The PDX10 has 4:3 CCD chips, and when you shoot in the 16:9 mode it uses more of the width of the chips (and so has more wide-angle coverage - much needed on this camera) but sadly cuts down on the height. So you're right, it's at its best in the 4:3 mode but gives very acceptable results in the 16:9 mode too.

But as you're into lens adapters you're after an aesthetic effect, so quibbling over small losses in the camera settings seems academic to me.

tom.

Of course, the problem will be that when shooting 4:3 I will have to do more letterboxing, resulting in the loss of vertical resolution... I guess I'll have to compare that with the loss of horizontal resolution when shooting in wide.

But as you'll be ending up with widescreen, I'd suggest you shoot wide to begin with. The losses that way will be less noticable than the vertical res lost by cropping 4:3.

tom.

This image shows how the PDX10 sensor uses it's sensor area for 4:3 and 16:9 video, and also for still images... looks like it uses more pixels for 16:9.

I agree with Tom... and Tom :-)

The PDX-10 is really at its best when shooting 16:9 IMO. I shot a bunch of comparisons with my PDX-10 and VX-2000. The 4:3 image from the VX looked noticeably better than 4:3 from the PDX, which I attributed to the larger sensor on the VX, plus the fact the the PDX doesn't even use the full width of the chips in 4:3 mode. I think the PDX is kind of a bad choice if you want to shoot 4:3, but it does a pretty good job of 16:9.

Thanks a lot guys, clears things up, I'll be shooting in 16:9 :) .

I'm in the preliminary stages of putting together a small business with a few buddies of mine who are in related fields (videography, photography, DJing etc) and have been doing loads of research on various products. One of which is the VX2100, I've been looking at this camera as a possible secondary camera. The reason being it's smaller size than the Canon XL2 and it still shoots in a 16:9 aspect ratio. However, I'm curious if this will be a true 16:9 like the XL2 shoots or will it be "stretched" like my old Optura Xi does? Our primary camera will hopefully be a Canon XH-A1 teamed up with a Brevis35 system. So I was hoping for a good secondary camera that will shoot 16:9 so that shots can flow relatively seemlessly.

Thanks for your help! I may have more questions along the way...

neither the VX series nor the PD series nor the DSR250 shoot a true 16:9-I've tried it on my PDs and DSR and frankly thought it looked pretty bad so when I need it I mask the LCD and leave the headroom and bottom room to crop in post.

Don

However, I'm curious if this will be a true 16:9 like the XL2 shoots or will it be "stretched" like my old Optura Xi does? ...
Neither. The VX crops a standard 4:3 frame to about 360 lines. It's basically the same effect you'd get by hacking the top and bottom off in editing.

The middle 360 lines look the same as they always would, so letterboxed on a 4:3 regular TV it's not a big deal. But view the video blown up onto a 16:9 HDTV, particularly a big one, and you'll want to cry. It'll be especially noticeable when trying to cut together 360 VX lines with 1080 A1 lines. You'd be better off with an HV20.

Been there.... it's what pushed me to my FX1...

Alright, thanks for the heads up guys I appreciate the info. Glad I discovered this early on.

Thanks again!

The previous posters are misleading ...

The Sony VX 16:9 camcorders shoot anamorphic 16:9 video using the full recording height of 480 pixels, with a PAR of 1.3 to give you the proper display on a widescreen set, or a tall stretched image if presented on a 4:3 set. This is proper, true 16:9 ... and could only be improved if the imaging chips on the camcorder offered a higher resolution. But you could make that argument about any aspect of the camcorder ... 'it would be better if ...'

True SD widescreen is 720x480 with a PAR of 1.3 and that is what the VX family records. The alternative or faux widescreen is the letterbox to tape variety, which records only 360 vertical of image and an additional 120 vertical of black, using a PAR of .9

HTH
GB

While the image may be recorded 480 pixels tall, my understanding is that it's being re-sampled from the center 360 lines. So it's really only a vertical resolution of 360.

But don't believe me. Just try it and you'll see. Be sure to watch the footage on a widescreen HDTV and the difference will be obvious. It's even obvious on the LCD screen of the cam as you're shooting -- it simply crops off the top and bottom. It does not do an anamorphic squeeze to add more picture from the sides, or show a letterboxed image with the same vertical information and more picture on the sides. (At a given focal length, a widescreen picture would by definition be, um, wider, i.e. have more horizontal information.)

