PDX10 -- various questions

[Claudio Fernandez]

Hi

Always i read about the 2 channels of sound, and the capture of these 2, that in PC does not work, personally I am working with Adobe Premiere pro 1.5, independent that one can set the software so that it recognizes this camera model, not recognize the 2 channels. Something that it just happen is that I was capturing from of a VHS, through the pdx10, didn’t captures well, leaving a track outside, but in the loudspeaker of the camera you can listen the 2 tracks, is that are a problem or of reproduction of the camera towards the PC or directly the card of capture/PC /software, somebody has some idea of how can be captured in stereo? I will have some settings bad? Or I must change to Mac and use Final Cut?

[Jim Ohair]

The pdx does have some issues regarding capture of stereo. Some use scenelyzer capture utility which captures stereo perfectly. I thought
it was just a sony vegas capture issue though. I get stereo through my
pdx when I use the external xlr mic but not when using the in camera mic.
I'm quite sure you won't need to use final cut for stereo. If you have another camera the tapes recorded on the pdx will capture in stereo off of that.

( will now wait for Boyd's answer :)

[Boyd Ostroff]

Well you're testing my memory here ;-) IIRC, the stereo problem on the PDX-10 was related to the Windows operating system and its firewire drivers. I don't think it is a Vegas issue specifically.

Here are a couple old threads. You will probably find more if you dig through the forum...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=26190
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=17454

It is true however that there are no PDX-10 audio issues if you use FCP, which is what I have.

[Reese Leysen]

We're a group of people working on a no-budget movie with a borrowed PDX10P and a modified Letus35A 35mm adapter and being the cinematographer (new at this) I'm trying to get the best possible image out of this thing.

I noticed that we lose a lot of light with the adapter so I'd be inclined to open up the camera's exposure all the way but... I do notice that if I keep the camera's exposure one or two notches away from maximum exp, I get a more pleasant and more colorful image. This is probably normal and I should never go for max exposure, right?

Another issue: sometimes images are a bit grainy, often due to slight grain getting picked up from the adapter. Just wondering if anyone knows any camera tricks I can use to make the image smoother.

And in general: any advice from PDX10P veterans on doing a feature film with this cam would be greatly appreciated, we can use all the help we can get :) .

[Boyd Ostroff]

Hi Reese and welcome to DVinfo! I used my PDX-10 (NTSC version) to shoot a lot of footage which was projected on a 45 foot wide screen as part of a live opera performance of Il Trovatore. I was really happy with the overall quality, and the review singled out the video as being very professional. We used a 10,000 lumen Barco DLP projector in the theatre.

So the PDX-10 is quite a nice camera for its price, and capable of delivering some pretty impressive footage. I don't have any experience with 35mm adaptors, but if I were you I'd give some serious thought as to whether the advantages of using one outweight the disadvantages (like the ones you mention).

Also realize that the PDX-10 has an undocumented internal ND filter wheel which comes is activated whenever the camera thinks it's needed. There is no way to override this feature or control it manually. The idea is that the camera forces you to stay within the "sweet spot" of the lens and not use small apertures. So when you're working in manual mode, as you close the iris at a certain point the ND filters start dropping in although the camera doesn't tell you. IIRC, it's impossible to shoot at an aperture less than f4.8.

Spend a little while browsing back through our PDX-10 forum, which is pretty inactive these days so you'll need to go way back. There's a lot of good information here. BTW, you actually posted this thread to the wrong forum, the PDX-10 is covered in a sub-forum here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=43

I'm moving your thread there and maybe others will have some ideas.

[Reese Leysen]

Aah great, thanks a lot :)

This is good info.

[Davyne Dial]

I just got my PDX10 back from Sony repair. The remote does not work, which is why it was sent off. (RMT-811). The technicians note says this is not the right remote for the camera....yet B & H photo lists this as the replacement. Can the technician be wrong? Or indeed is a RMT-811 not the right remote. And does anyone know where I can get a functioning remote?
Thanks,
Davyne
Asheville, NC

[Jason Chang]

I have a Panasonic DVX100 with the Panasonic anamorphic adaptor lens. I am looking to get a slightly cheaper 2nd cam. Is the footage shot by a Sony PDX10 true anamorphic or do I have to buy a Century Precision Optics lens to make it "true anamorphic?"

If I shot some in footage in a Sony PDX10 in its 16x9 mode, will Final Cut Pro see it as anamorphic footage? If the footage from Sony PDX10 can match that of the DVX100, then I will buy one as a backup cam.

Can any PCX10 users enlighten me on this subject? Thanks.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Hi Jason. Yes, the PDX-10 shoots high quality 16:9. It has 4:3 shaped CCD's, however the resolution is 1152x864 (IIRC). That allows the camera to sample a 16:9 area at full resolution and gives surprisingly good results.

