Hello Boyd

First Merry Chrismas to you and all that read this thread.

I just have see the vertical smear example on your webpage:
http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10/smear/

Is there any way to shoot sunsets or sunrises without this vertical smear?
I love this Camera but that with verical smear is a negativ point.
I have the PDX 10 for just one day and only the verical smear is the problem.
On the Day" Becauce in Sweden the sun is very low now" i have always verical smear.
On the Night i was out in the city and with all the Chrismas lights i just can control the Camera.
I am thinking to go to Agypt, Red Sea, on Mars and with all this verical smear problem I am thinking not to pursale the PDX 10
but going up with a 1/3 chip camera.
Thats very sad becauce I love tha native 16:9 format but I I hate to ruine shoots. The new panasonics 30, 80 & 100 are my altenativ.

I know they are more expensive but for me that is not the problem. I pay 800-1000 $ more if I get exact whant.

Lambis


P.S. ar all Screenshorts that you have on your webpage
" Trovatore: film stills 8-31-2003" done with the PDX 10 ? Photo or Video mode?

<<<-- Originally posted by Lambis Stratoudakis : Is there any way to shoot sunsets or sunrises without this vertical smear? -->>>

Definitely. That example is just a short section of the sunset which exhibited the vertical smear. Most of the sequence was fine. I have done extensive sunset filming and this is the only time the vertical smear was a problem - look around elsewhere on my site. There's a certain threshold of contrast where the smear becomes a problem. Generally speaking you can control it with exposure. Tom's revelation that high shutter speeds aggravate the problem is also interesting, since I shot this at a high shutter speed because of the bright sun. A better approach will be to use some heavy ND filters (although I did use ND's in this example).

I am personally of the opinion that the vertical smear, although it is real, isn't such a big deal. On the other hand, some people seem to fixate on this problem. You'll have to decide this for yourself I guess.

<<<-- Originally posted by Lambis Stratoudakis : P.S. ar all Screenshorts that you have on your webpage" Trovatore: film stills 8-31-2003" done with the PDX 10 ? Photo or Video mode? -->>>

Anything that you see of mine was done in 16:9 video mode. I have never even tried the photo mode. That's what my Nikon 5700 is for :-)

Boyd thats make me very happy . Becauce if i can control this PDX10 is my Camera. IF i need a mate box and sme heavey ND filter thats not a problem. Maybe i take a Mighty-Wondercam Camera Grip for more contol when i hold the camera.

If you have time take a lock at:

http://www.motionsync.com/PDX10/

the are some 16:9 video mode craps from my test with the PDX10
Some of them are crispy and I like the DOF off the Camera some of them have smear but on the other hand i dont use the camera perfect.

Lambis

Some nice shots Lambis... who is the beautiful lady with no face? ;-)

The smear in your examples represents what I would consider extreme examples. It's possible that other cameras would handle this better though. But the sky is completely burned in to the point of being white and distorting the darker outlines of the buildings. If you lower the exposure the smear will be minimized if not disappear completely (and you would lose the detail in the backlit subjects, but that's just sort of the nature of DV, isn't it?). However if it's important to get this sort of burned in effect then the PDX-10 might not be for you.

The bright headlight in the bottom right image is another classic example. But of course it's way brighter than anything else. Lowering exposure would help again, but you might find that unacceptable.

Now the star patterns around the streetlights in the images on the middle of the page don't bother me personally, but others might disagree. The shot of the canal and large Christmas tree don't seem to exhibit any smear, and I think that's because the exposure is set lower.

These are all consistent with my own experience. Once again I have to conclude that the PDX-10 is a rather specialized camera that has some idiosyncracies. If you can learn to accept and work around these then you can produce some beautiful images, as you have done here. But if you want an all around "one size fits all" camera then you may not be happy.

Hi boyd

The girl is a friend off mine. You are right I havent use very the expose and burned in effect is not what i whant.
Most I like to take cinematografic pictures with DOF and if i lose the detail in the backlit subjects so what any better becauce that is what I whant.

