Why doesn't the DVX have 16:9 yet?

Would you pay $800 more for the ability to shoot 16x9? If yes, then get a used AA with the eye piece.

That will shoot 16x9

-Jeremy
 
Just think about when the first DVXs were made, 16x9 wasn't extremely popular then, for DVX100a that's kind of the borderline area. I don't see why they didn't put a native 16:9 in the B though, but when it comes down to it by some time in 2008 the FCC is pushing out all SD broadcast and since the DVX can't shoot HD (it can work on an HD TV since HD TVs include HD and ED, and ED includes 480I and 480P.), I'm sure panasonic doesn't want to put money into a 16:9 sensor on the 100's since they won't be to useful in a year and half; Since you'll have to uprez and all.

The 100's have always shot 16:9 letter box or digital squeeze.
 
How noticable is the loss in resolution when you crop the image to 16:9? Is it something to be worried about, or should i just not obsess about it? Anyone have experience with this?
 
You don't have to crop anything shoot 16:9 letter box or squeeze in camera and use a 16:9 timeline. Visually there is barely any indentifiable difference in resolution from the 4:3 material to the 16:9 material, mostly because they come from the same chip, except 16:9 only uses the middle section of it, chopping off the top and bottom (by itself).
 
Last edited:
PunkMetalDrummer17 said:
when it comes down to it by some time in 2008 the FCC is pushing out all SD broadcast and since the DVX can't shoot HD (it can work on an HD TV since HD TVs include HD and ED, and ED includes 480I and 480P.), I'm sure panasonic doesn't want to put money into a 16:9 sensor on the 100's since they won't be to useful in a year and half;
Click to expand...

The FCC is only requiring an all digital signal, not all HD. SD will still be around, live and kicking in 2008. There won't be enough homes with HDTV's until after 2010 to go all HD, even by then it's a stretch. It'll probably take until 2010 just to get all these format wars/issues behind us.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
The FCC is only requiring an all digital signal, not all HD. SD will still be around, live and kicking in 2008. There won't be enough homes with HDTV's until after 2010 to go all HD, even by then it's a stretch. It'll probably take until 2010 just to get all these format wars/issues behind us.
Click to expand...

True but most TV stations won't see it as being worth it to sticking to 480 anything; If you're going to go digital why go with 480, when you might as well go with 720 or 1080 since you already have to upgrade your broadcasting equipment. So effectively SD will cease to exist.

Even if you kept your SD TV you'll still have to get a break-out-box (for a couple hundred dollars) to even watch TV, since you'll need an ASTC tuner.
 
Last edited:
for resolution, cropped dvx footage is gonna look a million times better than that 'native 16:9' canon elura.
 
PunkMetalDrummer17 said:
True but most TV stations won't see it as being worth it to sticking to 480 anything; If you're going to go digital why go with 480, when you might as well go with 720 or 1080 since you already have to upgrade your broadcasting equipment.
Click to expand...
Is this a serious question?

Some preposterously high figure, something like 99%, of TV stations in America are already broadcasting digitally. Or perhaps the figure is that 99% of Americans can receive digital broadcasts.

But of those stations that are broadcasting digitally, how many are broadcasting standard-def, vs. originating their own content on high-def? Almost all of them. There are only about six stations in the country that are originating their own HD programming; the rest are just broadcasting SD digitally.

So effectively SD will cease to exist.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that eventually this will be true. Just not nearly as soon as some people think.

Even if you kept your SD TV you'll still have to get a break-out-box (for a couple hundred dollars) to even watch TV, since you'll need an ASTC tuner.
Click to expand...
This part may actually come true, yes. The original plan was for that to be the way it goes. The stations are fighting this though -- they want to hang on to the analog airwave space, and keep the new digital airwave space too.
 
Panasonic didn't add the 16:9 to the DVX because:

a) The camera would have to be modified quite a bit, this would make the camera more expensive, not the same price as the DVX100A at the time.

b) A native 16:9 DVX would eat into the HVX200 sales because informed guys like us would think "Hey, I can just go Andromeda and get an HVX200 when it's cheaper!"

c) They'd lose almost all reason for the Anamorphic Adapter.

d) They just didn't want to risk messing up a great camera with a new CCD arrangement and/or new 16:9 friendly lense that could cause problems.

e) They wanted to bring an update out on a timely schedule versus missing the boat by releasing the DVX100B, for example, today. Who would buy it then?

f) They needed a middle ground camera for people who couldn't do $5,000+.

There's probably more reasons but I think you get the point. :)
 
I guess in theory they could have used the HVX CCDs... eliminating the P2 slots, internal pixel-shifting cpu and the jack pack would prolly have knocked off $1000 - $1500 from the MSRP. At 960X540 the CCDs are pretty much the same as the XL2, so it would make some great looking 720X480 SD. That being said, I dont really see Panny doing another hi-end SD 1/3" CCD...

