Waiting for VX3000 at DVinfo.net

Jim Nicholls · December 9th, 2002, 05:20 PM

I want true 16:9 plus low light capability plus low smear and no camera seems to provide these things at the moment in the prosumer range. I thought the PDX10 or MX500 might but they seem to have fatal tradeoffs because of their smaller CCD's.

I might wait for the next VX version, hope it's not too long

Jim

Mike Rehmus · December 9th, 2002, 05:43 PM

You may have to wait until you can afford a DSR-570WS.

All of those things are mutually incompatible in low-end cameras exactly because they require larger CCDs. And lens. As the lens gets larger to support larger CCDs, they get more expensive. Really fast

I'm amazed that the PD-150/VX-2000 have lower noise in really low-light conditions than the DSR-300.

Jim Nicholls · December 9th, 2002, 06:31 PM

Thanks Mike,

I already own a DSR500WS and it is a great cam. I just wanted a backup/handheld cam to compliment my existing unit. We are shooting 16:9 fairly extensively so this feature is important as is low light and low smear. Have we hit the technology wall? I hope not. The VX uses larger chips than the MX500/0 and PDX10 so the next model may be able to incorporate higher density chips of the same size as the existing VX2000 chips that will allow for true 16:9 with comparably reduced smear and lower light capability. I reckon this would be a great cam that would completely dominate the prosumer market if it's possible.

Jim

Mike Rehmus · December 9th, 2002, 06:48 PM

The difficult part is the higher chip-count for 16:9. Requires a different lens, etc. Which would no-doubt raise the price.

It will be interesting.

If you are shooting a DSR-500 now, you aren't doing many weddings and other small stuff. What is your target audience/market?

Jim Nicholls · December 9th, 2002, 08:16 PM

Mike I provide imaging services in a research lab which has demand for video at all levels from PowerPoint to web to corporate to broadcast. Great job!

Jim

Mike Rehmus · December 10th, 2002, 09:34 AM

You might want to take a look at the camera head systems that can do 16:9. You know, the ones that are a small box with a lens attached.

I think you could feed a portable VTR from one of those and have even more maneuver room than with a PD-150.

Or even a lipstick camera. I have one that was formerly used for a microscope. Changed the lens and it is great for use in limited space applications.

December 9th, 2002, 05:20 PM	#1
Jim Nicholls Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 27	Waiting for VX3000 I want true 16:9 plus low light capability plus low smear and no camera seems to provide these things at the moment in the prosumer range. I thought the PDX10 or MX500 might but they seem to have fatal tradeoffs because of their smaller CCD's. I might wait for the next VX version, hope it's not too long Jim

December 9th, 2002, 05:43 PM	#2
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	You may have to wait until you can afford a DSR-570WS. All of those things are mutually incompatible in low-end cameras exactly because they require larger CCDs. And lens. As the lens gets larger to support larger CCDs, they get more expensive. Really fast I'm amazed that the PD-150/VX-2000 have lower noise in really low-light conditions than the DSR-300. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

December 9th, 2002, 06:48 PM	#4
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	The difficult part is the higher chip-count for 16:9. Requires a different lens, etc. Which would no-doubt raise the price. It will be interesting. If you are shooting a DSR-500 now, you aren't doing many weddings and other small stuff. What is your target audience/market? __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

December 10th, 2002, 09:34 AM	#6
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	You might want to take a look at the camera head systems that can do 16:9. You know, the ones that are a small box with a lens attached. I think you could feed a portable VTR from one of those and have even more maneuver room than with a PD-150. Or even a lipstick camera. I have one that was formerly used for a microscope. Changed the lens and it is great for use in limited space applications. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

December 9th, 2002, 06:31 PM	#3
Jim Nicholls Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 27	Thanks Mike, I already own a DSR500WS and it is a great cam. I just wanted a backup/handheld cam to compliment my existing unit. We are shooting 16:9 fairly extensively so this feature is important as is low light and low smear. Have we hit the technology wall? I hope not. The VX uses larger chips than the MX500/0 and PDX10 so the next model may be able to incorporate higher density chips of the same size as the existing VX2000 chips that will allow for true 16:9 with comparably reduced smear and lower light capability. I reckon this would be a great cam that would completely dominate the prosumer market if it's possible. Jim

December 9th, 2002, 08:16 PM	#5
Jim Nicholls Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 27	Mike I provide imaging services in a research lab which has demand for video at all levels from PowerPoint to web to corporate to broadcast. Great job! Jim