DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony VX2100 / PD170 / PDX10 Companion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/)
-   -   16:9 argument with my new shooter (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-vx2100-pd170-pdx10-companion/122863-16-9-argument-my-new-shooter.html)

Ian Thomas September 17th, 2008 01:16 PM

Hi Duncan

Thanks for that where abouts are you
Thanks
Ian

Duncan Craig September 17th, 2008 02:55 PM

Hiya, I'm in ITV Yorkshire.
Drop me an email duncancraigatf2sdotcom.

James Strange October 8th, 2008 10:42 AM

Another thought on the 16:9 issue
 
Heres another thought on the matter. Does it matter what you use to capture the footage?

eg

If i film in SD 16:9 on a FX7/Z1 etc.. (a native 16:9 camera) does it make a difference If i use a non native 16:9 camera (ie VX2000 / PD150 etc) ?

Assuming i have a 16:9 ptoject setup in my NLE

just a thought/question

James

Tom Hardwick October 8th, 2008 10:46 AM

The tape just has a series of ones and noughts on it James, whatever you've filmed. Your VX/PD will happily feed that into a computer.

Jeff Harper October 8th, 2008 04:06 PM

I agree that with the FX1000 coming, it is time for me to upgrade. It is the cam I've been waiting for.

Tom Hardwick October 9th, 2008 01:57 AM

These model numbers are getting me a bit lost. So the FX1000 is the new FX1, is that it? Should it have been called the FX5 as it appears to be a domesticated version of the Z5? The FX7 and V1 and bro and sis. And the Z7 (like the EX1) has no domesticated version because of the lens interchangeability?

Am I on the right path?

tom.

Jeff Harper October 9th, 2008 02:13 AM

Tom, while the FX1000 will definitely be replacing the FX1, my understanding is that the FX1000 is REALLY replacing the VX2100. Same with the pro version replacing the PD170.

This is the low light cam that most closely resemble in price and function the VX series.

That series ran VX1000, VX2000, then the VX 2100, etc. I am so glad I waited and didn't buy the Z1 or FX1. Don't get me wrong, I guess they are OK, but I see my competitors wedding ceremony shot with the Z1, and it's grainy in low light, at least when you are used to the PD series and VX series.

Now granted, those cams are fantastic with plenty of light, and the footage is amazing in the right conditions. And I'm not trying to knock those cameras or start an argument.

But I personally shoot in lots of dark churches. The FX1000 is the new workhorse I've been wating for for almost two years. I new there would be something less expensive than the FX1 and Z1 that would also shoot better than them in low light, and it is almost here.

It won't be exactly as good as the VX series in low light, but it will be close. I'm ordering my first one tomorrow...from B and H.

Tom Hardwick October 9th, 2008 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper (Post 948690)
Tom, while the FX1000 will definitely be replacing the FX1, my understanding is that the FX1000 is REALLY replacing the VX2100. Same with the pro version replacing the PD170.

Oh - I took the FX7 to be the new 2100 and the V1 to be the new PD170 (both with side rather than top screens), but I grant you moving down a chip size didn't seem a very sensible way to cram a 20x zoom lens in.

So the FX1000 will have 1"/3 CMOS I suppose. I bet it still can't match the PD170 in the gloom though, but it'll have far quieter amps to make gain-up a lot more acceptable.

tom.

Jeff Harper October 9th, 2008 02:42 AM

Tom, this from Sony:

"Superior low-light ability with high sensitivity enables clear shooting of subjects in light as low as 1.5 lux (at 1/30 fixed shutter speed with auto iris and auto gain). This allows you to capture sharp detail and brilliant colors even in less than perfect lighting, especially when professional lighting cannot be used.".

So yes, it is not rated by Sony at 1 lux as they rated the VX2100, but close enough for me. And it blows the Z1 and FX1 out of the water (at least in low light). And the CMOS sensors are based on superior technology to the older cams as well at least that is the way it appears, as the sensors more closely resemble those of the $6K EX1.

Tom Hardwick October 9th, 2008 03:08 AM

Ah, but the VX2100 was rated as 1 lux (+18 dB) at the normal 1/50th sec. The FX1000 is 1.5 lux at one shutter speed slower, so I'm guessing it's going to be a full stop and a half less sensitive in real film-world terms.

The VX2100 has an f/2.4 lens at full tele and I bet the 1000 is f/2.8 or slower - another half stop lost.

tom.

