Sony FX1 and dv 16 x 9 shooting at DVinfo.net

Wes Mallard · November 15th, 2004, 11:29 AM

I would like to know if this camera can shoot in the 16 x 9 aspect ratio while recording in the DV format?

Has this feature been addressed somewhere, because I've been unable to find the answer.

For the near future, until delivery and edit systems are more readily available supporting the HDV standard, this camera may make an excellent dv shooting solution. I was looking for a VX2100 to accompany my VX2000, but the FX1 looks like it has a bunch of manual control features that I would like to have but are not available as readily on the VX models.

Anyone have an informed opinion on this strategy?

Wes Mallard

Heath McKnight · November 15th, 2004, 12:24 PM

I don't think so; check out the stats on the official website.

heath

Wes Mallard · November 15th, 2004, 03:10 PM

The Videomaker Nov review indicates that the FX1 can shoot in an anamorphic 16 x 9 DV mode - whatever that means.

The review covers some other points about the camera for those considering their purchase options.

Check it out:

http://www.videomaker.com/scripts/ar...10594&GU=le929

How do you get the link to be active ?

Copy and pasting does not seem to work here!

Heath McKnight · November 15th, 2004, 03:16 PM

Anamorphic is all about true 16x9.

How to make websites so they're linkable...Do this:

[url ]www.dvinfo.net/conf[/url ]

What you need to do is drop the space between the "l" and the "]" in each case. You'll end up with:

www.dvinfo.net/conf

Hope this helps,

heath

Kevin Shaw · November 15th, 2004, 04:00 PM

Anamorphic 16:9 DV implies that the camera records a wider angle of view into the fixed number of pixels defined by the DV format, effectively capturing more horizontal image per pixel--which then has to be interpreted accordingly for editing and playback. Since the FX1 has a "true" 16:9 sensor it can map that directly to a full 720x480 anamorphic image, whereas some DV cameras use workarounds which involve a loss of image quality to get a 16:9 image (some just crop the top and bottom of the picture).

Also consider that video shot and edited at HDV resolutions and then encoded to SD for final output should look about as good as you can expect SD to look--almost certainly as good as the best SD source footage. For any kind of video or photography work, starting with a higher resolution source can improve the quality of downsampled output, because the final encoding step has more data to work with.

If I was shopping for a new camera today I would definitely take a close look at the FX1 before making a final decision. If this camera has been available six months ago I would have bought one then, when I needed another camera.

Heath McKnight · November 15th, 2004, 11:02 PM

Thanks, Kevin!

heath

Boyd Ostroff · November 16th, 2004, 08:53 AM

Since there seems to be some ambiguity about this I just looked at the PDF version of the FX-1 manual from Sony's site. It clearly states that you can record in 16:9 DV mode. In the honored tradition of Sony manuals, the wording is pretty awkward, but the illustrations show anamorphic 16:9 (actually they are the same pictures of a soccer ball that all the other Sony manuals have used for years ;-)

Quote:

Recording in 16:9 wide rec mode DV
You can display pictures recorded in the DV format on the entire TV screen by setting [DV WIDE REC] on the (CAMERA SET) menu at the time of recording.

See page 40 of the manual http://www.docs.sony.com/release/HDRFX1.pdf

Chris Hurd · November 16th, 2004, 09:09 AM

See also my FX1 and Z1U Comparison Chart - Optical Group. The field of view for 16:9 mode is wider than the field of view for 4:3, which is another indicator that you're getting true 16:9, even in plain-vanilla DV mode.

Steven White · November 16th, 2004, 09:26 AM

The HDR-FX1 can shoot in 16:9 DV:

The 16:9 DV format is 720x480 with a Pixel Aspect (PA) ratio of 1.2 (i.e., 864x480 w/ square pixels)
The 4:3 DV format is 720x480 with PA ratio 0.9 (i.e., 640x480 square pixels)

HDV is shot in 16:9 at 1440x1080 - the PA ratio is 1.3333..., which (incidentally) is not supported by any of the software I have (Premiere Pro 1.0, After Effects 6.0 Std.)

