How crucial are the 16x9 chips? I am to begin filming a documentary soon, and I was so sure about the 100b, but now that I found out it does not have a true 16x9 I dont know. I have heard that the adamorpic adapter is a pain to work with. I am looking for a 16x9 24p look for the project.
true 16x9
- Thread starter 3cities
- Start date
MovieSwede
Well-known member
Shoot 24p with thin lines and squeeze. For normal DVD that will be enough. Progressive DVD is more high res than interlace.
Agree with movieswede that thin line detail and squeeze gives a pretty good image for DVD. Progressive also is a better choice as it resolves more resolution, so your image will be better to begin with.
A DVD will always be 720x480 in NTSC land.
A DVD will always be 720x480 in NTSC land.
if its really important to you to shoot 16:9, buy a canon XLa1, and shoot 24p Native 16:9, or shoot HDV 24F and down convert. you will get staggeringly better image quality, if your doc goes through the professional colorcorrection, because you can down rez HDV into 4:4:4 SD. and it looks great.
Drew Ott
Wish I were banned.
TimurCivan means XH A1. If your only interest is in DVDs, you only need standard definition. If you want to keep your camera for a long time, you should look into what the format is going to be in the future (HD). I have the Canon A1, and currently I'll just downconvert to SD until I start needing HD.
thats it!! i allways confuse thoes names...... friggin canon
AllAroundFilmLV
Well-known member
I heard that going HD takes up a significant more Hard drive space than SD, is that true? and if it is, what is the space ratio between the 2. I would like to go HD, but if its going to cost more than just the cam and editing software, I think I'll wait.
MovieSwede
Well-known member
With HDV the cost is the same basicly, because they both use miniDV tapes. Of course there is other problems like compressed audio GOPs etc. And for normal DVD DVX is enough.
Barry_Green
Moderator
XHA1 is HDV to tape.
The XHA1 shoots on MiniDV tape or HDV tape. The tape size is the same. If you shoot on a MiniDV tape, you can shoot MiniDV FORMAT or HDV Format. If you shoot on an HDV tape you can shoot in MiniDV Format or HDV Format.
I'm astounded that nobody has told you what I'm about to tell you. It seems that so few videographers understand their cameras or true 16x9. Perhaps because they do not produce video for widescreen TVs larger than 30". I guess it's good for Panasonic--If more people understood 16x9, NOBODY would be buying the DVX100B (unless they just need an expensive home camcorder).
The DVX100/A/B are all INCAPABLE of true 16x9. These cameras use only 85% of the 4:3 chip and result in a LOWER RESOLUTION (720x405, if I understand the math correctly; maybe as low as 720x360).
The HVX200 and the Canon XL2 (as well as the XHA1) use a 16:9 chip, or a 4:3 chip, in the case of the XL2. But even the XL2, with it's cropped chip, maps 960x480 pixels into it's sample area. What results is a 720x480 anamorphic image.
Yes, the DVX family will always deliver 720x480, too, but if I haven't made myself perfectly clear, this image will consist of 75 or more (I think more, but I'm open to hearing the actual mathematic explanation from someone like Barry) lines of nothing but black image (letterbox). Letterbox 16:9 is not true, or anamorphic, 16x9. The DVX100A/B and the original XL1 will also do an "expanded" (or cropped and blown up) version of the same trick. Now you're getting an anamorphic squeeze (just like TRUE anamorphic), but you're still only getting 85% of the resolution. The resolution loss is dramatic and noticeably "fuzzy" on any widescreen larger than 30".
So, to answer your original question. No, if you care about getting the best possible quality (and showing your documentary on anything larger than a 30" widescreen TV, HD or not), then the DVX family is not an option for you. Go with a Canon XL2, Panasonic HVX200. They both do anamorphic 16x9, and they are both capable of recording MiniDV format on MiniDV tape. They also both have Progressive chips.
The Canon XHA1, is a fantastic camera (I plan to purchase one as a second camera for my XLH1 documentary work), but if it follows in it's big brother's footsteps (XLH1) it does not have progressive chips like the XL2 had. While it achieves a rather impressive 24 frame look from it's interlaced chips, and the footage it cobbles together is progressive, the chips are not.
I'm astounded that nobody has told you what I'm about to tell you. It seems that so few videographers understand their cameras or true 16x9. Perhaps because they do not produce video for widescreen TVs larger than 30". I guess it's good for Panasonic--If more people understood 16x9, NOBODY would be buying the DVX100B (unless they just need an expensive home camcorder).
The DVX100/A/B are all INCAPABLE of true 16x9. These cameras use only 85% of the 4:3 chip and result in a LOWER RESOLUTION (720x405, if I understand the math correctly; maybe as low as 720x360).
The HVX200 and the Canon XL2 (as well as the XHA1) use a 16:9 chip, or a 4:3 chip, in the case of the XL2. But even the XL2, with it's cropped chip, maps 960x480 pixels into it's sample area. What results is a 720x480 anamorphic image.
Yes, the DVX family will always deliver 720x480, too, but if I haven't made myself perfectly clear, this image will consist of 75 or more (I think more, but I'm open to hearing the actual mathematic explanation from someone like Barry) lines of nothing but black image (letterbox). Letterbox 16:9 is not true, or anamorphic, 16x9. The DVX100A/B and the original XL1 will also do an "expanded" (or cropped and blown up) version of the same trick. Now you're getting an anamorphic squeeze (just like TRUE anamorphic), but you're still only getting 85% of the resolution. The resolution loss is dramatic and noticeably "fuzzy" on any widescreen larger than 30".