Jeff Harper October 9th, 2008 03:15 AM

Right. But it is still close enough for me. In this price range, for low-light performance, I think it will be the only game in town but there will always be those that don't need that level of low-light performance. I do.

And then there are those who routinely shoot wedding with the FX7 and are happy. I was not one of those. I used my FX7 for three hours and sold it. I was desperate for 16:9 but the picture was no good to me in most conditions, way too soft. The VX2100 really spoiled me. If I want soft I can make adjustments in post.

James Strange October 9th, 2008 06:59 AM

Z5 and PD170 side by side
 
Yesterday I had the chance to play about with a demo version of the new Z5, and I compared it to a PD170

All I can say is.......W O W ! ! ! !

It was a simple little conference room, not much light, the Z5 was CLEARLY BETTER in low light , no question. yes, you read right, the Z% is BETTER in low loght than the PD170 in my opnion, and I had thenm side by side, both set to DV, both on auto WB, both at 1/50,

Also, the Z5 has an extra gain stop (it goes from -6db to 21db) whereas the PD series went from 0db - 18db. I'm not sure of the practical applications of the 2 stops of negative gain though, any thoughts on that one?

Alas, i stupidly didnt shoot anything to tape, so no stills or footage to post (sorry)

I have long been in love with the VX/PD series for their low light performance, and have waited and waited for the HDV equivelant (the V1/FX7 dont come close, the Z1/FX1 are better than the V1/FX7, but not good enough)

Having the exposure control on the lens barrell as a ring behind the zoom ring (which itself is behind the focus ring) is a simple but VERY effective upgrade, its just makes sense!

I'm trying to remember what else I thought of it, they didnt have MRC1K memory card unit, so cant comment on that.

Audio wisde, didnt really notice any difference from the Z1, appart from the audio control dials seemed a bit more intuitive/sturdy.

It felt heavier than my FX7, but lighter (and a bit smaller) than the Z1

The Z5 also seemed to have none of the 'soft' issue that the Fx7 seems to have (well at least mines and Jeff's has)

The lens was MUCH wider than the PD170, I'm not sure of the math, but the Z5 zoomed all the way out could fitMCH more in than the PD170soomed all the way out.

All I can say is, I'm sold. From what I saw, the Z5 simply IS the HDV version of the PD150/170. (So I can only assume the FX1000 will be the same to the VX series)

I'm sure I've forgot loadsostuf s I play wit the Z5 (in a toaly innocent way) or a good hour or so.

Any questions just ask and I'll try to remember

CANT WAIT FOR THE Z5!!!!!!

Kevin Shaw October 9th, 2008 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick (Post 948684)
And the Z7 (like the EX1) has no domesticated version because of the lens interchangeability?

The way I see it, the Z5 is a fixed-lens version of the Z7 and the FX1000 is the non-XLR version of the Z5. So the pairs shape up like this:

S270 & Z7 (interchangeable lenses)
Z5 & FX1000 (1/3" CMOS) - replace Z1, FX1, PD170 and VX2100
V1 & FX7 (1/4" CMOS)
Z1 & FX1 (1/3" CCD)
A1 & HCx (small form factor) plus HD1000 (shoulder-mount) - 1/4" CMOS

Tom Hardwick October 9th, 2008 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Strange (Post 948757)
Also, the Z5 has an extra gain stop (it goes from -6db to 21db) whereas the PD series went from 0db - 18db. I'm not sure of the practical applications of the 2 stops of negative gain though, any thoughts on that one?

Thanks for your enthusiastic write-up James. It's always good to have a hands-on view of things, because I've learnt that manufacturer's own specs on lux cannot be relied on even between models in their own line up.

The 21 dB is half a stop more amplification over 18 dB, and the use of the -6dB makes for quieter footage as well as adding another stop of ND effectively. Really excellent idea and often a lot better than upping the shutter speed to 1/100th sec.

No UK prices given?

Kevin - maybe the HD1000 should be added to your list alongside the A1.

tom.

Kevin Shaw October 9th, 2008 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick (Post 948798)
Kevin - maybe the HD1000 should be added to your list alongside the A1.

Done, thanks.

P.S. One could say that the FX1 should have been named the FX1000 and the FX1000 the FX2000, while the Z1U was the ZD150 and the Z5 is the ZD170...if you get my drift. :-)

Jeff Harper October 9th, 2008 09:18 AM

James, I can't believe you actually handled one, that is a really exciting review you posted.

