It's about time : pdx10 review

Tom Hardwick · April 11th, 2004, 12:03 AM

This makes a 1/3" CCD 4.4mm x 3.3mm. I'd always considered a Kodachrome slide of a Super-8 frame to be pretty tiny at 5.8 x 4.2mm, but it's positively huge alongside the VX2k's chips.

tom.

Boyd Ostroff · April 11th, 2004, 08:19 AM

The interesting thing is that we're always hearing about how many more "pixels" film has vs. video. But actually it appears that CCD's offer more pixels per square millimeter than film.

Tom Hardwick · April 11th, 2004, 02:19 PM

I'm sure they do Boyd, but the chips in our domestic camcorders sure aren't them. I have Cibachrome prints measuring 14" wide made from Super-8 frames, and from a technical viewpoint the Kodachrome 40 easily beats the best print I can make from the PDX10's Memorystick. It's getting grainy, yes - but there's not the slightest stair-stepping, edge sharpening or JPEG compression visible.

tom.

Ignacio Rodriguez · April 11th, 2004, 09:29 PM

The review seems like an interesting abstract of tha manual, except in regards to the low sensitivity problem which is well explained. Native 16:9 is also well mentioned. Other than that, the writer does not seem to have investigated much further. Take for example this: 'The PDX10 does not feature any sort of ND filter which is an inconvenience'. Although it is an undocumented 'feature', the PDX10 has three built in ND filters that complement the iris to control exposure, thus keeping the iris at the camera's sweet spot as much as possible and automatically.

Oh, and then there is this other review which comes to mind:
http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/reports/pdx10-ir1.php ... hmm, yes, I do know the guy who wrote it :-)

Shawn Mielke · April 11th, 2004, 11:45 PM

I'd have included your review in my above compilation, Ig, but it's already right under our nose that I thought it a redundancy? I have put together this list of PDX reviews on other sites in the past and yours is always present in those.
:-)

Tom Hardwick · April 12th, 2004, 04:49 AM

Ignacio, you're correct in that the PDX10 does indeed have three in-built ND filters that take the place of regualr diaphragm openings, so why then do you say in your review:

"There is no internal ND filter"? Maybe you mean there's no control offered over the ND filter(s).

Also you're correct when you say that shutter speeds have a great influence on the CCD smear problem, but I just feel you're letting Sony off the hook somewhat by saying:

"The only problem I have been able to detect is some degree of vertical smear with a slight blueish cast, apparent only under high contrast and with an over exposed background. Similarly, white vertical lines can appear when you have bright lights over a dark background. Playing around with the shutter speed can help diminish vertical smearing. A contrast reducing filter might help."

The OIS is (as all OIS systems are) a hybrid electro/mechanical set-up. Electronics process the information, and optical elements are moved mechanically to correct for camera movement. If the camera's held still the OIS elements just sit there doing nothing, whereas an EIS system can remove the instability of an image in front of the lens (a badly shaken Super-8 film for instance) even though the camera remains perfectly stationery.

tom.

Ignacio Rodriguez · April 12th, 2004, 11:18 AM

> "There is no internal ND filter"? Maybe you mean there's
> no control offered over the ND filter(s).

Absolutely correct Tom, you really got me! Actually I have un updated version of the review waiting to be corrected and sent to Chris for reposting. It fixes that and several other mistakes I made. I will also be adding examples of the image I get with some cheap WA adapters. I just expected much more of the review at camcorderinfo.

I know you are a big fan of the PDX10's vertical smear <grin>, but I find it quite controllable in most cases.

Tom, regarding OIS, have you compared the PDX10's with that of other similar cams? I keep hearing how great the XL1's is but I have not been too impressed when trying it...

Did any of you get the sensation that the review of the PDX10 was just an excuse to compare it againts the new Panny?

Tom Hardwick · April 12th, 2004, 01:19 PM

I hope others don't think we've hijacked this thread Ignacio...

To your PDX10 test. Yes, I agree whole-heartidly with your thoughts on the uncomfortable hold of the thing. The memorystick door adds to the width of the cam, and it's the fact that the inside surface of your palm is so far from the c of g that makes the cam 'twist' in your hand. Having the strap tighter is no help as it squeezes the blood out of your hand and stops you using the zoom rocker. :-)

I also agree with your battery thoughts. The PDX sucks 20% more power than the PD100, yet the latter used the big NP-F batteries - same as the PD170/VX2k1. Crazy design move, Sony.

