Thought I'd tack my question onto this related, recent, and shortlived thread.

I'm very curious about the Century Optics 16:9 adaptor for the pd150/170.
I just did a search on it and got mixed general comments mostly from people who only knew ABOUT it's performance, and hadn't actually used it.

Is anyone using this piece of glass?
Is it the Bee's knees?
Have you used others, such as the other well recommended one from Optex?
Can you point me in the direction of competent articles/reviews about
it/them?
Tom? ;-)
If, in the next year, I decide to pick up the PD170, will an adaptor 16:9 cut well with PDX10 16:9?
Are adaptors often more trouble than they're worth? Do they take away more than they give?
If you were stuck on a desert island, which kitchen appliance would you, uh, um, oh, never mind, wrong forum.
;-]

Did you see the reviews in DV magazine?

Century: http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/review/centuryoptics0901
Optex: http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?LookupId=/xml/review/wilt0202

(you may need to register in order to read these)

Thanks, Boyd.

Any users out there?

Read a lot lately about reasons not to us widescreen setting on my VX2000. Are all these things true. My tests don't look bad.

Should I forget the widescreen setting and shoot masking the top & bottom of my monitor.?

I am about to start shooting a short, but I have HIGH expectations (don't we all) for its use. What should be my approach, in this regard, for it being accepted for competition and whatever other showing it might enjoy.

Thanks,

Douglas

I've used the 16x9 mode on PD150 (same video quality as 2000).

It's not as good as a true anamorphic lense. BUT you get full use of zoom and no focus problems etc. that a lense might cause.

As built in 16x9 stretch goes, it's one of the better ones. It's not as good as true 16x9 CCDs.

BTW I saw a review of the DVX100A recently and it said that its stretch looked very good in progressive but in interlace it looked corser than the PD170.

Do understand that 16x9 is not simply masked. It will look streched unless played on 16x9 monitor.

I'm actually working on a music documentary and we're shooting the whole thing in 16x9 stretch with PD150/170. I converting it to 4x3 with black bands on top and bottom for VHS screening copies.

I've shot the electronic 16:9 with a DSR250 and while there is just a little extra softness and noise when compared to the 4:3 mode, overall it looks pretty good, assuming your exposures and focus are good.

As mentioned, true 16:9 is anamorphic and must be played on a 16:9 monitor or video projector with 16:9 mode. Otherwise it will be distorted. You can do your project in 16:9 and make a letterboxed version, which is easy with most NLEs. Be aware that if you crop your 4:3 footage, you end up with a 16:9 shape, but it's still a 4:3 chunk of video. If you label a tape 16:9 and somebody at a festival switches their video projector to 16:9, then your tape will be distorted (I speak from experience here).

Why don't you shoot some tests and see for yourself whether you think the 16:9 mode is good enough.

I just shot a concert in 16:9 format, no lense attachments, just what was built into the machine, and was moderately impressed. How much of a difference does it make to have the lense attachment do it for you? Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.


Another question I have is about the best rendering, editing, production software for a PC. I have played with Vegas 5 and Pinnacle 8.5 and wonder which one you guys think is the best? Or is there a third and better option I have not looked at yet?

Thank you all so much, I really appreciate any and all assistance with this.

James

According to the Sony DV guru (at least I think he is) Adam Wilt, the best way to get 16:9 in DV aquisition format is to shoot with a 16:9 camera such as the Sony DSR 570 (or in more realistic terms the PDX-10) the next best thing is to use a GOOD anamorphic lens adapter (IMO, the Century Optics 16:9 widescreen adapter is the best I've seen) and then using the internal anamorphic as a last resort.

I have dabbled with Vegas and have friends that love it (can't say anything about the Pinnacle products since I haven't ever used them) but it is not the tools that make the end result, it's how you can use them that counts. As far as a third option, it really depends on how much you want to spend and what you want to do that needs to be know before a knowledgeable answer can be obtained.

HTH,

Doug

Thank you for the advice on the 16:9. I've heard it too, but was honestly so impressed with what was built in that I was starting to think it didn't matter much.

As for the software, I would like effects, transitions, and I'd like software that had the ability to give interlaced more of a progressive film look.

I'm fairly experienced with editing, just curious if there are better tools for what I'm trying to do. Which is mainly a documentary and some humorous shorts.

I suggest you go peruse the editing forums for both the PC and Mac or just that forum that covers the computer type you have.

I was never very happy with the 16:9 mode on my VX-2000 but haven't tried the VX-2100. However it has a lot to do with the sort of stuff you're shooting I suppose. Around a year ago I did a comparison with the PDX-10 which you will find here (http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10/chart). Some quick tests convinced me that you would get better 16:9 on the VX-2000 by shooting 4:3 then cropping and stretching in post. But I would encourage you to shoot your own tests, compare them, and see what works best for you.

The nice thing about shooting using the in-built 16:9 mode James is that your viewfinders are undistorted, you retain all your zoom range, the camera's autio foucs and Steadyshot behave themselves and you don't have a big blob of cylindrical glass hanging on those filter threads. OK, the technical quality is slightly worse, but overall your film might look better. Just think of the mistakes you could make with an anamorphic (see list above).

tom.

I've had my VX-2000 a couple of years now, but I never actually tried the 16:9 mode until today. I didn't realize it stretched the video before recording it, and that leads me to the following question.

I know resolution wise, it makes just as much sense to shoot at 4:3 and letterbox, but aren't there also interlace issues that might make the camera stretch better looking.

How do the Sony cameras deal with interlacing the stretched pixels. Are pixels on adjacent lines just doubled every third line or so, or are they recaptured 1/60th of a second later from the same CCD pixel. It seems to me that depending on the algorythm Sony chose for their 16:9 video capture, there might be some advantage to using this mode instead of letterboxing, especially on motion shots. Is this a real consideration or am I just thinking too much?

I'm new to the forum and to Mini Dv in general, but I was under the impression that a dvd player would recognize the 16:9 format and play it correctly, the black bars appearing at the top and bottom, even on 4:3 screen.

Most festivals I know about don't project DVD, and many of the big theatrical projectors require an anamorphic lens and menu-switching to 16:9.

Thanks Bill, but if one had no plans for release to the big screen, and only in dvd format, wouldn't the dvd player correctly display the film in the 16:9 ratio?

Yes, assuming the user has properly configured their player. The DVD player should have an item on the menu to identify the kind of TV it's hooked up to. If you choose 4:3 then the player will provide a letterbox as needed. All the players I've seen default to a 4:3 screen unless deliberated changed by the user to 16:9.

Regarding 16:9 on the PD-150/VX-2000, have you seen the resolution tests I did here? http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9 Of course the builtin mode may be just fine for you, depending on what you want/what you expect.

My experience is that you could crop/stretch in post with these cameras and get equivalent results to the in-camera 16:9, but of course that requires rendering. Actually, I think the best results will come from simply letterboxing in post, then let your widescreen TV expand this to full screen. My Sony 16:9 LCD has a mode called "zoom" which does this. The hardware scaler in the monitor does a better job of stretching the image than either the NLE software or the in-camera 16:9.

Take a look at Andre's comments and the link he posted in this thread (xhttp://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28087&perpage=15&pagenumber=4)

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

Thanks to all.

can you explain SLIM and ANAMORPHIC effect

i have vx2100 and triyng to shoot 16:9 , somebody told me about a special anamorphic lens,

thank you

Ruben Senderey

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

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

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

<<<-- 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 (http://tech.operaphilly.com/sets/pearl/pix/32/04.jpeg) 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.

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.

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.

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...