GS400 16:9 widescreen mode: a theory at DVinfo.net

Mikhail Transact · May 20th, 2004, 11:49 AM

If we suggest G400 reach hi-resolution widescreen by using maximum available CCD width, we can imagine picture such this:

http://www.philipok.ru/other/G400_CCD_suggestion.gif

All sizes are approximated, and fact the pixels are not square is ignored.

If it’s true we have next advantages. Amount of pixels in widescreen mode (746k) is more then 4:3 mode (690k). WIdescreen horizontal field of view is equivalent to card mode and is 37,6 ìì (as 35mm_film). That is much better then 45mm in 4:3 tape mode! No wideangle attachment is needed in most cases.

The price of it is slight decreasing of vertical amount of pixels – about 9%.

Our future test will show us is it right or not.

Tommy Haupfear · May 20th, 2004, 01:00 PM

Quote:

The price of it is slight decreasing of vertical amount of pixels – about 9%.

Of course all of this is guess work but with the numbers you posted a 9% loss in vertical will not be noticed since both are well over the 720x480 of NTSC.

The GS400 stands a good chance of having an identical widescreen mode to the PDX10 (and that is a very good thing).

Kevin A. Sturges · May 20th, 2004, 01:03 PM

Let’s hope whatever it’s doing is better than what’s being shown up a little farther in the forum, in the TRV50 threads. They show frame grabs on a chart, taken from a VX2000, and PDX10 (I think) that reveal the horrible-ness that occurs if you try to use them in 16/9 mode. The frame grabs made those cams look the same as a test shoot from my $650 single chip Sony D8 in 16/9. Video that BAD from an almost $3’000 camera?? Come on.

Isn’t the Sony TRV950 using the same chips as the PDX10? If the new replacement for it (HS…something…) is still using the same chip, it will be a total disappointment for widescreen use. What is going on here? How can manufactures keep putting out such junk with such high price tags? Why don’t they respond to their markets complaints about this?

It can’t be that hard after 5 years to just make the CCD a LITTLE bigger. Look at how far digital still cams have come, and how cheap they are now.

Please, please let the GS400 do better widescreen than the Sony’s.

Tommy Haupfear · May 20th, 2004, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Please, please let the GS400 do better widescreen than the Sony’s.

Kevin, you really need to try and use the PDX10's widescreen feature. There isn't another 3CCD cam like it under $8000 where 16:9 is concerned. Of course its still constrained by the limitations of SD video but its the best widescreen mode I've ever used. Its crazy how the TRV950 and PDX10 have the same CCD and pixel count but the PDX10 has a vastly superior widescreen mode.

Here are a few 16:9 frame grabs from my past PDX10.

http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...elected=441334

Bruce Simpson · May 20th, 2004, 05:18 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin use. What is going on here? How can manufactures keep putting out such junk with such high price tags? Why don’t they respond to their markets complaints about this?
-->>>

I've come to the conclusion that most manufacturers (certainly Sony) are aflicted with something I call "rampant featuritis"

It seems that the average consumer purchases on the number of "features" and "gee whiz" bullet-points that are on the brochure.

I noticed this about five years ago when I went to replace my aging (1991 model) top-of-the-line Sony VCR.

The new (1999) model was stacked full of amazing-sounding features, frills and fluffery. If you believed the brochure, this VCR was to die for.

However, placing the 1991 model side-by-side with the 1999 model it became clearly obvious that the new machine had a significantly inferior picture quality. Thinking it was faulty, I returned it and picked up a brand-new replacement.

No difference -- the old 1991 machine was still markedly better in all aspects of its recording and playback quality.

So I rang Sony's service department and queried why this might be.

They told me that the new machines were *not* as good as the old ones and that I shouldn't expect to get a picture quality nearly as good.

They told me that people are more interested in having lots of bells and whistles than a good quality picture.

And, as if to rub salt in the wound, my brand-new 1999 model failed just two months out of the 12-month warranty and was considered uneconomic to repair.

So if you're annoyed that things like low-light performance and other basic features are being neglected for garbage like Bluetooth, 700x Digital Zoom, and other useless flotsam, blame a fickle public for being more interested in the sizzle than the steak.

The reason I bought an MX500 rather than the equivalent Sony model was that Panasonic seemed to have been least affected by rampant featuritis.

