For 16:9 and SLIM check pages 36 & 40 of your manual

Anamorphic simply means the image aspect ratio is different than the frame aspect ratio, thats how 16:9 can be represented in a 4:3 frame

16X9
 

THINKING OF GETTING A CENTURY PRECISION LENS 16X9 ds-1609-sb

Do you know if will fill out the all screen on a 16x9 tv,or you will still see the black lines on top and bottom,
thanks

http://www.adorama.com/CYDS1609SB.html?searchinfo=ds-1609-sb&item_no=1

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/16x9/16x9.htm

Better fake 16:9 - DVC30 or Sony?
 

I am basically trying to decide which camera to get and have narrowed it down to the following:

Pana DVC30
Sony VX2000/PD150
Sony VX21000/PD170

WHich has better digi squeeze 16:9 mode? THe DVC or the VX/PD? Is there even a discernable difference?

I was leaning towards the DVC30 overall. I like that it has frame mode (@ 30fps) & CineGamma, but can't I get all those same effects in post? All those cameras seem to do pretty well in low light. All of the cameras seem to have good manual controls of focus, zoom, f-stop, etc. (which is why I am staying away from the PDX10 and the JVC GR-HD1 - no simultaneous control of f-stop & shutter - just one or the other, plus neither performs well in low light)

So what would steer me in one direction of another (DVC30 vs VX2000/2100)?

And what exactly are the differences between the VX and their complementary PDs? I know that the PDs add color bars, and they have XLRs, but what else? I am thinking more along the lines of the vx series just because they are cheaper, but if a cheap PD comes my way, I'm not turning it down. :-)

Thanks for any help,

Alex F

Re: Better fake 16:9 - DVC30 or Sony?
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Filacchione : (which is why I am staying away from the PDX10 and the JVC GR-HD1 - no simultaneous control of f-stop & shutter - just one or the other-->>>

I think you may have some wrong information. I have both a VX-2000 and PDX-10. The manual control of iris and shutter on these two cameras are identical. They both offer full manual contol of the iris and f-stop but not "simultaneous." You need to choose your shutter speed first, lock it in, then you can manually control the iris. If this bothers you then you should remove the VX-2000 and VX-2100 from your short list.

OK, I knew that you could do that w/ the VX, but I was not aware that you could do that with the PDX10. The reviews I read (can't remember where) simply stated that you could only have control over one or the other, similar to the JVC GR-HD1 (again, having control of one OR the other but not both is a big negative to me). Being able to lock one in and then control the other is fine for my purposes.

OK, so then I should probably add the PDX10 to my list and do some more research on it. How is it in low light though? I will most likely be using the camera in low light situations like bars and recording studio control rooms. If it does not do well in low light, then I may be back to my original list...

THanks,

Alex F

The answers to how the x10 operates in low light has been a subject of many posts in the camera's Forum. A quick search will probably tell you to take it off your list.

Well, that's what I thought (PDX10 & low light). I figure I am going to have to compromise in one way or the other. I am thinking maybe the best solution, if I don't like the 16:9 performance in a camera, is to get a wide angle lens adapter to get more in my frame, and then letterbox it. If I could afford a real anamorphic adapter, I would probably just wait and see how the new Sony HDV cameras turn out instead, but neither are in my budget, sadly. :-(

So that still brings my choice down to DVC30 vs the Sonys...

Thanks,

Alex F

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : The answers to how the x10 operates in low light has been a subject of many posts in the camera's Forum. A quick search will probably tell you to take it off your list. -->>>

You know, that's part of my problem. I have all of these notes written down on the cameras, and it turns out that some of the notes are wrong, and I can't remember where I got what information from. Most of my info has come from manufacturer specs, sites like this, and various reviews (like camcorderinfo and others). I had thought that the PDX10 was poor in low light, but I also thought that you could only control F-stop OR shutter, but not both, and you can (via locking). The F-stop I was wrong on, so I then begin to wonder about the rest of my info! :-)


Alex F

My PDX-10 works OK in low light, but nowhere near as well as my VX-2000. I've observed about a two and a half f-stop difference between them. Outside at night on the street you would like to have those extra stops. Shooting a dimly lit stage show is on the cusp of what it can do well. For our dark operas I shoot wide open with as much as 15dB gain. You can add 6 or maybe even 9dB gain without any noticeable image noise due to its 14-bit DSP.

You really need to decide which is more important: 16:9 or low light. The PDX-10 produces much better 16:9 than the VX-2000 and its siblings. I think the Sony's will probably be a little better in low light than the DVC-30... bigger chips.

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : I think the Sony's will probably be a little better in low light than the DVC-30... bigger chips. -->>>

The pdx10 is really 14bit? Sweet.

The dvc30 performs very well in low light, even without the IR SNS. The gain on it goes up to 9db with little noise - 12 bit. The dvc30 is however very sensitive to color differentiations in mixed light settings, but utilizing the manual white balance, it is usually possible to attain a good median between two different light sources, where both look 'natural', or to say it in filmic terms 'motivated'. With the dvc30 it is actually possible to shoot light sources without the smear that 1/4.7" chip cameras seem to exhibit.

Broadcast and 16:9
 

Hi all,
I've been reading about the widening use of 16:9 format, with cameras like the XL2 on the market...

As I'm in the market for a new camera (I've been looking at the PD170) I have been wondering what the extent of true 16:9 is in general tv broadcast.