Just because the picture is digitally stretched vertically to fill a 4:3 frame on some 4:3 TVs does not mean it's being shot anamorphically.

The last sentence of the previous post is exactly what the VX family does. It has no anamorphic ability at all. You could, of course, buy an anamorphic add-on lens, but they're not cheap and by the time you were done paying for it you could have had another A1 -- or at least an FX7.

Here are some previous threads on the subject:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=91955&highlight=widescreen+vx2100

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=68074&highlight=widescreen+vx2100

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=64673&highlight=widescreen+vx2100

More persuasively, here are Adam Wilt's articles on the subject, where he specifically notes how 16:9 works on the VX and PD series, but notes that the PDX's are different:

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html

http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_item.php?articleId=59100233

This issue has been discussed in many thread in this forum. Most recently, I started one, about real world results. There was a lively discussion about the issues, and comparisons with other cameras. Check it out at:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=88405

I remember that thread, and my results, as I noted above, were similar to yours, in that showing the results letterboxed on a regular TV weren't bad, and the quality loss only really becomes apparent on a big 16:9 TV.

And here are a few more threads from other forums (fora?):

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t58307.html

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t45850.html

I especially like this one because of the poster who swears up and down that "...the Sony VX2000 and VX2100 both shoot in native anamorphic 16:9 widescreen mode" until he actually gets one and checks it out, and then rapidly changes his tune to "Throw in a digital stretching algorithm for anamorphics and call it a "true 16:9 camcorder". Phooey":

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t33995.html

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t36603.html

...and there are tons more if you just do a search on any forum. Really, the only disappointment on an otherwise great camera. I still can't bear to part with my VX2000, even though I can't use it for anything now that I only do widescreen stuff.

Thanks for the links -- Adam clearly describes the VX family as anamorphic, as do I.

Could it be better? Sure, with better chips.

Is it anamorphic? Yes, just like Adam says.

Cheers,
GB

The point is it doesn't use the whole chip and you're still getting only 360 lines, not much better than VHS...

And you're not shooting anamorphic, only recording that way. So it's not true anamorphic, true 16:9, true widescreen or true anything else except cropped 4:3.

It would be tragic if anyone bought one of these expecting to be able to cut its tape with that of any native 16:9 HDV cam, even in SD DV mode. I'm not sure how anyone could read the phrases "does not do an anamorphic squeeze," "does not mean it's being shot anamorphically," and "has no anamorphic ability at all," and say they could be interpreted as describing "the VX family as anamorphic."

The PAL VX just about gives acceptable 16:9 results. In fact on a big Trinirton Sony TV (4:3) it intercuts very well with Z1 16:9 footage, but that's really because the TV itself is masking down the full 576 lines to 430.

It's a suck-it-and-see situation, but the VX/PD is one of the better cameras anyway, with a fine lens, big chips and clean processing - great starting blocks. Also, when switched to 16:9 the v'finders are letterboxed, unlike a lot of Canons where you must compose with ellipically wheeled cars and tall thin people - not very helpful for composers like ourselves.

tom.

The reference to VHS is just odd -- it deliver something like 360 lines of horizontal resolution, no where near the resolution achieved by a format with 720 pixels horizontal ... this has nothing to do with the vertical resolution as I'm sure you know.

And for those that don't want to read Adam themselves, I quote:
"Many cameras have a 16:9 switch, which when activated results in either a "letterboxed" image and/or an anamorphically-stretched image ..."

Not much wiggle room there -- and the VX family is the latter.

I repeat -- there is better. And I stand on the facts: The VX is anamorphic, and compares favourably to all but the camcorders that offer a native imaging chip that exceeds 720x480 ...

GB

...the VX family is the latter.

No, it's the former. Wilt makes this clear, and the referenced threads draw a clear distinction between the Sony and Canon methods, especially in the later Canons.

But we're getting hung up on semantics here. The original question was about whether you could shoot decent widescreen with the VX, whether it is "true 16:9 like the XL2 shoots" and whether it would cut well with tape from the Canon. And the answer, quite clearly and definitively in (almost) everyone's opinion, and supported by real measurable data, is no.

