Actually you can set the time code on the PDX-10 in the same manner as the PD-150

Hi Geoff

I read ages ago about setting the timecode in your NLE and recording say 5min of black video to your tape via the 1394, the cam should then pickup on that TC, cant remember where i read it though

so on your multiproject get striping those tapes - just like the old days eh?

Howdy

I just got two TRV950's and am wondering if there is a way to change the focus distance in the display from meters to feet. Also is there a way to display the f.stops when in manual exposure like the VX2000? I haven't put a tape in the cameras yet, just busy messin' around with all the new stuff.

Thanks

Bob

There's no way while shooting to display the taking aperture or applied gain, though on replay (a bit late in my view) you can call this information up on screen. If you do a lot of shooting you'll get to know the apertures in relation to the silly "horizontal bar" display, but quite why Sony decided to leave out this very important information I cannot imagine.

I mean - look at all the other spam up there on screen. There must be many of us here on list who would gladly loose two or three silly display graphics just to have our apertures back.

tom.

Yes this is an odd feature of the PDX-10 and TRV-950. For some reason they decided to tell us the f stop, but not the focus distance on the VX-2000, and the focus distance but not the f-stop on the PDX-10! I doubt there's any way to change this from meters to feet either, certainly there is no menu option. Hey, it'll be good practice to learn the metric system for when the US converts ;-)

Someone else pointed out a little trick which helps with the f stops though. When the little bar graph has the pointer directly in the center, you are at F4.0. At first I really missed seeing the f-stop in the finder, but I've gotten used to it pretty quickly....

Does anybody have some TRV950 footage I could see...I really only want about 5-10 seconds but I'm trying to use it to compare camcorders since no shops near me have a TRV950 to look at. If possible do you have any uncompressed footage that's short? I've noticed that most picture quality looks about the same if its converted to wmv which seems to be the new standard in showing movie clips now (at least it is for my friends and others I know)! Thanks a BUNCH!!

Tim

I really don't think you're going to get far with this experiment Tim. The only real way to test camcorders is side-by-side, as the A/B test really sorts the men from the boys. I've had a PDX10 on the same big L bracket alongside the VX2000 (as they're both the same price) and that way the footage is directly comparable.

But take it from me - if the 950 shoots in not-too-contrasty and not-too-dim lighting and doesn't have any point sources of light in frame, then the results can be very good indeed. The camera cleverly forces you to use the lens' 'sweet spot' by applying more and more ND as the lighting increases, and this ensures that you get very sharp footage.

tom.

Would you say this camera has a faster auto-focus? I know the XL1s does not, Our school has 3 and...well its pretty bad in my opinion, at least compared to my $600 Sony one.

The auto focus no faster than the VX, but I found the automation could beat me every time. It knew which way to turn the lens and didn’t need to rock and roll when it reached accurate focus. If the subject moved the auto focus would follow with such speed that it was not obvious that it was working. It will focus in light too low to correctly expose the chips, even at maximum gain up. It is silent, fast and accurate, but as with all automation it’s easily fooled.

This is where Sony’s ‘push auto’ button is so good, my only complaint being that the button ‘clicks’ and isn’t really large enough. While the push auto button is depressed the camera will be in auto focus mode; once released you’re back to locked focus. A focused measurement in metres appears for about three seconds in the viewfinder to confirm the distance, and for pre-focusing in the dark this proved to be superb. The VX doesn't have this.

There’s an infinity focus position which is useful if you’re shooting through scratched aeroplane windows and there’s also a very clever and very effective Spot Focus mode With this activated the side screen becomes touch sensitive and you can do very rapid and accurate pull focus effects by simply touching the image that you want to be focused on the screen. A tripod set-up is almost a necessity, but I couldn’t fault the ingenuity of the design or the effectiveness of the actuation. It’s fun to play with but I found it of little practical use.

tom.

Yeah, thats what I'm worried about on the Canon's. I've thought of the spot focus only necessary when you're say shooting throuh woods and stuff, or like through bushes...thats about it?

