Yep, it went a bit offtopic :) 16:9 is certainly rather sad with PDs and VXs which is ofcourse unfortunate. If it's very necessary, then they can do it, but the results are not something that can compete with FX1, Z1 or other dedicated 16:9's.

For the price, I would suggest a DVX100/A/B. It would be better suited to filmmaking. The PD cameras have always been the do-it-all camera of choice. But for filmmaking, the DVX should be what you're aiming for. They should be around the same price if I'm not mistaken. The DVX should have better, if slightly better, 16:9 options. The PD would be better suited for low light, true, but then there's a lot to consider. Heck, a Canon XL2 could be down to the $2,500-$3500 range next year with all of these new HD cameras coming out. If you need one now, go for what you think is best for you, but if you can wait, hold out and see what's coming and how it's going to affect the pricing on everything.

Thanks.

Just for the record it's interesting that David Lynch is shooting his new film with a PD170 - his films always look great, it will be interesting to see what kind of results he gets. Then again, the rest of his equipment is sure to be top notch...!

Just a quick question- not being a VX owner, would it be correct in assuming the VX2100 is pretty much the highest performing 16:9 MiniDV 3CCD camcorder produced? ( By high perf. I mean optical IS, true 16:9 CCD's, low light perf, sharpness & color rendition)

I've owned the DVX100 awhile back as well as GL2, PDX10 and XL1s and a few HDV cams- but have heard so much about the VX2100's and was wondering what the general consensus was amongst users of the VX series. I know the PDX10 has true optical 16:9 but didn't like the smearing/streaking I experienced- and was wondering what's the "best" (highly subjective of course) in MiniDV was in widescreen mode.

~~ I'm aware this question might lead to some 'debate' over some issues- but was just hoping to hear from people who have owned or used the VX series and has compared it to other miniDV cams ~~

The VX2100 has all virtues you mention except one--it's not a 16:9 cam.

Fred,

that completely caught me off-guard- I thought it was a native 16:9 camera? B&H describes it as:

16:9 Widescreen Recording
Allows the user to record in a widescreen or letterbox aspect ratio. When used with a 16:9 widescreen compatible TV, the camcorder is able to display a similar aspect ratio to that of popular films - without having to crop off the top and bottom and losing important data and resolution.

I thought it was native?
I guess i was wrong. The consideration ends here for me!

It's actually rather poor 16:9 too. The PDX10 is native 16:9, but worse low light, but lovely picture.

For the best DV camera for true 16:9, probably the HDV FX1 or Z1U in DV mode :-) Seriously.

Graeme

I just purchased the VX2100, waiting for it to arrive. When you say poor 16:9, what do you mean exactly? I planned on using that feature and am now concerned.

The internal scaling to produce 16:9 anamorphic creates artifacts. You're far better off cropping and scaling in post to produce widescreen, or use a anamorphic lens, but that's a pain.

Graeme

So you mean taking the 4:3, enlarging it, and then cropping the top and bottom?

Assuming the scaling in your NLE is decent, then that will produce a better picture, and you can reframe your shot in post by selecting which region from the 4:3 you blow up to 16:9

Graeme

Nice. I use Premiere Pro 1.5. I am assuming I still start the project as a widescreen project. I'll play around with some footage from my XL1s. Thanks!

I'm currently shooting with a PDX10, and while the smearing issue does occasionally rear it's ugly head, it's not as often as you'd think...and it's very easy to avoid. The poor low light performance, however, is not something you can avoid, unless your needs are like mine (100% outdoor daylight shooting).

As for 'best' 16:9 standard DV camera (non-HD), my answer would be the Canon XL2. But of course it's all subjective, isn't it?

With he Vx2000, I have letter boxed by adding matte consisting of the bottom and top bar. I superimpose that over what I am shoooting to come up with a 16:9 letterbox production. The matte is loaded from the memory stick. You do have to reload it every time you turn off the camera. I assume Vx2100 has same capability,

I went from primarily using a VX2000 to using an HVR-A1. I did this mainly for the better quality 16:9, though I am using the HD. I still use the VX2000 for low light shots, but that's about it. The VX2000's 16:9 is not high quality by any standards. There is an absolutely huge difference between the fake 16:9 that cameras like this use and a real native 16:9. I've had a lot of great use out of my VX2000 and have loved using it over the last few years, but I wouldn't buy it or any non-native 16:9 camera at this point in time. Like it or not, 4:3 is a dead format.

