Looking for an SD WS camcorder

[Cranky]

Hello, I am considering upgrading from my cheap consumer camcorder to something better. I am looking mostly for used camcorders around $1500 give or take, but anything more than $2000 will be too expensive.

Considering my existing computer and software, I am looking for a basic DV, not for HDV. I definetely want WS, I will not be shooting in 4:3 at all. I don't know why anyone whould have shot in 4:3 a year ago or 5 years ago. Recently I watched a great documentary about NASA Moon program and it was 4:3, shot in 2001. Bad decision.

From what I've read, I found out the following:

Canon GL2, can be found for as little as $1000. It is great for 4:3, but its 16:9 is not real, the view angle is the same as in 4:3, it basically crops 4:3 image from top and bottom. To add insult to injury, it does not letterbox WS image neither on LCD nor on viewfinder. Pity.

Panasonic DVX100, can be found for about $1600-$2000. Seems to work in 16:9 better than GL2, but after I read the shootout article by Barry Green I was left with the impression that this camera is sort of similar to GL2 in WS mode. I am not sure about WS preview on LCD/viewfinder, does it at least letterbox the picture for it to look with actual proportions? Or does DVX100 has WS LCD?

Sony VX2100 can be found for about $1500-$2000. Seems like a terrific camera but again, mostly for 4:3. In 4:3 the sensor is scanned in progressive mode, so no motion compensation / deinterlacing is needed when a full frame is reconstructed. But in WS mode progressive scanning is turned off and I've heard that result is pitiful, though I haven't seen it myself.

I also looked at newer Sony A1U, $1900 with rebates. It is HDV, it has CMOS instead of 3CCD, I don't think that it is progressive scanned because AFAIK CMOS cannot be progressive scanned, hence the "rolling shutter" issue, same with HV20.

So, any advice? I don't need HDV, but would not mind it for future proofing. I would not care much for 3CCD vs CMOS if I haven't heard about "rolling shutter". Do all CMOS cameras exhibit this issue? I definetely need good WS mode. Also, if I have a good TV with proper deinterlacing, should I care much for progressive scanned footage?

Out of GL2, DVX and VX the GL2 is the cheapest if bought used, and seems on par in video quality, including resolution and view angle, does it?

What do they use in Europe? They shoot everything in WS for about 10 years already. I know that BBC uses (or used) VX2000/2100 for many of its programs, they should have used WS mode, should not they?

I am in the dark, will be greateful for any pointers. Thanks.

 

[Captain Pierce]

The reason people continue to shoot in 4:3 is because many people still don't like to see "letterboxing" of 16:9 material on their 4:3 TV's. You can still buy "full-screen" (which is not exactly truth in advertising, IMO ) DVD's, for cryin' out loud...

You're correct about the GL2; its widescreen is a "squeeze" mode where you see a vertically stretched imagine in the viewfinder and onboard LCD. That said, you do see everything in the fram in the LCD, so there's no trouble there, and I think the widescreen footage looks pretty decent. (With my usual caveat that the GL2 is not, IMO, a great "film look" camera.) I recently shot a wedding with the GL2 in "squeeze," and the footage matched up perfectly with that from my native 16:9 ZR850. It came into my editing software (which is only Pinnacle Studio ) just fine and produced a 16:9 AVI, which I then burned as letterboxed 4:3 with Nero. Looks darn nice on my old CRT TV...

The DVX has that squeeze option plus a letterbox option. , recording a 16:9 image with black bars. I believe that option is primarily for projects that will be edited and delivered in 4:3, though--for a 16:9 project, I think squeeze gives you better resolution. Of course, both the GL2 and the DVX have 4:3 chips, so compromises have to be made. I've never used the squeeze on the DVX, and the only time I used letterbox on a project I did so by mistake--I should have been using 4:3. There's a thread somewhere about getting the best 16:9 form the DVX, I think...

One camera that you didn't mention--and one that admittedly may be outside your price range even used--is the Canon XL2, which has native 16:9 chips and I believe a 16:9 viewfinder as well.

 

[Cranky]

The reason people continue to shoot in 4:3 is because many people still don't like to see "letterboxing" of 16:9 material on their 4:3 TV's. You can still buy "full-screen" (which is not exactly truth in advertising, IMO ) DVD's, for cryin' out loud...

HD as well as WS SD is going full rage. This year I had a great pleasure to watch Formula One Grand Prix in WS, as well as French Open and Wibledon. These are not HD, but look much-much-much better than 4:3 crap. Carefully shooting WS preserving the center spot allows for a simple center cut, so the image does not have to be letterboxed for analog TV, while it looks in full glory on a WS TV.

I don't want to start a flame, this topic was not exactly an excuse for it, but I find that position of many pro and semi-pro videographers in regards to WS quite anachronistic. AVS residents did their whining and emailing for a year or more to pursuade ESPN to broadast European tennis matches in WS. Are we switching to HD or not?

