I might have my choices narrowed down to 2 camcorders that will basically cost the same once I buy the XLR box and mic for the Panasonic AG-DVC30 so both will also be similarly equipped.

The basic advantages I see for each are:

Panasonic AG-DVC30
- maybe lens flaring not an issue
- top handle for carrying and low angle shots
- better low light resolution
- able to negate gain totally (0 db) which isn't possible on the Sony
- IR mode for black and white recording in near dark conditions
- more manual control override if required

Sony DSR-PDX10
- (much?) better 16:9 with wider angle of view and greater native resolution
- more pixels so maybe more detail
- more accessories available
- DVCAM if required
- MPEG capability
- still shot memory to card rather than tape
- "known" design in terms of operation, limitations, etc.

Anybody care to voice an opinion or give me some words of wisdom before I spend my cash?

Thanks
Don

p.s. I have a couple of similar posts in the Panasonic section but I felt I need the Sony crowd to comment on to see both sides of the story.

Don, we know the PDX10 issues but we know nothing about the DVC30, other that its specs. You should wait until there are some decent DVC30 reviews available. I'm sure DV Magazine will have one coming. I would never consider buying a new cam fresh off the line.

Agreed. Wait if you can.

Don, I think your list is pretty good. But as Frank and Shawn have said, we don't have any real field reports yet on the DVC30. Beyond just the reviews, I'd like to read about hands-on experiences with the camera in the forums here. That's where it will really get put through its paces and we'll find out about the inevitable glitches.

I haven't seen actual pricing on the DVC30, but the mike and XLR adaptor are separately priced accessories. If you include these then I suspect the DVC30 will cost a bit more than the PDX10.

The PDX-10's MPEG capability is something that I've never even tried, I think it's limited to 320x240. Does the DVC-30 have a BW viewfinder like the PDX-10? I don't think so, but that probably isn't a big deal one way or the other.

Yeah, the only review I've seen for the DVC30 is at camcorderinfo's web site.

I'm a little confused over their PDX10 review which got more points than the DVC30 in their scoring matrix but was subjectively rated lower.

Some reviewers and users have noted the flaring issue on the PDX10 (but others haven't) and I guess more reviews in different situations by different people may reveal some issues on the DVC30 as well.

My costs for either will be pretty much the same once I buy the XLR box and mike for the DVC30. I've seen and held both in person but they're at different vendors so I can't really swap one for the other to do some more hands-on testing.

I think the viewfinder on the DVC30 is switchable between colour and B&W.

The point is by the time something becomes "proven" enough to feel comfortable to buy then there is something new that seems to be better on the immediate horizon (same problem in most products due to the continually advancing technology). In your opinions it seems that it would be safer buying "yesterday's" proven technology at a discounted price (due to product obsolescence and new model replacement) and always be slightly behind the curve.

Eventually I just have to pull the trigger and buy something!

Thanks
Don

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Leung : by the time something becomes "proven" enough to feel comfortable to buy then there is something new that seems to be better -->>>

Actually you can save a lot of money with this philosophy, because you would never buy anything! ;-) But the good thing is that camcorders stay on the market for much longer than computers. New models of prosumer cameras only seem to be updated every 3 or 4 years whereas there are new computer models being introduced every few months.

Those unfortunate people that bought the first batch of PD-170's with the audio hum problem probably wish they'd waited a few months. But if you're an "early adopter" type then by all means order your DVC-30! We'll be interested to read your impressions and hear your bug reports.

Don, what type of shooting are you going to do? Do you need a PDX or DVX30? Pana has some good cheaper 3-CCD cams and Sony has some good 1-CCD cams. If you told us what you want to do with a cam, perhaps something cheaper is all you need. I presume you don't need XLRs because you were leaning toward the DVC30 without the XLR adaptor. As Boyd said, the DVC30 with its other half is probably more than the PDX. Another question I have is when do you need this cam? If it's right now than you're going to miss other options with the newer right around the corner models. Around the corner meaning the 2004 line which becomes available May/June.

I'm pretty interested in the DVC30 as an upgrade from my DV852. Nothing wrong with the '852, but I'd like a 3-chipper with XLR. I'd keep the 852 as a family cam and deck for the DVC30 tapes.

A couple of things that appeal to me about the DVC30

- You can dress it up and down by removing the XLR adapter and even the handle to make it a family-friendly everyday camcorder, yet go full-featured when you need it (mostly for audio and field work).

- The infrared would be nice for some ENG/stringer work I've just started doing.

- The 16x zoom would be good for ENG tto, sometimes you just need good reach.