Like it or not, 4:3 is a dead format.

16:9 is indeed getting much more popular, but you can't really say that 4:3 is dead. A lot of TV broadcast is still done in 4:3 and there is no reason to produce the shows in 16:9 if the majority of homes have standard televisions, not wide. It would be absolutely pointless to have all the content in 16:9 and then have the whole channel letterboxed all the time. It's simply wasting of the screen space. As much as I've talked to the real broadcast professionals, they say that 16:9 really becomes the standard when HDTV does. And this is about to happen in the next 4-5 years. Remember, it takes quite a while until the majority of people have those new generation TV sets.

As many use the same camera for max. 1-2 years, then I think it's rather safe to get a good 4:3 cam at the moment. 16:9 can be certainly considered dead by filmmakers, but it isn't for documentaries and such.

4:3 probably will be dead, but it is not yet :)

Depends where you live. In Europe, 4:3 has been dead for a while, especially in the UK.

Graeme

As many use the same camera for max. 1-2 years, then I think it's rather safe to get a good 4:3 cam at the moment. 16:9 can be certainly considered dead by filmmakers, but it isn't for documentaries and such.

4:3 probably will be dead, but it is not yet :)

You know, documentaries are my main thing as well. One of the best arguments for HDV right now is that you can render both 16:9 and 4:3 high quality versions from the same project. I just finished my first HDV to SD DVD project with both 16:9 and 4:3 versions available on playback. Both aspect ratios look equally sharp.

I find that my VX2000 still gets good use as an indoor dim lighting camera. Outdoors, things like leaves and faces from a distance look really bad with the VX2000 fake 16:9, but indoors with solid walls and head and shoulders closeups, the interpolation looks just fine: much better than the low light grain from my HVR-A1.

Laurence, that is absolutely correct with one major exception.

The framing for 16:9 vs 4:3 is not the same. So one would have to frame for 4:3 to insure the important bits will be in-frame for both aspect ratios. Otherwise it may require pan and scan work to make the 4:3 work if you framed in 16:9.

I would have to agree with Georg, 4:3 isn't dead, just dying -thankfully. There are still people using rabbit ear TV sets that you have to turn the dial to change the channel! Then there is the whole HDCP issue that is causing some trouble for certain folks. Of course you also have many stations not sending full HD signal, but compressed, sometimes badly. Not a majority of people want to stop using their $200 37+" 4:3 to switch to a $600 27" 16:9, beside me. I paid $2000 for my 42" plasma HD. While it was a chunk of change it was worth it to me. But how many people have that money to throw away on a wideHD when their nasty 5 year old projection is still doing fine? It'll take a long while to get rid of the 4:3 standard. Last I checked they still make cassette & VHS tapes too.



Right now my cons for HDw/16:9 outweigh my pros. Me and like 2 other people are the only ones out of a number of folks I interact with that have an HDTV AND HD service. A couple of my friends have the TV and think that's it. I have to explain the service and enhanced cable issues to them. What a waste of a TV, lol.

My budget didn't allow for me to get one of the two Sony HD cams, aside bare bones. Who wants to save for months just to get a decent battery, filter, lens, etc.? All to be one of the only people viewing your footage in full HD glory...

Speaking of VHS. I had to make 50 copies of one of my training tapes and didn't want to wait for a shipment. So I went to the local Costco. They had only 12 packs of 10 tapes each. I bought them all and the clerk said that was the last they would stock because now that DVD recorders were under $200, nobody was buying VHS anything. Decks or tape and certainly not pre-recorded movies.

I haven't been back to see if they restocked.

I now can charge less for a DVD than I do for a VHS tape because I can buy almost 3 printable 2 hour DVD blanks for a dollar. VHS is still more than a dollar a 2 hour tape.

I heard about the Costco VHS thing too! My wife keeps on insisting we reconnect a VHS to our plasma. I finally won that battle when I insisted she give me a list of movies she planned to watch on VHS, when her list consisted of all but ONE movie we already have on DVD -bingo! Get with the times people ( i hear a lot), lol, cassettes have been replaced, what twice now! I don't know a whole lot of people that even use CDs, everyone has a friggin' ipod jammed in their head. I purchased our first 20GB MP3 player like 5 years ago, for less than an equally sized iPod too!

