Sony Pdx10

Jason Bradbury · October 13th, 2005, 05:20 PM

Just browsing some websites - I have a Sony PDX10, and I found this informations from

www.global-dvc.org
( http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...ial_s%26sa%3DN )

It says:

"One of the biggest differences is the way the chips are used for 16:9. The PDX10 actually does true 16:9 by using more pixels on the sides, instead of cropping"

Is this true?
I've seen else where you need to buy anamorphic thingy ma bobs (bit out of my depth there!)

Your help will be much appreciated!

Jason
www.jb-films.co.uk

Matt Brabender · October 13th, 2005, 05:48 PM

Yes, it captures true 16:9 but, it does this but limiting the 4:3 chips. So when you capture a 4:3 picture it's not actually using the whole complete size of the chips - this is my understanding of it anyway.
It does however use the whole chip for stills.

That being said, it's a great little camera, that captures great images, but it's best left in 16:9 mode.

Jason Bradbury · October 13th, 2005, 06:33 PM

Ahhh i see.
That makes sense.
Bit unfair for the 4:3 shooters huh!!!

Yeah, its a great camera, so versitile and even better now i realise its true 16:9.

Cheers!

Jason

Boyd Ostroff · October 13th, 2005, 07:02 PM

Hi Jason. I moved your thread to our PDX-10 forum. Browse around here for lots of information on this camera. See the following for a graphic explanation of how 16:9 is mapped on the PDX-10 CCD's:

http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9/10.JPG

You might also be interested in some tests I did awhile ago:

http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9/

Jason Bradbury · October 13th, 2005, 07:33 PM

Cheers Boyd. Will do some browsing. Also, thanks for you links. Theyw ere very helpful

Jas

Sean McHenry · October 24th, 2005, 09:29 AM

I wouldn't exactly say it doesn't use the full 4:3 chips. Although that is technically correct, I feel it unfairly asserts that there might actually be less pixels used in 16:9 than in 4:3 when the opposite is true. When you check the link Boyd sent you will see the chips are sort of oversized to begin with.

When you go to 16:9 mode, you are actually gaining pixels the 4:3 mode isn't using on the sides of the chips. Pixel count is actually higher in 16:9 than 4:3. This makes it ideal for 16:9 use. I have never even used mine in 4:3 and I have been shooting with it for nearly a year and a half now.

I love mine too. Except for the light flare issue, which actually isn't as big a deal for me as it is for some, It's great. Enjoy.

Sean

Boyd Ostroff · October 24th, 2005, 12:27 PM

I've hardly every shot 4:3 with my PDX-10 either. However the issue is that in 4:3 mode the camera doesn't use the full CCD's even though they are 4:3 native. Still photo mode is the only way you get to use all the pixels.

Joel Guy · November 8th, 2005, 04:16 PM

Boyd,

Thank you for those illustrations. So, the 4:3 vertical resolution is equal to, if not slightly better than, the 16:9 vertical resolution?

Everyone dumps on 4:3, but I actually prefer it to 16:9 (and the entire widescreen mania that seems to have gripped professionals and spectators alike). It's a classical shape and quite beautiful when used correctly. People seem to have forgotten that this is how cinema was originally shaped!

It sounds (and looks) like the PDX10 creates its 16:9 in the same way the XL2 does.

Boyd Ostroff · November 9th, 2005, 01:06 AM

Yes, the PDX-10 and XL2 create 16:9 in a similar way but of course the XL2 has larger chips.

By all means, work in whatever format you like. Personally I've lost interest in 4:3... but that's just me. But if 4:3 is your thing then the PDX-10 is probably not a very good choice. You are really working with a tiny chip surface area in that mode.

Regarding vertical resolution, remember that it all gets written to tape 720x480. More pixels is certainly not a bad thing, but larger surface area is probably even better. If you prefer 4:3 then a PD-170 is probably a better choice IMO.

Joel Guy · November 9th, 2005, 11:49 AM

Is a camera's chip-size determined by the actual area of the chip the camera uses to make an image or is it the size of the chip including the area not utilized by the camera?

Also, Boyd, what are the effects of a smaller chip-size besides greater depth of field?

Boyd Ostroff · November 9th, 2005, 08:11 PM

Well I'm not that knowledgeable about the tech details, but from what I understand smaller chips mean less surface for the light to fall on and therefore poorer performance in low light situations. I believe they are also more susceptible to vertical smear (a problem with the PDX-10), but that may have more to do with the chip design itself (ie: Sony's HAD technology).

Look at the specs for the camera in question. In the Sony manual they are providing specs (in milimeters) of the diagonal measurement of the physical chip. Sony doesn't provide any specifics on how the image is mapped to the chip; we seem to need to reverse engineer that part!

