True 16:9 On DVX

J

Jonathan

Active member
Have Panasonic ever given a reason for not making the DVX a true native 16:9 camera. It seems extraordinary that in todays market that it should not be. It surely cannot be a cost issue if JVC could manage it?

Lets face it, it would have blown every other similar camera out of the water. And given the choice of an extra $750-$1000 on the price for 16:9, or buying an adapter for roughly the same cost I know which one I would choose, no question!
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

It is much more costly to produce a camera with native 16x9 chips. Pricing for this camera was a big consideration for Panasonic.
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

..also JVC and Panasonic are divisions of the same company.  if one were to have some great breakthrough device marketed, you could pretty much bet that it would be showing up in the other as well, because its very likely made by the parent company.
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

[quote author=Jonathan link=board=Events;num=1089381250;start=0#0 date=07/09/04 at 06:54:09]Have Panasonic ever given a reason for not making the DVX a true native 16:9 camera. [/quote]
They didn't have to.  We live in a 4:3 world.  98% of the televisions in America are 4:3, and most of the TV's in Europe and throughout the world are 4:3.  And the DVX came out two years ago, when the percentages were even higher.

And, unlike any other camera manufacturer, Panasonic did come out with an optical 16:9 adapter for those who want 16:9.

It seems extraordinary that in todays market that it should not be.
Click to expand...
Gotta disagree with you there.  Why would it seem extraordinary?  No other camera manufacturer on earth offers a 16:9 camera at this chip size, or even at 1/2" size.  You have to go all the way to 2/3" before you find a 16:9 CCD.

1/3" 16:9 CCD's do not exist (for video cameras).  1/2" 16:9 CCD's do not exist.  The only 16:9 CCD's out there are 2/3", and yes, that would have driven the cost up enormously (witness the 2/3" 16:9 SDX900, which costs $26,500).

It surely cannot be a cost issue if JVC could manage it?
Click to expand...
But JVC didn't manage it.  Even their "16:9" HD camera has a 4:3 CCD in it, which renders 1280 x 960, and they just crop off some pixels to get 1280 x 720 off it.  And JVC's implementation is just one CCD as well.

Lets face it, it would have blown every other  similar camera out of the water.
Click to expand...
It already does.

And given the choice of an extra $750-$1000 on the price for 16:9, or buying an adapter for roughly the same cost I know which one I would choose, no question!
Click to expand...
But if you did, that would mean that anything you shot 4:3 would be compromised.  Does it really make sense to make a camera that would shoot compromised footage on 98% of the TV's in America?

4:3 cameras make 16:9 by cropping and stretching, thus losing resolution.  16:9 cameras make 4:3 footage by cropping and squeezing, which would also lose resolution (although less, downsizing is usually cleaner than upsizing).  So if you had a 16:9 CCD in there, but were shooting for a 4:3 TV (like 98% of the TV's in America are), you'd be getting squeezed/compromised footage.  What's the sense in that?

Things are changing.  It's been almost 2 years since the DVX came out, and the prevalence of DVD for distribution, as well as the affordability of making DVD's, has increased greatly.  And LCD projectors (and DLP projectors) are being manufactured in 16:9 shape much more now than ever before, so the tide is shifting, and I do expect that we'll see a 16:9 camera soon.  But for the time it was released (through today), 4:3 was the only choice that made sense.
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

Hello Barry,
I appreciate what you say but as the flag on my posts shows I speak from a British perspective and the situation here is very different. British T.V. ( The BBC and ITV,C4 C5 who are the main commercial broadcasters) enthusiastically embraced digital technology when it came along (Digital Betacam and DVCAM have been virtually the de facto standard for broadcast here for several years.

All transmission on terrestrial digital TV is now 16:9 or occasionally a 14:9 crop for analogue. As a consequence all programmes submitted or commisioned for broadcast must be shot and delivered in 16:9.

As a result those of us who shoot for TV over here are in a dilemna: buy a $50,000 Digital Betacam or $20,000 DSR 570 etc. or shoot hi quality DV (which is massively used over here (PD150/170 mostly). A true 16:9 DVX would have been a huge opportunity even if the cost was higher.After all more Digi Beta units were sold here than anywhere else in the world.

