Thanks for the input vid. I have done a few small projects in documentary fashion with my DVC 80 panny. I then letterboxed them with pan and crop in vegas and did some other tweaks I read about on Spots tutorial.. They turned out rather well I think.. I impressed myself and others. I have been wanting to do a storm chase documentary and I recently purchased the DVX100A. Thusthe season is here and I believe as my experience as an amatuer storm chaser and videoographer that I may need more than one season.

I used the letterbox mode in the camera and it seemed to widen the video. It looked really good. So I guess Im not offended by your inexperience comment. As I can do a good job with the experience I do have I just have not ever created anything intended for mass public viewing. I guess thats why Im asking..

Ok, so I can appreciate your idea about 30p in 4:3. Can you tell me why I shouldnt use the letterbox mode?? how will that limit me??? As it will give me I think the look and feel I am looking for. The camera has a squeeze mode as well which I am unsure how to utilize.. And why do you think 30p over 24p?? Thanks again for your input.

You should probley shoot in 4:3. Not because it looks better, but because people seem to prefer black bars on the left/right on a wide screen TV showing 4:3 then black bars on the top/bottom with a sdtv showing 16:9 (i had a long talk with the video store owner i rent from. He noticed this about people renting DVD's).

Go figure. :)

Can you tell me why I shouldnt use the letterbox mode??

I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't use letterbox. It was just one person's opinion.

how will that limit me???

It won't, necessarily. However, I'm not certain that I would worry so much about a format that such a small percentage of the view public uses. The vast majority of people still have/use televisions that are 4:3. Again, just one person's observation.

As it will give me I think the look and feel I am looking for.

Okay, that being the case, what does it matter? If you're happy with it, then why go through this exercise? By all means, do what fits you and your taste best.

J--

Well there is no right answer to these questions, but there has been a good bit of discussion about these things in the past.

A big question is where do you hope to use most of this footage? If you want it on broadcast TV, then (at this point) one of your 30 fps modes is probably best. If you plan to go to DVD mostly, then 24 fps will work and it lets you put more video on the DVD.

In your case, there might be some high-speed events (lightning) or some fast motion. For that 30 may give better detail than 24.

I have a widescreen TV and I aways look for widescreen material (on TV or DVD) but a lot of people may prefer 4:3 image over a letterboxed wide on their current sets. I would think widescreen would look great for any storm shots you can get.

The wide mode in the DVX100 does throw away some of the vertical image detail by not using the top and bottom of the ccd sensors. I hear it is a little bit better than converting a 4:3 image to 16:9 in post.

If you plan to do a lot of widescreen shooting with the DVX100, then at some point you may want to add the AG-LA7200G anamorphic lens adapter. (It's around $800, though.) This horizontally squishes the wide image to fit the format of the 4:3 chips, letting you get maximum resolution recorded. Vegas knows how to process this image so it looks wide in editing. It is not the resolution you can get from full HD, but it is essentially the same image that is recorded on a standard widescreen DVD.

So that gives a few things to think about. You could also go look at posts on the creativecow DVX100 forum.

Are you saying that if I use the squeeze mode Vegas will process it ok?? Do I render to what kind of file??

$.002 worth from here--I have a DVX100 and always shoot in 24p and 24pA for the Look (though I do fictional stuff so a good bit of $$ goes into lighting) and for REAL good-looking DVDs. The Vegas 4.0 NLE can smooth out the choppiness in fast-motion shots in various ways, even at 24p.

The anamorphic lens adapter is a way to get maximum mileage out of every line of resolution in the NTSC-DV format by not cropping the picture, and with it the color information and luminance. You record a stretched-looking picture onto tape, then "squeeze" the footage back to a normal aspect ratio with your NLE. I read on the net just yesterday (sorry I didn't note the brand name, think it's Panasonic) that someone's coming out with a viewfinder adapter so you can look into your eyepiece with the anamorphic lens on, and see a picture that's in normal aspect ratio.

I haven't done much of this (16:9), so hopefully I'm not giving you bad info.

As I recall, if you select the 16:9 mode in the dvx100, then the output is 4:3 with black at the top and bottom. I'm not sure I remember the best way - maybe someone else can help - but if you want to treat it as real 16:9 in your edit, you select a 16:9 template for your project. I don't recall if Vegas will automatically crop and expand the image or if you have to manually do it with pan/crop. I don't have time to try it now, but plan to learn about this soon.

