16:9 XL2 vs PDX10 (and anamorphic?) at DVinfo.net

Ronald Lee · December 16th, 2004, 07:26 PM

Hi there

This is going to sound like a realllllyyy dumb question, especially for those of you who have the XL2 already ( I don't, which is why I have to ask). When you shoot in widescreen and then display on a regular 4:3 monitor, is the image letterboxed or anamorphically squeezed (like the PDX10 is?)

Also, looking at Chris's overview of the CCD block, http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php ,does the PDX10 (which is the same as the TRV950) kill all the other camera's in terms of overall resolution, so the PDX10 should produce a picture with better resolution than a XL2?

Boyd Ostroff · December 16th, 2004, 07:50 PM

Ronald, AFAIK the XL-2 shoots anamorphic 16:9 just like the PDX-10. That's the only format available for widescreen DV.

Resolution isn't everything. Chip size, optics and other design factors are equally important in the mix. The larger pixels on the XL-2's chips should also give it better low light response.

Although the TRV-950 and PDX-10 use the same chips, they are sampled differently. Apparently Sony wanted to deliberately cripple the 950, so the firmware reads fewer pixels in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes as compared to the PDX-10.

As much as I like my PDX-10, the stills I've seen from the XL-2 seem much nicer. The XL-2's progressive scan should also allow much higher resolution. But of course the XL-2 costs $3,000 more than the PDX-10 which would make one expect to see a difference...

Barry Green · December 16th, 2004, 08:21 PM

Quote:

does the PDX10 kill all the other camera's in terms of overall resolution, so the PDX10 should produce a picture with better resolution than a XL2?

Unquestionably not.

The PDX10 is an interlace-only camera, and as an interlaced camera it employs a blur filter between the fields to smooth out thin-line detail, to eliminate potential interline flicker. The result is that a PDX10 delivers a maximum of about 360 lines of resolution, as far as counting individual black-and-white horizontal lines.

The XL2 was designed as a progressive-scan device, and can scan the entire frame at full resolution, without needing to employ field-blending (unless you want it). As such, the XL2 can record and display the full 480 lines of resolution.

December 16th, 2004, 07:26 PM	#1
Ronald Lee Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 435	16:9 XL2 vs PDX10 (and anamorphic?) Hi there This is going to sound like a realllllyyy dumb question, especially for those of you who have the XL2 already ( I don't, which is why I have to ask). When you shoot in widescreen and then display on a regular 4:3 monitor, is the image letterboxed or anamorphically squeezed (like the PDX10 is?) Also, looking at Chris's overview of the CCD block, http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php ,does the PDX10 (which is the same as the TRV950) kill all the other camera's in terms of overall resolution, so the PDX10 should produce a picture with better resolution than a XL2?

December 16th, 2004, 07:50 PM	#2
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Ronald, AFAIK the XL-2 shoots anamorphic 16:9 just like the PDX-10. That's the only format available for widescreen DV. Resolution isn't everything. Chip size, optics and other design factors are equally important in the mix. The larger pixels on the XL-2's chips should also give it better low light response. Although the TRV-950 and PDX-10 use the same chips, they are sampled differently. Apparently Sony wanted to deliberately cripple the 950, so the firmware reads fewer pixels in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes as compared to the PDX-10. As much as I like my PDX-10, the stills I've seen from the XL-2 seem much nicer. The XL-2's progressive scan should also allow much higher resolution. But of course the XL-2 costs $3,000 more than the PDX-10 which would make one expect to see a difference...