VX1000 -- various topics

Steven Fokkinga · January 30th, 2005, 03:37 PM

Hey guys,

Does anyone know the lux-rating of the VX-1000? I have it but don't know how to test it. It should be very high, since even at dusk I can't see a thing I recorded (or turn it into a noise-fest). I googled but couldn't really find it, probably also due to the fact that there isn't really a 100% objective test, yet (right?). If you don't know any lux-rating, does anyone know how many stops slower it would be to more modern cams like the pd-170 and dvx100a?

Thanks a lot,

Steven

James A. Davis · April 9th, 2005, 08:53 PM

I know it's an old camera, but I'm trying to figure out does it record at 16 bit - CD quality 44.1 htz. I saw the specs listed somewhere and it said it did. But how? There is no in camera sound switch. One time when I was taping from my PC into the camera it read 16 bit on the display screen. Was that only for outgoing?

Mike Rehmus · April 9th, 2005, 10:13 PM

DV is 16 bit 2 channel at 48 KHz, 4 channel at 12 bits 48 KHz.

IIRC, the 1000 will not do 4-channel sound so you have 16 bit sound.

James A. Davis · April 11th, 2005, 11:55 AM

What can I do to get that 44.1 sound. An adapter of some sort?

Mike Rehmus · April 11th, 2005, 12:08 PM

James, DV records at 48 KHz, there are no choices for 2-channel recording. You get 32 KHz with 4-channel but that is not recommended.

You can resample down with a post processing program or your CD burning software may convert it for you.

R Geoff Baker · April 11th, 2005, 12:42 PM

Actually, the VX1000 is an oddball and will ONLY record at 12 bit 32K. It is possible that it will playback the others -- likely, even -- though it is also one of the only Sony DV devices that won't playback a DVCam recording ...

So although in general it is better to choose 16 bit 48k -- you can't make that choice with the VX1000.

GB

Mike Rehmus · April 11th, 2005, 02:23 PM

Oh, I forgot about that. I remember in the far distant past a friend being upset that he couldn't record choir music because of the bad sound.

Thanks for setting me straight, Geoff.

Andrew Mills · October 7th, 2005, 05:24 PM

I hear alot about how the vx1000 has a clearer/sharper image than the vx2*00 but I dont see how this is possible since the vx2*00 has better placed pixels and they are not densily packed like the vx1000's pixels and the vx2*00 has a higher resolution than the vx1000. Can someone that owns both cams tell me which cam they think produces a clearer/sharper image. Thanks alot

Lou Bruno · October 7th, 2005, 08:57 PM

The VX2100 is so much sharper.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Mills

I hear alot about how the vx1000 has a clearer/sharper image than the vx2*00 but I dont see how this is possible since the vx2*00 has better placed pixels and they are not densily packed like the vx1000's pixels and the vx2*00 has a higher resolution than the vx1000. Can someone that owns both cams tell me which cam they think produces a clearer/sharper image. Thanks alot

Don Bloom · October 7th, 2005, 09:22 PM

I have PD150s and a 9 year old VX1000 which still works very very well but a better image that the 150s? Not so much!

Don

Mike Rehmus · October 7th, 2005, 09:27 PM

I have both a 150 and a 1000. The 1000 can only match the picture quality of the 150 when conditions are perfect. Otherwise it is not nearly as good.

Armin DeFiesta · October 7th, 2005, 10:22 PM

I have a VX1000 and if you get the settings just right, you can get a great image, but I don't think it's as good as the newer generation Sony's. I like my VX1000's look for some things, especially in the daylight, but not as sharp as I'd like it.

Allyn Iwatsuru · October 12th, 2005, 09:56 PM

the vx1000 image is better in well lighted areas but during low light thats where it lacks hard the vx2*00 are better, its easier to get really good image out of vx1000 but if u work hard at the vx2*00 u could get a just as good image.

Colby Knight · October 13th, 2005, 01:35 PM

I shot a dance recital (low light conditions) back in May with a 170 & a 2100. The 2100's image was so clean and very sharp. It looked great. The 170 was a little grainy and rough. Comparing the two side by side there was no comparison.

I'd like to think I didn't have something set correctly. I know the 170 is a better camera than that to have the video look the way it did.

Tom Hardwick · October 14th, 2005, 04:39 AM

Something's up with your PD170 Colby, or you've got something set really stangely in the custom presets maybe. The VX and PD range share the same lens, chip-block assembly and processing electronics, so there's no difference (none whatsoever) in the image quality between the two. Build and production tolerances still play a part of course, but this is far less of a problem these days.