I'm ordering the FX1000 tomorrow, and I had accepted that when it arrived I would find it's low light not quite as good as the PD series...your news is fantastic! Thank you!

Mark Morreau October 12th, 2008 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick (Post 948798)

No UK prices given?

Places like Creative Video are listing it at GBP 2995+ VAT. If you wanted to add in the CF recorder it brings the price up to the same GBP 3495 + VAT of the Z7....

So hopefully the GBP 2995 + VAT won't be the actual price when it hits the streets for real.

Lou Bruno December 14th, 2008 05:50 PM

This is also why the CANON XL-2 is being resurrected....true 16:9 chips. I know there is a debate if they are true 16:9 chips but the picture is outstanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos (Post 886739)
This issue with the VX and PDs has been going around for several years. Ultimately, those of us who shot in 16:9 on the camera, had three methods of doing so. One way was to engage the 16:9 function. Another was to shoot 4:3, but mask in camera using a mask from the memory card. This worked great. The third was to use a 16:9 adapter. They ran about about $1000 at one time. Essentially what occurs is the adapter squeezed a wide view into the 4:3 frame, distorting the image. In post (in Vegas, for instance) you change the properties of the clip from 4:3 to 16:9. . I just bought one on a close out from Century Optics for $99.00. It is clear they see the future.

These days you can get a better 16:9 native images with a $ 800 camera like the HV30, so this debate is dissappearing. Only thing missing in these new cameras is VX/PD low light capability...


Lou Bruno December 14th, 2008 05:57 PM

Great reply. I give lectures on this subject all over the place. From Illinois to New York...soon Iowa. "Nobody asks for it" is just an excuse for: "I have to invest more in my business?" Next time you are in a car dealership, bet ya the salesperson is discussing extra paclages to enhance the vehicle. Same with the Video business.

"Nobody asks for it".......music to a competitors ears.


Quote:

Originally Posted by John Cline (Post 924006)
I've seen this statement in quite a few video forums, "I'm not going to do 16:9 or HD until one of my clients asks for it." What the heck ever happened to salesmanship? It's up to US to keep our clients informed about the trends in video production and delivery. I've been shooting HD exclusively for the last four years, whether the client asked for it or not. Since I'm not doing car commercials, which have a very short "shelf life", I've been gathering HD material which can delivered in SD now and repurposed into an HD product later for an additional fee. I've also been collecting a lot of stock footage in HD. Much sooner than later, all my SD stock footage will be outdated and unusable.

A couple of months ago, I pitched a corporate client on HD and she half-jokingly said, "it's too bad we haven't been shooting HD all along." I said, "But we have! I've just been delivering in SD." Now she wants most of her previous product in HD which is a simple matter of loading the old project, spitting it out as HD and burning it to a Blu-ray disc. She's thrilled and I have another revenue stream with virtually no additional effort. I don't do weddings, but as David Heath pointed out, weddings would be a prime example of generating additional revenue after the fact.

There is a learning curve to shooting HD, not the least of which is getting the "feel" of framing a shot in 16:9. That was the strangest part for me since all my "chops" were based on shooting 4:3 for decades.

You don't want to wait until the client asks for it and then have to learn it on the job. You're not going to be ready to shoot and post HD when the client finally asks for it. Start shooting HD and start educating and selling your clients on the idea NOW! It's going to be a 16:9 HD world sooner than you think.

John


Arlen Sahakian January 14th, 2009 07:35 AM

hi guys sorry if im posting this in wrong place but last week i shot a wedding with 4 cameras all were working DVCAM cause the 3 camcorders were PD170 but 1 of them was Z7 but shooting DVCAM but the problem is he was shooting 16.9, is there a way i can convert it to 4.3 by EDGE CROPING or something. i must convert it cause the other CAMS are all 4.3
i need help please
Thank you

Lukas Siewior January 16th, 2009 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlen Sahakian (Post 994745)
hi guys sorry if im posting this in wrong place but last week i shot a wedding with 4 cameras all were working DVCAM cause the 3 camcorders were PD170 but 1 of them was Z7 but shooting DVCAM but the problem is he was shooting 16.9, is there a way i can convert it to 4.3 by EDGE CROPING or something. i must convert it cause the other CAMS are all 4.3
i need help please
Thank you

You are in problem because if you crop the 16:9 format you'll have to stretch it to fill the frame - at the same moment you'll loose the quality :-( The Z7 should have been shooting HD format and then just convert it to 4:3 SD in post.

