PDX10 -- various questions

John Jay · June 3rd, 2003, 11:34 AM

check my earlier post

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=4271

Erik J Na · June 4th, 2003, 10:42 PM

the answer is NO. it doesn't work with PDX10. thought it does, bought from eBay, now I have to get rid of this and get old memory stick. hope you guys don't make same mistake. ;-(

Blip Pio · July 9th, 2003, 11:38 AM

Is the mechanism that is used to attach the included hoods to the body a *standard*bayonet mount? If I were to get another "bayonet mount" accessory (matte box, wide angle, whatever...) will it fit this type of attachment on the PDX10?

thanks

Vladimir Koifman · July 9th, 2003, 01:08 PM

No, I don't think it's standard. However, some company might produce attachement based on PDX mount. I mean potentially it allows to connect something other than lens hood.

Brandon White · July 30th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Well, I have basically ruled out the GL2 and the VX2000 for verious reason (no DVCAM, XLR, body color, durability, accessories...etc) but I cannot decide, nor find out which of these is the better camera. I really like the 16:9 on the PDX10 though. Anyone have any thoughts to help me with this decision??

Frank Granovski · July 30th, 2003, 07:33 PM

The PDX10 has better/cleaner audio and higher resolution than the PD100A.

(I don't know which is better, but I'd pick the PDX over the PD.)

Andre Viol · August 7th, 2003, 10:38 AM

Does this PDX-10 pro-camera have the same low-light performance as the VX-2000 pro-sumer camera?
PDX-10 has 3 1/4.7" CCD's while the VX has 3 1/3" CCD's.
I guess VX should have a better image quality, specially under low-light situations.
Is it true?

ADDED: no need to reply, I have just read a previous message commenting on the low performance of the PDX-10 under low-light situations...

Tom Hardwick · August 7th, 2003, 02:31 PM

Does the PDX-10 pro-camera have the same low-light performance as the VX-2000? No way, no way at all. It's not its fault - it has a very small lens that's half a stop slower at full telephoto and it has tiny 1/5" chips alongside the VX2k's low-smear 1/3" HAD chips. It can't compete, though in the 16:9 mode and stills to Memorystick it trounces the VX2k.

tom.

Alan Herr · August 8th, 2003, 08:53 AM

Hello, Can anyone recommend a Wireless with XLR connector for the PDX.... I do mainly weddings and I am on the lower end of the price range.
thanks,
Al

Dale Anthony Smith · September 5th, 2003, 03:54 AM

With all the attendant issues of 16X9 aside. (playback systems, "flagging" DVD players with format info, and the not-so-ubiquitous presence of wide screen monitors in client's hands)

The workhorse use of the PDX 10 would fall largely in the 3X4 range. I am torn between this camera (would LOVE to have one)... and the "big brother" PD 150 for use in the "real world" of delivering content to clients on a "universal" format.

I've seen the great looking frames shot in 16X9 on the PDX 10 but how does it measure up for standard format work?

Boyd Ostroff · September 5th, 2003, 08:58 AM

I posted some comparison frames between a VX-2000 and PDX-10 in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes here. Draw your own conclusions.

I love my PDX-10, but if you want a "4:3 workhorse" I think you will be less than happy. The VX-2000 or PD-150 will be better in low light and they have a nicer control layout. There are a lot of great things about the PDX-10, but 16:9 has to be pretty high on your list of priorities.

Dale Anthony Smith · September 5th, 2003, 01:07 PM

I was called back today by a Sony tech to answer some questions which they were unable to cover the other day.
The main concern was the format in 16X9. Yesterday I spoke with the development head at In-Sync (Blade/Speedrazor NLE)and he said that the difficulties come in the playback end... how the signal tells the TV what format to display it in (wide, letterbox, cropped). Their editing software is resolution independent, so they can digitize or edit any format image.

The answer Sony gave me about the PDX 10 was this.
Regardless of whether you are shooting in 3X4 or 16X9 the resolution on the DVCAM tape is the same 720 lines WIDE.
The difference is that in 16X9 the vertical is not cropped.
in 3X4 it is still the same size pixel wise. Two days ago I spoke to the tech division of Sony in NJ and when I asked about the actual pixel resolution in 16X9 they said that that was an "unpublished figure" and they couldn't tell me.

Supposedly it has more resolution than the 150.

