Jump to content

does it look nice to shoot 16:9 on a dvx100 ?


Danielito

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

I am on buying the dvx100b next week for making a film in 16:9 24p. Now I heard the cam owns 4:3 CCD's chips and the image get streched if I want to shoot 16:9 what is kinda bullcrap. So that means it doesn't really look good to shoot 16:9 ? Should I go for the XL2 better ?

 

thanks a lot for your help!

 

Danielito

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I am on buying the dvx100b next week for making a film in 16:9 24p. Now I heard the cam owns 4:3 CCD's chips and the image get streched if I want to shoot 16:9 what is kinda bullcrap. So that means it doesn't really look good to shoot 16:9 ? Should I go for the XL2 better ?

 

thanks a lot for your help!

 

Danielito

 

Hi,

 

The DVX100b CCDs are native 4:3, with three modes in which to shoot 16:9.

You can shoot letter-boxed (and lose a bit of vertical resolution).

You can shoot squeezed (and lose a bit of horizontal resolution), or you can use the optional anamorphic lens adaptor; both of which fit a 16:9 image onto a 4:3 chip. The 100b has a display mode to display 16:9 squeeze & the anamorphic lens correctly in the vf.

 

The Xl2 is native 16:9, so there will be a small resolution difference between the two. Whether you can live with that is dependant on what you are going to do with the footage. :)

Edited by dsheehy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't shoot 16:9, I'd shoot 4:3 and letterbox in post. That way you have the full image to fix the composition if necessary. I would never use the digitally streched 16:9 mode, it's a pain and it reduces resolution, resulting in a softer image than if you had just letterboxed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Xl2 is native 16:9, so there will be a small resolution difference between the two. Whether you can live with that is dependant on what you are going to do with the footage. :)

 

I am looking forward to do a film in 16:9 on 24p. But later I would like also to use the camera for natural sights filming. So I guess the 16:9 mode on the XL2 is a big issue for realizing a film with the filmlook and then shoot also documental films, so I think that the dvx does have 4:3 chips is a big minus for what I wanna do right?

 

I wouldn't shoot 16:9, I'd shoot 4:3 and letterbox in post. That way you have the full image to fix the composition if necessary. I would never use the digitally streched 16:9 mode, it's a pain and it reduces resolution, resulting in a softer image than if you had just letterboxed.

 

but then when I only letterbox in post the image will loos resolution anyway so better shoot on a xl2 from beginning don't you think ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking forward to do a film in 16:9 on 24p. But later I would like also to use the camera for natural sights filming. So I guess the 16:9 mode on the XL2 is a big issue for realizing a film with the filmlook and then shoot also documental films, so I think that the dvx does have 4:3 chips is a big minus for what I wanna do right?

 

It sounds like 16:9 is a significant factor for you, so you should probably go with the native 16:9 camera.

 

Mind you, if you wait long enough, Panasonic may just release a 16:9 chip in the next DVX generation :)

Edited by dsheehy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but then when I only letterbox in post the image will loos resolution anyway so better shoot on a xl2 from beginning don't you think ?

 

Yeah, definitely, I'm saying if you do use the DVX or even an XL1, I find it best to avoid the digital animorphic feature. The streching and unstreching screws with the image. But the native 16:9 on an XL2 is definitely worth it if you've got the extra cash for that camera

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I did a short where we shot with the 100a and did letterbox in camera, then imported using Vegas at the normal 0.9 aspect ratio, but when we put it on the timeline, we changed it to 1.2. This probably lost us a bit of resolution in the end but many people thought it was film thanks to some nice post color work on it. The stretching of 0.9 to 1.2 aspect ratio may do what you want it to, but the verticals will look a bit squished, so I would suggest framing as wide as you can.

 

I have the regular letterbox 4:3 version on youtube if you want to see it. Feel free to PM me and I'll give you the URL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't shoot 16:9, I'd shoot 4:3 and letterbox in post. That way you have the full image to fix the composition if necessary. I would never use the digitally streched 16:9 mode, it's a pain and it reduces resolution, resulting in a softer image than if you had just letterboxed.

 

 

How much soft are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't shoot 16:9, I'd shoot 4:3 and letterbox in post. That way you have the full image to fix the composition if necessary. I would never use the digitally streched 16:9 mode, it's a pain and it reduces resolution, resulting in a softer image than if you had just letterboxed.

 

I wouldn't say its any softer than letterboxing. In fact I would say its a tad sharper than doing that. If you shoot 4:3 you get an image that is 720x480 4:2:0. If you crop that you have the same effect of masking the chips in camera. But when you crop in camera and stretch you increase the resolution. The compressed format is still 720x480, so you are really adding more horizontal lines to the recording. The cosine compression DV25 puts in would be reduced in relative size, giving a sharper image due to less recording loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

QUOTE: "I would never use the digitally streched 16:9 mode, it's a pain and it reduces resolution, resulting in a softer image than if you had just letterboxed."

 

Hey Greg, I don't really see the softening that much of a problem. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it is that the reason why Danielito is going to shoot progressive is to get as close to the film look as possible. We all know that real film produces softer images than say ordinary interlaced video. So, should the slight softening arising from shooting 16:9 stretched be that much of a concern? I do know that it may be a better option to add a bit of gaussian blur to the movie prior to rendering, but does the mild softening effect caused by the 16:9 stretch be of serious concern to the film look?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...