PDX10 Vs. DV953 (Pan)

Steve Nunez · September 30th, 2003, 02:53 PM

Which of the 2 cams has the better LCD and EVF?

Tommy Haupfear · September 30th, 2003, 03:08 PM

The PDX10 has a sharper LCD with more pixels and has a high resolution B&W viewfinder that really helps in manual focusing.

Frank Granovski · September 30th, 2003, 03:18 PM

And, again, you pay extra for this. And if you want even a better LCD and viewfinder, buy a 1/2" 3 CCD cam and buy a monitor. Anyways, I found the PV-DV953's LCD extremily sharp but its viewfinder sucks. :)

Too bad Panasonic didn't keep the great MX300 viewfinder on their MX5000/PV-DV953 and now the GS100.

Steve Nunez · September 30th, 2003, 03:29 PM

Frank,

I take it you feel the 953 is the better "deal" of the 2 despite it's few shortcomings, when compared to the PDX10.

I have about a $4,000 budget for my next cam problem is:

my favorite is the DVX, forget the 24P, I just love the form factor, manual controls and host of other features which makes it the baddest DV camera out- big problem is NO 16:9- of which my TV is! (very surprising considering it's "cinema" target buyer group!!!) I actually bought one when it first came out and got rid of due to it's "WIDE" angle lens- I just couldn't get decent zoom with it! So the DVX and DVC's are out for me....

...the XL1S (which i also owned) was nice- but again soft OEM lens and NO 16:9 (forget the electronic mask 16:9 mode)...

The JVC HD10U is awesome and i have yet to own one- problem is:
all video that I'd like edited using FCP would require post processing so that the clips would be editable in FCP (vai Steve Mullen's 4HDV software) ...adding tons of steps just to get the clips in an editable form...just way too many steps involved...nice part is that it shoots 16:9 in HDTV, SD and DV......all but the DV footage (on par with regular consumer 1-CCD cams in this mode- but not spectacular- this is not why you buy an HD10U)......

.....which leaves us with either the 953 or PDX10....so far the PDX10 has the better marbles.unless there's a 16:9 camera (native) that i have overlooked????

<This is where i am at presently- any further words are much appreciated>

Frank Granovski · September 30th, 2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

which leaves us with either the 953 or PDX10....so far the PDX10 has the better marbles; unless there's a 16:9 camera (native) that i have overlooked?

The PV-DV953's 16:9 is very good, as is the PDX10's 16:9. Both cams are not very good with lower light. The PDX10 has more features. 2 such features yet not mentioned are manual slow speed shutter settings, and the more robust DVCAM format. Other great cams and with great 16:9 are the GS100 and Optura Xi (1 CCD cam). The GS100 is only available in Japan , though, and probably won't be released in North America until about June, 2004. The GS100 is also very good with lower light. Depending on the features you need, and what's available now, I'd look at these cams mentioned:

PDX10
PV-DV953
GS100 (Japanese)
Optura Xi

I can't recall what you will be doing with a cam. Will you need XLRs? The 2 Panas and the Optura will need an XLR adaptor; the PDX10 won't.

Yik Kuen · September 30th, 2003, 07:52 PM

Manage to borrow from a friend tested the MX500 last night.
There's no way that the MX500 (do not know is 953 is exactly the same) can beat PDX-10 or TRV-950 in low light.

To me, the video images are horrible, even my wife spotted the difference in quality comparing to my previous 950E under the same condition/environment, hooked up to the TV set.

I seriously think that one should really consider if he wants to go for a 1/6" CCD system.

Boyd Ostroff · September 30th, 2003, 10:58 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : I'm slightly concerned to read that the MX500 doesn't see more wide-angle when switched into the 16:9 mode -->>>

I love my PDX-10, but someone else around here raised an interesting question. Just WHY does the PDX-10 expand the field of view for 16:9? Doesn't matter to me, because I don't shoot 4:3 on my PDX-10. However, the actual CCD's are in the 4:3 proportion (look at the still photo mode). So why doesn't Sony use the WHOLE ccd for 4:3 video? Makes me wonder if it was a marketing thing to set the camera apart from the others. But maybe there's a technical reason regarding how many pixels the camera can process or something...

