Anyone have any pointers as to the difference in sound quality between the PDX10 and 950?

I don't need the 16:9 option and in the UK the difference in price between the 2 cameras is about £1,000. So the significant difference would appear to be the XLR inputs for the PDX10.

Whilst I do not need broadcast quality sound (and wouldn't expect it from either camera) I will need (from time to time) reasonably good sound. My thought was to use a Senn K6 with ME66 and 64 modules either with an XLR to minijack lead (for everyday operation) and buy a Beachtek box or similar to use with the 950 for more demanding situations thus saving some money.

However looking at the Glensound box for the VX2000, it is said that this is of no use unless you also have the BBC mods done to the camera. Does anyone have any experience of this sort of combination and any comments. Or should I just raise the extra if sound is to be any kind of consideration?

Thanks

Philip Flower

Hi Philip,
I have recently purchased a 950 and Ive been using the Sennheiser MKE300D with it, the sound quality is superb. I dont think the PD model is worth the extra money for DVCAM as personaly I cant tell the difference and its cheaper to get the 950 and a beachtek box.

Phil

Does anyone know of the best places to purchase a pdx10p (pal) in the states?

Will you be interested in purchasing one from Singapore? Cos I'm interested in getting one and if we get 2, we could prob get it at a better price.

Contact me off list if you are interested.

I need to buy a camera very soon to travel extensively with. I'll be shooting for a hopeful feature destination, hence film look. I'm leaning towards the pdx10p (pal) which would give me realitive portabilty, 25 fps, and a full 16:9 ratio. Any thoughts on this camera choice under these circumstances? Thanks

The PAL version of the PDX10 would be a good cam for capturing for the purpose of transferring to film; but the PAL, MX500 would be better, depending on the transfer lab, because it also has frame mode. You will need an XLR adaptor, though. Sound is always an important issue which is often overlooked. But other than that, stick with NTSC (unless you're thinking film transfer).

Someone locally shot with a PD100A and it transferred to film. The doc was just over 2 hours long. Very expensive, but then she's quite the pro.

Can anyone confirm for me that unlike the 950, the x10 has independent Iris and Gain control, versus the combined "exposure" control?

Thanks,
derek

Hi Derek,

No according to Julian, posted in another thread (PDX-10 review). The PDX-10 has the same exposure control as TRV-950.

I recently bought two PDX10s and on both of them the XLR line inputs do not work properly. At about -25 dB the audio starts to distort badly. Has anyone else used the XLR line inputs on this model?

is the 16x9 mode the same on the cameras or is the 950 "fake"
16x9


thanks

Vince

love my pd150

Hello,

Ok, since the PDX 10 does not have a built in ND filter.. I went today to various camera shops looking for one.. And find out there are several flavors.. ND 2, ND 4 and ND 6..
With ND 2 the least filtering and ND 6 the most filtering..
Which one is recomended for shooting outside with strong sunlight ??

thanks,
mike m.

Hello Mike,
We have LOTS of threads on ND filters. Use the Search to hunt them down.

Here's a recent thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7924) that might hit the mark.

But to give you a quick answer Mike, do this. Go outside on a sunny day and film at wide-angle, using auto exposure, and any 'normal' subject. Then on replay, hit the 'display' button and se what aperture the camera chose to shoot at.

If you get a reading such as 1/50th @ f9.5, then most certainly go get an ND8, as this will absorb three stops of light and let you shoot at a much sharper aperture. If it says f5.6 (say) then an ND4 (two stops) would be the one to go for.

tom.

This thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=52808#post52808) has some good info also. It has good link to Schneider Optical for a good explanation of ND filters and their numbering, density etc.

The PDX10 uses more pixels to capture 16:9 than the 950.

There's a link on one of the threads here to a page that shows the difference in the capture area between the two.

There may be a comparison between the PDX-10 and TRV-950, but I put some images online to compare the VX-2000 and PDX-10 at http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10. I've never used a 950 but have seen a variety of posts like Jeff's that say it does 16:9 by cropping.

I want to upgrade to a 3CCD model. I'm currently using a TRV25E which has served me well but I need more manual controls and want better quality sound and images. I'm looking at one of the above models but despite reading some fascinating stuff in the forums I still can't make my mind up. I like shooting in 16:9 so the pdx10 sounds great but I also like moody low-light shooting (no0t that it looks too hot on my current model) and would love to be able to create shallower DoF (which seem to be VX2000 strengths). I simply don't know of anywhere where I could try both of these models to compare so I'd love some further advice as to their strengths and weaknesses - or whether I'm too hooked on Sony and there is another manufacturer producing something that would better suit my requirements.

