i think even if sony replaces the 150 soon that it will still remain in use for years to come . the majority of pro skateboarding videos are still shot on the ol' VX1000 and they look awesome. in my opinion no matter what new technology brings to the table- years down the road from now its gonna be like how did you get that look to your film -well i shot it on one of those old sony pd150s then everyone will want to go out and buy used ones etc. but then again this is only my opinion and who knows what the future will bring.

I asked Sony about a VX-2000/PD-150 replacement at NAB earlier this year. They pointed to the lifespan of the VX-1000 and said not very soon. I'd guess next year, maybe NAB.

Frankly, I get no requests for 16:9 since I don't do Indie films. My customers have 4:3 displays and many, like my wife, hate the black bars because it means the picture is smaller.

As I point out, I don't want the same 'improvment' Sony brought to the 950!.

Broadcast requirements are probably better met by a rented DSR-570WS if one is doing a resonably budgeted production. Better optics, better image processing, better sound, easier to manipulate, harder to carry and support.

I'll post here because you mentioned your G4. If your using FCP then your G4 has an almost infinite life span (at least as far as computers go . . . . what maybe 30 secsonds). If you have an older G4, you may lose Real Time effects, but not much else. Post details on your G4 and what you hope to do and I'll let you know aboout your laptop.

Jeff

<<<-- Originally posted by Elephant : Thankyou for your opinion.


Does a HD picture look any better than a SD picture on a normal PAL tv?

I have not seen PAL and HD side-by-side but the HD I've seen is incredible. I don't believe PAL or SECAM or NTSC can get even close.

Understand that the HD we see today is shot with a minimum of $100,000 cameras and $100,000 lens systems.

My first look at a HD television was from the entrance of a store looking at the television at the rear of the store. The shot was of a motorcycle turning from left to right on the screen. The light from the headlight seemed almost blinding. The detail was as good as any film I've seen.

I am already losing real time effects on my 667 (non DVI output) 1 gb RAM Pbook. I suppose it is holding quite well after a year. I can edit fine, and that is what is important. We'll see what Apple release on the 5th -- do people expect a widespread adoption of Gigawire in new computers/cams? If so would you expect a PCMCIA device to add compatability for people with laptops?

You guys have been really helpful, I just find it hard to think about dumping all my savings into a two year old camera... When are the main 'shows' where Sony could intro a new pd150? Am I right in thinking there is one as soon as december?

All my stuff goes to DVD via Studio Pro -- does this render much of any cam's picture quality redundant?

(If I have given the impression I am otherwise then sorry, I am an artist who works accross many disciplines who simply wants the most longivity and quality out of everything he spends money on. It is a problem I have I geuss)

Thanks again for all your posts.

I wonder when 16:9 and HD are going to become the norm...? Years?

-- I am future phobic!

One more thing --- is there any way to get any info out of Sony? Does anyone have any contacts or tricks or tactics?

How long did the VX1000 take to be revised? I geuss I am used to Apple's almost clockwork 6 or so month revision cycle on its products...

I don't expect Apple to go to the next generation of FireWire until next year. Many seem to think it will be announced at MacWorld in January. I doubt it. I expect to see it next summer. I don't think Sony will have a new camera until Spring, at NAB. Sony sometimes releases rumors about cameras, but nothing so far on a replacement. I think 16:9 and HD are years away from a prosumer price point ($3000 to $4000). DV and it's variants will be here for a few more years.

Jeff

Here in the UK -- ALL new Broadcast TV and adverts are shot on widescreen, normal analogue TVs always have little balck bars on the top and bottom. While digital broadcasts are in 16:9 - analogue transmission uses a 14:9 format to remind everyone that they should be thinking about buying a widescreen tv soon and that WIDE is definaletly the way things have ALREADY gone. Obviously those with digital sat/cable/set top box capable TVs get 16:9 ALL the time.

Now you can see why I am so (over) concerned with being able too shoot true 16:9.

True, I am not 'intending' for TV broadcast now but I use it as a guide to how things are going...

Sorry if I seem to be going on too much about this issue but I just can't stand buying soon to be replaced equipment.

