AG-DVC30 / PDX10 in summary

Boyd Ostroff · October 21st, 2004, 05:00 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Filacchione : Most DVDs that you buy are not really anamorphic. IF they were, when you viewed then on a normal 4:3 screen they would look tall and skinny.

There are some DVD's (mostly older movies) that are merely letterboxed, but just about all the modern titles are anamorphic. Just take a minute to look at your DVD player. There should be a system menu option for choosing your TV type, either 4:3 or 16:9. On every player I've seen this defaults to 4:3 unless you change it. This tells the player to automatically letterbox anamorphic footage. There is a flag embedded in video stream that tells the player if the video is anamorphic.

<<<-- Of course it could be that DVD players can tell if the video is anamorphic
<<<--
<<<-- If that is the case, then what I explained above is totally wrong.

Yep...

<<<--put an image on the SD Memory card, and then you can superimpose it
<<<-- over the video in the viewfinder (though it doesn't print to tape). That
<<<--way I can frame my shorts for letterboxing in post, and I will hopefully still
<<<--get that 16:9 "feel".

Sorry, wrong assumption again. First, the PD-150 uses "memory sticks" and not SD cards. You can superimpose a widescreen matte on your video in 4:3 mode but it will print to tape.

Alex Filacchione · October 21st, 2004, 10:35 PM

<<<-- Of course it could be that DVD players can tell if the video is anamorphic
<<<--
<<<-- If that is the case, then what I explained above is totally wrong.

<--Yep...

Suspected that...

<<<--Sorry, wrong assumption again. First, the PD-150 uses "memory sticks" and not SD cards. You can superimpose a widescreen matte on your video in 4:3 mode but it will print to tape. -->>>

6 of one, half dozen of the other... The point and reasoning is the same... Anyway, too bad it actually prints that to tape. I would be nice if you had the option.

EITHER WAY... do you think that putting a wide angle lens & letterboxing it would yeild nicer looking results than a digi squeeze?

Alex F

Boyd Ostroff · October 22nd, 2004, 07:03 AM

Well the wide angle lens really doesn't have anything to do with it. 16:9 is just an aspect ratio; it can be used with any sort of lens. What do you want to end up with: letterboxed 4:3 or anamorphic 16:9? My own tests indicate that cropping and stretching to create anamorphic in post on the VX-2000 yields results as good as the built-in mode. http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9

Alex Filacchione · October 22nd, 2004, 07:52 AM

The point was about "feel" in terms of the wide angle lens. I think when you frame the picture correctly for 4:3 letterbox, if you have a wide angle lens you will get... a wider angle on your shot! This would add to the "feel" of that wide angle. It is purely an aesthetic thing, not technical. I completely understand that a wideangle lens doesn't have anything to do with it (geting 16:9). But just as a wide angle lens gives you a wider "feel" in 4:3, it can do the same in 16:9 or cropped 4:3. The whole thing that *I* get out of watching a letterboxed DVD is the FEEL of it. Well, the footage that *I* have seen of 4:3 that was letterboxed, doesn't really give me that feel or vibe to the picture. Why? Not quite sure. Probably more of an untangible thing. Aesthetics as I mentioned earlier.

Alex F

Boyd Ostroff · October 22nd, 2004, 08:11 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Filacchione : Why? Not quite sure. Probably more of an untangible thing. -->>>

I guess so. If you like the "feel" of a wide angle lens then of course you should get one. I agree that wide angle shoots look good in 16:9. But I assume you might someday also want to do a closeup? How about a macro shot?

The reality is that if you watch your video on a 4:3 TV, it will have to be letterboxed, either by the DVD player or by you. But if you ever want to view it on a 16:9 monitor or a projector then you'll see a big difference between the VX-2000 and a camera that does real 16:9.

From what you say, it sounds like you should get an anamorphic lens. That would widen your field of view and give you real 16:9, although it would look squashed in the camera's viewfinder and LCD.

Alex Filacchione · October 22nd, 2004, 10:14 AM

Yes, that would be the ideal solution. Unfortunately, I don't have the money for one since they are so expensive. Once the camera arrives, the next money that I am putting towards it will be for lighting. :-(

So, the resolution chart stills are one thing, but how does the Digi Squeeze look on live motion? Esp. on an NTSC TV as opposed to the less forgiving PC monitor? Is it "good enough" or will you still plainly see the blurriness that results?

Has anyone made a really nice plugin for post production "digisqueeze"? What I am referring to is similar to results in the Photoshop world....

In Photoshop if you enlarge a picture you will see the blurriness, artifacts, etc. However using a plugin like Genuine Fractals when you blow the picture up it uses fractal math to give you a MUCH better result. It is not totally lossless, but it is really nice. There is even a better plugin than Genuine Fractals for doing this in Photoshop (and it's much cheaper too!) - can't quite remember the name of the guy who wrote it, but I have it bookmarked somewhere. With his software you can blow a small picture up to a large picture, and the results are "close enough" to identical. Amazing stuff.

Now, does anyone make something like this for video? A plug in for After Effects or something similar, that is superior in its results to doing it in camera or using the standard post tools?

I realize that it would probably take an excruciatingly long time to process a video file, but I could start it right beofre I leave for work in the morning or right before I go to bed at night.

