DSR-PDX10 vs HVR-Z1U

Juan Parra · December 4th, 2004, 10:33 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by John McCully : Sorry, sorry; my excitement got the better of me for a moment! Juan, in the very near future I will be in the position of being able to do serious comparisons between the PDX 10 and the FX1 – not the Z1U let me hasten to add, however, I suggest the differences between the FX1 and the Z1U will not be as significant as the differences between these new HD cameras and our beloved PDX10. I should add, however, that if this machine that is on its way is one half as good as it seems from the raw files I’ve seen; then folks, I may not have time to get technical… -->>>

Alright, somebody already jumping into the FX1/Z1U bandwagon. At this point, we don't know what are ALL the differences between the two. So far we know Z1U has all FX1's features, but additionally Z1U has :

XLR inputs
480p
2 Cinetone Gamma
Time Code Reset
14 Assignable Functions
Hyper Gain
B&W evf
Black body

Are these extra features worth the extra $2000? It's gotta be more than that...

Regarding the lux rating, we are not sure either if Hyper Gain is taking into consideration or not. Hmmm...a 3 lux difference with Hyper Gain!!!

Mike Sakovski · December 4th, 2004, 10:55 PM

check the Videomaker.com, it has extended review of the FX1 xrefed with VX2100

John Jay · December 9th, 2004, 09:35 AM

Boyd, the low light figures given earlier are accurate, after having seen the difference in person

Ignacio Rodriguez · December 9th, 2004, 10:15 AM

Hmm. I wonder if the HD Z1/FX1 also drops vertical resolution in half when setting the shutter slower than 1/50. If it does not, then 1/25 (or on 1/30) will get you twice as much light and there will be no need to deinterlace <grin> to get the "film" look.

Read: http://home.earthlink.net/~dvcnyc/Sony%20HDR-FX1.htm. It would appear that resolution loss will only happen when there is motion. This would seem different to what happens with the PDX10 and PD170, where there is a visible resolution loss even with no motion in 1/30 (NTSC) or 1/25 (PAL).

I also wonder if the low lux rating is for the slower shutter setting. Wouldn't that be terrible?

Boyd Ostroff · December 9th, 2004, 01:21 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : I also wonder if the low lux rating is for the slower shutter setting. Wouldn't that be terrible? -->>>

According to that link the 3 lux rating was achieved using +18 dB gain. Is that common for such ratings? Sounds a little like "cheating"...

Boyd Ostroff · December 9th, 2004, 01:25 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan Parra : Are these extra features worth the extra $2000? It's gotta be more than that... -->>>

There's so much talk about this camera I can't keep up with it. But I think you left a few things off your list:

1. The Z-1 can also shoot in DVCAM mode
2. The viewfinder can be set to underscan, showing the full frame
3. The camera is switchable between PAL and NTSC
4. Ch 1 & ch 2 audio are separately controlled

Gareth Watkins · December 9th, 2004, 02:14 PM

Hi Guys

I've a question here:

I see lots on the forums about good, bad or indifferent low light capability of such and such a camera....
This strikes me as all well and good, but surely the quality of the light is a factor too.

Low light 99 times out of 100 is poor light = poor pictures....
Such and such a camera may give you visible pictures in that poor light, but are they worth anything?

Beautiful pictures are often the fruit of using good light well... it seems to me that making the best of crap light... well you might as well throw a torch at it and be done... At least the colour can be balanced and look good...

I come from a photographic background .... and once you lose the light it's gone .. so you add some.. may not be pretty but it's there... Whack a flash at a low light subject and it's there.. shoot available and it looks mushy.. surely the same applies to video?

How badly do we need pictures where you can't wait for good light and can't add additional lights.?

I shot footage this summer with a TRV950 (not rate well in low light) Well in the lowest acceptable it was still better than my eyes... and with a video light gave excellent results in the dead of night.

I've an FX1 now so if it's even a stop to two better I' can't see me needing more...

If I'm missing something....

Cheers
Gareth

Juan Parra · December 9th, 2004, 04:02 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : <<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : I also wonder if the low lux rating is for the slower shutter setting. Wouldn't that be terrible? -->>>

According to that link the 3 lux rating was achieved using +18 dB gain. Is that common for such ratings? Sounds a little like "cheating"... -->>>

somehow it is, but i can live we 2 stops better than the PDX10 as it was said in another post.

