HV20 LCD underscan/actual picture at DVinfo.net

Dylan Couper · April 4th, 2008, 05:09 PM

Went on vacation with the HV20 and a new wide angle adapter. Shot 8 hours of footage. Looked great on the LCD. Got home and started logging the tapes and was horrified to see that on the full screen display, the wide angle adapter is fully visible in every corner! ANd I mean A LOT! Maybe 10% of the screen in each corner.

Is the underscan on the LCD that big, or are there different "modes" for the LCD that might have shown me the full screen?

I guess my only option is to crop the entire picture down by 20% to hide the vignetting (although it looks way worse than standard vignetting).

John C. Chu · April 4th, 2008, 08:07 PM

Is this the Canon WDH-43?

If it were that lens, I would think there might be some logic to get the slightly cheaper Canon WDH-46....and use a step up ring?

Axel Scheffler · April 4th, 2008, 09:43 PM

You will not have the black corners with the WDH-43. I have it and it was the only one that didn't had the corners. All the smaller lenses will have it. I think there is a Raynox which will fit but I have not tried it after three wrong lenses. I stuck with the original manufacturer part :-)

Regards

Axel

Dylan Couper · April 5th, 2008, 12:49 AM

Nope, aftermarket adapter. Cokin I believe.

Chris Barcellos · April 5th, 2008, 01:12 AM

Dylan Use a 235 Widescreen aperature ?! :)

Did same thing with a rubber lens hood, and also done that with my FX1 with a 58 mm adapter.

Christopher Ruffell · April 5th, 2008, 01:35 AM

Sorry to hear about that - I know what you mean. I wouldn't blame the HV20 - it's a consumer camera that most will be using to display their videos on LCD TVs with corresponding overscans. Since this relates to most of us (aside from video posted to the net) it makes sense. So, if you're making it for Plasma/LCD TV, most have overscan too, so it might not be an issue. All depends.

I own the Canon WDH-43 and it's 'perfect' - no vignetting. I also own a cheaper, older Sony wide angle and it vignettes as poorly as Dylan's. The upside is, on a vacation, it'd be better to have a cheaper lens get damaged during use than the Canon WDH-43.

David Garvin · April 5th, 2008, 08:21 PM

The XL1, XL2 and XHA1 all show overscan as well, so you occasionally see boom mics and whatnot when you get to the post phase. Just part of the deal, I guess.

Dylan Couper · April 5th, 2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Ruffell

I wouldn't blame the HV20 - it's a consumer camera that most will be using to display their videos on LCD TVs with corresponding overscans.

I don't blame the HV20... I blame the operator (err... me) for not checking it against a real monitor first... :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Dylan Use a 235 Widescreen aperature ?! :)

Chris...

That's a really good idea, I'll give it a test, thanks!

Christopher Ruffell · April 6th, 2008, 03:05 AM

Apologies Dylan, not trying to blame you - I fell for the HV20's overscan antics (see where I'm placing the blame?) too with that Sony wideangle I have :)

John Hotze · April 7th, 2008, 10:52 AM

I've shot over 100 hours with my HV20 and I never ever noticed that everything wasn't wysiwyg. Now I know why it was a good idea to spend the extra bucks for my WDH-43. Thanks for this information. I wonder if the same holds true if you use the eyepiece viewer which no one ever uses, I guess?

Paul Nixon · April 8th, 2008, 05:35 PM

If my Sony HC1 is anything to go by then yes, the EP viewfinder shows a different (more complete) view.

Dylan Couper · April 9th, 2008, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Ruffell

Apologies Dylan, not trying to blame you - I fell for the HV20's overscan antics (see where I'm placing the blame?) too with that Sony wideangle I have :)

No worries. :)

Actually, I only get the vignetting with my .6 Cokin. I also have a cheapo .45 as well that doesn't vignette at all.

Come to think of it, to be fair to the Cokin adapter (great adapter, very sharp!) it only does so because I had to use a step-up ring for it as I purchased it for a previous camcorder. Next time I use it, I'm going to gaff tape it right to the body.

Christopher Ruffell · April 9th, 2008, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Come to think of it, to be fair to the Cokin adapter (great adapter, very sharp!) it only does so because I had to use a step-up ring for it as I purchased it for a previous camcorder. Next time I use it, I'm going to gaff tape it right to the body.

