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 (www.gthelectronics.com/images/ANAMORPW.PDF) 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/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=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.

A few days ago I sent an E-mail to Century Optics suggesting that they post a video demo on their website showing scenes from the new lens. Haven't heard anything yet.

Problem with the PDX-10 is very poor low light perfomance from what I understand.
Bob

There's a 2.5 f-stop difference between the PDX-10 and VX-2000, although the 14 bit DSP allows you to add +9dB of gain with little or no noticeable noise; even +12 dB doesn't look too bad.

It has its quirks, but you really can't touch its 16:9 quality without paying a lot more. Audio is excellent too. Probably not a good choice if you shoot newsreel footage outside at night, but otherwise it's worth a look.

At one stage I was sorely tempted by the PD10x as it offered 16:9, but event video footage I was shooting was at the marginal light level using +9 or more gain even on a VX2000E. Particuarly for clients who had indicated an adversion to on-cam lights.

I never did try one, but assumed that the 1/3" Super-HAD CCDs of the bigger cam were as small as I could go. Years later I have the best of both worlds with a PD170 + Century Optics 16:9 lens.

I was interested in a side-by-side comparison of the better low light PD170 against my VX2k and to my surprise a visible difference but not greatly so. Maybe academic to most users but my work in event documentary means using every bit these cams' low light ability.

"my work in event documentary means using every bit these cams' low light ability."

That's my feeling also since I cover weddings and in the Northeast anyways, they often turn lights way down at receptions. I recently sold my GL2s for a pair of 170s just because I could'nt accept the 12dB look anymore.

Can you add anything else about the 16:9 lens?

Bob

Here's one for sale in the private classifieds...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=291243

Boyd,
Unfortunatley, he's not selling the new glass, DS-WS13-SB, that Century Optics claims to have full tele-photo range. It's a big difference from the one on sale with regard to performance and especially price. But, good catch.
Bob

<<<-- Originally posted by Bob Harotunian :

Can you add anything else about the 16:9 lens?

Bob -->>>

I have noticed pleasing colour to the images shot with the Century Optics, little more saturation. This is a nice side effect and something I've experienced with good photographic lenses e.g. a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 lens on my DLSR. Overall a very nice imaging using the Century Optics.

Here are two frames shot within minutes of each other and both set to outdoor WB. (no de-interlace just saved at max JPG quality after export from the DV capture stream)

View them side-by-side in 2 diff browser windows...outdoor scene really shows up the lack of detail i.e. pebble ground and fine leaves in the hedges.

I used to think the VX2k wide-screen was 'okay', that was until saw the results from the anamorphic lens!

http://www.netspeed.com.au/mark/century.jpg

http://www.netspeed.com.au/mark/vx2k.jpg

I'm starting a documentary and was thinking of shooting in 16:9, but after reading about it, and checking the looks of 16:9 versus 4:3 on my camera, the 16:9 looks bad. Apparently, there are two ways that 16:9 is acheived. One is to increase both the height and width to the appropriate size until the new ratio is reached. The other is just to lop off the top and bottom of the screen. The PD 170 appears to do the latter, and it looks horrible. Does anybody know how I can get my camera to shoot 16:9 correctly? Thanks.

You can buy an anamamorphic 1.33:1 squeeze lens. This has cylindrical elements and fills the 4:3 frame, but gives you more wide-angle coverage in the horizontal direction only. If you show the footage on a conventional 4:3 TV everythings compressed in the horizontal plane, but if you open it wide on a 16:9 screen, everything looks just dandy.

tom.

Unfortunately the PD-170 - great camera that it is - isn't a very good choice for 16:9 work, for the reason you describe. The anamorphic adaptor will give you full quality but it's heavy, expensive, and introduces some compromises in how you can use the camera.

I have an anamorphic lense for my VX2000, but never use it. I dislike it for several reasons. First you get barrel distortion if you zoom out all the way. Zoomed out all the way is about the same as not having an external lense on the camera. With the anamorphic lens I just can't ever seem to get far enough away to frame the shot I want. Since you have to zoom in a little, camera shake is exaggerated. Forget handheld shots! Not only can't you go that wide, but you can't zoom in that far either. The image looks compressed on the viewfinder and always seems out of focus without some kind of extra preview screen hooked up. I just feel it is more trouble than it is worth.

What I do is simply change the aspect ratio in post in Vegas. I know Final Cut Pro does this as well. It looks noticably better than it does if you use the built-in 16:9 camera setting. Also it lets you do both 4:3 and 16:9 versions of your final product. It doesn't look as good as native 16:9, but it don't let that put you off totally. It doesn't look any worse than letterboxed 4:3 either, and it formats properly on a widescreen TV.

