PDX10vs:PD 150 vs: VX2000

Tom Hardwick · September 10th, 2003, 12:13 AM

Ralph, you say:
I own both a VX2000 and a DVX100, and both cameras are significantly softer than any of the broadcast cameras I've used at work.

Are you surprised by this? My bet is the DVX100 and the VX2000 combined cost less than the lens for your broadcast kit. At the prosumer prices these Mini DV cams are being sold the lenses are 'just good enough'. Even so, it's not difficult for me to get an image on my big TV that looks significantly better than the signal I receive from the BBC studio via terrestial transmission, and all I'm doing is being careful with my VX2k.

tom.

Shawn Mielke · September 10th, 2003, 12:46 AM

Thanks Tom, for the image/lenses/pixels clarification. So much to learn.

Vladimir Koifman · September 10th, 2003, 02:28 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Yik Kuen : For
Try this : Use your Digital Camera that shoot in native 640x480. Use another, shoot at 1600x1200 (2M) but resize it in PhotoShop to 640x480 and make a comparison. Although similar but they are different ! The latter usually looks better. -->>>

Digital Cameras are mostly single-CCD. Each pixel is either red, or green or blue (for RGB patern sensor). So their true red or blue resolution is much lower than stated VGA. Once you get higher resolution camera and downsample it to VGA level, the actual resolution improves because its color is much better.

However, this bears no resemblance to 3-CCD systems. Each color is full resolution and same as luminance. I believe you can see no diffeence in that case, unless there are aliasing artifacts, like Gints mentioned.

Ignacio Rodriguez · September 10th, 2003, 10:28 AM

The PDX10's CCD is oversampled in video mode. Thus, more pixels from the CCD block are being used for video than is strictly required. The result should be an image with less noise and perhaps wider dynamic range. This coupled with the camera's 14 bit processing yields a very high quality image. A note about the lens: even though it is not of the kind found in high end ENG setups, it would appear that Sony has learned a thing or two while working with Carl Zeiss. The lens does seem quite good. Certainly 'good enough' is not quite the right term in my opinion.

Yik Kuen · September 11th, 2003, 11:00 PM

Agree with Ignacio.

All mega pixel camcorder down-sample to NTSC/PAL resolution which is just about 400K. Through good algorithm and DSP, the images are better and have less artifacts.

And of coz, we must should not compare apples against oranges. Compare these ways :

1) Standard 1CCD vs Mega 1CCD.
2) Standard 3CCD vs Mega 3CCD.

September 10th, 2003, 12:46 AM	#17
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	Thanks Tom, for the image/lenses/pixels clarification. So much to learn. __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

September 10th, 2003, 10:28 AM	#19
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	My two cents The PDX10's CCD is oversampled in video mode. Thus, more pixels from the CCD block are being used for video than is strictly required. The result should be an image with less noise and perhaps wider dynamic range. This coupled with the camera's 14 bit processing yields a very high quality image. A note about the lens: even though it is not of the kind found in high end ENG setups, it would appear that Sony has learned a thing or two while working with Carl Zeiss. The lens does seem quite good. Certainly 'good enough' is not quite the right term in my opinion. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

September 10th, 2003, 12:13 AM	#16
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Ralph, you say: I own both a VX2000 and a DVX100, and both cameras are significantly softer than any of the broadcast cameras I've used at work. Are you surprised by this? My bet is the DVX100 and the VX2000 combined cost less than the lens for your broadcast kit. At the prosumer prices these Mini DV cams are being sold the lenses are 'just good enough'. Even so, it's not difficult for me to get an image on my big TV that looks significantly better than the signal I receive from the BBC studio via terrestial transmission, and all I'm doing is being careful with my VX2k. tom.

September 10th, 2003, 02:28 AM	#18
Vladimir Koifman Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Israel Posts: 115	<<<-- Originally posted by Yik Kuen : For Try this : Use your Digital Camera that shoot in native 640x480. Use another, shoot at 1600x1200 (2M) but resize it in PhotoShop to 640x480 and make a comparison. Although similar but they are different ! The latter usually looks better. -->>> Digital Cameras are mostly single-CCD. Each pixel is either red, or green or blue (for RGB patern sensor). So their true red or blue resolution is much lower than stated VGA. Once you get higher resolution camera and downsample it to VGA level, the actual resolution improves because its color is much better. However, this bears no resemblance to 3-CCD systems. Each color is full resolution and same as luminance. I believe you can see no diffeence in that case, unless there are aliasing artifacts, like Gints mentioned.

September 11th, 2003, 11:00 PM	#20
Yik Kuen Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Johor Bahru, Malaysia Posts: 135	Agree with Ignacio. All mega pixel camcorder down-sample to NTSC/PAL resolution which is just about 400K. Through good algorithm and DSP, the images are better and have less artifacts. And of coz, we must should not compare apples against oranges. Compare these ways : 1) Standard 1CCD vs Mega 1CCD. 2) Standard 3CCD vs Mega 3CCD.