Does anyone know if the century optics 16:9 adapter gives such a 'wide' angle distortion as the Optex one? I thought the optex adapter was bad.

Maybe the pressure isn't on in the states quite yet - but it won't be long...

I think it is further off than Real Soon Now. Why? Because the widescreen TV offerings are really confusing and quite incomplete. If you look around the hype and smoke, the real solutions are not yet in place and what we are hearing is a bunch of marketing guys trying to drive the market using bandwagon techniques. Well, it didn't work for TIVO over here.

As an aside. The average consumer (I'm talking the majority, not the upper middle-class and above) budget for entertainment isn't great enough to run out and buy $2,000 WS/HD televisions.

1. WS display devices are almost always a Monitor, not a TV so they need a AV Receiver or some outboard tuner to function at all. Most consumers don't have one of those installed so that is another chunk of money and technology. They don't have the money and they don't understand the technology.


2. WS displays are normally 'HD-Ready' but need the tuner to operate. Another expensive technology box.

3. They are very expensive. Way over the normal TV budget. Especially when one can now get a 36" TV over here for under $400 that is really quite good enough for most people.

4. HD and true widescreen broadcasts are few and far between. Want HD? You have to subscribe to a special cable or satellite channel or have an off-the-air HD tuner to pick up the broadcasts.

5. The US television stations have not yet gone digital and that is a Federal mandate. Yet another layer to the puzzle. Current tuners are not yet digital I think. But I'm not certain about that. And although the EU has it's homework done on the technology, the US selection is bad and doesn't even work correctly all the time.

6. There are no consumer recording devices, tape or disk, that will record and playback HD right now.

I think any savy consumer over here is going to wait and see for quite a while. Just way too much infrastructure missing at this point in time.

Besides, consumers are still all agog over their shiny new DVD's.

BTW, one of the most potent bellweather's remains unconvinced. My wife. She does not like letterbox because text is hard to read. Many of the WS displays aren't much better because they are short and wide. Not tall and wider (at least those I can afford to have hanging in my living room).

Oh, and did I mention that a WS TV will not fit in the entertainment cabinet she spent a fortune on? That is a big factor. Chuck a $5000 (today's money, I bought it 20 years ago) cabinet and buy another so the living room is all in synch? Nope.

So I think we in the US are not in such a hurry. My wife especially.

Your market and government may disagree.

In the US, I think a 4:3 camcorder is still a safe investment. But would not purchase an expensive on-the-shoulder camera that did not have 16:9 native capabilty (Sony DSR-570) unless I had a really quick payback situation. So when I found a need for a big camera, I bought used.

Mike, your comments regarding W/S and HD in the US are interesting. It seems that the rest of the world is well ahead of the US in this area.
Australia, like Brittain, broadcast predominantly in W/S SD digital and certainly most broadcasters insist on this format for programs and commercials.
In regard to W/S, analog W/S sets are available in Australia for around $US450. plus $US300 for a digital conversion box. Still a bit dear in our terms but getting closer.
Australia has chosen dual format broadcasts (Standard Digital and HD Digital) and regulated to abolish Analog in the year 2010. Less than 8 years to go. Analog sets will not receive broadcast signals after that date.
Any filmaker (that's me) that doesn't consider 16:9 as an upgrade in the immediate future may be out of business.

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

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?

<<<-- 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.

While we're on the subject... I downloaded some nice memory stick mattes from http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm. I wanted to change the aspect ratio a bit in one of them, so I copied the file and expanded the blue area a bit in photoshop, then wrote it back out. When copied to the memory stick, it appears in the directory on the camera, however it turned into a solid black rectangle with no blue!

I tried several times, even keeping the same file and using "save" instead of "save as". The files are all .jpg's. This was all done on a Mac - maybe that has something to do with it? When I copy the original files from the website to the memory stick they work as expected, but the modified ones don't. Any thought about what might be happening here?

There are a number of ways this can go wrong, Boyd. First of all, the file must be 640x480. Then, you must use a naming convention similar to the DSC0000 in the original files. Finally, if you are using a Mac before OSX, you will need additional help. Let me know if this is the case.

