Does not having true 16:9 really matter?

Dennis Wood · October 31st, 2005, 11:15 AM

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.

Tung Bui · October 31st, 2005, 01:16 PM

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.

Steev Dinkins · November 1st, 2005, 01:10 PM

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.

Ash Greyson · November 1st, 2005, 03:22 PM

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)

Gary Barr · January 5th, 2006, 09:59 AM

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?

Mark Davies · July 16th, 2007, 01:31 PM

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?

Mark Davies · July 17th, 2007, 01:35 AM

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?

Barry Green · July 17th, 2007, 05:22 AM

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.

July 16th, 2007, 01:31 PM	#51
Mark Davies New Boot Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Washington Posts: 20	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?

October 31st, 2005, 11:15 AM	#46
Dennis Wood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 916	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.

October 31st, 2005, 01:16 PM	#47
Tung Bui Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 101	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.

November 1st, 2005, 01:10 PM	#48
Steev Dinkins Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 613	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.

November 1st, 2005, 03:22 PM	#49
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	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)

January 5th, 2006, 09:59 AM	#50
Gary Barr Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 186	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?

July 17th, 2007, 01:35 AM	#52
Mark Davies New Boot Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Washington Posts: 20	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?

July 17th, 2007, 05:22 AM	#53
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	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.