At last!
 

Someone who agrees with me!

I was beginning to think I was the only one taking 16:9 seriously.

I'm sure many with $5000 kits are not sure ready to embrace this impednding format switch.

I, for one, cannot pay for a 'good' setup now when there is no <$5000 option for reasonable quality 16:9. This surely is going to happen soon...

I am considering buying the Pana MX350 to bide some time, or maybe, gulp, re-buy a XL1s.

I know that the xl1s' 16x9 mode is not the best way to do it, but dosn't it allow the footage to be record in 16x9 anamorphic, whether it be digital or optical or not, it does allow it to be use on a 16x9 tv correctly?

kermie

Kermie,

I've just posted a question asking people's general opinions of whether 16:9 should be used. I'd like to get a consensus from people who've seen how it looks ( I haven't yet). So, keep an eye out for responses to that thread, too...might help. The title is "16:9 vs. 4:3".

The whole 16:9 issue boils down to one of acceptability. The XL1, PD150 and the whole prosumer/professional range can mostly produce 16:9 of sorts. None suitable for broadcast.

From a filmmakers point of view the 16:9 format is ideal and very well suited to framing and composition, tracking and action sequences etc.

To achieve quality 16:9 on video you need a good lense and CCD's specifically designed for the purpose, 16 parts long by 9 parts high. To cram enough pixels on each CCD you really need 2/3 inch CCD's and this equates to the Sony 570 WS series or equivelant at the moment. Technology will change that in time.

Broadcasters in Europe, Asia and the Pacific appear to be a little ahead of the technology but my gut feeling is that will change very quickly, perhaps a year or two at the most.

If I was to make any recommendation on upgrading it would be to watch carefully and wait until the technology/price ratio is favourable then move quickly. If you don't wish to broadcast your production, then 16:9 is of no real consequence yet.

Redgumtv,

You are in australia like me, and anything on the recording side of 16x9 is far to expensive, i would love a 16x9 native dvcamera but i knew it would have broken my 10k budget by a long shot.

Btw do you know how much those sony 570's are down here?


This entire 16x9, 4x3 issue always boils down to your final product needs anyways. If you send to festivals, or internet, even certain types of broadcasts, it dosn't really matter.

Only if you have really specified needs does it matter atm.

kermie

ps. on a weirder note, sony has removed the vx2000 from the australian sony style wesbite, i wonder what that means? maybe a replacement is comming here.

elephant,

I've used a Century 16:9 adaptor and it sounds similar to the optrex unit you were talking about. You can't zoom through the range and it has distortion and worst of all, slight fall off at the corners if it hasn't been adjusted properly. This all translates into RISK of poor shots while shooting. Something I try and minimise. Like you I'm now waiting, waiting, waiting for something new in the prosumer range.


Jim

cinema (letterbox) mode
 

I was disappointed that my pd150 had so few features as compared to my Sony Hi-8 handcam; such as option of shooting in monotone and 16:9 letterbox mode.

1. Why were these effects not included on this camera?
2. Does the Canon xl1s have these funtions?

Re: cinema (letterbox) mode
 

<<<-- Originally posted by walesfilmclub : I was disappointed that my pd150 had so few features as compared to my Sony Hi-8 handcam; such as option of shooting in monotone and 16:9 letterbox mode.

The VX-2000 has these things.... doesn't the PD-150? Even so, they shouldn't be much of a factor as they're easy enough to do in post. Also, take a look at the "memory stick gallery" http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm There you will find images that allow you to letterbox your footage in any desired format using the "memory mix" function.

Mark, I believe you are the first person I have ever heard complain about these "missing" items. What you are asking about are options that are available on many consumer camcorders, but you certainly won't find them on professional cameras, and as Boyd pointed out, they are easily accomplished in post.

Instead of "monochrome" shooting, what you get with the PD150 are, settable timecode, userbits, separate channel audio control, audio Noise Reduction, logo insertion, no 5min shutdown, separate gain control, DVCAM recording, and the hi-res black and white viewfinder.

These are options that are more "professional" in keeping with the PD150's intent, rather than the "nice to have" options found in the VX2K.

Doing B&W in the camera is a mistake. Any modern editor will do this for you and you have the option to change your mind later.

As for 16:9, upload a 16:9 mask into the camera and you can overlay it on your picture if I read the manual correctly. Make the mask in photoshop. Personally, I'd rather mask the image later, in Post.

advice taken.

Is there any difference in using the memory stick matts for shooting in camera to fixing the movie later in post?

Whenever you don't record everything the camera can deliver or you modify the image in-camera with filters or special effects, you limit your future options to do something else with the shot.

I recommend you always add special effects in post.

With 16:9 that starts from 4:3, that means you can slide the mask up and down in the 4:3 frame to get just the exact framing you want.

I agree with Mike in doing your matte in post, however if you also have it on a memory stick you can use it in the field to check your composition, and then drop it just before you roll tape.

The primary advantage of the letterbox overlay via memory stick is speed. No post-processing or rendering required... it's on the tape in letterbox as you shoot. However, it can't be undone! So, take the advice these guys are giving you, and apply this effect in post production where you have some options. But if you need letterbox right away, the memory stick delivers instantly.