16:9 popularity

F

fotoflo

Active member
I was shopping for a 16:9 screen for a stills presentation and the guy said that 16:9 is a required broadcast system in place already? I dont watch that much TV but I am needing to jump in to documentary wedding videography tomorrow, i.e., buy a camera for saturday.

1. How much is the widescreen a push by the manufactureres?
2. What is the percentage of homes that have a wide screen or wide screen capability?

The camera I need should have, so far, true 16:9 (are those anamorphic adaptors any good?), very good to excellent low light ability. that's about it. Can spend around $4k-$5k altogether, camera, spare batteries, light, case, etc., yadda.

Any info on current 16:9 consumer useage and camera or equipment suggestions appreciated. Tried the XL2 last weekend, a little awkward for hand held candid documentary style shooting but otherwise great camera.

Roger
 
The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) currently projects that 8.5 million or roughly 30% of TV set sales in 2005 consist of HD (16x9) sets, at which point there will be over 20 million cumulative integrated HDTV sets and HD capable monitors.
 
I know its coming, just want to justify spending for 16:9. So which cameras have a 16:9 chip besides the XL2 and the Sony HDR - FX1?
 
The HD100 and the Z1. That's about it.

The percentage of HDTVs in American households is somewhere around 7% to 10%. Widescreen TVs would occupy a higher percentage, since all HDTVs are widescreen but not all widescreen TVs are HDTV.

For broadcast, whatever that guy told you is nonsense. All television in America is broadcast in 4:3, except for the HDTV broadcasts. In Europe it's different, in America the installed base is still around 85%-90% 4:3. But the interest in widescreen flat TVs is definitely picking up, so you can expect the percentages to shift over the coming years. It'll probably be many years before more than half the TVs in the US are 16:9.
 
fotoflo said:
I was shopping ... and the guy said ...
Click to expand...

Mistake #1 - listening to the sales guy.

Remember he is trying to sale you something. Even if he says he does not get comission, he'll get a bonus on his sales so it is benificial to him to sell you something that costs more regardless of your actual needs. Besides, it's been my expierence that they have no clue what they're taking about anyway. If you really want to know you have to do you own research. (Which is why you made this post I assume. Good Start. :thumbsup:)

fotoflo said:
... buy a camera for saturday...
Click to expand...

Mistake #2 - Making a large purchase with not a lot of time.

Salesmen, or women for that matter, love the person who has to buy right away. Usually this person can be sold just about anything because they NEED it right away. I knew some car dealers who would unload their crap on unsuspecting people who were in a rush. When making a large purchase you want to have time to do research so that you buy the right gear for your needs, and so that you know what a fair price is for the gear. Otherwise you'll get ripped off, I've seen it happen more then once.

fotoflo said:
The camera I need should have, so far, true 16:9
Click to expand...

You don't HAVE to have true 16:9, there is a great uprez technique that does an impressive job converting 4:3 to 16:9. Just check out the stickey.

fotoflo said:
(are those anamorphic adaptors any good?)
Click to expand...

From the footage I've seen yes they are good. But the better question is- Are they good for you? Probably not. They require setting up the shot and getting measurements in order to get precise focus. Which is fine if you have the time to do it - i.e. with narative filming. But it sounds like you will be doing weddings, and documentaries, both of which are a lot of run and gun. Which is exactly the opposite of what is needed to set the adapter correctly.

Hope that helps, good luck!
 
I saw a guy shooting a wedding with 2 HDR-FX1's and they looked really cool and I almost bought one right away. Glad I waited. I read the excellent article on this site comparing 3 choices and it was just what I was looking for.

How important is the film look for weddings? Can they tell? Do you get an emotional reaction from the client if it is properly done? I would think that for brides shooting style and editing and lighting would be more noticeable than 24fps, at least in still shots it is.

Now the choice is between low light ability, if the XL2 and HDR are out of the running, what are my choices now? The JVC GR-HD1 looks like a good starter camera but not sure about its low light capabilities.
 
fotoflo said:
Now the choice is between low light ability, if the XL2 and HDR are out of the running, what are my choices now?
Click to expand...

