Getting 16:9 with DVX-100 without Adapter?

[Evan Clare]

Hey guys, Ive seen a lot of threads around here regarding this DVX100 Anamorphic adapter. The rental facility I'm getting the DVX from doesnt have this adapter and I read Scott Billups book Digital Moviemaking and I agree that everything you shoot should be 16:9. Is there any way I can get a good looking 16:9 without buying other accessories? To quote the book, he says "The important thing here is to shoot everything in 16:9 aspect ratio so your going to look for a camera that actually uses 16x9 imaging chip". Now the DVX doesnt have one of those right? So he goes on to say "Since your choices here are severely limited, your next best option would be to get a camera that stretches the conventional 4x3 image rather than one that crops the top and bottom of the 4x3". So I guess I'd be safe using the camera's built in 16:9? Or should I add it in post. Sorry if this sounds like the same old question, but I just never got any of this out of those other posts. Thanks SO much!

P.S. Dont worry, if theres no way to get a good 16:9 image Ill check out this super expensive rental facility on the other side of town and bite the bullet :).

[Boyd Ostroff]

You will really need the anamorphic lens to get good quality 16:9. All other methods on this camera will do just what Scott says and crop the top and bottom from a 4:3 image. You'll have to be the judge of whether or not this (or cropping in post) gives high enough quality for your purposes. This would be pretty much the same for the XL-1s, GL-2, PD-150, PD-170 and most other prosumer cameras. The PDX-10 has high res CCD's that can deliver quality 16:9, and the JVC HD-10 might be another option. Beyond these you will have to "bite the bullet" and go with a much, much more expensive pro camera.

Visit the PDX-10 and HD-10 forums here for further discussion of widescreen topics.

[Evan Clare]

Thanks a lot Boyd, that clears things up nicely :).

[Barry Green]

There are no cameras under $10,000 that have 16:9-shaped CCD's, so as Boyd says, you're looking at a crop 'n' stretch, an anamorphic adapter, or the new breed of megapixel cameras like the PDX10 that sample a 16:9-shaped patch off the 4:3 CCD.

To get 16:9 footage from the DVX, without the anamorphic adapter, you'll be cropping and stretching. The good news is that the DVX, in progressive-scan/thin line mode, delivers much higher resolution than any of the other cameras mentioned. The DVX, when stretched to 16:9, will retain 360 lines of resolution, which is as much as a native 16:9-CCD interlaced camera can do.

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

> The good news is that the DVX, in progressive-scan/thin
> line mode, delivers much higher resolution than any of the
> other cameras mentioned. The DVX, when stretched to 16:9,
> will retain 360 lines of resolution, which is as much as a native
> 16:9-CCD interlaced camera can do.

Hmm. Care to explain this further? I bought my PDX10 precisely because it gives me 480 pixels of vertical resolution, not 360. True that it is interlaced, but it's still the full res. even if it is spread over time. I can then use motion blur in post to deinterlace without losing vertical resolution (but losing temporal resolution of course) I love the resulting look.

[Ken Tanaka]

Just as a point of clarity for Evan and onlookers, 16x9 options for the Panasonic DVX100 are (1) in-camera letterbox masking, and (2) use of the Panasonic anamorphic adapter.

The DVX100A adds an in-camera 16x9 stretch option to that list.

[Barry Green]

Care to explain this? / True that it is interlaced, but it's still the full res. even if it is spread over time.

Interlaced cameras employ a vertical blur to spread thin line detail across fields, thus reducing interfield flicker. The result is an overall reduction of resolution. Yes you have 480 pixels, but they're only resolving 360 discrete individual lines. According to Steve Mullen's article "Progressive: What You Need To Know", the net effect of the line-pair summation and interfield blur process is that interlaced cameras max out at 360 lines of res.

When in interlaced mode, the DVX also employs the vertical blur that all interlaced cameras use.

The DVX is unique in that (in progressive mode) it also lets you avoid that resolution-robbing interline blur.

When in Progressive mode, you can choose to skip that filter. Choosing THICK line detail leaves the filter in place, THIN removes it (with the potential side effect that THIN footage may flicker on an interlaced TV).

