It's even better than I thought! More to come....

http://www.8palm.com/mx5000ad.jpg

I was expecting the PV-DV953 to be light and a bit puffy, like my MX300 (similar with the PV-DV950/AG-EX30U body shape). When I saw it, however, it looked all muscle and felt solid and heavy. I played around with the dials and buttons and everything seemed tight---no play whatsoever. The LCD monitor opened stiffly, and snapped back in firmly with a "click." The focus ring was also stiff with no slop at all. (Sorry DVX100 owners).

All the buttons and controls are placed logically. With the LCD open, you'll see a set of buttons. If you use the viewfinder, however, you'll have to flip open the LCD to get at some of the buttons, but chances are that you'll never use the smallish, lower resolution viewfinder. Instead you will want to use the large, sharp LCD monitor. Yup, that nice MX300 viewfinder is gone. You'll have to go the DVX100 route if a nice viewfinder is your number 1 concern. (Touche!)

I found the cam to be perfectly balanced, and easy to hold. It has a nice ridge for all your fingers---unlike the MX300. The MX300 (and Sony TRV950) lack a decent ridge or lip so the hand-strap must be kept tight. Bravo, PV-DV953 engineers!

Most of you already know that the PV-DV953 loads from the side, so there's no hassle with removing the cam from a tripod to get at the tape, but let me tell you a bit more about the tape loading mechanism. In short, it's quick and it's quiet! I couldn't believe it, so I opened and closed the mechanism several times. I have to say, another bit of nice Pana engineering.

When I turned the cam on, I couldn't hear the cam running. Yes, it was that quiet. Of course with the tape inside the cam, and recording, there's some noise. However, it makes less noise recording than my almost silent running MX300. So I would gather that the built-in-mic is more likely to pick up the operator's breathing than engine noise. Zooming was also silent, but it zoomed a bit fast. One has to be careful how much pressure is applied to the zoom lever. (I'll have to check the user manual to see if the zoom speed can be adjusted---but this is no big deal.)

Now for the resolution and the LUX. I only had the LCD to go by, but knowing that the MX300 viewfinder is the same resolution as the one on the 953, I was able to get a pretty good impression. The day was dark and drizzling, but the colors were amazing. The resolution seemed out of this world sharp! When I shot inside (very dim light), the resolution was still amazingly sharp, but the colors disappeared and looked almost black and white (dorky). With my MX300, there would have been more color, but the grain would have ruined the video. Nevertheless, the video knocked my socks off! I was that impressed. Would I buy this cam? You betcha! And when I have the cash, that's exactly what I'm going to do.

Here are some of Tommy Haupfear's PV-DV953 frame grabs. Note the colors even though he lowered the resolution for uploading to the website.

http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=2351224
http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=2351225
http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=2351228
http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=2351230

Hi Frank,

can't help noticing that the frame grabs of the airshow from Tommy Haupfear's PV-DV953 exhibit the same edge 'over-enhancement' we were talking about the other week. Check the white halo of pixels around the F-117a Stealth and even on the Thunderbirds, the lower edge of the F-16's fuselage is ringed with a white pixel edge. I guess this is an issue common to the camera and not just our dodgy unit. I'm not sure if I'm happy about that or not...

Best,

David.

Frank
I posted on dv.com in your thread about the PV-DV953, it's now in Vancouver (I called Panasonic). List is $2749 Cdn. Leo's did get back to me with a price also! Don't know if posting prices is allowed here though.

Tony

Thanks. I've got to pop done there anyways to buy some film. I'll see if they have the GS70 in yet. Should have, I think, but Leo's tends to only bring in the Pana models they believe are good, like last year's PV-DV702, 852, 952 and DVX100.

Gee Frank, didn't know that you wore socks.

Interesting info. Thanks.

compare these to pictures below:

http://www8.big.or.jp/~a_fuyu/PA/MX5000/chirt/resoDV.jpg
http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/SO/VX2000/chirt/resoDV.jpg

you can really see the white halo from the MX5000 at the top and bottom of the vertical lines in the center of the chart.

The vx2000 doesn't seem to have this.

What do you guys make of this?

The pictures came from the this link:
http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/0208_3CCD.html

>you can really see the white halo from the MX5000 at the top and bottom of the vertical lines in the center of the chart<

Sorry. I must be blind.

