DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic DV / MX / GS series Assistant (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dv-mx-gs-series-assistant/)
-   -   DVC30 Impressions (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dv-mx-gs-series-assistant/26904-dvc30-impressions.html)

Scott Plowman June 16th, 2004 08:37 PM

your right.. and i know the PDX10 does have true 16:9 ..
have you seen footage from dvx squeeze???
I had studied about the pdx10 purchased it and got the run around by a scam shop.. really it worked out well.. because I eventually got my money back and then bought DVC80.. which I sold and moved forward with the new dvx100A
I know that it isnt true but it looks excellent. of course I have nothing to compare it to.. so i must go by what others who have the other equipment to compare it to report.. i hope the info i recieved before i settled on letterbox 30 p format for my documentary.. shit i already have six twisters.. i would hate to have to go back and start over because of eroneous information.. It does look good to me thogh.. again i have nothing to compare it to..

Peter Jefferson June 17th, 2004 10:58 AM

what the fuss about in cam anamorphic 16:9???

U can get full res 16:9 in post..

Tommy Haupfear June 17th, 2004 11:44 AM


U can get full res 16:9 in post..
?? - If you shoot 4:3 and then crop in post you've lost vertical resolution ( I believe by 25%).

There have been tests (by Boyd Ostroff) of comparing the VX2000 16:9 mode to that of the PDX10 and there is quite a difference. I use a VX2000 myself and my last cam was a PDX10 and as much as I liked the VX2000 I found myself almost always using the PDX10 (as long as I had sufficient light). I shoot exclusively 16:9 unless paid to do otherwise.

Robert Kirkpatrick June 21st, 2004 08:08 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : ?? - If you shoot 4:3 and then crop in post you've lost vertical resolution ( I believe by 25%).-->>>

I'm still getting the hang of this stuff, but would this be the same amount of resolution I would lose if I import regular 4:3 footage into my computer, crop it, and then blow it up to widescreen? If so, then I'll probably be okay with it to get good low-light (which concerns me about the possible US-version of the GS400).

Tommy Haupfear June 21st, 2004 09:23 AM

Robert, yes it would be the same resolution loss. The thing with low light versus resolution is that you can add lighting to your scene but you can't add resolution to your cam. I think those DVC30 vs. GS100 movie mode definitely have me looking to sell my GS100 for a GS400.

Here is a good read on the differences between in-camera widescreen modes.

Click here

Mark Williams June 30th, 2004 04:23 PM

Here are a few recent screen shots at 60i 4:3 format. The DVC30 has a little trouble with reds but I believe this is typical of smaller chip cams. Photos were converted from .bmp to .jpeg







Dave Croft July 1st, 2004 05:55 AM

Very cool frame grabs Mark. About the reds, I'd thought red was an awkward colour for most mini DV cams - could it not be limitation of the format?

Those were some serious jaggies on the second shot, and to a lesser extent on the forth, using frame mode would elimintate this altogether, and I have found that when shooting things like windy trees, and other similar movement, it looks very nice - much less 'vidoey'.

That little fly thing reminds me of some kind of cool space alien ;)

Good grabs though, were you up close and macro'd or far away and zoomed in to get the shallow DOF (are you using a screw in ND filter?).

I'm gonna post some grabs today (hopefully) the weather hasn't been good though - overcast, sometimes heavy rain, the worst for shooting.


Mark Williams July 1st, 2004 10:51 AM

Thanks Dave,

All shots were up fairly close. Yea, the jaggies look bad on the still but ok on the video stream. It might of had something to do with the frame I grabbed, movement from wind, the 1/60 speed I typically use or the conversion from .bmp to .jpeg. I just don't know. Anyway post some grabs when you can. I am really interested in what tweaks others have discovered.



Peter Jefferson July 5th, 2004 12:31 AM

just curious to know how this cam fares in low light situations (re: Weddings) as im lookin to buy one of these as a lil bro to the DVX100...

any thoguhts or comments would be greatly appreciated...

Boyd Ostroff July 5th, 2004 03:30 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : There have been tests (by Boyd Ostroff) of comparing the VX2000 16:9 mode to that of the PDX10 and there is quite a difference. -->>>

Tommy, I thought it was worth revisiting those tests since they were done about a year and a half ago and really weren't very scientific. To accurately measure vertical resolution the test chart needs to be aligned such that it just fills the frame vertically, which it wasn't in the old tests. And the old images were low quality JPEG's that had been converted to grayscale.

I just re-shot my tests and put them on a new web page here. This is a pretty large webpage (~3MB) that contains high quality jpegs along with tech data about exposure, etc.

Neither camera can attain the full 480 theoretical lines of vertical resolution in either 4:3 or 16:9 mode, as some form of field blending is applied on 60i cameras in order to prevent thin horizontal lines from flickering on and off in alternate fields. However the PDX-10 has 16:9 vertical resolution that is almost as good as 4:3 mode. As you might expect, the VX-2000 really falls apart in 16:9.

From what I understand the DVX-100a can capture the full 480 lines of vertical resolution in progressive mode however. If so, that would give results similar to the PDX-10. If anyone can repeat my test with a DVX-100a, I'd love to see the results and would be happy to include the images on my webpage.

Mark Williams July 6th, 2004 06:38 AM


I can't say how well its low light ability is compared to the DVX100, but I can say it is a tad better that the Canon GL-1. I shoot a lot of stuff in the deep woods and used the GL-1 for 3 years. There were some scenes I just couldn't get with the GL-1 without raising the gain which is unacceptable for the type image that I like to get. With the DVC30 in similar situations I have yet to have to do this. I know this sounds very subjective, not using charts, tests etc. but experience has got to count for something.



Peter Jefferson July 7th, 2004 06:05 AM

mark, thanx for the feedback!
thats exactly what i wanted to hear!

Tommy Haupfear July 7th, 2004 07:42 AM

Boyd, thanks for the updated testing on the VX2000 and PDX10. That really puts things in perspective.

As for the lowlight on the DVC30. Even without using this cam in low light you know that it will mostly likely perform similar to another 1/4" 3CCD cam with non-megapixel CCDs. Just don't expect 1/3" 3CCD (VX2000,DVX100, XL1S) low light performance from the DVC30.

Gary Garner July 21st, 2004 10:10 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Williams : Since the manual is somewhat lacking I have two questions.

1. The manual lists the video quantizing as 8-bit. However, advertising lists it at 12-bit. Anyone know what is correct?

2. Also, the review in camcorderinfo.com states "The 30 frames progressive scan mode can be disabled for times when it is not appropriate for the shooting circumstances, and CineGamma can be activated on its own." I interpret this as meaning CineGama can be activitated at 60i normal 4:3 mode. If so, does anyone know the exact steps to do this in the menu? -->>>

Mark - Did you ever get answers or figure this out. I'm also wondering if there's any way to control the ND filters. The manual mentions it in the specs but I see nothing in the menu to do this.


Joe Amato July 25th, 2004 09:19 AM

hey guys the dvc-30 kills te vx-2000 and 2100 in daylight and cannons xl-1 and gl-2 must be that 12bit rgb processor it inhertited from its father the dvx100a and the frame mode on the cannon looks like crap cmpared th the dvc-30s cinegamma frame mode hery dont forget pana invented the technology.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2020 The Digital Video Information Network