The VX1000 was a different cat though. Coming as it did to replace the three-chip Hi-8 Sony were producing in 1995, it was an eyeopener. But not any more, and in low light it's painful to watch alongside the VXPD series.

tom.

January 30th, 2005, 03:37 PM	#61
Steven Fokkinga Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 204	VX1000 in low light Hey guys, Does anyone know the lux-rating of the VX-1000? I have it but don't know how to test it. It should be very high, since even at dusk I can't see a thing I recorded (or turn it into a noise-fest). I googled but couldn't really find it, probably also due to the fact that there isn't really a 100% objective test, yet (right?). If you don't know any lux-rating, does anyone know how many stops slower it would be to more modern cams like the pd-170 and dvx100a? Thanks a lot, Steven

April 9th, 2005, 08:53 PM	#62
James A. Davis Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 90	44.1 htz on the VX1000 I know it's an old camera, but I'm trying to figure out does it record at 16 bit - CD quality 44.1 htz. I saw the specs listed somewhere and it said it did. But how? There is no in camera sound switch. One time when I was taping from my PC into the camera it read 16 bit on the display screen. Was that only for outgoing?

April 9th, 2005, 10:13 PM	#63
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	DV is 16 bit 2 channel at 48 KHz, 4 channel at 12 bits 48 KHz. IIRC, the 1000 will not do 4-channel sound so you have 16 bit sound. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

April 11th, 2005, 11:55 AM	#64
James A. Davis Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 90	What is my alternative? What can I do to get that 44.1 sound. An adapter of some sort?

April 11th, 2005, 12:08 PM	#65
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	James, DV records at 48 KHz, there are no choices for 2-channel recording. You get 32 KHz with 4-channel but that is not recommended. You can resample down with a post processing program or your CD burning software may convert it for you. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

April 11th, 2005, 12:42 PM	#66
R Geoff Baker Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 471	Actually, the VX1000 is an oddball and will ONLY record at 12 bit 32K. It is possible that it will playback the others -- likely, even -- though it is also one of the only Sony DV devices that won't playback a DVCam recording ... So although in general it is better to choose 16 bit 48k -- you can't make that choice with the VX1000. GB

April 11th, 2005, 02:23 PM	#67
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Oh, I forgot about that. I remember in the far distant past a friend being upset that he couldn't record choir music because of the bad sound. Thanks for setting me straight, Geoff. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

October 7th, 2005, 05:24 PM	#68
Andrew Mills New Boot Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hammonton,NJ Posts: 13	*vx1000 image is clearer than vx200 image** I hear alot about how the vx1000 has a clearer/sharper image than the vx200 but I dont see how this is possible since the vx200 has better placed pixels and they are not densily packed like the vx1000's pixels and the vx2*00 has a higher resolution than the vx1000. Can someone that owns both cams tell me which cam they think produces a clearer/sharper image. Thanks alot

October 7th, 2005, 09:22 PM	#70
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	I have PD150s and a 9 year old VX1000 which still works very very well but a better image that the 150s? Not so much! Don

October 7th, 2005, 09:27 PM	#71
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	I have both a 150 and a 1000. The 1000 can only match the picture quality of the 150 when conditions are perfect. Otherwise it is not nearly as good. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

October 7th, 2005, 10:22 PM	#72
Armin DeFiesta Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Bowie, MD Posts: 74	I have a VX1000 and if you get the settings just right, you can get a great image, but I don't think it's as good as the newer generation Sony's. I like my VX1000's look for some things, especially in the daylight, but not as sharp as I'd like it.

October 12th, 2005, 09:56 PM	#73
Allyn Iwatsuru Tourist Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 2	the vx1000 image is better in well lighted areas but during low light thats where it lacks hard the vx200 are better, its easier to get really good image out of vx1000 but if u work hard at the vx200 u could get a just as good image.

October 13th, 2005, 01:35 PM	#74
Colby Knight Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Huntsville, Alabama Posts: 111	I shot a dance recital (low light conditions) back in May with a 170 & a 2100. The 2100's image was so clean and very sharp. It looked great. The 170 was a little grainy and rough. Comparing the two side by side there was no comparison. I'd like to think I didn't have something set correctly. I know the 170 is a better camera than that to have the video look the way it did.

October 14th, 2005, 04:39 AM	#75
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Something's up with your PD170 Colby, or you've got something set really stangely in the custom presets maybe. The VX and PD range share the same lens, chip-block assembly and processing electronics, so there's no difference (none whatsoever) in the image quality between the two. Build and production tolerances still play a part of course, but this is far less of a problem these days. The VX1000 was a different cat though. Coming as it did to replace the three-chip Hi-8 Sony were producing in 1995, it was an eyeopener. But not any more, and in low light it's painful to watch alongside the VXPD series. tom.