Juan Parra · December 9th, 2004, 04:05 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : <<<-- Originally posted by Juan Parra : Are these extra features worth the extra $2000? It's gotta be more than that... -->>>

There's so much talk about this camera I can't keep up with it. But I think you left a few things off your list:

1. The Z-1 can also shoot in DVCAM mode
2. The viewfinder can be set to underscan, showing the full frame
3. The camera is switchable between PAL and NTSC
4. Ch 1 & ch 2 audio are separately controlled -->>>

hey are you a sony rep? ;-)
those are also important features, i completely overlooked them.
do we need more to justify the $2K difference?

Boyd Ostroff · December 9th, 2004, 04:58 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Juan Parra : but i can live we 2 stops better than the PDX10 as it was said in another post. -->>>

Read back through those earlier posts. Based on what John says it sounds like the difference between the FX-1 and PDX-10 may be less than 1 f-stop. But of course there are plenty of other reasons to want one :-)

Boyd Ostroff · December 17th, 2004, 08:52 AM

Update: here's a little more anecdotal evidence that the FX-1 is only about 1/2 f-stop faster than the PDX-10. See Ron's post in this thread.

Juan Parra · December 17th, 2004, 11:30 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : Update: here's a little more anecdotal evidence that the FX-1 is only about 1/2 f-stop faster than the PDX-10. See Ron's post in this thread. -->>>

I'm not sure if I can make any sense of that thread in regards to exposure and lux rating. The other one is that I'm more interested in the results for the Z1U model, since it makes more sense to upgrade to that one.

Just by knowing that the Z1U has 1/3 CCDs and the PDX10 has 1/4.7 CCDs, it's gotta be more than 1/2 f-stop difference. Another interesting comparison would be considering the gain as well, on how effective and clean the picture can be using the gain control on the Z1U. There should be no question that the electronics/DS processing in the Z1U is much better than the PDX10. That comparison will give me a more realistic lux rating.

Juan

Ignacio Rodriguez · December 19th, 2004, 02:27 PM

> Just by knowing that the Z1U has 1/3 CCDs and the PDX10
> has 1/4.7 CCDs, it's gotta be more than 1/2 f-stop difference.

Well no. You have to also take into account the resolution, because it is related to the size of the pixels. If the Z1U CCD has about 30% higher resolution than the PDX10's CCD array (does it?), then the pixels will be about the same size, thus more or less the same amount of photons will fall into them, so you will get similar sensitivity. Granted, judging by what has been mentioned by the early adopters, Sony seems to be doing wonders with noise reduction electronics.

Some of us, for some time now, have been predicting that Sony and others would have trouble going to HDV unless they were willing to reduce the price of the larger sensors. Since they are not (presumably so the pro's continue to spend big $ on large-sensor equipnment), we will be stuck for some time with sensitivity similar to that of the PDX10.

Perhaps JVC, whom by now has not much of a "pro" market to kill, will be the ones to start selling larger sensor cams at affordable prices. They really need to so something amazing after their HDV disaster, don't they?

Tom Hardwick · December 20th, 2004, 02:26 AM

Good point Ignacio. To gain any market acceptance JVC will have to capitulate I feel, and join the Sony HiDef spec and not flounder about at the half-way house.

Gareth - I can fully understand your point regarding low light generally being crap light, but for a lot of 'real-life' videographers low light is often all we get given, and we must work within those constraints.

When I'm shooting a wedding in a romantic candle-lit church there's no way I can add to the available light. Everybody there has their eyes set permanently to f1.4 while I'm struggling with my VX2000 at f1.6, not even daring to move towards telephoto because of the light loss.

It's at times like these when it's comforting to know that I'd have to be using a monstrously expensive and unweildy 1/2" chip camcorder to get better low light performance. I'm happy to think that if I had a DVX100A, a Canon (any Canon) or an FX1 by the sound of it - I'd be into gain-up mode, and this would be spoiling the look of my DVDs.

It's the one and only thing that I find slightly dissapointing about the FX1. But I'm absolutely sure that Sony's low-light crown wasn't surrendered llightly. I bet the fact that the PD170 tops it in low light performance had a lot of Sony developement engineers knashing their teeth in frustration.

tom.

