PDX10 and PD 170 Comparison at DVinfo.net

Hugh DiMauro · November 16th, 2004, 09:10 AM

Why does the PDX have more pixels than the PD 170?

Mike Rehmus · November 16th, 2004, 09:16 AM

It has native wide-screen

Boyd Ostroff · November 16th, 2004, 09:22 AM

I guess you would have to ask Sony for the real answer to this.

The PDX-10 however is a much newer design than the PD-170 which is just a relatively minor update to the older PD-150. I suspect the megapixel CCD's weren't available/practical at the time of the PD-150's introduction. With the PDX-10, for some reason Sony decided to produce a camera with smaller but higher resolution CCD's. The TRV-950 shared these same chips.

Before the PD-170 was introduced everyone was speculating that it would have something similar so you could shoot higher quality 16:9. But probably for marketing/cost reasons they merely made a few small improvements to the PD-150 which was still selling very well at the time.

Now with the introduction of the new Sony HDV cameras I have my doubts that we will ever see a similar upgrade to the PD-170....

Hugh DiMauro · November 16th, 2004, 09:30 AM

Dang! You'd think the geniuses at Sony would have at least saved their best native 16 x 9 high resolution CCD technology for the 170 instead of the PDX 10!

On a previous post I quoted: Sony! No Baloney. Now, I must say Sony! Just one slice of baloney!

Boyd Ostroff · November 16th, 2004, 10:10 AM

Well don't feel too bad Hugh, everything is a trade-off. The PD-170 still has an edge regarding low light performance, manual contol and ergonomics. The smaller CCD's on the PDX-10 also cause vertical smear problems for some people.

The PD-170 (and its cousins) shoot beautiful 4:3. But if 16:9 quality is your main concern then the PDX-10 easily wins that contest...

Tom Hardwick · November 16th, 2004, 10:32 AM

The PDX also has more pixels to shoot much higher quality stills to memory stick than the 170. Sony obviously knew that the 170 really only had about 10 months with the stage all to itself, then in comes the FX1 for just a few dollars more. The Z1 (XLR etc) will be dearer still, but its introduction in February '05 will effectively kill off the 170 overnight, and the prices of used 170s reflect this already.

The PDX10 may well continue for some time as it's much more compact than the FX1, much more discrete in difficult situations and as everyone knows, is THE camera to have if 16:9 is your number one requirement.

tom.

Hugh DiMauro · November 16th, 2004, 03:07 PM

Well, by the time Sony works out all the bugs in the Z1, I'll probably buy one by the end of next year after I use the
%$#@*&^ out of my PD 170.

Leslie Wand · November 19th, 2004, 03:18 AM

2 points of curiosity:

a. i thought the new hd cameras shot mpeg2, not dv (unless swithed to). if so, what's avai;able in the way of editing?

b. who actually wants 16x9? i don't mean cameramen, but clients? i still have to be asked for 16x9 from any of my clients, including two national broadcasters...

leslie

Tom Hardwick · November 19th, 2004, 05:43 AM

Doesn't sound as if you live in Europe Leslie. Here you'd be hard pushed to find a TV for sale that was over 21" and wasn't 16:9. But even here I shoot my weddings in 4:3 as I know it'll play on absolutely anything, undistorted.

Yes, it's MPEG2 and editing will resume shortly.

tom.

Allen Brodsky · November 19th, 2004, 08:39 AM

Sony's newly-announced pro version of the Z1 has the ability to shoot in 16:9 but output the same footage in 4:3, so with this cam you could deliver either format to a client, depending on what they want. I have not used or seen either camera but was told this by a sales rep.

Leslie Wand · November 19th, 2004, 06:10 PM

live in oz, and outback at that!

interesting allen - so does the 4:3 crop and stretch the 16:9 output? if so, how much loss of resolutuion?

leslie

Allen Brodsky · November 20th, 2004, 12:31 PM

Leslie,
I asked about distortion, and was told that the image is cropped but not stretched, and there is no noticeable distortion, if any. The salesman made a compelling case for the forthcoming pro HD cam, even granted that that's his job!