I'm not trying to argue, but it is most definitely the latter -- the VX family does not shoot letterboxed video (4:3 video with black bars top and bottom), it shoots anamorphically stretched video. And until the XL2 came along, it did the best job in class --

Adam is clear on this, and anyone that uses the VX camcorders doubtless gets it too.

Everyone will get confused if the facts are mis presented.

GB

I don't get why anyone would letterbox WS video at all. What for? The end result is a DVD, right? All DVD players are able to play both WS and standard titles, all one needs to do is properly set up the display device, whether it is a WS TV or a standard TV.

Then the player will do proper conversion itself. In particular, a DVD player will automatically letterbox WS footage for a standard TV.

What I have experienced though, is that when I output this material after editing to DVD, and play it on a standard definition television, the difference between a dedicated 16:9 chip camera and the PD is much less obvious.

Chris: the problem here is what happens when you play that same footage on a good HDTV, which is what many people are using now. In that scenario you should see a difference between widescreen footage from a 4:3 DV camera and widescreen footage from a proper widescreen/HD camera.

If you'd like you can swing by my place out in Folsom sometime and we can try your footage on a 1080p set here. Also, drop me a line if you'd like some info about the Sacramento area videographer meeting next month. We'll be posting our next meeting info soon at www.spva.info

Hi Kevin:

Didn't realize this thread got resurrected. Yeah, definite difference at that level for sure. Since I started this thread, I've purchase a 1080i 32" cheapy to actually hang in my editing room. The difference starts showing up at that level. My comments were pointed at standard SD delivery, of course. Big difference when you are throwing it up on a digital delivery high definition monitor. Would love to get a look at your 1080p set up, as well as meet you.....


My VX2000 sees less and less action these days, as I have been doing a lot of 35mm adapter type stuff. I m using both the FX1 and the Canon HV20. Did a couple of 48Hour Films one with a local guy who is a pretty good director, and one on my own as director, editor, camera man, sound man and, chief cook, and bottle washer. Made me very tired :)

I know we talked about SPVA a year or more back, but I never got around to hooking up with you on that. Kind of felt this was more about you guys in the trenches every days... but I'd love to come to a meeting see what you are up to these days....

Was reading BBC Training docs, came across this one: "How to Shoot Widescreen on Small Cameras", find it here: http://www.bbctraining.com/onlineCourse.asp?tID=5173&cat=2781

The doc says that shooting 4:3 and then performing an aspect ratio conversion (ARC) works better for certain camcorders than using built-in 16:9 mode. In particular, they recommend to NOT use 16:9 mode with PD 100, PD150, and VX 2000 (no note of VX2100, the doc is somewhat dated). Instead they recommend shooting in 4:3 with 16:9 guidelines and sharpness down, then using a high-quality ARC.

Interesting. I would think that built-in 16:9 always gives better result. Seems that it doesn't. I also thought that European users always had native widescreen equipment since most of the Europe switched to widescreen almost a decade ago. Again, seems that they didn't.

For some odd reason you've completely mis reported the BBC recommendation -- I have copied and pasted below:
"Do not use the camera 16:9 setting in the VX 1000,
VX 9000, or DSR 200. The cameras you can use are the: VX 2000, PD 150, DSR 250 and PD 100"

Frankly, I don't remember that the VX1000 offered a 16:9 mode -- but if it does, don't use it, apparently. But as concerns the 2000/150/250/100 ... the advice is the reverse of what you claim.

GB

Thanks Michael for that.
What do you make of the ACR/Is he talking about your NLE? and doing a conversion in that?
Also what is a Graticule? he talks about this in the green section. Is this another name for a 16.9 mask overlay on the cam's screen

PD 100, PD150,
VX 2000,
DSR 250
in 4:3 with 16:9/14:9
graticule. Sharpness
down

Cheers
Simon

I lusted after one of these at $ 900.00 per about 4 years back.

They are now selling them at $ 99.00. This may be the answer to those of you that want to stay in VX and PD country.

See this thread for particulars:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=109406

For some odd reason you've completely mis reported the BBC recommendation -- I have copied and pasted below:
"Do not use the camera 16:9 setting in the VX 1000, VX 9000, or DSR 200. The cameras you can use are the: VX 2000, PD 150, DSR 250 and PD 100"

Frankly, I don't remember that the VX1000 offered a 16:9 mode -- but if it does, don't use it, apparently. But as concerns the 2000/150/250/100 ... the advice is the reverse of what you claim.