Thanks, Boyd, for the URL to the 16:9 mattes. My own creation didn't work. I compared its properties to images Sony put on the stick and made them alike in all respects, but got only one large black rectangle, as you said, when trying to select it in the VX2000. I noticed that, unlike all the existing mattes on the stick, my creation, and the first image on the web page when I used it, display in the LCD as 100_xxx where the others are 100-xxx. The dash versus underscore has me beat as neither character appears in the file name and so can't be "fixed". While I take the advice about saving the games for post, I have a project I think this makes sense in and I'd love to test it. Can anyone suggest an approach to making this work? I have used RGB 0-3-254 which is what the Sony-supplied mattes read in Photo Shop, 640/480, 8 bit jpg, best quality. The advanced properties view of my file versus the others showed 192 horizontal and vertical resolution while the others were 300. I changed it to 300 without impact. The only difference I can find is in channels. The Sony files show content in all three RGB channels. My file shows nothing in R and G, but then the other files have colour spectrums where mine is black bars and blue chroma.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Orr : There are a number of ways this can go wrong\\

Nope, I think I tried all that, just as David did. I just modified a file from the website then saved it with the same name. I needed to shoot some stuff in this format a couple days ago, and it had to match an existing sequence that was cropped a little tighter than the memory stick matte. So I just used the memory stick version, then using the motion tab in FCP cropped it further which was actually quite simple. But it would still be nice to know why the home-made mattes don't work. BTW, I am using MacOS 9.2.2.

This is for Boyd and David, and other Mac owners out there. I wrote this awhile ago but it is still up to valid:

Those of you who use a PC need read no farther. This brief lesson is regarding loading images to a memory stick for use in Sony cameras, such as the PD150 and the VX2000. This is a piece of cake for the PC folks who can use the software that comes with the Sony cameras, but unfortunately the software is not Mac compatible. When we try to upload images to the stick, they appear in the Mac, but will not load from within the camera. As many Mac users have discovered, the solution to this problem is not readily available on the Net.

I wanted to be able to place SMPTE color bars on the beginning of a tape, ala normal professional style shooting, and of course, the supplied camera bars are usable but do not contain some of the information that is useful for setting up a monitor in the field, or, in a post edit bay. Plus, there are times when it would be handy to be able to create a custom matte to be able to actually make the composite on the shoot, much like a matte painting. Anyway, I finally have the answer to the problem, thanks to a software called Graphic Converter from www.lemkesoft.com If you want to load accurate color bars to a memory stick, you should also download the free app, Test Pattern Maker from www.syntheticaperature.com. There are a lot of color bars floating around, and many of them are bogus. You can really make yourself crazy if you set up a monitor to incorrect color bars, and then wonder why your tapes all look weird. If you are curious about the bars you are using, import them to Photoshop and take a look at them, refering to the Info tab. You may find some strange levels. Anyway, once you have these two applications in your Mac, here is what you do:

With Test Pattern Maker, create the standard bars you wish to use, but be sure to make them 640X480 size, as those are the only dimensions you can import to the memory stick. You can make more than one set of bars, if you wish. One can be 0 setup and another 7.5. This opens up another discussion, and its your decision.

Next, open the newly created bars file in Graphic Converter. All you need to do is "save a copy" in the JPEG format pulldown. Be certain to give the copy a new name that is consistent with the files in the stick, such as, DSC00075. When asked, save at maximum quality. That's all there is to it. Unfortunately, you won't be able to get an icon with the file, even if you select that option. Maybe someone who is more computer savy than myself can figure that one out.

Now, to copy to the memory stick, simply drag and drop the new file to the memory stick in the folder which contains your still photos (that is, if you didn't save it directly from the Graphic Converter app). An important note; there must already be at least one saved photo in the file folder, otherwise there will be no folder. So if your memory stick is empty, take a still picture with your camera to create the folder, and you will be good to go.

Remember, you can create other graphics to import to the stick for compositing in the field, such as a "range finder." Sure, you could probably do it in post, but sometimes its just more fun to see the final composite when you shoot it. And often more helpful. You can also create a custom title which you can composite over the scene at the shoot. Since you can see the actual title at the shoot, you may think up ways to have your subjects interact with the title. Be sure to refer to the operating manual for tips on using chroma key or luma key stills for use with the memory stick.