So, to answer your original question. No, if you care about getting the best possible quality (and showing your documentary on anything larger than a 30" widescreen TV, HD or not), then the DVX family is not an option for you. Go with a Canon XL2, Panasonic HVX200. They both do anamorphic 16x9, and they are both capable of recording MiniDV format on MiniDV tape. They also both have Progressive chips.
The Canon XHA1, is a fantastic camera (I plan to purchase one as a second camera for my XLH1 documentary work), but if it follows in it's big brother's footsteps (XLH1) it does not have progressive chips like the XL2 had. While it achieves a rather impressive 24 frame look from it's interlaced chips, and the footage it cobbles together is progressive, the chips are not.
Last edited:
bigbossbmb
Well-known member
"The DVX100/A/B are all INCAPABLE of true 16x9."*
*without the use of an anamorphic adapter
With the anamorphic adapter, you will have 'true' widescreen without sacrificing resolution.
*without the use of an anamorphic adapter
With the anamorphic adapter, you will have 'true' widescreen without sacrificing resolution.
MovieSwede
Well-known member
Clark said:
First of all resolution isnt the only factor that image quality is about. If you want as high res as possible DVX100 isnt the optimum choise. But most buyers didnt choose the dvx to get the best res video they could. They bought it to get filmlook on their video.
Myself bought it because I hate interlace look. If the DVX has 500 or 400 lines really doenst matter for the most things i shot.
And I showed things from my DVX100 on a 100inch screen to my friends, and they where impressed. So frankly there is no problem showing DVX stuff on screens bigger than 30.
Cinemas has an avarage of 600-700 lines of res. So a DVX should create real good filmexperience with only 400lines on 100inch.
Barry_Green
Moderator
There's "better" in the sense of technical specs, and then there's "better" in the sense of "is this absolutely necessary" and then there's "better" in the sense of "will anyone care?"
In the technical specs, native 16:9 chips will produce better widescreen than native 4:3 chips will, if all other things are equal. If all other things are not equal (say, an interlaced PDX10 vs. a progressive DVX) then all bets are off, and in fact I'd say you'd get a better 16x9/24p image from the DVX than you would from the PDX10.
In the "absolutely necessary" category, I don't believe native 16x9 chips are "absolutely necessary". My evidence would be that DVX films have been blown up to the theater, in widescreen, and won "best cinematography" awards at Sundance, and even been nominated for an Oscar. Obviously the 4x3 chips didn't stop that success from happening, so therefore it must not be "absolutely necessary".
Then there's "will anyone care"? Hey, better's better, and those of us who worry about every pixel of image detail will obviously prefer to have native 16x9 chips when we're shooting 16x9 (even though, in America, we're still a 4x3 broadcast country and every TV show, commercial, cable-access or local TV broadcast, news broadcast etc are all done in 4x3). * (except the few HDTV broadcasts that are going on). Using 4x3 chips to make 16x9 is not optimal, but it is better for making 4x3 footage. Using 16x9 chips to make 4x3 is not optimal, but it is better for making 16x9 footage. The XL2 doesn't have 16x9 chips either, it has 4x3 chips, but they chop off the top and bottom so that they only effectively use a 16x9-shaped patch off the 4x3 chips.
Bottom line is, if you like the look of the footage, that's all that matters. Whether it's from 4x3 chips, or "24F" or whatever. If you intend to be shooting 16x9, look towards 16x9 cameras. But if you like the look of DVX footage and you don't care for the look of XHA1 fotoage, why would you buy an XHA1? Just "because it's 16x9"? That would be silly. Get the camera that delivers the look that you want, and don't obsess too much over tech specs. Learn what the tech specs do for you, and learn how they help you and learn where the shortcomings are (because there are tradeoffs in all hardware engineering decisions) and then pick the tool that best suits your circumstances.
In the technical specs, native 16:9 chips will produce better widescreen than native 4:3 chips will, if all other things are equal. If all other things are not equal (say, an interlaced PDX10 vs. a progressive DVX) then all bets are off, and in fact I'd say you'd get a better 16x9/24p image from the DVX than you would from the PDX10.
In the "absolutely necessary" category, I don't believe native 16x9 chips are "absolutely necessary". My evidence would be that DVX films have been blown up to the theater, in widescreen, and won "best cinematography" awards at Sundance, and even been nominated for an Oscar. Obviously the 4x3 chips didn't stop that success from happening, so therefore it must not be "absolutely necessary".
Then there's "will anyone care"? Hey, better's better, and those of us who worry about every pixel of image detail will obviously prefer to have native 16x9 chips when we're shooting 16x9 (even though, in America, we're still a 4x3 broadcast country and every TV show, commercial, cable-access or local TV broadcast, news broadcast etc are all done in 4x3). * (except the few HDTV broadcasts that are going on). Using 4x3 chips to make 16x9 is not optimal, but it is better for making 4x3 footage. Using 16x9 chips to make 4x3 is not optimal, but it is better for making 16x9 footage. The XL2 doesn't have 16x9 chips either, it has 4x3 chips, but they chop off the top and bottom so that they only effectively use a 16x9-shaped patch off the 4x3 chips.
Bottom line is, if you like the look of the footage, that's all that matters. Whether it's from 4x3 chips, or "24F" or whatever. If you intend to be shooting 16x9, look towards 16x9 cameras. But if you like the look of DVX footage and you don't care for the look of XHA1 fotoage, why would you buy an XHA1? Just "because it's 16x9"? That would be silly. Get the camera that delivers the look that you want, and don't obsess too much over tech specs. Learn what the tech specs do for you, and learn how they help you and learn where the shortcomings are (because there are tradeoffs in all hardware engineering decisions) and then pick the tool that best suits your circumstances.