I should e-mail him and ask him for his take---to post on this thread. I heard he's been very busy these days.

But the 950 produces far better results than the 900 and Im not just talking about the usual low light debate. As far as it outselling the VX, I dont know any 900 owners but plenty of VX and 950 owners. I had the choice of a 950 or VX and I went for the 950 the extra £500 for the VX was just not worth it as under reasonable lighting I found there was very little difference in picture quality and at the end of the day thats what matters to me. People seem to have a real downer on this cam why I do not know. I know its the wrong forum to mention this and I dont want to upset anyone but I would rather a MX300 than 500 anyday, I waited six months to view this over hyped cam which I hoped to replace my 300 with and it was the biggest dissapointment Ive ever come across but I guess its each to there own Tom it would'nt do if we all liked the same thing.

Phil, are you saying you like the MX300 much more than the MX500? Do you like the TRV950 more than the MX300? What are your reasons? I'm simply asking because I'm curious. Thanks!

I am saying I like the 300 ver the 500 and Im not the only one, here in PAL Land (UK) the 500 has'nt had the over the top praise showered on it that it has in NTSC Land. I personaly feel it has allot to do with its low light performance. Living in a rather murky Country weather wise, I found the 500's images even on a overcast day were to noisy due to the 1/6" CCDs and I just simply dont like the picture it produces a kind of forced sharpness. Add to that its too small for my hands, I dont like the zoom switch, the viewfinders terrible (I prefer using the viefinder to LCD) and it looks like a childs toy. Panasonic should have put more effort into improving the 300 instead of bringing out a cam that doesnt know if its a stills cam or video cam. Overall as you can tell I much prefered the 300, picture quality and handling, and just think its a far superior machine thats sadly now no more. Overall I prefer the 950 to both of them put together, chunky build, superb handling, a real zoom rocker switch, sharp picture quality allmost free of noise even in lower lighting and the best stabilizer Ive ever come across. I was once I die hard Panasonic fan but personally feel they are loosing the plot fast, whats with all these poor performing 1/6" CCDS there stuffing into the latest efforts?

Phil:

What do you mean by real zoom rocker switch? On which cam?

Also, how's the 950 on overcast days?

Any/All:

What do you think about 900 vs. 950? I actually have a buddy that'll sell me his 900 for $1200 including battery and its in great working condition, but I'm leaning towards the 950 (actually the x10). I'm just waiting for the dv mag review on the x10. Should I consider the 900?

Derek. Although the TRV950's CCDs are slightly larger than the MX5's CCDs, the lux still sucks. But what can you do when cam makers shove in these small CCDs? (Don't answer that.)

Derek, the 900 is still a camera worthy of your cosideration, believe me. And if you've found a second-hand one where you know the history, so much the better. $1200 sounds a little high maybe, though it could come with a wide-angle, spare batteries, and extended warranty for that money? Who knows. Remember to check out the in-built microphones, and remember that any repair work will quickly loose the money you've saved, so make an offer based on that.

If you're looking at the PDX10 then don't let me stop you. It really is double the money you're talking about for the 900, and the native 16:9 chips alone make it the camera to have. But if it's the 900 vs the 950 and you have a $500 difference, then that money will buy you a great widie, loads of tape and a decent tripod, so the 900 it is then.

It's also better in my view for having a switchable ND, bigger chips, six bladed aperture and better low light performance, though somewhat noisier as they're not HAD chips. The motor drive capabilities in progressive scan are wonderful, and compact flash is still cheaper than Memory stick. Still a formidable camcorder.

tom.

The switch on the 950 is a Zoom rocker, the kind of zoom found on most cams until recently when to save space makers are putting silly little buttons and switches on instead. On overcast days the 950s great, bright sharp images with no grain.

TRV950 and time code
 

Hello! Is there any way to set the time code on the TRV950 so that it counts from an hour other than 00? This would be extremely useful on multi-tape projects. Thank you.

TRV950 and time code
 

I don't believe this feature exists below the PD150.

David Hurdon

Actually you can set the time code on the PDX-10 in the same manner as the PD-150

Hi Geoff

I read ages ago about setting the timecode in your NLE and recording say 5min of black video to your tape via the 1394, the cam should then pickup on that TC, cant remember where i read it though

so on your multiproject get striping those tapes - just like the old days eh?

Trv950 Focus In Meters?
 

Howdy

I just got two TRV950's and am wondering if there is a way to change the focus distance in the display from meters to feet. Also is there a way to display the f.stops when in manual exposure like the VX2000? I haven't put a tape in the cameras yet, just busy messin' around with all the new stuff.