Another thing I've found is that the extra pixels that you normally throw away with a 4:3 to 16:9 conversion can be used by the image stabilizing software Deshaker (an excellent free plugin for VirtualDub).

When you do a 4:3 to 16:9 conversion you can also "tilt and scan" and move the 16:9 window up and down to best frame the action. When you do this though you have to make sure to move the frame two lines at a time so as not to mess up the interlace field order. In Vegas I zoom out to 50% and just move the frame up or down to best frame the action. The 50% zoom insures that all movement will automatically skip every odd line and keep the interlace order intact.

One thing you need to be aware of is that 60i widescreen footage doesn't look that great when it is letterboxed on a 4:3 television. With most commercial movie DVDs this isn't really that much of a problem because the 24p letterboxes more clearly. The reason for this is that the automatic letterboxing your dvd player does when set up for a 4:3 television works by dropping every fourth line. This screws up the field order on 60i footage and the DVD player does a hardware deinterlace to compensate. This really messes up the clarity of 16:9 interlaced footage when it is viewed on a 4:3 tv. 24p footage doesn't look nearly as bad letterboxed on a 4:3 set because the 3:2 pulldown suffers less from dropping every 4th line. On a 16:9 TV, both aspect ratios look clear but you have to change the TV aspect ratio manually and most people viewing a 4:3 DVD either don't know how or don't bother.

For these reasons I like to do separate 4:3 and 16:9 versions of my videos. That way, the video looks reasonably clear on whatever TV it ends up being viewed on.

Just want to say thanks for the responses. Very helpful.

You can buy an anamamorphic 1.33:1 squeeze lens. This has cylindrical elements and fills the 4:3 frame, but gives you more wide-angle coverage in the horizontal direction only. If you show the footage on a conventional 4:3 TV everythings compressed in the horizontal plane, but if you open it wide on a 16:9 screen, everything looks just dandy.

tom.

It's simply amazing (and refreshing) that when I have a question about something I can do a quick search and see that not only does someone else have the same question and has asks it, but a few people have responded and weigh in with the answers.

I love this site!

I was just checking out Century Optics website and was looking into the anamorphic lens for 16:9. And now I know.

So thanks!

Yup, the information exchange offered by the www is staggering, Colby. Just think - 10 years ago you'd have to write to a photo magazine and wait 8 weeks for the next issue to see if your query had been answered. Invariably it hadn't, and if it had it had been answered incorrectly. We live in good times, indeed we do.

tom.

I like doing dual format 4:3 / 16:9 selectable SD DVDs as my final output. It seems to me like the extra vertical resolution of a PAL VX2000/2100/PD150/170 would make it ideal for extracting both good 4:3 and 16:9 frames. Ever since Vegas 6 came out with it's much better frame rate conversion I've been thinking along these lines.

Personally I think that would be a mistake. The PD-170 is poor at 16:9 since it just crops the image. You would get a few more lines on the PAL version, but I suspect any advantage there would be offset by resampling it to NTSC and of course you'll have to render everything.

Why not just get another camera that does real 16:9. The FX1 comes to mind, or the Z1 if you can afford it - and that would give you both NTSC and PAL too.

B&H has also just gotten the PDX-10 back in stock. The price is now $1,800 after rebate which isn't as good as the $1,600 it used to be... but still a lot cheaper than a PD-170. Especially the PAL PD-170 which is listed at $3,600 at B&H.

You're probably right. Most people looking the projects I'm working on are doing so on old CRT TVs. The documentary style stuff I do really looks better in 4:3. Between the talking heads and the animated photos, 4:3 just works better. None the less, 16:9 is obviously important. I really like doing dual format DVDs and the 16:9 versions look pretty good. I generate the 16:9 frame in Vegas, and of course titles and photo animations are rendered directly into the 16:9 format. For the stuff I do, low light performance is of utmost importantance. I just can't go into a dimly lit room with a PD10 and get footage anywhere near as good looking as my VX2000 gets. I'd rather loose 16:9 resolution than the low light performance, even on a 16:9 project. If I shoot with an FX1 or Z1, I'd get a better 16:9 image, but for the majority of people who are looking at DVDs on 4:3 sets, it wouldn't be as good. I could shoot HDV and still have resolution for both formats, but on a documentary style project, I end up with so much raw footage that the cineform intermediaries would take up way too much space, and Vegas's gearshift would mean a whole lot of rendering before I even began editing. All this for resolution that is mostly going to be thrown away anyway. At some point I'll go HDV I'm sure, but it is still a few years off.