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : While the push auto button is depressed the camera will be in auto focus mode; once released you’re back to locked focus. A focused measurement in metres appears for about three seconds in the viewfinder -->>>

This is really a nice feature on both the PDX-10 and TRV-950, and is how I shoot most of the time. Recently I've been using the autofocus push button, then noting the distance (in meters) that displays in the viewfinder. Then I can manually focus with the ring later, and use the distance display to hit the mark. Unfortunately the focus ring is not very responsive, but you can get the hang of it after some practice, and the distance readout is a real plus as it gives you a little feedback.

Is the focus ring on your vx2000 significantly more, less, or similarly responsive compared with the PDX10, Boyd (or Tom)?
To add to the pot, I haven't a great deal of experience with many different cameras, but I find the PDX10'S autofocus to be very responsive, with very little hunting or foolery. I really have yet to see it become confused between two objects. Just lucky, I guess. This camera has an optional in- frame target display frame that is basically brackets, [ :-) ], sorry, can't remember what it's actually called, that I find extremely helpful to my eye in helping define the proportions of the image, and I think also they can give a sense of where the autofocus is going to land. I'm sure I shoot what is called "run n gun", for the most part, in a classroom setting, where I'm tracking a teacher/speaker, and also covering a room of student/teacher trainees, picking up moments between two people here and there amidst a lot of moments, from across the way, with, sometimes, a bit of someone along the side of the frame, as part of composition, and the autofocus is almost never confused.

Well it's just "different" than the VX-2000. It's a smaller, tighter ring. If you turn it very slowly it doesn't seem to do anything, which is reinforced by not seeing the focus distance change in the viewfinder. Neither camera has a decent focus ring unfortunately, but I'd give the PDX-10 the advantage due to the distance display, so at least you have some idea of what's happening, and some hope of hitting the target in a rack focus situation.

The main issue I have with autofocus is that it gets lost under very dark conditions. Generally, these would be conditions where there isn't enough light for a decent image anyway. But where it always gets me is when I film our performances. When the houselights go out and the theatre is dark the autofocus either hunts or becomes totally blurred. Then when the stagelights come on it snaps back into focus. I really hate this sort of look right at the beginning of a scene, so I now make it a point to be sure to have a rough focus laid in and switch to manual before the houselights go out. Then as I film I continue to use manual focus, augmented by the instantaneous auto pushbutton.

of course the big booty with the focus in low light with the 950 is the advantage of the laser rangefinder (figure movie Predator) which is happenin in photo mode and places a matrix of red lines on your talents forehead if u like :)

- you can also skwirt them with 5 multipulses from the flashlight and watch them run for cover (even funnier)

when focussed - switch to cam mode and shoot

- pure terror they think the SWAT team is in da house :)



on topic

TIM - if you search through my posts you will find some footage you are seeking

Beg pardon?

Good points Boyd, and I know what you mean by the auto-focus hunting as the stage lights come up on scene 4. The PDX10 overcomes this in that you can preset the focus (in the dark) by looking at the 3 seconds of 'distance display', and this is much better than the VX's 'where the hell are we?' system.

Both focus rings do nothing if turned too slowly but the PDX's at least warns you that nothing's happening as no distance display appears.

But the real cruncher is that because the VX sees so much better in the dark it's autofocus does likewise. The three stop difference is a massive knockout.

tom.

I got my 950E about a year ago and have been delighted with the results it can deliver. I am slightly disappointed with low light performance (learnt to live with it) but what really ticks me off is the ability of the PDX10 to reproduce real 16:9 where as the 950 crops. As I understand, there is no difference in the CCD's of these cameras and technically speaking the 950 could do 16:9 a la PDX. So my question is, does anyone know of a hack that would enable true 16:9 on the 950? It sounds that the only thing that differentiates the two is the way in which the cameras are programmed to scan the CCD in 16:9 mode, so could the 950 be reprogrammed to do this or is the issue more complicated?