I hope this brings back a smile to some Mac owners who have been cursing the Sony techs for their obvious snub.

(I have heard rumors that this problem no longer exists in OSX)

Wayne, you are obviously a salt of the earth kind of guy. I didn't say so previously but I am PC, so it was wasted on me. That said, if you could be close to as generous with PC-friendly advice I'd love to hear it. I understand this is unlikely, given the polarity of user loyalty. I'll keep after it.

Well, just for being so darn nice, David, here is John Beale's advice on saving images to the memory stick for PC users. I hope he doesn't mind me plucking this out of his pages. You can find this and other useful information at:
http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/dvfaq.html

You can modify still frames, and add titles and other graphics on your computer and write them back to videotape, using the floppy disk or memory card. This gives you great flexibility without the expense of a firewire card, but there are a few tricks to keep in mind. First, remember that TV sets have "overscan", meaning about 10% of the image area around the edge of the JPEG picture will not be visible on the TV screen. Each TV is slightly different, you may have to experiment a little. Second, you must use the exact file name format eg: Mvc-0001.jpg and use 640x480 resolution, and do not use interlaced JPEG format.

Specifically: I've had success with modified TRV900 pictures and also scanned images from other sources. I've tried Adobe Photoshop 4.0.1 LE, ULEAD PhotoImpact SE 3.01, and ThumbsPlus 3.30 (shareware from www.cerious.com). Photoshop is the most difficult. Here's what to do:

1) Make sure the image is "True Color" (not greyscale, 256 colors etc.)
2) Scale your image to exactly 640x480 pixels in size, if it isn't already.
3) Make sure you are NOT using jpeg "progressive compression" format.
4) Do not save any image comments, thumbnail previews, etc.
5) Use a filename like MVC00001.JPG for a PC Card or MVC-0001.JPG for a floppy disk.
In Photoshop, turn off image previews: choose File>Preferences>Saving Files and select "NEVER SAVE" in the "Image Previews" box. In JPEG Format Options, choose "Baseline ('Standard'). When you save the file, confirm that the "Save Thumbnail" box is NOT checked. The camera can read Photoshop images with JPEG Quality 1-3, but does NOT work with Quality 5 through 10, I don't know why.

The camera can read files saved from PhotoImpact or ThumbsPlus in any Quality setting from the minimum right up to 100%. However, I have looked closely at the video output with highly detailed test files, and can see no differences above Quality=85%.

None of the programs I know of will generate a valid "index" image for the TRV900 6-photo-per-screen index mode, they just appear as black squares; but the full-screen version of the image should work. All of the above is on a PC/Windows platform. I've been told that for writing JPEG images that the TRV900 can read using the Mac, Photoshop doesn't work, but GraphicConverter from Lemke Software does.

Thanks Wayne, I'll give it a try!

I was recording with 16:9.
I hooked up the camera with RCA cable to a TV and played it .


It came out expanded 4:3.

Why is this happening?



Can I fix this?

You might get some help viewing this well illustrated explanation:

http://www.dvdweb.co.uk/information/anamorphic.htm

When I first used the 16:9 selection in my VX2000 I had the same experience. Once I had properly edited the footage (in Premiere) I got a letterboxed output on a 4:3 TV - not by matting it, but by maintaining the original aspect ratio.

David Hurdon

Interesting link David. As it explains, the reason that everything looks "squashed" is that your camera is creating an anamorphic image. A widescreen TV would detect a special embedded signal in the video and stretch it back to the proper 16:9 proportion. To view on a regular 4:3 set you'll need to letterbox.

What NLE software are you using? In Final Cut Pro there's a very easy way to do this. Drop your clip into the timeline then open it in the viewer. Now click on the Motion tab and click the little triangle next to Distort. Enter a value of -45 in the Aspect Ratio field. Render your video and it will be properly letterboxed.

There are other ways to do this as well, and I'm sure someone else can explain how it would be done in Premiere.