Hello,

I've been watching the new King Kong movie production and post-production diary videos online every week and I've always been thinking which cameras they are using. A friend told me that they are mostly Sony PD170s, but I didn't believe until I could somehow hear it from the team myself. Now in the last diary which was published a few days ago, the director Peter Jackson with some others are talking (probably) from the same room the diaries are created at and they clearly show the PD170s in that clip. As all of their footage has been extremely professional and good looking + filmed in 16:9, I am glad those Sony cams can do it all so well. I think they are using the built-in widescreen function and at least the camera on the right hand side of Peter Jackson doesn't seem to be wearing any widescreen adapter lens and has probably the default lens hood.

You can watch the clips at www.kongisking.net . At least the post-production diaries should be all PD170.

I don't see how you could possibly judge image quality from low resolution highly-compressed web video. Unless you're using an anamorphic adaptor lens the PD-170 does a poor job of 16:9 by today's standards, although it's certainly a great camera beyond that.

(edit)
I was just looking at those clips and the highest resolution version is 480x270. Now the PD-170 shoots 16:9 by cropping the 720x480 4:3 frame to 720x360 which is a loss of 25% vertical resolution. However in a web video that small this wouldn't be apparent. If fact, if video of this size and quality is what you're doing then just about any DV camera will look fine. But if you look at full resolution DV footage shot on the PD-170 and compare to another camera with higher resolution CCD's that shoots native 16:9 you will see a very noticeable difference. I did some tests comparing my VX-2000 (same CCD's as the PD-170) to my PDX-10 awhile ago. The FX1 and Z1 do an even better job in 16:9.

http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9/

I didn't actually mean that they are getting out some perfect 16:9, but I just mentioned they are using it.

Their footage is not only being shown in web, but they are also going to sell the diaries on DVD in Amazon.com.

I tested now my VX2100 in both 4:3 and widescreen by having it connected to the workstation. I filmed an object with small detailed text on it and some other situations. There indeed is a resolution difference, but speaking honestly, it's so small that you barely notice it. I imagine that on TV there is basically no noticeable drop in sharpness.

Thanks for providing that comparision! There it shows quite huge difference, but I didn't notice that bad at all.

I tested now my VX2100 in both 4:3 and widescreen by having it connected to the workstation. I filmed an object with small detailed text on it and some other situations. There indeed is a resolution difference, but speaking honestly, it's so small that you barely notice it. I imagine that on TV there is basically no noticeable drop in sharpness.

As far as TVs are concerned, playback on a large HDTV is more likely to reveal problems than on a smaller 4x3 TV. I don't have a VX2100 to test with, but it defies logic that you could get good widescreen footage from a camera designed to shoot 4x3 SD video, and even if you could the angle of view wouldn't be what you want. And once you start comparing to widescreen HD footage there's no comparison, especially when viewed on a computer monitor or HDTV.

As I've said before, the fact that most HDTVs are widescreen format is arguably as significant as the switch to higher resolution. You might be able to get 4x3 SD footage to look okay on a 4x3 HDTV, and get true widescreen SD footage to look okay on a widescreen HDTV, but getting footage from a 4x3 SD camera to look good on a 16x9 HDTV is simply too much to ask.

Kevin, I agree with most of your points but not this one:

and even if you could the angle of view wouldn't be what you want

This issue has nothing to do with 16:9 vs 4:3. You can have both closeup and wide shots with either format, the only difference is the aspect ratio. There are still reasons to use both wide and telephoto adaptors on native 16:9 cameras like the Z1 and native 4:3 cameras like the PD-170.

If you're using a Z1 and switch to 4:3 mode it's true that the field of view gets narrower, but this is just the inevitable result of not using the extra space on either side of the frame.

Boyd: that's fair enough, but switching to widescreen mode on most DV cameras involves throwing away the top and bottom of the image without gaining anything in terms of field of view, so to get that you'd need to add a wide-angle or anamorphic adapter -- which further compromises your image quality. Point being that it's just too much trouble to try to get acceptable widescreen output from a 4x3 SD camera, especially when you can buy an FX1 for a little over $3000 and shoot great widescreen footage with no hassles. If you already own anamorphic adapters or a true widescreen SD camera then use those, but otherwise I wouldn't recommend fussing with widescreen output from SD cameras.

On the DV website (DV Magazine) there's 3 hours of Adam Wilt discussing cameras, how to get the most out of them. He goes into SD 16x9 with various test charts. The PD-150 (same chip as 170) was clearly the worst on the test charts BUT he said we dont' shoot test charts. He said it's very hard to tell the difference with "real world" material for most people. A an experienced viewer will know but the differences aren't too obvious otherwise to most people unless they know what to look for or can see things side by side.

No not recommended to shot 16x9 but I've done it when clients ask and they're always happy with the results.

Apparently clients are happy even though there are artifact issues with HDV on fast motion too.

Thanks a lot for the good information.

