16:9 Real World Result with PD's and VX's

Boyd Ostroff · August 10th, 2003, 01:18 PM

I tried that quite awhile ago, and IIRC the results were similar to the builtin 16:9. Also, is the aspect ratio correct using this method or is it slightly distorted? Sorry, don't really have time to run this test at the moment...

Blair Erickson · August 14th, 2003, 09:56 AM

The two settings that make raw footage on the PD150 look like film... progressive scan and 16:9 seem to disable each other when they are turned on. Widescreen mode isn't listed as an option once progressive scan is on.

Is there any way around that?

Boyd Ostroff · August 14th, 2003, 01:08 PM

Sure, just crop it afterwards. Alternately you could probably use a memory mix matte, or "slim" mode (do these work in prog scan.?.. can't remember). It appears that the wide mode on the VX-2000 yields significantly worse results than cropping anyway... see this test

Robbie Smolinsky · August 14th, 2003, 01:49 PM

I believe cropping it afterwards is the only solution. I just tried, and you cannot use the memory stick for mattes in progressive scan mode. I did so by putting it in progressive mode first, then trying to matte (which it rejected me from doing) and then by putting the matte up and then trying progressive scan, but it would no longer allow to click to enable it. So it appears as though there is no way around from within the normal camera functions, but cropping in post is always a good option.

Robbie

Lucas Hall · August 15th, 2003, 02:50 PM

How is Progressive Scan on the PD150 in lowlight? Do event videographers use it often, especially in lowlight receptions?

Thanks,
Lucas

Scott Anderson · August 15th, 2003, 09:11 PM

I'm pretty sure the progressive scan is only 15fps. More like film in that it's progressive, but surely not enough fps for anything other than maybe web streaming. I guess you could also use it if you know for certain you're going to slo-mo or stobe the footage in post later...

Patrick Grealy · January 5th, 2004, 04:15 AM

Hello All

Was thinking about getting a second PDX10 so as to multicam in 'true' 16:9. Then I saw this the following is on the Sony spec sheet for the PD170P. (PAL version) [ I know that the PAL 170 has been withdrawn so as to fix an audio bug]

"The DSR-PD170 is capable of widescreen 16:9 acquisition image capturing (video only), producing true 16:9 images. This is different from the letterboxing view commonly used in many equivalent models. "

I am surprised because, initially, the PD170 was not being hailed as a TRUE 16:9 device as the PDX10 is heralded.

I would have thought that true 16:9 capabilities would be a HUGE thing for the PD170P (especially since the PD150 did not have true 16:9)

Is there really any difference filming 16:9 between the PDX10 and the PD170?

May get a PD170 if there is not.

Thanks P

Rob Lohman · January 5th, 2004, 06:41 AM

I did a bit of research on the sony Broadcast & Professional site
and the camera is being said to have the following feature:

" 16:9/4:3 aspect ratio switchable. 4:3 aspect ratio native "

This tells you that the chips are 4:3 native and thus the 16:9
aspect ratio must be an electronic stretch. Also the chips resolution
and photo resolution doesn't suggest a true 16:9 chip.

Boyd Ostroff · January 5th, 2004, 09:17 AM

Technically I guess they are correct in that it is a "true" anamorphic image that's been vertically stretched instead of just letterboxed in 4:3. But the important thing is how it was created, which is evidently the same as the VX-2000 and PD-150 since the CCD's are still the same.

Frederic Segard · January 5th, 2004, 10:40 PM

If you want good quality, avoid the 16:9 stretch mode. Electronic stretch is fine... if you like fine! If you want true pristeen 16:9 with a PD170 or 150, then get yourself an anamorphic lens, such as the Century Optics.

Shawn Mielke · January 13th, 2004, 09:28 PM

Thought I'd tack my question onto this related, recent, and shortlived thread.

I'm very curious about the Century Optics 16:9 adaptor for the pd150/170.
I just did a search on it and got mixed general comments mostly from people who only knew ABOUT it's performance, and hadn't actually used it.