There are also other differences: the PDX10 comes with an XLR audio input module and what seems to be a hypercardoid external condenser microphone. I think the 950 has a color VF and not the black and white one which comes with the PDX10. Also I presume (though I could be mistaken) that the 950 does not have a custum setup menu nor can it record in DVCAM mode (though it most likely can play back DVCAM tapes).

However, I do think you are probably right in assuming that the 950 is physically capable of using the full CCD width for 16:9 video. The firmware is probably responsible for this.

Two questions: on your 950, do the angular width and hight of the image change (get wider and taller) when you switch from video mode to 'memory' mode? When you are in memory mode, does the camera output pseudo progressive 30fps video through the firewire port? If the answer to both questions is yes, then the video processing of the cam is very similar to the PDX10 and you are probably right in your assumption.

I assume you already checked whether the image field goes wider when setting video mode from 4:3 to 16:9. If it does, then you have nothing to worry about: you are in 'native' 16:9. If it does not, then you have a good reason to get mad at Sony for deliberately crippling the camera just so they can charge more for the 'pro' model.

You are right Ignacio, the PDX, obviously has DVCAM capability, XLR and the VF is B&W. It also lacks the flash that the 950 has as this area is used for the XLR mounting shoe; I personally would rather sling a beachtek under the cam as I imagine the XLR makes the cam real front heavy. The 950 does have the custom preset however, but does not do stuff like continuous TC and does not come with the bid hood that would probably work with my WA lens. (anyone know where to get a spare?)
But what really gets me is that it would seem Sony has cheated the prosumer out of true 16:9, reserving this for the PDX. The 950 has the same 1/4 inch CCD as the PDX and in 4:3 they both only scan 1/4.7. They both use the full 1/4 inch in Memory mode, hence the wider picture. But in 16:9 the 950 crops and looses resolution where as the PDX uses the full CCD as in memory mode. I personally fell cheated by this as it seems to be a conscious decision by Sony to reserve this feature for the PDX when the 950 is just as capable of doing it on paper. I just hope that some genius comes up with a way of hacking into the 950 firmware to enable true 16:9.

You shouldn't feel cheated Patrick, you chose the flash gun, others chose the 16:9 option. And you paid a lot less than the PDX guy for the same imaging lens/chip assembly.

The PD100 wasn't much of a sales success alongside the much more popular (and much cheaper) TRV900, and Sony learnt from this. They've now given the PDX10 an USP that even makes potential VX2000 buyers sit up and take notice.

But like you I think it can be hacked. The very fact that the stills utilise the full chip width points to the fact that the 950's black bars are just a way of hiding what's actually going on in the background. Think on this: The 950's black bars are simply vertical (pillar box), hiding the full width and wider-angle view of the 16:9 capability. How's that for a conspiracy theory?

tom.

Patrick,

This has been discussed in the past, but I don't know that there is a definitive answer. I can't find the link, but a year or so back somebody did a few interesting tests to try and determine how many pixels were actually used in the various modes on the PDX-10 and TRV-950. Basically what he did was take a still photo (in photo mode) since that uses all the pixels. Then, without moving the camera he shot some 4:3 and some 16:9 video. By comparing these with the still photo he was able to divine how much of the CCD was being used.

The results indicated that the PDX-10 did expand the field of view and use enough pixels to acheive a "real" 16:9 image. The TRV-950 used a smaller section of the CCD, however it still appeared to use more than 480 vertical lines, and did not crop to 360 like many other camcorders.

So the consensus was that while the TRV-950 doesn't use as many pixels as the PDX-10 in 16:9 mode, it should still surpass the vertical resolution of cameras like the PD-150 or VX-2000. But I should point out that others questioned these findings as well.

Whoa... hold the phone a minute... I just dug through some old postings and find the link in question: http://www.techshop.net/PDX-10/!

Really? Vertical black bars in the VF? I would think Sony would at least be a little more subtle!

Intersting note Boyd. I would think other megapixel DV cameras might also offer better 16:9 performance even if the image does not visibly widen when changing modes.