Thanks

Bob

There's no way while shooting to display the taking aperture or applied gain, though on replay (a bit late in my view) you can call this information up on screen. If you do a lot of shooting you'll get to know the apertures in relation to the silly "horizontal bar" display, but quite why Sony decided to leave out this very important information I cannot imagine.

I mean - look at all the other spam up there on screen. There must be many of us here on list who would gladly loose two or three silly display graphics just to have our apertures back.

tom.

Yes this is an odd feature of the PDX-10 and TRV-950. For some reason they decided to tell us the f stop, but not the focus distance on the VX-2000, and the focus distance but not the f-stop on the PDX-10! I doubt there's any way to change this from meters to feet either, certainly there is no menu option. Hey, it'll be good practice to learn the metric system for when the US converts ;-)

Someone else pointed out a little trick which helps with the f stops though. When the little bar graph has the pointer directly in the center, you are at F4.0. At first I really missed seeing the f-stop in the finder, but I've gotten used to it pretty quickly....

TRV950 Sample Footage
 

Does anybody have some TRV950 footage I could see...I really only want about 5-10 seconds but I'm trying to use it to compare camcorders since no shops near me have a TRV950 to look at. If possible do you have any uncompressed footage that's short? I've noticed that most picture quality looks about the same if its converted to wmv which seems to be the new standard in showing movie clips now (at least it is for my friends and others I know)! Thanks a BUNCH!!

Tim

I really don't think you're going to get far with this experiment Tim. The only real way to test camcorders is side-by-side, as the A/B test really sorts the men from the boys. I've had a PDX10 on the same big L bracket alongside the VX2000 (as they're both the same price) and that way the footage is directly comparable.

But take it from me - if the 950 shoots in not-too-contrasty and not-too-dim lighting and doesn't have any point sources of light in frame, then the results can be very good indeed. The camera cleverly forces you to use the lens' 'sweet spot' by applying more and more ND as the lighting increases, and this ensures that you get very sharp footage.

tom.

Would you say this camera has a faster auto-focus? I know the XL1s does not, Our school has 3 and...well its pretty bad in my opinion, at least compared to my $600 Sony one.

The auto focus no faster than the VX, but I found the automation could beat me every time. It knew which way to turn the lens and didn’t need to rock and roll when it reached accurate focus. If the subject moved the auto focus would follow with such speed that it was not obvious that it was working. It will focus in light too low to correctly expose the chips, even at maximum gain up. It is silent, fast and accurate, but as with all automation it’s easily fooled.

This is where Sony’s ‘push auto’ button is so good, my only complaint being that the button ‘clicks’ and isn’t really large enough. While the push auto button is depressed the camera will be in auto focus mode; once released you’re back to locked focus. A focused measurement in metres appears for about three seconds in the viewfinder to confirm the distance, and for pre-focusing in the dark this proved to be superb. The VX doesn't have this.

There’s an infinity focus position which is useful if you’re shooting through scratched aeroplane windows and there’s also a very clever and very effective Spot Focus mode With this activated the side screen becomes touch sensitive and you can do very rapid and accurate pull focus effects by simply touching the image that you want to be focused on the screen. A tripod set-up is almost a necessity, but I couldn’t fault the ingenuity of the design or the effectiveness of the actuation. It’s fun to play with but I found it of little practical use.

tom.

Yeah, thats what I'm worried about on the Canon's. I've thought of the spot focus only necessary when you're say shooting throuh woods and stuff, or like through bushes...thats about it?

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : While the push auto button is depressed the camera will be in auto focus mode; once released you’re back to locked focus. A focused measurement in metres appears for about three seconds in the viewfinder -->>>

This is really a nice feature on both the PDX-10 and TRV-950, and is how I shoot most of the time. Recently I've been using the autofocus push button, then noting the distance (in meters) that displays in the viewfinder. Then I can manually focus with the ring later, and use the distance display to hit the mark. Unfortunately the focus ring is not very responsive, but you can get the hang of it after some practice, and the distance readout is a real plus as it gives you a little feedback.

Is the focus ring on your vx2000 significantly more, less, or similarly responsive compared with the PDX10, Boyd (or Tom)?
To add to the pot, I haven't a great deal of experience with many different cameras, but I find the PDX10'S autofocus to be very responsive, with very little hunting or foolery. I really have yet to see it become confused between two objects. Just lucky, I guess. This camera has an optional in- frame target display frame that is basically brackets, [ :-) ], sorry, can't remember what it's actually called, that I find extremely helpful to my eye in helping define the proportions of the image, and I think also they can give a sense of where the autofocus is going to land. I'm sure I shoot what is called "run n gun", for the most part, in a classroom setting, where I'm tracking a teacher/speaker, and also covering a room of student/teacher trainees, picking up moments between two people here and there amidst a lot of moments, from across the way, with, sometimes, a bit of someone along the side of the frame, as part of composition, and the autofocus is almost never confused.