Its true that i havent use the pdx10 like I whant bus I havent the time to do it. The only shots that I have take care was the yellow chair and the leavers with dof and all of the are perfect.

I think to that with some practice a tripod mate box I will absolut contol the PDX 10.

Most off all the 16:9 format is so great. I can easy go to 1,85x1 format witout to lose mutch resolution

I need the camera to shoot a short film.
Is a story that i have some years on the desk and now I whant to shoot it. Is 50 % unterwater & 50% on land. Everything is happening around the sea. I have see you page and we have the same eye for compositing and framing.

I will test the 950 for some days and there I will have time for compositing and framming. 950 & pdx10 have almost the same ccds.

I thank you very very mutch

Lambis

P.S. The PDX10 have not low light problems. I have shoot inside candelights and with manual control everything was O.K.

<<<-- Originally posted by Lambis Stratoudakis : 950 & pdx10 have almost the same ccds. -->>>

I think the CCD's are the same, however Sony (for marketing purposes) decided to cripple the 950 with the built in firmware such that the CCD can't be used to its full potential in 16:9 mode. Even so, the 16:9 mode should still be better than cameras such as the VX-2000 that crop the image.

It sounds like the PDX-10 should suit your style well; I am completely happy with mine. Best of luck with the film, and happy holidays!

For careful artistic work, the PDX10 is grrrand!
It's just you run 'n' gunners that have to be careful around strong light sources.....

Shawn:
I do beginn to belive that PDX10 is a great camcorder for artistic
work. Boyd's screenshoots are a example of that.
That was only my that i have use the PDX10 like a gun :-)
I havent mutsh time to test the camera so I was run wthout to take care off composition and light sources

But I have see the PDX10 in low light. Not a problem att all and i have test the PDX10 with a Panasonic DVX100 in low light.


Lambis

The thing about the 950/PDX is that it's a mighty fine camera in 'normal' lighting. In the gloom it simply gives up, but then you can pep yourself up in the knowledge that the 3 chip Panasonic MX500 is considerably worse.

In bright light the CCD smear can be held to 'acceptable' levels by avoiding high shutter speeds at all costs. Even though there are 3 NDs built into the machine, I wouldn't leave home on a sunny day without a 37mm ND8, to absorb a further 3 stops. You must not let the camera out on sunny days with auto shutter set to 'on'.

This is a shame because high contrast subjects shot at high shutter speeds have a pictorial quality all of their own. Remember that the CCD smear isn't only about point sources of light within the frame - it can occur simply with high contrast subjects, where the brighter object smears into the darker one. Again, console youself with the thought that the MX500 (with its even smaller 1/6" chips) smears just as badly (although at only just over half the price, which gives it some sort of redemption in the confessional box).

tom.

I have shot on rainy and/or overcast days and gotten great results.

I have shot deep into dusk under stadium lights and gotten great results.

I have shot low lit stage lighting and gotten great results.

I have shot in other very low but controlled lighting conditions and gotten great results.

Vertical smear example: the stadium lights mentioned above. Though the lights were many feet above the frame, smear came down through the frame just the same. Oh me oh my, vertical smear, whatever shall I do?
I adjusted the tilt of the camera on the tripod downward. End of vertical smear woes. This sort of simple solution, given time to set up properly, is generally very easy to come by.

You're right Shawn, there are indeed times when placing the camera intelligently and using a good and efficient lens hood will help you avoid CCD smear spoiling you shots. But if anyone here is thinking of using the pDX10 for shooting discos at weddings (for instance) then the CCD smear will indeed become an insurmountable problem.

The good news is that the bride and groom will see the footage as perfectly normal - a special effect even. But the point is that this CCD smear comes as part of the package, whether you want it or not. It's like having a cross screen permanently attached to your front element - not a 6 or an 8 point, but simply consisting of vertical lines.