The link you posted shows what I've found Boyd - that the PDX10 doesn't use the full 4:3 vertical resolution when put into the 16:9 mode. Why Sony have 'degraded' the resolution potential of the 16:9 image I can't imagine.

Graph paper filming tests show that the 16:9 mode uses 10% less vertical CCD pixels than in the 4:3 mode but 20% more horizontal pixels. In a perfect world the vertical resolution would remain unaffected and the horizontal pixel count would increase by 25%, but this Sony solution is most certainly a step in the right direction. Low light sensitivity, Steady Shot and camera control are all unaffected by the switch to widescreen, though the telephoto reach is somewhat reduced and the slight barrel distortion visible at the wide-angle end of the zoom becomes more apparent.

tom.

You say:

Now if there were a nice algorythm to get rid of the vertical smear, we would all be happy!

But surely, Sony know how to fix this fault. Neither the PD100 nor the PD150 smear in this way, and both of them are older designs. So what's the common demonitor? Why, bigger chips. Easy, huh? The smear seems a high price to pay for the mega-pixel capability if you ask me.

tom.

I thank you all for this discussion, I have been interested in this myself. Another interesting thing, I also have a Sony 510 Digital 8. It seems to have true 16:9. When I turn it on the image is much wider. I also have the Canon Optura PI. In the 16:9 setting the image is taller. My 950 is as you described, just bars across top & bottom. The 510 D8 seemingly has true 16:9, but also has Bars top & bottom. The Optura PI produces a taller image in 16:9. I don't understand how it is able to convert to a wider image.

Thank you all for the excellent response to this thread.

The link provided by Jeremy is an interesting one but I am not sure if this technique will work although it certainly demands a little more investigation.
I even read in a French forum that the true 16:9 capability of the PDX10 was a hardware issue and not firmware. I have not come across any reliable information that says the 16:9 in the PDX is hardware enabled or vice versa, so I guess I am still in the dark. As it stands, I think I am investing too much time chasing this Holy Grail and should concentrate more on improving my film making skills in good ol fashion 4:3. Hell, I don’t even have a wide screen TV!.

Thanks to you all again.

P.S Jeremy, dont know if I understand you right but you certainly can read the memory stick over USB and access mem stick in windows.

Yes Bob, the Sony 510 Digital 8 does seems to have true 16:9. because in 16:9 mode the view is much wider, it's using the full with of the mega-pixel chip. On the Canon Optura PI the image is taller but that's simply because the viewfinder is not adding the black bars to undistort the image. How lazy of Canon. If you replay this Canon 16:9 footage on a 16:9 TV all will look ok, but on a 4:3 TV the image is horizontally compressed.

The 950 has bars across top & bottom of the V/F, but this is a compositional aid, and is done to show you the correct aspect ratio while shooting. Again - on a 4:3 TV the image will be horizontally compressed - and on a 16:9 TV will be stretched sideways to look correct.

The PDX10 in the 16:9 mode is like having a TRV950 with a 0.8x wide-angle permanently in place (in the horizontal only). The camera cries out for this, and the 950's wide-angle certainly should be called something else. It's not wide-angle in the slightest.

tom.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : The link you posted shows what I've found Boyd - that the PDX10 doesn't use the full 4:3 vertical resolution when put into the 16:9 mode. Why Sony have 'degraded' the resolution potential of the 16:9 image I can't imagine.

Graph paper filming tests show that the 16:9 mode uses 10% less vertical CCD pixels than in the 4:3 mode but 20% more horizontal pixels. In a perfect world the vertical resolution would remain unaffected and the horizontal pixel count would increase by 25%, but this Sony solution is most certainly a step in the right direction. Low light sensitivity, Steady Shot and camera control are all unaffected by the switch to widescreen, though the telephoto reach is somewhat reduced and the slight barrel distortion visible at the wide-angle end of the zoom becomes more apparent.

tom. -->>>


what Tom is saying is essentially correct,

put another way and comparing the 16:9 from an x10 and a 950 from the same country, you will find that the x10 has 20% more pixels in the horizontal AND 20% more pixels in the vertical

thus the 16:9 vertical resolution of the x10 is 20% more than the 950

However if you compare the 16:9 of a NTSC x10 with the 16:9 of a PAL 950 you will find they have the SAME vertical resolution, this is because PAL has 20% more vertical resolution over NTSC (576/480 = 1.2). The vertical resolutions are the same but the NTSC x10 uses 20% more pixels to achieve it than the PAL 950

So Patrick, how do you like those apples?