Basically you can shoot in 16:9 HDV, 16:9 DV or 4:3 DV with the camera. In addition you can down-convert HDV on export to either 16:9 DV (anamorphic) or 4:3 DV (letterboxed). To do this one selects both HDV->DV iLink convert and either a 16:9 or 4:3 TV type for anamorphic and letterboxed video respectively.

So far as I can tell there's no HDV->DV "pan and scan" option to output full-frame 4:3 video (though I would personally never be interested in this feature).

The only way to get full-frame 4:3 video out of the HDR-FX1 is to shoot in 4:3 DV mode.

I can further report, that on DV export the camera also handles the interlaced frames appropriately, rendering out Cineframe 24 clips as 2:3 interlaced DV footage as well without any artifacts that I could notice.

-Steve

Heath McKnight · November 16th, 2004, 03:08 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : even in plain-vanilla DV mode. -->>>

I never thought I'd hear DV as "plain-vanilla..."

heath

Boyd Ostroff · November 16th, 2004, 03:35 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : The 16:9 DV format is 720x480 with a Pixel Aspect (PA) ratio of 1.2 (i.e., 864x480 w/ square pixels) -->>>

Are you sure about this; it would be non-standard? 16:9 on a square pixel device is normally 854x480 (some screens are 852x480). If what you say is true then everything would be a bit distorted on an enhanced definition (ED) monitor like a plasma screen. It would also scale improperly on a 1280x720 HD screen....

Kevin Shaw · November 16th, 2004, 03:54 PM

Boyd: DV by definition is 720x480 pixels, so using that to maximum advantage requires adjusting pixel aspect ratios as Steve described. In other words, the image is horizontally compressed during recording and then expanded on playback to fill the correct area on a TV or computer screen. This is generally referred to as "anamorphic" video, and most DVD players know how to deal with this. The alternative is to simply crop the top and bottom of an image during recording to get 16:9 video with black bars at the top and bottom, but then you're losing image quality compared to the anamorphic approach.

Boyd Ostroff · November 16th, 2004, 04:23 PM

Kevin, I'm quite aware of all this. What I question is Steven's statement that 16:9 is 864x480. It should be 854x480. 480 x 16 / 9 = 853.33 which is generally rounded up to 854, and not 864. Please read my post again about why this would be a problem.

Steven White · November 16th, 2004, 04:48 PM

720*1.2 = 864

It was just a back of the envellope calculation. Technically the ratio should be 1.1815181518151... but I have no idea how many significant figures are carried, nor if a human would even notice the difference. Furthermore, I am under the impression there is overscan and interpolation on most plasma displays anyway, so an upsampling error of +/- 10 pixels wouldn't make a lot of difference.

As for the 1280x720 screens, my impression was that most were 1280x768 or some such bizarre resolution.

With multiple video standards that are not integer multiples in terms of resolution, there's no way that a digital display will be made that displays without any scaling solutions... Which is one of the reasons I decided not to worry about the HDR-FX1 and it's 1.333333333... pixel aspect ratio.

-Steve

Boyd Ostroff · November 16th, 2004, 05:35 PM

Granted, we are probably splitting hairs here, but I find the topic interesting... If it's really 16:9 aspect ratio then 16 / 9 = 1.778, so 854 / 480 = 1.779. Now 864 / 480 = 1.80 and I suppose that's pretty close, but not quite right.

All of the ED plasma screens that I've seen are either 852 x 480 or 854 x 480; I think this is also known as WVGA. There do seem to be some 1280 x 768 LCD screens - I have a 17" Sony LCD like this - but 1280 x 720 is actually the HD standard and I have a 22" Samsung LCD with this resolution. I've also seen this refered to as WXGA.

Now it seems that the different TV manufacturers do play pretty loose with their screen aspect ratios. Just look in a showroom and you can see that widescreen TV's have different proportions. For example:

My 17" Sony monitor measures 14.625" x 8.875", which works out to an aspect ratio of ~1.65:1. That isn't too far from its pixel dimensions of 1280 x 768 which would be 1.67:1 however.