THanks,

Alex F

October 21st, 2004, 05:00 PM	#16
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Filacchione : Most DVDs that you buy are not really anamorphic. IF they were, when you viewed then on a normal 4:3 screen they would look tall and skinny. There are some DVD's (mostly older movies) that are merely letterboxed, but just about all the modern titles are anamorphic. Just take a minute to look at your DVD player. There should be a system menu option for choosing your TV type, either 4:3 or 16:9. On every player I've seen this defaults to 4:3 unless you change it. This tells the player to automatically letterbox anamorphic footage. There is a flag embedded in video stream that tells the player if the video is anamorphic. <<<-- Of course it could be that DVD players can tell if the video is anamorphic <<<-- <<<-- If that is the case, then what I explained above is totally wrong. Yep... <<<--put an image on the SD Memory card, and then you can superimpose it <<<-- over the video in the viewfinder (though it doesn't print to tape). That <<<--way I can frame my shorts for letterboxing in post, and I will hopefully still <<<--get that 16:9 "feel". Sorry, wrong assumption again. First, the PD-150 uses "memory sticks" and not SD cards. You can superimpose a widescreen matte on your video in 4:3 mode but it will print to tape.

October 21st, 2004, 10:35 PM	#17
Alex Filacchione Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Atlanta, Ga Posts: 129	<<<-- Of course it could be that DVD players can tell if the video is anamorphic <<<-- <<<-- If that is the case, then what I explained above is totally wrong. <--Yep... Suspected that... <<<--Sorry, wrong assumption again. First, the PD-150 uses "memory sticks" and not SD cards. You can superimpose a widescreen matte on your video in 4:3 mode but it will print to tape. -->>> 6 of one, half dozen of the other... The point and reasoning is the same... Anyway, too bad it actually prints that to tape. I would be nice if you had the option. EITHER WAY... do you think that putting a wide angle lens & letterboxing it would yeild nicer looking results than a digi squeeze? Alex F

October 22nd, 2004, 07:03 AM	#18
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Well the wide angle lens really doesn't have anything to do with it. 16:9 is just an aspect ratio; it can be used with any sort of lens. What do you want to end up with: letterboxed 4:3 or anamorphic 16:9? My own tests indicate that cropping and stretching to create anamorphic in post on the VX-2000 yields results as good as the built-in mode. http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9

October 22nd, 2004, 07:52 AM	#19
Alex Filacchione Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Atlanta, Ga Posts: 129	The point was about "feel" in terms of the wide angle lens. I think when you frame the picture correctly for 4:3 letterbox, if you have a wide angle lens you will get... a wider angle on your shot! This would add to the "feel" of that wide angle. It is purely an aesthetic thing, not technical. I completely understand that a wideangle lens doesn't have anything to do with it (geting 16:9). But just as a wide angle lens gives you a wider "feel" in 4:3, it can do the same in 16:9 or cropped 4:3. The whole thing that I get out of watching a letterboxed DVD is the FEEL of it. Well, the footage that I have seen of 4:3 that was letterboxed, doesn't really give me that feel or vibe to the picture. Why? Not quite sure. Probably more of an untangible thing. Aesthetics as I mentioned earlier. Alex F

October 22nd, 2004, 08:11 AM	#20
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Filacchione : Why? Not quite sure. Probably more of an untangible thing. -->>> I guess so. If you like the "feel" of a wide angle lens then of course you should get one. I agree that wide angle shoots look good in 16:9. But I assume you might someday also want to do a closeup? How about a macro shot? The reality is that if you watch your video on a 4:3 TV, it will have to be letterboxed, either by the DVD player or by you. But if you ever want to view it on a 16:9 monitor or a projector then you'll see a big difference between the VX-2000 and a camera that does real 16:9. From what you say, it sounds like you should get an anamorphic lens. That would widen your field of view and give you real 16:9, although it would look squashed in the camera's viewfinder and LCD.

October 22nd, 2004, 10:14 AM	#21
Alex Filacchione Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Atlanta, Ga Posts: 129	Yes, that would be the ideal solution. Unfortunately, I don't have the money for one since they are so expensive. Once the camera arrives, the next money that I am putting towards it will be for lighting. :-( So, the resolution chart stills are one thing, but how does the Digi Squeeze look on live motion? Esp. on an NTSC TV as opposed to the less forgiving PC monitor? Is it "good enough" or will you still plainly see the blurriness that results? Has anyone made a really nice plugin for post production "digisqueeze"? What I am referring to is similar to results in the Photoshop world.... In Photoshop if you enlarge a picture you will see the blurriness, artifacts, etc. However using a plugin like Genuine Fractals when you blow the picture up it uses fractal math to give you a MUCH better result. It is not totally lossless, but it is really nice. There is even a better plugin than Genuine Fractals for doing this in Photoshop (and it's much cheaper too!) - can't quite remember the name of the guy who wrote it, but I have it bookmarked somewhere. With his software you can blow a small picture up to a large picture, and the results are "close enough" to identical. Amazing stuff. Now, does anyone make something like this for video? A plug in for After Effects or something similar, that is superior in its results to doing it in camera or using the standard post tools? I realize that it would probably take an excruciatingly long time to process a video file, but I could start it right beofre I leave for work in the morning or right before I go to bed at night. THanks, Alex F