One more feature missing at DVinfo.net

Frank Granovski · May 26th, 2003, 10:44 PM

After reading one of Allan's posts, on another forum, I see that it is not only the Skin Tone feature that is missing on the North American model (PV-DV953), from the MX5000 Japanese Domestic. The Fluorescent WB setting is also not there.

Antonio Rega · May 26th, 2003, 11:26 PM

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, when I checked out this camera at a store recently, I could have sworn there was a flourescent light WB setting there....

Anyone care to verify this?

Allan Rejoso · May 27th, 2003, 01:00 AM

I may be wrong with the 953. I assumed its features are the same as that of MX500 (PAL). After reading through the MX500 (English) manual posted at http://www.dvfreak.com, I didn't find any mention of Skin Detail and Fluorescent WB Setting.

Please verify. The symbol is that of a fluorescent lamp. The symbol for indoor Mode is that of an incandescent lamp.

Regards

Frank Granovski · May 27th, 2003, 01:53 AM

Maybe Tommy H. can varify this.

On another note, Alan, someone in the "other place," where you posted wants info about your MX5 cheat sheets.

Peter Jefferson · May 27th, 2003, 02:27 AM

the skin tone is built in from what i can see...
i get awsome skin tones with the unit (PAL) and the white balance settings allows "filters" or corrections for various kinds of lights...

i dont think there is anything missing IMO

Frank Granovski · May 27th, 2003, 03:01 AM

In the Japanese NTSC version, the MX5000, you get an extra feature called Skin Tone. The MX3000 also had this but the PAL, MX300 did not. It also seems that the Japanese MX5000 may also have a Fluorescent WB setting, in which is absent on the North American and PAL model. It's no biggie, as far as I'm concerned, but it's a good idea to note what's missing.

Tommy Haupfear · May 27th, 2003, 10:14 AM

Looks like the DV953 has the Fluroescent feature judging by p. 31 in the manual.

Here is a link to download the DV953 manual

http://im1.onecall.com/Image_Product...V953manual.pdf

or here is a capture of p. 31 (only the relevant part).

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2771042.jpg

Antonio Rega · May 27th, 2003, 10:42 AM

AHA!! I knew it!!! ;)

Thanks for the input, Tommy...

Frank Granovski · May 27th, 2003, 05:44 PM

Thanks Tommy.

Have you used your new cam to capture any cheeks yet? I got a good pair at the funeral I shot this morning. They were just cheeky.

Allan Rejoso · May 27th, 2003, 06:59 PM

Thanks for the clarification:

Here's another one for Macro lovers (minimum shooting distance from the lens at 1x zoom):

MX5000: 20mm
MX500: 35mm
953: ?

Regards

Tommy Haupfear · May 27th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Nothing cheeky of late but the 90 degree weather will soon be upon us and the cheeks along with myself will flock to the nearest watering hole (along with my good friend Fuji).

Of course this year it will be sans poker.

Funeral cheeks....?

Frank Granovski · May 27th, 2003, 07:37 PM

Yeah, funeral cheeks. My grandmother's long time boyfriend passed away last week. The funeral was this morning and I shot it. I checked the footage, it looks pretty good except for one small 5 second portion. After I shot the viewing, like 15 minutes or so, I went to get the free coffee, but the cheeks gulped it all down. The sad thing about the funeral was that the family didn't care at all. He was such a nice man---but he did have some nice friends who were very sad.

So there are some differences between the PAL and Japanese version. Maybe ol' Chucky was right. I wished he'd be more specific, though.

Tommy Haupfear · May 27th, 2003, 09:07 PM

Allan,

I'm guessing that the macro measurements you mentioned are from the edge of the DV953 (not lens) to the subject?

If thats the case I can get 7/16" or 11mm (pic below) and still have a clear shot. From the lens itself its more like 25mm (approx. 1") to subject I had to add extra side lighting as the shadow from the cam was getting in the way from my ceiling fan incandescent bulbs. I could have gotten closer but the footage; while clear, wasn't optimal.

I'm not a macro guy so let me know if I'm doing something incorrectly.

Macro (referenced above) (yes the watch died long ago..)

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2780436.jpg

These next two are from a couple of days ago and are also macro but not as close as above.

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2729633.jpg

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2729634.jpg

Allan Rejoso · May 27th, 2003, 10:37 PM

Tommy,

Nope, the minimum distances as mentioned in Pany manuals, are measured from the lens.

It appears to be the same for MX5K and 953.

I also had to add extra lighting from the side because of the shadow from the cam. Yes, it's still possible to get closer but the video will not be optimal as you said.

For macro users, I guess the tele-macro features of new Pany models will be significant (min. distance of 40cm at 10x zoom).

Frank Granovski · May 28th, 2003, 01:10 AM

Perhaps the PAL version's lens is different because the CCDs are different---more pixels in the PAL version? The PAL MX300 has more video effective CCD pixels than the NTSC/Japanese version.