- It seems like Panny is at the top of their game right now, my subjective feeling is that their products are a notch above the competitive products (this year). Of course, this may all change when the next gen of products come out. I'm sure Canon has something very enticing up their sleeves. And, Sony is never far off the point.

I'm a little leary about the manual control of the DVC30. The DVC80 and DVX100 are so good in this regard, I'm hopeful the '30 will be convenient in manual mode, but I'm waiting for the reviews. I don't think the Sony is a very good manual camera, from what I've read, there is a fair bit of menu navigation required.

The PDX menus are generally very easy to use, and most of what's in them is customization preset stuff that you'd want decide on before rolling anyway, in my experience. But the dvc30's controls look really good, independent of each other and button based. Very nice. I eagerly await to hear what people's experiences are like. I love these small form, high quality cams!

Frank:

My needs in a camcorder are as follows:
- may tape a couple of weddings in the late summer time period. From where I'm likely to set-up I'm assuming I'll be too far to get good sound without a shotgun/outboard mic
- record family get togethers and vacation trips. As we have an infant on the way the camcorder doesn't have to be all that small as it now appears that we are required to take half the house with us anyways on a long trip.
- may record some of the industrial projects that I work on (special tasks such as equipment setting, etc.), thus the supposed ruggedness of some of prosumer versions has some appeal to me.

I've wrapped my mind around a 3CCD camera for the generally better colours and picture (from what I have seen and read).

The Panasonic NV-DV953 or rumuored GS-400 are contenders. I'm not that impressed with the extremely small form factor camcorders (PV-GS120) as I don't want to sacrifice picture quality for extreme portability.

If I bump up to the next price class (Sony TRV950) then I can buy the Panasonic DVC30 for the same price (without XLR and mic), which is the crux of my previous inquiries.

This price class is probably as high as I want to go (which is probably 2x-3x as high as my wife thinks I'm going to spend!).

Thanks
Don

Hi Don:

Just curious about what you think about the Panny DVC80. For $2100 it seems like a really great camera for the money. Is it too big for you? Lacking some features you need?

> may tape a couple of weddings in the late summer time period.
> From where I'm likely to set-up I'm assuming I'll be too far to
> get good sound without a shotgun/outboard mic

This means you will need better low light performance. The Panny is probably better than the PDX10 in this respect, but not by much.

> You can dress it up and down by removing the XLR adapter
> and even the handle to make it a family-friendly everyday
> camcorder, yet go full-featured when you need it

Well, the PDX10 does the same trick with the included XLR/mic mount/preamp assembly, so this does not make for much of a difference.

Check out the zoom on the Panny and how wide it goes. It might go as wide or wider than the PDX10 even with a WA adapater on the latter. If hand held documentary work is a priority, the Panny might be much better because of it's presumably wider lens.

If you need real 16:9, then you will have to go for the PDX10.

Hope this helps.

Don, it sounds to me that you either want a good wedding cam, which the DVC30 and PDX10 aren't, or something to goof around with like a good 1 chip.

Frank:

Your approach probably makes sense except for several personal issues:
1. I'm an engineer so I'm also a technophile. I usually buy something somewhat better than it appears I need and eventually learn to get the most out of it.
2. I can buy anything once and get the wife to accept my purchase. However, I am FORBIDDEN to ever upgrade anything that isn't totally broken and non-working. This is another reason why I don't want to buy something extremely entry level (I have used but never owned various camcorders) as I may be stuck with it for a very long time.

I'll probably end up getting a DV953 at clearout (maybe out of the US as you suggested in another thread) or a GS400.

I don't really need to purchase now (can wait a month or two) so maybe some new 2004 product will be announced at NAB and become available by the time I want to buy.

Thanks for your input
Don

Dear All,

The DVC-30 is a 1/4" 3CCD and the DPX-10 is a 1/4.7" 3CCD...
Does that means the resolution will be higher on DVC-30 compare with DPX-10???

By the way, gentlmen, I would like to know is the DPX-10 really equipped with a 16x9 3CCD or it simply squeeze the image and fit it inside the 4x3 3CCD like some anamorphic adaptor?

I want to purchase one camcorder that can shoot in 16x9... my budget is around 3k... Is the DPX-10 my only option that fit my bill? Definitely i want 3-CCD... if not native 3CCD, i think squeeze is exceptable... (Or is there any sony digital-8 camcorder that have 3-CCD and squeeze mode?)

Edmond

> The DVC-30 is a 1/4" 3CCD and the DPX-10 is a 1/4.7" 3CCD
> Does that means the resolution will be higher on DVC-30
> compare with DPX-10???