Gareth

A lot has already been said on this topic. I own both cameras and they each have their strengths. Instead of repeating my earlier comments, you might browse through the following search results first http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=99427&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions for you either here or by e-mail.

finally I got my PDX10 today. I would like to thank everyone on this forum for all the input, specially Boyd and Jan. it's been great helpful. I haven't try anything special yet with my new CAM, but it feels rock solid. not like my old VX1000. I found that low light performance of PDX10 is sufficient to me. ^-^

Congrats! Hope you enjoy your PDX cam. They are very popular here in Vancouver.

This cam is so small that it can easily be hold overhead attached on a monopod to shoot over a crowd.
i have an example here:

http://www.jtv.be/JTV/captures/stills/AntiWar-overhead-720x504.html

By the way with a little extra weight the monopod helps as a kind of cheap steadycam. It works.

Though I prefer a GL2 or Pana 3-chip hand-held for hand held shots because they are better balanced. That includes the Pana's 24P. But nice cam, nevertheless!

Congratulations Erik! Have fun and be sure to report back to us after you've put the camera through its paces!

A while ago I purchased two Sony DSR-PDX10 camcorders and the first thing I used them for was to record some interviews where I put them side by side, each with a different shot so I could later edit between the shots at any time. I also bought a Soundcraft Spirit M12 mixer to use it to preamp a Sennheiser MK66 and a lapel mic and distribute the signal to the line inputs of the cameras. To get an idea of how the mixer and the cameras matched level wise I ran a 1 kHz tone from a CD into the board, set the output at 0 dB on the meters and listened at the cameras with a headphone. Ouch! Distortion. Well, what can you expect from these small looking cameras, they can not handle a professional line level. I put 14 dB pads in the cables that connect the mixer to the cameras to attanuate the signal and this would surely take care of the problem.

Surprise! The problem got worse. During the shoot I used the padded cables to run the signal from the mixer into the microphone inputs of the camera. Then, when I was almost ready to ship both cameras back to Sony for repair, I tried one more thing. I borrowed another mixer from a friend, a Mackie 1202. I ran the same tone into the Mackie, set the level at 0 dB and listened at the camera. Sounded good. I could only conclude that the problem was with the Soundcraft mixer. But wait! The tone sounded good at 0 dB and over through the headphone output of the Soundcraft. So I ran the main outs with a tone into the Mackie, guess what, it sounded distorted at 0 dB. So the Soundcraft mixer produced a distorted signal at the main outs at 0 dB while sounding good at the headphones. That was a particulairly nasty kind of malfunction.

The vendor agreed to replace the board with another one and I immidiately checked it for this problem. Guess what? This one was broken too. I asked the vendor to repeat my test to verify that both mixers were broken, but he was 'too busy'. I got on the phone with Soundcraft. The guy I talked to seemed to have his response to this problem well prepared. He told me this was supposed to happen. No overhead? I asked him. 'No, you get what you see.' This is not good I argued, a mixer is supposed to have overhead. Well, not at Soundcraft. The distortion actually started at -3 dB even though the output level is listed in the manual as +27 dB. So if you want to own an $800 fuzz box you should really buy this mixer. I however payed the 15% restocking fee and got a Mackie 1402 that works great.

Guustaaf Damave

thats very intersting to see your experience with Soundcraft. I got my PDX10 few days back, and haven't tried anything with my audio equiment yet. I have various mic preamps and boards, I'll run some tests with them, and see what happends.

is there any way to view 16:9 footage on regular 4:3 TV without compressing in the longwise direction? I thought blackbands (letterbox) would appear on the screen during playing 16:9 footage on normal TV. hate to watch compressed 16:9 movie.

No, you'll need a 16:9 capable TV to watch anamorphic widescreen. If you want to letterbox your video then that's a separate step you'll need to perform in your NLE. This is sort of the whole point of 16:9, isn't it?

I have two Sony WEGA's, a 19" and a 27". They are both 4:3 sets, but the 27" has a menu option called "Enhanced 16:9" which will allow you to watch widescreen in the proper aspect ratio. It actually does a pretty good job and changes the dot pitch, not just a simple letterbox. But none of the Sony's small than 27" have this feature... I checked when I was shopping last winter.