Is anyone using this piece of glass?
Is it the Bee's knees?
Have you used others, such as the other well recommended one from Optex?
Can you point me in the direction of competent articles/reviews about
it/them?
Tom? ;-)
If, in the next year, I decide to pick up the PD170, will an adaptor 16:9 cut well with PDX10 16:9?
Are adaptors often more trouble than they're worth? Do they take away more than they give?
If you were stuck on a desert island, which kitchen appliance would you, uh, um, oh, never mind, wrong forum.
;-]

Boyd Ostroff · January 14th, 2004, 09:09 PM

Did you see the reviews in DV magazine?

Century: http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?Loo...turyoptics0901
Optex: http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?Loo...eview/wilt0202

(you may need to register in order to read these)

Shawn Mielke · January 14th, 2004, 10:09 PM

Thanks, Boyd.

Any users out there?

Douglas Johnson · June 2nd, 2004, 03:38 PM

Read a lot lately about reasons not to us widescreen setting on my VX2000. Are all these things true. My tests don't look bad.

Should I forget the widescreen setting and shoot masking the top & bottom of my monitor.?

I am about to start shooting a short, but I have HIGH expectations (don't we all) for its use. What should be my approach, in this regard, for it being accepted for competition and whatever other showing it might enjoy.

Thanks,

Douglas

Craig Seeman · June 2nd, 2004, 11:46 PM

I've used the 16x9 mode on PD150 (same video quality as 2000).

It's not as good as a true anamorphic lense. BUT you get full use of zoom and no focus problems etc. that a lense might cause.

As built in 16x9 stretch goes, it's one of the better ones. It's not as good as true 16x9 CCDs.

BTW I saw a review of the DVX100A recently and it said that its stretch looked very good in progressive but in interlace it looked corser than the PD170.

Do understand that 16x9 is not simply masked. It will look streched unless played on 16x9 monitor.

I'm actually working on a music documentary and we're shooting the whole thing in 16x9 stretch with PD150/170. I converting it to 4x3 with black bands on top and bottom for VHS screening copies.

August 14th, 2003, 09:56 AM	#92
Blair Erickson Tourist Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2	Using Progressive Scan at the same time as 16:9... possible? The two settings that make raw footage on the PD150 look like film... progressive scan and 16:9 seem to disable each other when they are turned on. Widescreen mode isn't listed as an option once progressive scan is on. Is there any way around that?

January 5th, 2004, 04:15 AM	#97
Patrick Grealy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 90	Exact 16:9 capabilities of PD170 ? Hello All Was thinking about getting a second PDX10 so as to multicam in 'true' 16:9. Then I saw this the following is on the Sony spec sheet for the PD170P. (PAL version) [ I know that the PAL 170 has been withdrawn so as to fix an audio bug] "The DSR-PD170 is capable of widescreen 16:9 acquisition image capturing (video only), producing true 16:9 images. This is different from the letterboxing view commonly used in many equivalent models. " I am surprised because, initially, the PD170 was not being hailed as a TRUE 16:9 device as the PDX10 is heralded. I would have thought that true 16:9 capabilities would be a HUGE thing for the PD170P (especially since the PD150 did not have true 16:9) Is there really any difference filming 16:9 between the PDX10 and the PD170? May get a PD170 if there is not. Thanks P __________________ Sony PDX10 by 2, DRS-11, Dual G5, FCX, DVDSP and Logic Plat. www.VarsityMusicVideo.com

January 5th, 2004, 06:41 AM	#98
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I did a bit of research on the sony Broadcast & Professional site and the camera is being said to have the following feature: " 16:9/4:3 aspect ratio switchable. 4:3 aspect ratio native " This tells you that the chips are 4:3 native and thus the 16:9 aspect ratio must be an electronic stretch. Also the chips resolution and photo resolution doesn't suggest a true 16:9 chip. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 13th, 2004, 09:28 PM	#101
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Speaking of CO 16:9... Thought I'd tack my question onto this related, recent, and shortlived thread. I'm very curious about the Century Optics 16:9 adaptor for the pd150/170. I just did a search on it and got mixed general comments mostly from people who only knew ABOUT it's performance, and hadn't actually used it. Is anyone using this piece of glass? Is it the Bee's knees? Have you used others, such as the other well recommended one from Optex? Can you point me in the direction of competent articles/reviews about it/them? Tom? ;-) If, in the next year, I decide to pick up the PD170, will an adaptor 16:9 cut well with PDX10 16:9? Are adaptors often more trouble than they're worth? Do they take away more than they give? If you were stuck on a desert island, which kitchen appliance would you, uh, um, oh, never mind, wrong forum. ;-] __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