Hence the question: what do they use in Europe to shoot WS? Do they have better cameras?

You're correct about the GL2; its widescreen is a "squeeze" mode where you see a vertically stretched imagine in the viewfinder and onboard LCD. That said, you do see everything in the fram in the LCD, so there's no trouble there, and I think the widescreen footage looks pretty decent.

Yeah, but it takes to get used to this stretched look, and the view angle is the same as 4:3, so in reality GL2's WS has less information than its 4:3. What's the point in WS then?

I recently shot a wedding with the GL2 in "squeeze," and the footage matched up perfectly with that from my native 16:9 ZR850. It came into my editing software (which is only Pinnacle Studio ) just fine and produced a 16:9 AVI

Well, if we are allowed to mention lowly consumer cameras on this forum, my Elura 100 produces native WS as well, looks ok but kinda soft.

which I then burned as letterboxed 4:3 with Nero. Looks darn nice on my old CRT TV...

Why have you letterboxed it? You could just have left it in native WS and tell DVD player that its target display device is 4:3. Voila, the player letterboxes WS automatically. Also, when your customers get an HDTV, they simply switch the player to WS output mode and watch the same DVD in full glory of 16:9. With the letterboxed image they would have to zoom it, losing resolution, which is already quite not HD.

I never understood why people letterbox their DVD recordings. I never understood why studios released letterboxed movies. A proper DVD player can letterbox automatically if needed. Now what, do I have to buy a proper WS version of Top Gun? Or should I wait for a Blu-Ray version? Tom Cruse will be a grandaddy when this happens ;-)

The DVX has that squeeze option plus a letterbox option. , recording a 16:9 image with black bars. I believe that option is primarily for projects that will be edited and delivered in 4:3, though--for a 16:9 project, I think squeeze gives you better resolution.

So what exactly does squeeze do on the DVX? Does it simply cut top and bottom to create a WS frame like GL2 does? Does it display this image as proper WS, letterboxed on the LCD, or does it stretch it vertically? So, basically, the same as GL2?

Maybe I should just get the HV20? I may surivive with its simi-manual controls, but I am wondering how does its picture stack up to bigger guys?

 

[Captain Pierce]

You know, I wanted to buy an Elura 100, but they discontinued it about a week before I put my order in. Would have loved to have the external mic jack, even if it was only a 1/8"... Honestly, I would have thought that the GL2 footage would have had more of an advantage over my ZR850, but it really didn't--glad I didn't pay for the GL2 (the company I work for did)...

When DVD started hitting the market in a big way, widescreen TV's were still few and far between, and I don't know that the early ones had the ability to customize their output for 16:9 TV's. (And maybe they did, I wouldn't know, I didn't own one then and still don't, and don't intend to for at least a couple of years.) As for why I letterboxed my project... the people I'm giving this to (who are technically friends, not customers ) don't know how to set their DVD players and I sure as hell don't have the patience to explain it to 'em. I still have the 16:9 AVI so I can re-burn it for them down the road if necessary.

And I should point out that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that more stuff should be (or should have been) at least shot with future widescreen viewing in mind. I just don't think that, given that we still don't know for sure when digital TV will take over from analog (and even then, as has been pointed out to me right here at DVX User, "digital" does not automatically mean "widescreen"--there's nothing stopping people from broadcasting 4:3 as long as it's digital), that a lot of people felt that extra expense of shooting on something like Super-35 was justified.

As I understand, and I've admittedly never used it, squeeze on the DVX works exactly like on the GL2, stretching vertically on the LCD. I don't think there are any cameras that would display squeezed footage in letterbox on the LCD, because that would take extra onboard processing in the camera, and that would cost more. I still think, though, that on a camera with 4:3 chips, squeeze actually gives you a better 16:9 picture than the DVX's "letterbox" (somebody who knows better, please help me out on this ). As for taking time to get used to the stretched look... the guy I had doing most of the GL2 cinematography (I was actually in this wedding so couldn't spend too much time behind the camera) had never seen a squeezed image before, but it didn't seem to affect his camera work.

There's an HV20 forum here in the Canon Cameras section, you may want to check out some footage from there. It sounds like you can do some pretty good things with it if you're willing to spend some time learning the work-arounds.

 

[marketmd]

If you want to be able to view "Letterbox" (cropped) or "Squeeze" (proper 16:9) modes on the DVX LCD and viewfinder, you will need to buy a used DVX100B. Neither the 100 nor 100A will display these properly.

 

[Captain Pierce]

It's been a while since I worked with the DVX (sacrilege, I know ), but I remembered the letterbox working just fine on the LCD with the 100A...

 

[joe_gill]

Having used all of the SD camcorders that do WS, I recommend the DVX100 (1200-1500 used) with the panasonic Anamorphic adapter. Native WS shooting and marvellous DVX control. If you can afford the 100a or b then go for it.