Now if you don't want to watch regular 4:3 video on your TV there are a couple other options. Take a look at the information on "service mode" here: http://209.145.176.7/~090/awh/how2adj.html#5. Once you're in this mode you can adjust the vertical size of the image to squash it down and display 16:9 in the proper proportions. Or if you have a Sony WEGA also see this link: http://209.145.176.7/~090/awh/wega16x9.html which lets you enable anamorphic viewing through service mode. There are some caveats however which the author describes. And of course with either of these methods, EVERYTHING you watch on your TV will now be squashed.

Thanks Gustav

In the next 2 weeks, I'll be recording a Classical concert with the PDX 10 and miking the orchestra using four AT33a mixed using my Mackie 1202 VLZ XDR desk.

Will also use a SONY PC100E for auxillary camera work, i.e close ups etc.

One question, How do you synchronise your 2 cameras when filming the same sublect simultaneously?

Regrads

P

In your case start them off at the start of the tape, both filming the same clapper board, then keep the camera's running until the end of the tape. To edit, capture both tapes completely, sync them up at the clapper board and you're ready to cut between the two camera's.

I just got a PDX10 today, and I was wondering... why is it that when you change it to "Memory" mode for taking pictures or whatever, the video look changes. I don't mean the resolution, I mean the look of the video itself... it's suddenly not as smooth as regular "Camera" mode and the colors look better than in Camera mode. I really like this look and I was wondering if there is anyway to record on tape looking like this... I've played around with certain settings in Camera mode and changing the shutter speed comes close to the look of Memory mode, but not quite... does anyone know of

A - the reason it looks different
B - how to achieve this look in Camera mode?

Thank you!!!! :)

check my earlier post

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=4271

the answer is NO. it doesn't work with PDX10. thought it does, bought from eBay, now I have to get rid of this and get old memory stick. hope you guys don't make same mistake. ;-(

Is the mechanism that is used to attach the included hoods to the body a *standard*bayonet mount? If I were to get another "bayonet mount" accessory (matte box, wide angle, whatever...) will it fit this type of attachment on the PDX10?

thanks

No, I don't think it's standard. However, some company might produce attachement based on PDX mount. I mean potentially it allows to connect something other than lens hood.

Well, I have basically ruled out the GL2 and the VX2000 for verious reason (no DVCAM, XLR, body color, durability, accessories...etc) but I cannot decide, nor find out which of these is the better camera. I really like the 16:9 on the PDX10 though. Anyone have any thoughts to help me with this decision??

The PDX10 has better/cleaner audio and higher resolution than the PD100A.

(I don't know which is better, but I'd pick the PDX over the PD.)

Does this PDX-10 pro-camera have the same low-light performance as the VX-2000 pro-sumer camera?
PDX-10 has 3 1/4.7" CCD's while the VX has 3 1/3" CCD's.
I guess VX should have a better image quality, specially under low-light situations.
Is it true?

ADDED: no need to reply, I have just read a previous message commenting on the low performance of the PDX-10 under low-light situations...

Does the PDX-10 pro-camera have the same low-light performance as the VX-2000? No way, no way at all. It's not its fault - it has a very small lens that's half a stop slower at full telephoto and it has tiny 1/5" chips alongside the VX2k's low-smear 1/3" HAD chips. It can't compete, though in the 16:9 mode and stills to Memorystick it trounces the VX2k.

tom.

Hello, Can anyone recommend a Wireless with XLR connector for the PDX.... I do mainly weddings and I am on the lower end of the price range.
thanks,
Al

With all the attendant issues of 16X9 aside. (playback systems, "flagging" DVD players with format info, and the not-so-ubiquitous presence of wide screen monitors in client's hands)

The workhorse use of the PDX 10 would fall largely in the 3X4 range. I am torn between this camera (would LOVE to have one)... and the "big brother" PD 150 for use in the "real world" of delivering content to clients on a "universal" format.

I've seen the great looking frames shot in 16X9 on the PDX 10 but how does it measure up for standard format work?

I posted some comparison frames between a VX-2000 and PDX-10 in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes here (http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10). Draw your own conclusions.

I love my PDX-10, but if you want a "4:3 workhorse" I think you will be less than happy. The VX-2000 or PD-150 will be better in low light and they have a nicer control layout. There are a lot of great things about the PDX-10, but 16:9 has to be pretty high on your list of priorities.