No. It means that if both cameras were to have the same resolution the response to light would probably be somewhat better with the DVC30. Since the DVC30's CCD array has a lower resolution than the PDX10's, the DVC30's low light response should be significantly better, but of course not as good as the DVX80/100 or PD150/170, which sport larger sensors.

It also means that the DVC30 will probably have a slightly shallower depth of field than the PDX10.

> By the way, gentlmen, I would like to know is the DPX-10 really
> equipped with a 16x9 3CCD or it simply squeeze the image and
> fit it inside the 4x3 3CCD like some anamorphic adaptor?

Yes, the PDX10's megapixel CCD is responsible for it's capability to take great stills and 'native' 16:9 video. Of course the video is resampled to DV's 720x480 rectangular pixels, but this is much better than what happens in the DVX80/100, PD150/170 and DVC30. The only other sub-US$4k 16:9 native cameras I know of are 1-CCD models.

The smaller the CCD and the higher the resolution, the smaller the pixels are and thus the less photons each pixel can get. This is why sensor size is such a big deal, and this is why the most sensitive prosumer cameras have sensors with similar to DV resolution and therefore are not great for taking digital stills.

Ignacio Rodriguez:

Thanks for your great reply... i'm really learning a lot from it... Thanks...

But one question on the DVX100a... as i heard from the forum, they also claim to be 16x9 by using the squeeze mode... (as my understanding, the squeeze mode will make the 16x9 image fit inside their 720x480 CCD panel... and fully utiltize the whole 480 vertical lines...) Is that true or not? So we got 2 sub-US$4k 16:9 native cameras...

Edmond

Sorry I have not used the DVX100a, however I think it's resolution does not warrant enough pixels for 'native' electronic 16x9 performance. Squeeze mode or not, it's imaging block does not have enough pixels on the horizontal axis to build a real 16x9 image keeping full resolution in the vertical axis. The way to get good 16x9 DV from such a camera is to add an external anamorphic lens.

Here is something said about squeeze mode on the DVX100 forum: "To clarify, both 16:9 and 4:3 use only a part of the 3ccds to produce the image. both use the center part of the ccd much like the way you see a cropped 16:9 image on a 4:3 TV. "

The full post and others trying to understand and explain the 16x9 with the DVX are available at the following URL:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23511

Don't confuse format with quality. Most prosumer camcorders create "real" 16:9 in that the image is anamorphically squeezed in the camera and a widescreen TV will properly unsqueeze it. But the problem is that their CCD's don't offer enough pixels to obtain the full 480 lines of vertical resolution. The PDX-10 has enough pixels for this, and therefore the 16:9 mode looks much better. The DVX-100a, PD-170, GL-2, etc. must first crop the image to about 360 vertical lines in order to obtain the 16:9 aspect ratio. They then stretch it out to 480 lines, but this is a case of "garbage in = garbage out" and you are losing about 25% of the vertical resolution.

Boyd Ostroff & Ignacio Rodriguez:

Thanks for the reply... but it make me more confuse on this 16x9 issue...

(1) Why the CCD's don't offer enough pixels to obtain the full 480 lines of vertical resolution? If the CCD can obtain the 4x3 image inside a full 720x480 CCD panel... the squeeze mode will just squeeze the 16x9 image inside that same 720x480 CCD panel like the anamorphic lens can... (Correct me if i am wrong, one is done digitally inside the camera, and the other is done by using a optical len...) or am i missing something?

(2) I see the chopping on the letterbox mode, and how it will affect the final resolution (720x360)...

(3) If DPX-10 is the only 16x9 native 3-CCD camcorder, how does it capture the picture into the 720x480 CCD panel? Remember the panel that it used is not native 16x9 (854x480)? How is that different than the squeeze mode capture the image???

Thanks again... i really think the web is the greatest invention of the world...

The DVC-30 has 410,000 gross pixels and the PDX-10 has 1,070,000. In order to get an image in the 16:9 proportion both cameras need to chop off the top and bottom of their 4:3 native CCD's. When you do this on the DVC-30 you will end up with about 360 vertical lines of resolution because the total pixel count is not high enough. But the PDX-10 has a lot more pixels to play with, so you will still have 480 vertical lines after cropping.

Yes, I think you are missing something. When you use an anamorphic adaptor on a standard 4:3 camcorder you are squeezing the image horizontally and still using all of the 480 vertical lines. But when you crop the image to get 16:9 (as the DVC-30 does) you are losing about 120 vertical lines.

