16/9 aspect ratio

[Arnaud M. St Martin de Veyran]

Hi Guys !

 

I know that there is two version of the DVX100, the A & the B :)

 

I'm wondering if any of them record on native 16/9 aspect ratio ? I think not but maybe i'm wrong.

 

Let me know...

[Richard Vialet]

Hi Guys !

 

I know that there is two version of the DVX100, the A & the B :)

 

I'm wondering if any of them record on native 16/9 aspect ratio ? I think not but maybe i'm wrong.

 

Let me know...

 

 

 

 

The 100B records native 16:9. The 100A just crops the image to that ratio.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

The 100B records native 16:9. The 100A just crops the image to that ratio.

To the best of my knowledge, all versions of the DVX100 camcorder have _native_ 4:3 CCDs.

 

They offer various methods to record 16:9 video, but the CCD image sensor chips are 4:3 shaped.

[David Mullen ASC]

To the best of my knowledge, all versions of the DVX100 camcorder have _native_ 4:3 CCDs.

 

They offer various methods to record 16:9 video, but the CCD image sensor chips are 4:3 shaped.

 

That's my understanding too -- all versions of the DVX100 have 4x3 CCD's. The original only letterboxed 4x3 to 1.78 when switched to "16x9 mode" but the later two generations have a second 16x9 mode that crops & stretches the image to 16x9 anamorphic.

 

The Canon XL2 has 4x3 CCD's where the 16x9 image is taken across the full width horizontally but the 4x3 image is taken inside a smaller 4x3 area of the overall CCD, so that both 16x9 and 4x3 images use the same number of pixels off of the CCD, so there is no loss of quality in using the camera in 16x9 mode versus 4x3 mode. The PDX10 did something similar.

[Michael McIntyre]

Thought I'd revive the thread as I'm researching this right now for an upcoming DVX100b shoot.

 

Knowing that the CCD's are native 4:3 and there can't be anything good about an in-camera digital 'squeeze' (esp. w/ a lossy codec like DV), I'm leaning towards the anamorphic adapter.

 

The confusion is thusly... I've seen many complaints about the Panasonic AG-LA7200G and its use in-field. Given the wide market and end-users for this camera series, it's very hard to guage whether these unhappy operators are accustomed to dealing with optics at all or if the unit itself is really awkward to handle / stack filters with.

 

Everyone has debated the resolution loss of all the different DVX "wide-screen" shooting modes to the nth degree. We don't need to go there.

 

The 'crop-it-in-post' approach is really a pain for long-form projects and pretty silly to boot. Composition often motivates edits. I want to be able to frame in the viewfinder for that aspect ratio and the 100b allows for that w/o an eyepiece adapter.

 

Is the adapter that much a pain? Has anyone used it? Any other thoughts on this workflow? Any input greatly appreciated (as always).......

[Timothy David Orme]

Thought I'd revive the thread as I'm researching this right now for an upcoming DVX100b shoot.

 

Knowing that the CCD's are native 4:3 and there can't be anything good about an in-camera digital 'squeeze' (esp. w/ a lossy codec like DV), I'm leaning towards the anamorphic adapter.

 

The confusion is thusly... I've seen many complaints about the Panasonic AG-LA7200G and its use in-field. Given the wide market and end-users for this camera series, it's very hard to guage whether these unhappy operators are accustomed to dealing with optics at all or if the unit itself is really awkward to handle / stack filters with.

 

Everyone has debated the resolution loss of all the different DVX "wide-screen" shooting modes to the nth degree. We don't need to go there.

 

The 'crop-it-in-post' approach is really a pain for long-form projects and pretty silly to boot. Composition often motivates edits. I want to be able to frame in the viewfinder for that aspect ratio and the 100b allows for that w/o an eyepiece adapter.

 

Is the adapter that much a pain? Has anyone used it? Any other thoughts on this workflow? Any input greatly appreciated (as always).......

