16x9 on VX2100 at DVinfo.net

Davis Lee · August 20th, 2005, 08:47 PM

I am considering getting the 2100

I require the 16x9 and I was wondering if its any good. I know the 2000 is bad with 16x9 but I havent heard anything with 2100

thanks

Mike Rehmus · August 20th, 2005, 09:38 PM

same thing

Boyd Ostroff · August 21st, 2005, 06:49 AM

The 2000 and 2100 are great cameras (I have a 2000), but 16:9 is really not very good on them. Basically you can get the same results by shooting 4:3 and cropping in post. If 16:9 is important and you like the Sony cameras, then see if you can find a few extra dollars to get the FX1. Of course it shoots HDV, but you can also use it in DV mode and it'll give you excellent 16:9. The manual controls are also a lot better than the 2100, and there are a lot more options for image control.

If that's beyond your budget, consider the PDX-10, which is actually considerably cheaper than the 2100 ($1,600 with rebate - ending soon). This camera does excellent 16:9, it records DVCAM and has XLR's and a short shotgun mike like the PD-170. Rumor is that it's being discontinued however, so they might be hard to find.

Laurence Kingston · August 21st, 2005, 09:57 AM

I just do the 16:9 anamorphic format in post. I use Vegas 6 and it does this beautifully. To my eyes, the Vegas 16:9 looks better than Sony's stretch mode.

Boyd Ostroff · August 21st, 2005, 03:47 PM

I agree that Sony's in camera mode doesn't do a very good job of 16:9 and you should be able to do better in post. But the point is, no matter how you do 16:9 with the VX-2100 the image is going to be pretty mediocre. Its CCD's aren't high resolution enough to give you the full 480 scan lines in widescreen mode, so you end up with an image that was created out of 360 lines (the other 120 lines are the black area above and below the 16:9 rectangle). The result is that 25% of your vertical resolution is discarded. The FX1 and PDX10 have high resolution CCD's so the 16:9 image retains the full 480 vertical lines. The quality difference can easily be seen:

http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9

Tom Hardwick · August 22nd, 2005, 07:44 AM

Of course if you heart's set on shooting 16:9 then there are a few 1.33:1 anamorphics around that will attach to the VX2k1 just like a conventional wide-angle adapter.

tom.

Laurence Kingston · August 22nd, 2005, 03:28 PM

Anamorphic adapters are kind of a pain to use though. Mainly because you can't zoom all the way out, you can only zoom about 1/3 of the way in. They do not go very wide either. Also, focus is hard to judge on the stretched image, and autofocus is not as reliable either. I have one but I hate using it.

Boyd Ostroff · August 22nd, 2005, 05:19 PM

Looking at Centuy's website, it seems they no longer sell the old anamorphic adaptor, just the new 1.33 full zoom-through adaptor. That presumably addresses the concerns about limited zoom range, but it costs $1,300. I think that would be tough to justify for a camera like the VX-2100.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

August 20th, 2005, 08:47 PM	#1
Davis Lee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 33	16x9 on VX2100 I am considering getting the 2100 I require the 16x9 and I was wondering if its any good. I know the 2000 is bad with 16x9 but I havent heard anything with 2100 thanks

August 20th, 2005, 09:38 PM	#2
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	same thing __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

August 21st, 2005, 06:49 AM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	The 2000 and 2100 are great cameras (I have a 2000), but 16:9 is really not very good on them. Basically you can get the same results by shooting 4:3 and cropping in post. If 16:9 is important and you like the Sony cameras, then see if you can find a few extra dollars to get the FX1. Of course it shoots HDV, but you can also use it in DV mode and it'll give you excellent 16:9. The manual controls are also a lot better than the 2100, and there are a lot more options for image control. If that's beyond your budget, consider the PDX-10, which is actually considerably cheaper than the 2100 ($1,600 with rebate - ending soon). This camera does excellent 16:9, it records DVCAM and has XLR's and a short shotgun mike like the PD-170. Rumor is that it's being discontinued however, so they might be hard to find.

August 21st, 2005, 09:57 AM	#4
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	I just do the 16:9 anamorphic format in post. I use Vegas 6 and it does this beautifully. To my eyes, the Vegas 16:9 looks better than Sony's stretch mode.

August 21st, 2005, 03:47 PM	#5
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I agree that Sony's in camera mode doesn't do a very good job of 16:9 and you should be able to do better in post. But the point is, no matter how you do 16:9 with the VX-2100 the image is going to be pretty mediocre. Its CCD's aren't high resolution enough to give you the full 480 scan lines in widescreen mode, so you end up with an image that was created out of 360 lines (the other 120 lines are the black area above and below the 16:9 rectangle). The result is that 25% of your vertical resolution is discarded. The FX1 and PDX10 have high resolution CCD's so the 16:9 image retains the full 480 vertical lines. The quality difference can easily be seen: http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9

August 22nd, 2005, 07:44 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Of course if you heart's set on shooting 16:9 then there are a few 1.33:1 anamorphics around that will attach to the VX2k1 just like a conventional wide-angle adapter. tom.

August 22nd, 2005, 03:28 PM	#7
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	Anamorphic adapters are kind of a pain to use though. Mainly because you can't zoom all the way out, you can only zoom about 1/3 of the way in. They do not go very wide either. Also, focus is hard to judge on the stretched image, and autofocus is not as reliable either. I have one but I hate using it.

August 22nd, 2005, 05:19 PM	#8
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Looking at Centuy's website, it seems they no longer sell the old anamorphic adaptor, just the new 1.33 full zoom-through adaptor. That presumably addresses the concerns about limited zoom range, but it costs $1,300. I think that would be tough to justify for a camera like the VX-2100. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search