A1 for weddings, Good Idea?

[Tom Hardwick]

I think the bottom line here is one of aspect ratio, little else. Mike P - you're talking of shooting and outputting in SD and that's all well and dandy, but your clients will simply expect the films you produce for them to be in 16:9. They won't be 'asking for it' in the same way they won't ask for DVD. The tide has turned and they simply won't accept VHS or 4:3 any more.

So although the DVX 100 is a mighty fine camera, it's certainly had its day. Mind you, the XH-A1 has almost had its day, and it's a generation later camera.

So in answer to your original question I'd say this. Get the Canon, don't muck about with Panasonic's anamorphic. Accept the gain-up situation and stay at wide-angle (two stops faster).

tom.

[Mike Procyk]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I think the bottom line here is one of aspect ratio, little else. Mike P - you're talking of shooting and outputting in SD and that's all well and dandy, but your clients will simply expect the films you produce for them to be in 16:9. They won't be 'asking for it' in the same way they won't ask for DVD. The tide has turned and they simply won't accept VHS or 4:3 any more.

So although the DVX 100 is a mighty fine camera, it's certainly had its day. Mind you, the XH-A1 has almost had its day, and it's a generation later camera.

So in answer to your original question I'd say this. Get the Canon, don't muck about with Panasonic's anamorphic. Accept the gain-up situation and stay at wide-angle (two stops faster).

tom.

I haven't had anyone demand or comment on my videos not being 16:9. Gotta love the midwest! Which brings me to another question, can I shoot anamorphic on the DVX and expect reasonable quality? I've never tried it, assuming the resolution is just too low.

I could jump to the Canon, but I'd still be using my DVX as the other cam. So in the short run, the Canon doesn't address the issue.

Joel or others: This is getting off topic, but being at best a semi-pro at this, I've never tried slower shutter speeds. How much of an issue does that create in terms of motion (panning or fast action)?

[Tom Hardwick]

Originally Posted by Mike Procyk

I haven't had anyone demand or comment on my videos not being 16:9. Gotta love the midwest! Which brings me to another question, can I shoot anamorphic on the DVX and expect reasonable quality? I've never tried it, assuming the resolution is just too low.

When you say 'shoot anamorphic' I guess you mean switch on Panasonic's in-built 16:9 mode. You're right - both options on offer destroy the image quality.

The beauty of using an anamorphic lens on your DVX is that it effectively maintains the very high image quality that your camera is capable of. But there are down-sides - it means accurately aligning the A lens so that the image is compressed horizontally and of course it gives you more wide-angle - not something that a DVX owner is always happy about when the tele reach is so limited.

The A lens also distorts both viewfinders so you'd have to get used to that (but then so does one of the inbuilt modes). Generally (though I haven't tested Panasonic's dedicated A lens) they vignette the image if you stray too wide or too tele. It's an expensive, big and heavy lens, too, and means you can't use your other supplementary lenses.

Best you head for the XH-A1 I'd say, and start shooting true 16:9. I can't believe that couples that can afford your wedding filming services come home from expensive honeymoon and turn on an old 4:3 CRT, but then I'm not a Mid-Westerner.

tom.

[Dennis Murphy]

I love my A1, but it does suck in low light.

[Mike Procyk]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

When you say 'shoot anamorphic' I guess you mean switch on Panasonic's in-built 16:9 mode. You're right - both options on offer destroy the image quality.

The beauty of using an anamorphic lens on your DVX is that it effectively maintains the very high image quality that your camera is capable of. But there are down-sides - it means accurately aligning the A lens so that the image is compressed horizontally and of course it gives you more wide-angle - not something that a DVX owner is always happy about when the tele reach is so limited.

The A lens also distorts both viewfinders so you'd have to get used to that (but then so does one of the inbuilt modes). Generally (though I haven't tested Panasonic's dedicated A lens) they vignette the image if you stray too wide or too tele. It's an expensive, big and heavy lens, too, and means you can't use your other supplementary lenses.

Best you head for the XH-A1 I'd say, and start shooting true 16:9. I can't believe that couples that can afford your wedding filming services come home from expensive honeymoon and turn on an old 4:3 CRT, but then I'm not a Mid-Westerner.

tom.

They probably watch it on their 80" flat screen in a strech mode, like they watch 75% of their television shows. Besides, did I ever say that my services are that expensive? If I could get people to pay $3000 and up, I'd just go buy two HD cams right now.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Mike Procyk

can I shoot anamorphic on the DVX and expect reasonable quality?

some more downsides to this adpater is that you can't use the OIS, or attach a filter but by far the worst downside is that autofocus will not work and manual focus can only be done right using a focus setting chart.
This means for the kind of job your in you can forget about this thing, doesn't work for run/gun.

