16:9 Real World Result with PD's and VX's

Lou Bruno · March 19th, 2005, 07:45 PM

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

Boyd Ostroff · March 19th, 2005, 08:51 PM

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.

Mark Joseph · March 22nd, 2005, 07:08 PM

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.

Boyd Ostroff · March 22nd, 2005, 07:25 PM

<<<-- 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.

Mark Joseph · March 22nd, 2005, 09:07 PM

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).

Bob Harotunian · March 23rd, 2005, 02:26 PM

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

Matt Stahley · March 23rd, 2005, 02:33 PM

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

Bob Harotunian · March 23rd, 2005, 04:40 PM

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

Advil Dremali · March 23rd, 2005, 05:44 PM

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.

Boyd Ostroff · March 23rd, 2005, 06:04 PM

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.

Bob Harotunian · March 23rd, 2005, 07:45 PM

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

Boyd Ostroff · March 23rd, 2005, 07:59 PM

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.

Mark Joseph · March 23rd, 2005, 11:19 PM

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.

Bob Harotunian · March 24th, 2005, 07:26 AM

"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

Boyd Ostroff · March 24th, 2005, 02:12 PM

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

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

March 19th, 2005, 07:45 PM	#151
Lou Bruno Go Cycle Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Huntington, NY Posts: 815	Yes......a loss. The picture quality is somewhere between VHS and S-VHS....more towards VHS for wider shots. __________________ Lou Bruno

March 19th, 2005, 08:51 PM	#152
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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.

March 22nd, 2005, 07:08 PM	#153
Mark Joseph Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: ACT Australia Posts: 148	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.

March 22nd, 2005, 07:25 PM	#154
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	<<<-- 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.

March 22nd, 2005, 09:07 PM	#155
Mark Joseph Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: ACT Australia Posts: 148	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).

March 23rd, 2005, 02:26 PM	#156
Bob Harotunian Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 360	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

March 23rd, 2005, 02:33 PM	#157
Matt Stahley Major Player Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Waynesboro, PA Posts: 648	You may find this PDF file of some interest.Its a comparison between the Century and Optex anamorphic adapters for the VX/150.

March 23rd, 2005, 04:40 PM	#158
Bob Harotunian Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 360	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

March 23rd, 2005, 05:44 PM	#159
Advil Dremali New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 70	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.

March 23rd, 2005, 06:04 PM	#160
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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.

March 23rd, 2005, 07:45 PM	#161
Bob Harotunian Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 360	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

March 23rd, 2005, 07:59 PM	#162
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	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.

March 23rd, 2005, 11:19 PM	#163
Mark Joseph Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: ACT Australia Posts: 148	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.

March 24th, 2005, 07:26 AM	#164
Bob Harotunian Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 360	"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

March 24th, 2005, 02:12 PM	#165
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Here's one for sale in the private classifieds... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=291243