GB

* I was studying the table, and one of the yellow sections ("Only if you must!") reads: "PD 100, PD150, VX 2000, DSR 250 switched to 16:9 -- Picture Quality: Just acceptable." Maybe they refer to DSR 250 only when they say "switched to 16:9", but in the "Post prod. extra processing" section they say "none", which is why I deduce that all cameras are in 16:9 mode.

On the other hand, just below in the green section ("Go ahead!") they have these cameras in 4:3 mode: "PD 100, PD150, VX 2000, DSR 250 in 4:3 with 16:9/14:9 graticule. Sharpness down -- Picture Quality: Very good with high quality ARC with enhancement set." Again, one might think that 4:3 corresponds to DSR 250 only, but all cameras are combined into one group that requires ARC, so it seems to me that they all shoot in 4:3 mode.

"Go ahead!" is better than "Only if you must!", don't you think? Hence my interpretation of this table in my posting above.

"The cameras you can use [16:9 setting ] are the: VX 2000, PD 150, DSR 250 and PD 100", but "only if you must!". This does not seem like a recommendation on using 16:9 mode on these cameras, but your interpretation of BBC assessment may differ from mine. This is exactly why I have posted the link to the original article, so everyone could read the source without relying on faulty interpretations.

* My understanding that Graticule is English for 16:9 Guide Lines. Those Brits love fancy words ;-)

* Yep, NLEs can do ARC, so it all comes down to what is high quality by BBC standards.

I lusted after one of these at $ 900.00 per about 4 years back.

They are now selling them at $ 99.00. This may be the answer to those of you that want to stay in VX and PD country.

See this thread for particulars:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=109406

what lens are you talking about?
and where is it available for $99 ?

Schneider Optics had a sell out ($99) of these 16:9 lenses back in december. However, they were all sold rather quickly.

http://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=1460

Hi
I read somewhere that using the VX2100 in slim effect mode while shooting 4:3 video its possible to then edit/render the clip as 16:9 widescreen, I guess by stretching out the clip which gives a widescreen effect, some post said that's what the PD150 effectively does??
I've tried the anamorphic lens which I just couldn't get on with and sold.
After a test render doing the slim to widescreen it appears OK ish...is it just stretching out the pixels to give that 16:9 look.
Just wondering if any thoughts on this and other suggestions.

All the best
The Cadd

VX2100 in 'slim effect mode'? What's that? You can switch the VX (and the PD range) from shooting 4:3 to 16:9, but in the latter case you're simply masking down the chip area, jettisoning 25% of your vertical resolution.

This isn't quite as bad as it appears as the horizontal resolution remains unaffected and you can up the sharpness a notch in the menu to compensate, though of course the pixels are being stretched sideways to fill a 16:9 screen. A modern up-scaling DVD player will make the footage look pretty good into a big LCD or plasma.

But whichevere way you look at it, the VX / PD cameras were designed in the 4:3 days, and can't hack it on a big widescreen.

tom.

Hi Tom
The 'slim' is a picture effect on the VX2100 which also includes sepia, b&w solarize etc.
Shooting in 4:3 effectively squashes the clip on the horizontal in the view finder, bit like the anamorphic used to, but of course keeps the full vertical frame so I thought maybe render out at 16:9 would 'unsquash' the frame.
Any more appreciated.

Regards
Brian

The question is confusing ...

The PD150/VX2000 family shoot widescreen by recording a 16:9 window within the 4:3 imaging chips and flagging as such, so the resulting 720x480 file will only look correct if viewed at 16:9. A similar thing is done on DVDs for widescreen -- the file is still 720x480 (NTSC) but flagged to display across a 16:9 display.

The complaint is that the camcorder only uses 360 pixels to generate a 480 pixel recording -- this is a legitimate complaint, but not as world-ending as some would suggest. Many, many camcorders have imaging chips that fall short of the final recording format dimensions. Sony's 16:9 flag of 720x480 files gives the same result as shooting in 4:3 and then cropping and exporting to 16:9 in post ... but it does it conveniently, reliably and without the render time required to do it in post. If you are shooting widescreen with a 4:3 camcorder, this is a perfectly good way to do it.