Mikhail Transact · June 9th, 2004, 01:00 PM

Sad idea...
If we assume matrix usage of the GS400 will be same as MX500, the quantity of effective pixels in widescreen mode will be less then 590 k :-(

Tommy Haupfear · June 9th, 2004, 01:27 PM

Quote:

If we assume matrix usage of the GS400 will be same as MX500, the quantity of effective pixels in widescreen mode will be less then 590 k :-(

Don't forget about the GS100 angle.

May 20th, 2004, 11:49 AM	#1
Mikhail Transact Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 60	GS400 16:9 widescreen mode: a theory If we suggest G400 reach hi-resolution widescreen by using maximum available CCD width, we can imagine picture such this: http://www.philipok.ru/other/G400_CCD_suggestion.gif All sizes are approximated, and fact the pixels are not square is ignored. If it’s true we have next advantages. Amount of pixels in widescreen mode (746k) is more then 4:3 mode (690k). WIdescreen horizontal field of view is equivalent to card mode and is 37,6 ìì (as 35mm_film). That is much better then 45mm in 4:3 tape mode! No wideangle attachment is needed in most cases. The price of it is slight decreasing of vertical amount of pixels – about 9%. Our future test will show us is it right or not. __________________ Mikhail

May 20th, 2004, 05:18 PM	#5
Bruce Simpson Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: New Zealand Posts: 34	<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin use. What is going on here? How can manufactures keep putting out such junk with such high price tags? Why don’t they respond to their markets complaints about this? -->>> I've come to the conclusion that most manufacturers (certainly Sony) are aflicted with something I call "rampant featuritis" It seems that the average consumer purchases on the number of "features" and "gee whiz" bullet-points that are on the brochure. I noticed this about five years ago when I went to replace my aging (1991 model) top-of-the-line Sony VCR. The new (1999) model was stacked full of amazing-sounding features, frills and fluffery. If you believed the brochure, this VCR was to die for. However, placing the 1991 model side-by-side with the 1999 model it became clearly obvious that the new machine had a significantly inferior picture quality. Thinking it was faulty, I returned it and picked up a brand-new replacement. No difference -- the old 1991 machine was still markedly better in all aspects of its recording and playback quality. So I rang Sony's service department and queried why this might be. They told me that the new machines were not as good as the old ones and that I shouldn't expect to get a picture quality nearly as good. They told me that people are more interested in having lots of bells and whistles than a good quality picture. And, as if to rub salt in the wound, my brand-new 1999 model failed just two months out of the 12-month warranty and was considered uneconomic to repair. So if you're annoyed that things like low-light performance and other basic features are being neglected for garbage like Bluetooth, 700x Digital Zoom, and other useless flotsam, blame a fickle public for being more interested in the sizzle than the steak. The reason I bought an MX500 rather than the equivalent Sony model was that Panasonic seemed to have been least affected by rampant featuritis. __________________ ----- No problem too small to baffle this expert

June 9th, 2004, 01:00 PM	#6
Mikhail Transact Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Moscow, Russia Posts: 60	Sad idea... If we assume matrix usage of the GS400 will be same as MX500, the quantity of effective pixels in widescreen mode will be less then 590 k :-( __________________ Mikhail

May 20th, 2004, 01:03 PM	#3
Kevin A. Sturges Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 167	Let’s hope whatever it’s doing is better than what’s being shown up a little farther in the forum, in the TRV50 threads. They show frame grabs on a chart, taken from a VX2000, and PDX10 (I think) that reveal the horrible-ness that occurs if you try to use them in 16/9 mode. The frame grabs made those cams look the same as a test shoot from my $650 single chip Sony D8 in 16/9. Video that BAD from an almost $3’000 camera?? Come on. Isn’t the Sony TRV950 using the same chips as the PDX10? If the new replacement for it (HS…something…) is still using the same chip, it will be a total disappointment for widescreen use. What is going on here? How can manufactures keep putting out such junk with such high price tags? Why don’t they respond to their markets complaints about this? It can’t be that hard after 5 years to just make the CCD a LITTLE bigger. Look at how far digital still cams have come, and how cheap they are now. Please, please let the GS400 do better widescreen than the Sony’s.