Hi Bob,
Many thanks for your helpful advice. Yes, I think I'll do nothing and let the viewer decide. But on future shoots I will use the 16:9 guides on my XM2 to try to frame stuff so it falls within the 16:9 region so I won't be losing any important information outside the viewable picture.

Mel.

Mel,
that's about the best you can do without a true 16:9 camera and apart from putting a big bit of expensive glass on the front of say a DVX 100 or spending big time on say a 570 I don't know of any cheap way to shoot 16:9. And believe me I'd love to shoot 16:9.
The new XL2 should solve the problem or else the new Sony HDV camera should be good for shooting 16:9 DV.

Bob.

Just a quickie Bob - are you saying that cameras that boast 16:9 format (like my XM2) are not true widescreen? Is this because the horizontal squeezing is done electronically, a bit like optical vs electronic image stabilisers, and therefore resolution is degraded when not using true optical?

Mel.

That's precisely the case. If you don't have a cam that has NATIVE 16:9, in other words, the camera sees the widescreen with no electronic alteration, then you lose nothing. There aren't many DV Cams that do this. Until the XL2 Canon, Canon didn't have anything in native widescreen. This is their first.
The only other option to native is to use a special lens called an "anamorphic lens" that squishes 16x 9 onto a 4:3 aspect, and then it's unsquished in Vegas when you edit. You don't lose resolution this way, either.

For "spot"

The XM2 has "anamorphic lens" (electronically), and no letterbox. Is this not as good as it gets as there is no optical solution in this model?

Mel.

Not, this is not as good as it gets. it's a screw on lens. Electronic damages resolution integrity.

There is basically no such thing as a widescreen CCD in any camera smaller than 2/3". All the "true" 16:9-shaped CCD's are 2/3".

In smaller cameras, all the CCD's are 4:3 (even in the XL2 and the JVC HD1). You have basically three choices to get widescreen images off them:

1) use an anamorphic adapter, which optically squishes the image to be the proper aspect ratio for a widescreen tv, while using the full resolution of the CCD

2) use in-camera electronic 16:9 which digitally stretches the image. This results in a 16:9-shaped image at the expense of picture quality. Some cameras are better than others at this. The Canon cameras are typically pretty good, and the DVX100A in progressive/THIN is excellent. Sony cameras are typically quite bad at it, as is the DVX100A in interlaced mode.

3) use a high-density CCD camera that allows for full resolution sampling of a 16:9-shaped patch off the CCD. This is the method Panasonic invented with the MX500, Sony adopted for the PDX-10, and JVC uses in the HD1/HD10 and Canon is using in the XL2. This method provides for full native resolution, although the compromises involve using tightly-packed "megapixel" CCD's which mean less latitude and worse low-light performance. Certainly easier to use than an add-on anamorphic adapter, but not necessarily better overall picture quality.

Canon isn't stretching anything (according to Tim Smith, Marketing Director of Canon) to achieve their 960 x 480 image in the XL2.
I'm not a chips expert, so I'll leave that part of the debatealone, so I'm mostly parroting Canon's marketing. However, after seeing both the Canon 16:9 and the Panny 16:9, Panny is seriously wanting.

So are true 16:9's going to wait for HD?

Does that mean this is a bad time to buy a new camera? I'm in need of one but should I wait now for HD, and if so when?

Mike

What do you want to do with it? 4:3 is going to be the default shape for decades. Are you planning to shoot major projects that would really benefit from 16:9 right now?

Maybe if you really like the concept of 16:9 you might want to wait 6 months and save your pennies for the Sony HDV camera. $7,000, native 16:9, decent specs--I think it will be my next camera. Even if I shoot stuff destined for only NTSC, I'll have it captured in wide-screen, and the downconvert to 480x720 will result in a picture about as good as it gets.

There is no digital resizing going on with the XL2... they use option 3) that I mentioned above. By stretching in the "Canon cameras" part, I was referring to GL1/GL2/XL1, all which use stretching methods and all which do a reasonably good job.

