I've made up my mind a while back that I'd be using my tax return this year to buy a video camera finally. After all the research I've done I've been leaning towards the PDX10 for it's 16:9 ability and it's audio capabilities. I really like everything about the camera. My only hesitation is that NAB is coming up pretty soon and I of course would like to have a camera that wont be replaced in the next two months. Is it likely at all that Sony will release anything in the price level of the PDX10 at NAB? I have a feeling they're more likely to release something to compete with the DVX100a which would be a higher price than I want to go right now. I probably wont get my taxes filed for a week or so and then the return takes a while but I'm just trying to get a feel of what other people think could happen at NAB. Thanks.

This is a classic question, and the truth is that nobody knows, or if they do they can't say anything. If you need a camera and the PDX-10 fits your needs then buy it. If you are unsure, or if you fear buyers remorse, then wait for NAB. But there is always one more hill off in the distance that might conceal a pot of gold...

I'll probably just wait till the money from Mr. IRS comes over and then make a decision. I'll most likely get the pdx10 since it seems to do everything I want for the price I want.

I used my Tax Return to get my PDX10, money well spent. I have not been using my camera for as long as Boyd but I have been putting it through it's paces. If you are taking your time and setting up your shots (allowing for adjusting to the few short comings) this camera is great. If you want something to just whip out and start filming you may run into the light level and vertical smear issues; but I have to say they can be managed. Video Maker magazine tested it at +530 lines of Horz. resolution, one of the few cameras that have made it over 450 in the last two years of reviews I have read. I am doing all of my video in 16:9 format, I just really love the opportunities the wide framing gives you. Your video doesn’t seem so boxed in like in 4:3. I am looking for a good light kit to really make use of all this camera has to offer. One that is looking interesting is the Smith-Victor K77.

Good luck.

JimJohnD

I'll second everything they said: get the PDX10 if you want a camera now. I have two and they're lovely and functional instruments. And besides, a miraculous upgrade seems highly improbable to me, or at least premature.

It's kinda funny how you guys call it "money from my tax return"... actually it's an interest-free loan that you never should have given to the government. But I understand the sentiment, it does seem like Christmas when you get something back. And of course that's just the mindset the IRS wants you to have ;-)

Or at least we should not be giving that money up without knowing where it goes and, more importantly, having a direct say in where it goes.

And at this point in the thread, Mike Rehmus would be telling us to scram ("Cameras, anyone?" :-] ) with our extremely off-topic politico-economic musings, and I respect that, so I'll swing us back by saying,

What do you guys shoot, Jim and Alex?

Probably the main thing I will shoot will be basic life stuff. Trips hiking, friends goofing off, tennis shooting outdoors. I'm also wanting a high quality camera for capturing video to be used in a dvd producing project I've been starting.

Hi there,
Well, at this point I have just been getting used to the camera. I have been doing some training type videos at work using a Hi8 and capturing to computer for editing. I have the same camera so we have had the ability to do matched two camera shots. For me, I wanted to upgrade to digital for the ease of use. I like to shoots lots of video so I have material to work with when editing. But with the Hi8 I would capture large chunks of video. I then would have to take these (well I guess I wouldn't HAVE too but I like working with trimmed shots when editing) and trim them down to individual shots. Now with the digital I use WinDV and have it split the shots off the timecode all right at capture. Now I can go right to the fun stuff in editing. I'll have to convince them at work that this is really the way to go. The time savings alone are worth going digital. As far as what I have been shooting with the camera I'd have to say a bit of everything.

I have done some shots of/from a river crosswalk that were simply vivid. I took some facing away from the sun, looking down river just before dusk/sunset. You can see the detail of the frozen water and tiny branches on trees along the bank. I then turned around and got the sun dropping in the sky. The yellow into the reds into the blues of they sky are a perfect background to the silhouetted trees with all of the detail of the branches. These are the shots where the width of the 16:9 frame really make it worth while.

I have the opportunity later this month to shoot some music/concert type video of a friends group at a local club, "just for fun and maybe see what we can get out of it". They are looking for something they can hawk around with that doesn’t look like home movies. I've told them I won't guarantee anything but it will be fun, and educational. We'll do some video before the crowds show up so I can get some close-ups and such of the songs they want covered, but the main video will be shot from front of house.

I am working on my web site so I can put up some screen shots of what I have been working on. If you really want to see some great shots (where you can tell they actually took the time to compose their shots) check out Boyd's site at http://greenmist.com/

Canada didn't have any income tax until WWI, even then it was supposed to have been abolished after the war...guess it turns out that NO taxes are temporary, once the govt gets a taste it doesn't like to give it up.

Tavis,

I'm always sceptical about claims that the "government" doesn't want to give up taxes because it's "used to them".

