What would you do??

Glenn Gipson · November 4th, 2003, 09:32 AM

I think the PDX10's image is far better then the VX2k's image, 16:9 or not.

Mike Rehmus · November 4th, 2003, 10:30 AM

Wow. I disagree. But you are entitled to personal opinion.

Glenn Gipson · November 4th, 2003, 10:43 AM

See for yourself

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

Compliments of Boyd Ostroff

Tom Hardwick · November 4th, 2003, 01:33 PM

I agree that if you film test charts in controlled lighting conditions then yes, the PDX10 in the 16:9 mode gives better resolution than the (cropped) VX2000 mode. There's no question about this really - the pixel-facts speak for themselves.

Ah, but out there in the real world things are very different, very different indeed. You're no doubt all sick of my CCD flare rantings but I'm happy to send small JPEGs to anybody who cares to ask. Picture quality is dependent on a lot of things, a huge number of variables. In the same way Hifi is dependent on a lot more than just frequency response.

tom.

Glenn Gipson · November 4th, 2003, 01:47 PM

Well, I have seen the PDX10 and PD150 side by side at B&H, and the PDX10 just makes a far better image to me. Anyone who is in the NY area should check it out. However, I am sure that the PD150/VX2K don't have the smear problem of the PDX10 (when in direct light) and are better in low light also.

Mike Rehmus · November 4th, 2003, 03:04 PM

For me, smear and streaking make the 10 a most unsuitable general purpose camera for commercial work.

In my work I never use 16X9 so that's not a selection point for me. The PD150's larger pixels, and good optics mean that it can deliver an image that is close to the DSR-300 in most cases.

November 4th, 2003, 10:30 AM	#32
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Wow. I disagree. But you are entitled to personal opinion. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

November 4th, 2003, 03:04 PM	#36
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	For me, smear and streaking make the 10 a most unsuitable general purpose camera for commercial work. In my work I never use 16X9 so that's not a selection point for me. The PD150's larger pixels, and good optics mean that it can deliver an image that is close to the DSR-300 in most cases. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

November 4th, 2003, 09:32 AM	#31
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	I think the PDX10's image is far better then the VX2k's image, 16:9 or not.

November 4th, 2003, 10:43 AM	#33
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	See for yourself http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10/ Compliments of Boyd Ostroff

November 4th, 2003, 01:33 PM	#34
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	I agree that if you film test charts in controlled lighting conditions then yes, the PDX10 in the 16:9 mode gives better resolution than the (cropped) VX2000 mode. There's no question about this really - the pixel-facts speak for themselves. Ah, but out there in the real world things are very different, very different indeed. You're no doubt all sick of my CCD flare rantings but I'm happy to send small JPEGs to anybody who cares to ask. Picture quality is dependent on a lot of things, a huge number of variables. In the same way Hifi is dependent on a lot more than just frequency response. tom.

November 4th, 2003, 01:47 PM	#35
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Well, I have seen the PDX10 and PD150 side by side at B&H, and the PDX10 just makes a far better image to me. Anyone who is in the NY area should check it out. However, I am sure that the PD150/VX2K don't have the smear problem of the PDX10 (when in direct light) and are better in low light also.