Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

Activity Forums Apple Final Cut Pro Legacy 16 x 9 with pd-150

  • 16 x 9 with pd-150

    Posted by Renee Bergan on August 3, 2007 at 5:46 am

    Hi,

    I just did some shooting on my PD-150 with the 16 x 9 feature . I’ve heard mixed things about this feature on this camera…hence why i’ve not done i in the past. While the image looked fine on my lcd monitor, upon capturing, the image seems fuzzy. I’ve read some posts and it looks like that feature is indeed bunk for this camera (picture quality loss)….anything one can do in post to change this poorer picture quality…..i’m highly doubting , but thought i’d ask!

    thx.

    Renee Bergan replied 19 years ago 3 Members · 7 Replies
  • 7 Replies
  • Rafael Amador

    August 3, 2007 at 6:18 am

    The 16×9 of the PD150 is OK. Is not a native 16×9 because to get that the camera should have 16×9 CCDs but is much better that what you would get by shooting in 4×3 and them cropping.
    Have a look at those articles of Adam wilt and you will see what I’m talking about.

    https://www.dv.com/print_me.php?articleId=59100233

    https://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html
    Cheers,
    rafael

  • Don Greening

    August 3, 2007 at 7:29 am

    If you’re going to keep your PD170 for a while and want to shoot 16:9 with it consider getting an anamorphic adapter. I use one from Century Optics (now part of Schneider Optics) on my PD170 all the time when it’s shooting along side my XL2 and GL2 when we’re doing a widescreen shoot.

    A word of caution: Century Optics make 2 adapters and the less expensive one is not a zoom through, meaning after about 70% zoom it loses focus. The other one does zoom through but it costs about as much as your camera.

    Since everything is going widescreen in the new camera market there will be less and less demand for anamorphics at the prosumer level so you may be able to find the Century Optics piece for less than 3 or 4 hundred bucks. The model you’re looking for is:

    https://www.schneideroptics.com/Ecommerce/CatalogItemDetail.aspx?CID=1072&IID=873

    – Don

    “Please take a moment to fill out your profile, including your computer system and relevant software.”

  • Don Greening

    August 3, 2007 at 7:31 am

    I forgot that you have a PD150. It’s still the same part number.

    – Don

    “Please take a moment to fill out your profile, including your computer system and relevant software.”

  • Renee Bergan

    August 3, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    yes i’m reading that a lens adapter is the way to go…wanting to know more now what i can do in the after math.

    Sorry wasn’t sure my specs were necessary for this.

    mac powerbook 1.33
    1 g ram
    os 10.4.10
    fcp 5.1.4

  • Rafael Amador

    August 3, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    The Centuryoptic is the only think that can really improve the quality of the picture in your 150-PD because you use the full CCD. But think that to film with the Century adapter you need time. I mean, you have to focus the camera and them focus the adaptor. If your work is “shoot and run” is not much practical. Also the image that you get in the VF and in the LCD screen will be defformed (4×3) so you will need a mean to monitor properly what you are shooting.
    Rafael

  • Don Greening

    August 4, 2007 at 5:11 am

    I don’t think there’s much you can do in post to fix the Sony’s widescreen electronic stretch. That’s why I use the anamorphic lens when I need to shoot widescreen with it. You can try using a sharpening filter if you want but it’s going to look like someone tried to fix the picture because I’ve been there. It’s tough to work with pixels that are missing. Sorry I can’t be more helpful.

    I know a bunch of fellow event videographers who use the PD150/170 cameras all the time and they avoid the electronic stretch like the plague. The only way the in-camera widescreen looks half decent is if you have lots of lighting, but even then, don’t bother.

    – Don

  • Renee Bergan

    August 8, 2007 at 1:14 am

    that;s what i was afraid of —i’d heard it wasn’t true and therefore had avoided it myself for years…

    i tested….but not enough.

    drat.

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy