16:9 and dv953 vs. optura xi

Tommy Haupfear · December 13th, 2003, 09:59 PM

Quote:

I'd like to get more info on your GS100K purchase off the board. I tried emailing you but didn't get a response. Could you possibly email me?

Odd, I emailed you back the same day to eipp address. Is that the correct reply-to address? I just re-sent the same emai to eipp and the profile addy so let me know if you get it this time.

Quote:

but i really don't know what is "good" resolution for widescreen 480i

Try adjusting the sharpness and color within the DV953 menu. BTW those adjustments are not available on the Xi. Does your HDTV do any upconversion with the 480i inputs (Faroudja DCDi)?

Make sure to feed the DV953 a lot of sunlight and experiment with the settings and I'm sure you'll be pleased. The only North American widescreen cam (under $5k) I would consider above the DV953 is the PDX10 but that will set you back around $2k.

How the PDX10 does 16:9

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

A few 16:9 frames from my PDX10

http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...elected=441334

A few 16:9 frame mode frames from my DV953

http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...elected=339297

Boyd Ostroff · December 13th, 2003, 10:06 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Bogdan Vaglarov : Bare in mind that consumer TV sets are sporting about 480 lines of resolution -->>>

Yes, but if you have an LCD or plasma widescreen TV you can feed it 480p component video and you should see all 720 horizontal pixels in glorious detail. The PDX-10 holds up surprisingly well.

Tommy, those DV953 frames look nice. Sure looks like all 480 scan lines are in use.

Tommy Haupfear · December 13th, 2003, 10:10 PM

Here are some 640x480 stills from the DV953

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture046.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture060.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture455.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture360.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture364.jpg

Granted these are stills and not video frames but the DV953 has an amazing macro function and I often bumped into the subject before getting too close.

Allyn Fratkin · December 15th, 2003, 01:51 AM

well, i thought i'd let you all know that i've decided to keep the 953 for now and not return it for an optura xi.

then, in a year or two when an hdtv camcorder is about the size and price of a 953, i'll upgrade.

thanks for everyone's help, especially tommy.

Robert Silvers · December 26th, 2003, 12:49 AM

I have only compared still pictures from the Xi and 953 from web posts, and I can say with certainty that the Xi has vastly better still image quality. I am not talking subtle here. The Xi has true 2MP resolution and the 953 is 0.8MP. I hope this translates to video quality in some ways because I had an Xi shipped to me. But I did learn from this thread that the 953 has some lines to spare for 16:9 mode, which is better than I thought from reading dozens of other posts.

Frank Granovski · December 26th, 2003, 05:44 AM

A lot of 1 CCD cams have better stills resolution than 3 CCD cams. If stills are more important than video, by all means, buy a 1 CCD cam, or better yet, a still cam.

Tommy Haupfear · December 26th, 2003, 06:57 AM

In reference to stills (only).

Robert, the full resolution stills from the Xi are cleaner than the full resolution stills from the DV953. However, drop the resolution down to 640x480 on both cams and you'll see that the DV953 has greater color accuracy and overall better picture quality. Its still not fair to compare even VGA stills on these cameras since they both use a progressive photo shot to obtain clean pictures but its very close to their native 720x480 NTSC video resolution.

That Xi is a great cam but I found its stills; while better than the DV953, to be weak compared to the cheapest dedicated 2MP digital cam. The only benefit I see with camcorder stills is the macro feature and those with optical image stabilization like the Xi and DV953.

John Palmieri · January 22nd, 2004, 12:40 PM

Tommy Haupfear Wrote:

Other than the lack of wider angle of view I think my DV953 had a great 16:9 mode and maybe after I get the GS100 next week I'll be more equipped to compare the two.

Tommy,

Did you ever compare the wide mode output of your 953 to the GS100k ? Was there any noticable differences in video quality when viewing on an HD TV ? I know the GS100k has a larger viewing area, but other then that, how does the 953 compare ?

I am trying to determine between the two models and was curious about the difference. I will be shooting in 16:9 mode for the future (I do not have a widescreen TV yet) maybe in 10 years when I can pick one up at circuit city for $500. I just do not want to be disapointed with the 953 once I start watching my videos on that size of a screen. Is the video crisp or does it get pixelated when viewed on that large of a display. I know niether of these cameras are true wide mode cameras.

All I have to display them on today is a 4:3 sony with letterboxed video. All my videos will just be home movies nothing fancy, but I want the best quality in this price range. I think I can get past the jap menus.

Thanks,
John.

Robert Silvers · January 22nd, 2004, 12:46 PM

The Xi stills are not only not weak compared to the cheapest 2MP camera, but they are comparable in quality to a 2Mp section of an EOS 10D with professional glass. I have done tests and posted the results in other threads or forums. These were photos taken side by side.