This would explain why, when both are available from the same store, PAL models cost more than NTSC models, even in PAL countries!

Take a look at this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=109457#post109457

Now if only PAL were 24 instead of 25 fps ;-)

Whats with the apples?

I am aware of how the PDX acheives 16:9. What I want in my 950 is the wider 16:9; full horizontal scanning of the whole 1/4" CCD with a little vertical res sacrificed to bring ratios into correct proportions. How the pdx does this and whether its technically possible to get the 950 to do it is what I am curious about. I have an unfounded huntch that It all lies in different firmware configs as discussed earlier in this post. Perhaps one day i will find an answer but hopefully by then my 950 will be retired, replaced by a DVX100 :)

I ordered this camera the other day, the TRV950, and I was wondering if it would be a worthy investment for Sony's "Zoom Mic" that plugs into the hot shoe or another shotgun type mic. I will be doing a lot of "guerilla" shooting which I basically mean just unscripted fun stuff. Is it a worthy investment or does the onboard mic work just fine for this. I've had Sony's in the past and always found the mics better than say Canon's onboard but was wondering as I moved up to a prosumer camera should I move up a level in audio also. Our school has handheld mics, and wireless mics (forgive the lingo, i'm tired) so I probably won't be investing in one of those until...school's out! Thanks for any input!

There has been much discussion about this over the last year or so. I tested the 950 and found that it does not, in fact, increase its field of view.

However, all may not be lost: check out the resolution charts here:
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/0208_3CCD.html

Scroll to the bottom and look at the resolution charts that were shot in 16:9. The TRV950 shot there is dramatically higher resolution than the VX2000 and the Canon DM-XV2. In fact the TRV950 shot is on par with the MX5000, the camera that invented the 16:9-patch-on-4:3-megapixel-CCD-for-full-resolution technique. So whether the TRV950 matches the PDX10 or not, it appears to have an excellent, excellent 16:9 mode of its own.

TRV950 - being a Sony - has very good onboard mic. So good that it picks up the sound of your breath when you look in the viewfinder, your fingers when you try to find the zoom, the zoom motor etc.

If your sound source is good and loud you will not have a problem. But you should have an extra mic handy.

I use a Sennheiser MKE300 on top of mine. The Sony (I think) will take power from the hot shoe, so you don't have to worry about mic batteries. I have read some expert say that it's a good mic but the "zoom" thing is more of a marketing feature - meaning it will hardly make a difference.

If you are recording ambient sound or sound from several sources, remember that the character of your sound will change as you turn your camera and with it the directional mic. The onboard will actually work better in a case like that. Or you could record ambience with a separate system (A stereo mic and a minidisc recorder would do in most cases). Afterwards you can mix that sound with what the directional mic has recorded.

Tor,
Do you pick up any motor noise with the mke300? I'm wondering because many posts on this mic in the past mention something to this effect.

Tim, I would forget about zoom mics and concentrate on the better of the consumer cam mics, although I don't know what all those are. The mke300 might be fine for you ($170).

No motor sound (or rather: so little that I don't consider it).
The complaints I've seen about mke300 is that on some cameras it seems to interfere with the "phantom feed" thus creating some noise. That's why Sennheiser issued a mke300d specially designed to be used with DV cameras. I use the plain mke300 and do not have such problems on the TRV950.