Also, PunkMetal, sounds like you are full of misinformation (either that or you work at Circuit City, LOL). Almost every broadcaster is already digital and if HD progamming doubled every year for the next 5 years we would still see more hours of the broadcast day in SD than HD.... Remember, ever the big 4 networks are only HD, AT MOST, 3 hours out of a 24 hour day.


ash =o)
 
are you sure about that doubled every year for 5 years comment? That would mean a channel only showing 1 hour of HD a day would end up with 16 hours of HD. I guess it wont really evolve at this rate, but if it did HD would definitely be mainstream.
 
PunkMetalDrummer17 said:
My thought is that we'll never see a 100C.
Click to expand...


The HVX is a different class of camera.


The car analogy always works here for some reason.....

DVX is a Civic. HVX is an Accord.

because the Accord has a bigger engine does not mean that honda will do away with the civic, just cause the Accord IS avialable for purchase.

People forget that WE drool over the HVX. most people who do video for a living couldnt care less about P2 and HVX and ( a few years ago) thought 24P was a gimmick. this is the same crowd that hails the Sony Z1 HDV as gods gift to man, and that s many many many people.


Most people dont want a Film like workflow, they dont want the hassle of P2. They want quick Easy Mini DV / HDV. Because to be honest, your clients wont know the difference. ( assuming you do corporate video, weddings, sports etc non narritive work) so why bother with the added hassle.

I personally want a 1080i HDV camera to down sample it to high resolution SD 16:9 24P Slow motion. :)
 
DerrickTempleton said:
are you sure about that doubled every year for 5 years comment? That would mean a channel only showing 1 hour of HD a day would end up with 16 hours of HD. I guess it wont really evolve at this rate, but if it did HD would definitely be mainstream.
Click to expand...


Based on overall hours across all networks. Right now HD programming in most areas account for 2% or less of the total hours of TV broadcast across ALL channels. I was guessing 1.5% total doubling each year... Just turn on your local NETWORK affiliates at 4pm... whats on? Jeopardy? Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Will those get better ratings in HD? Will the local commercials that support such shows be in HD any time soon? Truth is... for MOST things on TV, there is no compelling reason to broadcast in HD... especially any time soon.




ash =o)
 
TimurCivan said:
The HVX is a different class of camera.


The car analogy always works here for some reason.....

DVX is a Civic. HVX is an Accord.

because the Accord has a bigger engine does not mean that honda will do away with the civic, just cause the Accord IS avialable for purchase.
Click to expand...

True but the HVX is basically an HD DVX. Why get a DVX when you can get HVX, and use it like a DVX and be future proof?
 
beacuse not everyone wants to pay 6,000$ for a camera. when 3,200$ will get yo ua perfectly great DVX100b. You gotta realise most people dont care about HD.

Infact my dads best frineds family have an HD ready TV, and went through all the trouble of hooking it up for HD content, and they dont watch HD channels because they dont "see" a difference. ( which i think is Fishy, but thats their opinion.)
 
PunkMetalDrummer17 said:
True but the HVX is basically an HD DVX. Why get a DVX when you can get HVX, and use it like a DVX and be future proof?
Click to expand...


Future proof? LOL... dont get me started!



ash =o)
 
I agree. Why pay almost double for an HD cam if your not going to shoot HD? I've read shooting SD with an HD camera will produce softer footage than footage orignated on a plain old SD cam...unless you shoot HD and then down convert...which means working with P2...which means even more money.

American Cinematographer has an article about a shoot with a HVX where the camera man calls it poor in low light. He had to buy a new more powerful light kit. I think it's only 1 1/3rd slower then a DVX but I read 1 stop means you need twice as much light (correct me if I'm wrong, here). And gain is a no-no on Panasonics. I guess that beautiful color and gammma have a price and it's name is NOISE. Hey, if you got the green - go for HD, but for the real low budget filmmaker a 16:9 DVX would be a Godsend.

Salils, IMO everyone here making excuses and rationalizations will be buying a 16:9 DVX if Panasonic put one out. Barry Green has a page somewhere where he shows the image degradation of using squeeze mode. It's something that may not show up shrunken down with borders on your old set but blow it up on a big screen at home or theatrically - yech. And as for cropping, I've read somewhere your throwing away about 25% of your picture area (resolution gone baby) and then blowing up the middle strip...again, something I wouldn't want to see on a big screen.

Canon didn't worry about having a 16:9 SD cam along side it's HD cam. Sony sells the FX1 - HD (with16:9 sensors of course) CHEAPER THAN THE DVX. The DVX is overpriced at this point in time. Keep the price the same AND INCLUDE 16:9 CCD'S, I say.

I hope Jan responds to this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top