Cheers,
GB

If I had to speculate ... 'slim mode' is just what a 16:9 anamorphic file would look like if displayed with the 4:3 flag set instead of the 16:9 one. The camcorder only has so many pixels to work with, and can only record to one dimension (720x480), so slim mode must be a 720x480 array without the 16:9 flag set, recorded from a 720x360 'window' in the imaging chip. As the imaging chip has no 'wider' pixels to use, it can't be from a horizontal resolution beyond the native 720. Displayed 'properly' on a 16:9 set, the image fills the screen, the aspect ratio looks correct, all the recorded pixels are used. Display the same file on a 4:3 set and it fills the screen but everyone is tall and skinny, or if the display allows you to force letterbox you could restore the proper aspect ratio though no longer fill the display.

You can play with the 16:9 flag in post -- it isn't a render thing, as the file is 720x480 no matter what (in NTSC -- your PAL mileage may vary), it is a simple setting of the PAR flag. There are file manipulators that open up the headers and allow the flags to be reset without otherwise changing the file.

Speculation, but likely close to the mark ...

Cheers

Other than the wide anomorphic lens attachement, there was one other method we used with this camera to shoot wide screen, which many preferred. It seemed to work better. As I recall, I had matte files on the on board chip photo chip that were used to add letterboxing to the 4:3 frame. I did some testing way back, posted this forum somewhere, that showed that method actually gave a better image than the electronic 16 x 9 switch on the camera. Most shooters seemed to come to same conclusion.

I buy an anomorphic adapter too, which creates an on screen squeezed image, that I have to change to a 16:9 flag in Vegas on the clips.

I'm not even sure how much distortion there is in either 'slim' or 'stretch' modes on this camera; has anyone ever come across measurements describing what exactly happens when they're turned on? Quantifying the amount of stretch?

Sony's 16:9 flag of 720x480 files gives the same result as shooting in 4:3 and then cropping and exporting to 16:9 in post ...

Not if you do it well. You're certainly correct about the extra render time of a post processing solution, but it's worth it considering the results. The built-in widescreen switch is just awful on NTSC models, the ringing is atrocious, and the Memory Stick mattes, while certainly useful for many projects, will permanently eliminate portions of the image which prove useful for scaling (both up and down), since certain techniques make use of the scanline immediately above and below the top and bottom of the cropped area, respectively, to produce the first and last line of the output frame.

I honestly can't remember if I've already been over my approach in this thread, but if you want 16:9 from a VX2000, and you've got the time--and you will need time, significant amounts of it--doing this in post is hands down the way to go for highest quality. Shoot your footage 4:3, with the Custom Preset sharpness all the way down, then deinterlace, crop and scale after the fact.

The best method I've found has been a trip through Avisynth, involving specifically the TempGaussMC (http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/TempGaussMC) deinterlacing script and one of the AS resizers, either Lanczos or the relatively recent Blackman. TGMC is a bob deinterlacer, yes, but even if you only want same-rate output I recommend using it, just follow it up with a SelectEven(); I've seen nothing that handles shallow diagonal lines as well as TempGauss.

The result of an upconversion to 720p can be seen in this Youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDMp7O9TbsE) (I can make available the XviD file I uploaded, if anyone would like), and if one only wants to go up to 853x480 it's even easier to get great footage. Your best quality would be scaling to 640x360, naturally, since on the one dimension there's no scaling, and on the other you're going down. 360's not a multiple of 16, but the quality hit there is negligible, if noticeable at all.

The tradeoff is, of course, speed. A few tweaks to the technique I discussed in http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/non-linear-editing-pc/140965-how-upscale-sd-hd.html, and I've been able to bump rendering speed of the 720 upscale to something like four or five frames per second, and if we're only going up to 853x480 it runs at roughly five or six fps (this all running multithreaded on a Q6600 with 2GB of DDRII RAM). There are other deinterlacers (http://avisynth.org/mediawiki/External_filters#Deinterlacing), if you want higher speed renders, and they'll almost certainly produce better results than whatever's in this camera, but I must insist that nothing quite reaches the quality level of TempGaussMC, and slow as it is it's absolutely worth it. If you have a camera with real widescreen chips, that's definitely your best choice, but if all you have is an interlaced 4:3 DV camera, you're willing to employ Avisynth, and you have a bit of extra rendering time, there simply is no better way to get 16:9 footage from them.