Although I do not have a shotgun currently on my 950, I have been looking into the matter and have a good idea what I am going to go for.
First, you have to consider budget. If you have at least £400/$500 then get a beacktek box for XLR and use the Sennheiser modular K6 system with ME66 shotgun.
Sennheiser also have the MKE300D. It must be a "D" however, as these have shielding to prevent interference with digital cams. This is apparently a very good prosumer shotgun mic with 3.5 mini jack and retails in the UK for £160.
I have also heard many people rave about Azden shotguns (Exact model escapes me, something like XMR1?). These sound great and come in XLR or 3.5 mini jack and represent serious value for money as I have read from many sources that the sound they deliver is unrivalled at the price.
The last Mic I was looking at is an Audio Technica AT55. It’s a mono shotgun with mini jack but it is cheap and will probably be better than the Sony.
Speaking of the Sony, I have read that it is poor. It is hot shoe and works with the cameras zoom. At tele the mic takes over but at wide settings I have heard it mixes 80% cam mic with 20% external with the results being mixed up and confused.
At the end of the day, go for the K6/ME66 if you can, many professional organisations such as the BBC use it with their DV cams.

If you're thinking about the Sony HS-1 little 'intelligent' hotshoe mic, please go here (quarter way down the page) and read my review on it.
http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/mic.html

tom.

hopefully by then my 950 will be retired, replaced by a DVX100

I guess you would get a 16:9 adapter for the DVX100? :)

I'm asking on behalf of someone else.

Are there any 950 shooters using this microphone? It seems a bit long for the cam. I did a search here and could find only vx2000 shooters working with it, and one instance of someone who was GOING to get this mic for his/her 950, without a follow up.

If so, does it pick up much handling noise when mounted straight to the cam?
It looks like it would. If so, can that "integrated" shock mount be removed (and replaced with a proper universal)?

Any other like priced shotgun recommendations are welcome.

Thanks,
Regards,
Shawn

Oh, and please specify whether or not you use an XLR adaptor box. I'm thinking that this person could go without one, and simply adapt it to a mini jack via cable, at least for now. He/she is on a small budget.

I'm expecting to be going to Russia in the next few months and I really want to take my camera with me. It says it shouldn't be used in temperatures under 0 degrees, but I wonder how crucial this is. Just wondering if anyone knows anything that may help me in my decision. I've heard of issues with Russian customs and so forth, but I thort I'd ask here first.

Cheers

I've used my XL1S with -5 (centegrade) temperatures without
any problems. It did have time to adapt inside a bag though.

Expect anything from +15 to -45 C. Russia is biiig.
Expect batteries to last much much shorter than you are used to, so keep them warm.
Maybe someone else has detailed advise on moving the camera from indoors to outdoors and back again in a safe manner. I don't remember it well enough to pass it on. Rob's on to something.

I have a SGM 1x and a TRV-900, which is similar to the TRV-950. If you mount the mic on the camera, it will likely show up in the frame of the shot unless you slide the mic way back into the shockmount.

In doing that, it isn't going to be much better than the built in mics (at least on the TRV-900, the built-in mics are pretty darn good). I guess it may be a bit more directional than the built-ins.

You could get an external camera flash bracket. This screws into the tripod mounting hole on the bottom of the camera, and has a handle off to the side, on top of which is an accessory mount you can attach the mic to. That would get the mic a bit farther away from the camera (to avoid motor noise) and get it out of the frame of the shot.

What you really want is to get a nice long XLR cable, then attach that to an XLR-1/8" inline transformer adapter (maybe you can get these at radio shack), and get the mic as close to the speaker/action as possible. I took a 3', thick wooden dowel from the hardware store, drilled a 1/4" hole in one end, stuck a bolt thru it, and then screw that bolt into the mic shockmount. Instant low-cost fishpole. Have a grip hold it and point it at the action, as close as possible w/o getting in the shot.

For my latest work, I used a large diaphram cardiod studio mic (Rode NT1) on a mic stand boom running into a separate mixer and recorder. I thought the audio quality was quite better than running the Azden into the camera mic input.

Folks,

I've had my TRV950 for some 6 weeks now and have learned, for the most part, where its strengths are, and where I think it is weak.

