That's my problem I want it all!!!

My first use is events and weddings. So the Pd-170 is really good for that. I didn't know it had the anamorphic 16x9 mode. It's kind of a tough choice but the price is real good right now. The XL2 is nice but $5,000 is out of my budget.

The 170 does not have anamorphic mode. It masks pixels out of the 4:3 aspect ratio to approximate the 16:9 aspect ratio. This means you get a lower resolution image.

I'd get the 170 and an anamorphic adapter or the 170 and a PD-10 if money were no issue.

Still 16:9 is not an universal aspect ratio for movies. They are all over the place with their aspect ratios.

Still, 16:9 sure is pirty.

Why don't you get the 170, make the money, pay the camera off, make the money, all the while suffering through all of those lowly 4:3 images, and if you find that you really can't shoot a movie with it, get a second camera that possess more of the movie making characteristics you want. How 'bout that?

Mike,
To me it seems the 170 squishes rather than simply crops pixels. Ends up with the same loss of resolution but technically for a slightly different reason.

I don't think so, Craig. I'm going on reports from a lot of other people who have played around with it. Why don't you capture a still from a 170 16:9 and measure it in a image editing program like Photoshop? Might be interesting to know exactly what it does do. Don't include the black bands but just the image area.

I can see in Final Cut Pro that the image is actually squeezed (stretched) rather than simply cropped. FCP software sees it as anamorphic whereas if I input from my ancient TRV-9 it's simply cropped 4:3.

There are two "wrong ways" to do anamorphic. One is cropped. The other is stretched. The VX 2000 series and PD Series does it the stretch method.

See this from Adam Wilt's web page.

Many cameras have a 16:9 switch, which when activated results in either a "letterboxed" image and/or an anamorphically-stretched image. But be careful; there's a right way and a wrong way to do this.

See the full discussion here

http://adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html#widescreen

BTW I have used that anamorphic mode on the 170 as requested by one client so I've experienced the post process. The client wanted widescreen for DVD release but needed 4:3 for approvals and I had to put 16:9 sequence in 4:3 sequence and rerender. Wouldn't have to have done that if it were simply cropped. Client didn't have the cost of anamorphic lense in the budget so they got the "inexpensive" in camera method.

Yes, prioritize is key. You can't get it all in a small form, sub $5000 camcorder. If one is looking for more pro features, then one has to wait for the pro version of the FX1. Perhaps it will outclass the PD170 in many ways (HD aside). It might surprise us. Until then, it's all speculation.

<<<-- Originally posted by Shawn Mielke : Still, 16:9 sure is pirty.

Why don't you get the 170, make the money, pay the camera off, make the money, all the while suffering through all of those lowly 4:3 images, and if you find that you really can't shoot a movie with it, get a second camera that possess more of the movie making characteristics you want. How 'bout that? -->>>


That sounds like a good plan........

All this talk of 16.9, I possibly have chance of a 16.9 converter made by optex for my pd170 will it give me the same results as the camera's with it built in, or will i lose some of the camera's zoom.

You'll lose some zoom, gain some weight and add some hassles. It's better than using the in-built 16:9 feature, but in my view only just.

Thanks Tom,

Just to let you know i bought a raynox2x2 tele converter for my pd170 and it works very well, got some lovley shots of roe deer.

The picture is very good but has a blue (cold) look to it, the camera is in manual mode with the WB set to out door, Its not easy to white card it becaues it is early morning and the light is not to good, any suggestions.

If you've set the white balance to the 'sun' symbol and the pictures look blue then it would suggest that it was a cold blue morning. If you'd left the w/b on auto it would have tried to 'correct' this and warmed up and falsified the colours. I'd say you were correct to use the daylight preset.

tom.

Thanks again Tom.

Iv'e been useing the XL1 for my wildlife filming which produced a very good picture it seemed to be a bit warmer than the sony, but the sony is crystal clear.

Iam useing Dvcam tapes now and although the picture should be the same as dv tapes, to me it looks as though the dvcam tapes picture seems cleaner, when i use mini dv i use panasonic pro tapes .