vs. PDX10, please...
 

I need some advise, especially from one who have ever used/saw a Sony PDX10.
Here is the situation. I have pdx10 and absolutely love it for it's 16x9 feature. But I also see many good words about DVX100/DVC80, I think at 4:3, PDX10 is no compete, and particularly under lower light...now, no doubt I still need 16:9, will never shoot 4:3 any more, so I am thinking how a DVX100 or DVC80 with anamorphic lense comapres to pdx10?
Your input will help me a lot. Thanks!

The DVX with the anamorphic lens will blow away the PDX10.

As it should, since that combo will cost over twice as much as a PDX10 does.

It's kind difficult to find uncompressed sample clips...
The common sense tells me DVX100 must be better, however, I disagree the conclusion of "more expensive is always better";

But, there must be something better out there, pdx10 is so good that it's very close to the quality of anamorphic DVD; however, it's not yet there, I wonder if DVX100 + anamorphic lense can reach that level...


<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : The DVX with the anamorphic lens will blow away the PDX10.

As it should, since that combo will cost over twice as much as a PDX10 does. -->>>

Remember that anamorphic lenses have some shortcomings however. I don't know about the Panasonic, but both the Optex and Century adaptors cause vignetting on a PD-150 and you have limited zoom range. If you want to add filters or a sunshade you'll probably have to buy a matte box, making things even more expensive.

But I think the biggest limitation is that you're stuck with whatever focal length range is available with the builtin lens (plus the adaptor). On the PDX-10 you can add a 2x telephoto or .45x wide lens. I use both of these quite a bit myself.

That is a definite limitation on the DVX/anamorphic. No telephoto adapter, no wide-angle adapter (although you don't really need wide-angle, since the optical anamorphic works as a .67 wide-angle adapter as well...)

The zoom range is only slightly limited, you can't effectively use the last 10% but that's about it. No vignetting.

No screw-in filters either. No inexpensive matteboxes.

There are lots of compromises involved in shooting with the anamorphic adapter on the DVX, but there's one are that doesn't compromise: optical quality. It does give you the best 16:9 of any under-$10,000 camera.

Even so, I expect that with all the compromises inherent in using it, most people would opt for shooting with "squeeze mode" on the DVX100A, which still gives very nice results (up to 360 lines of resolution in progressive mode) and none of the compromises in shooting.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : The zoom range is only slightly limited, you can't effectively use the last 10% but that's about it. No vignetting. ->>>

This 10% is at wide end or tele end or both?

No screw-in filters either. No inexpensive matteboxes.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : There are lots of compromises involved in shooting with the anamorphic adapter on the DVX, but there's one are that doesn't compromise: optical quality. It does give you the best 16:9 of any under-$10,000 camera. ->>>

Any screen capture/video to prove this?

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Even so, I expect that with all the compromises inherent in using it, most people would opt for shooting with "squeeze mode" on the DVX100A, which still gives very nice results (up to 360 lines of resolution in progressive mode) and none of the compromises in shooting. -->>>
At letterbox mode, I don't think it will be better than pdx10. My question is vs pdx10. I am currently own pdx10, if DVX100A + anamorphic lense is better, I'd upgrade, since I only shoot 16x9.

Thanks for your post.

It has been mentioned in another thread that because the PDX10 records only interlaced video (or line-doubled 'progressive' at 30 fps or less), it's resolution is not really the full 16x9 DV25 capability whic can be acheived in progressive mode. The DVX100A with it's built-in anamorphic DV mode (which crops the CCD) actually has a lower brute resolution than the PDX10, but because it can function in real 30p or 24p modes, the end result should be as good as the PDX10's 60i when both are compared in 16x9. Why? Because progessive scan provides for sharper imaging (spatial information is not spread in time) and because in proscan the DVX100 can turn of the vertical low pass filter that hinders vertical resolution in most DV cameras.

It all makes sense in theory, but I am not totally convinced myself.

If the theory is correct, for 'digital cinema' video which will be transferred to film or mastered to DVD in proscan, the DVX100A should give you an image which will be at least as good as the PDX10, plus it has better optics, a wider wide end on it's zoom lens, virtually no vertical smear and a lot of user configurable parameters, plus shalower DOF which you might like too.

At the telephoto end. Wide is fine, sharpness-wise. A little barrel distortion will show, so you have to watch for vertical lines on the edges.
Yes, those are two limitations of using the anamorphic adapter.

You can get DVFilm's demo reel, it has stuff on it that I shot with the anamorphic adapter and transferred to 35mm. It looks great. I've posted a number of clips here that were shot with the anamorphic adapter, mostly the "old west" and "softscreen" shots that people are sick of seeing...

The DVX+anamorphic will give you imagery that's just as high-resolution as the PDX10. So resolution is not an issue. So then you have to compare other factors in image quality: noise, smear, grain, clarity, sharpness, image adjustability, gamma curves, progressive scan capability, and on and on. I think it's a fair statement to say that in interlaced mode, shooting 4:3, the DVX beats the PDX10 handily. Is there really anyone who would argue that the PDX10's 4:3 image is better than the DVX's? So when you add an optical anamorphic adapter to the DVX, all those same advantages hold true for 16:9 as compared to the PDX. The DVX still has all its same advantages in imagery, but now it's also full-resolution 16:9 as well.

But again, like I said before, you're talking about a $4,000 camera/lens combo as compared to an under-$2000 camera. They're not in the same league.

"But again, like I said before, you're talking about a $4,000 camera/lens combo as compared to an under-$2000 camera. They're not in the same league"

Totally agree.


"Is there really anyone who would argue that the PDX10's 4:3 image is better than the DVX's? "

No. I know DVX is better, (even DVC80 is better at 4:3)

"So when you add an optical anamorphic adapter to the DVX, all those same advantages hold true for 16:9 as compared to the PDX. The DVX still has all its same advantages in imagery, but now it's also full-resolution 16:9 as well."

No really. The question is how good the anamorphoc lense is. It's one more optics, it may add flare, distortion, and reduce light..etc, so at 16:9, it really depends on how much the lense will degrade the quality. I think there is no sample clips, frame grabs etc now that can be downloaded, I saw someone on 2-pop also shouting for samples.. 35mm reel, is something I can't play at home, too bad....thank you Barry for sharing your view.

<<<-- Originally posted by Love Mov : No. I know DVX is better, (even DVC80 is better at 4:3) -->>>

Do you not know that the DVC80 and DVX100 are the same camera, except the DVC only shoots 60i. So the quality is the same.

> The DVX+anamorphic will give you imagery that's
> just as high-resolution as the PDX10.

I insist. If the end result is to be progressive, The DVX might well give you the same resolution even WITHOUT an anamorphic adapter. Try it, go to the store or borrow the cams and shoot resolution charts with both, with the DVX in proscan, fine (which turns off the vertical LPF) and squeeze mode, and try deinterlacing the PDX10's video and then compare frame grabs. I think you will be surprised to see how close they are. Much is lost with the PDX10's unavoidable vertical LPF and then upon deinterlacing more vertical spatial res is lost.

Naturaly, with a high quality anamorphic lens for the DVX100, results should be much better still.

Bottom line: I love my PDX10, but drool for the DVX100A and wish I had been able to save up and buy the latter. Hopefully soon enough we will see something from Pana, Sony or Canon with native 16x9 and optics, CCD and processing like those of the DVX100A. I guess there will be time for that if HDV continues to take so long.