16:9 Controversy continues...

E

ericcosh

Well-known member
Hi Barry etal:

Saw this post today on another forum. Love to see your comments.

thanks guys,

eric
Hi,
I would caution the use of ";Native"; or ";true";. In 16x9 jargon each is means a camera that has CCD pixels in the 16x9 ratio. Using 'all' the pixels to form a wide screen aspect. Some of these cameras will toss some left/right pixels for 4:3 ratio, others will adjust the aspect.

For the 4:3 cameras that have a 16x9 switch, often they will sort of take a number of pixels to stretch the image (and toss some pixels in the process. While not the best, it can pass for a lot uses.

Anamorphic lens attachments for 4:3 camera use all the pixels to create the 16x9 image - but this is not naive 16x9.

Canon's specifications on the XL1S clearly indicate that the full pixel depth is reached electronically, something I deem very possible, but likely a tad off from the lens attachment, which is a tad off native 16X9 CCD.

The Canon's 16x9 image should be able to hold up to most scrutiny.

There are many cameras that offer the 16x9 CCD in sub $3K range, the DSR-PD10 would be one.

Mike Gunter
VideoTidbits
 
Re: 16:9 Controversy continues...

Canon's specifications on the XL1S clearly indicate that the full pixel depth is reached electronically, something I deem very possible, but likely a tad off from the lens attachment, which is a tad off native 16X9 CCD.
Click to expand...

I don't know what he's referring to here.  The XL1 does 16:9 the same way as the VX2000/PD150 and every other non-megapixel camera: by using the central 360 lines and stretching them.  Now, Canon's stretch algorithm is one of the best -- but it certainly is losing 25%.

The Canon's 16x9 image should be able to hold up to most scrutiny.
Click to expand...
That is certainly open to debate.  I'd say that the Canon's 16x9 image holds up well in comparison to the Canon's 4:3 image, yes.  But I don't think the Canon's 4:3 image compares well against the newer cameras (PD150/PD170/VX2000/VX2100/DVC80/DVX100).

There are many cameras that offer the 16x9 CCD in sub $3K range, the DSR-PD10 would be one.
Click to expand...
There are NO cameras that offer a 16x9 CCD in the sub $8,000 range.  The PDX10 has a 4:3 CCD, as does every camera smaller than 2/3".  There are no CCD's that I've ever heard of that are smaller than 2/3" and also 16x9.
 
Re: 16:9 Controversy continues...

Ericcosh.. Native 16:9 is ideal...but anamorphic or squeeze mode work just fine ..man!
 
Re: 16:9 Controversy continues...

It turns out that we were wrong about both the price and and size of CCD's wtih a 16:9 camera. The Sony PD10 does in fact shoot in both 16:9 and 4:3 and priced around $2000 street. It was news to me too. Now, as to how good it is, that's another story all together. I think I remember seeing the PD10 last year at the NAB. I recall that it has 1/4 chips.

eric
 
Re: 16:9 Controversy continues...

There are many cameras that shoot "native" 16:9 and 4:3, the PDX10 is the most famous, but the Sony TRV950, the Panasonic PV-DV953/MX500/MX5000, and numerous Sony 1-chip models, and there's at least one Canon model that do it as well.

None of them have a 16:9-shaped CCD. They all do it by using megapixel CCD's, and sampling a smaller 16:9-shaped patch off the CCD. There are enough CCD pixels to provide adequate resolution to give a full-res 16:9 image, but because they're megapixel CCD's you get lousy low-light performance and they're also susceptible to smearing, etc.

Again, there is no such thing as a 16:9-shaped CCD in any camera smaller than 2/3". You can get high-resolution 16:9 imagery from cameras like the PDX10, but you can get just as high-rez from shooting on a DVX100A in squeeze mode, and even higher resolution from using the anamorphic adapter.
 
Re: 16:9 Controversy continues...

I've got a one-chip JVC consumer cam which shoots in stretched 16:9. Sony gets all the credit for stuff like that, but there it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top