DV852 vs. DVX100 at DVinfo.net

Mark Nicholson · January 17th, 2003, 10:29 PM

Repost from my thread at dv.com, figured you guys might be interested.

I just got the DV852, and shot a resolution test chart. Here are the results.

DV852 -- 0db
http://home.inreach.com/bobinick/852interlace.jpg

DVX100 (interlaced) -- 0db, normal gamma, normal matrix, -4 detail
http://home.inreach.com/bobinick/dvxinterlaced.jpg

DVX100 (progressive) -- 30p, 0db, normal gamma, normal matrix, "0" detail
http://home.inreach.com/bobinick/dvxprogressive.jpg

While it isn't fair to compare a $1000 camera to a $3000 camera, at least you can see what the difference is.

Note: the visible lines running through the picture are due to my cheap printer. The chart is still acurate to 800 lines though.

Yow Cheong Hoe · January 19th, 2003, 07:33 PM

Thanks, PlasmaSMP, the info is pretty interesting!

Being B&W, the resolution test shows that the MX8 (DV852) isn't too far from a professional camera! However, the MX8 will lose big time in colour comparison to the DVX100.

This is very reassuring to me, that I had a good cam for a very long time of 10 months before selling it for a 3CCD cam.

Lastly, the reddish colour on the MX8 results (852), is that your printer or incorrect white balance on the cam. My ex-MX8 in auto white balance gave very similar white balance to my MX350 (equivalent to 952).

Frank Granovski · January 19th, 2003, 07:36 PM

The MX350 has 3, 1/4" CCDs, whereas the PV-DV952 has 3, 1/6" CCDs. They are a way different, I think. The PV is based on the MX2000 and MX2500.

Yow Cheong Hoe · January 19th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Thanks for the correection, Frank.

I remember you telling me about the difference between the 952 and the 350 in DV.com. That's why I always use 'equivalent'. From what I know, the body and features are the same, just that the 952 is NTSC and using the small 1/6" CCDs.

Sad to say, you N.A. folks got it bad to have a lower-end CCD.

Frank Granovski · January 19th, 2003, 10:52 PM

"Sad to say, you N.A. folks got it bad to have a lower-end CCD"

Yes, Panasonic wanted to break us in early for those 1/6" CCDs. Mind you, the MX2000 came out in PALSville before we had a chance to turn up our noses at it. I heard that it was a real poor seller. Here, consumers don't know any better. They buy whatever the salesperson tells 'em to buy. Go figure.

Mark Nicholson · January 23rd, 2003, 01:49 AM

I have a few more (quick and simple) frame grabs from the DV852 here.

http://www.pbase.com/plasmasmp/dv852

I hope to get some more comparison shots later. Too busy at the moment.

Frank Granovski · January 23rd, 2003, 01:57 AM

Thanks, Mark!

Frank Granovski · February 13th, 2003, 03:50 AM

I'll gladly have a MX5000 today, then spend a year's salary on something that will be obsolete tomorrow.

http://www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.htm

January 17th, 2003, 10:29 PM	#1
Mark Nicholson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Eldorado Hills CA Posts: 68	DV852 vs. DVX100 Repost from my thread at dv.com, figured you guys might be interested. I just got the DV852, and shot a resolution test chart. Here are the results. DV852 -- 0db http://home.inreach.com/bobinick/852interlace.jpg DVX100 (interlaced) -- 0db, normal gamma, normal matrix, -4 detail http://home.inreach.com/bobinick/dvxinterlaced.jpg DVX100 (progressive) -- 30p, 0db, normal gamma, normal matrix, "0" detail http://home.inreach.com/bobinick/dvxprogressive.jpg While it isn't fair to compare a $1000 camera to a $3000 camera, at least you can see what the difference is. Note: the visible lines running through the picture are due to my cheap printer. The chart is still acurate to 800 lines though. __________________ Sacramento http://eyepatchfilms.com 2x HD-250, BR-HD50, Media Composer

January 19th, 2003, 07:33 PM	#2
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	Thanks, PlasmaSMP, the info is pretty interesting! Being B&W, the resolution test shows that the MX8 (DV852) isn't too far from a professional camera! However, the MX8 will lose big time in colour comparison to the DVX100. This is very reassuring to me, that I had a good cam for a very long time of 10 months before selling it for a 3CCD cam. Lastly, the reddish colour on the MX8 results (852), is that your printer or incorrect white balance on the cam. My ex-MX8 in auto white balance gave very similar white balance to my MX350 (equivalent to 952). __________________ Cam: Panasonic MX350EN, SOLD my MX8EN Mac: G3 400MHz PowerBook, 256 MB, OS 9 PC: Pentium 4 2800MHz, 512 MB, WindowsXP SW: iMovie, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, Ulead Video Studio, various little utilities

January 19th, 2003, 09:29 PM	#4
Yow Cheong Hoe Major Player Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Singapore, Passport: Malaysia Posts: 407	Thanks for the correection, Frank. I remember you telling me about the difference between the 952 and the 350 in DV.com. That's why I always use 'equivalent'. From what I know, the body and features are the same, just that the 952 is NTSC and using the small 1/6" CCDs. Sad to say, you N.A. folks got it bad to have a lower-end CCD. __________________ Cam: Panasonic MX350EN, SOLD my MX8EN Mac: G3 400MHz PowerBook, 256 MB, OS 9 PC: Pentium 4 2800MHz, 512 MB, WindowsXP SW: iMovie, Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, Ulead Video Studio, various little utilities

January 23rd, 2003, 01:49 AM	#6
Mark Nicholson Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Eldorado Hills CA Posts: 68	I have a few more (quick and simple) frame grabs from the DV852 here. http://www.pbase.com/plasmasmp/dv852 I hope to get some more comparison shots later. Too busy at the moment. __________________ Sacramento http://eyepatchfilms.com 2x HD-250, BR-HD50, Media Composer

January 19th, 2003, 07:36 PM	#3
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The MX350 has 3, 1/4" CCDs, whereas the PV-DV952 has 3, 1/6" CCDs. They are a way different, I think. The PV is based on the MX2000 and MX2500.

January 19th, 2003, 10:52 PM	#5
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	"Sad to say, you N.A. folks got it bad to have a lower-end CCD" Yes, Panasonic wanted to break us in early for those 1/6" CCDs. Mind you, the MX2000 came out in PALSville before we had a chance to turn up our noses at it. I heard that it was a real poor seller. Here, consumers don't know any better. They buy whatever the salesperson tells 'em to buy. Go figure.

January 23rd, 2003, 01:57 AM	#7
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks, Mark!

February 13th, 2003, 03:50 AM	#8
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I'll gladly have a MX5000 today, then spend a year's salary on something that will be obsolete tomorrow. http://www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.htm