November 16th, 2004, 09:10 AM	#1
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	PDX10 and PD 170 Comparison Why does the PDX have more pixels than the PD 170? __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

November 16th, 2004, 09:16 AM	#2
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	It has native wide-screen __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

November 16th, 2004, 09:30 AM	#4
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	Angering Dang! You'd think the geniuses at Sony would have at least saved their best native 16 x 9 high resolution CCD technology for the 170 instead of the PDX 10! On a previous post I quoted: Sony! No Baloney. Now, I must say Sony! Just one slice of baloney! __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

November 16th, 2004, 03:07 PM	#7
Hugh DiMauro Trustee Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,207	The Z1 Well, by the time Sony works out all the bugs in the Z1, I'll probably buy one by the end of next year after I use the %$#@*&^ out of my PD 170. __________________ Interesting, if true. And interesting anyway.

November 16th, 2004, 09:22 AM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I guess you would have to ask Sony for the real answer to this. The PDX-10 however is a much newer design than the PD-170 which is just a relatively minor update to the older PD-150. I suspect the megapixel CCD's weren't available/practical at the time of the PD-150's introduction. With the PDX-10, for some reason Sony decided to produce a camera with smaller but higher resolution CCD's. The TRV-950 shared these same chips. Before the PD-170 was introduced everyone was speculating that it would have something similar so you could shoot higher quality 16:9. But probably for marketing/cost reasons they merely made a few small improvements to the PD-150 which was still selling very well at the time. Now with the introduction of the new Sony HDV cameras I have my doubts that we will ever see a similar upgrade to the PD-170....

November 16th, 2004, 10:10 AM	#5
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Well don't feel too bad Hugh, everything is a trade-off. The PD-170 still has an edge regarding low light performance, manual contol and ergonomics. The smaller CCD's on the PDX-10 also cause vertical smear problems for some people. The PD-170 (and its cousins) shoot beautiful 4:3. But if 16:9 quality is your main concern then the PDX-10 easily wins that contest...

November 16th, 2004, 10:32 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	The PDX also has more pixels to shoot much higher quality stills to memory stick than the 170. Sony obviously knew that the 170 really only had about 10 months with the stage all to itself, then in comes the FX1 for just a few dollars more. The Z1 (XLR etc) will be dearer still, but its introduction in February '05 will effectively kill off the 170 overnight, and the prices of used 170s reflect this already. The PDX10 may well continue for some time as it's much more compact than the FX1, much more discrete in difficult situations and as everyone knows, is THE camera to have if 16:9 is your number one requirement. tom.

November 19th, 2004, 03:18 AM	#8
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	2 points of curiosity: a. i thought the new hd cameras shot mpeg2, not dv (unless swithed to). if so, what's avai;able in the way of editing? b. who actually wants 16x9? i don't mean cameramen, but clients? i still have to be asked for 16x9 from any of my clients, including two national broadcasters... leslie

November 19th, 2004, 05:43 AM	#9
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Doesn't sound as if you live in Europe Leslie. Here you'd be hard pushed to find a TV for sale that was over 21" and wasn't 16:9. But even here I shoot my weddings in 4:3 as I know it'll play on absolutely anything, undistorted. Yes, it's MPEG2 and editing will resume shortly. tom.

November 19th, 2004, 08:39 AM	#10
Allen Brodsky Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Eatontown, NJ Posts: 118	Sony's newly-announced pro version of the Z1 has the ability to shoot in 16:9 but output the same footage in 4:3, so with this cam you could deliver either format to a client, depending on what they want. I have not used or seen either camera but was told this by a sales rep.

November 19th, 2004, 06:10 PM	#11
Leslie Wand Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: upper hunter, australia Posts: 1,410	live in oz, and outback at that! interesting allen - so does the 4:3 crop and stretch the 16:9 output? if so, how much loss of resolutuion? leslie

November 20th, 2004, 12:31 PM	#12
Allen Brodsky Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Eatontown, NJ Posts: 118	Leslie, I asked about distortion, and was told that the image is cropped but not stretched, and there is no noticeable distortion, if any. The salesman made a compelling case for the forthcoming pro HD cam, even granted that that's his job!