October 13th, 2005, 05:20 PM	#1
Jason Bradbury New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 8	Sony Pdx10 Just browsing some websites - I have a Sony PDX10, and I found this informations from www.global-dvc.org ( http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?im...ial_s%26sa%3DN ) It says: "One of the biggest differences is the way the chips are used for 16:9. The PDX10 actually does true 16:9 by using more pixels on the sides, instead of cropping" Is this true? I've seen else where you need to buy anamorphic thingy ma bobs (bit out of my depth there!) Your help will be much appreciated! Jason www.jb-films.co.uk

October 13th, 2005, 06:33 PM	#3
Jason Bradbury New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 8	Ahhh i see. That makes sense. Bit unfair for the 4:3 shooters huh!!! Yeah, its a great camera, so versitile and even better now i realise its true 16:9. Cheers! Jason __________________ www.jb-films.co.uk

October 13th, 2005, 07:02 PM	#4
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 10,925	Hi Jason. I moved your thread to our PDX-10 forum. Browse around here for lots of information on this camera. See the following for a graphic explanation of how 16:9 is mapped on the PDX-10 CCD's: http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9/10.JPG You might also be interested in some tests I did awhile ago: http://www.greenmist.com/dv/16x9/ __________________ http://tech.operaphilly.com \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

October 13th, 2005, 07:33 PM	#5
Jason Bradbury New Boot Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 8	Cheers Boyd. Will do some browsing. Also, thanks for you links. Theyw ere very helpful Jas __________________ www.jb-films.co.uk

October 24th, 2005, 09:29 AM	#6
Sean McHenry Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hilliard, Ohio Posts: 1,191	I wouldn't exactly say it doesn't use the full 4:3 chips. Although that is technically correct, I feel it unfairly asserts that there might actually be less pixels used in 16:9 than in 4:3 when the opposite is true. When you check the link Boyd sent you will see the chips are sort of oversized to begin with. When you go to 16:9 mode, you are actually gaining pixels the 4:3 mode isn't using on the sides of the chips. Pixel count is actually higher in 16:9 than 4:3. This makes it ideal for 16:9 use. I have never even used mine in 4:3 and I have been shooting with it for nearly a year and a half now. I love mine too. Except for the light flare issue, which actually isn't as big a deal for me as it is for some, It's great. Enjoy. Sean __________________ ‘I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m shooting on D.V.’ - my hero - David Lynch http://www.DeepBlueEdit.com

October 13th, 2005, 05:48 PM	#2
Matt Brabender Major Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 230	Yes, it captures true 16:9 but, it does this but limiting the 4:3 chips. So when you capture a 4:3 picture it's not actually using the whole complete size of the chips - this is my understanding of it anyway. It does however use the whole chip for stills. That being said, it's a great little camera, that captures great images, but it's best left in 16:9 mode.

October 24th, 2005, 12:27 PM	#7
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 10,925	I've hardly every shot 4:3 with my PDX-10 either. However the issue is that in 4:3 mode the camera doesn't use the full CCD's even though they are 4:3 native. Still photo mode is the only way you get to use all the pixels. __________________ http://tech.operaphilly.com \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 8th, 2005, 04:16 PM	#8
Joel Guy Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: NYC, NY Posts: 133	Boyd, Thank you for those illustrations. So, the 4:3 vertical resolution is equal to, if not slightly better than, the 16:9 vertical resolution? Everyone dumps on 4:3, but I actually prefer it to 16:9 (and the entire widescreen mania that seems to have gripped professionals and spectators alike). It's a classical shape and quite beautiful when used correctly. People seem to have forgotten that this is how cinema was originally shaped! It sounds (and looks) like the PDX10 creates its 16:9 in the same way the XL2 does.

November 9th, 2005, 01:06 AM	#9
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 10,925	Yes, the PDX-10 and XL2 create 16:9 in a similar way but of course the XL2 has larger chips. By all means, work in whatever format you like. Personally I've lost interest in 4:3... but that's just me. But if 4:3 is your thing then the PDX-10 is probably not a very good choice. You are really working with a tiny chip surface area in that mode. Regarding vertical resolution, remember that it all gets written to tape 720x480. More pixels is certainly not a bad thing, but larger surface area is probably even better. If you prefer 4:3 then a PD-170 is probably a better choice IMO. __________________ http://tech.operaphilly.com \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 9th, 2005, 11:49 AM	#10
Joel Guy Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: NYC, NY Posts: 133	Is a camera's chip-size determined by the actual area of the chip the camera uses to make an image or is it the size of the chip including the area not utilized by the camera? Also, Boyd, what are the effects of a smaller chip-size besides greater depth of field?

November 9th, 2005, 08:11 PM	#11
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 10,925	Well I'm not that knowledgeable about the tech details, but from what I understand smaller chips mean less surface for the light to fall on and therefore poorer performance in low light situations. I believe they are also more susceptible to vertical smear (a problem with the PDX-10), but that may have more to do with the chip design itself (ie: Sony's HAD technology). Look at the specs for the camera in question. In the Sony manual they are providing specs (in milimeters) of the diagonal measurement of the physical chip. Sony doesn't provide any specifics on how the image is mapped to the chip; we seem to need to reverse engineer that part! __________________ http://tech.operaphilly.com \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode