VX-2000 vs. PDX-10 at DVinfo.net

Boyd Ostroff · April 17th, 2003, 10:08 PM

As mentioned in an earlier thread, I recently bought a PDX-10 and did some tests to see how it stacked up against my VX-2000. My main interest was comparing the PDX-10's "real" 16:9 to the VX-2000's interpolated 16:9. I threw together two quick web pages that present the results of these tests at http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10

Erik J Na · April 17th, 2003, 10:50 PM

thanks for keep posting interesting review of PDX10. Obviously, I think 16:9 capability is the most attractive feature of PDX10.

Tom Hardwick · April 18th, 2003, 04:34 AM

Absolutely Erik. I see Panasonic make the same 'full res 16:9 mode' about their MX500, yet this costs just over half the price of Sony's PDX10. Long may the trend continue. But who will find the fix that upgrades the TRV950 to the same spec?

tom.

John Jay · April 18th, 2003, 06:00 AM

Boyd

your comparison is in agreement with what I have experienced comparing these two great cams.

in fact even in normal 4:3 video mode the rumour was that the pdx10/950 was so much better image quality than the pd150/vx2k in the early design stage that it was thought prudent to clip its wings (crop by 10% all round) to avoid loss of sales of pd150/vx2k

nevertheless you will find that if you are going to a shoot where the conditions are unknown take the pd150/vx2k

however if the conditions are known to be within pdx10/950 territory - leave the big beer can at home

the fix 950 users should be on the lookout for is that which unlocks the cropping action in 4:3 mode, the 16:9 will follow from that by simply letterboxing the result

Scott Osborne · April 18th, 2003, 07:30 PM

Maybe that explains why the Pdx10/950 are being phased out......Could it be the the next generation VX and PDA might be based on the PDX10 CCD design...After all it is about a 2 year newer design than the VX Camcorders

Just a thought!

Jeff Dobisch · April 20th, 2003, 01:12 PM

Who said these cameras were being phased out? I thought they were just recently brought to market.

Matt Brouwer · April 20th, 2003, 04:38 PM

Does anyone know how the vx-2000 would compare to the pdx-10 if the cenutry or optex 16:9 adapters were used?

Boyd Ostroff · April 20th, 2003, 06:58 PM

The VX-2000 4:3 frame I posted would imply that under ideal circumstances the anamorphic adaptors would give equal or even slightly better results. But remember they have zoom limitations, vignetting issues at full wide, and introduce some distortion. DV Magazine reviewed them:
http://www.dv.com/features/features_...eview/wilt0202
http://www.dv.com/features/features_...questid=157152

Derek Beck · May 9th, 2003, 10:23 PM

Here's the question:

If I take two takes of the same shot:

Take (1) Anamorphic Lens Adapter attached to a 4:3 capture

Take (2) is either with the camera physically further from the subject or zoomed out to give the same horizontal exposure of the scene, this time no adapter and still 4:3 capture. Then in post production I crop off the top and bottom to get 16:9.

Then how will the resulting frames different, if at all, between the two takes?

See, the way I'm picturing it (and I'm posting this so you'll correct me if I'm wrong!) is that there would be no difference because the resolution would be the same. Please enlighten me :)

Boyd Ostroff · May 10th, 2003, 06:29 AM

OK, here's the difference, using your examples:

(1) you are capturing an anamorphic image of the scene which has the pixel dimensions of 720x480. When you view that image on a widescreen TV it will be stretched horizontally to a 16:9 aspect ratio. The total number of pixels on the screen will be 720 x 40 = 345,600

(2) you capture a normal 4:3 image with the same horizontal field of view, however in post you crop it by removing an area of of 720x60 pixels from the top and 720x60 pixels at the bottom. This leaves you with an active image area of 720 x 360 = 259,200 pixels. 259,200 / 345,600 = 0.75. So in other words, there is 25% less information in example number 2.

Looking at it a little closer, as you note the field of view will be the same in both examples. In fact, in the horizontal dimension there are 720 pixels being used in both cases. However in the vertical dimension, example 1 uses all 480 available scan lines, while example 2 is limited to 360 lines.

Furthermore, example 2 won't really display properly on a widescreen TV because what you've created is actually a letterboxed 4:3 image consisting of a center picture in a 16:9 ratio with black bars above and below. Now you could cause example 2 to display properly by taking one more step. Stretch the 720x360 active area so it fills the full 720x480 frame, making everything look tall and skinny. Now it's an anamorphic image that would resemble what you captured in example one. However there would be one significant difference; originally it only consisted of 360 scan lines so you've simply spread them out evenly over the 480 line raster. There would still be 25% less information in that image, but it would display properly on a widescreen TV. This is essential what the builtin 16:9 mode does on most camcorders.

Derek Beck · May 10th, 2003, 10:27 AM

Okay, so I think I understand. The anamorphic lens is sort of just a wide angle adapter in the horizontal direction only, is that right?

If you were to watch the footage on a computer monitor as you capture, say w/ Adobe Premiere, you'll see a 4:3 image that has been squished in the horizontal direction, right? So to get it to play right on a non-widescreen TV, you'll have to shrink the image slightly and then add a letterbox to confine it to a 4:3 w/ the appropriate NTSC or PAL resolution.

Let me know if I'm still missing the mark on this :)

PS: Where's the least expensive place online (that is still reputable) to buy these anamorphic adapters...anyone know?