16:9 is certainly in the minority in the US right now, although a trip through Best Buy or Circuit City will show that there are a *lot* of widescreen televisions available for sale. In Europe 16:9 adoption is supposedly at about the 50% point. So widescreen will become more and more prevalent. Whether HD will ever gain a foothold in consumer's households remains to be seen, but widescreen looks like it's definitely going to be something we'll want to deal with.

Let me tell you loud and clear 4:3 is NOT going to be the default for years to come!
In this country it's very hard to sell any footage shot 4:3. I've run into two old hands who'd held out shooting SP, they just couldn't hack all this digital stuff and I don't blame them at their age. But both of them were facing a choice, give the game away or get a good 16:9 camera, they just couldn't sell their material if it wasn't 16:9, the networks just aren't interested anymore.
Now maybe at the moment 16:9 TVs are less than 10% of what's out there but when a network buys content they want it future proofed and they know 4:3 is about to go the way of the Dodo. Just about every live broadcast now says "Available in HiDef Widescreen", so even if you don't have the budget for HiDef, you do need to have the budget for 16:9!
Even corporate stuff is now wanted 16:9, they run it out onto plasma / LCD screens and they want it looking good and filling the screen.
The best / only 16:9 camera I've seen is Sony's 570 which is an excellent DVCAM camera and they have a good deal at the moment, basicaly they'll give you $8,000 towards the lens.
Just factor in the cost of batteries and a charger!

Bob.

HD WILL gain a foothold, Thomson, RCA, Sony's sales figures all point to megalithic increases in the past 18 months alone. 16:9 will be the standard in less than 28 months, watch. It will be like DVD players. Most broadcasts after Jan 2006 will be widescreen. Spending for 4:3 now is a very iffy thing if you've got plans to be part of the future with today's productions. If you are planning anything major now, that you'll shoot soon and deliver in say...12-18 months, I'd be REALLY nervous about shooting for 4:3 without at least anamorphic.

In "n" years time, when everybody has 16:9, they'll need to find something new for us to buy - I can hear the marketing hype - "If you're still watching widescreen, you're missing the top and bottom of the picture - check out our new 4:3 range!"

OK, lets say I want to go 16:9. How good is the Century 16:9 lens on Sony VX-2000 camera? How much will I still be able to zoom? How well will the autofocus work? At 42 I've become quite far sighted and tend to rely the autofocus more than I probably should. I don't mind framing shots with a stretched picture. Will the picture be noticably better than using the "widescreen" mode? I was also thinking of adding the mattbox pictured on the PD-150 at the top right side of this link with a UV filter (mostly for lens protection) and often an adjustable polaroid filter as well. Will the mattbox and fit over the 16:9 adapter? Will it throw off the balance of the camera? Is there a better solution to shade and protect the 16:9 adapter since it is almost $700?

OK, lets say I want to go 16:9. How good is the Century 16:9 lens on Sony VX-2000 camera? How much will I still be able to zoom? How well will the autofocus work? At 42 I've become quite far sighted and tend to rely the autofocus more than I probably should. I don't mind framing shots with a stretched picture. Will the picture be noticably better than using the "widescreen" mode? I was also thinking of adding the mattbox pictured on the PD-150 at the top right side of this link with a UV filter (mostly for lens protection) and often an adjustable polaroid filter as well. Will the mattbox and fit over the 16:9 adapter? Will it throw off the balance of the camera? Is there a better solution to shade and protect the 16:9 adapter since it is almost $700?

I don't know much about putting a matte box and lens onto the 2000. We do have an older Century lens that you couldn't use through the full zoom range. I believe the new one from Century fixes that problem. On the DVX 100 the 16:9 lens does need the built in sunshade machined down so the Chroziel matte box would fit.

Certainly the lens. matte box and rods are going to affect the balance of the camera. Then again I'd be nervous about shootin 16:9 unless the camera was on a tripod. Horizontals are more noticeable in 'widescreen'.

Bob.