[Joel Peregrine]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I can't believe that couples that can afford your wedding filming services come home from expensive honeymoon and turn on an old 4:3 CRT, but then I'm not a Mid-Westerner.

tom.

Shooting and delivering 4:3 here is common and has nothing to do with the price of your product. Statistics show that 4:3 sets are still very much the majority as is the broadcast programming.

Nielsen Gives Fuzzy Picture of HDTV Penetration - 10/30/2007 7:18:00 PM - Broadcasting & Cable

I've been saying this all along - the big box stores and the manufacturers that are represented by the CEA are fudging the numbers claiming a much higher penetration of HD sets. The reason is to sell more of what comes in those big boxes.

Its not about the shape of the image or the number of pixels. Its about the content.

[Tom Hardwick]

I see no reason why you can't use the OIS when you have an A lens in place Noa.

OK Joel - I'm really talking about Europe here, where widescreen sets have been around since 1995 -that is when brides today were just being born.

tom.

[Bill Pryor]

In the U.S.--finally--most TVs in stores today are wide screen. But people are not rushing out to buy a new TV until their old one dies. Next year, of course, they will have to buy a conversion box or a new digital TV if they are receiving only broadcast signals and not cable or dish. I doubt that will affect sales much, because if you can afford a new TV you can afford cable. So, it's been a very slow changeover, but at least it is finally happening. You have to look long and hard to find a 4:3 TV at any major retailer today.

[Mike Procyk]

Is digital (non-HD) broadcast capable of 16:9? I never paid attention to this, but just assumed it's still 4:3

[Kevin Key]

I personally don't know why everyone is so excited about low light performance. I have had very few situations where I needed to use that feature and all of there were either when I forgot my light, the battery died or didn't care about quality. Most times at receptions, people don't mind the camera light. Actually most of the time, they're coming to you to be a part of the video. For me, wedding videography is all about quality. Since this is their special day, they want to remember it perfectly and not using squinty eyes trying to see if that's grandma or grandpa.

On numerous occassions, the photographers shot around me because I helped light up their targets so they could focus their lenses... That's funny!

Also, be careful with the NR features, sometimes they'll cause you to have ghosting.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

I see no reason why you can't use the OIS when you have an A lens in place Noa..

I didn't invent that but that is stated in the dvx book by Barry Green. It appears to be stated in the user manual of the lens that it's not recommended to use the OIS. Following was stated: The ois works by using a series of gyros and motors to position the prisms to actually redirect what portion of the lens the camera "sees" through. While that is fine for camera's without adapter, the anamorphic adapter is designed to bend light in a certain way on a certain axis and if the gyros and motors move the internals of the lens so that they are not looking out through the optimal portion of the adpater, some image distortion may arise.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Kevin Key

I personally don't know why everyone is so excited about low light performance

For me it means changing my way of working, at the reception I used the zoom of a vx2100 several times just to get some shots of people sitting at tables or drinking, by holding my distance I got some really natural shots as people were not aware of the camera. This is something I can forget with the xh-a1.
this means I have to get much closer to people but not everybody is that camera happy. :)
What do you mean with NR features? I did notice that with the low light presets you can find here as well some ghosting does appear, it works well for the first dance if they don't move that much but for fast motion it doesn't look that nice.

[Bill Busby]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

OK Joel - I'm really talking about Europe here, where widescreen sets have been around since 1995 -that is when brides today were just being born.

:O So it's common for brides to be 13?

[Lou Bruno]

Not here in the New York Metro area. Widescreen is becoming the norm. Even photographer's are hiring only widescreen videographers. 4:3 is dead in our area. If you really want to improve business Widescreen is the way to go...in our neck of the woods.

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

Shooting and delivering 4:3 here is common and has nothing to do with the price of your product. Statistics show that 4:3 sets are still very much the majority as is the broadcast programming.

Nielsen Gives Fuzzy Picture of HDTV Penetration - 10/30/2007 7:18:00 PM - Broadcasting & Cable

I've been saying this all along - the big box stores and the manufacturers that are represented by the CEA are fudging the numbers claiming a much higher penetration of HD sets. The reason is to sell more of what comes in those big boxes.

Its not about the shape of the image or the number of pixels. Its about the content.