With the info I got today about the DV format staying the same I can only speculate that they are somehow optically squeezing an anamorphic view onto the same number of pixels. When you play back the 16X9 footage it then undistorts them into the "wide" format. This explains their wording about adding more "information" in the wide format... not more pixels.

When you import one of the captured frames shot in 16X9 into a paint program, what is the pixel count horizontally?

Boyd Ostroff · September 5th, 2003, 02:28 PM

The Sony guy is correct. It's anamorphic 16:9 DV. All DV is 720x480. However the anamorphic video has a different pixel aspect ratio. When you shoot in 16:9 the PDX-10 uses a larger area of the CCD to capture the image. When recording to tape it's "squeezed" into a 720x480 image. If you play the tape on a 4:3 TV it will fill the screen, but everything will look too tall and skinny (not a bad thing for some of us ;-)

However there is a signal imbedded in the video stream that tells widescreen-aware monitors/tv's to stretch the image to fill the full screen. Actually the DV format itself is only capable of resolving ~500 horizontal lines; Sony's published specs for the PDX-10 say the horizontal res it 530 lines.

But the real issue with 16:9 is the vertical resolution. The PDX-10's CCD's utilize all 480 vertical lines whereas the PD-150 merely crops the 4:3 image to acheive a 16:9 aspect ratio. This results in only 360 lines of vertical resolution, a 25% loss. It's even worse than that on the PD-150 and VX-2000 because the DV compression further mangles things; you're better off shooting 4:3 and cropping in post - see the link I posted earlier.

When you set the PD-150 to "wide" mode it takes this cropped 720x360 image and stretches it back to 720x480, then sets the anamorphic flag. It will also display properly on a widescreen monitor, but with noticeably less resolution than PDX-10 images.

So in terms of what's written to tape, both cameras output a 720x480 anamorphic 16:9 image. But the PDX-10's image consists of 480 real scan lines while the PD-150's image is made by stretching 360 lines to 480. You know the old cliche about "garbage in, garbage out".... ? ;-)

Hope this helps.

Dale Anthony Smith · September 5th, 2003, 11:42 PM

Boyd,
Thanks so much for posting the frames...
There is no question that for 16X9 the PDX 10 is the only choice.
The regular 3X4 seems to be a little sharper with the VX 2K...
I would love to work in wide screen full time (my last project was in 1080i "real" HD but I hired the camera and shooter for the three days of shooting out of a four month project) but for this DVD project and the compatibility of mixing with betacam and the general 3X4 broadcast community it makes sense, at least for right now to go with the PD 150 (although I love the concept of the high powered compact little X-10).
This site has been so illuminating.
Thanks again
Dale

Anthony Milic · September 11th, 2003, 07:51 PM

Hello people.

First and foremost, this forum is a goldmine of information - but of course one quickly discovers that the more one knows, the more one knows one doesn't know. no? ...*sigh
Like many, I've had a real hard time making a final decision on which camera to purchase. (PD150 v PDX10). My liking of 16:9 is what's put the PDX10 ahead, (of course the price diff doesn't hurt)and I feel that I will set my mind and purchase very shortly.
At this stage, The X10 will be used primarily for artistic purposes/short film.

So many topics have been discussed and revisited, though I still have a few concerns regarding PDX10 that I'd appreciate a fresh opinion on.

1. I've been confused with some info read on data compression via USB upload. Simply, will it effect the quality of my image if I upload for post editing/effects etc?

2. 7Lux dummified...really. Just to give me a really broad idea: Let's say for example it's an outdoor shoot on a grey, overcast afternoon - is the integrity of my image going to suffer/grain?

An 'everyday' (low-light) situation where I couldn't shoot for example would be...?

3. Smaller CCDs. When and how will this affect the quality of my image.
450,000 dot to 246,000 seems significant.

4. Stupid question (no such thing right!?) - does the PDX10 have any time lapse function? - you know the old "watch the grass grow".
err.. I can record at different speeds right?

Here's hoping someone has the time to help me out.