With he Vx2000, I have letter boxed by adding matte consisting of the bottom and top bar. I superimpose that over what I am shoooting to come up with a 16:9 letterbox production. The matte is loaded from the memory stick. You do have to reload it every time you turn off the camera. I assume Vx2100 has same capability,

Chris could you explain this process step by step for the mentally challenged such as myself. like the mem card part and what size the bars are I have A.E 6.5 or photoshop 7

Chris could you explain this process step by step for the mentally challenged such as myself. like the mem card part and what size the bars are I have A.E 6.5 or photoshop 7

Below is a url to download the one i use. I am not certain it is exactly accurate, but it is the one I use. You could add this same mask in post, but this method provides a guide during shooting.

I have this file on the memory stick I carry in my vx2k at all times. This what you do on the 2k:

turn camera on, and make sure you have 16x9 should be set to off

with the chip in camera with the file on it, open display door so you use the various buttons. Select memory mix and then use + or - to scroll to the matte. On the 2K, a small representation of the file is in bottomm right coner. To select it on tke 2k, I then just press the rotor button to select matte and it will then overlay on the the screen.

Here is site:http://www.makeyourfilm.net/downloads/DSC00027.jpg

With any 4:3 camera, you can purchase a 16:9 anamorphic adapter to preserve and use all pixels. This type of lens will squish the picture in. WHEN SHOOTING, IT WILL APPEAR DISTORTED. However when you edit, if you edit in a 16:9 mode, it will come out right. In fact, that is how 35mm was turned into wide screen. The adpter was used on the camera, and on the projector too. Adapters are expensive, though.

Century Optics is one manufacturer

Well if you start with 4:3 and generate 16:9 you lose the top and bottom and if you start in 16:9 and generate 4:3 you lose the sides. Since as a general rule, widescreen sets are bigger, I think that the framing looks more natural if you shoot for 16:9, chop off the sides and pan and scan to get the 4:3 version. If you are mixing footage from both 16:9 and 4:3 cameras and want to do both aspect ratios as options on the final product, it is best to shoot full frame in the 4:3 footage as well as the 16:9 so as to best be able to do both version. That way you can crop the sides of the 16:9 for the 4:3 version and the top and bottom of the 4:3 for the 16:9 version. Of the two of those options, cropping the sides of the 16:9 looks better both from framing and quality perspectives.

With any 4:3 camera, you can purchase a 16:9 anamorphic adapter to preserve and use all pixels. This type of lens will squish the picture in. WHEN SHOOTING, IT WILL APPEAR DISTORTED. However when you edit, if you edit in a 16:9 mode, it will come out right. In fact, that is how 35mm was turned into wide screen. The adpter was used on the camera, and on the projector too. Adapters are expensive, though.

Century Optics is one manufacturer

I have one of these adapters and I hate it. You can't go all the way wide or you get barrel distortion. You can't zoom in more than about a third of the way either before it will no longer focus. Autofocus gets confused by the stretched image and it is extremely difficult to focus manually as well. For the run and gun stuff I do it is totally impractical.

If you are doing more of a movie type thing, can live with the reduced zoom and are using the aspect ratio converting adapter over the screen or an external 16:9 monitor and focusing manually through this, it might be of some use, but that is not how most of us work.

Using the matte method I referenced above, if you play it, it is detected as 4:3.

I ve been told that all the 16:9 selection on the camera does is add the bars, like I do in manual method, and the add whatever signal is required to designate it as 16:9. Any body know how this works ? I seem to end up with a better image wiyh my manual method.

The 16:9 in the PD and VX series is produced so that the aspect ratio is set to 16:9, 4:3 video is zoomed to fill the sides of the new image and therefore top and bottom are simply discarded (cropped). The camera actually does not add any black bars. They only appear on the LCD and are not recorded.

I don't know yet whether it's possible, but I plan to keep my VX2100 for a few more years until HD becomes standard and then get a modern HDV camera. I hope that I can continue producing mostly in 4:3 too until that time arrives.

FWIW, I did a comparison of the 16:9 modes on the VX-2000 and PDX-10 a couple years ago. You can view the results here:

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

"In fact, that is how 35mm was turned into wide screen. The adpter was used on the camera, and on the projector too." That is true in some cases, but you will also find a lot of 35mm film shot full frame and simply matted to 16:9 in post. This gives them two versions of the film: one for 4:3 TV and a 1.85:1 version for projection. Look at the tech specs at IMDB to see what method was used.