David Heath January 17th, 2009 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukas Siewior (Post 996204)
You are in problem because if you crop the 16:9 format you'll have to stretch it to fill the frame - at the same moment you'll loose the quality

It shouldn't be too bad because the process is a simple matter of rescaling the centre 540 pixels to reform 720 on each line. It will lead to a slight softening horizontally, but shouldn't be too noticeable. Use a Z7 in 4:3 mode and it won't use the full chip anyway, and deriving the 4:3 output directly whilst shooting will have a bit of the softening effect anyway.

Note that it is FAR better than than the other way round - deriving 16:9 from 4:3 by cropping - that's nowhere near as simple a process because of the interlaced line structure. You need to de-interlace, scale, then reform the interlace structure, so there will be a far greater quality loss than cropping 16:9 to 4:3.

If there's any doubt as to which to shoot in SD, or you may need both eventually, ALWAYS shoot 16:9 and derive the 4:3 from it, never the other way round.

Gabe Strong January 26th, 2009 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lou Bruno (Post 978139)
Great reply. I give lectures on this subject all over the place. From Illinois to New York...soon Iowa. "Nobody asks for it" is just an excuse for: "I have to invest more in my business?" Next time you are in a car dealership, bet ya the salesperson is discussing extra paclages to enhance the vehicle. Same with the Video business.

"Nobody asks for it".......music to a competitors ears.

Well there are two schools of thought here. And as a business person myself, I can only say that you have to be VERY, VERY careful. Careful of what you ask? Of falling into the 'trap' of 'I always have to have the newest gadgets'. You see, sometimes 'nobody asks for it' is NOT an excuse but a reality that no one wants to pay for it. See it all depends on your market. And in my market not only is no one ASKING for HD, but when I offer it (depending on the fact that I can always rent HD cameras if needed since I don't own one), clients don't want it because.....it costs extra and they see no perceived benefit to it. I don't know a single one of my clients that has a blu ray player.....in fact I only know one person that has one.....and what my clients want is a DVD of a corporate video or a TV spot to run on the local channels. I have talked to all the local channels as well as the local cable company and NONE of them will accept HD masters for TV spots and NONE of them have any plans to any time in the future.

Now I really REALLY REALLY want to buy an EX-1. I have come thisclosetobuyingone
because I WANT it. Do I NEED it for my business? Nope. And I am doing this to make
money to pay for things like groceries and my house payment, not to buy myself
the newest and nicest toys. I have to constantly remind myself of this because I am
a gadget freak. But if it's not going to make me money.....it doesn't matter how much
I want it.....it just doesn't make business sense. So, I will plod along in SD until such time
that I need to purchase an HD camera, because I have been able to convince enough clients
that HD is something they need and will pay for, at which point I am betting that the same
amount of money will buy me a much better HD camera than I could get today.

Just saying, this is the other side to that coin. And lest you think that this is 'music to my
competitors ears'......sorry, I no longer have any competitors. All my competitors have went out of business......because they were too busy buying the 'newest toys' and offering
HD packages to people who had no interest in HD......and one size does not fit all. Not trying to
be a jerk or anything and what you say is probably spot on in in a large majority of the markets.
But it's not a cure all or something everyone can just follow and take to the bank. As a business person
you have to evaluate your own market what it will bear, and make your business investment decisions
based on those things....especially in the current economic climate.

And by the way.......those car dealerships that have salesmen discussing extra addons to enhance the
value of the car.....how are they doing these days anyways?? :-)

Jeff Harper January 26th, 2009 02:04 PM

I agree with John Cline's statement that one shouldn't wait to learn HD until clients ask for it.

On the other hand the reality of the market here in Cincinnati is such that the two largest videographers in the Cincinnati area do not offer HD. One of these companies shoots 200 weddings a year and dozens of corporate shoots. The other does about 150 wedding, maybe more. These owners know the market extremely well, obviously. And while they love HD (as we all do) they are not even thinking about shooting in HD. They are looking at cameras, but that is it.

Despite the economy, as of now, their bookings are stronger this year than last.

I have mentioned to several prospective brides and grooms that I have HD equipment now and they pretty much yawn.

Will this change? Is it the wave of the future? Of course. Anyone can see that.