My 22" Samsung is 19.25" x 10.875" which would be 1.77:1, pretty close to the pixel dimensions of 1280 x 720 which would be 1.78:1.

However my impression is that both screens overscan about the same (~2%), so the 17" monitor is squashing things a little to fit. The image certainly looks more like "widescreen" on the 22" screen at 1.77:1.

November 15th, 2004, 11:29 AM	#1
Wes Mallard New Boot Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 8	Sony FX1 and dv 16 x 9 shooting I would like to know if this camera can shoot in the 16 x 9 aspect ratio while recording in the DV format? Has this feature been addressed somewhere, because I've been unable to find the answer. For the near future, until delivery and edit systems are more readily available supporting the HDV standard, this camera may make an excellent dv shooting solution. I was looking for a VX2100 to accompany my VX2000, but the FX1 looks like it has a bunch of manual control features that I would like to have but are not available as readily on the VX models. Anyone have an informed opinion on this strategy? Wes Mallard

November 15th, 2004, 12:24 PM	#2
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	I don't think so; check out the stats on the official website. heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

November 15th, 2004, 03:10 PM	#3
Wes Mallard New Boot Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 8	Answering my own question The Videomaker Nov review indicates that the FX1 can shoot in an anamorphic 16 x 9 DV mode - whatever that means. The review covers some other points about the camera for those considering their purchase options. Check it out: http://www.videomaker.com/scripts/ar...10594&GU=le929 How do you get the link to be active ? Copy and pasting does not seem to work here!

November 15th, 2004, 03:16 PM	#4
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Anamorphic is all about true 16x9. How to make websites so they're linkable...Do this: [url ]www.dvinfo.net/conf[/url ] What you need to do is drop the space between the "l" and the "]" in each case. You'll end up with: www.dvinfo.net/conf Hope this helps, heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

November 15th, 2004, 11:02 PM	#6
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Thanks, Kevin! heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

November 15th, 2004, 04:00 PM	#5
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Anamorphic 16:9 DV implies that the camera records a wider angle of view into the fixed number of pixels defined by the DV format, effectively capturing more horizontal image per pixel--which then has to be interpreted accordingly for editing and playback. Since the FX1 has a "true" 16:9 sensor it can map that directly to a full 720x480 anamorphic image, whereas some DV cameras use workarounds which involve a loss of image quality to get a 16:9 image (some just crop the top and bottom of the picture). Also consider that video shot and edited at HDV resolutions and then encoded to SD for final output should look about as good as you can expect SD to look--almost certainly as good as the best SD source footage. For any kind of video or photography work, starting with a higher resolution source can improve the quality of downsampled output, because the final encoding step has more data to work with. If I was shopping for a new camera today I would definitely take a close look at the FX1 before making a final decision. If this camera has been available six months ago I would have bought one then, when I needed another camera.

November 16th, 2004, 09:09 AM	#8
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	See also my FX1 and Z1U Comparison Chart - Optical Group. The field of view for 16:9 mode is wider than the field of view for 4:3, which is another indicator that you're getting true 16:9, even in plain-vanilla DV mode. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

November 16th, 2004, 09:26 AM	#9
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	The HDR-FX1 can shoot in 16:9 DV: The 16:9 DV format is 720x480 with a Pixel Aspect (PA) ratio of 1.2 (i.e., 864x480 w/ square pixels) The 4:3 DV format is 720x480 with PA ratio 0.9 (i.e., 640x480 square pixels) HDV is shot in 16:9 at 1440x1080 - the PA ratio is 1.3333..., which (incidentally) is not supported by any of the software I have (Premiere Pro 1.0, After Effects 6.0 Std.) Basically you can shoot in 16:9 HDV, 16:9 DV or 4:3 DV with the camera. In addition you can down-convert HDV on export to either 16:9 DV (anamorphic) or 4:3 DV (letterboxed). To do this one selects both HDV->DV iLink convert and either a 16:9 or 4:3 TV type for anamorphic and letterboxed video respectively. So far as I can tell there's no HDV->DV "pan and scan" option to output full-frame 4:3 video (though I would personally never be interested in this feature). The only way to get full-frame 4:3 video out of the HDR-FX1 is to shoot in 4:3 DV mode. I can further report, that on DV export the camera also handles the interlaced frames appropriately, rendering out Cineframe 24 clips as 2:3 interlaced DV footage as well without any artifacts that I could notice. -Steve

