am i hung up on the 16:9, dvcam, and XLR input hype of x10? at DVinfo.net

Derek Beck · February 24th, 2003, 07:35 PM

Am I hung up on the 16:9, dvcam, and XLR input hype of x10? The 16:9 feature, assuming we ignore the argument of "true vs. untrue" 16:9 (certainly the tru-EST yet w/o getting an anamophic lens), but maybe the DVCAM tape format isn't a big deal and of course the XLR inputs are really just a plug in module, not truly integrated (correct me if I'm wrong), so maybe the beachtek adapater is just as good? Thoughts?

Frank Granovski · February 25th, 2003, 12:07 AM

There will be a PDX10 review coming out in about 2 weeks or so in DV Magazine. Reading that should help you decide how good this baby really is---if you can hold off til then, that is. Anyways, I'm looking forward to this review.

PS: I don't know if adding a Beachtek will improve the built in controls. But I don't think it will, or it won't make much of a difference.

16:9? Yup. Both the PDX10 and MX500/0 uses the full horizontal length of the CCDs, plus there's a lot of pixels there for high res 16:9, or about as good as it gets with consumer miniDV 16:9. I would guess using the built in 16:9 would be better than attaching a 16:9 lens adaptor with these 2 cams.

Derek Beck · February 25th, 2003, 12:53 AM

Thanks. Any good _English_ site on the MX5000? What I could glean from some of the Japanese sites suggests the MX5000 won't have many pro features.

I can wait for the DV Magazine article, so I'll definitely read it.

M. Raine Lillibridge · February 25th, 2003, 01:33 AM

The pdx-10's are getting no respect I tell you. It's a nice little camera that makes very nice images in 16:9. It's always better to not have to hang more glass off the front if you can avoid it in my opinion. The audio on the 10 appears to be improved from the 150. Quieter noise floor which would indicate a likelihood of a greater dynamic range. I'd say between 70-75 db. Not too bad. I like it and look on pixelmonger.com billups likes it too. The form in operation is not as nice as the pd-150 but it would be very discreet and intimate to work with actors with this setup. Sony made one big mistake in my estimation with the pdx-10. What were they thinking, no built in ND filters. They must have been burning some strange incense that day back at HQ

February 24th, 2003, 07:35 PM	#1
Derek Beck Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 50	am i hung up on the 16:9, dvcam, and XLR input hype of x10? Am I hung up on the 16:9, dvcam, and XLR input hype of x10? The 16:9 feature, assuming we ignore the argument of "true vs. untrue" 16:9 (certainly the tru-EST yet w/o getting an anamophic lens), but maybe the DVCAM tape format isn't a big deal and of course the XLR inputs are really just a plug in module, not truly integrated (correct me if I'm wrong), so maybe the beachtek adapater is just as good? Thoughts? __________________ Derek Beck

February 25th, 2003, 12:53 AM	#3
Derek Beck Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 50	Thanks. Any good _English_ site on the MX5000? What I could glean from some of the Japanese sites suggests the MX5000 won't have many pro features. I can wait for the DV Magazine article, so I'll definitely read it. __________________ Derek Beck

February 25th, 2003, 01:33 AM	#4
M. Raine Lillibridge Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: burke, sd Posts: 26	pdx-10..... The pdx-10's are getting no respect I tell you. It's a nice little camera that makes very nice images in 16:9. It's always better to not have to hang more glass off the front if you can avoid it in my opinion. The audio on the 10 appears to be improved from the 150. Quieter noise floor which would indicate a likelihood of a greater dynamic range. I'd say between 70-75 db. Not too bad. I like it and look on pixelmonger.com billups likes it too. The form in operation is not as nice as the pd-150 but it would be very discreet and intimate to work with actors with this setup. Sony made one big mistake in my estimation with the pdx-10. What were they thinking, no built in ND filters. They must have been burning some strange incense that day back at HQ

February 25th, 2003, 12:07 AM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	There will be a PDX10 review coming out in about 2 weeks or so in DV Magazine. Reading that should help you decide how good this baby really is---if you can hold off til then, that is. Anyways, I'm looking forward to this review. PS: I don't know if adding a Beachtek will improve the built in controls. But I don't think it will, or it won't make much of a difference. 16:9? Yup. Both the PDX10 and MX500/0 uses the full horizontal length of the CCDs, plus there's a lot of pixels there for high res 16:9, or about as good as it gets with consumer miniDV 16:9. I would guess using the built in 16:9 would be better than attaching a 16:9 lens adaptor with these 2 cams.