|
|
|
|
|
February 22nd, 2002, 10:51 AM
|
#16 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
thanks...
i like the idea of being able to letter box the image...
william |
|
|
March 12th, 2002, 07:33 PM
|
#17 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 607
|
Good site to check
Hello there all! I haven't seen anyone post this link but it has some great info for you guys (and gals) considering the jump from video to film. There is also some software for deinterlacing video changing anamorphic to 16:9 or 4:3 to 16:9 and converting PAL to NTSC progressive scan (much cleaner than Cannons will ever shoot)and so on. It works great, is really cheap ($100-$150) and runs in OS X! (or 9 or...choke, choke...Windoze).
Anyway, I live and work in Plano Tx. I shoot a DSR-PD150 and was thinking about buying the PAL version for myself, now I am not so worried about watching it on NTSC! But I do have one question. Does anyone have experience buying PAL equipment, and will I need to address POWER issues? Will I need to get some kind of power converter for the charger or camera? Anyone in the area who would like to go film some stuff or chat with coffee, drop a line and I'm game. Thanks all. Rhett oh ya, here's the link! http://www.dvfilm.com/ |
|
|
|
March 23rd, 2002, 10:22 PM
|
#18 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
16:9 Matte with Memory Stick
I read about using the memory stick 16:9 matte from www.streamovie.com/vx2000. I tried it, and I think it "looks" better than the built in 16:9 option in the VX2000's menu.
I would like to shoot 16:9 without losing resolution; I want to be able to record an image on all of the CCD's pixels. Does using the 16:9 memory stick matte do this, or do I "crop" off usable pixels with the horizontal black bands? If this is so, please recommend a good 16:9 lens that I can use. Thanks. |
|
|
|
March 23rd, 2002, 11:55 PM
|
#19 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Not a lens but an anamorphic adapter that attaches to your lens.
See http://www.zgc.com/html/anamorphic_attachment.html If you choose not to buy this, then your way of doing 16:9 with the memory stick letterbox matte is the next best thing. |
|
|
|
|
April 6th, 2002, 11:38 AM
|
#20 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
16:9 adaptor
I went ahead and ordered the Century 16:9 Widescreen Adaptor. I can't wait to get it. Now all I have to do is decide on which 16:9 field monitor to get. I'm looking at Varizoom's 16:9 field monitor (if I need it at all). I'm going to get a Sony studio 16:9 monitor for editing and viewing.
Thanks for your input and the link, it really helped. I'm full of questions today, so here goes... 1. When I use the 16:9 anamorphic adaptor on my VX2000, will the image look squished through the VX2000's LCD? (I undersand that one should not record in 16:9 mode when they have a 16:9 adaptor on the lens). If the image does not look "squished", then I guess I won't really need a 16:9 field monitor. I have been unsuccessful in finding an answer to this question anywhere. I have reviewed the posting by smartydraaws, but I can't make a solid conclusion about this question. Thanks. -jgrzech Last edited by combatvideo; April 6th, 2002 at 01:25 PM. |
|
|
|
May 20th, 2002, 03:03 AM
|
#21 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Careful using Hard Matte 16:9
Hi gang,
I've got my intro up in the neighborhood page. Anyway, I saw a lot of talk about this Memory Stick 16:9 method. Just wanted to pipe in from the DVD Authoring world and let you know that by adding the hard matte (letterbox) you're adding to the image size vs using the anamorphic mode in-camera. When you encode to MPEG2 using the in-camera mode, you're only encoding the image. When you encode using a hard matte, you're also encoding the black bars at the top and bottom. Just something to think about...kind of like, images shot without a tripod are usually larger per se because there's more activity than would be in a stabalized shot. - Chip |
|
|
|
May 20th, 2002, 05:32 AM
|
#22 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
That's an excellent tip you've made, Chip, and I'd like to add that to the Tips page on my VX2000 Companion site if that's all right with you. So if you encode without the letterbox matte, will some DVD players add the matte for you upon viewing? Otherwise, how would you see this video properly on a 4:3 screen without it? Thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
May 20th, 2002, 06:07 AM
|
#23 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Chris, when a DVD player and 4:3 TV are properly setup, the DVD player will display 16:9 content as letterboxed.
Note, most of the early DVD players were set by the factory to be connected to a 16:9 TV. That was part of the problem with many people accepting widescreen movies...they looked squished when they were displayed on an improperly set 4:3 TV. Here's another tip. If your wife won't let you buy a new 16:9 HDTV (like mine) then you can get rid of the grey bars (even the best TVs show them as a really dark grey because they can't selectively turn off illumination in a region). I made a set of mattes for my TV and now I have a picture that's not disturbed by the grey interfering with the on-screen color in the movie. Again, it's not that the bars bothered me, just that they disturbed the TV. There's a picture of it on our humble HT webby. http://www.geocities.com/chip4bmw/sweetspot.html - Chip |
|
|
|
September 17th, 2002, 12:20 AM
|
#24 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Sony DSR-PDX10 Real 16:9 Widescreen
Just reading a review of Video Camera www.videocamera.com.au (dont think it's online yet) and it's talking about the PDX10P having real 16:9 resolution evidently using the entire 4:3 chips.
If anybody has any information on this topic it would be appreciated. Regards. Frank |
|
|
|
September 17th, 2002, 11:41 AM
|
#25 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 36
|
See the other thread marked ' Sony DSR-PDX10P '.
|
|
|
|
|
September 18th, 2002, 10:04 AM
|
#26 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 19
|
Sony 16:9 24p
If the Panasonic 24p camera does well in the market you can bet that JVC, Canon, and Sony will soon be releasing 24p cameras of their own. My question is this:
Do you (any of you) think that in the next five years we'll see a Sony 24p camcorder with native 16:9 CCDs for less than $5000? -Dan |
|
|
|
|
September 18th, 2002, 10:15 AM
|
#27 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
You know Dan, this is such a sure thing I think you can almost put money on it. My question is, will it be DV? How much longer is DV going to be around. I don't know personally, that's why I'm asking.
Nice to have you with us by the way. Since you've got an article on the VX2000 Companion website, I've upgraded your user title from "Tourist" to "Contributor." Welcome aboard, |
|
|
|
|
September 18th, 2002, 12:04 PM
|
#28 |
|
_redone_
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 224
|
thats exactly what i would look forward to...maybe a
DV camera with full scale 16:9 and 24p options...I certainly agree that someone, (most likely sony) will continue the 24p DV fad in the pro-sumer market. But like Chris said, there might not be a market for DV in the upcoming decade.
__________________
Adam Lawrence eatdrink Media Las Vegas NV www.eatdrinkmedia.com |
|
|
|
|
September 18th, 2002, 12:28 PM
|
#29 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Luis Obispo CA
Posts: 1,195
|
Chris
Wow...this thread just took an interesting turn. If DV was to be supplanted by some other format...what do you think we're looking at...a native 16:9 format, uncompressed, (or lower compression)...what does the crystal ball say? I know it's all supposition at this point, but, dammit I want to know. Barry -------- curiosity killed more than the cat. |
|
|
|
|
September 18th, 2002, 12:56 PM
|
#30 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
My guess is that the next evolution for the digital video format will be some form of "consumer high definition," hope that's not an oxymoron, and other folks are better learned than I am to speculate what such a format might entail. I'll bet we're looking at a completely tapeless, disc-based or drive-based digital media with some rudimentary editing capability built into the camera. Not meant to stray too far off-topic, but there it is.
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