 

While I have shot with a DVX100B for a few months now, I haven't used one of the anamorphic adaptors you speak of. I almost purchased one, but heard it wasn't a good idea from a few aquaintances that had. Reason being, they said it was difficult for them to go without screw on filters. I guess it depends what you want, but with an anamorphic adaptor, you have to go without the those filters.

[Hans Kellner]

The 'crop-it-in-post' approach is really a pain for long-form projects and pretty silly to boot. Composition often motivates edits. I want to be able to frame in the viewfinder for that aspect ratio and the 100b allows for that w/o an eyepiece adapter.

I wouldn't discard the 'crop-it-in-post' option. I have used it several times now with footage from a DVX100a and had fine success. It wasn't a pain at all in post. The shoots were all composed/framed for 16:9 in camera. I taped/marked off the LCD and the external monitor for the correct ratio.

 

Only a few edits adjusted the cropping in post. And it was nice having that option.

 

Is the adapter that much a pain? Has anyone used it? Any other thoughts on this workflow? Any input greatly appreciated (as always).......

I have one and the adapter is tricky to use. But many complaints I have read about appear to be just basic usage problems. For example, not knowing how to mount/unmount the lens or not understanding focusing issues.

 

It will require a little more setup time. If you want to use filters you will need a mattebox.

 

Focusing requires finding the margins for horizontal and vertical and adjusting between accordingly.

 

But an anamorphic adapter will provide the best 16:9 resolution on the DVX.

[Michael McIntyre]

Thanks for the info. Those were some of my fears regarding the adapter. I was holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, the people whinng about it just weren't used to dealing with optics. Oh, well....

 

The best approach may be to rent one for the day and give it a whirl. My last crop-it-in-post experience definitely affected my comments regarding that approach. It appeared the shooter took that workflow to heart. He must've felt that we would also re-size, focus and balance his shots too. lol.

 

Perfect world - native 16:9 ccd's or interchangeable lenses. Or, better yet, cash to buy the HVX.

[Clay Walker]

Hi,

 

I don't know if this would be of help to you as it is an LCD solution but take a look at the website for The AspectCorrect.

 

There are various clings for the DVX camera's LCD marking film aspect ratios and 16:9 (while the camera is in 4:3 mode.)

 

Clay

[Michael McIntyre]

Hi,

 

I don't know if this would be of help to you as it is an LCD solution but take a look at the website for The AspectCorrect.

 

There are various clings for the DVX camera's LCD marking film aspect ratios and 16:9 (while the camera is in 4:3 mode.)

 

Clay

 

Very cool. Thanks for the heads-up on 'AspectCorrect'.

 

Chalk it up to another "D'oh! Why I didn't I think of that?!??!?" product.

[Brian Wengrofsky]

Very cool. Thanks for the heads-up on 'AspectCorrect'.

 

Chalk it up to another "D'oh! Why I didn't I think of that?!??!?" product.

 

Great idea. Shooters who use this would do well to shoot a framing chart using the lines in the overlay as a reference.

[Clay Walker]

Very cool. Thanks for the heads-up on 'AspectCorrect'. Chalk it up to another "D'oh! Why I didn't I think of that?!??!?" product.

I LOVE that quote!

 

My documentary short "The Cole Nobody Knows" will be screening at the Lammle Grande 4-Plex August 23-29. The screenings will be 8 pm. daily. They haven't updated their website yet, but should today.

 

http://www.laemmle.com/new.php?date=08232006&thid=10

 

The film was shot with the DVX100A using an AspectCorrect and uprezed to HDcam for this screening. I actually developed the AC during this project and really liked the flexibility of being able to adjust the 4:3 image in post.

 

The film is about pianist & vocalist Freddy Cole, who just happens the amazingly talented younger brother of Nat "King" Cole. Mr. Cole is about to celebrate his 75th birthday in a couple of weeks.

 

Please check it out the film if you get a chance.

 

The film's official website is:

 

http://www.planbproductions.com/Freddy_Cole/

[Michael McIntyre]

I'd be way into that screening (if I were in L.A.). I'll keep my eyes peeled for its continued success. Must've been tough to always be referred to as "Nat's brother". Ouch.