Most of the programmes I see are still 4:3 often shown distorted on people's widescreen tv's....

Perhaps any of you out there working in television may be able to comment on the trends...

Is it still worth getting a 170... I can see it's a great camera..

many thanks for your comments..

Regards

Gareth

Gareth,
For UK broadcast, forget anything that isn't 16:9.

Robin

Most progams in Europe are transmitted in (letterbox) 16:9

Thanks for your replies...

Does this mean that a PD 170 is not a good choice for shooting anything destined for eventual broadcast on satellite TV for example????

Or does one letterbox at the editng stage?

Do not the BBC use these format Sony camaras for certain documentary type programmes???

Basically I'm looking for the best camera to get for eventual tv use.

Regards

Gareth

Gareth,
The BBC use them as second unit cameras - they wouldn't choose to shoot a whole programme with them. If it had to be on DV, then the DSR570WSP is the preferred camera.
I think that the XL2 will start to change the equation now, with decent 16:9 as well as a small size (relative to pro cameras that it)

Robin

Gareth,

Across the pond, here in the US of A, probably most commercial stations will have to be 16:9 HD by sometime in 2K6, by government edict. I can't speak for the rest of North & South America.

Therefore, I would suggest, that SD is no longer a useable tool.

And, thus, my reason for not buying the XL-2, at this time.

I believe that within 6 months time, we will all see the announcement of the first "pro-sumer" cam in 16:9 HD.

2K6 is not that far off. I can wait.

Hi Robin

thanks for that reply....

Would you then suggest an XL2 would be a better and more logical choice? as a small sized camera, for use exclusively in Europe.

If the 16:9 format is now becoming the norm... I suppose we'll see a Sony update of the 170 fairly soon...???

regards

Gareth

16:9 is indeed becoming the standard in Europe, but all programs are transmitted in LETTERBOX mode (for 4/3 compatibility reasons) So only about 450 lines are active and the 16:9 receivers do the uprez internally (and much better the most cams do internally). This is about what the Sony 170 outputs when croped to letterbox in post

So what you are saying is that for the forseeable future.. Television isn't going to start upping its output quality, not until the 4:3 ratio disappears....

Cheers

Gareth

Not quite Gareth... Correct for analog, but a lot of things are changing with DTV expected in the years to come... mostly for those who have the equipment and want to pay. Digital TV will allow transmission of real 16:9 (anamorphic) images.

Gareth,
I would indeed recommend the XM2 for a good few years yet for use in Europe. It's a case of bread and butter today, jam tomorrow...

Robin

<<<-- Originally posted by John Jay : 16:9 can also be achieved by using the slim digital effect. Treat your footage as anamorphic

This is basically what the DVX100a is doing -->>>

I haven't decide on a camera yet so I don't have the manual. Can you tell me what the slim digital effect is?

If you get the Century 1.33:1 anamorphic lens Ruben both your viewfinders will look vertically stretched (ie tall, thin people) but when the footage is played out to a 16:9 TV it'll fill the frame perfectly, no black bars anywhere.

Of course you'll be restricted slightly in the amount of zoom you can use (at both ends) but the anamorphic will give you more wide-angle coverage anyway - though only horizontally of course.

tom.

VX2100 "true' 16:9..?
 

Hi all,

Does anyone know if the VX2100 shoots true 16:9 like I believe the PDX10 and the Pana GS400 do? I read else where on this forum that it doesn't but I thought that it did. Please enlighten me.

Thanks,
Scott

To put it simply, it doesn't.

It just does digital stretch

Jeff is correct. The VX-2000, VX-2100, PD-150 and PD-170 just crop the image to 720x360 then stretch it vertically back to 720x480 to make it anamorphic. It's "true 16:9" in the sense that it's an anamorphic image that will display properly on a widescreen TV, but you lose 25% of the vertical resolution so it looks much more softer than the PDX-10.

The following tests show the difference between the PDX-10 and VX-2000: http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9

Thanks for the explanation! So it's really no different than if I shoot 4:3 and crop it my self to 16:9 in Final Cut Pro. I have been looking at maybe getting a used VX2000 since I am looking to get into shooting weddings on the side.

Cheers,
Scott

Yes, this is true. You'll get about the same quality by cropping/stretching in post. Plus you have the option to adjust the framing this way.

Vx2100 16:9 shooting
 

I already know that the 2100 doesn't have native 16:9.. Just fake 16:9, but how does it look? Is it distorted at all?

For shooting random videos of just friends and such, not actual short film shooting or anything, would you reccomend shooting 16:9?

Sorry, I'm a newb and any help is appreciated, thanks

Oh and.. if theres any sample footage of 16:9 from a 2100, that'd be great.. thanks again

It isn' t "fake" or "distorted"... it is proper anamorphic 16:9. Its weakness comes from the fact that the camera's CCD's are in the 4:3 proportion and can only capture 480 vertical lines. So when you shoot in 16:9 it chops off the top and bottom of the image to acheive the proper proportion. That only uses 360 of the vertical lines, so you're throwing away 25% of your vertical resolution (120/480). The camera then stretches the image vertically back to 480 lines so it's in the proper anamorphic 16:9 format.

It will display correctly on a widescreen TV, but you will notice a loss of detail. It has a lot to do with the sort of stuff you're shooting. For closeups it isn't too bad. For wide shots with a lot of detail you'll notice that it looks sort of out of focus. Give it a try and see what you think...

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.