I'm sure Sony (and Panasonic and Canon) will sort it, but for now bigger chips are better chips.

tom.

....when placing the camera intelligently and using a good and efficient lens hood will help you avoid CCD smear spoiling you shots.....
Tom, I to think that there will be a way to avoid, (in the most cases, vertical smear.

I am waiting to have in my hand a PDX10 ro 950 to test this.
I mean to go out and really try to avoid smear.

Any tips for a good efficient lens hood for the PDX10?

Maybe a Matte Box & a france Flag will help togehter with ND filter.

Lambis

Blip posted some photo's of his matte box and french flag here (http://www.blippio.com). As I recall, there are some threads on this topic if you read back maybe 4 months or so in this forum. Somebody else got a Century matte box and maybe even posted photos someplace....

I haven't wanted to invest quite this much yet for a problem I haven't felt the need to "solve". The camera includes two lens hoods. The standard one includes a lens cap, and there's a wider one of rubber without a lens cap. It's really pretty deep considering the 37mm size of the lens. I think it will be sufficient in many cases. This lens hood is also wide enough to work fine with my .45x adaptor without causing any vignetting.

Do a little experimentation on your own in what you consider to be common lighting situations before getting an additional mattebox.

There are a few ground rules to help you avoid CCD smear Lambis, and using an ND filter is one of them.

Number one, avoid high shutter speeds. Lock it down to 1/50th and don't let the Auto shutter take over - use another ND to soak the light.

The PDX10 comes with two lens hoods, and both of them are designed to hood the lens at its widest angle. In other words the hood is only an efficient hood at the wide-angle end of the zoom. At all other focal lengths the hood is inefficient, and if you're doing a lot of telephoto work (on safari, for example) then a much better hood could be used.

The main thing is to stop non-image-forming light from getting to the chips. This can include re-positioning the camera (as Shawn points out) or by avoiding high contrast lighting conditions.

tom.

Thanks for the link Boyd.

Tom : After so many houers reading this exelennt forum i know that ND Filter high spped are the solution

Becauce normaly i work always with a tripod it will be fine with me.

I think a frech flag will help if you dont whant to adjusted the tilt of the camera downward like Shawn wrote.

All the screen graps att: http://www.motionsync.com/PDX10/

was done without a lens hood and a 0.7 Sony VCL-HG0737X Wide Angle Converter.

Are the Matte box working fine with a Wide Angle Converter?

The only what I need now is to test evelything that I have learn from this forum and the great teachers!!!!!

Lambis

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : In other words the hood is only an efficient hood at the wide-angle end of the zoom. -->>>

That's a very good observation Tom. And notice that the Cavision mattebox Blip is using was designed for cameras with a much wider lens, so it would be even less effecient using your criterion. This sounds like a good argument for a bellows style matte box where you could extend it further for medium or telephoto shots. Of course you would need to do this cautiously if not using a field monitor since the LCD and viewfinder overscan and you would run the risk of getting the mattebox in the frame.

Very true Boyd. With any new hood you need to do some tests, shooting footage and then seeing the whole frame in your edit program's window. Remember a few pointers:

1) shooting at small apertures (f11 ish) will show up any hood vignetting more clearly.

2) If you've attached the hood to the filter thread and then fit a filter with the hood screwed into that - you're more likely to get vignetting.

3) I use a collapsible Hoya hood, but I've done tests to see at what focal lengths it's 'safe'.

4) Remember that the PDX's and the 950's supplied hood is designed to let you shoot in 16:9 and shoot stills to memory stick. In other words it's not as efficient as it could be (by quite a long shot) if you only intend using the 12x zoom in the 4:3 mode.

Going from 4:3 to 16:9 on the PDX10 is the same as staying in the 4:3 mode with a 0.8x wide-angle converter in place.

5) When you shoot 16:9 remember that you should use a 16:9 aspect ratio hood. Any squarer than this and it's less efficient; you risk the dreaded flare and smear.

tom.