IMHO new taxes are introduced at a time that the country/state/society needs them to fund some expense or another - this particular expense is seen to be temporary. During the time of the expense, the structure of the country's economy and society adapts to there presence, with the result that the society and economy would break if the taxes were then removed - it's not the government, but the society (= the people) who need them.

Just my opinion.

Julian

While i agree with what you are saying, there is a flip side to it, for example our ruling party here is, as we speak, going through a scandal that alleges the misappropriation of anywhere from 100 to 250 MILLION dollars through a federal "sponsorship" program. That's just part of it, the Canadian govt is full of money wasters (is that even a word?). Our Governor Genreral being a prime offender.

Anyway, income tax was supposed to be temporary here.

(i now return this thread to it's rightful owners)

Hi All,
Just to follow up I put together a few shots I took off of some DVD material I have done.

http://www.bright.net/~jimjohnd/photo.htm

I used PowerDVD to capture the screen and Paint Shop to do a bi-cubic resize. I used an 8meg VBR video data rate for this DVD source material editing with Ulead Media Studio Pro. The camera was set for default and full auto for all controls. I'm sure the images could be tweeked some but I figured I'd see what the camera could do 'out of the box'.

The shot of the cars was taken from about 4 stories up and two blocks away. All shots are using available lighting. Once things start to warm up (soon I hope) I'll have some more shots to share.

"Video Maker magazine tested it at +530 lines of Horz. resolution, one of the few cameras that have made it over 450 in the last two years of reviews I have read."

I find this confusing. Don't all NTSC camcorders have a horizontal resolution of 720?

All DV cameras use an image size of 720 x 480, but that has no relation to an individual camera's resolution, which has more to do with the optics and electronics. Actually the DV codec itself is limited to around 530 horizontal lines, so no camera is going to get much better than this (but I suspect that many are comparable). Take a look at some PDX-10 still photos from the megapixel chips and compare to still DV frames. Right away you'll see the trade-offs made when compressing 30 pictures per second on the fly with DV.

A search should give you more background on DV and resolution; here's one thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17642) with a lot of information.

Hare are a few more resources that describe line of horz. resolution and how the different video formats compare.

"A standard way of specifying the clarity of a video image is by its lines of horizontal resolution. By this standard, the DV format really stands out. It has 500 lines, about twice the resolution of VHS and 8mm video and 25% better than S-VHS or Hi-8."

http://www.shortcourses.com/video/chapter05.htm

"Standard NTSC live broadcast TV has a horizontal resolution of 330 lines, broadcasts from video tape have about 300, and laserdisc has 420. Super-VHS and Hi-8 also have 420 lines of resolution, although the picture is not quite as good as laserdisc, illustrating that there are more factors than just resolution that go into making a video image."

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_1_1/v1n1vcrs.html

Man that really blows! I know resolution isn't everything, but it's a lot.

The whole "lines of resolution" comes from optics, ages ago. Back then, and still in still photography, they speak of line-pair, not lines: obviously, for every back line, there's a corresponding white one, or you wouldn't see lines at all.

Anyway, the area of measure is traditionally a real circle inscribed over your focal plane. Before there was any distinction in the means of recording horizontal or vertical imagery, this wasn't necessarily recorded as lines of horizontal or vertical resolution, just lines of resolution.

When video came along, the horizontal dimension was the interesting one. You pretty much could guarantee a lens that wasn't at issue, and in the vertical, the resolution was basically digital (eg, your 484 or 576 or whatever potentially visible scan lines). But in the horizontal, you're analog.

So basically, now converting that to digital, you have a circle still based on your vertical resolution: 480 pixels in DV/NTSC. And from that, you have a horizontal circle extent based on your horizontal resolution and aspect ration. So measured at 4:3 and 720 pixels, the limit is something just below 540 lines. In 16:9, with precisely the same optical characteristics and resolution, your limit is something just below 405 lines.

In other words, if your camcorder does 530 lines, in practical terms, that's as good as it gets (you'll have to judge, at the edges of that circle, where a line really begins, to decide if you believe this is slightly off the theoretical max, or in fact nailing the theoretical max).

Some great info Dave, thanks! If you're really interested in seeing all this with your own eyes, there's a pretty simple test. Download the EIA-1956 test pattern from John Beale's website (http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/respat/#EIA1956), resize in Photoshop to 720x480 and drop it into your NLE as a still image. Now on your NTSC monitor you should be seeing the actual max resolution that DV can give you since no optics or CCD's are involved. If you look at the numbers next to the converging horizontal and vertical lines you can graphically see the resolution. It's interesting to compare the image on your NTSC monitor to the 720x480 photoshop image displayed on your computer monitor. You willl see all the telltale DV artifacts that aren't present in the JPEG.

Then if you want to see what your camera is capable of, print up one of the higher res versions of the chart, shoot it, capture it, and compare...