Stupid 16:9 Question.
 

the DVX has a 16:9 mode, but i still havent tried it out. my question is, if you shoot in it, upload to premiere, etc, then put it on VHS or whatever, will it stretch the image to get rid of the black bars? or will the black bars still be present? because i know some programs and cameras have this problem of stretching it.

I never got around to using the 16:9 so i dont know if it will crop it or stretch it, so ive been shooting widescreen in my head, then cropping in premiere.

The review in American Cinematographer said:
________________________________________
Ideally, the DVX100 would have native 16:9 CCD chips for theatrical blowups, because 4:3 blowups are rare. The best work-around would be an anamorphic adapter from Panasonic or Century Optics. We didn’t test this because the devices weren’t available at the time. I don’t recommend changing the camera’s menu setting (Aspect Conv: Norm or Letterbox) from the native 4:3 format (Norm) to a “forced” 16:9 electronic setting (Letterbox). Letterbox on this camera, and most other native 4:3-chip cameras, means you’re not using all of the chips’ pixels; the camera is essentially masking off the top and bottom of the chips with electronic “black paper tape.”

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/product.htm
_________________________________________

On most cameras there is no advantage to using the builtin 16:9 mode. But the anamorphic stretching isn't a "problem" actually. This is needed for the footage to display properly on a widescreen TV. If your goal is just to letterbox it for 4:3 then it sounds like you're already doing the right thing.

Does not having true 16:9 really matter?
 

Im brand new to the realm of DV, and was wondering if it really matters not having true 16:9 on the camera. Cant you just mask off certain portions of the LCD to simulate 16:9 and then crop to 16:9 in an editing program? Correct me if im wrong but isnt this the next best way?

Yes it is the next best, but real 16:9 uses all 480 vertical lines whereas cropping only uses 360 lines. So you lose 25% of the vertical resolution. The progressive mode on the DVX-100 may compensate somewhat for this as compared to regular cameras. But you will still get higher resolution with a camera that has wide enough chips to capture a true 16:9 image. An anamorphic lens will also do this, but has a number of limitations.

Ahh now i understand. Thanks!

>>But you will still get higher resolution with a camera that has wide enough chips to capture a true 16:9 image. An anamorphic lens will also do this, but has a number of limitations.<<

Glad I stumbled upon this thread. I had a similar question to Dan.

Boyd, could you explain some of the limitations of the anamorphic lens?

Thanks.
Krishna

Distortion and no zoom-through, plus the crazy high cost of buying the 16:9 adaptor.

Thanks, Frank.

There you go. Also, they don't usually have filter threads, so you would need some sort of relatively expensive matte box to use filters. Plus, for me the biggest limitation is that you can't modify the field of view beyond what the adaptor provides. In other words, you can't add a wide adaptor or telephoto adaptor to the anamorphic lens. This, coupled with zoom through problems, really limits your field of view to a specific range. Also, the ones that are available for the Sony and Canon cameras cause vignetting at the full wide settings.

None of these things would be an issue for a camera with true 16:9 support. Caveat: I don't have any experience with the DVX-100 or it's anamorphic adaptor(s), these are just limitations of anamorphic adaptor lenses in general. FWIW, the Century anamorphic adaptor for smaller camcorders (37mm threads) is dramatically cheaper than its larger cousins.

Does anyone know if the new Century Optics anamorphic adapter is already available? Is it better than the other anamorphic adapters? What is the cost?

According to Ken Robings, an engineer from Century Optics:

"Work on the prototype should be completed sometime next month and production units should follow soon after that"

My guess is November or early December. However, this is a very high end lens with the excellent level of quality that Century Optics is known for (or so I understand). They are shooting for a retail price of around $2000. Hopefully it will be less than this but we won't know until it comes out.

Additionally, this lens has a very large front element. Currently, Ken states that the front O.D. is 115 mm (of course, this may change in the end product).

In other words, to use a matte box with this lens, you'll need a matte box that can accommodate at least one 4x5.62" filter. This means you'll need a good film matte box, which further increases the price of going 16:9.

With matte box, you could potentially end up spending upwards of $3500 for what is supposed to be - hopefully - the absolutely best but most expensive 16:9/AG-DVX100 solution yet. Of course, you don't necessarily need a matte box but if you're going this route, I thought you might as well go all the way.

Otherwise, check out this link from Saferseas. A cheaper route for 16:9 AND Chrosziel matte box.