Your assumption #3 is not valid. The PDX-10 does not have 720x480 CCD panels, it's really 1152x864 which is what gives it a superior 16:9 mode. On a 4:3 camcorder you only have about 720x480 pixels to work with, so you create a 16:9 image as follows:

1. Crop to ~720x360 to acheive the correct proportions
2. Stretch vertically to 720x480 to put the image in the proper anamorphic format

On the PDX-10 you are starting out with 1152x864 pixels so it goes like this:

1. Crop to ~1152x546 to acheive the correct aspect ratio.
2. Downsample and squash horizontally to acheive a 720x480 anamorphic image.

So the PDX-10 creates its 16:9 image by compressing information it has captured into a smaller frame size. But a regular 4:3 camcorder has to stretch a smaller image into a larger one which spreads the captured data across a large area. This results in a softer image because you are trying to create a picture from insufficient information.

I think you'll really confuse him now Boyd. Whenever you've said 'vertical lines' in your post (above) I'm sure you mant to say 'horizontal lines'.

Well that's been a source of confusion for me and many others around here. But as I understand it, when you talk about vertical resolution you refer to the scan lines that run across the screen from left to right. By way of analogy, a spreadsheet with 720 columns and 480 rows would have a vertical resolution of 480 and a horizontal resolution of 720. This nomenclature corresponds to the specs on a camera like the PDX-10 which can resolve 530 horizontal lines.

No no no Boyd. The PDX10 can resolve 530 vertical lines because it has a fine resolution. It MUST resolve 576 (PAL) horizontal lines otherwise you wouldn't fill the TV screen - it's a simple as that. All camcorders, from the two bob to the twenty thousand dollar camera have 576 vertical resolution. The best DV cams have 530 horizontal resolution (the theoretical maximum for the format) but a lot of them struggle to reach 400.

tom.

I said "a camera like the PDX-10 which can resolve 530 horizontal lines," I didn't say anything about the vertical resolution.

Actually, instead of beating this to death again I'd suggest this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17642) which gets into quite a bit of detail on the subject.

Let me answer the question...for the same money with XLRs(???), get the DVC30!!!!

Newer camera, better lens, bigger CCDs, some interesting features, frame mode, real manual mode....

For lowlight, the DVC30 has a 0 lux IR mode.

Now how are they the same price? The PDX10 is $2,000 at B&H. The DVC30 is $2,300 PLUS $230 for the XLR adapter. My math says $2000 vs $2530!!!

The DVC80, while still available, is $2100. Move quickly. Misses some features but should more than make up for it in the final picture.

Its all about the pixels.

As Boyd mentioned the DVC30 has 410k pixels per each of its 1/4" sized CCDs. Compared that to the PDX10's 1070k pixels per 1/4.7" sized CCDs and my bet is that there will be quite a bit of difference in low light performance with the DVC30 coming out on top.

Of course I would rather have the PDX10 with the best in-camera 16:9 mode under $5k (the PDX10 CCDs are native 4:3).

Weddings? You might get by with the DVC30 but you'll want 1/3" 3CCD for those dimly lit chapels where you have absolutely no control over the lighting. I shot a wedding last year with my VX2000 and PDX10 and other than closeup interviews with a 20w light the PDX10 footage was useless.

Here is how the PDX10 achieves its high quality widescreen mode from its native 4:3 CCD.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/74415/PDX10.jpg

Boyld,


I saw the link that Mr. Tommy Haupfear provided, and finally understand how the DPX-10 work... like Mr. Ignacio Rodriguez said earlier, "to clarify, both 16:9 and 4:3 use only a part of the 3-CCD to produce the image."

But if that's correct, both 16x9 or 4x3 are not fully use the CCD-panel? Why??? I understand the width of the 16x9 image that cost the cropping and restriction on the size... but i don't understand why the 4x3 only using 85% of the panel... it left a lot of usefull pixel surround like a picture frame...

By looking at the chart of PDX-10, i don't see any different on the 4x3 using anamorphic lens compare with the 16x9 mode... actually i think the 16x9 mode will give you better resolution...

Here are my last questions:-

(1) Is there any camcorder that shoot 16x9 fully use the whole panel? Squeeze mode or whatever it take...

(2) Why the DPX-10's 4x3 mode is not fully use the whole CCD panel? Is that only happen on this camcorder, or all the other brands are doing the same thing... (I am a Home Theater guy, all my projector use all their native resolution to provide the best picture they can 1366x768, 1280x720, 960x540... It is quite odd for me to know that the prosumer camcorder is not...)

Thanks a million...

Edmond

Most (all) 2/3" CCD camcorders have a real 16:9 CCD. Otherwise, only a few small CCD consumer camcorders do. The PDX10 is based on the consumer TRV950.

