching/matching.htm
(One camera is prosumer/pro 3CCD camera like the VX2100, the other consumer.)

Premiere Pro can only do the same level of color correction with 3rd party stuff (color finesse plug-in, or automatic duck to move your project into high-end avid/combustion/after effects).

If the ideas in your video are good and there's money involved, you can get the special editing stuff done by someone else (i.e. color correction, audio post, DVD authoring). In this case, using Premiere Pro can be a good idea as you can finish off Premiere projects on higher end systems (Automatic Duck into another system for color correction, OMF export for Pro Tools or equivalent for audio post).

As Mark writes, spend the money on lights. You can buy a little $1000 camera, $500 on lights for better results and the rest for a wireless microphone system.

I have a VX2000, and it is very soft wide open.
You will need to shoot it at f/4 for sharpness.

Thanks for the immediate advice. I'm going to spend today researching all that you have mentioned in your post.

Thank you guys!!!!!

I just checked on the JVC GR PD1 and found out that it's half the price of the XL2 and it's a true 16:9 found some footage on line at
http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_formentera1.html is aTANGO movie shot in Paris. small clip but it looks good. The only thing I found to be areal set back is loss of color due to it being ONLY a ONE chip cam however the resolution is Great!!!!!! becasue is a HDV cam.

Director Peter Jackson used the JVC GR-PD1 for shooting his version of King Kong blockbuster.

There are many reason for that option he said:

1. Multi-Format Recording and Playback: MPEG-2 PAL Progressive (16:9 625/50p 625/25p,
4:3 625/50p), DV PAL Interlace (4:3, 625/50i).

2. Component (Y/Pb/Pr), Y/C, Composite, i.LINK interfaces.

3. Hi-Def F1.8-F1.9 Optically Stabilised Zoom Lens.

4. 1/3-inch 1.18 Megapixel Progressive Scan 16:9 CCD with Hybrid
Complementary-Primary Digital Filter.

5. Native resolution of the only one CCD is 1280x659 pixels with a
widescreen 16:9 progressive scan.

6. MPEG-2 Recording on MiniDV Cassette.

7. The camera captures video at a resolution of 1280 x 659 pixels, with 25 progressively
scanned frames per second. The output/capture picture size starts with 1024x576 pixels in
m2t file (MPEG-TS). That size can be easy up convert to the smaller HD scan line count with
the higher resolution progressive scan of 1280x720 pixels in 10 bit uncompressed file with
very little, if any, quality loss.

8. It means that with JVC GR-PD1 you get the best picture quality at 720p25 for
that camera price below Euro € 2000.

9. If you would work on Apple Macintosh with Final Cut Pro HD you do not need any
additional HDV software to buy. All other HDV applications can be found online and
they are free of charge. Also Apple at Macworld SF 2005 released native HDV support in
Final Cut Express HD and iMovie.

10. Free helper apps on Mac are Apple DVHSCap , MPEG Streamclip, DiVA and VLC Player.

11. EDITING ON MAC

Variant 1: Go on Apple site, find iMovie HD, read and order iLife suite where you can get
iMovie HD. Than follow iMovie HD worklflow.

Variant 2: Go on Apple site, find Final Cut Express HD, read about HDV workflow and
order FCE HD.

Variant 3: My workflow at "Free Capture, Preview, Encoding with Mac"



JVC GR-PD1 (625p)

If you are a freak of shooting a low budget FILM on VIDEO or like somebody called "digital intermediate" and if you would like to achieve 24fps HD FILM-STYLE video with the highest picture quality from the cheapest native 16:9 Wide Screen Extended Definition Progressive Scan Digital Video Camera on the market that costs less than Euro € 2500 you should probably try out JVC GR-PD1.

I hope this helps someone with a very very ultra low BUDGET as for me I have finally decided TODAY. I will go with the Canon XL2 E PAL. Finally after 6 months of thinking an researching and analysis I finally reached a decision. It's going to be a challenge with the lenses and focus problems of the 20X but I am hopefull that in the end I will have a good enough Product to market.

This are my personal, personal rates for cameras good enough to transfer to 35mm Film if shot with a good DP and Story.

Best: Canon XL2 E PAL
2nd: DVX 100A PAL
3rd: JVC GR PD1
4th: Sony PD 170 or 150 PAL

A thousand THANKS again. No more posting required on this subject for me I'm done......

I saw a photo of Jackson on the roof of a building, maybe empire state, with the PD1 but just assumed he was on a recy..

I was thinking Sony when is said HDV. The JVC camera you mention is a single-sensor cam and at that size, it has problems with noise, especially chroma noise, unless you have a lot of light are your disposal, which in the case of budget production is not usually the case. Sensitivity of the Sony FX1/Z1 is not as good as the PD170 but much better than the JVC.

You DO NOT (!) need a 4:3 DVD if you have 16:9 source material
(unless you do not want the black bars on a 4:3 TV).

DVD players can automatically letterbox 16:9 footage for display
on a 4:3 TV if these players are set up correctly.

All those commercial Hollywood DVD's are 16:9 anamorphic. If you
told your DVD player you have a 16:9 TV attached it will send the
signal as is. If you told it there is a 4:3 TV attached it will first
squeeze the footage down and then add the black bars.

So stick with a 16:9 DVD for 16:9 footage.

Also:

" from PAL to NTSC conversion and that it does not cause any effect on quality or resolution "

Is in my opinion totally incorrect. You will always loose some
quality and you will definitely loose resolution!

I have compared and try the VX2100 with a DVC80, and it really sucks at low light... also in the DVC80 you have much more manual controls than the sony.


I am getting a DVC60 as a companion to my DVC80,... (crap it isnt sold anymore... )


I have tested it.. and it look like a solid choice.