I've actually been meaning to update my instructions. That thread is a bit old now, and some software has been updated; no massive quality increases, but some of it's a bit more stable now, and the process has been simplified somewhat. I've been collecting my thoughts and doing some more tests, with any luck I should be able to get a "little" tutorial up on my website in a few days, if anyone's interested.

Hi
Thanks all for the replies a lot to learn from the pro's.
A laymans tutorial to get the best 16:9 possible would be very welcome.
I do have the Sony HD1000E which is a fine camcorder, I intend doing a multi cam widescreen shoot with the HD and VX so getting the VX2100 best possible render to 16:9 is my aim.
All the best
Brian

"Layman's" might be pushing it a little, but I think I can simplify the procedure enough for someone with little post processing experience to make use of it. Assuming you're on a PC. My apologies for neglecting to mention that, but I have no advice for Mac users. Avisynth is currently, and will be for the forseeable future, Windows only.

I had a burst of inspiration after my last post and I've been up all night working on this thing. It may take another day or two to finish up, polish, and proofread, but I'm well on my way.

You will, I'm sorry to report, need to be the patient type when it comes to all this; between my novella-length instructions and the positively glacial speed of the final rendering, it'll be an accomplishment to get through. If you're interested in the kind of results I demonstrate in that Youtube clip I linked, then it'll be worth it. If you're not impressed, you'll most likely not benefit from what I have to offer.

The tutorial's going up regardless, though, so I'll let you know when it's done.

Shoot in 4:3 and just crop it in post.

I'd say keep it as a Mini DV deck. Time to buy a second hand Z1.

It took a few more days than I thought it would, but I finally got a tutorial together and brought it online at my website: SD to HD with Avisynth (http://www.gyroshot.com/upscale1.htm)

Ignoring my three rewrites of the tutorial content itself, proofreading over and over and reorganizing thoughts 'til sunup, the biggest time sink was my decision to take this beyond just a wall-of-text tutorial and create a custom Avisynth script that handles all of the deinterlacing, cropping, and upscaling with only a few arguments passed in. Anyone already familiar with Avisynth can skip the tutorial and jump straight to the script's page to learn more: SimpleSlugUpscale (http://www.gyroshot.com/simpleslug.htm)

I've tested the script, and my tutorial instructions, with both NTSC and PAL DV clips, and everything worked out as I expected it to. If anyone has any problems, or has ideas for revisions of SimpleSlug, I'm all ears, don't hesitate to contact me.

I'd say keep it as a Mini DV deck. Just to clarify, and you all probably already know this -- although it's surprising how many people don't -- MiniDV describes the physical tape, while DV or HDV describe the signal on it. The VX will play back only SD DV recorded on MiniDV tape, and is useless for anything HDV.

It's shocking how many people shoot HDV and then think they can play back/capture on a different SD DV deck or cam. So while buying a used Z1 is a fine idea, there's no way the VX fits into that workflow unless you are exclusively shooting in DV mode.

This thread has taken a turn, one that I've never followed.

The Sony VX-2100 & PD150/170 will shoot a 16:9 SD file -- that is, a 'regular' 720x480 DV file flagged to display on a 16:9 monitor with no cropping, no letterboxing ... the camera takes a 16:9 window from the imaging chip, records it to tape in the maximum (and only) resolution allowed for DV, flagged with a PAR to display on a 16:9 screen. Note that this is a variation on a 4:3 recording, which is also subject to a PAR choice that makes a 720x480 signal display as if it was a 640x480 one ...

There are three advantages to this scenario: 1) there is no rendering or post required to create a 16:9 file; 2) there are no 'wasted' pixels -- the recording uses all 720x480 for image & none for 'black bars' or off-screen material; 3) most every DVD player knows how to handle just such a file once rendered to the appropriate codec ... no resizing required, 720x480 with a widescreen PAR will fill a 16:9 set properly.

Obviously, the result is not HD -- and no amount of rendering or post work will turn it into HD, IMHO. But it is true widescreen, and if that's what you want in SD, this camcorder delivers. If you want/need HD, there are various options at a range of prices that will deliver -- but the real market for HD is still small, and if your final delivery is on DVD irrelevant. So if the tool is right for the job, have at it.

Cheers,
GB