16:9 Real World Result with PD's and VX's - Page 4 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony VX2100 / PD170 / PDX10 Companion

Sony VX2100 / PD170 / PDX10 Companion
Topics also include Sony's TRV950, VX2000, PD150 & DSR250 family.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 24th, 2002, 04:41 AM   #46
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Posts: 123
the only format which for sure writes 10bit is Digital Betacam. not sure how D1 handles signals. About HDCAM Sony says '10bit/sample of input/output signals (8bit sample for internal compression process)'.
But these all are quite expensive formats.

regards, Margus
Margus Kivilaan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2002, 07:50 AM   #47
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
D-1 conforms to CCIR 601 and uses 8-bit digitizing of each channel.

Jeff
Jeff Donald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2002, 12:29 PM   #48
Elephant
 
Posts: n/a
New 1/3" CCD please - 16:9 aint happening...

I (stupidly) sold my XL1s in a wave of excitement for the new Sony PDX10.

Having seen the PDX10 in the showroom i was really impressed with the 16:9 image i was shown on a 16:9 monitor.

It seemed perfect with the exception of having no zoom ring or gain or iris control. Then I got worried about the slight noise apparant in dark areas and thought to myself the PD150 has everything this does not and is just a little larger-- okay I'll slog it around the place, and it is more compact and robust compared to the XL1s. The picture is better, ie. sharper (I know it is not to everyone's taste)

Basically I am now stuck. I really wanted to future proof my investment by at least getting an (almost true) 16:9 image from the CCD (electronic 'in-camera 16:9' is really bad) I would like a 1/3" ccd for light issues as well. The pdx10 is noticably worse at handling darker scenes than the pdx10.

The pdx10, in my eyes, is not an option due to the abormally large amount of vertical smearing. Sony are aware of this and it is the same in the consumer 950 model. I think this has a lot to do with the small ccds used.

Anamorphic adapters do NOT rock my boat. I went to OPTEX today for a demo with one on a pd150. Lets just say it does not work well with just about anything ie. anything zoomed more than half way through the lens can barely be focussed. The whole image is one of a slight wide angle, with obvious distortions on straight verticals like door frames.

Is anyone going to make a 1/3" megapixel CCD so a new pd150 can be released!?

The pd150 is 'old' now and shouild be brought in line? When do you guys think this will happen?

What does everyone think...?
  Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2002, 12:46 PM   #49
Wrangler
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vallejo, California
Posts: 4,049
I certainly don't want the same level of improvement Sony brought to the 900 when they brought out the 950!

A megapixel 1/3" CCD would kill the 2000/150 product line. The individual pixel areas would get so small that the low-light sensitivity would go way down.

My personal opinion is that it will take a near-1/2" CCD to get good low-light performance and good 16:9 aspect ratio while also not screwing up the 4:3 aspect ratio performance at the same time.

Sony reps have told me that Sony will 'never make a 16:9 CCD' because of the low volume market. I personally think they are wrong but, importantly, the DSR-370 came out with 4:3 CCDs.

My guess is that we may see 16:9 at the same time we see HD. And the chips will have to be 1/2" if we want decent low-light and 4:3 performance. That means they will cost a bit more as will the optical block and the lens.

I could see that as a differentiator between the 2000/150 and the DSR-250 where Sony must really be getting whacked from the 1/2" JVC and Panasonic products. But if they did so, the cost will still be over $5,000 I think. The lens alone, for HD, has to be so much better corner-to-corner.
__________________
Mike Rehmus
Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!
Mike Rehmus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2002, 03:00 AM   #50
Elephant
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks...

Thankyou for your opinion.

I hadn't thought that Sony could not do it -- just thought they would soon, and typically the week after i bought my pd150!

Surely products have a life cycle and the pd150 must be getting near the end of its time... I would have thought Sony would have to offer some improvement after releasing the 'widescreen' capable little brother (PDX10) of the PD150.

Surely people need to broadcast 16:9 at a budget now -- owing to its pretty wide acceptance for the standard of new stuff made for television.

I wonder how long Sony can hold off and still remain profitable?

HD means a new computer, a new gigawire connection for devices, faster hard drives with more space etc. etc.

This will be the end for my G4 Powerbook -- or am i being over dramatic?

Does a HD picture look any better than a SD picture on a normal PAL tv?

