The next step up 16x9 camera than pdx10 at DVinfo.net

Love Mov · May 9th, 2004, 11:19 PM

I always saw people was saying "pdx10 is the bext 16x9 camera under $4000", so which brand/model of 16x9 camera is the next line up? I seem can't find anone talking about it. (one with attached anamorphic lense doesn't count).

Ken Tanaka · May 9th, 2004, 11:49 PM

In terms of cameras that have a true 16x9 ccd block, Sony's DSR570 comes to mind. It's a 2/3" native 16x9 standard definition camera. But it''s in a completely different price and performance league than the PDX-10.

Boyd Ostroff · May 10th, 2004, 07:11 AM

I always thought that the "under $4000" figure was very arbitrary (actually I think this began with a statement in the DV Magazine review which called it the best 16:9 under $5000 IIRC). I think the only way you can get comparable or better 16:9 in that price range would be a 4:3 camcorder with an anamorphic lens.

The DSR570 sounds like a great camera, but it lists for $18,000 WITHOUT LENS, and of course you will need much more expensive batteries, a hefty tripod, and other expensive accessories. For that much you could buy 10 PDX-10's and still have money left over....

Love Mov · May 10th, 2004, 08:31 PM

But 10 PDX10 can't make better video, right? :)
So, the sentense should read "PDX10, best 16x9 under $18000, since nothing do 16x9 in this range?

Boyd Ostroff · May 10th, 2004, 08:36 PM

Back when that review appeared in DV magazine I heard second hand that the author (Bruce Johnson) did not actually put "best 16:9 under $5,000" in the article, but it was added later by his editor. I have no way of knowing whether this is true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Love Mov · May 11th, 2004, 06:41 PM

It sounds true, only thing comea close is Pana 853. I searched every and can't find any, so assume it's true at least for now.

Ignacio Rodriguez · May 11th, 2004, 11:45 PM

It has been mentioned in other posts that because of the DX100's true progressive capability, the resulting video in 16x9 can be as good as the PDX10's interlaced video in terms of spatial resolution, because in 60i the image is spread over time so it has less spatial resolution than progressive. Also, the DVX100A (perhaps the non-A as well) can disable the vertical low pass filter that most DV camcorders use to diminish interlace artifacts. In plain english, this would mean that if the final result is progressive (i.e. film transfer, web-video or non-interlaced 30p NTSC), the resulting video from the DVX100 could be as good as the PDX10's or better. Probably better because of the better optics, less smear, better low light and so on, even without using an anamorphic adapter. I am not totally convinced about this yet though., but feel it is worth mentioning and good food for thought. There is thread comparing both cams here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=178376.

A less expensive camera which seems to have native 16x9 and also has frame mode, is the Pana DV953. It lacks XLR inputs and it's low light sensitivity is probably as bad as the PDX10's though. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=178394

May 9th, 2004, 11:19 PM	#1
Love Mov Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 97	The next step up 16x9 camera than pdx10 I always saw people was saying "pdx10 is the bext 16x9 camera under $4000", so which brand/model of 16x9 camera is the next line up? I seem can't find anone talking about it. (one with attached anamorphic lense doesn't count).

May 9th, 2004, 11:49 PM	#2
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	In terms of cameras that have a true 16x9 ccd block, Sony's DSR570 comes to mind. It's a 2/3" native 16x9 standard definition camera. But it''s in a completely different price and performance league than the PDX-10. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

May 11th, 2004, 11:45 PM	#7
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	It has been mentioned in other posts that because of the DX100's true progressive capability, the resulting video in 16x9 can be as good as the PDX10's interlaced video in terms of spatial resolution, because in 60i the image is spread over time so it has less spatial resolution than progressive. Also, the DVX100A (perhaps the non-A as well) can disable the vertical low pass filter that most DV camcorders use to diminish interlace artifacts. In plain english, this would mean that if the final result is progressive (i.e. film transfer, web-video or non-interlaced 30p NTSC), the resulting video from the DVX100 could be as good as the PDX10's or better. Probably better because of the better optics, less smear, better low light and so on, even without using an anamorphic adapter. I am not totally convinced about this yet though., but feel it is worth mentioning and good food for thought. There is thread comparing both cams here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=178376. A less expensive camera which seems to have native 16x9 and also has frame mode, is the Pana DV953. It lacks XLR inputs and it's low light sensitivity is probably as bad as the PDX10's though. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=178394 __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

May 10th, 2004, 07:11 AM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I always thought that the "under $4000" figure was very arbitrary (actually I think this began with a statement in the DV Magazine review which called it the best 16:9 under $5000 IIRC). I think the only way you can get comparable or better 16:9 in that price range would be a 4:3 camcorder with an anamorphic lens. The DSR570 sounds like a great camera, but it lists for $18,000 WITHOUT LENS, and of course you will need much more expensive batteries, a hefty tripod, and other expensive accessories. For that much you could buy 10 PDX-10's and still have money left over....

May 10th, 2004, 08:31 PM	#4
Love Mov Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 97	But 10 PDX10 can't make better video, right? :) So, the sentense should read "PDX10, best 16x9 under $18000, since nothing do 16x9 in this range?

May 10th, 2004, 08:36 PM	#5
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Back when that review appeared in DV magazine I heard second hand that the author (Bruce Johnson) did not actually put "best 16:9 under $5,000" in the article, but it was added later by his editor. I have no way of knowing whether this is true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

May 11th, 2004, 06:41 PM	#6
Love Mov Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 97	It sounds true, only thing comea close is Pana 853. I searched every and can't find any, so assume it's true at least for now.