Is there a demand for it? Very little.

4:3 is still very strong. And while it's demise is certainly coming, I believe it will be viable for at least one to two years for most videographers.

I am shooting in HD, and hopefully as has been mentioned I can use it at some point as an additonal revenue stream, but I'm not holding my breath. I think it really does depend on who your clients are. Mine are average folks.

Tom Hardwick January 27th, 2009 02:32 AM

Good point, good post, Gabe.

Skip Hall February 15th, 2009 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe Strong (Post 1001428)
Just saying, this is the other side to that coin. And lest you think that this is 'music to my
competitors ears'......sorry, I no longer have any competitors. All my competitors have went out of business......because they were too busy buying the 'newest toys' and offering
HD packages to people who had no interest in HD......and one size does not fit all. Not trying to be a jerk or anything and what you say is probably spot on in in a large majority of the markets.
But it's not a cure all or something everyone can just follow and take to the bank. As a business person you have to evaluate your own market what it will bear, and make your business investment decisions based on those things....especially in the current economic climate.
And by the way.......those car dealerships that have salesmen discussing extra addons to enhance the value of the car.....how are they doing these days anyways?? :-)

Well said, Gabe!
This business is a very expensive one to be in. It's bad enough that our computer hardware and software has to be virtually re-purchased and upgraded every 30 minutes, just to keep the CPU talking to the printers and DVD-recorders. But those costs pale in comparison to the expense of buying cameras and accessories.
I'm only in business today because I have been able to offer good service and reasonable prices to my customers, AND because I could acquire good, serviceable "last-generation" XL-1s and GL-1s to shoot with.
But frankly (tax advantages listed elsewhere in this thread aside), moving from where I am today, to a place where I can buy three 16:9 native cameras in order to keep things matched up and not triple my post-production time... well, it would involve a trip to a bank for a loan. And DEBT is the one thing that I don't want ANY more of, at this moment in my life, or in the life of my business.
And transitioning to HD and BluRay... well, let's just say that my kids are going to have to make that jump when the time comes... should they choose to keep our family business alive.
I must say though, that I WISH I had the problem you have with your competitors. Seems like everyone around here works for somebody who can provide them with state-of-the-art gear to shoot with on the weekends, so they only need to buy a fast Mac to edit with at home, and they are IN BUSINESS!
Oh well! Here's to the little guys... right?

Regards from the MidAtlantic....

Skip Hall
Homeworks Video Productions
Suffolk, Virginia

Gabe Strong February 16th, 2009 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip Hall (Post 1012688)
Well said, Gabe!
This business is a very expensive one to be in. It's bad enough that our computer hardware and software has to be virtually re-purchased and upgraded every 30 minutes, just to keep the CPU talking to the printers and DVD-recorders. But those costs pale in comparison to the expense of buying cameras and accessories.
I'm only in business today because I have been able to offer good service and reasonable prices to my customers, AND because I could acquire good, serviceable "last-generation" XL-1s and GL-1s to shoot with.
But frankly (tax advantages listed elsewhere in this thread aside), moving from where I am today, to a place where I can buy three 16:9 native cameras in order to keep things matched up and not triple my post-production time... well, it would involve a trip to a bank for a loan. And DEBT is the one thing that I don't want ANY more of, at this moment in my life, or in the life of my business.
And transitioning to HD and BluRay... well, let's just say that my kids are going to have to make that jump when the time comes... should they choose to keep our family business alive.
I must say though, that I WISH I had the problem you have with your competitors. Seems like everyone around here works for somebody who can provide them with state-of-the-art gear to shoot with on the weekends, so they only need to buy a fast Mac to edit with at home, and they are IN BUSINESS!
Oh well! Here's to the little guys... right?

Regards from the MidAtlantic....

Skip Hall
Homeworks Video Productions
Suffolk, Virginia

Isn't that the truth! The cost to transition to HD is not only in buying new cameras, but
new computers fast enough to deal with it, and new upgrades to software that works perfectly fine with SD but needs an upgrade to deal with HD. And I am one of those people that DOESN'T always upgrade my FCP or mac, because if it does what I want it to do, then why spend extra money? And then there is the fact that I have hundreds of third
party plug ins that would have to be upgraded and the money spending cycle never ends.
I also stay away from debt....in almost all areas of my life. If I can't pay for it with cash, I don't buy it. The one exception was buying my home last year, and I only made an
exception there, because unlike cars, cameras, and computers, homes and property tend to INCREASE in value rather than decrease in value. Even still, I put down more than 20% on the house, which I was told was kind of unusual.