If you use the anamorphic lens adaptor (this is essentially a wide angle adapter, but only in the horizontal plane) the output from the cam is still 4:3. Think of the 16:9 image being squished horizontally to fit in a 4:3 window. Looking at the 4:3 output things will look tall and thin.

To process this as 16:9, I believe you set a custom template for input with the pixel aspect ratio modified to expand the 4:3 image to fill a 16:9 window and you use a widescreen template for your project.

I hope I got that basically right.

When you are recording with the anamorphic lens, the dvx100 doesn't have a way to letterbox the display so images on the lcd or viewfinder will have that tall, thin look. I think the product that Vitalforces mentioned mentioned was posted on this forum to be introduced at NAB. I think it is from Century Optics, and I gather it will attach to the viewfinder and optically do the opposite of what the anamorphic adapter does, so you can see the 16:9 image.

my understanding is .. as I have witnessed is a squeeze mode.. And they say.. which I am unsure it is almost indescernable when just shooting with an anamorphic adapter.. I guess I need to play around with the squeeze mode and see if I can edit it in Vegas..

>>>I read on the net just yesterday (sorry I didn't note the brand name, think it's Panasonic) that someone's coming out with a viewfinder adapter so you can look into your eyepiece with the anamorphic lens on, and see a picture that's in normal aspect ratio.<<<

I made a post about this the other day in my "Sony NAB" thread - it is from Century Optics and it slips over the eyepiece and unsqueezes the anamporphic image. Sounds very nice to me.

As for the overall discussion here - look forward and see what you can. With more and more HDTV's being sold and the overal HD requirements that should all be in place in the US by next year - I would say rent or buy the anamorphic lens and shoot full 16:9. My opinion but this will give you a lot more to work with if/when you want to uprez to HD. The letterbox mode and squeeze mode are more or less the same type of thing - they crop the image. On eplaces that croped inage in a letterbox and the other just squeezes it into the 720x480 frame to be unsqueezed in your NLE or your widescreen monitor/tv. There is nothting wrong with eith method really, except the loss of quality when blowing up. You are also looking at a longer render time if you shoot 4:3 and than crop to 16:9 in Vegas.

Frame rate is up in the air. I love the "film look" but as some have pointed out you may need the higher frame rate for some of the footage. Either way I would shoot progressive though.

With more and more HDTV's being sold and the overal HD requirements that should all be in place in the US by next year

Filmy, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'd be curious to know, what do you base the above statement on? Everything I've read (and I've certainly not read it all) says they're no closer to a "standard" than they were this time last year.

If and when they get a "standard" established, how long will it take the manufacturers to be up to speed, if they ever get there at all?

Maybe I'm being a bit too pessimistic, but it strikes me as being a tad early in the game to be planning on HD in the prosumer market.

J--

Well I played with it some last night.. I used the 16:9 squeeze mode in 30p and shot some footage out in the front yard, cars going by etc.. The Squeeze mode makes things look tall and distorted.. I put it into the NLE and it squeezed it back to a 16:9 wide screen format.. It was beautiful.. I made a short flick and burned it to DVD in 4:3 mode.. When rendering to 4:3 mode it gave me the letterbox look.. If I want to do the format for a true 16:9 then I render it to the 16:9 format.. 16:9 looks distorted on a 4:3 screen
Just wanted to report back my findings.. I am torn between the 24p and 30 p although Im leaning towards 30p...

I gather we are looking at differences. I have the original dvx100 (not A) which doesn't have squeeze mode.

I did experiment a little with letterbox mode on mine and it is a waste of time. Might as well shoot in normal 4:3 mode and crop in post, as all it does is add black bars on top and bottom to form the aspect.

I haven't seen the output from a dvx100a but I guess it looks like the anamorphic adapter will. This should save the cropping step in post and maybe add a slight advantage over the original dvx100 image.

I can't say for sure as I have not seen the 100A yet so my advice is uninformed. I will have the anamorphic adapter next week. That will be fun to learn and play with.

>>>Filmy, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'd be curious to know, what do you base the above statement on?<<<
FCC set timeline for broadcasters that was put into motion in 1997 that gave public broadcasting stations 6 years and 7 years for commercial ones. The last numbers I saw said that all DTV/HDTV must be in place 100% by 2005. Thusly if you are making something for broadcast IMO it would be good to have HD material at the ready. However many broadcasters have been requesting more time because they are dragging their feet.

On the consumer side the dates are bit different and went into play in 2002 -

Receivers with screen sizes 36 inches and above -- 50% of a responsible party’s units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2004; 100% of such units must include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2005.

It keeps pulling back.