November 16th, 2004, 03:08 PM	#10
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : even in plain-vanilla DV mode. -->>> I never thought I'd hear DV as "plain-vanilla..." heath __________________ My Final Cut Pro X blog

November 16th, 2004, 03:35 PM	#11
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	<<<-- Originally posted by Steven White : The 16:9 DV format is 720x480 with a Pixel Aspect (PA) ratio of 1.2 (i.e., 864x480 w/ square pixels) -->>> Are you sure about this; it would be non-standard? 16:9 on a square pixel device is normally 854x480 (some screens are 852x480). If what you say is true then everything would be a bit distorted on an enhanced definition (ED) monitor like a plasma screen. It would also scale improperly on a 1280x720 HD screen....

November 16th, 2004, 03:54 PM	#12
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	Boyd: DV by definition is 720x480 pixels, so using that to maximum advantage requires adjusting pixel aspect ratios as Steve described. In other words, the image is horizontally compressed during recording and then expanded on playback to fill the correct area on a TV or computer screen. This is generally referred to as "anamorphic" video, and most DVD players know how to deal with this. The alternative is to simply crop the top and bottom of an image during recording to get 16:9 video with black bars at the top and bottom, but then you're losing image quality compared to the anamorphic approach.

November 16th, 2004, 04:23 PM	#13
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	Kevin, I'm quite aware of all this. What I question is Steven's statement that 16:9 is 864x480. It should be 854x480. 480 x 16 / 9 = 853.33 which is generally rounded up to 854, and not 864. Please read my post again about why this would be a problem.

November 16th, 2004, 04:48 PM	#14
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	720*1.2 = 864 It was just a back of the envellope calculation. Technically the ratio should be 1.1815181518151... but I have no idea how many significant figures are carried, nor if a human would even notice the difference. Furthermore, I am under the impression there is overscan and interpolation on most plasma displays anyway, so an upsampling error of +/- 10 pixels wouldn't make a lot of difference. As for the 1280x720 screens, my impression was that most were 1280x768 or some such bizarre resolution. With multiple video standards that are not integer multiples in terms of resolution, there's no way that a digital display will be made that displays without any scaling solutions... Which is one of the reasons I decided not to worry about the HDR-FX1 and it's 1.333333333... pixel aspect ratio. -Steve

November 16th, 2004, 05:35 PM	#15
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,800	Granted, we are probably splitting hairs here, but I find the topic interesting... If it's really 16:9 aspect ratio then 16 / 9 = 1.778, so 854 / 480 = 1.779. Now 864 / 480 = 1.80 and I suppose that's pretty close, but not quite right. All of the ED plasma screens that I've seen are either 852 x 480 or 854 x 480; I think this is also known as WVGA. There do seem to be some 1280 x 768 LCD screens - I have a 17" Sony LCD like this - but 1280 x 720 is actually the HD standard and I have a 22" Samsung LCD with this resolution. I've also seen this refered to as WXGA. Now it seems that the different TV manufacturers do play pretty loose with their screen aspect ratios. Just look in a showroom and you can see that widescreen TV's have different proportions. For example: My 17" Sony monitor measures 14.625" x 8.875", which works out to an aspect ratio of ~1.65:1. That isn't too far from its pixel dimensions of 1280 x 768 which would be 1.67:1 however. My 22" Samsung is 19.25" x 10.875" which would be 1.77:1, pretty close to the pixel dimensions of 1280 x 720 which would be 1.78:1. However my impression is that both screens overscan about the same (~2%), so the 17" monitor is squashing things a little to fit. The image certainly looks more like "widescreen" on the 22" screen at 1.77:1.