The terminology can be a little ambiguous here "true anamorphic" isn't really meaningful in and of itself. That just means the image has been squashed so it can be stretched to 16:9 on playback. A lot of cameras do this (PD-170 for example) however their CCD's aren't high res enough to give you a full quality 16:9 image. Anamorphic is just the image format, and doesn't tell you anything about the quality. I think "true 16:9" would be a little more accurate way of describing what you want.

Now there are plenty of differences between the PDX-10 and DVX-100 though. The chips are small (about 1/5") so the more light the better, and of course there are no progressive modes. But it's really a great little camera, especially considering the price.

BTW, this was posted to the wrong forum. The PDX-10 forum is a sub group (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=43), so I'm moving your thread there. You might want to browse back through this forum to learn more about the PDX-10.

[Tom Hardwick]

Yes, the PDX10 is a sweet little camera. It won't offer you the same manual control flexability of the DVX, but then again it's a lot more compact.

You talk about the Sony 'matching' the Panasonic, but as always there will be colour differences to contend with and control and menu layouts that will differ. There are small Panasonics that also have 1"/5 chips and they too give high quality 16:9 footage. Have you dismissed these?

tom.

[David Chia]

The Pdx10 is a good camera, it gives better 16:9 images, better than more expensive camera around. My ex pdx10 beats my dvx100b in 16:9 hands down... I miss my Pdx10

[Reese Leysen]

I've read several times on this forum that it's best to dial sharpness all the way down as well as color a bit because then you get the raw data from the ccd.

What most of the experienced ones are saying here is that these sharpness/color boosts you can get out of it are simply in-camera post-production filters. This sounds logical but I've done some testing and all is not as it seems...

Dialing sharpness all the way down causes an actual loss of detail, so what you see then is LESS detail than what you could normally get out of the ccd. And what's really interesting is that when you dial it all the way up, you get a very sharp image that seems very hard to replicate by adding sharpness filters on a medium sharp image from the camera in post. So even if this is just a post-filter at work, it's a very powerful one.

Same goes for the color, dialing up the color setting does not simply increase saturation, it actually brings out more of the actual colors.


I'm not saying these settings are magical and you should always dial them up, but they're certainly not always evil image-destroying gimmicks.

I'm conducting more tests today.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I guess it depends on your personal taste and also your subject matter. Personally I always disliked the oversharpened default on the PDX-10 that left hard outlines around objects. I don't use mine anymore (it's on "vacation" with a friend in Greece now :-)

But several years ago I shot this series of tests using a scene with lots of fine detail. I think my favorite would be sharpness set at -2. But like I said, it depends on your personal taste.

[Reese Leysen]

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

I guess it depends on your personal taste and also your subject matter. Personally I always disliked the oversharpened default on the PDX-10 that left hard outlines around objects. I don't use mine anymore (it's on "vacation" with a friend in Greece now :-)

But several years ago I shot this series of tests using a scene with lots of fine detail. I think my favorite would be sharpness set at -2. But like I said, it depends on your personal taste.

Excellent comparison material there, thanks for the info. I agree with what you're saying but these shots do confirm even more that this is not a simple sharpening filter.

I think what would probably be the case here is that there is a slight sharpening filter applied to the raw ccd data before it is then downscaled to the normal video resolution (because I believe the camera downscales it from a resolution that's quite a bit higher).

As for the colors... No clue what exactly happens there but I love the look of a slight color boost, it's definitely not the same as just increasing saturation. I guess it may also be applied to raw ccd data that of course contains more color info than the final image.

Thing is, we're shooting with a modified Letus35A lens adapter which causes for some loss in color vibrance and sharpness and the tests I'm doing now are really yielding beautiful results with sharpness maxed out and color 2 dials higher than medium.


Thx for the insightful reply, the pictures were quite helpful.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Reese Leysen

I believe the camera downscales it from a resolution that's quite a bit higher

Yes, the CCD's are 1152x864. I did the following test by framing a shot to fill the frame in photo mode, then switched to 4:3 and 16:9 video in order to learn how it crops the image (note: I was using the NTSC version, so yours will be a little different).

The PDX-10 is a really nice little camera, and a lot of bang for the buck. But the tiny (1/5") chips have their limitations. Even though they are relatively high resolution, the small size seems to give a rather coarse quality to the full res stills.

Recently I was playing around shooting photos of the full moon using a 500mm mirror telephoto on my D80 (35mm equiv of 750mm). Then I remembered that the PDX-10 lens has an equivalent of 500mm, and I could bump that to 1000mm with my telextender. So I shot a series of memory stick stills with the PDX-10. They looked terrible! Granted, I was comparing them to 10 megapixel Nikon stills, but nevertheless I thought they had a very harsh, oversharpened look.

Good luck with your project, let us know what you learn in your tests.