Anyone know?

Much appreciated.
  Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2002, 10:28 AM   #51
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Waynesboro, PA
Posts: 648
long live the 150/2000 please!

i think even if sony replaces the 150 soon that it will still remain in use for years to come . the majority of pro skateboarding videos are still shot on the ol' VX1000 and they look awesome. in my opinion no matter what new technology brings to the table- years down the road from now its gonna be like how did you get that look to your film -well i shot it on one of those old sony pd150s then everyone will want to go out and buy used ones etc. but then again this is only my opinion and who knows what the future will bring.
Matt Stahley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2002, 08:10 PM   #52
Wrangler
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vallejo, California
Posts: 4,049
I asked Sony about a VX-2000/PD-150 replacement at NAB earlier this year. They pointed to the lifespan of the VX-1000 and said not very soon. I'd guess next year, maybe NAB.

Frankly, I get no requests for 16:9 since I don't do Indie films. My customers have 4:3 displays and many, like my wife, hate the black bars because it means the picture is smaller.

As I point out, I don't want the same 'improvment' Sony brought to the 950!.

Broadcast requirements are probably better met by a rented DSR-570WS if one is doing a resonably budgeted production. Better optics, better image processing, better sound, easier to manipulate, harder to carry and support.
__________________
Mike Rehmus
Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!
Mike Rehmus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2002, 09:07 PM   #53
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
I'll post here because you mentioned your G4. If your using FCP then your G4 has an almost infinite life span (at least as far as computers go . . . . what maybe 30 secsonds). If you have an older G4, you may lose Real Time effects, but not much else. Post details on your G4 and what you hope to do and I'll let you know aboout your laptop.

Jeff
Jeff Donald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2002, 09:26 PM   #54
Wrangler
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vallejo, California
Posts: 4,049
Re: Thanks...

<<<-- Originally posted by Elephant : Thankyou for your opinion.


Does a HD picture look any better than a SD picture on a normal PAL tv?

I have not seen PAL and HD side-by-side but the HD I've seen is incredible. I don't believe PAL or SECAM or NTSC can get even close.

Understand that the HD we see today is shot with a minimum of $100,000 cameras and $100,000 lens systems.

My first look at a HD television was from the entrance of a store looking at the television at the rear of the store. The shot was of a motorcycle turning from left to right on the screen. The light from the headlight seemed almost blinding. The detail was as good as any film I've seen.
__________________
Mike Rehmus
Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!
Mike Rehmus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2002, 03:41 AM   #55
Elephant
 
Posts: n/a
I am already losing real time effects on my 667 (non DVI output) 1 gb RAM Pbook. I suppose it is holding quite well after a year. I can edit fine, and that is what is important. We'll see what Apple release on the 5th -- do people expect a widespread adoption of Gigawire in new computers/cams? If so would you expect a PCMCIA device to add compatability for people with laptops?

You guys have been really helpful, I just find it hard to think about dumping all my savings into a two year old camera... When are the main 'shows' where Sony could intro a new pd150? Am I right in thinking there is one as soon as december?

All my stuff goes to DVD via Studio Pro -- does this render much of any cam's picture quality redundant?

(If I have given the impression I am otherwise then sorry, I am an artist who works accross many disciplines who simply wants the most longivity and quality out of everything he spends money on. It is a problem I have I geuss)

Thanks again for all your posts.

I wonder when 16:9 and HD are going to become the norm...? Years?

-- I am future phobic!
  Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2002, 03:44 AM   #56
Elephant
 
Posts: n/a
One more thing --- is there any way to get any info out of Sony? Does anyone have any contacts or tricks or tactics?

How long did the VX1000 take to be revised? I geuss I am used to Apple's almost clockwork 6 or so month revision cycle on its products...
  Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2002, 03:27 PM   #57
Warden
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Clearwater, FL
Posts: 8,267
I don't expect Apple to go to the next generation of FireWire until next year. Many seem to think it will be announced at MacWorld in January. I doubt it. I expect to see it next summer. I don't think Sony will have a new camera until Spring, at NAB. Sony sometimes releases rumors about cameras, but nothing so far on a replacement. I think 16:9 and HD are years away from a prosumer price point ($3000 to $4000). DV and it's variants will be here for a few more years.