I'm not a 16:9 fan at all, but simply a bit afraid that for how long will the 4:3 ratio live from today. VX2100 is a top-notch camera and I'm satisfied without doubt, I'm just wondering how many years it will take till 4:3 is for example not acceptable in TV anymore.

I hope that I will be able to continue using my camera for professional work when 16:9 becomes a standard and if I will still have the VX2100.

I'm just wondering how many years it will take till 4:3 is for example not acceptable in TV anymore.

That's up to you and your customers. Personally I'd be reluctant to deliver marginal widescreen footage to someone with a large HDTV display, and that's going to become an increasingly common viewing situation in the future. One thing you could do is test some of your own footage on the best HDTV display you can find, and decide for yourself whether it looks okay on that.

True. I don't know any friends who own a HDTV yet, but I will have to do some more research.

Some of your words made me thinking: "that's going to become an increasingly common viewing situation in the future". We are saying future, but nobody probably knows how near or far it really is. Maybe it will take about 5 years and by then Sony will certainly have new HD cameras released.

The team who film the production diaries are using a mixture of Sony gear. The 'DVD Crew' have primarily used the FX1 and PD's.

Oh, thanks for this information. Do you know if they really use PD170 in the widescreen mode then?

It's interesting to note that the BBC were happy for their PD150/170 cameras to shoot in the 16:9 mode (PAL only, and no anamorphic) whereas they would not accept footage shot 16:9 if it came from the XL1-s or the DVX100.

Of course that's all changed now with the mass introduction of the Z1.

tom.

Pretty interesting... thanks for pointing this out. They probably did the same with VX2000's as well then.

After a little digging around I found the BBC report on the Z1 that was posted here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=284924&postcount=1

Specifically regarding the PD-170 vs HVR-Z1 in 16:9 mode:

Improved picture quality due to new image sensor and better lens. The Z1 shoots true 16:9 pictures - this means an end to the need for high quality aspect ratio conversion ('arcing'), or use of the alternative poor quality in-camera widescreen setting.

This is part of the following thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=284924

Also an interesting comment by Richard Entwistle there:

I am wanting DV widescreen and was pleased to see the BBC calling the PD150 in-camera WS 'poor quality'. Earlier BBC guidelines suggested it was 'just acceptable'. Technology moves on and so does the quality bar. I was hoping to use my PD150 but that is a no-no for sure.

Nice! Thanks for sharing.

We are saying future, but nobody probably knows how near or far it really is. Maybe it will take about 5 years and by then Sony will certainly have new HD cameras released.

Again, that all depends on your client base. Where I live many people already own HDTVs, and that number is increasing steadily. So depending on how you look at it, the time to at least start shooting widescreen video is now, and if you can shoot in high-definition so much the better.

16:9 on my VX-2000 isn't too bad on some shots but it's just horrible on othes. In particular: interior closeups of faces look pretty good while landscape shots of tree leaves look absolutely horrible.

I tried an anamorphic lens and gave up on it. It was just too impractical to use for the run and gun stuff I do.

My new HVR-A1 looks much better in 16:9. I gave up a little (well quite a bit) of low light ability, but gained everywhere else.

Bet the bottom loading is not seen as a gain Laurence.

Hi,

I'm new here and came across this thread.

I am considering buying a PD170 as my first camers for film-making.

I thought you guys may be interested in this list:

http://www.nextwavefilms.com/ulbp/bullfront.html

It shows a lot of films which have been made with a PD150 or similar (sometimes lower spec) and had good artistic and cinematographic merit.

Hope this helps!

No question that these are great cameras; but put things into perspective. All of those films appear to be a few years old. You have to look at what's currently on the market and compare to what your needs are. If you want to work in 16:9 then I feel the PD cameras are going to be pretty far behind some of the other options today.

At least for me, neither 16:9 nor HD are approaching me or the national TV too fast yet and many PDs are still being used. Basically it just depends what you are targetting... For certain productions like films, music videos and so on, the 16:9 format and HD are great to use. You can add great extra lighting for your needs and the results are awesome. However, PDs and VXs are anyways better in low light conditions and there are some reasons why many places still use them for news gatering, documentaries etc. I know that lots of professional production companies are not planning to upgrade their camera park with the FX1s or Z1s yet and are considering doing it with the next HD family when it arrives.

I think that for a lot of people, it's not the latest time today to move over to 16:9 (or HD) and there's plenty of time to prepare everything. Consumers who don't watch TV too often will indeed keep their good old 4:3 TV sets for at least 2 years.

I'm just expressing my own views and opinion right now so feel free to reply :)

Georg, I don't particularly disagree with any of that. However when you started this thread you entitled it "Professional use of PD170 in 16:9".

The PD-170 is arguably the best camera for shooting interlaced 4:3 video. But if you wan't 16:9 then it's showing its age...