The white halo is also quite noticeable around the circles on each corner, too.

Hey Frank,

I posted an enlargement of the test pattern frames given at that link above. Each of the frames were treated the same, enlarged 300% and then cropped to show just a corner. I think you can clearly see how the panasonic handles the edge detail when compared to the VX-2000 and the white and black ringing that occurs at the junction of a change in contrast. Perhaps it's an unfair comparison considering the price difference between the two units but it's just more evidence (for me at least) that I'm not just going insane.

http://www.visualmedia.com.au/Edge_enhancement.jpg

The aerial footage posted may have been shot with digital zoom and compressed to jpeg - but the halo of pixels is neither a zoom artifact nor a compression artifact. It's an edge detail issue, where the camera is trying to handle the change in contrast at the edge of a light/dark border. I hope none of these issues are present in your cameras and that's why you're not 'seeing' it. But it IS present in those photos, the test shots and the MX-500 we purchased.

Best,

David.

The halo happens in auto mode, when the sharpness is normal. The Panasonic guys obviously thinks that sharpness is what everyone wants. I believe that the built in firmware does the sharpening and high contrast areas gets too amplified, resulting in the halo. Seems like a lot of digital wizardry is going on in the MX500. Looks like a high-pass filter on photoshop, a trick which I use to improved out-of-focus pictures.

I checked my MX350, the halo is also there, not so severe, but when I turn the sharpness down 2 notches, the softening makes the scene looks much more natural (no halo). I believe that the softening on the Mx500 should get the same results.

But, I do think that for the price difference, comparing the MX500 to the VX2000 is not too fair. Maybe we can get a comparison on closer priced MX500 and TRV950 or the XM2/GL2.

Like I said, I must be blind. But I'll have another look at these pics tomorrow on a high resolution monitor at my friend's.

I still think the PV-DV953 is a great cam with super high resolution, but like I wrote, the LUX is bad indoors with poor lighting: "The day was dark and drizzling, but the colors were amazing. The resolution seemed out of this world sharp! When I shot inside (very dim light), the resolution was still amazingly sharp, but the colors disappeared and looked almost black and white (dorky). With my MX300, there would have been more color, but the grain would have ruined the video."

Putting things in their proper perspective, Frank is right, the 953 is a good deal. The 953 is a $1250 camera and the price will come down as it becomes more available. (all prices based on B&H camera's)
The TRV950 is $1630
GL2 is $2260 and the VX2K is $2350.
So for double what the 953 costs you can buy the GL2 or the VX2K. It depends on what you want out of a camera and how much you have to spend. I opted for the VX2000 over the TRV900 for the same reason (edge enhancement and low light), but I'm an old guy and wanted better.

So far as low light goes, it is unrealistic to expect quality footage without some sort of effort. Good video will always need quality light and that includes a decent level.

<you can really see the white halo from the MX5000 at the top and bottom of the vertical lines in the center of the chart. The vx2000 doesn't seem to have this.

Frank, I didn't see the white at first either in the Internet browser, even on my LCD monitor which is definitely sharper than tube types. I copied the pictures to PhotoPaint and zoomed 4x. Now you can really see the white, about two almost totally white pixels around every black number or stripe with the MX5000, and really none on the VX2000. I'm thinking this is due to poor software manipulation.

Ben. I'll try to find this halo later today. Here's a thought. The MX5000 came out last June/July (2002). The PAL MX500 cam out a few months ago. The North American version just came out and is probably a 2nd or 3d generation on the assembly line. Could it be, then, that the newest MX5 (PV-DV953) also has the most "bug fixes?" And perhaps the video quality is better than that of the 1st generation Japanese Domestic?

The source link for the 2 resolution charts I posted also has a trv950 resolution chart if wants to compare it to the mx5000 in regards to the halo effect.

http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/0208_3CCD.html

Reed

The source link for the 2 resolution charts I posted also has a trv950 resolution chart if wants to compare it to the mx5000 in regards to the halo effect.

http://www4.big.or.jp/%7Ea_haru/0208_3CCD.html

BLACK ON GREY, RESOLUTION CHART
I copied images from this site to PhotoPaint and then zoomed 4X with the following results from best to worst:

Sony VX2000=hardly any halo and hardly any smear
Canon VX2=some light halo
Sony TRV950=noticeable halo
Panasonic MX5000=heavy halo

As someone pointed out before the halo is probablly an attempt by the software engineers to avoid the jpg type smear, but appears to be overkill on some cameras. I don't use jpg for any black and white drawings due to such problems.