Jeff
Jeff Donald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2002, 05:04 AM   #58
Elephant
 
Posts: n/a
Here in the UK -- ALL new Broadcast TV and adverts are shot on widescreen, normal analogue TVs always have little balck bars on the top and bottom. While digital broadcasts are in 16:9 - analogue transmission uses a 14:9 format to remind everyone that they should be thinking about buying a widescreen tv soon and that WIDE is definaletly the way things have ALREADY gone. Obviously those with digital sat/cable/set top box capable TVs get 16:9 ALL the time.

Now you can see why I am so (over) concerned with being able too shoot true 16:9.

True, I am not 'intending' for TV broadcast now but I use it as a guide to how things are going...

Sorry if I seem to be going on too much about this issue but I just can't stand buying soon to be replaced equipment.

Does anyone know if the century optics 16:9 adapter gives such a 'wide' angle distortion as the Optex one? I thought the optex adapter was bad.

Maybe the pressure isn't on in the states quite yet - but it won't be long...
  Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2002, 12:22 PM   #59
Wrangler
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vallejo, California
Posts: 4,049
I think it is further off than Real Soon Now. Why? Because the widescreen TV offerings are really confusing and quite incomplete. If you look around the hype and smoke, the real solutions are not yet in place and what we are hearing is a bunch of marketing guys trying to drive the market using bandwagon techniques. Well, it didn't work for TIVO over here.

As an aside. The average consumer (I'm talking the majority, not the upper middle-class and above) budget for entertainment isn't great enough to run out and buy $2,000 WS/HD televisions.

1. WS display devices are almost always a Monitor, not a TV so they need a AV Receiver or some outboard tuner to function at all. Most consumers don't have one of those installed so that is another chunk of money and technology. They don't have the money and they don't understand the technology.


2. WS displays are normally 'HD-Ready' but need the tuner to operate. Another expensive technology box.

3. They are very expensive. Way over the normal TV budget. Especially when one can now get a 36" TV over here for under $400 that is really quite good enough for most people.

4. HD and true widescreen broadcasts are few and far between. Want HD? You have to subscribe to a special cable or satellite channel or have an off-the-air HD tuner to pick up the broadcasts.

5. The US television stations have not yet gone digital and that is a Federal mandate. Yet another layer to the puzzle. Current tuners are not yet digital I think. But I'm not certain about that. And although the EU has it's homework done on the technology, the US selection is bad and doesn't even work correctly all the time.

6. There are no consumer recording devices, tape or disk, that will record and playback HD right now.

I think any savy consumer over here is going to wait and see for quite a while. Just way too much infrastructure missing at this point in time.

Besides, consumers are still all agog over their shiny new DVD's.

BTW, one of the most potent bellweather's remains unconvinced. My wife. She does not like letterbox because text is hard to read. Many of the WS displays aren't much better because they are short and wide. Not tall and wider (at least those I can afford to have hanging in my living room).

Oh, and did I mention that a WS TV will not fit in the entertainment cabinet she spent a fortune on? That is a big factor. Chuck a $5000 (today's money, I bought it 20 years ago) cabinet and buy another so the living room is all in synch? Nope.

So I think we in the US are not in such a hurry. My wife especially.

Your market and government may disagree.

In the US, I think a 4:3 camcorder is still a safe investment. But would not purchase an expensive on-the-shoulder camera that did not have 16:9 native capabilty (Sony DSR-570) unless I had a really quick payback situation. So when I found a need for a big camera, I bought used.
__________________
Mike Rehmus
Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!
Mike Rehmus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 16th, 2002, 01:08 AM   #60
New Boot
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 8
Mike, your comments regarding W/S and HD in the US are interesting. It seems that the rest of the world is well ahead of the US in this area.
Australia, like Brittain, broadcast predominantly in W/S SD digital and certainly most broadcasters insist on this format for programs and commercials.
In regard to W/S, analog W/S sets are available in Australia for around $US450. plus $US300 for a digital conversion box. Still a bit dear in our terms but getting closer.
Australia has chosen dual format broadcasts (Standard Digital and HD Digital) and regulated to abolish Analog in the year 2010. Less than 8 years to go. Analog sets will not receive broadcast signals after that date.
Any filmaker (that's me) that doesn't consider 16:9 as an upgrade in the immediate future may be out of business.
Redgumtv is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony VX2100 / PD170 / PDX10 Companion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:00 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network