You say:

"Finally, I bought a cool little Vivitar 0.5x wide angle adapter for little money (much less than a Sony or Century Optics), it's not the best quality, but since it is really 50mm, I am only using 37mm of it and not getting much distortion from the edges. It does not vignette noticeably in video mode... just a very slight darkening at the top left in 16:9 mode. It visibly vignettes in photo mode, which uses the full height of the CCD array"

Just to put you right optically, the Vivitar is of spherical element construction, so the fact that it comes with a 50mm attachment thread has no bearing on the distortions your 37mm filter threaded camera perceives. Imagine the PDX10 was unchanged apart from the filter thread - say it had a 50mm filter thread - now you can see that you're not ''using 37mm of it'' as you say, it just happens to be the thread size specified by Sony when they designed the thing. The vignetting you see in stills mode is due to the Vivitar being too small in overall diameter, and/or being fitted too far away from the PDX's front element.

Agree with all you say about SP and DVCAM mode BTW. And with your thoughts on the excellence of the Sony lens. It sure doesn't need Zeiss written on it.

OIS. The PDX has a 12x zoom and the XL1s a 16x. Could that be why the Canon's OIS seems to be less well endowed? The VAP of the VX2k is bulky, noisy, expensive and subject to bubbles at high altitude. The PDX's vibrating elements suffer none of these disadvantages and as far as I'm aware work every bit as well. The fact that Panasonic use this system in the DVX100 show the way OIS will go, I'm sure.

tom.

Tom Hardwick · April 12th, 2004, 01:43 PM

"expensive new camera, I would get to understand exactly what AUTO SHTR really does, but I still don't. The manual is of the most basic nature, every "

Forgot to chime in on this. The auto shutter is just that - if you leave it 'on' in the menu the camera will vary the shutter speed in combination with the three ND filters in an effort to hang onto the f4 sweet spot. It works pretty well, (assuming you like stacatto footage in bright conditions) though the camera must be kept in the fully automatic mode for this to work of course. As soon as the slider gets to the central position, auto shutter is off regardless of the menu indication.

tom.

Ignacio Rodriguez · April 12th, 2004, 05:58 PM

> The auto shutter is just that - if you leave it 'on' in the
> menu the camera will vary the shutter speed in combination
> with the three ND filters in an effort to hang onto the f4
> sweet spot.

I see... so the difference is that when in 'off' and light becomes too much for the ND filters to control it would start closing the diaphragm instead of upping the shutter speed?

Tom Hardwick · April 13th, 2004, 01:25 AM

Exactly so. And as soon as that happens you can see why Sony would like you to leave the auto shutter on - or, if you insist on using manual exposure (as you should) manually upping the shutter speed in very bright conditions.

I did some tests and at the widest angle setting the diffraction losses are quite noticeable at very small apertures. For the best results make f4.8 your smallest useable aperture, and all will be well.

tom.

Mike Sanchez · April 13th, 2004, 03:39 AM

The camcorderinfo.com review has mismatched two things:

1. High visibility.
2. Poor information.

Without any data or images to sustain its claim the review ranks the new Panasonic AG-DVC30 ahead of the PDX-10 and then, without any data or images, ranks the PDX-10 ahead of the GL2. This in spite of a previous 2003 "shoot out" where the TRV-950 (with the same imaging system as PDX10) ranked behind the GL2 in low light.

Furthermore, the author's casual comments about the very, very good OIS on the PDX-10 ("I left it on just in case it is doing something") is simply irresponsible. One of the keys to obtaining good video is the very excellent OIS on the TRV-950 and PDX-10. Had the reviewer turned the OIS off (he notes he did not bother) he would have seen, at maximum zoom, the impossibility of getting good video. Had he done anything even slightly quantitative the OIS system would have been a factor.

I will grant that the pictures of the PDX-10 were accurate. They did photograph the right camcorder.

I think, if high visibility is granted, responsibility should be adopted.

Frank Granovski · April 13th, 2004, 03:52 AM

I Hurd that Sony uses Canon's OIS technology. Whether Pana does also, I don't know.

Tom Hardwick · April 13th, 2004, 04:15 AM

I agree with every word you said Mike. A camcorder tester owes it to his readership to be as accurate, unbiased, throrough, critical and truthful to his readership as is humanly possible, and that review of the Sony's OIS (to take one small discipline) shows that the reviewer lacks quite a few of the required attributes.