In fact, I recently "discovered" something interesting on the DVD's of The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut. They were shot full frame and cropped as described above for theatrical release. The DVD's are full frame 4:3 however and there is a note that this was the format which Kubrick wanted them presented in since it included the full frame from the negative. I never came across anything like that before!

FWIW, I did a comparison of the 16:9 modes on the VX-2000 and PDX-10 a couple years ago. You can view the results here:

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



Boyd: I knew the VX2k 16:9 was not very good but the smaller chipped PD 10 sure beat it up. So, using my matte method, and based on those tests, do you think there would be same result. I guess you would still have to stretch it to fill the 16:9 DV frame, right ?

I hear all your points but this type of arguement erupts often on these forums and continues for some time.

Boyd all your comments are accurate but generally people don't watch resolution charts when watching video.

I feel if the video is good on all levels than vx2100 is acceptable for 16x9. I have been more than happy with my results on a HD monitor.

Richard,


So you have found good 16:9 results on the VX2100 with an HD monitor? Any special settings or things to consider?

I found out that turning sharpness to the lowest level in CP the widescreen video comes out pretty nice. I will try to post some tests.

The 16:9 in the PD and VX series is produced so that the aspect ratio is set to 16:9, 4:3 video is zoomed to fill the sides of the new image and therefore top and bottom are simply discarded (cropped). The camera actually does not add any black bars. They only appear on the LCD and are not recorded.

I don't know yet whether it's possible, but I plan to keep my VX2100 for a few more years until HD becomes standard and then get a modern HDV camera. I hope that I can continue producing mostly in 4:3 too until that time arrives.

I shot test footage last night with the matte method, and the 16:9 selected. I also shot 16:9 in DV on my FX1. The FX1 was obviously better overall, but I think the matte method came in second. Everything was shot on auto, so that might have something to do with it.

Richard, your point is very well taken and I agree that you shouldn't get hung up on res charts. If you already have a VX-2100 then there will be many ways to produce nice work. I haven't tried this myself, but someone else here posted some screen shots from an HDTV with VX-2000 16:9 footage vs letterboxed 16:9 in a 4:3 frame. He used the "zoom" feature on the HDTV to fill his screen when viewing, and it looked better than the VX-2000's built-in anamorphic. I have a plasma screen and a couple smaller 16:9 LCD's. Given the scaling hardware in these screens today, I don't doubt that they will do a better job enlarging the image than the VX-2100's crop/stretch in-camera mode.

However if you were buying a new camera today, I think it would be a different story unless you only want to shoot 4:3 in dark places. The PDX-10 may be had very inexpensively, has XLR's, the same mike as the PD-170 and support from Sony's pro division. The FX1 would give you an even better widescreen SD image, slightly better low light response, much better manual controls and menus, a fantastic LCD screen and HDV as a bonus.

Below is a url to download the one i use. I am not certain it is exactly accurate, but it is the one I use. You could add this same mask in post, but this method provides a guide during shooting.

I have this file on the memory stick I carry in my vx2k at all times. This what you do on the 2k:

turn camera on, and make sure you have 16x9 should be set to off

with the chip in camera with the file on it, open display door so you use the various buttons. Select memory mix and then use + or - to scroll to the matte. On the 2K, a small representation of the file is in bottomm right coner. To select it on tke 2k, I then just press the rotor button to select matte and it will then overlay on the the screen.

Here is site:http://www.makeyourfilm.net/downloads/DSC00027.jpg

hey thanks Chris that worked perfect. but one quik ???? whenI start editing in adobe premiere do start project as widescreen or just crop ? thanks alot

I feel if the video is good on all levels than vx2100 is acceptable for 16x9. I have been more than happy with my results on a HD monitor.

I'd be pleasantly surprised to see any 16x9 footage from a 4x3 DV camera which looks good on a large HDTV. It's hard enough to get SD footage to scale well without further compromising it by using in-camera anamorphic processing, but I suppose with care that might look okay. And I've tried processing 4x3 to 16x9 in post with less than ideal results, so I'm not too keen on that solution either. As far as I can tell it's just as well to stick to 4x3 delivery from 4x3 cameras, unless you're sure you can get an acceptable 16x9 output.

hey thanks Chris that worked perfect. but one quik ???? whenI start editing in adobe premiere do start project as widescreen or just crop ? thanks alot

With the mask method, you just edit as regular 4:3. If you take it into a regular 16:9 Project, it will have to be resized to fill frame, if I recall right.