I'm using Premiere 6.02, Boyd, which because of its PAR bug requires a tedious work-around to properly export a 16:9 project. Version 6.5 fixed that so the only requirement is to set footage in the timeline to "maintain aspect ratio". At least that's my understanding from other sources.

David Hurdon

Thanks,

I have Avid Xpress 3.0.




I can keep 16:9 ratio with this program.


Will this keep the output with 16:9?

On another site someone was asking if it's better to use builtin 16:9 vs cropping/stetching in post on the vx-2000 or pd-150. I've seen this question before, and long ago did some of my own tests. But I thought it was worth revisiting, so I repeated the test, realizing that I already had the needed images from a comparision I had done between the vx-2000 and pd-150.

I was surprised that there appears to be such a clear cut answer. Cropping and stretching in post appears to yield almost 50% higher vertical resolution (360 vs 240 lines)! I invite others to perform their own tests on this; I used still frame grabs and resized them in Photoshop. But it appears that the way in which DV compression is applied to the image with builtin 16:9 causes considerable degradation. You will find my tests here (http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10/mode).

Boyd

have you tried the slim effect on the VX2K? to produce an anamorphic image in camera - it will save you some time.

I tried that quite awhile ago, and IIRC the results were similar to the builtin 16:9. Also, is the aspect ratio correct using this method or is it slightly distorted? Sorry, don't really have time to run this test at the moment...

The two settings that make raw footage on the PD150 look like film... progressive scan and 16:9 seem to disable each other when they are turned on. Widescreen mode isn't listed as an option once progressive scan is on.

Is there any way around that?

Sure, just crop it afterwards. Alternately you could probably use a memory mix matte, or "slim" mode (do these work in prog scan.?.. can't remember). It appears that the wide mode on the VX-2000 yields significantly worse results than cropping anyway... see this test (http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10/mode)

I believe cropping it afterwards is the only solution. I just tried, and you cannot use the memory stick for mattes in progressive scan mode. I did so by putting it in progressive mode first, then trying to matte (which it rejected me from doing) and then by putting the matte up and then trying progressive scan, but it would no longer allow to click to enable it. So it appears as though there is no way around from within the normal camera functions, but cropping in post is always a good option.

Robbie

How is Progressive Scan on the PD150 in lowlight? Do event videographers use it often, especially in lowlight receptions?

Thanks,
Lucas

I'm pretty sure the progressive scan is only 15fps. More like film in that it's progressive, but surely not enough fps for anything other than maybe web streaming. I guess you could also use it if you know for certain you're going to slo-mo or stobe the footage in post later...

Hello All

Was thinking about getting a second PDX10 so as to multicam in 'true' 16:9. Then I saw this the following is on the Sony spec sheet for the PD170P. (PAL version) [ I know that the PAL 170 has been withdrawn so as to fix an audio bug]

"The DSR-PD170 is capable of widescreen 16:9 acquisition image capturing (video only), producing true 16:9 images. This is different from the letterboxing view commonly used in many equivalent models. "

I am surprised because, initially, the PD170 was not being hailed as a TRUE 16:9 device as the PDX10 is heralded.

I would have thought that true 16:9 capabilities would be a HUGE thing for the PD170P (especially since the PD150 did not have true 16:9)

Is there really any difference filming 16:9 between the PDX10 and the PD170?

May get a PD170 if there is not.

Thanks P

I did a bit of research on the sony Broadcast & Professional site
and the camera is being said to have the following feature:

" 16:9/4:3 aspect ratio switchable. 4:3 aspect ratio native "

This tells you that the chips are 4:3 native and thus the 16:9
aspect ratio must be an electronic stretch. Also the chips resolution
and photo resolution doesn't suggest a true 16:9 chip.

Technically I guess they are correct in that it is a "true" anamorphic image that's been vertically stretched instead of just letterboxed in 4:3. But the important thing is how it was created, which is evidently the same as the VX-2000 and PD-150 since the CCD's are still the same.

If you want good quality, avoid the 16:9 stretch mode. Electronic stretch is fine... if you like fine! If you want true pristeen 16:9 with a PD170 or 150, then get yourself an anamorphic lens, such as the Century Optics.