Why is the XL2 out of the running?

I would highly recommend the DVX. It has been a great camera, and I continue to get pleased clients from the footage I am able to get using it. I get a lot of comments from people that my footage does not look anything like video, and that they love the results. The DVX does a great job in reproducing the film look which is what people are used to when watching movies, and they associate their wedding footage with that feel. Anyway, if the XL2 and HDR are out of the picture then it sounds like the DVX is your choice. You could always go with a Sony VX2100, but I think that the color reproduction from the sony camera tends to be a little cool (blue) looking, where as the panasonic and canon tend to be more warmer and richer looking. But it is all up to your own needs, budget, and preferances. I say go with the DVX :thumbsup: , but you should go with what works for you.
 
My DVX is on its way, it was a hard decision without touching any of the cameras or seeing footage but the DVX seems like a professional grade tool that can be used for a long time and adapt to a lot of situations even though I just shoot weddings. If I had more time to decide I would have gotten a used Sony and saved a bit. thanks for the input and am looking forward to shooting with it and being a part of this forum.
 
Good choice, the quality gain that you'll get with the DVX will make you more money, in percieved value then the few dollars you would have saved buying a used VX2100.
 
The research for this camera took a couple of days of reading. I know digital still photography inside out, but video is a new language. So . . .

What is a good on camera microphone for this camera for indoor/outdoor?

Should i use the camera to download tapes or is that not good for the camera, if not what would i use?

On camera lighting? What do event photogs use for crowds and close ups? Must have a dimmer.

If, god forbid, I need to mike the groom for the ceremony, what is a reliable system?

I want to use it with a monopod and a ball head, or something similiar, what have you used?

Thanks,
 
fotoflo said:
The research for this camera took a couple of days of reading.
Click to expand...

Well I've got some bad news for you - some of your questions are going to require more research on you part, sorry but that's just the name of the game. I'll do my best to help give you a starting point.

fotoflo said:
What is a good on camera microphone for this camera for indoor/outdoor?
Click to expand...

The answer to this is wide open. It is going to depend on your needs, and on your budget. Your best bet is not to use a mic on the camera, as the best quality sound will be captured as close to the subject as possible. You're probably looking for a shotgun mic. There are a lot of these, I would recommend an AudioTechnica. Check out the audio forum, someone has put togther samples of different mics and what they sound like.

fotoflo said:
Should i use the camera to download tapes or is that not good for the camera, if not what would i use?
Click to expand...

Do so at your own cost - literally. The tape heads are one of the most used, and expensive to replace parts of your camera. It is better to get a $200 - $300 dv camera to use as your capture deck then to use you nice DVX.

fotoflo said:
On camera lighting? What do event photogs use for crowds and close ups? Must have a dimmer.
Click to expand...

Again it is going to require research on you part - your needs and your budget will help guide your purchase. Unfortunately there is no one size fits all here either, as each even can have drasticly different lighting. If you're shooting out side and there is sun, you'll be fine and will not need any lght. If it is indoors and the light is dim, then you'll probably need some lighting. You could use a small on camera light, or bring in additional lighting gear. Check out the lighting forum for lots of good suggestions on DIY lights, and on camera lights.

fotoflo said:
If, god forbid, I need to mike the groom for the ceremony, what is a reliable system?
Click to expand...

God forbid? God forbid...? YOU MUST MIC THE GROOM! It has been my expierence that one of the areas that gets hit really hard is the sound department at a wedding. If there is sound, usually it's uncle Vinny who has never done anything before, and it doesn't work for the start of the cerimony, and then gets to loud ... yada yada. Micing the groom yourself is the only way to ensure that you get nice crisp audio of the ceremony, esp. of the vows. You'll want to use a wireless lav. Again it is going to depend on your needs and budget. But I would recommend a wireless lav. and expect to pay 300 - 500 for a decent one. (You can get them used too.)

fotoflo said:
I want to use it with a monopod and a ball head, or something similiar, what have you used?
Click to expand...