April 11th, 2004, 09:29 PM	#19
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	The review seems like an interesting abstract of tha manual, except in regards to the low sensitivity problem which is well explained. Native 16:9 is also well mentioned. Other than that, the writer does not seem to have investigated much further. Take for example this: 'The PDX10 does not feature any sort of ND filter which is an inconvenience'. Although it is an undocumented 'feature', the PDX10 has three built in ND filters that complement the iris to control exposure, thus keeping the iris at the camera's sweet spot as much as possible and automatically. Oh, and then there is this other review which comes to mind: http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/reports/pdx10-ir1.php ... hmm, yes, I do know the guy who wrote it :-) __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

April 11th, 2004, 11:45 PM	#20
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	I'd have included your review in my above compilation, Ig, but it's already right under our nose that I thought it a redundancy? I have put together this list of PDX reviews on other sites in the past and yours is always present in those. :-) __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

April 12th, 2004, 11:18 AM	#22
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> "There is no internal ND filter"? Maybe you mean there's > no control offered over the ND filter(s). Absolutely correct Tom, you really got me! Actually I have un updated version of the review waiting to be corrected and sent to Chris for reposting. It fixes that and several other mistakes I made. I will also be adding examples of the image I get with some cheap WA adapters. I just expected much more of the review at camcorderinfo. I know you are a big fan of the PDX10's vertical smear <grin>, but I find it quite controllable in most cases. Tom, regarding OIS, have you compared the PDX10's with that of other similar cams? I keep hearing how great the XL1's is but I have not been too impressed when trying it... Did any of you get the sensation that the review of the PDX10 was just an excuse to compare it againts the new Panny? __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

April 12th, 2004, 05:58 PM	#25
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> The auto shutter is just that - if you leave it 'on' in the > menu the camera will vary the shutter speed in combination > with the three ND filters in an effort to hang onto the f4 > sweet spot. I see... so the difference is that when in 'off' and light becomes too much for the ND filters to control it would start closing the diaphragm instead of upping the shutter speed? __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

April 13th, 2004, 03:39 AM	#27
Mike Sanchez Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Rochester, NY (USA) Posts: 54	The camcorderinfo.com review has mismatched two things: 1. High visibility. 2. Poor information. Without any data or images to sustain its claim the review ranks the new Panasonic AG-DVC30 ahead of the PDX-10 and then, without any data or images, ranks the PDX-10 ahead of the GL2. This in spite of a previous 2003 "shoot out" where the TRV-950 (with the same imaging system as PDX10) ranked behind the GL2 in low light. Furthermore, the author's casual comments about the very, very good OIS on the PDX-10 ("I left it on just in case it is doing something") is simply irresponsible. One of the keys to obtaining good video is the very excellent OIS on the TRV-950 and PDX-10. Had the reviewer turned the OIS off (he notes he did not bother) he would have seen, at maximum zoom, the impossibility of getting good video. Had he done anything even slightly quantitative the OIS system would have been a factor. I will grant that the pictures of the PDX-10 were accurate. They did photograph the right camcorder. I think, if high visibility is granted, responsibility should be adopted. __________________ New to Video but Learning Fast. Sony TRV-950 Canon ES-970 Canon Elan Canon AE-1 Canon Z-135 Yashica Mat124G

April 11th, 2004, 12:03 AM	#16
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	This makes a 1/3" CCD 4.4mm x 3.3mm. I'd always considered a Kodachrome slide of a Super-8 frame to be pretty tiny at 5.8 x 4.2mm, but it's positively huge alongside the VX2k's chips. tom.

April 11th, 2004, 08:19 AM	#17
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	The interesting thing is that we're always hearing about how many more "pixels" film has vs. video. But actually it appears that CCD's offer more pixels per square millimeter than film.

April 11th, 2004, 02:19 PM	#18
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I'm sure they do Boyd, but the chips in our domestic camcorders sure aren't them. I have Cibachrome prints measuring 14" wide made from Super-8 frames, and from a technical viewpoint the Kodachrome 40 easily beats the best print I can make from the PDX10's Memorystick. It's getting grainy, yes - but there's not the slightest stair-stepping, edge sharpening or JPEG compression visible. tom.