Is that mask on the memory stick recorded to the actual footage? I just bought a stick and a card reader, waiting for the reader to ship.

Is that mask on the memory stick recorded to the actual footage? I just bought a stick and a card reader, waiting for the reader to ship.

Yes, it is part of the footage.

This raises the question I have wondered about with 16:9. If you select 16:9 on the VX models, you end up with a 16:9 signal produced on a 4:3 chip. It looks strained. When I use the 4:3 with the mask method, displaying it on a 4:3 format screen results in a nice picture. If you show the 16: 9 on a 4:3 only screen, it stretches it vertically and distorts picture.

Is the camera actually reconfiguring pixels rather than just adding a bar, as many seem to indicate ?

Why not just film in 4:3 without a mask and just do the stretch to 16:9 thing in Post? It seems like the mask limits what you can do with the footage.

Yes, it is part of the footage.

This raises the question I have wondered about with 16:9. If you select 16:9 on the VX models, you end up with a 16:9 signal produced on a 4:3 chip. It looks strained. When I use the 4:3 with the mask method, displaying it on a 4:3 format screen results in a nice picture. If you show the 16: 9 on a 4:3 only screen, it stretches it vertically and distorts picture.

Is the camera actually reconfiguring pixels rather than just adding a bar, as many seem to indicate ?

I guess what I am asking follows fropm statements that I have heard that all DV is 720 x 480- whether 16:9 or 4:3 aspect. That confuses the heck out of me.

I found out that turning sharpness to the lowest level in CP the widescreen video comes out pretty nice. I will try to post some tests.


I am assuming CP is control panel on the camera?

Over-all, performance-per-dollar wise, I find my GY-DV300U to be about as good as it gets for 4:3 SD. From what I understand, it doesn't do as well as the VX2100 in low light (I've never used a VX2100), but I don't know of another area of performance where the DV300U isn't at least on equal footing, and in some regards, offers superior performance (again, from what I have gathered). The cost differance is substantial though.

I am assuming CP is control panel on the camera?
Yep, the button on the handle. There you can change sharpness.

Marco: actually CP stands for "Custom Preset," but you've got the right idea. There are only a few things you can adjust on the VX as compared to a larger variety on the FX1 and Z1.

Chris: yep, all DV is 720x480. 16:9 is sort of a "hack" that came along as a way to stretch the image a little wider. I guess the thinking was that almost no televisions are capable of showing the full 720 pixels of horizontal resolution, so why not stretch them over a wider surface?

To create 16:9 optically you'd use an anamorphic lens which compresses everything in the horizontal dimension only. Then on playback your TV would stretch it back electronically to the full 16:9 proportion. Instead of doing it optically you can do it electronically (digitally) inside the camera. But to get full quality your CCD's would need a minimum of 854x480 pixels. When writing the image data to tape the vertical pixel value would be the same as its position on the CCD. But you would have to multiply the horizontal value by .84 such that the CCD pixel number 854 is written to tape as 720.

Now a camera like the VX-2100 only has a 720x480 sensor, so the only way to create 16:9 is to letterbox it within that area. This works out to a 720x360 area. Now we must end up with 480 vertical lines in the final image, so have to stretch that image vertical by 33%. The result is "softness" in the 16:9 image because a certain amount of information just isn't there.

Boyd: Thanks for confirmation !!

So by just using the 4:3 image, enlarging it to 16:9, are you getting full res? As opposed to using the in-camera chop.

So by just using the 4:3 image, enlarging it to 16:9, are you getting full res? As opposed to using the in-camera chop.

Nope, that doesn't work very well either. If you think about it, enlarging a 4x3 image to fill the width of a 16x9 frames means some of the image is off the top and bottom of the frame, which means you're back to losing some of your vertical resolution. The bottom line is that it's difficult to get a decent 16x9 image from a 4x3 SD camera, especially if you expect your output to be viewed on a large HDTV display.

The answer to the original question is that the best reasonably priced 16x9 3CCD camera is the Sony FX1.