Yes......a loss. The picture quality is somewhere between VHS and S-VHS....more towards VHS for wider shots.

That's an interesting way to put it, and subjectively you're probably right. However the real issue with 16:9 on the VX-2100 is the loss of VERTICAL resolution as a result of cropping; the horizontal resolution isn't affected. VHS has reduced horizontal resolution.

The lack of resolution doesn't look so bad on 30" TV but it becomes much more of an issue projected, e.g. on my Epson EMP-TW-10H 16:9 LCD. Back to back with footage shot with a Century Optics anamorphic lens the softness/lack of detail is very evident as is the lack of a wide field of view.

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Joseph : /lack of detail is very evident as is the lack of a wide field of view. -->>>

It's true that anamorphic adaptors - or cameras with real 16:9 modes like the XL-2 and PDX-10 - widen the field of view. However I don't see how that could be evident from watching the footage. You can have closeups as well as wide shots in 16:9. Zoom out more, step farther back, or use a wide angle adaptor if field of view is an issue; this really doesn't have anything to do with 16:9 quality.

The real problem is the reduced vertical resolution due to the way the VX must crop the image inside the 4:3 frame with limited pixels.

Yes all true - I should have clarified that I was assessing how different the same shot looked with (same camera, same view point, same focal length) anamorphic lens compared to in-camera 16:9 mode w/o lens.

I was interested such academic comparisons since I recently acquired an anamorphic lens and wanted to see clearly what the difference was as the lenses are expensive in my part of the world (AUD$1500).

Boyd,
Do you have any information on the Century Optics 1.33 16:9 lens? I'm seriously considering one but the price is intimidating. If it truly displays high resolution PQ and is fully focusable, it could be a widescreen solution though.
Bob

You may find this PDF file of some interest.Its a comparison between the Century and Optex anamorphic adapters for the VX/150.

Matt,
Interesting, but the review doesn't compare the new Century Optics lens that is supposedly fully focusable through the entire zoom range. Hopefully, we'll get a review from someone soon. Thanks anyways.
Bob

I have an idea.

This can be used for future reference for anyone who wants to know about vx2100's 16:9.

I'll film something in both 4:3 and 16:9.

Same thing, same bitrate and everything when i export... then people will see.

I need resolutions to export as though... any ideas? I think this will help anyone who needs to know.

That 1.33 anamorphic topic comes up at regular intervals. Thus far nobody has actually seen one, and it's listed as special order. It's also really expensive - $1,300. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=287711&is=REG

You can buy a PDX-10 which does native 16:9 for $1,600. Two years ago I looked into all the options for 16:9 on my VX-2000 and ended up getting a PDX-10; it's much cheaper now and doesn't have any of the problems associated with anamorphic adaptors.

A few days ago I sent an E-mail to Century Optics suggesting that they post a video demo on their website showing scenes from the new lens. Haven't heard anything yet.

Problem with the PDX-10 is very poor low light perfomance from what I understand.
Bob

There's a 2.5 f-stop difference between the PDX-10 and VX-2000, although the 14 bit DSP allows you to add +9dB of gain with little or no noticeable noise; even +12 dB doesn't look too bad.

It has its quirks, but you really can't touch its 16:9 quality without paying a lot more. Audio is excellent too. Probably not a good choice if you shoot newsreel footage outside at night, but otherwise it's worth a look.

At one stage I was sorely tempted by the PD10x as it offered 16:9, but event video footage I was shooting was at the marginal light level using +9 or more gain even on a VX2000E. Particuarly for clients who had indicated an adversion to on-cam lights.

I never did try one, but assumed that the 1/3" Super-HAD CCDs of the bigger cam were as small as I could go. Years later I have the best of both worlds with a PD170 + Century Optics 16:9 lens.

I was interested in a side-by-side comparison of the better low light PD170 against my VX2k and to my surprise a visible difference but not greatly so. Maybe academic to most users but my work in event documentary means using every bit these cams' low light ability.

"my work in event documentary means using every bit these cams' low light ability."

That's my feeling also since I cover weddings and in the Northeast anyways, they often turn lights way down at receptions. I recently sold my GL2s for a pair of 170s just because I could'nt accept the 12dB look anymore.

Can you add anything else about the 16:9 lens?

Bob

Here's one for sale in the private classifieds...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=291243