Ignacio Rodriguez · September 30th, 2003, 11:18 PM

A friend thinks (and I agree with him) that the chip's bus or the DSP in the cam just can't process the full amount of pixels at video's frame rate. Not enough bandwidth. And since the CCD array is still oversampled for video even when using a smaller area, the image is still considered 'native' whether in16:9 or 4:3.

Actually, oversampled is better than 'native' resolution, cause it get's you better AD conversion, less noise, less jaggies and so on. Though I think the small size of the pixels is what makes this camera less sensitive to light than the PD150 or other lower res cameras.

Now this get's me thinking. When the camera is in 'photo' mode, it does output video at a progessive rate of 29.97 fps (but it does not record it to tape), so the CCD array can do full res at that rate but not at 60 fps. This means that if sony wanted... or perhaps via a firmware upgrade or even some hidden mode, it could do progessive scan. Now that would be really another planet: native 16:9 proscan.. wow! If you find any hidden modes, please post the info to:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15162

Currently, you can get poor man's (that's me allright) proscan by setting the shutter to 30 fps, but the result is line doubling, the usual Sony kind. However, since the CCD is still working in an oversampled 16:9 mode... it might end up being better than the XL1's proscan at 16:9. Interesting idea... anybody out there have both cams to test?
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15212

Hmmmm. The more I linger around here, the crazier my ideas get, or not? I can almost hear the crowd from the XL1 forum looming towards me with torches in their hands and masks on their faces... and the torches show a strange green tail when they move...
:-)

Boyd Ostroff · October 1st, 2003, 07:34 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : When the camera is in 'photo' mode, it does output video at a progessive rate of 29.97 fps

This has actually been discussed a lot, both here and on the DV.com boards. I think this is a myth which has been debunked. Evidently the camera does output something in photo mode, but not true 30p. Somebody posted frame grabs where the subject was an electronic circuit board. They looked like they had been deinterlaced and showed some stair-stepping.

Barry Green · October 1st, 2003, 08:46 PM

I spent some time with that "photo mode progressive" trying to find out what's what... it definitely isn't full-res progressive scan, it looks like field-doubled half-resolution. But, what's odd is that it uses the full surface of the chip, so you get a slightly wider field of view. But what comes out of that firewire port is definitely not 30P, it's more like de-interlaced 60i.

Phil Dale · October 6th, 2003, 01:20 PM

Just one small point in this PDX10 v panasonic debate, the PDX10 will shoot in the far more stable DVcam format, I rather think this may have more to do with the difference in price than wich one has XLRs.

September 30th, 2003, 02:53 PM	#16
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Which of the 2 cams has the better LCD and EVF? __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

September 30th, 2003, 03:29 PM	#19
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Frank, I take it you feel the 953 is the better "deal" of the 2 despite it's few shortcomings, when compared to the PDX10. I have about a $4,000 budget for my next cam problem is: my favorite is the DVX, forget the 24P, I just love the form factor, manual controls and host of other features which makes it the baddest DV camera out- big problem is NO 16:9- of which my TV is! (very surprising considering it's "cinema" target buyer group!!!) I actually bought one when it first came out and got rid of due to it's "WIDE" angle lens- I just couldn't get decent zoom with it! So the DVX and DVC's are out for me.... ...the XL1S (which i also owned) was nice- but again soft OEM lens and NO 16:9 (forget the electronic mask 16:9 mode)... The JVC HD10U is awesome and i have yet to own one- problem is: all video that I'd like edited using FCP would require post processing so that the clips would be editable in FCP (vai Steve Mullen's 4HDV software) ...adding tons of steps just to get the clips in an editable form...just way too many steps involved...nice part is that it shoots 16:9 in HDTV, SD and DV......all but the DV footage (on par with regular consumer 1-CCD cams in this mode- but not spectacular- this is not why you buy an HD10U)...... .....which leaves us with either the 953 or PDX10....so far the PDX10 has the better marbles.unless there's a 16:9 camera (native) that i have overlooked???? <This is where i am at presently- any further words are much appreciated> __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