Many thanks

June 3rd, 2003, 11:34 AM	#31
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	check my earlier post http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=4271 __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

June 4th, 2003, 10:42 PM	#32
Erik J Na Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Connecticut, US Posts: 29	Memory Stick Pro (Magic Gate) on PDX10 the answer is NO. it doesn't work with PDX10. thought it does, bought from eBay, now I have to get rid of this and get old memory stick. hope you guys don't make same mistake. ;-( __________________ JN

July 9th, 2003, 11:38 AM	#33
Blip Pio New Boot Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 19	Standard Bayonet mount for PDX10? Is the mechanism that is used to attach the included hoods to the body a standardbayonet mount? If I were to get another "bayonet mount" accessory (matte box, wide angle, whatever...) will it fit this type of attachment on the PDX10? thanks

July 30th, 2003, 05:32 PM	#35
Brandon White New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 10	PDX10 or PD100A? Which is better? Well, I have basically ruled out the GL2 and the VX2000 for verious reason (no DVCAM, XLR, body color, durability, accessories...etc) but I cannot decide, nor find out which of these is the better camera. I really like the 16:9 on the PDX10 though. Anyone have any thoughts to help me with this decision?? __________________ thanks, Brandon

August 8th, 2003, 08:53 AM	#39
Alan Herr Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 33	Wireless mic for the PDX Hello, Can anyone recommend a Wireless with XLR connector for the PDX.... I do mainly weddings and I am on the lower end of the price range. thanks, Al

July 9th, 2003, 01:08 PM	#34
Vladimir Koifman Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Israel Posts: 115	No, I don't think it's standard. However, some company might produce attachement based on PDX mount. I mean potentially it allows to connect something other than lens hood.

July 30th, 2003, 07:33 PM	#36
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The PDX10 has better/cleaner audio and higher resolution than the PD100A. (I don't know which is better, but I'd pick the PDX over the PD.)

August 7th, 2003, 10:38 AM	#37
Andre Viol New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cambridge, MA Posts: 18	Does this PDX-10 pro-camera have the same low-light performance as the VX-2000 pro-sumer camera? PDX-10 has 3 1/4.7" CCD's while the VX has 3 1/3" CCD's. I guess VX should have a better image quality, specially under low-light situations. Is it true? ADDED: no need to reply, I have just read a previous message commenting on the low performance of the PDX-10 under low-light situations...

August 7th, 2003, 02:31 PM	#38
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Does the PDX-10 pro-camera have the same low-light performance as the VX-2000? No way, no way at all. It's not its fault - it has a very small lens that's half a stop slower at full telephoto and it has tiny 1/5" chips alongside the VX2k's low-smear 1/3" HAD chips. It can't compete, though in the 16:9 mode and stills to Memorystick it trounces the VX2k. tom.

September 5th, 2003, 03:54 AM	#40
Dale Anthony Smith Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New Orleans Posts: 44	PDX 10 comparison to PD 150 at 3X4 With all the attendant issues of 16X9 aside. (playback systems, "flagging" DVD players with format info, and the not-so-ubiquitous presence of wide screen monitors in client's hands) The workhorse use of the PDX 10 would fall largely in the 3X4 range. I am torn between this camera (would LOVE to have one)... and the "big brother" PD 150 for use in the "real world" of delivering content to clients on a "universal" format. I've seen the great looking frames shot in 16X9 on the PDX 10 but how does it measure up for standard format work? __________________ Multi-Media

September 5th, 2003, 08:58 AM	#41
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I posted some comparison frames between a VX-2000 and PDX-10 in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes here. Draw your own conclusions. I love my PDX-10, but if you want a "4:3 workhorse" I think you will be less than happy. The VX-2000 or PD-150 will be better in low light and they have a nicer control layout. There are a lot of great things about the PDX-10, but 16:9 has to be pretty high on your list of priorities.

September 5th, 2003, 01:07 PM	#42
Dale Anthony Smith Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New Orleans Posts: 44	I was called back today by a Sony tech to answer some questions which they were unable to cover the other day. The main concern was the format in 16X9. Yesterday I spoke with the development head at In-Sync (Blade/Speedrazor NLE)and he said that the difficulties come in the playback end... how the signal tells the TV what format to display it in (wide, letterbox, cropped). Their editing software is resolution independent, so they can digitize or edit any format image. The answer Sony gave me about the PDX 10 was this. Regardless of whether you are shooting in 3X4 or 16X9 the resolution on the DVCAM tape is the same 720 lines WIDE. The difference is that in 16X9 the vertical is not cropped. in 3X4 it is still the same size pixel wise. Two days ago I spoke to the tech division of Sony in NJ and when I asked about the actual pixel resolution in 16X9 they said that that was an "unpublished figure" and they couldn't tell me. Supposedly it has more resolution than the 150. With the info I got today about the DV format staying the same I can only speculate that they are somehow optically squeezing an anamorphic view onto the same number of pixels. When you play back the 16X9 footage it then undistorts them into the "wide" format. This explains their wording about adding more "information" in the wide format... not more pixels. When you import one of the captured frames shot in 16X9 into a paint program, what is the pixel count horizontally? __________________ Multi-Media