 

The workflow you describe is exactly the direction where I was heading for my next project. I haven't used one but most people I've talked to seem to dislike the wide-angle converter for the DVX. The squeeze function dosn't seem to have many fans either.

 

For me, it's sort of a moot point now. I won't be shooting on the DVX anyway. To that end, I'm curious if you've considered AspectCorrect inserts for viewfinders. I realize they're presently designed for flip-put LCD's and CRT's but have you considered a 'clingy' small piece that might go into an eyepiece (i.e. the DXF-501 for the Sony DXC 537)? Just a thought.

 

Again - good luck and best wishes.......

[Clay Walker]

I'd be way into that screening (if I were in L.A.). I'll keep my eyes peeled for its continued success. Must've been tough to always be referred to as "Nat's brother". Ouch.

 

Freddy has an interesting story because he is "Nat's brother" and that takes on so many different meanings & complexities depending on the context in which it's being discussed.

 

There were actually 4 brothers and 1 sister and they were all pianists. Freddy is the only living sibling from this generation and he is the oldest living "Cole." He was not even mentioned in the recent "World of Nat Cole" that aired on PBS back in May. Actually, Nat was pretty much portrayed as an only child in that portrait...

 

You should check Freddy out on iTunes or where ever you can hear some music samples. He's really amazing. His last two CDs "Because of You" & "This Love of Mine" are fantastic.

 

To that end, I'm curious if you've considered AspectCorrect inserts for viewfinders. I realize they're presently designed for flip-put LCD's and CRT's but have you considered a 'clingy' small piece that might go into an eyepiece (i.e. the DXF-501 for the Sony DXC 537)? Just a thought.

 

I have been asked about this before and it seems like a good idea but it is really beyond my production capabilities.

 

I would be concerned about some sort of parallax issue unless the lines were on the actually image on the viewfinder.

 

Thanks for your well wishes!

 

Clay

[Mariano Nante]

Hi you all,

 

I'm shooting a short film on DVX100, and I also have this format problem. Now, I want to shoot it in 16:9 aspect ratio, but if you put the "real" 16:9 option, the image looks awfully stretched. I have used the Letterbox option before, but i realized while I was editing that It would have been useful to have those extra lines of data.

I cannot get one of those correctors, which look awesome btw, so what should I do? Should I mask the lcd? But with what kind of tape? I obviously don't want to damage it...

 

Isn't there another 16:9 option in the camera that doesn't strech the image? (without adding adaptors, I mean)

 

well, thanks for your answers.

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi you all,

 

I'm shooting a short film on DVX100, and I also have this format problem. Now, I want to shoot it in 16:9 aspect ratio, but if you put the "real" 16:9 option, the image looks awfully stretched. I have used the Letterbox option before, but i realized while I was editing that It would have been useful to have those extra lines of data.

I cannot get one of those correctors, which look awesome btw, so what should I do? Should I mask the lcd? But with what kind of tape? I obviously don't want to damage it...

 

Isn't there another 16:9 option in the camera that doesn't strech the image? (without adding adaptors, I mean)

 

well, thanks for your answers.

 

I'm not sure you understand what 16x9 is in the first place. In standard definition television, a 16x9 recording uses non-square pixels so that a 1.78 : 1 image (16x9) looks normal on a 16x9 TV set. But on a 4x3 TV set, it will look skinny. THAT'S 16x9 standard-def video. Your skinny 4x3 image will look correct on a 16x9 TV set.

 

It will look skinny on a 4x3 set whether or not you use the 16x9 stretch mode of the camera, or an anamorphic lens adaptor on the camera, or use a camera with 16x9 CCD's -- because 16x9 is only supposed to look correct on a 16x9 monitor.

 

Now a DVD player can automatically convert a 16x9 recording to appear on a 4x3 monitor as a letterboxed image.

 

So it sounds like you want to shoot in 4x3 full-frame mode and compose for cropping in post to 16x9, but that doesn't answer the question of whether end format do you want: 4x3 with a 1.78 : 1 (16x9) letterbox -- or a 16x9 full-frame "anamorphic" recording? Or both, derived from a 4x3 full-frame master?