I was called back today by a Sony tech to answer some questions which they were unable to cover the other day.
The main concern was the format in 16X9. Yesterday I spoke with the development head at In-Sync (Blade/Speedrazor NLE)and he said that the difficulties come in the playback end... how the signal tells the TV what format to display it in (wide, letterbox, cropped). Their editing software is resolution independent, so they can digitize or edit any format image.

The answer Sony gave me about the PDX 10 was this.
Regardless of whether you are shooting in 3X4 or 16X9 the resolution on the DVCAM tape is the same 720 lines WIDE.
The difference is that in 16X9 the vertical is not cropped.
in 3X4 it is still the same size pixel wise. Two days ago I spoke to the tech division of Sony in NJ and when I asked about the actual pixel resolution in 16X9 they said that that was an "unpublished figure" and they couldn't tell me.

Supposedly it has more resolution than the 150.

With the info I got today about the DV format staying the same I can only speculate that they are somehow optically squeezing an anamorphic view onto the same number of pixels. When you play back the 16X9 footage it then undistorts them into the "wide" format. This explains their wording about adding more "information" in the wide format... not more pixels.

When you import one of the captured frames shot in 16X9 into a paint program, what is the pixel count horizontally?

The Sony guy is correct. It's anamorphic 16:9 DV. All DV is 720x480. However the anamorphic video has a different pixel aspect ratio. When you shoot in 16:9 the PDX-10 uses a larger area of the CCD to capture the image. When recording to tape it's "squeezed" into a 720x480 image. If you play the tape on a 4:3 TV it will fill the screen, but everything will look too tall and skinny (not a bad thing for some of us ;-)

However there is a signal imbedded in the video stream that tells widescreen-aware monitors/tv's to stretch the image to fill the full screen. Actually the DV format itself is only capable of resolving ~500 horizontal lines; Sony's published specs for the PDX-10 say the horizontal res it 530 lines.

But the real issue with 16:9 is the vertical resolution. The PDX-10's CCD's utilize all 480 vertical lines whereas the PD-150 merely crops the 4:3 image to acheive a 16:9 aspect ratio. This results in only 360 lines of vertical resolution, a 25% loss. It's even worse than that on the PD-150 and VX-2000 because the DV compression further mangles things; you're better off shooting 4:3 and cropping in post - see the link I posted earlier.

When you set the PD-150 to "wide" mode it takes this cropped 720x360 image and stretches it back to 720x480, then sets the anamorphic flag. It will also display properly on a widescreen monitor, but with noticeably less resolution than PDX-10 images.

So in terms of what's written to tape, both cameras output a 720x480 anamorphic 16:9 image. But the PDX-10's image consists of 480 real scan lines while the PD-150's image is made by stretching 360 lines to 480. You know the old cliche about "garbage in, garbage out".... ? ;-)

Hope this helps.

Boyd,
Thanks so much for posting the frames...
There is no question that for 16X9 the PDX 10 is the only choice.
The regular 3X4 seems to be a little sharper with the VX 2K...
I would love to work in wide screen full time (my last project was in 1080i "real" HD but I hired the camera and shooter for the three days of shooting out of a four month project) but for this DVD project and the compatibility of mixing with betacam and the general 3X4 broadcast community it makes sense, at least for right now to go with the PD 150 (although I love the concept of the high powered compact little X-10).
This site has been so illuminating.
Thanks again
Dale

Hello people.

First and foremost, this forum is a goldmine of information - but of course one quickly discovers that the more one knows, the more one knows one doesn't know. no? ...*sigh
Like many, I've had a real hard time making a final decision on which camera to purchase. (PD150 v PDX10). My liking of 16:9 is what's put the PDX10 ahead, (of course the price diff doesn't hurt)and I feel that I will set my mind and purchase very shortly.
At this stage, The X10 will be used primarily for artistic purposes/short film.

So many topics have been discussed and revisited, though I still have a few concerns regarding PDX10 that I'd appreciate a fresh opinion on.

1. I've been confused with some info read on data compression via USB upload. Simply, will it effect the quality of my image if I upload for post editing/effects etc?

2. 7Lux dummified...really. Just to give me a really broad idea: Let's say for example it's an outdoor shoot on a grey, overcast afternoon - is the integrity of my image going to suffer/grain?

An 'everyday' (low-light) situation where I couldn't shoot for example would be...?