April 17th, 2003, 10:08 PM	#1
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	VX-2000 vs. PDX-10 As mentioned in an earlier thread, I recently bought a PDX-10 and did some tests to see how it stacked up against my VX-2000. My main interest was comparing the PDX-10's "real" 16:9 to the VX-2000's interpolated 16:9. I threw together two quick web pages that present the results of these tests at http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10

April 17th, 2003, 10:50 PM	#2
Erik J Na Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Connecticut, US Posts: 29	thanks for keep posting interesting review of PDX10. Obviously, I think 16:9 capability is the most attractive feature of PDX10. __________________ JN

April 18th, 2003, 06:00 AM	#4
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Boyd your comparison is in agreement with what I have experienced comparing these two great cams. in fact even in normal 4:3 video mode the rumour was that the pdx10/950 was so much better image quality than the pd150/vx2k in the early design stage that it was thought prudent to clip its wings (crop by 10% all round) to avoid loss of sales of pd150/vx2k nevertheless you will find that if you are going to a shoot where the conditions are unknown take the pd150/vx2k however if the conditions are known to be within pdx10/950 territory - leave the big beer can at home the fix 950 users should be on the lookout for is that which unlocks the cropping action in 4:3 mode, the 16:9 will follow from that by simply letterboxing the result __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

April 18th, 2003, 07:30 PM	#5
Scott Osborne Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Rochester NY Posts: 116	Maybe that explains why the Pdx10/950 are being phased out......Could it be the the next generation VX and PDA might be based on the PDX10 CCD design...After all it is about a 2 year newer design than the VX Camcorders Just a thought! __________________ Scott Osborne Infinite Video Productions

April 20th, 2003, 01:12 PM	#6
Jeff Dobisch New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Covington, TN Posts: 9	Phased out? Who said these cameras were being phased out? I thought they were just recently brought to market.

April 18th, 2003, 04:34 AM	#3
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Absolutely Erik. I see Panasonic make the same 'full res 16:9 mode' about their MX500, yet this costs just over half the price of Sony's PDX10. Long may the trend continue. But who will find the fix that upgrades the TRV950 to the same spec? tom.

April 20th, 2003, 04:38 PM	#7
Matt Brouwer New Boot Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Los Gatos, CA Posts: 11	Does anyone know how the vx-2000 would compare to the pdx-10 if the cenutry or optex 16:9 adapters were used?

April 20th, 2003, 06:58 PM	#8
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	The VX-2000 4:3 frame I posted would imply that under ideal circumstances the anamorphic adaptors would give equal or even slightly better results. But remember they have zoom limitations, vignetting issues at full wide, and introduce some distortion. DV Magazine reviewed them: http://www.dv.com/features/features_...eview/wilt0202 http://www.dv.com/features/features_...questid=157152

May 9th, 2003, 10:23 PM	#9
Derek Beck Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 50	Here's the question: If I take two takes of the same shot: Take (1) Anamorphic Lens Adapter attached to a 4:3 capture Take (2) is either with the camera physically further from the subject or zoomed out to give the same horizontal exposure of the scene, this time no adapter and still 4:3 capture. Then in post production I crop off the top and bottom to get 16:9. Then how will the resulting frames different, if at all, between the two takes? See, the way I'm picturing it (and I'm posting this so you'll correct me if I'm wrong!) is that there would be no difference because the resolution would be the same. Please enlighten me :) __________________ Derek Beck

May 10th, 2003, 06:29 AM	#10
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	OK, here's the difference, using your examples: (1) you are capturing an anamorphic image of the scene which has the pixel dimensions of 720x480. When you view that image on a widescreen TV it will be stretched horizontally to a 16:9 aspect ratio. The total number of pixels on the screen will be 720 x 40 = 345,600 (2) you capture a normal 4:3 image with the same horizontal field of view, however in post you crop it by removing an area of of 720x60 pixels from the top and 720x60 pixels at the bottom. This leaves you with an active image area of 720 x 360 = 259,200 pixels. 259,200 / 345,600 = 0.75. So in other words, there is 25% less information in example number 2. Looking at it a little closer, as you note the field of view will be the same in both examples. In fact, in the horizontal dimension there are 720 pixels being used in both cases. However in the vertical dimension, example 1 uses all 480 available scan lines, while example 2 is limited to 360 lines. Furthermore, example 2 won't really display properly on a widescreen TV because what you've created is actually a letterboxed 4:3 image consisting of a center picture in a 16:9 ratio with black bars above and below. Now you could cause example 2 to display properly by taking one more step. Stretch the 720x360 active area so it fills the full 720x480 frame, making everything look tall and skinny. Now it's an anamorphic image that would resemble what you captured in example one. However there would be one significant difference; originally it only consisted of 360 scan lines so you've simply spread them out evenly over the 480 line raster. There would still be 25% less information in that image, but it would display properly on a widescreen TV. This is essential what the builtin 16:9 mode does on most camcorders.

May 10th, 2003, 10:27 AM	#11
Derek Beck Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 50	Okay, so I think I understand. The anamorphic lens is sort of just a wide angle adapter in the horizontal direction only, is that right? If you were to watch the footage on a computer monitor as you capture, say w/ Adobe Premiere, you'll see a 4:3 image that has been squished in the horizontal direction, right? So to get it to play right on a non-widescreen TV, you'll have to shrink the image slightly and then add a letterbox to confine it to a 4:3 w/ the appropriate NTSC or PAL resolution. Let me know if I'm still missing the mark on this :) PS: Where's the least expensive place online (that is still reputable) to buy these anamorphic adapters...anyone know? __________________ Derek Beck