Hello
I was wondering what were my options if I wanted to film in true widescreen.

The best option would be to shoot a camera with 16:9 aspect CCDs.

Do you know about the DSR PDX10?

Try an anamorphic adapter by Century Optics.
It compresses the wide image onto your squarish ccds and stretches out the picture verticaly so when you project back the image is 1.78:1 (16:9). Very useful tool for that wide screen maze.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/16x9/16x9.htm

<<<-- Originally posted by William Beltran : Hello
I was wondering what were my options if I wanted to film in true widescreen. -->>>

That would depend on your budget. Cameras with 16x9 chips are typically expensive, like the Sony
DSR-500 or the JVC GY-DV700. The PDX10 that Shawn mentioned is probably as close to true 16x9 as one can get without spending many thousands of dollars. But the PDX10 is on par with the DVX100 and other cameras that simply crop the image to 16x9, if I'm not mistaken.

Your second option is an anamorphic adater for your camera. Centyury Optics and Panasonic both sell them, for around $800 I think. You'll have a few focusing issues, but in general they'll preserve the full resolution of the CCDs.

I guess the question would be:

Why do you need true 16x9?

"But the PDX10 is on par with the DVX100 and other cameras that simply crop the image to 16x9, if I'm not mistaken.
"

The PDX10 widescreen mode is significantly better than the old crop and scale - it's as equivalently as good as using an anamorphic lens because the CCD has more than enough pixels to support 16x9 and a centre-crop for 4x3 without running out of enough pixels. Infact, I'd argue that the 16x9 mode looks better that it's 4x3 mode, not the other way around....

Graeme

If you are really on a budget, the DCR-TRV33 and TRV38/39 also have the "true" 16:9 feature, similiar to the PDX10

How is it accomplished with those TRVs?

The same way it is with the PDX10.

Thank for all your replies.
I ask this question because I'm in the market for a camera and some of the features I would like are XLR inputs and the best 16:9 feature within my budget. I was considering getting a GL2 with an anamorphic adapter running around $700 in addition the xlr adapter, about $160 I think. For this price the AG-DVX100 did catch my attention but I was under the impression that an anamorphic adapter would be better than the DVX100's squeeze mode. I am not sure the significance in quality between the two. Idealy what I would like is to be able to shoot in 16:9 with out loss of my ccd's resolution. ( Also without spending thousands of dollars)

Can you tell me more about the PDX10.

Hi William; to learn more about the PDX-10 just visit our forum (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=43) and browse through the 11 pages of topics. Most of your questions have probably already been discussed.

But the general thing to keep in mind is the resolution of a camera's CCD's. The DVX-100 has 470,000 gross pixels, GL-2 has 410,000, PD-170 has 380,000 while the PDX-10 has 1,070,000 (there are some discrepancies when you consider "effective pixels", but you get the idea). The DVX-100, PD-170 and GL-2 don't have enough vertical lines within their 4:3 form factor to provide native 16:9 without loss of resolution, so they create the 1.78:1 aspect ratio by chopping off the top and bottom of the image. On these cameras you will have to use an anamorphic adaptor to get results comparable to the PDX-10. But of course each of these cameras has other strengths, so there are going to be trade-offs no matter which route you choose.

Thanks Boyd,
It seems for my needs and wants the pdx10 may be the best choice.

I think I know the answer to this one, but, so, the PDX10 has more resolution than the PD170? They're both rated as having 530 lines...

Both the pixel count and lines of resolution are likely accurate. Remember that you're talking in a different world when referencing lines of resolution; the world of video (i.e. television) display. Since a true 16:9 ccd will be wider than a comparably sized 4:3 ccd it will contain more pixels. Still, both may produce 530 lines of resolution to a television.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dmitri Henry : Try an anamorphic adapter by Century Optics.
It compresses the wide image onto your squarish ccds and stretches out the picture verticaly so when you project back the image is 1.78:1 (16:9). Very useful tool for that wide screen maze.
http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/16x9/16x9.htm -->>>

Will one of these wide screen adapters fit a Panasonic NV-MX500a? If so it is exactly what I am looking for, for my next project.

Century makes one model for larger camcorder lenses (around 55 to 58 mm) which is rather expensive, maybe $700. There is a smaller version that has 37mm threads and it's much cheaper, around $300. What size are the filter threads on your camera?

NTSC TV is 525 lines, though less are visable. miniDV can play back 540 lines, PAL and NTSC. The video effective CCD pixels in the VX2000 are the same as the VX2100's, I recall; the VX2000 was tested to play back 500 lines.

The PDX10's resolution is higher than the VX2100's, and probably has the best affordable widescreen.

The MX500 already has good widescreen, if widescreen is what you're after, Shane.

The MX500 filter thread size is 43mm.

Frank, you've got to be careful when you say NTSC is a 525 line format, and follow that by talk of playback of 500 or 540 line. The two sets of lines we're talking about here run in different directions. NTSC has 486 (DV uses 480 of them) lines visible, out of 525 total. These are horizontal lines and measure vertical resolution.

