PDX10's 16:9 implementation - need clarification

Tommy Haupfear · June 26th, 2004, 06:26 AM

Quote:

For the clearest explanation of why the PDX10's 16:9 mode is superior to that offered by its less expensive brothers

Nice link, thanks Michael.

and here is another illustration..

Click here

- Idle thought - does the PC330 with its 3MP CCD do 16:9 better than the PDX10?

Graham Hickling · June 27th, 2004, 03:34 PM

That explanation is true for a TRV950/PDX10 comparison, but not for the TRV70 and TRV80, at least.

Both gain their 16:9 ratio in the same way as the PDX10 (i.e. expanding the sensor area sideways rather than cropping vertically). But they only single-chippers, of course.

Tom Hardwick · June 28th, 2004, 12:42 AM

Tommy's link is actually slightly more truthful than Michael's as the admission is given that in the 16:9 mode vertical resolution is indeed sacrificed when compared to the 4:3 rectangle.

My own filming tests show that the 16:9 uses 10 per cent fewer vertical CCD pixels than 4:3 mode but 20 per cent more horizontal pixels (see the diagram on Tommy's link). In a perfect world the vertical resolution would remain unaffected and the horizontal pixel count would increase by 25 per cent, but this PDX10 solution is certainly a step in the right direction.

tom.

Tommy Haupfear · June 28th, 2004, 08:08 AM

Good news for the upcoming Panasonic NV-GS400 as its claiming that no vertical zooming is necessary for its 16:9. Its also worth pointing out that the GS400 has almost an indentical CCD/pixel arrangement as the PDX10. 1/4.7" 3CCD with 1070k each

Boyd Ostroff · June 28th, 2004, 09:04 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : Tommy's link is actually slightly more truthful -->>>

FWIW, "Tommy's link" is the same illustration found on page two of Sony's PDX-10 brochure.

Ignacio Rodriguez · June 29th, 2004, 11:21 AM

> Its also worth pointing out that the GS400 has almost
>an indentical CCD/pixel arrangement as the PDX10. 1/4.7"
> 3CCD with 1070k each

Hmmm. According to the Sony consumer web site, the TRV950 (same optics and sensors as the PDX10) actually has less pixels per chip.

"1/4.7" Advanced HAD™ 3 CCD imagers with 690k gross pixels each" and "1.0 megapixel gross" referring to the whole array, not to each CCD :-(

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...ycamCamcorders

Confusingly, the Sony pro camcorder website lists the PDX10 as having "High Picture quality with three 1/4.7 inch CCD sensors with 1,070,000 pixels each"... then again it also says the camera has "reduced vertical smear" and 15 fps proscan which we all know it does not have, at least not in video mode:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professiona...sp=11&id=65263

Tommy Haupfear · June 29th, 2004, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Hmmm. According to the Sony consumer web site, the TRV950 (same optics and sensors as the PDX10) actually has less pixels per chip.

Click on the specs of TRV950 and you'll see that it shares the same CCD/Pixel arrangement of the PDX10.

1.4.7" 3CCD with 1070k pixels per each CCD.

It is confusing how they state the 690k video gross pixels though.

Boyd Ostroff · June 29th, 2004, 12:40 PM

I believe if you read the fine print somewhere it states that figure is for 4:3 mode....

June 29th, 2004, 11:21 AM	#21
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> Its also worth pointing out that the GS400 has almost >an indentical CCD/pixel arrangement as the PDX10. 1/4.7" > 3CCD with 1070k each Hmmm. According to the Sony consumer web site, the TRV950 (same optics and sensors as the PDX10) actually has less pixels per chip. "1/4.7" Advanced HAD™ 3 CCD imagers with 690k gross pixels each" and "1.0 megapixel gross" referring to the whole array, not to each CCD :-( http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTE...ycamCamcorders Confusingly, the Sony pro camcorder website lists the PDX10 as having "High Picture quality with three 1/4.7 inch CCD sensors with 1,070,000 pixels each"... then again it also says the camera has "reduced vertical smear" and 15 fps proscan which we all know it does not have, at least not in video mode: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professiona...sp=11&id=65263 __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

June 27th, 2004, 03:34 PM	#17
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	That explanation is true for a TRV950/PDX10 comparison, but not for the TRV70 and TRV80, at least. Both gain their 16:9 ratio in the same way as the PDX10 (i.e. expanding the sensor area sideways rather than cropping vertically). But they only single-chippers, of course.

June 28th, 2004, 12:42 AM	#18
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Tommy's link is actually slightly more truthful than Michael's as the admission is given that in the 16:9 mode vertical resolution is indeed sacrificed when compared to the 4:3 rectangle. My own filming tests show that the 16:9 uses 10 per cent fewer vertical CCD pixels than 4:3 mode but 20 per cent more horizontal pixels (see the diagram on Tommy's link). In a perfect world the vertical resolution would remain unaffected and the horizontal pixel count would increase by 25 per cent, but this PDX10 solution is certainly a step in the right direction. tom.

June 28th, 2004, 08:08 AM	#19
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Good news for the upcoming Panasonic NV-GS400 as its claiming that no vertical zooming is necessary for its 16:9. Its also worth pointing out that the GS400 has almost an indentical CCD/pixel arrangement as the PDX10. 1/4.7" 3CCD with 1070k each

June 28th, 2004, 09:04 AM	#20
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : Tommy's link is actually slightly more truthful -->>> FWIW, "Tommy's link" is the same illustration found on page two of Sony's PDX-10 brochure.

June 29th, 2004, 12:40 PM	#23
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I believe if you read the fine print somewhere it states that figure is for 4:3 mode....