Does not having true 16:9 really matter?

Andre De Clercq · June 14th, 2004, 02:43 PM

Allmost all high end TV set in Europe are 16:9. And...many 4:3 set just reduce the vertical deflection amplitude by 25% and keep the 625(Pal) lines. Only some "digital" 4:3 sets remap to the reduced line number. Also remember that the storry of lines on displays is fading away. All flatscreens remap and many highend CRT TV's do. Mostly on much higher resolution frames than the original 720x576.

Tommy Haupfear · June 14th, 2004, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Mostly on much higher resolution frames than the original 720x576.

Agreed. NTSC fixed pixel displays almost always display any input at their native resolution. My TV displays everything at 1386x788.

Andre De Clercq · June 15th, 2004, 04:55 AM

Not only fixed pixel displays these days ...Even (scanned) CRT high-end TV's remap everything on a new fixed raster. Like Philips 16:9 "pixel plus" allways scans about 800 lines and remaps everything what comes in (625, letterbox, PC graphics..). Remapping today is cheaper and more reliable than switched deflection systems.

Jeremy Bond · August 7th, 2004, 05:29 PM

I heard that the camera can do

1. Letterbox - Good
2. Digital squeeze - Better

And then one can buy an Anamorphic Lens - Best quality.

So my question is. 1. Is this correct? 2. What is letterboxing and digital squeeze? Thanks

Tommy Haupfear · August 7th, 2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

1. Letterbox - Good
2. Digital squeeze - Better

And then one can buy an Anamorphic Lens - Best quality.

Thats pretty much it but I'll also add that in Digital Squeeze its better to have the DVX100A set to either 30p or 24p (not 60i).

Quote:

2. What is letterboxing and digital squeeze?

The link below should answer your second question.

Click here

** I'll also add that I just received my DVX100A yesterday and I intend to shoot primarily in 16:9 squeeze mode (in 30p) until I can save up for the anamorphic adapter. So far this is an amazing piece of equipment! **

Bob Zimmerman · January 17th, 2005, 10:18 AM

Why would panasonic not make the DVX with real 16:9?

Chris Hurd · January 17th, 2005, 03:10 PM

Probably because at the time the DVX was developed, there was no such thing as a native 16:9 CCD in the 1/3rd-inch size. And although Canon was willing to adapt standard 4:3 CCD's for this purpose, perhaps Panasonic was not inclined to go that route.

I think these decisions are primarily based on how the manufacturer perceives the marketplace for these camcorders. Most likely Panasonic took a long, hard look at it and decided that it was easier and/or more economical to offer an optical anamorphic adapter rather than develop a 16:9 CCD in the 1/3rd-inch size.

My guess is that the majority of DVX shooters, and I suspect the majority of shooters using any other DV camcorder in the same class as the DVX are producing most of their material in 4:3 out of choice anyway.

John Hudson · January 18th, 2005, 12:48 AM

I do Chris; then mask later. Just felt the need to validate

Charles Papert · January 18th, 2005, 01:16 AM

I shoot mostly in 16:9, but I have to admit that I miss the XL1s' 16:9 frame line without applying letterbox shooting mode--it's nice to be able to adjust headroom as needed. Or am I missing that on the DVX erronously? John H.?

Peter Jefferson · January 18th, 2005, 06:42 PM

another thing to note is that the dvx was in development long before it was released.. at least 2yrs.... so costs back then were a factor to the features it would carry....

back then 16:9 was a pipe dream.. .

Michael Struthers · January 20th, 2005, 02:56 PM

Next one will have it in 3 months.

Boyd Ostroff · January 20th, 2005, 03:20 PM

<<<-- 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.

Cary Lee · January 25th, 2005, 09:01 PM

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.

October 31st, 2005, 10:43 AM

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.] - -

Dennis Wood · October 31st, 2005, 10:52 AM

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.

August 7th, 2004, 05:29 PM	#34
Jeremy Bond Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 29	How to do 16:9 with the DVX100A? I heard that the camera can do 1. Letterbox - Good 2. Digital squeeze - Better And then one can buy an Anamorphic Lens - Best quality. So my question is. 1. Is this correct? 2. What is letterboxing and digital squeeze? Thanks __________________ Best Wishes, Jeremy

January 17th, 2005, 10:18 AM	#36
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	16:9 and the DVX Why would panasonic not make the DVX with real 16:9?

January 17th, 2005, 03:10 PM	#37
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Probably because at the time the DVX was developed, there was no such thing as a native 16:9 CCD in the 1/3rd-inch size. And although Canon was willing to adapt standard 4:3 CCD's for this purpose, perhaps Panasonic was not inclined to go that route. I think these decisions are primarily based on how the manufacturer perceives the marketplace for these camcorders. Most likely Panasonic took a long, hard look at it and decided that it was easier and/or more economical to offer an optical anamorphic adapter rather than develop a 16:9 CCD in the 1/3rd-inch size. My guess is that the majority of DVX shooters, and I suspect the majority of shooters using any other DV camcorder in the same class as the DVX are producing most of their material in 4:3 out of choice anyway. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 18th, 2005, 01:16 AM	#39
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	I shoot mostly in 16:9, but I have to admit that I miss the XL1s' 16:9 frame line without applying letterbox shooting mode--it's nice to be able to adjust headroom as needed. Or am I missing that on the DVX erronously? John H.? __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 20th, 2005, 02:56 PM	#41
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	Next one will have it in 3 months. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

June 14th, 2004, 02:43 PM	#31
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Allmost all high end TV set in Europe are 16:9. And...many 4:3 set just reduce the vertical deflection amplitude by 25% and keep the 625(Pal) lines. Only some "digital" 4:3 sets remap to the reduced line number. Also remember that the storry of lines on displays is fading away. All flatscreens remap and many highend CRT TV's do. Mostly on much higher resolution frames than the original 720x576.

June 15th, 2004, 04:55 AM	#33
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Not only fixed pixel displays these days ...Even (scanned) CRT high-end TV's remap everything on a new fixed raster. Like Philips 16:9 "pixel plus" allways scans about 800 lines and remaps everything what comes in (625, letterbox, PC graphics..). Remapping today is cheaper and more reliable than switched deflection systems.

January 18th, 2005, 12:48 AM	#38
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	I do Chris; then mask later. Just felt the need to validate

January 18th, 2005, 06:42 PM	#40
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	another thing to note is that the dvx was in development long before it was released.. at least 2yrs.... so costs back then were a factor to the features it would carry.... back then 16:9 was a pipe dream.. .

January 20th, 2005, 03:20 PM	#42
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- 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.

January 25th, 2005, 09:01 PM	#43
Cary Lee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood USA Posts: 128	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. __________________ Canon XHA1, SGpro,Flip,FF, RR Mattebox, Nebtek V-R70p-HDA with Canon, Nikkor Primes 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 105mm f1.8, 135mm f2.0, and 300mm f4.0.

October 31st, 2005, 10:43 AM	#44
Guest Posts: n/a	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.] - -

October 31st, 2005, 10:52 AM	#45
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	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.