As for the little guys, I know what you mean. There are a few of those guys here. But I don't have any full time video businesses competing with me. Really, I'm just a little guy
myself, with a Mac, FCP, PD 150's, portable greenscreen, steadicam, lots of royalty free music and graphics, mixer, lots of mics and audio gear, DV creator 55 lighting kit and other assorted stuff. But I do all the work myself, typical one man video production outfit.
However, as I said, the other 'real' video production companies (not the guys who do it for weekend hobbies) have went out of business or moved out of town. That is one of my advantages. The 'weekend warrior' types (of which there are several in my market) have a hard time competing, when a business calls and wants a TV commercial shot at their
store at '2pm on a Wednesday'. See, if you aren't in the game for real...full time....then you miss a good bit of business cause a lot of customers can't 'wait until you have time off from your real job'. This IS my real job, and the flexibility helps a lot.....as well as I seem to be taken more seriously by the businesses in town that look to hire video, as they know I am not just doing it 'on the side' or for 'extra spending money'. No offense to the weekend business types, they just can't do everything I can...mainly because they have
other responsibilities to their 'real' job.

Bas Paul February 24th, 2009 05:27 AM

component video?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick L. Allen (Post 887423)
The PD150/170's widescreen mode isn't really "fake." It chops the top and bottom off the 4:3, 720X480 screen to a 16X9, 720X405 screen. You lose a little vertical resolution but it edits as wide screen and looks just fine. Before HD came along and SD was just beginning to go 16X9 I was able to sell quite a bit of footage to Discovery and BBC in this mode. The most important thing is to import your footage as component video and it will look great.

And yes you are old. The video world is going HD and 16X9. Bet you don't see a lot of 4:3 TV's in Best Buy anymore do you? Finally, widescreen is more pleasing to the eyes because it more closely resembles the way we see the world. Our eyes see in widescreen not 4:3 boxes - never have.

Is he right? It's your business and you make the rules but give it a try anyway. It won't hurt. I promise.

The most important thing is to import your footage as component video and it will look great.

"The most important thing is to import your footage as component video and it will look great."
How do I do that ?

Jeff Harper February 24th, 2009 06:40 AM

"It will look great" is partly true; it depends on a few things. Distance from your subject and lighting.

Closeups and shots in a sufficiently lighted environment look fine. But as you move further from the subject images look progressively worse. A wide shot from a back of a church, IMO is quite bad.

Desperate to shoot 16:9 I tried it on three weddings with the PD150s and a VX2100 and this was my experience.

One wedding video in particular looked bad enough I felt embarrassed to give it to the client.

I couldn't understand what was wrong with the images and why some were fine and others were not, but Tom H, I believe, explained it that way to me, and my images confirmed what he said. Technically he said it is not a resolution issue, as I thought, but something else. Don't remember the technical reason for the distortion, but I stopped shooting in 16:9, the quality was unacceptable to me for wedding purposes.

Tom Hardwick February 24th, 2009 07:38 AM

The PAL version of the VX and PD shoots 432 x 720 in its 16:9 mode. This is ok-ish as modern TVs can upscale on the fly, whether it be directly from the camcorder tape or from the DVD made from that tape. But 432 lines are not a lot better than the black and white TV we had here in England in the 1950s

NTSC is even worse, and you have something like 360 lines of horizontal resolution in the 16:9 mode. That's so few you could count them, and there is a limit to what upscalers can do with so little information. The bottom line is this - if you're shooting in NTSC land then it's time to invest in a 16:9 chipped camcorder.

tom.

R Geoff Baker March 3rd, 2009 08:20 PM

The resolution you describe is of course 'vertical' resolution, not horizontal ... and is exactly what your standard definition set is capable of presenting once the black letterbox bars are inserted by the television, if so capable. The image area of a 16:9 picture in an NTSC 4:3 display is 360 lines of vertical resolution.

Cheers,
GB

Adam Gold March 4th, 2009 12:18 AM

Right. It's fine, identical, on a 4:3 TV. The problem reveals itself only when you play on a widescreen TV, especially a large HDTV, when those 360 lines are expanded to fill 1080 lines. It looks pretty bad, as we've all discussed before.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:30 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network