You'll want a fluid head tripod. An monopod will be good for quick setups, but can be hard to hold steady durring a ceremony. You'll want smooth pan's and tilts whihc is what a fluid head will give you. I'm sorry to say that you're again in for more research. As what you get will depend on your needs and your budget. I would recommend looking at Bogen tripods and heads. Maybe starting with the 501 head.

I hope that I have helped, or at least given you places to start your research. Good luck, and keep filming!
 
waltind said:
God forbid? God forbid...? YOU MUST MIC THE GROOM! It has been my expierence that one of the areas that gets hit really hard is the sound department at a wedding. If there is sound, usually it's uncle Vinny who has never done anything before, and it doesn't work for the start of the cerimony, and then gets to loud ... yada yada. Micing the groom yourself is the only way to ensure that you get nice crisp audio of the ceremony, esp. of the vows. You'll want to use a wireless lav. Again it is going to depend on your needs and budget. But I would recommend a wireless lav. and expect to pay 300 - 500 for a decent one. (You can get them used too.)
Click to expand...

Just a hint, a cheap way to mic the groom is pluging a little lav into a portable minidisc recorder. It works great, but remember to put it on Hold so that it keeps recording when knocked. Should be able to get such a setup for sub $100, as second hand MD recorder are dirt cheap on ebay.

I wouldn't recommend this for a professional situation, but for a wedding it works great. :thumbsup:
 
I bought a Lowell iLight and a NRG battery belt, seems to do the trick, not industrial strength but works OK so far. I have to be portable and use an on camera mic, have seen some recomndations and the monopod is for getting smoother shots on the run in addition to a tripod when needed for ceremony and reception. Since I'm broke from the camera and lights i will have to get everything else a piece at a time.

"It is better to get a $200 - $300 dv camera to use as your capture deck then to use you nice DVX."

Is the quality the same? If i use a $200 camera to download images from a $3k recording, will quality be missing? I havent had time to download or look at or edit anything, shot the second event yesteday, will check back when I catch up


roger
 
fotoflo said:
Is the quality the same? If i use a $200 camera to download images from a $3k recording, will quality be missing? I havent had time to download or look at or edit anything, shot the second event yesteday, will check back when I catch up
Click to expand...


Yes. It is digital data on the tape and you are simply moving it over to the computer hard drive. However, ensure the camera is able to access all of the data. I hear there are some problems with cheaper DV cameras not being able to read the timecode of DVX footage. Also if you shoot DVCAM for example, some cheap camera won't play it. In my experience Canons are the worst, Sonys and Panys the best.
 
Whoa, I just bought my DVX and have 20 hours of tape I have yet to download (my old PC doesn't have firewire, I have to get it retrofitted.). I just assumed I would use my DVX to download it. Is 20 hours of downloading a serious wear on my new camera? Can I wait a bit to buy an inexpensive DV camera?
Also - would you be able to recommend a particular model for an inexpensive DV camera?
What does shooting DVCAM mean?
I've shot everything in 24PA, will an inexpensive DV camera that doesn't shoot 24 be able to download it properly?
Thanks
 
DVCAM is a Sony format, it is the same "video data" recorded to tape as with DV, but the tape runs faster in order to lay down a more stable track. It is only a feature on Pro cameras.

You should be fine capturing with the DVX for a while, although it isn't recommended. I have had my camera shooting and capturing for nearly 5 years and that is still going strong!
I am no expert with 24PA as we do not use it in England, however I believe some cameras have difficulty reading the timecode. Have a search or start a new thread maybe.
 
"The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) currently projects that 8.5 million or roughly 30% of TV set sales in 2005 consist of HD (16x9) sets, at which point there will be over 20 million cumulative integrated HDTV sets and HD capable monitors."

Sort of. The CEA considers a DIGITAL television to be a display that need only be capable of dealing with at least 480p; it need not be capable of either receiving digital signals or displaying them. Devices actually capable of receiving DTT signals are still a small fraction of those numbers. The CEA has so altered numbers to make what they need to work that for the most part anything they print should be taken with a grain of salt. A digital set is not necessarily an HD set. They may be HD capable but many have no HD tuners. About 40-50% of these supposed HD sets sold actually have DTT reception capability. As of July 1, 100% were supposed to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top