Tommy Haupfear · January 22nd, 2004, 01:07 PM

Quote:

but they are comparable in quality to a 2Mp section of an EOS 10D

Sounds interesting, but I don't see that I'll be retiring my 10D anytime soon for a less than acceptable Xi. I see dramatic differences between the two in both resolution and overall PQ. Not to mention vertical smear.

Tommy Haupfear · January 22nd, 2004, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Did you ever compare the wide mode output of your 953 to the GS100k ?

The vertical resolution is up in widescreen and the halo effect is less apparent than on the DV953 (in both 4:3 and 16:9).

The low light difference isn't that much between the DV953 and GS100 but a slight edge to the GS100 with a little less grain in comparable lighting. The GS100 does lack the Gain-Up mode from what I can tell but its not missed (at least not by me). If you're not intimidated by the Japanese menus (or the higher price) I would definitely say pick up a GS100 in the color of your choice from Tim or Allan.

Quote:

maybe in 10 years when I can pick one up at circuit city for $500

Sears had a small 16:9 HD CRT at Christmas for $599 and Amazon.com has a 65" HD RPTV for $1399.

December 13th, 2003, 10:06 PM	#17
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- Originally posted by Bogdan Vaglarov : Bare in mind that consumer TV sets are sporting about 480 lines of resolution -->>> Yes, but if you have an LCD or plasma widescreen TV you can feed it 480p component video and you should see all 720 horizontal pixels in glorious detail. The PDX-10 holds up surprisingly well. Tommy, those DV953 frames look nice. Sure looks like all 480 scan lines are in use.

December 13th, 2003, 10:10 PM	#18
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Here are some 640x480 stills from the DV953 http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture046.jpg http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture060.jpg http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture455.jpg http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture360.jpg http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture364.jpg Granted these are stills and not video frames but the DV953 has an amazing macro function and I often bumped into the subject before getting too close.

December 15th, 2003, 01:51 AM	#19
Allyn Fratkin New Boot Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Escondido, CA Posts: 17	well, i thought i'd let you all know that i've decided to keep the 953 for now and not return it for an optura xi. then, in a year or two when an hdtv camcorder is about the size and price of a 953, i'll upgrade. thanks for everyone's help, especially tommy.

December 26th, 2003, 12:49 AM	#20
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	I have only compared still pictures from the Xi and 953 from web posts, and I can say with certainty that the Xi has vastly better still image quality. I am not talking subtle here. The Xi has true 2MP resolution and the 953 is 0.8MP. I hope this translates to video quality in some ways because I had an Xi shipped to me. But I did learn from this thread that the 953 has some lines to spare for 16:9 mode, which is better than I thought from reading dozens of other posts.

December 26th, 2003, 05:44 AM	#21
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	A lot of 1 CCD cams have better stills resolution than 3 CCD cams. If stills are more important than video, by all means, buy a 1 CCD cam, or better yet, a still cam.

December 26th, 2003, 06:57 AM	#22
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	In reference to stills (only). Robert, the full resolution stills from the Xi are cleaner than the full resolution stills from the DV953. However, drop the resolution down to 640x480 on both cams and you'll see that the DV953 has greater color accuracy and overall better picture quality. Its still not fair to compare even VGA stills on these cameras since they both use a progressive photo shot to obtain clean pictures but its very close to their native 720x480 NTSC video resolution. That Xi is a great cam but I found its stills; while better than the DV953, to be weak compared to the cheapest dedicated 2MP digital cam. The only benefit I see with camcorder stills is the macro feature and those with optical image stabilization like the Xi and DV953.

January 22nd, 2004, 12:40 PM	#23
John Palmieri New Boot Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10	Tommy Haupfear Wrote: Other than the lack of wider angle of view I think my DV953 had a great 16:9 mode and maybe after I get the GS100 next week I'll be more equipped to compare the two. Tommy, Did you ever compare the wide mode output of your 953 to the GS100k ? Was there any noticable differences in video quality when viewing on an HD TV ? I know the GS100k has a larger viewing area, but other then that, how does the 953 compare ? I am trying to determine between the two models and was curious about the difference. I will be shooting in 16:9 mode for the future (I do not have a widescreen TV yet) maybe in 10 years when I can pick one up at circuit city for $500. I just do not want to be disapointed with the 953 once I start watching my videos on that size of a screen. Is the video crisp or does it get pixelated when viewed on that large of a display. I know niether of these cameras are true wide mode cameras. All I have to display them on today is a 4:3 sony with letterboxed video. All my videos will just be home movies nothing fancy, but I want the best quality in this price range. I think I can get past the jap menus. Thanks, John.

January 22nd, 2004, 12:46 PM	#24
Robert Silvers Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 64	The Xi stills are not only not weak compared to the cheapest 2MP camera, but they are comparable in quality to a 2Mp section of an EOS 10D with professional glass. I have done tests and posted the results in other threads or forums. These were photos taken side by side.