I'm proud of my choice in jumping in. A couple years back I bought my TV. It was an RCA 38 inch, but it included a built-in HDTV reciever and HD capable DirecTV reciever too. About $2000 when I bought it but down to about $1500 before it disappeared.

Don't know why it went away, maybe too much value for the current market. I would have to spend way more now for all the same features in separate devices. I thought this product I bought was an opening of a window that would evolve into more and cheaper options.

Until the costs come down the government dictates will never hold up. I have to say that since I have this TV, I am sold on the HD advantages. I just wish there was more HD programming and the bugs were sorted out.

Bugs: Glitches during many shows where the signal goes away. Many, many instances where the audio is ANNOYINGLY out of sync with the video. FOX programming where there is no HD broadcast of major shows or it is in HD but the audio is completely missing or not the network version.

Ok: This is OT for this thread. Maybe I should have posted this as a new thread: 'HD shows promise but implementation sucks'.

I found the letterbox mode in DVX100A to actually be wider.. It does not in the least appear to be just black bars top and bottom.. It is actually a stretched image in DVX100a. I think I see slight indescernable distortion in letterbox mode.. I cant be for sure.. SO I am just saying that the letterbox mode in DVX100a is not just cropping.. it is squeezeing in my deduction.. The squeeze mode on the other hand squeezes it and it makes it all tall and distorted when editing it looks like widescreen.. In rendering it will look ok if you render it in 4:3.. It will have the cropping synonomous with 16:9 on a 4:3 screen using a 4:3 template.. If I use a 16:9 template it will look distorted again on my 4:3 television.. I assume it will be perfect on a 16:9

Filmy, I understand what you're saying. I'm even in agreemnt with you in theory. However, in practice, it doesn't, at this time, seem all that important. After all, 2007 is a ways off yet!

While working on a documentary three years ago, I had a producer who was insisting that we shoot in HD. "Why?" I asked. "Because it is the up and coming thing," was her reply. That was three years ago, and it still ain't here and won't be for at least another three years, probably more before a true "standard" is established on both the production and delivery ends.

I just don't see the need to rush into HD at this early stage. Within three years, I guarantee things (technology) will change dramatically. Why go to such expense at this time when the dust hasn't settled? To me, it doesn't appear to be cost effective.

I'd be interested in knowing exactly how many here, regardless of their "professional standing," actually have clients that are demanding things shot in HD? In Miami, I've had one in over three years! It's not New York or L.A., but it ain't Nitro, West Virginia, either!

Overall, from what I've seen, it is another clear case of our being more enamored with the technology than with content. Shooting in HD won't make mediocre to poor programs any better.

J--

I'm not sure if I really understand your post. If you haven't come to terms with stretch mode in Vegas, try this..

Define your project to be an NTSC wide mode (aspect 1.2121) maybe progressive too - you may want to change stuff. Put your media on the timeline. Select it and right-click to modify properties. Unclick 'Maintain aspect ratio'.

This is just a guess. I don't have a DVX100a to compare, but from what I have read, I think this sould work.

I think your view point is shared by many many people. Look a what has been done to the Star Wars films - they have the money to do that, but do you? Or do I? What I mean is to go in an re-master things every few years. I am not saying they should have seen it coming and planned, but I am saying that all of us here *can* see HD coming. Many of us already have something HD oriented. For me personally I can think back maybe 10 short years ago - and begging some of the producers I worked with to please shoot for 16:9 and please let me mix in stereo. "There is no makert for that" was always the response. Well now these films are out on DVD and people who see them (myself included) just think they are sooooooo poor. And they are to a point...but they were created for a certian viewing audience that was "the norm" at the time. And those who rented VHS tapes and played them on their 20 inch, max , televisions that had mono sound. The producer wanted to play to the lowest common denomiator and did not plan on things like DVD's and home 5:1 systems let alone HD. Because I was the mixer and sound mixer on some of these I cringe when people say they saw the DVD and 'boy did the sound suck.' I am almost embarresed. I would love to do what Lucas does and go back in and remaster thiese. Hell, I see that Anchor Bay has redone "The Dead Next Door" for a special edition DVD so maybe my past work could be remasterd as well. Just need someone to cough up the money. :)

But really my point is that if someone has no plans to ever go HD with their material than it doesn't matter right now. But I think for storm footage - I mean sure he could shoot normal DV with a basic camera but he could also shoot HDV and end up with some really nice, and marketbale, storm footage. In other words at what point would someone go "Man I wish we had so really nice HD footage for our 'Storm Chasers' project on Discovery Channel."