Note: I believe you'll find that high pixel cound is for still images. Video images should only use about 2/3s of that.

but i don't understand why the 4x3 only using 85% of the panel... it left a lot of usefull pixel surround like a picture frame...

The PDX10 does sample a larger than 720x480 while in 4:3 but you're correct in that it doesn't use the entire CCD. Of course both its 4:3 and 16:9 footage is written to tape at 720x480 with the 16:9 footage being anamorphically squeezed.

This page also goes into detail about the PDX10's 16:9 mode.

http://www.maxent.org/video/16x9.html

By looking at the chart of PDX-10, i don't see any different on the 4x3 using anamorphic lens compare with the 16x9 mode... actually i think the 16x9 mode will give you better resolution...

The 16:9 mode of the PDX10 is of higher resolution than a cam using an anamorphic adapter. The PDX10 also does not have the loss of zoom and distortion found with anamorphic adapters.


(1) Is there any camcorder that shoot 16x9 fully use the whole panel? Squeeze mode or whatever it take...

The PDX10 does use the full width of the CCD and of course doesn't use the full height because its 16:9 not 4:3. The PDX10 captures a much larger section for 16:9 than the 720x480 that is written to tape. One site referenced that it samples 1152x648 beforge going thru its anamorphic process and finally to tape at 720x480.

Why the DPX-10's 4x3 mode is not fully use the whole CCD panel?

See above. If you really want to give your home theater projectors a workout then pickup a JVC HDV 720p cam (there are two models).

> any camcorder that shoot 16x9 fully use the whole panel?

Yes. The Sony 570 is an example. But cameras like that can cost more than ten times the price of the PDX10.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=243137&is=REG

The new Sony HDV camera coming out in the next few months will apparently have a 16x9 sensor and cost perhaps twice the PDX10, but details on this camera are unclear yet and most likely it's low light performance, like that of the PDX10, will not be too great due to pixel size.

By the way, I lived in Edmonton when I was a kid, great province!

is the pdx10 so bad in low light? how does it compare in indoor conditions compared the pana dvc30. i really need a camera with good performances indoor, so shall i go for the dvc30?

peace

Yohann, why not consider a 1/3" 3CCD if you need low light performance. There really is no comparison.

If you were definitely deciding between the DVC30 and the PDX10 for low light then the DVC30 will be the clear winner with its larger CCDs (1/4" vs 1/4.7") and its far less pixel count per CCD (410k vs 1070k).

Of course all those extra pixels on the PDX10 produce one of the best (if not the best) in-camera widescreen modes and would be the one I would choose.

Have fun, bring light

i would love to get the dvx100 but i really don't have the$$$. so i am to choose between the dvc30 or the pdx10. what's the real advantage of a 16/9 mode? apart from having a wider field, does it add increase the depth of field? my question may sound dumb but maybe it's time i found out about the hype on this 16/9 thing...

peace

Well at the risk of sounding a bit like a wise guy, this might be a case of "if you don't know what it is then you probably don't need it" :-)

Depth of field has nothing to do with 16:9. Do you want to "increase the depth of field"? The prosumer video cameras already have great depth of field, and many people jump through a lot of hoops to DECREASE the depth of field such that a foreground object can be in sharp focus with a blurred background.

The 16:9 format just describes the ratio of the image's width to it's height, and it has become the new standard for widescreen TV's, both high definition (HD) and enhanced definition (ED). Most cameras can shoot in these proportions, but the design of the PDX-10 allows it to produce higher quality 16:9 images than others in its class.

Not a dumb question at all, but it sounds like you might benefit from reading some books on video equipment and production to get a grasp of the basic principles before spending your hard earned money! For example, maybe a GL-2 would be a better choice, or a VX-2000 or VX-2100? Or maybe a used XL-1s or PD-150? All of these might be in the same price range so you should make sure that you understand the issues and make a good choice. Also remember that the DVC-30 is brand new and there are very few real world user reports on it yet, so there are some unknowns to contend with there.

yeah your "i don't know what it is means i don't need it" sounds fair enough to me. i was originally interested in a vx2000 but since it's a PAL model i need the price is like 2600$ minimum and since i need a good deal of accesories such as fisheye and stuff, it's too much for my budget. gl-2 is an option that i haven't considered much because of its mediocre low light performances(mind you i never got to see from my own eyes), i need a sensivity as good as my former pd100 which did a great job on that. i did intend to get some other reviews on the dvc30 b4 purchasing it, i always take my time b4 buying a new cam.

thanx for your advices anyway.

peace