|
|||||||||
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: orlando florida
Posts: 426
|
curious about 16:9 discussion
Hello all,
I was reading another thread on the VX2100/PDP 170 area.. where someone was asking opinions on widescreen 16:9.. and it was mentioned that they should try the PDX 10.. Which is of course good advice.. Someone also alluded to the idea (and this is not the first time i have heard this) that the PDX-10 picture was actually better in 16:9 mode versus 4:3 mode.. Can someone give me a explanation or maybe opinion of why this would be so?? Thanks, Mike M. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
RED Problem Solver
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,365
|
I don't think it's better in 16x9 - it looks equally excellent in both 4x3 and 16x9 to my eyes. Although I rarely if ever go into 4x3 as I bought it for the 16x9!
Graeme
__________________
www.nattress.com - filters for FCP |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Camarillo
Posts: 27
|
16x9 is a beautifull format.
__________________
Dual 2 G5 PDX-10 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Amsterdam NL -Turnhout BE
Posts: 158
|
Re: curious about 16:9 discussion
<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Moncrief : Hello all,
I was reading another thread on the VX2100/PDP 170 area.. where someone was asking opinions on widescreen 16:9.. and it was mentioned that they should try the PDX 10.. Which is of course good advice.. Someone also alluded to the idea (and this is not the first time i have heard this) that the PDX-10 picture was actually better in 16:9 mode versus 4:3 mode.. Can someone give me a explanation or maybe opinion of why this would be so?? Thanks, Mike M. -->>> I have a PDX10p and for what I see, Ithink the PDX10(p) is optimally tuned for 16x9. I think this cam cannot be optimalised for both settings. The vertical resolution is a bit better in 16x9 then with 3x4. The horizontal resolution is difficult to judge and to compare but seems near to be the maximum one can expect from the DV format in 16x9. Overall I like the picture in 16x9 better then 3x4. The overall impression in 16x9 is very sharp with a high resolution very much towards DV maximum performance. See EIA1956 16x9 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
|
Tests of the camera in the 4:3 and the 16:9 mode show that switching to widescreen noticeably reduces viewfinder vertical resolution as black bars appear to show the new aspect ratio. Graph paper filming tests show that the 16:9 mode uses 10% less vertical CCD pixels than in the 4:3 mode but 20% more horizontal pixels. In a perfect world the vertical resolution would remain unaffected and the horizontal pixel count would increase by 25%, but this Sony solution is most certainly a step in the right direction. Low light sensitivity, Steady Shot and camera control are all unaffected by the switch to widescreen, though the telephoto reach is somewhat reduced and the slight barrel distortion visible at the wide-angle end of the zoom becomes more apparent.
tom. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 932
|
Vertical use of the CCD array does not seem to vary from 4:3 to 16:9 (in video modes) in the NTSC version. Perhaps Sony had to reduce vertical resolution in the PAL version because the DSP or data bus does not have enough bandwidth for all those pixels.
__________________
Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Is this what you guys are talking about vertical loss with the PDX10 in 16:9? That would mean that there is a vertical zoom when going back to tape and that equates to resolution loss (doesn't look like much though).
http://www.maxent.org/video/images/1...ompared_sm.png |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Santiago, Chile
Posts: 932
|
I don't think there would be a res. loss because the CCD is quite oversampled for video.
__________________
Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
Anyone else have info on this? http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 164
|
853?
Where did that number come from? Julian |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Quote:
The PDX10 anamorphically squeezes its 16:9 image to 720x480 and then your DVD player displays it as 853x480. http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/aspectratios.htm |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 164
|
I agree the ratio of the width to the height of a 16:9 image is 853:480. But I don't think you'll ever find 853 pixels being passed around the place - this ratio exists only in the analogue world of transmission.
The PDX10 is capturing 720x480 pixels. These pixels correspond to different areas of the (analogue) CCD depending on which mode you are in. But whether 4:3 or 16:9, there are 720 horizontal pixels, not 853 or any other number. It's likely that digital widescreen sets with displays larger than 720 pixels across or 480 pixels high may upconvert the digital video to a different frame size at some point in the transmission path. But that's way after the PDX10 has passed its image on! Regards, Julian |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 1,415
|
Sure the PDX10 writes to tape at 720x480 because of the limitations of the DV format. The anamorphic process is carried out before its written to tape and in the PDX10's case takes advantage of the megapixel CCD. The "video actual" of its 16:9 mode is not published from what I've seen but its more than likely 853x480 or larger.
My Panasonic NV-GS100 (NTSC) captures a 934x576 section of the CCD and then extracts a 720x460 image. Then as its written to tape there is a 1.04x vertical zoom to achieve DV's 720x480. It would be nice to see the same information published for the PDX10. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 164
|
Ah, I misunderstood your post.
Julian |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Wrangler
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,791
|
Have you seen the images and notes at http://www.techshop.net/PDX-10? Using a the PAL version the author compared coverage in still photo mode (1152x864) to the video modes. He theorizes the PDX-10 uses 1152x648 of its CCD pixels for 16:9 and 960x720 for 4:3.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| ||||||
|
|