September 30th, 2003, 11:18 PM	#23
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	Perhaps... A friend thinks (and I agree with him) that the chip's bus or the DSP in the cam just can't process the full amount of pixels at video's frame rate. Not enough bandwidth. And since the CCD array is still oversampled for video even when using a smaller area, the image is still considered 'native' whether in16:9 or 4:3. Actually, oversampled is better than 'native' resolution, cause it get's you better AD conversion, less noise, less jaggies and so on. Though I think the small size of the pixels is what makes this camera less sensitive to light than the PD150 or other lower res cameras. Now this get's me thinking. When the camera is in 'photo' mode, it does output video at a progessive rate of 29.97 fps (but it does not record it to tape), so the CCD array can do full res at that rate but not at 60 fps. This means that if sony wanted... or perhaps via a firmware upgrade or even some hidden mode, it could do progessive scan. Now that would be really another planet: native 16:9 proscan.. wow! If you find any hidden modes, please post the info to: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15162 Currently, you can get poor man's (that's me allright) proscan by setting the shutter to 30 fps, but the result is line doubling, the usual Sony kind. However, since the CCD is still working in an oversampled 16:9 mode... it might end up being better than the XL1's proscan at 16:9. Interesting idea... anybody out there have both cams to test? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15212 Hmmmm. The more I linger around here, the crazier my ideas get, or not? I can almost hear the crowd from the XL1 forum looming towards me with torches in their hands and masks on their faces... and the torches show a strange green tail when they move... :-) __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

October 1st, 2003, 07:34 PM	#24
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Re: Perhaps... <<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : When the camera is in 'photo' mode, it does output video at a progessive rate of 29.97 fps This has actually been discussed a lot, both here and on the DV.com boards. I think this is a myth which has been debunked. Evidently the camera does output something in photo mode, but not true 30p. Somebody posted frame grabs where the subject was an electronic circuit board. They looked like they had been deinterlaced and showed some stair-stepping.

September 30th, 2003, 03:08 PM	#17
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	The PDX10 has a sharper LCD with more pixels and has a high resolution B&W viewfinder that really helps in manual focusing.

September 30th, 2003, 03:18 PM	#18
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	And, again, you pay extra for this. And if you want even a better LCD and viewfinder, buy a 1/2" 3 CCD cam and buy a monitor. Anyways, I found the PV-DV953's LCD extremily sharp but its viewfinder sucks. :) Too bad Panasonic didn't keep the great MX300 viewfinder on their MX5000/PV-DV953 and now the GS100.

September 30th, 2003, 07:52 PM	#21
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	Manage to borrow from a friend tested the MX500 last night. There's no way that the MX500 (do not know is 953 is exactly the same) can beat PDX-10 or TRV-950 in low light. To me, the video images are horrible, even my wife spotted the difference in quality comparing to my previous 950E under the same condition/environment, hooked up to the TV set. I seriously think that one should really consider if he wants to go for a 1/6" CCD system.

September 30th, 2003, 10:58 PM	#22
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : I'm slightly concerned to read that the MX500 doesn't see more wide-angle when switched into the 16:9 mode -->>> I love my PDX-10, but someone else around here raised an interesting question. Just WHY does the PDX-10 expand the field of view for 16:9? Doesn't matter to me, because I don't shoot 4:3 on my PDX-10. However, the actual CCD's are in the 4:3 proportion (look at the still photo mode). So why doesn't Sony use the WHOLE ccd for 4:3 video? Makes me wonder if it was a marketing thing to set the camera apart from the others. But maybe there's a technical reason regarding how many pixels the camera can process or something...

October 1st, 2003, 08:46 PM	#25
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	I spent some time with that "photo mode progressive" trying to find out what's what... it definitely isn't full-res progressive scan, it looks like field-doubled half-resolution. But, what's odd is that it uses the full surface of the chip, so you get a slightly wider field of view. But what comes out of that firewire port is definitely not 30P, it's more like de-interlaced 60i.

October 6th, 2003, 01:20 PM	#26
Phil Dale Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: UNITED KINGDOM Posts: 25	Just one small point in this PDX10 v panasonic debate, the PDX10 will shoot in the far more stable DVcam format, I rather think this may have more to do with the difference in price than wich one has XLRs.