January 14th, 2004, 10:09 PM	#103
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Thanks, Boyd. Any users out there? __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

August 10th, 2003, 01:18 PM	#91
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I tried that quite awhile ago, and IIRC the results were similar to the builtin 16:9. Also, is the aspect ratio correct using this method or is it slightly distorted? Sorry, don't really have time to run this test at the moment...

August 14th, 2003, 01:08 PM	#93
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Sure, just crop it afterwards. Alternately you could probably use a memory mix matte, or "slim" mode (do these work in prog scan.?.. can't remember). It appears that the wide mode on the VX-2000 yields significantly worse results than cropping anyway... see this test

August 14th, 2003, 01:49 PM	#94
Robbie Smolinsky Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Binghamton, NY Posts: 142	I believe cropping it afterwards is the only solution. I just tried, and you cannot use the memory stick for mattes in progressive scan mode. I did so by putting it in progressive mode first, then trying to matte (which it rejected me from doing) and then by putting the matte up and then trying progressive scan, but it would no longer allow to click to enable it. So it appears as though there is no way around from within the normal camera functions, but cropping in post is always a good option. Robbie

August 15th, 2003, 02:50 PM	#95
Lucas Hall Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 45	How is Progressive Scan on the PD150 in lowlight? Do event videographers use it often, especially in lowlight receptions? Thanks, Lucas

August 15th, 2003, 09:11 PM	#96
Scott Anderson Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 327	I'm pretty sure the progressive scan is only 15fps. More like film in that it's progressive, but surely not enough fps for anything other than maybe web streaming. I guess you could also use it if you know for certain you're going to slo-mo or stobe the footage in post later...

January 5th, 2004, 09:17 AM	#99
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Technically I guess they are correct in that it is a "true" anamorphic image that's been vertically stretched instead of just letterboxed in 4:3. But the important thing is how it was created, which is evidently the same as the VX-2000 and PD-150 since the CCD's are still the same.

January 5th, 2004, 10:40 PM	#100
Frederic Segard Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 209	If you want good quality, avoid the 16:9 stretch mode. Electronic stretch is fine... if you like fine! If you want true pristeen 16:9 with a PD170 or 150, then get yourself an anamorphic lens, such as the Century Optics.

January 14th, 2004, 09:09 PM	#102
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Did you see the reviews in DV magazine? Century: http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?Loo...turyoptics0901 Optex: http://www.dv.com/print_me.jhtml?Loo...eview/wilt0202 (you may need to register in order to read these)

June 2nd, 2004, 03:38 PM	#104
Douglas Johnson New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 20	16:9 Read a lot lately about reasons not to us widescreen setting on my VX2000. Are all these things true. My tests don't look bad. Should I forget the widescreen setting and shoot masking the top & bottom of my monitor.? I am about to start shooting a short, but I have HIGH expectations (don't we all) for its use. What should be my approach, in this regard, for it being accepted for competition and whatever other showing it might enjoy. Thanks, Douglas

June 2nd, 2004, 11:46 PM	#105
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	I've used the 16x9 mode on PD150 (same video quality as 2000). It's not as good as a true anamorphic lense. BUT you get full use of zoom and no focus problems etc. that a lense might cause. As built in 16x9 stretch goes, it's one of the better ones. It's not as good as true 16x9 CCDs. BTW I saw a review of the DVX100A recently and it said that its stretch looked very good in progressive but in interlace it looked corser than the PD170. Do understand that 16x9 is not simply masked. It will look streched unless played on 16x9 monitor. I'm actually working on a music documentary and we're shooting the whole thing in 16x9 stretch with PD150/170. I converting it to 4x3 with black bands on top and bottom for VHS screening copies.