Sony DSR-PDX10 vs Panasonic AG-DVC30

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

> The DVC-30 is a 1/4" 3CCD and the DPX-10 is a 1/4.7" 3CCD
> Does that means the resolution will be higher on DVC-30
> compare with DPX-10???

No. It means that if both cameras were to have the same resolution the response to light would probably be somewhat better with the DVC30. Since the DVC30's CCD array has a lower resolution than the PDX10's, the DVC30's low light response should be significantly better, but of course not as good as the DVX80/100 or PD150/170, which sport larger sensors.

It also means that the DVC30 will probably have a slightly shallower depth of field than the PDX10.

> By the way, gentlmen, I would like to know is the DPX-10 really
> equipped with a 16x9 3CCD or it simply squeeze the image and
> fit it inside the 4x3 3CCD like some anamorphic adaptor?

Yes, the PDX10's megapixel CCD is responsible for it's capability to take great stills and 'native' 16:9 video. Of course the video is resampled to DV's 720x480 rectangular pixels, but this is much better than what happens in the DVX80/100, PD150/170 and DVC30. The only other sub-US$4k 16:9 native cameras I know of are 1-CCD models.

The smaller the CCD and the higher the resolution, the smaller the pixels are and thus the less photons each pixel can get. This is why sensor size is such a big deal, and this is why the most sensitive prosumer cameras have sensors with similar to DV resolution and therefore are not great for taking digital stills.

[Edmond Chan]

Ignacio Rodriguez:

Thanks for your great reply... i'm really learning a lot from it... Thanks...

But one question on the DVX100a... as i heard from the forum, they also claim to be 16x9 by using the squeeze mode... (as my understanding, the squeeze mode will make the 16x9 image fit inside their 720x480 CCD panel... and fully utiltize the whole 480 vertical lines...) Is that true or not? So we got 2 sub-US$4k 16:9 native cameras...

Edmond

[Ignacio Rodriguez]

Sorry I have not used the DVX100a, however I think it's resolution does not warrant enough pixels for 'native' electronic 16x9 performance. Squeeze mode or not, it's imaging block does not have enough pixels on the horizontal axis to build a real 16x9 image keeping full resolution in the vertical axis. The way to get good 16x9 DV from such a camera is to add an external anamorphic lens.

Here is something said about squeeze mode on the DVX100 forum: "To clarify, both 16:9 and 4:3 use only a part of the 3ccds to produce the image. both use the center part of the ccd much like the way you see a cropped 16:9 image on a 4:3 TV. "

The full post and others trying to understand and explain the 16x9 with the DVX are available at the following URL:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=23511

[Boyd Ostroff]

Don't confuse format with quality. Most prosumer camcorders create "real" 16:9 in that the image is anamorphically squeezed in the camera and a widescreen TV will properly unsqueeze it. But the problem is that their CCD's don't offer enough pixels to obtain the full 480 lines of vertical resolution. The PDX-10 has enough pixels for this, and therefore the 16:9 mode looks much better. The DVX-100a, PD-170, GL-2, etc. must first crop the image to about 360 vertical lines in order to obtain the 16:9 aspect ratio. They then stretch it out to 480 lines, but this is a case of "garbage in = garbage out" and you are losing about 25% of the vertical resolution.

[Edmond Chan]

Boyd Ostroff & Ignacio Rodriguez:

Thanks for the reply... but it make me more confuse on this 16x9 issue...

(1) Why the CCD's don't offer enough pixels to obtain the full 480 lines of vertical resolution? If the CCD can obtain the 4x3 image inside a full 720x480 CCD panel... the squeeze mode will just squeeze the 16x9 image inside that same 720x480 CCD panel like the anamorphic lens can... (Correct me if i am wrong, one is done digitally inside the camera, and the other is done by using a optical len...) or am i missing something?

(2) I see the chopping on the letterbox mode, and how it will affect the final resolution (720x360)...

(3) If DPX-10 is the only 16x9 native 3-CCD camcorder, how does it capture the picture into the 720x480 CCD panel? Remember the panel that it used is not native 16x9 (854x480)? How is that different than the squeeze mode capture the image???

Thanks again... i really think the web is the greatest invention of the world...

[Boyd Ostroff]

The DVC-30 has 410,000 gross pixels and the PDX-10 has 1,070,000. In order to get an image in the 16:9 proportion both cameras need to chop off the top and bottom of their 4:3 native CCD's. When you do this on the DVC-30 you will end up with about 360 vertical lines of resolution because the total pixel count is not high enough. But the PDX-10 has a lot more pixels to play with, so you will still have 480 vertical lines after cropping.

Yes, I think you are missing something. When you use an anamorphic adaptor on a standard 4:3 camcorder you are squeezing the image horizontally and still using all of the 480 vertical lines. But when you crop the image to get 16:9 (as the DVC-30 does) you are losing about 120 vertical lines.

Your assumption #3 is not valid. The PDX-10 does not have 720x480 CCD panels, it's really 1152x864 which is what gives it a superior 16:9 mode. On a 4:3 camcorder you only have about 720x480 pixels to work with, so you create a 16:9 image as follows:

1. Crop to ~720x360 to acheive the correct proportions
2. Stretch vertically to 720x480 to put the image in the proper anamorphic format

On the PDX-10 you are starting out with 1152x864 pixels so it goes like this:

1. Crop to ~1152x546 to acheive the correct aspect ratio.
2. Downsample and squash horizontally to acheive a 720x480 anamorphic image.

So the PDX-10 creates its 16:9 image by compressing information it has captured into a smaller frame size. But a regular 4:3 camcorder has to stretch a smaller image into a larger one which spreads the captured data across a large area. This results in a softer image because you are trying to create a picture from insufficient information.