Boyd Ostroff · January 9th, 2005, 08:21 AM

Just thought I'd update this old thread since we've now had a post from somebody who owns both a PDX-10 and FX-1. See Paul Frederick's post here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=37446

Of course this makes me want an FX-1 though.... :-)

December 9th, 2004, 09:35 AM	#18
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Boyd, the low light figures given earlier are accurate, after having seen the difference in person __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

December 9th, 2004, 10:15 AM	#19
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	Hmm. I wonder if the HD Z1/FX1 also drops vertical resolution in half when setting the shutter slower than 1/50. If it does not, then 1/25 (or on 1/30) will get you twice as much light and there will be no need to deinterlace <grin> to get the "film" look. Read: http://home.earthlink.net/~dvcnyc/Sony%20HDR-FX1.htm. It would appear that resolution loss will only happen when there is motion. This would seem different to what happens with the PDX10 and PD170, where there is a visible resolution loss even with no motion in 1/30 (NTSC) or 1/25 (PAL). I also wonder if the low lux rating is for the slower shutter setting. Wouldn't that be terrible? __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

December 19th, 2004, 02:27 PM	#28
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> Just by knowing that the Z1U has 1/3 CCDs and the PDX10 > has 1/4.7 CCDs, it's gotta be more than 1/2 f-stop difference. Well no. You have to also take into account the resolution, because it is related to the size of the pixels. If the Z1U CCD has about 30% higher resolution than the PDX10's CCD array (does it?), then the pixels will be about the same size, thus more or less the same amount of photons will fall into them, so you will get similar sensitivity. Granted, judging by what has been mentioned by the early adopters, Sony seems to be doing wonders with noise reduction electronics. Some of us, for some time now, have been predicting that Sony and others would have trouble going to HDV unless they were willing to reduce the price of the larger sensors. Since they are not (presumably so the pro's continue to spend big $ on large-sensor equipnment), we will be stuck for some time with sensitivity similar to that of the PDX10. Perhaps JVC, whom by now has not much of a "pro" market to kill, will be the ones to start selling larger sensor cams at affordable prices. They really need to so something amazing after their HDV disaster, don't they? __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

December 4th, 2004, 10:33 AM	#16
Juan Parra Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 110	<<<-- Originally posted by John McCully : Sorry, sorry; my excitement got the better of me for a moment! Juan, in the very near future I will be in the position of being able to do serious comparisons between the PDX 10 and the FX1 – not the Z1U let me hasten to add, however, I suggest the differences between the FX1 and the Z1U will not be as significant as the differences between these new HD cameras and our beloved PDX10. I should add, however, that if this machine that is on its way is one half as good as it seems from the raw files I’ve seen; then folks, I may not have time to get technical… -->>> Alright, somebody already jumping into the FX1/Z1U bandwagon. At this point, we don't know what are ALL the differences between the two. So far we know Z1U has all FX1's features, but additionally Z1U has : XLR inputs 480p 2 Cinetone Gamma Time Code Reset 14 Assignable Functions Hyper Gain B&W evf Black body Are these extra features worth the extra $2000? It's gotta be more than that... Regarding the lux rating, we are not sure either if Hyper Gain is taking into consideration or not. Hmmm...a 3 lux difference with Hyper Gain!!!

December 4th, 2004, 10:55 PM	#17
Mike Sakovski Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: nj, usa Posts: 65	check the Videomaker.com, it has extended review of the FX1 xrefed with VX2100

December 9th, 2004, 01:21 PM	#20
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : I also wonder if the low lux rating is for the slower shutter setting. Wouldn't that be terrible? -->>> According to that link the 3 lux rating was achieved using +18 dB gain. Is that common for such ratings? Sounds a little like "cheating"...

December 9th, 2004, 01:25 PM	#21
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	<<<-- Originally posted by Juan Parra : Are these extra features worth the extra $2000? It's gotta be more than that... -->>> There's so much talk about this camera I can't keep up with it. But I think you left a few things off your list: 1. The Z-1 can also shoot in DVCAM mode 2. The viewfinder can be set to underscan, showing the full frame 3. The camera is switchable between PAL and NTSC 4. Ch 1 & ch 2 audio are separately controlled

