Sony Pal Dcr-pc350e 25p 16:9 5x Supersampling Mighty Atom

Nicolas Sierro · October 18th, 2004, 10:04 AM

I am considering buying a pc350e and was therefore interested in the footages (especially the 16:9 25p) provided in the original post. I can however not access the email account with the supplied login and password. Could someone repost these footages or equivalent ones ?

Many thanks,

Nicolas

John Jay · October 18th, 2004, 11:39 AM

Nicolas

You are correct, it seems someone has changed the password.

Obviously the action of an immature individual.

The size of the files is c. 50 meg if you have space I can upload it there - I cannot email (10 meg limit)

I shall report this to the moderator

Chris Hurd · October 18th, 2004, 05:21 PM

For all our members, for future reference please do yourselves a favor and do NOT post your webmail account info and password. Although the vast majority of our readers are honest, all it takes is one unscrupulous individual to muck things up. For video files, we have plenty of server space here at DV Info Net and I'm always happy to host clips that are worthy of viewing. This is much more secure than trusting strangers with your account info. Sorry about this John, you should contact Yahoo's admins and get this situation rectified. Good luck,

Sean McHenry · October 20th, 2004, 07:15 PM

Only one comment on all this and that's a bit of symantics. I wouldn't go around stating the PDX10 "crops" to 16:9. There is no cropping about it, it does 16:9, not a cropped 4:3. It's a rare bird that has 16:9 in a native mode.

That's all.

Sean

Kurth Bousman · October 20th, 2004, 09:39 PM

Sean - I think the "cropping " is referring to how the 16:9 image is sampled off the ccd - it uses or crops a portion in the correct ratio off the ccd to create a 16 x 9 image that is unsqueezed and of course, after sampling at full 16:9 , then anamorphically squeezes the image into the dv format i.e. 720x480- I think this is what they were referring to.It's the same method , more or less , that the pany gs400 , the new canon opturas and the pc350 and hc1000 use. thanks - Kurth

Sean McHenry · October 21st, 2004, 12:40 PM

Probably what they meant. I know it's picky but it could cause some confusion. If you are saying that not using all the pixels is tantamount to cropping, then you would also have to refer to the 4:3 image as cropped also. Neither format on the PDX10 uses all the pixels in either format. They would both essentially cropped by the definition proposed.

I think it is better to simply state that the camera is a true anamorphic 16:9, non-cropped image. Cropping to me would indicate a 4:3 cropped image where you end up using less pixes in 16:9 than you would in 4:3, like the AG-DVX100. Again, the PDX10 as we know actually uses more pixels in 16:9 than 4:3 and in fact keeps it's vertical framing.

In other words, a propperly framed 4:3 image would have cut off the top of someones head when flipped to 16:9, if we are cropping to achieve the 16:9 aspect ratio. It would also be using significantly less pixels.

Like I said, I am sure we mostly all realize this by now but I would hate for someone to ignore the PDX10 for 16:9 use because they heard someone say it was a cropped image. That's all.

Have fun guys.

Sean

Boyd Ostroff · October 21st, 2004, 05:07 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Sean McHenry : In other words, a propperly framed 4:3 image would have cut off the top of someones head when flipped to 16:9, if we are cropping to achieve the 16:9 aspect ratio. -->>>

Actually on the PDX-10 if you properly framed an image in the vertical dimension and then switched it to 16:9 you would not only chop off the top their head, but also their toes! The red rectangle in this image shows the 4:3 field of view while the green shows 16:9. Although it widens in the horizontal dimension in 16:9 mode, it does chop (I won't say "crop" ;-) off the top and bottom...http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9/10.JPG

Sean McHenry · October 25th, 2004, 01:59 PM

Boyd,
True, you do loose some but overall, since you are not cropping to a 16:9 inside the original 4:3 image area, it's a whole world of difference. I will however state for the public record that I can see that it does cut some off the top and bottom. I don't think it would be as dramatic as the other option.

Still, Boyd is right and we should be aware of this here as well.