[Tom Hardwick]

I think you'll really confuse him now Boyd. Whenever you've said 'vertical lines' in your post (above) I'm sure you mant to say 'horizontal lines'.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Well that's been a source of confusion for me and many others around here. But as I understand it, when you talk about vertical resolution you refer to the scan lines that run across the screen from left to right. By way of analogy, a spreadsheet with 720 columns and 480 rows would have a vertical resolution of 480 and a horizontal resolution of 720. This nomenclature corresponds to the specs on a camera like the PDX-10 which can resolve 530 horizontal lines.

[Tom Hardwick]

No no no Boyd. The PDX10 can resolve 530 vertical lines because it has a fine resolution. It MUST resolve 576 (PAL) horizontal lines otherwise you wouldn't fill the TV screen - it's a simple as that. All camcorders, from the two bob to the twenty thousand dollar camera have 576 vertical resolution. The best DV cams have 530 horizontal resolution (the theoretical maximum for the format) but a lot of them struggle to reach 400.

tom.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I said "a camera like the PDX-10 which can resolve 530 horizontal lines," I didn't say anything about the vertical resolution.

Actually, instead of beating this to death again I'd suggest this thread which gets into quite a bit of detail on the subject.

[David Ziegelheim]

Let me answer the question...for the same money with XLRs(???), get the DVC30!!!!

Newer camera, better lens, bigger CCDs, some interesting features, frame mode, real manual mode....

For lowlight, the DVC30 has a 0 lux IR mode.

Now how are they the same price? The PDX10 is $2,000 at B&H. The DVC30 is $2,300 PLUS $230 for the XLR adapter. My math says $2000 vs $2530!!!

The DVC80, while still available, is $2100. Move quickly. Misses some features but should more than make up for it in the final picture.

[Tommy Haupfear]

Its all about the pixels.

As Boyd mentioned the DVC30 has 410k pixels per each of its 1/4" sized CCDs. Compared that to the PDX10's 1070k pixels per 1/4.7" sized CCDs and my bet is that there will be quite a bit of difference in low light performance with the DVC30 coming out on top.

Of course I would rather have the PDX10 with the best in-camera 16:9 mode under $5k (the PDX10 CCDs are native 4:3).

Weddings? You might get by with the DVC30 but you'll want 1/3" 3CCD for those dimly lit chapels where you have absolutely no control over the lighting. I shot a wedding last year with my VX2000 and PDX10 and other than closeup interviews with a 20w light the PDX10 footage was useless.

Here is how the PDX10 achieves its high quality widescreen mode from its native 4:3 CCD.

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

[Edmond Chan]

Boyld,


I saw the link that Mr. Tommy Haupfear provided, and finally understand how the DPX-10 work... like Mr. Ignacio Rodriguez said earlier, "to clarify, both 16:9 and 4:3 use only a part of the 3-CCD to produce the image."

But if that's correct, both 16x9 or 4x3 are not fully use the CCD-panel? Why??? I understand the width of the 16x9 image that cost the cropping and restriction on the size... but i don't understand why the 4x3 only using 85% of the panel... it left a lot of usefull pixel surround like a picture frame...

By looking at the chart of PDX-10, i don't see any different on the 4x3 using anamorphic lens compare with the 16x9 mode... actually i think the 16x9 mode will give you better resolution...

Here are my last questions:-

(1) Is there any camcorder that shoot 16x9 fully use the whole panel? Squeeze mode or whatever it take...

(2) Why the DPX-10's 4x3 mode is not fully use the whole CCD panel? Is that only happen on this camcorder, or all the other brands are doing the same thing... (I am a Home Theater guy, all my projector use all their native resolution to provide the best picture they can 1366x768, 1280x720, 960x540... It is quite odd for me to know that the prosumer camcorder is not...)

Thanks a million...

Edmond

[David Ziegelheim]

Most (all) 2/3" CCD camcorders have a real 16:9 CCD. Otherwise, only a few small CCD consumer camcorders do. The PDX10 is based on the consumer TRV950.

Note: I believe you'll find that high pixel cound is for still images. Video images should only use about 2/3s of that.

[Tommy Haupfear]

but i don't understand why the 4x3 only using 85% of the panel... it left a lot of usefull pixel surround like a picture frame...

The PDX10 does sample a larger than 720x480 while in 4:3 but you're correct in that it doesn't use the entire CCD. Of course both its 4:3 and 16:9 footage is written to tape at 720x480 with the 16:9 footage being anamorphically squeezed.

This page also goes into detail about the PDX10's 16:9 mode.

http://www.maxent.org/video/16x9.html

By looking at the chart of PDX-10, i don't see any different on the 4x3 using anamorphic lens compare with the 16x9 mode... actually i think the 16x9 mode will give you better resolution...

The 16:9 mode of the PDX10 is of higher resolution than a cam using an anamorphic adapter. The PDX10 also does not have the loss of zoom and distortion found with anamorphic adapters.

(1) Is there any camcorder that shoot 16x9 fully use the whole panel? Squeeze mode or whatever it take...

The PDX10 does use the full width of the CCD and of course doesn't use the full height because its 16:9 not 4:3. The PDX10 captures a much larger section for 16:9 than the 720x480 that is written to tape. One site referenced that it samples 1152x648 beforge going thru its anamorphic process and finally to tape at 720x480.

Why the DPX-10's 4x3 mode is not fully use the whole CCD panel?

See above. If you really want to give your home theater projectors a workout then pickup a JVC HDV 720p cam (there are two models).