COLOR, BUILDINGS WITH SKY AND WATER
I copied images from this site to PhotoPaint and then zoomed 4X with the following results from best to worst:

Sony VX2000=hardly any halo and hardly any smear
Sony TRV950=some light halo
Canon VX2=noticeable halo
Panasonic MX5000=heavy halo

OVERALL, BUILDINGS WITH SKY AND WATER
I copied images from this site to PhotoPaint and then zoomed 1x with the following results from best to worst in general quality:

Sony VX2000=no halo, or smear, yet most defined
Sony TRV950=nearly as good as VX2000
Canon VX2=noticeably worse than VX2000
Panasonic MX5000=halos make picture quite noticeable worse than VX2000 where details are lost.

CONCLUSIONS
I can't read Chinese and so don't know what conditions the pictures were shot with. It does appear though that in bright sunlight the picture quality is not dependant on the pixel size, rather software. Can adjustments be made. We need more test shots of the DV953 to see if improvements have been made over the MX5000.

"I see halos"... but then, most normal people won't see it. My parent's and siblings don't see it. Not until I point it out to them, and they take a longer, closer look.

It's because they're so used to watching enhanced TV and DVD, where there is some sort of video processing done. The processing INCLUDES turning white into "ultra bright white", and gives an impression of sharpness & crispness. Not forgetting some edge enhancements. To normal folks, such pictures are NORMAL. They're used to seeing halos every time they watch TV or DVD!

Us "video pro's" on the other hand, have finely attuned visual senses, which allows us to spot compression artifacts & color bleeds etc. etc. I remember when I first started, I couldn't spot these. Then I got doing some picture comparisons with various MPEG encoders. Over time, I could spot even slight compression artifacts in commercial DVDs! I must stop myself from going into "picture quality analysis mode" every time I watch DVDs or I won't enjoy the movie.

Back to the halos... I also see color bleeds! Check out the last picture of Tommy's, the picture of the aircraft on the ground. The officers on the right has a red color bleed between his black suit's outline & the white halo. Yucks!

But the halos and color bleed COULD BE something to do with high JPG compression artifacts. I don't remember my MX300 having color bleed. It does have halos, but it lessens when I turn my sharpness one or two notches to the left of the default / middle.

Hi,

well at least some of us are actually seeing the 'halo's' as they are being referred to now. I'd like to thank those of you who spent your time investigating the posted images - and your own cameras to see if the edge issues were present.

My assumption is that SOME of us have these issues with our cameras and the lucky ones don't. That's great. It also seems to be the general opinion that this is something that the camera's image processing software is doing. To my thinking, that is good. At least there's the posiibility of it being rectified or at least improved with a firmware update from Panasonic.

We also have fooled around with the sharpness settings and while it does make an improvement on the edges AND the grain issues on objects close to the camera - the background (at least on our camera) turns to mush, so I don't think that's the ultimate solution for us.

Some posters seemed to leap to the camera's defense as if these questions regarding the edge artifacts were an attack on the unit. They weren't. I think we all agree this is a great little cam - probably why we all forked over our hard earned cash to purchase one - and since I also paid for my camera, I have the right to ask questions about its performance just like anyone else.

I also agree with Steven that videographers are obviously more critical of an image than general viewers - but I guess that's our job isn't it? Trying to get the best images possible from our equipment.

Our MX-500 is in at Panasonic as we speak, having the tape transport issues seen to and also the over zealous edge enhancement is being looked into. I will let you know the results. They had an MX-350 there when we took the camera in and it also exhibited the same kind of 'halos'. So the techs weren't too convinced that the issue would be seen as a fault. I guess we'll wait and see.

Thanks again to all those who have contributed here.

Best,

David.

>having the tape transport issues seen to and also the over zealous edge enhancement is being looked into.<

Sorry to hear you have these problems with the MX5. Let us know if the "repair" fixed it.