It's the same with my Sony - and I'm using more than a single step-up ring! The tape should work - will work - I did that with this same lens to an older Canon ZR20 that I owned way back when - the ZR20 still works I should add!

Bruce Foreman · April 10th, 2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

No worries. :)

Actually, I only get the vignetting with my .6 Cokin. I also have a cheapo .45 as well that doesn't vignette at all.

I took a chance on one of those "el cheapo" .45's, Digital Concepts. Amazingly sharp and doesn't vignette but due to the overscan a small bit of the Cinetactics Matteblox showed.

I was able to crop that out in post, tho.

Shahryar Rizvi · April 18th, 2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Nixon

If my Sony HC1 is anything to go by then yes, the EP viewfinder shows a different (more complete) view.

As a fellow HC1 owner, I'll remember this post. As a potential HV30 owner, I'll subscribe to this thread. Some good information on here.

April 4th, 2008, 05:09 PM	#1
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	HV20 LCD underscan/actual picture Went on vacation with the HV20 and a new wide angle adapter. Shot 8 hours of footage. Looked great on the LCD. Got home and started logging the tapes and was horrified to see that on the full screen display, the wide angle adapter is fully visible in every corner! ANd I mean A LOT! Maybe 10% of the screen in each corner. Is the underscan on the LCD that big, or are there different "modes" for the LCD that might have shown me the full screen? I guess my only option is to crop the entire picture down by 20% to hide the vignetting (although it looks way worse than standard vignetting). __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 5th, 2008, 12:49 AM	#4
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Nope, aftermarket adapter. Cokin I believe. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 5th, 2008, 01:12 AM	#5
Chris Barcellos Inner Circle Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Elk Grove CA Posts: 6,838	Dylan Use a 235 Widescreen aperature ?! :) Did same thing with a rubber lens hood, and also done that with my FX1 with a 58 mm adapter. __________________ Chris J. Barcellos

April 4th, 2008, 08:07 PM	#2
John C. Chu Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rego Park , NYC Posts: 665	Is this the Canon WDH-43? If it were that lens, I would think there might be some logic to get the slightly cheaper Canon WDH-46....and use a step up ring?

April 4th, 2008, 09:43 PM	#3
Axel Scheffler Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: San Jose, CA, USA Posts: 44	You will not have the black corners with the WDH-43. I have it and it was the only one that didn't had the corners. All the smaller lenses will have it. I think there is a Raynox which will fit but I have not tried it after three wrong lenses. I stuck with the original manufacturer part :-) Regards Axel

April 5th, 2008, 01:35 AM	#6
Christopher Ruffell Major Player Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Victoria, BC Posts: 202	Sorry to hear about that - I know what you mean. I wouldn't blame the HV20 - it's a consumer camera that most will be using to display their videos on LCD TVs with corresponding overscans. Since this relates to most of us (aside from video posted to the net) it makes sense. So, if you're making it for Plasma/LCD TV, most have overscan too, so it might not be an issue. All depends. I own the Canon WDH-43 and it's 'perfect' - no vignetting. I also own a cheaper, older Sony wide angle and it vignettes as poorly as Dylan's. The upside is, on a vacation, it'd be better to have a cheaper lens get damaged during use than the Canon WDH-43.

April 5th, 2008, 08:21 PM	#7
David Garvin Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Central, OH Posts: 207	The XL1, XL2 and XHA1 all show overscan as well, so you occasionally see boom mics and whatnot when you get to the post phase. Just part of the deal, I guess.

April 6th, 2008, 03:05 AM	#9
Christopher Ruffell Major Player Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Victoria, BC Posts: 202	Apologies Dylan, not trying to blame you - I fell for the HV20's overscan antics (see where I'm placing the blame?) too with that Sony wideangle I have :)

April 7th, 2008, 10:52 AM	#10
John Hotze Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Saint Louis, Missouri Posts: 129	I've shot over 100 hours with my HV20 and I never ever noticed that everything wasn't wysiwyg. Now I know why it was a good idea to spend the extra bucks for my WDH-43. Thanks for this information. I wonder if the same holds true if you use the eyepiece viewer which no one ever uses, I guess?

April 8th, 2008, 05:35 PM	#11
Paul Nixon Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Mesa, AZ Posts: 141	If my Sony HC1 is anything to go by then yes, the EP viewfinder shows a different (more complete) view.