The aim of the government is shut down all analogue broadcasting in the UK by 2010. The BBC has said it aims to be a tapeless environment by this time and already XDCAM and/or P2 is about to be used for newsgathering.

So for us a 16:9 DVX was quite important, instead it will have to be 4:3 and ARC it for now.
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

That may all be very well, but the UK is a very small market next to North America, Japan, Asia, South America, and the rest of Europe.
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

I don't know why, but even though the US is moving torwards 16:9, the momentum seems to have slowed. I would have though that by this time, it would be difficult to find 4:3 sets. I think Europe has been moving to widescreen at a much faster pace. if you go into a FNAC store in France (sort of a Best Buy/Borders) the sets are all widescreen.
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

Wait how about pdx10? Sony master of the trv950? Native 1.78:1 chips of 1/4.7" in size. Who is missing what? (most likely me but i go on) By the way i think this is my first post though i feel like i have been a part of the community for 2 months. (never posted before this) Now you say if it did in fact support the 1.78:1 aspect it would kick all the cams out of the league... My opinion, it already does. Just considering the fact of 24fps native shooting along with sensitive chips it already out levels lower end vx2000s. Barry good going with the forum i am glad we have someone who has had experience with something more than mini dv.
Good day
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

Right Barry, Europe "is" 16/9 also for most analog transmissions (letterbox mode). "PAL-plus" was introduced allready in mid 90's (not succesfull) in order to reconstruct the lost pic resolution in 16:9. Just to indicate it's allready going on for some time...But big companies have to earn money...and they rightly decided that time time is (worldwide) still not right for introduce the more expensive 16:9 cams.
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

Well it does pull all the pixels for either modes (that is pdx10). It uses two modes for 4:3 and 16:9 ratios so i heard it keeps the resolution stable at 480 lines. Not sure if it is "native" or close to it. Who knows what they put in there.


Edit: also found out that indeed pdx10 delivers 8mm more field of view by using 44% more pixels counter the 3:4 mode. Sounds like good native anamorphic shooting...
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

The PDX10 has been discussed at length.  It is not a 16:9 chip.  It's a 1/4" (not 1/4.7") CCD in the 4:3 shape.  The trick is that it's a megapixel CCD, so there are lots of extra pixels around, so they subsample a 1/4.7" patch for 4:3, and a differently-shaped patch for 16:9.

Neither mode uses the full surface of the chip.  And the corresponding video quality is not in the same class as the DVX -- using megapixel CCD's means terrible low light performance (a full stop worse than the TRV900/PD100 that these cameras replaced), plus they suffer from smearing, etc.  However, for raw resolution, they do measure up -- resolution charts of the TRV950/PDX10 do put them at the full 480-line resolution.  There is an argument as to whether to call this "true" 16:9 or not.  I tend to think that it is, because you do get full resolution -- but I wouldn't want to live with the compromises it entails. Even though it does deliver the pixel count, it's certainly not the same as having a 16:9-shaped CCD.

And Sony didn't invent it anyway -- it was first offered on a Panasonic model (the MX500/MX5000/PV-DV953).
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

It is something of a puzzle why the North American market has been so slow to go widescreen. The uptake of widescreen tv's here is phenomenol. There still are some 4:3 tv's but very few buy them.

By the way,Barry, there was a 3 chip half inch 4:3/16:9 camera available.Ironically it was the Panasonic AJD 610 Dvc Pro 25. I very nearly bought one, however I don't think they sold too many and it was discontinued a while ago. However they do still occasionally turn up for sale.

David,you would think Panasonic might make a special one for us Brits, after all, we invented T.V.!!!
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

[quote author=GlassSidewalk link=board=Events;num=1089381250;start=15#15 date=07/09/04 at 16:51:49]Actually wasn't John Logie Baird, the first to send a picture wireless, Scottish?  ;D[/quote]

Baird was the first the demonstrate a forerunner in public, sure. Groundwork was laid, no question.

But you know it was the Farnsworth machine which became what we know today . . .
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

Don't worry about the laundry; forget about your job
Just crank up the volume, and yank off the knob
We got it all (we got it all)
On UHF!
 
Re: True 16:9 On DVX

No more Mr. Passive Resistance!  This is one bad mutha you don't wanna mess with  . . .

Ghandi II!

(oh, now you got me started, Barry!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top