Honestly, I couldn't see halos, but I did see the red bleeds Steven mentioned---but I felt this was due to the low res jpg.

Hi, David.

Sorry to hear about your tape transport problems. Hope it gets fixed, fast!

re your reply>: My assumption is that SOME of us have these issues with our cameras and the lucky ones don't. That's great. It also seems to be the general opinion that this is something that the camera's image processing software is doing. To my thinking, that is good. At least there's the posiibility of it being rectified or at least improved with a firmware update from Panasonic.

Edge enhancement & halo's have been with us a very long time. Just that we've not been "sensitive" about it. It's there in ALL the DV vidcams, some are WORST at it than others.

DV vidcams also have the infamous "staircase" effect - if you vidcam a vertical fence or something white, and started moving the cam a bit, you would notice that the edges have a sort of "grain" moving - the grain looks like a staircase.
However, film cameras don't seem to suffer from these problems. It's the DV electronics & CCD technology...

re your reply>I also agree with Steven that videographers are obviously more critical of an image than general viewers - but I guess that's our job isn't it? Trying to get the best images possible from our equipment.

Yes, we should get the best images possible from our equipment. However... the customer may NOT be so critical. Don't kill yourself getting worked up over picture quality for these customers.

Here's a story from my own experience. In the early years of creating VCD, I tried many software encoders, all of which performed quite badly (in my eyes) and I would tweak the settings until I got the best VCD picture possible. Still not up to my high standards, I must say. Comparing the VCD and the original DV tape, it was obvious the DV tape was sharper. Back then, I did some wedding & event videos in VCD, about 3 years ago. The first few times that I gave my clients the VCD, I expected them to call me back & complain about the "horrible picture quality". Well, one of them did - they had a giant screen TV and was always watching LDs & DVD. So they had an "elevated sense of high picture quality". The rest didn't - they had been watching VCD movies before this and was familliar with all the artifacts & slightly softer pictures inherrent in VCDs, and my VCD was in the same league as the other commercially produced VCD movies. Some customers thought that my VCD was very very good (they hadn't seen the original DV tape, that's why ;)

Morals of the story? 1) Make sure your video is as good as other production video on the same medium. 2) If the customer likes it, you get paid :)

Now that DVD burning is feasible, our equipment NEEDS to be able to churn out top quality video - 'cos that's what's expected of DVD productions nowadays. And with a high quality encoded DVD, you can spot all the picture flaws easily. That's why I upgraded to 3CCD. But with all the inherrent flaws of DV, I must accept the fact that my 3CCD isn't going to beat an expensive film vidcam when it comes to picture quality.

I would say that the halos on the MX500 is a bit extreme, and it is very UNFORTUNATE that if you tone down the sharpness, the smaller details get mushy - and that's again why you need the sharpness the way it is. A terrible "either - or" situation. Still, some people insist on "film look" which means softer pictures & more blurred backgrounds. Go figure :~

OK 'nuff ranting...

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven Khong : Hi, David.

DV vidcams also have the infamous "staircase" effect - if you vidcam a vertical fence or something white, and started moving the cam a bit, you would notice that the edges have a sort of "grain" moving - the grain looks like a staircase.
However, film cameras don't seem to suffer from these problems. It's the DV electronics & CCD technology...

-->>>

Actually, it's neither. It's the simple fact that low-resolution digital images (and 720 x 480 is low-resolution, at least compared to a 5 MP digital still camera) will exhibit aliasing or "stairstepping."

You don't get it with film because:

a) Both 35mm and 16mm film are higher-resolution media than DV, however good the latter is, and

b) The "granularity" of film is random rather than regular. In other words, each frame of DV will have its pixels at the same coordinates. In film, the grains (i.e. "pixels") will change position from frame to frame, which can soften the image somewhat, but which also guards against aliasing being all that noticable.

And that random pixels on film is what creates the 'natural' softness in the 'film-look' which so many videographers are trying to achieve.

I see it as a different age, and a different media. I want my videos to look like videos, and films to look like films.

I wouldn't want poster colour paintings to be worked until they look like water colour. :)

Sorry about the rant... so many people looking for the 'film-look' on video.