PDX10 vs TRV950
 

What benefits are there for buying PDX10 vs TRV950 (siblings as near as I can tell)?? Can't get good answer from Sony people or literature. What I have found through this forum and other research is PDX10 provides "true 16X9" versus masked 16X9 of TRV950 so PDX10 has some benefit there. Also PDX10 comes with XLR features but as others have pointed out I could buy add-on XLR for TRV 950. This forum helped clear up no real benefit to DVCAM format vs MiniDV (other than robustness) so no real benefit to PDX10 there. PDX10 advertises and Margus pointed out 14 Bit DXP (or DSP) which I don't think TRV950 advertises but maybe TRV950 has 14 bit DXP (DSP) and Sony just doesn't want to advertise it vs PDX10. Advice appreciated as always and thanks in advance.

hi Dennis,
that 16:9 mode difference was quite a surprise for me, it's first time i know, where Sony built pro/consumer cameras so differently. Still think they both use 14bit DSP, but not so sure anymore (that guess-yourself game made by guess who?).
pdx10 gives you +48V phantom through xlr adaptor (not sure if third-party adapters can do), possibility to control both audio channels separately, and b/w viewfinder instead of color wf.
It's your desicion if these things are worth these additional bucks or not. Or maybe someone who have used both 2000 and pd150 can tell opinion. These last differences are similar to 2000/pd150.

regards, Margus

PDX10 and TRV950
 

Hi Margus and thanks for taking time to help out learning novice. I learned quite a bit by doing a search on your previous posts covering wide range of topics including the "grumpy old beer drinking bear" relating to IBC-- maybe just poetic license on your part! Regards, Dennis

Dennis

If you want to see TRV950E clips using an Optex anamorphic I have uploaded some clips for you to examine. Both avi files have been winrar'd over 4 files (self extracting) and you will need the four parts of each to extract the avi. They are both PAL FHA aspect so you will need to set your NLE to widescreen mode prior to importing them. Also included is a picture of the rig they were shot with.

download from here -->

http://briefcase.yahoo.com
login = agentpurpleone
password = matrix

for files part1, part2, part4
in the folder trv950e

http://briefcase.yahoo.com
login = agentpurpletwo
password = matrix2

for files part3
in the folder trv950e

j

950 does have 14bit DXP
 

The 950 also uses 14bit DXP. This was highly touted in all Sony's early press releases.

Had I known the pdx10 would give the more full 16:9 picture than the cropped 950, I would have been sorely tempted to wait those extra few months past Sony's initial "Summer" release dates for the pd version.

On the other hand, the it's VF has the same spec as the 950's, except in B/W. I haven't seen it, but doubt it's really significantly better for judging focus or exposure values, and otherwise I prefer to see color in the finder.

I want an HD trv960!

Anamorphic J
 

Hello j, and appreciate the effort to download clips and shooting rig photo to show anamorphic TVR950E. I am sorry to admit I am internet and extraction challenged but I am working at downloading and then viewing the clips. Did download and view the shooting rig with descriptive script--very nice. The spirit level idea is the sort of hint appreciated by novices like myself. Instructions you gave are very good and downloading this is probably patently obvious to those skilled in the art as we used to say-- unfortunately at this stage my skills are just one step above the morphic let alone anamorphic. Thanks again.

Psurfer1 ,
I think it is obvious we need a "fix" for the 16:9 difference between the 950 and 10 .As they are the same CCD's and same most everything else the difference must be a software one eh?Surely someone can come up with a way to correct the deficency with software.I hope so anyway :0)
KennJ

"Calling Dr. Moe, Dr. Larry, Dr. Curley..."
 

KennJ, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a home-brewed fix for that one. On the other hand, if you're willing to offer your 950 as sacrificial guinea pig, then I'm sure some crackpot --I mean electronics wizard-- on the web would be more than happy to dissect it. Who knows?

Tell ya what I'll do :0)
Once this one hits the floor or the lens cracks I will gratuetously pass it on to the closest electronic hack in my area for a go round.
KennJ

TRV950 vs PDX10 in 16x9
 

Hello,
I am wondering if the PDX-10 and TRV950 handle 16x9 the same? I was told by someone who owns both cameras that the PDX10 offers the higher (680,000) pixel count, where as the 950 crops 16x9 from the (680,00 4x3).
If anyone knows for sure, your comments are much appreciated.
Many thanks,

Brian Broz

I heard the same thing Brian.... My camera is on it's way but with everything I have read about the camera wbay you state here is correct with the addition that in 16X9 the PDX-10 uses all of it's pixels to formulate true 16X9 which the 950 doesn't do.

Take a look at this link. Using a little reverse engineering the author attempts to divine the number of pixels used in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes on both the PDX-10 and TRV-950. You will have to draw your own conclusions. On the boards at dv.com several people have questioned the validity of his methods.

However, he makes a convincing case that the PDX-10 uses more pixels when shooting in 16:9 mode, and downsamples the results to produce a full 720x480 anamorphic 16:9 image. When you switch to 16:9 mode on the PDX-10 I can tell you that the field of view actually widens. I haven't used a TRV-950.

But the interesting thing is that he calculates pixel dimensions of 944x528 when shooting in 16:9 on the TRV-950. That would still be enough to downsample a full 720x480 anamorphic frame. His example shows that the 16:9 image is cropped within the 4:3 rectangle however. His calculations show 1152x648 pixels being used in 16:9 mode on the PDX-10.

Your guess is as good as anyone else's as to why Sony would do this... perhaps as an incentive for people to buy the PDX-10. Of course there are plenty of other reasons to choose the PDX-10, like the pro audio, BW viewfinder, DVCAM recording, etc....

The problem with that link is that the poster doesn't even know if the TRV950 he's comparing is PAL or NTSC, so until you get a valid side-by-side comparison it's not very useful.

I can, however, verify this for you: the TRV950 does not get wider when going to 16:9. The image width stays precisely the same whether in 4:3 or 16:9.

That would imply that perhaps they do indeed process 16:9 differently. This different-feature-set situation is not necessarily a "first"; the DSR200A was the professional DVCAM version of the VX1000, and the NTSC DSR200A had 16:9 mode, whereas the NTSC VX1000 never did offer it. (even though it was only a software change, and I believe various RM-95 hackers enabled 16:9 on their VX1000's, so the code was in there, but Sony purposely limited it to being available on the DSR200 only. I believe the PAL version of the VX1000 always had 16:9).

Here are some frame grabs from either camera.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.big.or.jp%2F%257Ea_haru%2Findex.html&lp=ja_en

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/exknow2002au/index.html&lp=ja_en

http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10/