Sean

October 18th, 2004, 11:39 AM	#17
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Nicolas You are correct, it seems someone has changed the password. Obviously the action of an immature individual. The size of the files is c. 50 meg if you have space I can upload it there - I cannot email (10 meg limit) I shall report this to the moderator __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

October 18th, 2004, 05:21 PM	#18
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	For all our members, for future reference please do yourselves a favor and do NOT post your webmail account info and password. Although the vast majority of our readers are honest, all it takes is one unscrupulous individual to muck things up. For video files, we have plenty of server space here at DV Info Net and I'm always happy to host clips that are worthy of viewing. This is much more secure than trusting strangers with your account info. Sorry about this John, you should contact Yahoo's admins and get this situation rectified. Good luck, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 20th, 2004, 07:15 PM	#19
Sean McHenry Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hilliard, Ohio Posts: 1,193	Only one comment on all this and that's a bit of symantics. I wouldn't go around stating the PDX10 "crops" to 16:9. There is no cropping about it, it does 16:9, not a cropped 4:3. It's a rare bird that has 16:9 in a native mode. That's all. Sean __________________ ‘I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m shooting on D.V.’ - my hero - David Lynch http://www.DeepBlueEdit.com

October 21st, 2004, 12:40 PM	#21
Sean McHenry Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hilliard, Ohio Posts: 1,193	Probably what they meant. I know it's picky but it could cause some confusion. If you are saying that not using all the pixels is tantamount to cropping, then you would also have to refer to the 4:3 image as cropped also. Neither format on the PDX10 uses all the pixels in either format. They would both essentially cropped by the definition proposed. I think it is better to simply state that the camera is a true anamorphic 16:9, non-cropped image. Cropping to me would indicate a 4:3 cropped image where you end up using less pixes in 16:9 than you would in 4:3, like the AG-DVX100. Again, the PDX10 as we know actually uses more pixels in 16:9 than 4:3 and in fact keeps it's vertical framing. In other words, a propperly framed 4:3 image would have cut off the top of someones head when flipped to 16:9, if we are cropping to achieve the 16:9 aspect ratio. It would also be using significantly less pixels. Like I said, I am sure we mostly all realize this by now but I would hate for someone to ignore the PDX10 for 16:9 use because they heard someone say it was a cropped image. That's all. Have fun guys. Sean __________________ ‘I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m shooting on D.V.’ - my hero - David Lynch http://www.DeepBlueEdit.com

October 25th, 2004, 01:59 PM	#23
Sean McHenry Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hilliard, Ohio Posts: 1,193	Boyd, True, you do loose some but overall, since you are not cropping to a 16:9 inside the original 4:3 image area, it's a whole world of difference. I will however state for the public record that I can see that it does cut some off the top and bottom. I don't think it would be as dramatic as the other option. Still, Boyd is right and we should be aware of this here as well. Sean __________________ ‘I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m shooting on D.V.’ - my hero - David Lynch http://www.DeepBlueEdit.com

October 18th, 2004, 10:04 AM	#16
Nicolas Sierro Tourist Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Switzerland Posts: 1	I am considering buying a pc350e and was therefore interested in the footages (especially the 16:9 25p) provided in the original post. I can however not access the email account with the supplied login and password. Could someone repost these footages or equivalent ones ? Many thanks, Nicolas

October 20th, 2004, 09:39 PM	#20
Kurth Bousman Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: san miguel allende , gto , mexico Posts: 644	Sean - I think the "cropping " is referring to how the 16:9 image is sampled off the ccd - it uses or crops a portion in the correct ratio off the ccd to create a 16 x 9 image that is unsqueezed and of course, after sampling at full 16:9 , then anamorphically squeezes the image into the dv format i.e. 720x480- I think this is what they were referring to.It's the same method , more or less , that the pany gs400 , the new canon opturas and the pc350 and hc1000 use. thanks - Kurth

October 21st, 2004, 05:07 PM	#22
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- Originally posted by Sean McHenry : In other words, a propperly framed 4:3 image would have cut off the top of someones head when flipped to 16:9, if we are cropping to achieve the 16:9 aspect ratio. -->>> Actually on the PDX-10 if you properly framed an image in the vertical dimension and then switched it to 16:9 you would not only chop off the top their head, but also their toes! The red rectangle in this image shows the 4:3 field of view while the green shows 16:9. Although it widens in the horizontal dimension in 16:9 mode, it does chop (I won't say "crop" ;-) off the top and bottom...http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9/10.JPG