However, there is one aspect that I am wonder if it is a weakness of all models of TRV950, or mine in particular. This aspect is the amount of ambient noise emanating from the lens barrel with autofocus on. Since the TRV-950 has a built-in mic, the level of noise at the barrel is important...but...even on the PDX-10 it still would play some role with the mic sticking out right above the barrel, in my case as you will note below.

So....here is a specific set of observations. Depending upon folks responses to these observations I may send my camera back to Sony to have the lens assembly and autofocus motor swapped out.

Observations:
1. Upon turning on the camera from off state an audible "clack - clack (actually sounds like cluck, cluck)", similar to a rocker being set in place emanates (from area of lens barrel and just behind) for about 1 second. Is this normal? ... anyone know what this is?

2. With autofocus on, and camera panning to force the autofocus system to work, and ear in the vicinity of the lens barrel, or right on the lens barrel, I can clearly hear the turning of the servo combined with some kind of "tickover" - like a small gear tick. If I place my ear against the tape compartment solidly, with cam in MEMORY Mode, to eliminate the head/tape noise I can hear this tick, tick, tick of the autofocus system as well. Further, this tick, tick makes it all the way to the tape in quiet recording environments. In more normal recording environments....ambient noise ~60db it does not. In a completely quiet room - I can even here the autofocus system working when I use the eyepiece, some 7 inches away from the lens assembly. For the most part, when using the LCD screen, I cannot hear the autofocus system working.

Notes: As far as I can test....the autofocus is working. It has been fooled several times during stills where I thought it should not have been, but, careful tests on a tripod with non-moving subjets (to remove the possibility of motion blur being mistaken as out of focus) at all zoom ranges seems to indicate the autofocus system is actually autofocussing.

Is this autofocus noise a "feature" of the PDX10/TRV950 as a product?....or do I have an excessively noisy motor. (PS - I know that without you folks being able to perform the test this is really an unfair ask...but.....short of sending it back to Sony to find out.....there is no other way to learn if others experience the same noise). I did try to listen to another TRV950 at a local dealer but the ambient noise was probably 90 dB in the showroom area.....could not hear anything but that during the testing.

Thank you for your time in responding.....

As far as your first question goes I just tried mine in a quiet room with no noise and I get a similar set of sounds when I power up the camcorder. A whirrr, 2 click type sounds and another whir from I am pretty sure the autofocus motor as it does not do this sound in manuel focus.
I will try out the other situations though I know there is noise that bleeds over into the audio if I use the onboard mic so I avoid using it except for klutzing around the house.
I have not had any autofocus problems as far as focus time or drifting though I have heard people say they have had problems under certain situations.
KennJ

I'm certain my autofocus makes a noise too, but i can't hear it because the tape motor makes too much noise. With that, I've decided the built-in mic is unusable in lownoise conditions anyway.

Thank you for the responses.......

am looking at external mics now.....

I've had my eye on a TRV950 for a long time and am ready to buy. But now that Canon is offering a $250 rebate on the GL2 I can get one for a little more money. So the question one must answer is, what do I get for the additional cost. Well, one feature is progressive mode. I understand what progressive mode is technically. But how does it affect your results, the final video?

I shoot indoor sporting events, namely Judo. I edit and add slow motion replays. Will progressive mode video give me better slow motion? What are the disadvantages of progressive mode? Does it blur when shooting action sequences? Does it require better lighting? (Remember, I shoot indoors with available lighting).

Thanks!

You really have to see progressive or Movie Mode for yourself to determine whether it's appropriate or pleasing.

I last heard that it's better to do slo mo with 60i, but post that one in Film Look if you haven't already, you're sure to get plenty of feedback.

The GL2 is going to do better in lowlight, with it's bigger chips and lower pixel count, which indoor, available light almost always translates as. On paper, this is pleasing, but it may not matter in the least, depending on your situation.

The GL2 has a long optical zoom, a feature that surely must be appreciated by sports shooters. I find the 12x zoom of the 950/PDX10 adequate in most scenarios; though I have not shot sports, I have shot live theater, so shooting from a distance isn't foreign to me.