The measured 500-540 lines on playback are vertical lines measuring horizontal resolution.

Graeme

I have a question about that 500 to 540 horizontal resolution figure. Is that inherent to DV, or just camcorders? In other words, If I import a photo from Photoshop will it effectively lose 180 to 220 pixels of horizontal resolution? The reason I ask, is I wonder if there wouldn't be an advantage to routinely turning off sharpness on the camcorder and then sharpening the footage in the NLE.

DV/miniDV is capable of 540 playback lines. Most cams don't reach that.

http://www.dvfreak.com/res.htm

"lines" is a terrible way of measuring the resolution of digital video. DV is 720 x 480 pixels, and that, atleast, is accurate and without ambiguity. "Lines" is an old method of expressing resolution with regards to analogue video .

Graeme

You're confusing playback resolution with pixels.TV lines or TVL is a standarised definition of horizontal resolution performance for Television. TV = L/ph (lines of horizontal resolution on a horizontal length which is equal to the pixture height). If the height is 3/4 of the width and the width has 720 lines (pixels) in DV, the number of resolution lines on a horizontal length which equals the height, we get 540 TVL resolution for DV. The (theoretical) max number of pixels of the DV standard in horizontal direction (=max number of vertical lines) equals 720. In video, however, resolution is expressed in "lines per picture height (=l/ph) or TVL and this is 720 x 3/4 = 540. The 800 lines resolution is one of the irelevant specs belonging to the world of the many misleading information used in the semi pro and consumer world. Even if the cam itself had 10,000 lines of resolution it will end up by the 540 TVL limit at the DV output. The more initial resolution however the cleaner (aliasing) the 540 TVL can be reproduced, but the limit is still 540 TVL." ---Andre De Clercq

I just a Pdx10 from B&H. I havent had a chance to play with it too much but I am excited to see what results I will get once I start some serious shooting.
Regaurding the anamorphic adapters, I was wondering what would happen if i were to add one to my Pdx10 and still use its native 16x9?

If you add an anamorphic on top of the 16:9 you'll get cinemascope.

Graeme

"I was wondering what would happen if i were to add one to my Pdx10 and still use its native 16x9?"

There's been a lot of interest in how this will work out, but so far nobody seems to have to have taken the plunge. If you try this, a number of people in here (especially me) would love to see some screenshots.

Refresh me on cinemascope.

<<<-- Originally posted by William Beltran : Refresh me on cinemascope. -->>>

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingcs1.htm

After achieving cinemascope what would you do?
Can you still edit as you would 16x9?
What would you play it back on?

Well I think you've cut right to the heart of the matter. If you want to stay with DV then you're pretty much forced to letterbox the 2.35:1 image in the 1.78:1 frame. And if that's the case, well you would achieve pretty much the same results by just cropping a 16:9 image. Of course this negates anything you may have gained by the anamorphic compression which preserves all 480 scan lines.

If you want to watch on a computer monitor you could render at 1128 x 480. You can render DV at any resolution you want, but from my own experiments it's interesting that the files don't get any larger. So you're just spreading the same data over a larger area evidently.

Another approach might be to leave it anamorphically compressed and digitally project as 16:9 but also add an anamorphic lens to the projector. Might be a bit difficult to find the right lens for this.

Otherwise I think you'd need to upconvert to HD and letterbox within a 1280x720 frame. That's what Martin Munthe has done with a movie he's discussed here. Do a search for his name and you will find someinfo on his techniques.

Also, you will be viewing a "squished" anamorphic image on the camera's LCD and viewfinder as you shoot. A possible solution to that is to use a program like BTV Pro (http://www.bensoftware.com/btvpro.html). It allows you display and capture DV via firewire on a Mac laptop, and you can set any size/proportion frame that you want. Again, I believe Martin discussed this as well.

So there are definitely a number of issues to consider with this, not the least of which is the conceptual one: Cinemascope was conceived as a way to fill huge theatre screens (something that DV isn't so ideally suited for), and not just an unusual aspect ratio.

Nevertheless, I'm also intrigued by the whole thing myself. Perhaps when I have some time this summer I'll spring for the $300 37mm version of the Century anamorphic lens that fits the PDX-10 and see what I can do with it...

I shot some frame mode (30p) video in DV widescreen on the DV953 then brought it into Vegas. I then rendered it in WMV 9 HD 1280x720. This gives a look like 2.35:1. If you would like to see this video, click here (http://fortvir.net/modules.php?set_albumName=album05&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php). It is the first video on the lower left of the album page. You will have to download the clip to see it better in WMP.

Ah, ok I think I have a better understanding of what I'm after now. I was a little confused with the squashed (anamorphic) image in the LCD screen on my camera.

I should be getting a new editing workstation with Adobe Premiere Pro soon, so I'll play around with the different options for editing in and exporting widescreen shot from my camera.