For what it's worth, I'm in pre production on a documentary and have been calling labs to talk to them about tape to film transfers, shooting 16x9 issues, etc. and in those conversations more than one advised me to not go the annamorphic route. Their feeling was that, despite the advertising, nothing available in the miniDV cam range (such as in this DVX discussion thread, and elsewhere) did a good enough job (from a lab/tech point of view) to be worth using, or worth the price. They advocated that I frame for 16x9 and shoot 4x3, then adjust in post, which is what I've decided to do.

For what it's worth, I'm currently displaying footage shot on in 30p on the dvx (letterboxed 16:9) on a Sony HD 34 inch widescreen, and it looks awesome. I'm really impressed a what this camera is capable of...you really don't notice that it is SD DV until the camera starts to move, and some high contrast diagonal edge starts to stairstep, otherwise I'd come close to swearing it was an HD source.

Barry

Native 16:9 can be cheaper
 

> With matte box, you could potentially end up spending upwards
> of $3500 for what is supposed to be - hopefully - the absolutely
> best but most expensive 16:9/AG-DVX100 solution yet. Of course,
> you don't necessarily need a matte box but if you're going this
> route, I thought you might as well go all the way.

I spent less than that on my native 16:9 DV camera, the PDX10. It has some shortcomings of course, especially the low light issue. But if you are shooting with controlled light I think the PDX10 will give you very good images.

Also because the mexapixel CCD is oversampled in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes on this camera, you get the most jaggie-less image I have seen in the miniDV world.

DVX100A in-camera 16:9 and another "distorted effect" question
 

Hey!

I know that the majority of independent features shot digitally (Tadpole, Pieces of April, Personal Velocity etc) had been shot with a PAL camera and later cropped (losing resolution) to fit the 16:9 aspect ratio. I know that InDiGent Productions prefers this since you end up with basically the same full frame NTSC resolution.
I was wondering, is it a good idea to shoot with the DVX100AE (PAL) with the in-camera 16:9 option? The biggest advantage is that you could use a wide range of adapters (telephoto, wide, fish-eye and so on) TOGETHER with the 16:9 ratio, and end up indeed with a very decent resolution. This would save you the cost of the anamorphic adaptor, which is not pretty good anyway and plus, it eliminates the use of all the other useful optic adapters. Does anyone know of any disadvantage in using the in-camera 16:9 feature WITH the other adaptares (horrendous distortions, things like that)?

Another question if I'm allowed: I am looking to get the "Kubrick effect" of slightly distorted images using the equivalent of a very wide angle motion picture lens (you know, Clockwork Orange, The Shining etc). Somehow I have the impression that fish-eye lenses don't do the same job in video as extreme wide lenses to in film. In film, the image seems to "dissipate", to stretch to the sides (very nice effect), but in video all seems very rounded and ugly if you ask me.
What is the best lens to buy for the AG-DVX100A for this effect: an extreme wide-angle adapter or one of the two fish-eye adapters that are currently available (the one with less barrel distortions since the other one is way too extreme)?

Thanks a lot!

Search this forum for a bunch of threads on 16:9 and anamorphic adaptors on the DVX100.

Per fish-eye, film vs. video will render the same optical effect once the focal lenght varitions are accounted for.

However, bear in mind (I'm a huge Kubrick fan myself) that DV is much lower resolution than film. The wider the field of view i.e. the smaller the focal length i.e. the wider the lens, the worse DV looks. It's hard to use fish eye in digital video unless you don't mind the degraded resolution.

"Personal Velocity" used almost all telephoto shots to hide this weakness as well as smoke and diffusion to cover up DV resolution artifacts. Tadpole just let it look crappy and allowed the story and characters to have the focus, not the imagery.

Wide angles and DV do not detailed images make. If that's what you want, you need to shoot HD or film for "Kubrick" shots.

Note that "Julien Donkey Boy" used lots of fish eye and DV but took advantage (maybe to extreme effect, depending on your taste) of the survellience-camera look of degraded DV fish eye footage.

thanks Stephen
 

Stephen,

Thanks so much for your very valid points. I was aware myself of the resolution limitations (quite significant, unfortunately), but I have a story that hopefully takes advantage of this. I was just wondering about what lens to choose if I want to get that particular effect, forgetting the detail loss.

Thanks!

Get the Century Optics lens - best quality.

Sorry for being so insistent: fish-eye (the less wide one) or wide angle (the widest one)? Thanks Stephen

I have not used either one - so it just depends on how extreme an effect you want.

wide
 

i just got the cenutry optics wide .6x and its awesome.....it does curve a bit..but not too extreme....fish eye is great..but for a whole friggin' movie..eheheh....i would stick wif the wide angle...

16:9 question
 

I'm using the 100a to film a short this summer. I plan on sending the movie out to festivals (it won't be transfered to film) and putting it onto DVD. There is one thing I'm not sure of...