April 12th, 2004, 04:49 AM	#21
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Ignacio, you're correct in that the PDX10 does indeed have three in-built ND filters that take the place of regualr diaphragm openings, so why then do you say in your review: "There is no internal ND filter"? Maybe you mean there's no control offered over the ND filter(s). Also you're correct when you say that shutter speeds have a great influence on the CCD smear problem, but I just feel you're letting Sony off the hook somewhat by saying: "The only problem I have been able to detect is some degree of vertical smear with a slight blueish cast, apparent only under high contrast and with an over exposed background. Similarly, white vertical lines can appear when you have bright lights over a dark background. Playing around with the shutter speed can help diminish vertical smearing. A contrast reducing filter might help." The OIS is (as all OIS systems are) a hybrid electro/mechanical set-up. Electronics process the information, and optical elements are moved mechanically to correct for camera movement. If the camera's held still the OIS elements just sit there doing nothing, whereas an EIS system can remove the instability of an image in front of the lens (a badly shaken Super-8 film for instance) even though the camera remains perfectly stationery. tom.

April 12th, 2004, 01:19 PM	#23
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I hope others don't think we've hijacked this thread Ignacio... To your PDX10 test. Yes, I agree whole-heartidly with your thoughts on the uncomfortable hold of the thing. The memorystick door adds to the width of the cam, and it's the fact that the inside surface of your palm is so far from the c of g that makes the cam 'twist' in your hand. Having the strap tighter is no help as it squeezes the blood out of your hand and stops you using the zoom rocker. :-) I also agree with your battery thoughts. The PDX sucks 20% more power than the PD100, yet the latter used the big NP-F batteries - same as the PD170/VX2k1. Crazy design move, Sony. You say: "Finally, I bought a cool little Vivitar 0.5x wide angle adapter for little money (much less than a Sony or Century Optics), it's not the best quality, but since it is really 50mm, I am only using 37mm of it and not getting much distortion from the edges. It does not vignette noticeably in video mode... just a very slight darkening at the top left in 16:9 mode. It visibly vignettes in photo mode, which uses the full height of the CCD array" Just to put you right optically, the Vivitar is of spherical element construction, so the fact that it comes with a 50mm attachment thread has no bearing on the distortions your 37mm filter threaded camera perceives. Imagine the PDX10 was unchanged apart from the filter thread - say it had a 50mm filter thread - now you can see that you're not ''using 37mm of it'' as you say, it just happens to be the thread size specified by Sony when they designed the thing. The vignetting you see in stills mode is due to the Vivitar being too small in overall diameter, and/or being fitted too far away from the PDX's front element. Agree with all you say about SP and DVCAM mode BTW. And with your thoughts on the excellence of the Sony lens. It sure doesn't need Zeiss written on it. OIS. The PDX has a 12x zoom and the XL1s a 16x. Could that be why the Canon's OIS seems to be less well endowed? The VAP of the VX2k is bulky, noisy, expensive and subject to bubbles at high altitude. The PDX's vibrating elements suffer none of these disadvantages and as far as I'm aware work every bit as well. The fact that Panasonic use this system in the DVX100 show the way OIS will go, I'm sure. tom.

April 12th, 2004, 01:43 PM	#24
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	"expensive new camera, I would get to understand exactly what AUTO SHTR really does, but I still don't. The manual is of the most basic nature, every " Forgot to chime in on this. The auto shutter is just that - if you leave it 'on' in the menu the camera will vary the shutter speed in combination with the three ND filters in an effort to hang onto the f4 sweet spot. It works pretty well, (assuming you like stacatto footage in bright conditions) though the camera must be kept in the fully automatic mode for this to work of course. As soon as the slider gets to the central position, auto shutter is off regardless of the menu indication. tom.

April 13th, 2004, 01:25 AM	#26
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Exactly so. And as soon as that happens you can see why Sony would like you to leave the auto shutter on - or, if you insist on using manual exposure (as you should) manually upping the shutter speed in very bright conditions. I did some tests and at the widest angle setting the diffraction losses are quite noticeable at very small apertures. For the best results make f4.8 your smallest useable aperture, and all will be well. tom.

April 13th, 2004, 03:52 AM	#28
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	I Hurd that Sony uses Canon's OIS technology. Whether Pana does also, I don't know.

April 13th, 2004, 04:15 AM	#29
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I agree with every word you said Mike. A camcorder tester owes it to his readership to be as accurate, unbiased, throrough, critical and truthful to his readership as is humanly possible, and that review of the Sony's OIS (to take one small discipline) shows that the reviewer lacks quite a few of the required attributes.