May 26th, 2003, 10:44 PM	#1
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	One more feature missing After reading one of Allan's posts, on another forum, I see that it is not only the Skin Tone feature that is missing on the North American model (PV-DV953), from the MX5000 Japanese Domestic. The Fluorescent WB setting is also not there.

May 26th, 2003, 11:26 PM	#2
Antonio Rega New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 5	Actually, unless I'm mistaken, when I checked out this camera at a store recently, I could have sworn there was a flourescent light WB setting there.... Anyone care to verify this?

May 27th, 2003, 01:00 AM	#3
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	I may be wrong with the 953. I assumed its features are the same as that of MX500 (PAL). After reading through the MX500 (English) manual posted at http://www.dvfreak.com, I didn't find any mention of Skin Detail and Fluorescent WB Setting. Please verify. The symbol is that of a fluorescent lamp. The symbol for indoor Mode is that of an incandescent lamp. Regards

May 27th, 2003, 01:53 AM	#4
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Maybe Tommy H. can varify this. On another note, Alan, someone in the "other place," where you posted wants info about your MX5 cheat sheets.

May 27th, 2003, 02:27 AM	#5
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	the skin tone is built in from what i can see... i get awsome skin tones with the unit (PAL) and the white balance settings allows "filters" or corrections for various kinds of lights... i dont think there is anything missing IMO

May 27th, 2003, 03:01 AM	#6
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	In the Japanese NTSC version, the MX5000, you get an extra feature called Skin Tone. The MX3000 also had this but the PAL, MX300 did not. It also seems that the Japanese MX5000 may also have a Fluorescent WB setting, in which is absent on the North American and PAL model. It's no biggie, as far as I'm concerned, but it's a good idea to note what's missing.

May 27th, 2003, 10:14 AM	#7
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Looks like the DV953 has the Fluroescent feature judging by p. 31 in the manual. Here is a link to download the DV953 manual http://im1.onecall.com/Image_Product...V953manual.pdf or here is a capture of p. 31 (only the relevant part). http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2771042.jpg

May 27th, 2003, 10:42 AM	#8
Antonio Rega New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 5	AHA!! I knew it!!! ;) Thanks for the input, Tommy...

May 27th, 2003, 05:44 PM	#9
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Thanks Tommy. Have you used your new cam to capture any cheeks yet? I got a good pair at the funeral I shot this morning. They were just cheeky.

May 27th, 2003, 06:59 PM	#10
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Thanks for the clarification: Here's another one for Macro lovers (minimum shooting distance from the lens at 1x zoom): MX5000: 20mm MX500: 35mm 953: ? Regards

May 27th, 2003, 07:01 PM	#11
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Nothing cheeky of late but the 90 degree weather will soon be upon us and the cheeks along with myself will flock to the nearest watering hole (along with my good friend Fuji). Of course this year it will be sans poker. Funeral cheeks....?

May 27th, 2003, 07:37 PM	#12
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Yeah, funeral cheeks. My grandmother's long time boyfriend passed away last week. The funeral was this morning and I shot it. I checked the footage, it looks pretty good except for one small 5 second portion. After I shot the viewing, like 15 minutes or so, I went to get the free coffee, but the cheeks gulped it all down. The sad thing about the funeral was that the family didn't care at all. He was such a nice man---but he did have some nice friends who were very sad. So there are some differences between the PAL and Japanese version. Maybe ol' Chucky was right. I wished he'd be more specific, though.

May 27th, 2003, 09:07 PM	#13
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Allan, I'm guessing that the macro measurements you mentioned are from the edge of the DV953 (not lens) to the subject? If thats the case I can get 7/16" or 11mm (pic below) and still have a clear shot. From the lens itself its more like 25mm (approx. 1") to subject I had to add extra side lighting as the shadow from the cam was getting in the way from my ceiling fan incandescent bulbs. I could have gotten closer but the footage; while clear, wasn't optimal. I'm not a macro guy so let me know if I'm doing something incorrectly. Macro (referenced above) (yes the watch died long ago..) http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2780436.jpg These next two are from a couple of days ago and are also macro but not as close as above. http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2729633.jpg http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/2729634.jpg

May 27th, 2003, 10:37 PM	#14
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Tommy, Nope, the minimum distances as mentioned in Pany manuals, are measured from the lens. It appears to be the same for MX5K and 953. I also had to add extra lighting from the side because of the shadow from the cam. Yes, it's still possible to get closer but the video will not be optimal as you said. For macro users, I guess the tele-macro features of new Pany models will be significant (min. distance of 40cm at 10x zoom).

May 28th, 2003, 01:10 AM	#15
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Perhaps the PAL version's lens is different because the CCDs are different---more pixels in the PAL version? The PAL MX300 has more video effective CCD pixels than the NTSC/Japanese version.