You can see the effects clearly over at bealecorner.com. Compare this resolution chart, shot in interlaced/thick detail:
http://bealecorner.com/trv900/cats/res-dvx-int-f80.jpg

against this one, shot on progressive/thin detail:
http://bealecorner.com/trv900/cats/r...-f48-normg.jpg

The thin line detail version is so much higher resolution that it's fairly startling.

The PDX10's benefit is that instead of stretching 360 interlaced pixels into 16:9 (which gives you a net of about 270 lines of resolution, like the VX2100); it keeps 480 interlaced pixels (which gives you a net of about 360 lines of resolution).

The DVX, in progressive/thin detail, lets you stretch 360 progressive thin pixels (with a full 360 lines of res) over 480 interlaced lines, keeping all 360 lines of resolution.

In other words, yes, a DVX can deliver the highest-resolution 16:9 of any prosumer camera. It delivers 16:9 with just as much resolution and detail as a PDX10 -- but with better low-light sensitivity, filmlike progressive-scan, no vertical smear, shallower DOF, and all the other benefits of the DVX (which benefits come at a price, since it's $1000 more than a PDX10).

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

Great post Barry! I was not aware of the resolution loss from that filter in interlaced cameras. Now I am frustrated because of the impossibility of turning of such a filter in the PDX10. Of course the PDX10 has no real progressive mode anyway. Do you think Panny's new cam, the '30, which seems quite a PDX10 killer, has a similar non-filtered progressive scan mode? This would also make it as good as the PDX100 for 16:9 if your analysis is correct.

Still... I beleive where most video cameras average two pixel rows to generate each field, the PDX10 does not need to do that because it's CCD has much more pixels than NTSC or PAL, so what you are stating might not apply in this case. I would really like to see some resolution charts from the PDX10. By the way, there is nothing in the pix you linked to that indicates they are in 16x9 mode, they might actually be in 4x3 mode... hence the high resolution.

Any ideas on this Boyd?

[Boyd Ostroff]

Panasonic's DVC-30 brochure states that it does not shoot in true progressive mode. Interestingly, my own res chart tests with the VX-2000 and PDX-10 in 16:9 mode fall somewhere within this ballpark: http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10/chart/07.jpeg. The VX-2000 doesn't quite seem to make it to 270 lines but the PDX-10 looks good up to about 400 lines.

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

So, has the PDX10 finally found it's 3CCD 16x9 match in the sub US$5k category?

[Evan Clare]

Great! So there is hope for my 16:9 movie! Btw, I never realized how good a forum where everybody knows everyone by their real names could be. Thanks a lot guys.

[Ken Tanaka]

<<<-- Originally posted by Evan Clare : ... Btw, I never realized how good a forum where everybody knows everyone by their real names could be. Thanks a lot guys. -->>>

Thank Chris Hurd for that policy. It does make for a nice community feeling.

[Barry Green]

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : By the way, there is nothing in the pix you linked to that indicates they are in 16x9 mode, they might actually be in 4x3 mode... hence the high resolution. -->>>

That is correct, those charts were in 4:3, because the DVX100 has no 16:9 mode (although the new 100A does, and Adam Wilt shot a res chart in progressive-scan which showed 360 lines).

The DVX100 can be stretched to 16:9 in post, and the 360 lines holds up all the way.

As far as the PDX10 rez chart, Boyd's matches exactly with what I've seen from other sources. But it's hard to truly tell where the lines start converging: to my eyes, John Beale's DVX100/progressive chart sure looks like it goes all the way to 550 lines, but that's simply not possible on a 480-pixel grid, so some rounding errors are going to occur.

[Evan Clare]

So if Im using the DVX100 (not 100A) then I can just film regular 4:3 with progressive/thin line and then just stretch it in Premiere and it will be fine? Nice!

P.S. *thanks Chris Hurd* :)

[Barry Green]

Well, I don't know about whether it'll be fine if stretched in Premiere... the quality of the resizing algorithm is paramount to the quality of the finished footage. Stretching in After Effects might deliver better results. I got excellent results by stretching in Vegas, but couldn't get satisfactory results from my tests in Premiere. As long as whatever program you use has a high-quality resize algorithm you should be in good shape.