Next one will have it in 3 months.

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Jefferson : back then 16:9 was a pipe dream.. . -->>>

Not sure it's really that simple... The Sony PDX-10 was introduced in 2002 and it has "real" 16:9. No doubt it began development even before the DVX-100. I think Chris is right, it was a cost/benefit sort of thing. The higher pixel count CCD's on the PDX-10 need more light and are more prone to smearing. I imagine the desire for true progressive scan also factored into the equation.

Anamorphic as an option is ok.
 

Personally I like the option of having the anamorphic adapter as an option because by adding that feature built in...it would increase the price point to as much as the XL2. The sales of the DVX is still strong in that point over the XL2. In addition there is a rumor that Century might be coming out with another anamorphic lens that will solve the DOF problems of the Pany Anamorphic. Also you can uprez your final image using Photozoom pro and get a clearer picture if you keep it at just letterboxed for DVD's sake. If your final output to 35mm film then it is best just to shoot with the Anamorphic or 4:3 and have the transfer house put in the bars in post, Since they would unsqueeze it first before the blowup anyways.

16:9 - XL2 compared to DVX100A (B)
 

I currently have a XL2 and have been very happy with it, but am thinking about getting a new DVX100B because of its size and because of some of the footage I've seen on-line shot with the DVX100A's.

When shooting in 16:9 mode, how big of a difference will be noticed between the two?

As on Panasonic's site it says the DVX100B is:

16 x 9 anamorphic - letterbox and digital squeeze

- - [Side note - I'm keeping the XL2, the DVX100B would be an addition.] - -

Well, your XL2 (assuming NTSC) should have 480 lines of horizontal res. in 16:9 progressive modes. The DVX100a/b will lose about 20% of that in the letterboxing of its 4:3 progressive image. I would expect that difference to be pretty noticeable if you're comparing resolutions.

This has been suggested as a good overview of the differences. Like most things, the numbers don't tell the whole story. If you look at www.pinelakefilms.com you'll find some stunning clips done with the DVX100a cropped to 2.35:1.

I'm not sure which is the preference on the DVX100, but the article above discusses the differences in DVX100 CCD use in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes on the cam.

I own a dvx100a and I shoot alot of wide shots of ocean and forests with and without an anamorphic adaptor. Its scenes with lots of small details that would stretch the resolving ability of a camera. Close ups of faces all look the same as it fills up the whole image. Well I projected the images up onto a wall to get an image that was about 4 meters wide. I couldnt tell the difference. So I didnt bother to buy the anamorphic adaptor.

I've seen footage of the xl2 and I cant say I'm stunned by the resolution compared to my dvx. Many have noted that its alot less grainy than the dvx. That would be something I would wish for in the dvx rather than just more resolution( and maybe a longer zoom). So my conclusion is dont worry about the resolution. In any case I live in PAL land so even if I crop my image to get 16:9 its still equal to ntsc with anamorphic. You guys seem to cope with the lower resolution of ntsc just fine.

Hi, I just shot a 2 camera music video and promo with 1 XL2 and 1 DVX100A. The footage cut together nicely between the two cameras. Both were shot in 16:9, which means for the DVX100, it had less resolution than the XL2. I can see the difference, but it's not a showstopper. Both cameras shoot beautiful standard def video, especially considering it's DV format.

Although it's compressed for web, you can see for yourself here (equal balance between DVX and XL2) and here (more XL2 than DVX), although it's compressed for web.

I use an XL2 as my "a" camera and a DVX as my "b" camera. The key is to not use them for the same length of shots and they will cut together fine. If you cut from XL2 to DVX on the same length shot, it will be obvious. I just ordered a DVX-100B which still does not do real 16:9 but it is supposed to have truer color reproduction which should help with the noise.



ash =o)

tomorrow I'm going to cut my first sequence using XL2 as main cam and DVX100AE as second cam.

I shoot 16:9/25p on the XL2 and want it to match up as much as possible. the only thing is, I'm not sure about the settings on the DVX as it was shot by someone else and they can't remember, although I know it was in scene file F6 which at least is 25p.

I think it was shot in letterbox mode so my question is, how would this work editing? I'm using FCP. does the DVX stuff need to be 'scaled' up to fit the 16:9 screen and match the XL2? what's the best way to do this?

and is it better to use squeeze mode for this?

Is it true the DVX100B won't do true 16:9?
 

I originally was going to get the XH-A1, but money is a little short, so I thoguht about going for the DVX-!00B. But I keep seeing reviews that mention that it isn't really true 16:9 and that it's a little screwy. Is this a problem? Should I get this camera?

I've done more research and I see that basically this camera shoots in a fake 16:9 and that for good quality you have to crop in post...which doesn't make it true widescreen. I'm basically trying to decide whether to make the leap to HD or get a good SD camera. I like everything about this camera except the fake 16:9, My other choice is the XH-A1 but it's more expensive and HD...which I think is more complicated. Any advice?

The DVX uses vertical stretching to do 16:9. It results in about 360 lines of vertical resolution in its 16:9 mode. If you're shooting 24p or 30p it delivers about as much vertical resolution as a "true 16:9" interlaced camera would. But if you're comparing it against a "true 16:9" progressive camera, like the XL2, then the XL2 would deliver higher vertical resolution. The XHA1's SD 24F likely provides more vertical resolution than the DVX's 16:9 as well.

It all depends on what you want to do. If you're looking for the absolute highest resolution 16:9 footage you can get, the DVX isn't the right tool for that job. If you're looking to make great-looking footage and you like everything else about the DVX, why be dissuaded by something that you're not even sure of the implications of? Rent some DVX movies that have had theatrical releases, like November or Murderball or Iraq In Fragments, and see what you think of the results.