December 9th, 2004, 02:14 PM	#22
Gareth Watkins Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: France Posts: 578	Hi Guys I've a question here: I see lots on the forums about good, bad or indifferent low light capability of such and such a camera.... This strikes me as all well and good, but surely the quality of the light is a factor too. Low light 99 times out of 100 is poor light = poor pictures.... Such and such a camera may give you visible pictures in that poor light, but are they worth anything? Beautiful pictures are often the fruit of using good light well... it seems to me that making the best of crap light... well you might as well throw a torch at it and be done... At least the colour can be balanced and look good... I come from a photographic background .... and once you lose the light it's gone .. so you add some.. may not be pretty but it's there... Whack a flash at a low light subject and it's there.. shoot available and it looks mushy.. surely the same applies to video? How badly do we need pictures where you can't wait for good light and can't add additional lights.? I shot footage this summer with a TRV950 (not rate well in low light) Well in the lowest acceptable it was still better than my eyes... and with a video light gave excellent results in the dead of night. I've an FX1 now so if it's even a stop to two better I' can't see me needing more... If I'm missing something.... Cheers Gareth

December 9th, 2004, 04:02 PM	#23
Juan Parra Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 110	<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : <<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : I also wonder if the low lux rating is for the slower shutter setting. Wouldn't that be terrible? -->>> According to that link the 3 lux rating was achieved using +18 dB gain. Is that common for such ratings? Sounds a little like "cheating"... -->>> somehow it is, but i can live we 2 stops better than the PDX10 as it was said in another post.

December 9th, 2004, 04:05 PM	#24
Juan Parra Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 110	<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : <<<-- Originally posted by Juan Parra : Are these extra features worth the extra $2000? It's gotta be more than that... -->>> There's so much talk about this camera I can't keep up with it. But I think you left a few things off your list: 1. The Z-1 can also shoot in DVCAM mode 2. The viewfinder can be set to underscan, showing the full frame 3. The camera is switchable between PAL and NTSC 4. Ch 1 & ch 2 audio are separately controlled -->>> hey are you a sony rep? ;-) those are also important features, i completely overlooked them. do we need more to justify the $2K difference?

December 9th, 2004, 04:58 PM	#25
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	<<<-- Originally posted by Juan Parra : but i can live we 2 stops better than the PDX10 as it was said in another post. -->>> Read back through those earlier posts. Based on what John says it sounds like the difference between the FX-1 and PDX-10 may be less than 1 f-stop. But of course there are plenty of other reasons to want one :-)

December 17th, 2004, 08:52 AM	#26
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Update: here's a little more anecdotal evidence that the FX-1 is only about 1/2 f-stop faster than the PDX-10. See Ron's post in this thread.

December 17th, 2004, 11:30 AM	#27
Juan Parra Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 110	<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : Update: here's a little more anecdotal evidence that the FX-1 is only about 1/2 f-stop faster than the PDX-10. See Ron's post in this thread. -->>> I'm not sure if I can make any sense of that thread in regards to exposure and lux rating. The other one is that I'm more interested in the results for the Z1U model, since it makes more sense to upgrade to that one. Just by knowing that the Z1U has 1/3 CCDs and the PDX10 has 1/4.7 CCDs, it's gotta be more than 1/2 f-stop difference. Another interesting comparison would be considering the gain as well, on how effective and clean the picture can be using the gain control on the Z1U. There should be no question that the electronics/DS processing in the Z1U is much better than the PDX10. That comparison will give me a more realistic lux rating. Juan

December 20th, 2004, 02:26 AM	#29
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Good point Ignacio. To gain any market acceptance JVC will have to capitulate I feel, and join the Sony HiDef spec and not flounder about at the half-way house. Gareth - I can fully understand your point regarding low light generally being crap light, but for a lot of 'real-life' videographers low light is often all we get given, and we must work within those constraints. When I'm shooting a wedding in a romantic candle-lit church there's no way I can add to the available light. Everybody there has their eyes set permanently to f1.4 while I'm struggling with my VX2000 at f1.6, not even daring to move towards telephoto because of the light loss. It's at times like these when it's comforting to know that I'd have to be using a monstrously expensive and unweildy 1/2" chip camcorder to get better low light performance. I'm happy to think that if I had a DVX100A, a Canon (any Canon) or an FX1 by the sound of it - I'd be into gain-up mode, and this would be spoiling the look of my DVDs. It's the one and only thing that I find slightly dissapointing about the FX1. But I'm absolutely sure that Sony's low-light crown wasn't surrendered llightly. I bet the fact that the PD170 tops it in low light performance had a lot of Sony developement engineers knashing their teeth in frustration. tom.

January 9th, 2005, 08:21 AM	#30
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Just thought I'd update this old thread since we've now had a post from somebody who owns both a PDX-10 and FX-1. See Paul Frederick's post here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=37446 Of course this makes me want an FX-1 though.... :-)