 

I've heard that most people are using Scotch tape on the LCD screen to mask the image to 1.78 : 1 for cropping later.

 

The camera does have a mode where it simply letterboxes the 4x3 image / recording to 1.78 : 1 (a "16x9" matte.) But it flags the footage as "16x9" so some editing software will convert it to 16x9 anamorphic (i.e. crop & stretch) if you're not careful about your settings. Or so I've heard, not having edited 16x9 footage myself.

[Mariano Nante]

Thanks for your reply, David.

 

I think I'll crop the image in post, and mask the LCD with scotch. I just want the 16x9 for composition sake... I wanted to shoot the footage in 16x9 without loosing those extra lines of information.

I have shot with the letterbox format, and it hasn't flagged the footage as 16x9... or at least I think so. I just chose the 4x3 option in Premiere and that was it...

[Guest AshG]

Thanks for your reply, David.

 

I think I'll crop the image in post, and mask the LCD with scotch. I just want the 16x9 for composition sake... I wanted to shoot the footage in 16x9 without loosing those extra lines of information.

I have shot with the letterbox format, and it hasn't flagged the footage as 16x9... or at least I think so. I just chose the 4x3 option in Premiere and that was it...

 

 

You will lose the resolution either way... either when it goes to tape or when you edit it. You can get more than 360 lines in 16:9 out of the DVX without the adapter and I personally dont care for it.

 

 

ash =o)

[Mariano Nante]

You will lose the resolution either way... either when it goes to tape or when you edit it. You can get more than 360 lines in 16:9 out of the DVX without the adapter and I personally dont care for it.

ash =o)

 

Yeah, I know, but if I do the cropping in post, I can do some things with those extra lines; for example, I can shift the image up and down and slightly change its composition.

[Michael McIntyre]

Interesting that this process (cropping in post) always gets referred to as 'losing resolution'. I guess counting pixels really matters when you're shooting with something like the DVX.

 

I feel like you're 'gaining' the aspect ratio and its aesthetic benefits rather than 'losing' much.

 

I have also posted elsewhere on here and heard similar things about the 16x9 adapter. There don't seem to be many fans of that contraption. A lot of issues: focusing, filtering, mounting, etc.

 

Good luck with the short. I've also resigned to cropping in post for my next shoot.

[Ash Greyson]

Interesting that this process (cropping in post) always gets referred to as 'losing resolution'. I guess counting pixels really matters when you're shooting with something like the DVX.

 

I feel like you're 'gaining' the aspect ratio and its aesthetic benefits rather than 'losing' much.

 

 

You have 1/3 more resolution in 4:3 mode, that is VERY significant, especially for any broadcast delivery.

 

 

 

ash =o)

[Michael McIntyre]

You have 1/3 more resolution in 4:3 mode, that is VERY significant, especially for any broadcast delivery.

ash =o)

 

I realize that. Simple math. You miss my point - still counting pixels.

 

Shot well and with the right camera, I doubt a well-told story will hinge on whether it's cropped in post or not. If it does, you've got bigger issues at hand than resolution.

[Mariano Nante]

Can somebody tell me what's so bad about the squeeze option?

 

I've just tried it and it doesn't look bad to my eyes... so what's the deal? Am I missing something here? Has someone shot with the squeeze mode and didn't like it?

[Daniel Sheehy]

Can somebody tell me what's so bad about the squeeze option?

 

I've just tried it and it doesn't look bad to my eyes... so what's the deal? Am I missing something here? Has someone shot with the squeeze mode and didn't like it?

 

If shot in 'squeeze' mode & played back on a 4:3 display, everything will look like its been stretched vertically.

It will look normal if played back on a 16:9 display, however there will be a loss of resolution as the 4:3 resolution has been stretched to fill the 16:9 display.

 

Generally it results in a loss of resolution that most people consider unacceptable, outweighing the advantage gained by being able to shoot 16:9.

Edited September 4, 2006 by Daniel Sheehy