September 5th, 2003, 02:28 PM	#43
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	The Sony guy is correct. It's anamorphic 16:9 DV. All DV is 720x480. However the anamorphic video has a different pixel aspect ratio. When you shoot in 16:9 the PDX-10 uses a larger area of the CCD to capture the image. When recording to tape it's "squeezed" into a 720x480 image. If you play the tape on a 4:3 TV it will fill the screen, but everything will look too tall and skinny (not a bad thing for some of us ;-) However there is a signal imbedded in the video stream that tells widescreen-aware monitors/tv's to stretch the image to fill the full screen. Actually the DV format itself is only capable of resolving ~500 horizontal lines; Sony's published specs for the PDX-10 say the horizontal res it 530 lines. But the real issue with 16:9 is the vertical resolution. The PDX-10's CCD's utilize all 480 vertical lines whereas the PD-150 merely crops the 4:3 image to acheive a 16:9 aspect ratio. This results in only 360 lines of vertical resolution, a 25% loss. It's even worse than that on the PD-150 and VX-2000 because the DV compression further mangles things; you're better off shooting 4:3 and cropping in post - see the link I posted earlier. When you set the PD-150 to "wide" mode it takes this cropped 720x360 image and stretches it back to 720x480, then sets the anamorphic flag. It will also display properly on a widescreen monitor, but with noticeably less resolution than PDX-10 images. So in terms of what's written to tape, both cameras output a 720x480 anamorphic 16:9 image. But the PDX-10's image consists of 480 real scan lines while the PD-150's image is made by stretching 360 lines to 480. You know the old cliche about "garbage in, garbage out".... ? ;-) Hope this helps.

September 5th, 2003, 11:42 PM	#44
Dale Anthony Smith Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New Orleans Posts: 44	Boyd, Thanks so much for posting the frames... There is no question that for 16X9 the PDX 10 is the only choice. The regular 3X4 seems to be a little sharper with the VX 2K... I would love to work in wide screen full time (my last project was in 1080i "real" HD but I hired the camera and shooter for the three days of shooting out of a four month project) but for this DVD project and the compatibility of mixing with betacam and the general 3X4 broadcast community it makes sense, at least for right now to go with the PD 150 (although I love the concept of the high powered compact little X-10). This site has been so illuminating. Thanks again Dale __________________ Multi-Media

September 11th, 2003, 07:51 PM	#45
Anthony Milic Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 103	PDX10 for dummies.. or just me Hello people. First and foremost, this forum is a goldmine of information - but of course one quickly discovers that the more one knows, the more one knows one doesn't know. no? ...*sigh Like many, I've had a real hard time making a final decision on which camera to purchase. (PD150 v PDX10). My liking of 16:9 is what's put the PDX10 ahead, (of course the price diff doesn't hurt)and I feel that I will set my mind and purchase very shortly. At this stage, The X10 will be used primarily for artistic purposes/short film. So many topics have been discussed and revisited, though I still have a few concerns regarding PDX10 that I'd appreciate a fresh opinion on. 1. I've been confused with some info read on data compression via USB upload. Simply, will it effect the quality of my image if I upload for post editing/effects etc? 2. 7Lux dummified...really. Just to give me a really broad idea: Let's say for example it's an outdoor shoot on a grey, overcast afternoon - is the integrity of my image going to suffer/grain? An 'everyday' (low-light) situation where I couldn't shoot for example would be...? 3. Smaller CCDs. When and how will this affect the quality of my image. 450,000 dot to 246,000 seems significant. 4. Stupid question (no such thing right!?) - does the PDX10 have any time lapse function? - you know the old "watch the grass grow". err.. I can record at different speeds right? Here's hoping someone has the time to help me out. Many thanks