width of DVX

Re: width of DVX

What photos? Are you referring to the 2:35 aspect ratio looking rectangles?

You can do this. For 2:35 your going to have to crop in post anyway (shoot 4:3 and mask the LCD).
 
Re: width of DVX

they were talking about "control 1" and "live room" -where, if you look at the dimentions of the room VS the width they got with the 35mm camera.....


I was going to try and shoot the whole piece in squeeze mode.

im debating squeeze mode or getting the adaptor
 
Re: width of DVX

well i have the adaptor and for some people it is overrated.

what i mean is that for a casual shooter it might be too much of a pain in the ass.

if you are used to grabbing your dvx and doing a quick focus by eye, your gonna hate using the anamorphic adaptor and having to work on the focus.

matthew
 
Re: width of DVX

Has anyone tried using the adaptor for critical shots and squeeze for ease of use in same production?

In other words, it might be a nice option for establishing shots and then during shots on crane ect I could use sqeeze mode.

Any input as to if the rezolution is so dramatically different that it would literally look like A anamorphic: Wow, that s wonderful footage and B Sqeeze: Wow , thats terrible footage- when both a viewd in the same timeline/scene.
 
Re: width of DVX

Looking at the pix and your client request.

You might inform the client (diplomatically) that movie cameras can pan and tilt around a room - a still photographer uses a fixed lens in a static medium to show the info.
 
Re: width of DVX

Thats a good point

I have been testing the sqeeze mode against the xl2 16:9 and on a computer screen its pretty close. i'd love to try out the adapter but may have to wait because of its price vs short useful life span (16:9, i assume will be native on next DVX panny cam)
 
Re: width of DVX

I definitely think the anamorphic adapter can get you similarly wide shots, but I also agree with Shooter that you can do much more with panning and tilting.

When you use the ana at Z00, it shows a good deal of barrel distortion, which is okay for me, but judging from straight lines in their still shots, they may not like that.

DVX alone without the ANA - I doubt it. I think at the widest (Z00) is something like 32mm lens on 35mm film, and these shots are definitely wider than that - looks like about 24mm lens.
 
Re: width of DVX

"DVX alone without the ANA - I doubt it."

So is the ANA giving me more width VS squeeze mode and is that only more width if using ANA in 4:3?
 
Re: width of DVX

Yes the anamorphic gives a wider shot than Squeeze does (also taller). The Anamorphic gives you 33% wider than the DVX can get on its own, and uses the full height of the chip. I believe that I once figured that to get the same field of view between the two, you had to be at Z00 for the squeeaze version and Z17 for the anamorphic... i.e., any wider than Z17 and you would be getting a wider field of view than Squeeze would provide.

But when we say "wide", we don't mean a wider aspect ratio -- the aspect ratio will always be 16:9. It's just that the anamorphic adapter is also acting as a wide-angle lens to give you a wider field of view.
 
Re: width of DVX

If I buy the adaptor is it correct to say I am shooting "true" 16:9 as in the xl2 "true" sence of the word? Are the only differences the awkward use of adaptor and not resolution/ use of chip?
 
Re: width of DVX

Yes you would be shooting "true" 16:9, as true as the XL2's is. And yes the adapter makes it much more awkward/limiting to use, but the resolution will match the XL2's (roughly, haven't directly compared, but it will use the full surface of the chip, and in fact will use more surface area of the chip than the XL2 does). However, if you really really want 16:9, it's a lot easier and hassle-free to shoot on a camera that supports it (SDX, XL2, FX1) rather than using the adapter (all other things being equal, but of course they're not, which makes the decision harder).
 
Re: width of DVX

After a couple of training days with the anamorphic adaptor, and after i kept in mind some "key" zoom/iris numbers, i had no problems focusing correctly all the time. The anamorphic adaptor has a really great transparency, great resolution. Much Much Much better than the squeeze mode, even on a small 27" TV.

The only real limiting thing is that you cannot really open the iris and zoom all the way to get a shallow depth of field.

Does it mean it is better to get an XL2 ?

Maybe yes for that reason, but i'm not sure, the XL2 is a great camera, but it is also much heavier to manipulate and you must use a 3X lens or a WA adaptor to get decent field of view for normal shooting conditions.
The DVX is so light and easy to manipulate...I'm corrupted...he he...
I just hope the next Panasonic will weight and feel about the same.
I used to be an "old school" (not my ideas !) because i did a lot of 35mm photography, and i am "at home" with the DVX.

yes, you can point and shoot with the anamorphic adaptor, as long as you respect some basic "security" rules.
 
Re: width of DVX

The only real limiting thing is that you cannot really open the iris and zoom all the way to get a shallow depth of field.


Hmmm. I don´t understand why we do not open the iris.(I don´t have a anamorphic adapter)

thanks
 
Re: width of DVX

avr,

it's because the anamorphic adapter causes the optics to have two different focal lengths - one (in the vertical plane) of the original DVX100 lens, the other (in the horizontal plane) shorter. As you zoom in, this causes image distortion that you can only remove by stopping down the iris so that the depth of field of both focal lengths overlap.

Since this is the only way to get a sharp picture, it means you cannot use a shallow depth of field and the anamorphic at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top