What is the best way of shooting to achieve the highest picture quality on a large theater screen? Do I need to shoot 16:9 or could I get by in 4:3?

If I use an anamorphic lens, how will the image look on a non-widescreen television?

Thanks

I did a 16:9 letterboxed (with black bars) short movie with the DVX100 (PAL) in 25P mode. The movie was converted to interlaced NTSC video using only Vegas 4. The movie looked well on the big screen. The movie was played back on a NTSC dvd player and projected with a large beamer in a room with around 120 people. The letterboxed mode and the PAL>NTSC conversion didn't prevent us from winning the grand prize of the festival project the movie was part of.

With the DVX100a there is a squeeze option in the widescreen area. So no black bars but all the lines are used for the widescreen footage. I think it depends on the equipment that plays the footage from dvd if it can screen the pseudo anamorphic footage in the right proportions on the screen.

Peter Sieben

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Sieben : . The movie was converted to interlaced NTSC video using only Vegas 4. -->>>

You mean Vegas 4 can convert PAL to NTSC? I didn't know that.


Carlos

Yes, it can.

I first tried to convert 25P PAL to 24P NTSC, but -despite of all the good advices I got- nothing worked for that special conversion route, too much motion problems.
But going from 25P PAL to interlaced NTSC video works very well for me.

Peter

16:9 rez confusion
 

Hi there.

First I'd like so stress that I'm not a total newbie to DV (video/film in general) but there actually is something everybody seems to understand but me.

I'm talking about 16:9 (in-camera or adapter).
When we look at a PAL DV-frame we have a 720x576 image. If we want to mask this 4:3 frame to 16:9 we simply insert black bars at the bottom and the top. Every bar is 72 pixels in height. That makes 144 pixels of black bars - leaving 432 vertical lines for the footage to be displayed (was 576, minus 144 = 432).
So now we have 720x432 film, plus black bars at the bottom and the top. Okay.

Now let's shoot anamorphic 16:9 (in-camera or adapter). We're ending up with a vertically stretched 720x576 image that needs to be squeezed a little to look right (which of course can be done with many TV sets out there or almost every NLE when we're talking post production).

And now my point of confusion: What is our anamorphic footage actually good for? Okay we used all available vertical lines to capture the image (576), but when we watch it on a TV, the visible image is squeezed down to 432 lines again (the rest, of course, black bars). When we make a DVD with our footage, all our 576 vertical lines are AGAIN squeezed down to 432. And when we distribute our footage over the Inet we also convert our anamorphic 720x576 16:9 footage to 720x432 to make it look right.

My conclusion is that,however you're shooting, you're ending up with 432 vertical lines of imagery when you finally WATCH your masterpiece. So why is masking worse than in-camera- or adapter-16:9? Okay, I think shooting anamorphic is an advantage if you want to transfer four footage on 16 or 35mm FILM! But only a few people do that.

Maybe I'm making some mistakes there... so please correct me and explain it. Don't wanna die dumb :-)

Thanks!
Todd

You're exactly right on all counts.

What you're leaving out of the equation is the (currently microscopic) market for widescreen televisions and HDTV's. A widescreen 16:9 TV will display the anamorphic image in full resolution, no squeezing, etc. Most home theater projectors are now 16:9-native, aren't they? DVD's are primarily authored in widescreen now. So in years hence, widescreen could very well be the way to go (although the last time I heard the statistics quoted, 98% of the TV's in America are still 4:3). In Europe there's much wider adoption of the 16:9 television format, so it will be more relevant in Europe, sooner.

Unless you're in the market for a new set over 40". Then your choices in 4:3 TVs are microscopic.

Todd, are you saying that no matter whether you capture letterbox or anamorphic in-camera that you're always going to display it as letterbox on a 4:3 set? Here in North America you would want at least a widescreen TV that supports enhanced definition (480p) to get the most out of high quality in-camera 16:9.

Sounds like you're PAL (720x576) but here is a nice read on comparing in-camera 16:9 modes (anamoprhic and letterbox) and how each looks on 4:3 or 16:9 sets.

http://www.maxent.org/video/16x9.html

I was referring to market penetration, not new product available for sale. Last time I heard the stats, it was 98% 4:3, 2% 16:9.

But yes, there are definitely more widescreen sets on the market, and as such, the percentage of widescreen sets will be climbing.

No denying that but I just wanted to add a different angle on how things are beginning to change (even if microscopic).

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.

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

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.

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

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).


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! **

16:9 and the DVX
 

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

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.

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

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.?

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.. .