3. Smaller CCDs. When and how will this affect the quality of my image.
450,000 dot to 246,000 seems significant.

4. Stupid question (no such thing right!?) - does the PDX10 have any time lapse function? - you know the old "watch the grass grow".
err.. I can record at different speeds right?

Here's hoping someone has the time to help me out.

Many thanks

<<<-- Originally posted by Anthony Milic : Hello people.

First and foremost, this forum is a goldmine of information - but of course one quickly discovers that the more one knows, the more one knows one doesn't know. no? ...*sigh
Like many, I've had a real hard time making a final decision on which camera to purchase. (PD150 v PDX10). My liking of 16:9 is what's put the PDX10 ahead, (of course the price diff doesn't hurt)and I feel that I will set my mind and purchase very shortly.
At this stage, The X10 will be used primarily for artistic purposes/short film.

So many topics have been discussed and revisited, though I still have a few concerns regarding PDX10 that I'd appreciate a fresh opinion on.

1. I've been confused with some info read on data compression via USB upload. Simply, will it effect the quality of my image if I upload for post editing/effects etc?

You cannot download the video from the tape to your computer via USB AFAIK. The USB port is for stills. The video is compressed as a fact of being DV.

2. 7Lux dummified...really. Just to give me a really broad idea: Let's say for example it's an outdoor shoot on a grey, overcast afternoon - is the integrity of my image going to suffer/grain?

No but the inside of a room with windows might pose a problem or two for you. Depends on how late in the afternoon.

An 'everyday' (low-light) situation where I couldn't shoot for example would be...?

Indoors, dimly lit or at night without a lot of grain and black areas. Understand that the PD150 can get a quite reasonable picture when it is too dark to read. The 10 will not come close. Also, the 10 has a tendency to streak in high-contrast situations so where the 150 would do OK with just candle light, the 10 will suffer from not enough sensitivity and streaking. The 150 will streak too but not nearly as much from all reports.

3. Smaller CCDs. When and how will this affect the quality of my image.
450,000 dot to 246,000 seems significant.

Not an issue of resolution but of pixel sensor size. That's the reason for 7 lux.

4. Stupid question (no such thing right!?) - does the PDX10 have any time lapse function? - you know the old "watch the grass grow".
err.. I can record at different speeds right?

Ya gotta post that one in the correct forum but probably. Most Sony camcorders do have that function.

<<<-- Originally posted by Anthony Milic :2. 7Lux dummified...really. Just to give me a really broad idea: Let's say for example it's an outdoor shoot on a grey, overcast afternoon - is the integrity of my image going to suffer/grain? -->>>

Actually I was just getting ready to post a bunch of examples from a long day of location shooting with the PDX-10. Sure, it would be nice to have a little more light sensitivity, but the camera can really handle all but the most challenging situations. Here are a few examples. These were taken with the light from a campfire. The moon, clouds, reflection on the water, are all real. OK, we cheated just a bit and used a $5 home depot flashlight with a piece of diffusion gel and amber gel taped to it, from a distance of maybe 30 feet. Note that these images have been treated in post (using FCP filters), but are actual video frames. Some of them have a significant amount of noise, while others are surprisingly clean.

http://www.greenmist.com/trovatore/film/20030909/azucena/01/
http://www.greenmist.com/trovatore/film/20030909/azucena/02/
http://www.greenmist.com/trovatore/film/20030909/azucena/03/
http://www.greenmist.com/trovatore/film/20030909/azucena/04
http://www.greenmist.com/trovatore/film/20030909/ferrando/04/
http://www.greenmist.com/trovatore/film/20030909/ferrando/06

ha.. I'm like ..Wrong forum?!? what the hell's he on ab-.. oh. :) .."
sorry dudes.
off to find x10 ppl

ps Thanks for info guys

Thank you Mike for your information. I appreciate it.

Same to you Boyd. thanks for the input
- now about those video shots. (importantly, are they stills from DV footage or actual photo stills?)
It looks as if you've blackened all unfeatured ares of the shots in post. I presume this was done to counter the grainy/colour leech effect of low light recording. - which makes the more faded, grainy features stand out by contrast.
Now, in terms of the image quality of those featured areas; It's all pretty poor is it not? If not unusable (unless artistically, which is a whole different ball game) or did you take those shots as an example of extreme low light capabilities?
BTW, I like image 4, pretty cool!

(please pardon my lack of photo/cam-lyngo)

Thank you.

OK Boyd, As soon as I posted previous, I noticed your post on this very topic.