Well it's just "different" than the VX-2000. It's a smaller, tighter ring. If you turn it very slowly it doesn't seem to do anything, which is reinforced by not seeing the focus distance change in the viewfinder. Neither camera has a decent focus ring unfortunately, but I'd give the PDX-10 the advantage due to the distance display, so at least you have some idea of what's happening, and some hope of hitting the target in a rack focus situation.

The main issue I have with autofocus is that it gets lost under very dark conditions. Generally, these would be conditions where there isn't enough light for a decent image anyway. But where it always gets me is when I film our performances. When the houselights go out and the theatre is dark the autofocus either hunts or becomes totally blurred. Then when the stagelights come on it snaps back into focus. I really hate this sort of look right at the beginning of a scene, so I now make it a point to be sure to have a rough focus laid in and switch to manual before the houselights go out. Then as I film I continue to use manual focus, augmented by the instantaneous auto pushbutton.

of course the big booty with the focus in low light with the 950 is the advantage of the laser rangefinder (figure movie Predator) which is happenin in photo mode and places a matrix of red lines on your talents forehead if u like :)

- you can also skwirt them with 5 multipulses from the flashlight and watch them run for cover (even funnier)

when focussed - switch to cam mode and shoot

- pure terror they think the SWAT team is in da house :)



on topic

TIM - if you search through my posts you will find some footage you are seeking

Beg pardon?

Good points Boyd, and I know what you mean by the auto-focus hunting as the stage lights come up on scene 4. The PDX10 overcomes this in that you can preset the focus (in the dark) by looking at the 3 seconds of 'distance display', and this is much better than the VX's 'where the hell are we?' system.

Both focus rings do nothing if turned too slowly but the PDX's at least warns you that nothing's happening as no distance display appears.

But the real cruncher is that because the VX sees so much better in the dark it's autofocus does likewise. The three stop difference is a massive knockout.

tom.

Real 16:9 on 950???
 

I got my 950E about a year ago and have been delighted with the results it can deliver. I am slightly disappointed with low light performance (learnt to live with it) but what really ticks me off is the ability of the PDX10 to reproduce real 16:9 where as the 950 crops. As I understand, there is no difference in the CCD's of these cameras and technically speaking the 950 could do 16:9 a la PDX. So my question is, does anyone know of a hack that would enable true 16:9 on the 950? It sounds that the only thing that differentiates the two is the way in which the cameras are programmed to scan the CCD in 16:9 mode, so could the 950 be reprogrammed to do this or is the issue more complicated?

There are also other differences: the PDX10 comes with an XLR audio input module and what seems to be a hypercardoid external condenser microphone. I think the 950 has a color VF and not the black and white one which comes with the PDX10. Also I presume (though I could be mistaken) that the 950 does not have a custum setup menu nor can it record in DVCAM mode (though it most likely can play back DVCAM tapes).

However, I do think you are probably right in assuming that the 950 is physically capable of using the full CCD width for 16:9 video. The firmware is probably responsible for this.

Two questions: on your 950, do the angular width and hight of the image change (get wider and taller) when you switch from video mode to 'memory' mode? When you are in memory mode, does the camera output pseudo progressive 30fps video through the firewire port? If the answer to both questions is yes, then the video processing of the cam is very similar to the PDX10 and you are probably right in your assumption.

I assume you already checked whether the image field goes wider when setting video mode from 4:3 to 16:9. If it does, then you have nothing to worry about: you are in 'native' 16:9. If it does not, then you have a good reason to get mad at Sony for deliberately crippling the camera just so they can charge more for the 'pro' model.

You are right Ignacio, the PDX, obviously has DVCAM capability, XLR and the VF is B&W. It also lacks the flash that the 950 has as this area is used for the XLR mounting shoe; I personally would rather sling a beachtek under the cam as I imagine the XLR makes the cam real front heavy. The 950 does have the custom preset however, but does not do stuff like continuous TC and does not come with the bid hood that would probably work with my WA lens. (anyone know where to get a spare?)
But what really gets me is that it would seem Sony has cheated the prosumer out of true 16:9, reserving this for the PDX. The 950 has the same 1/4 inch CCD as the PDX and in 4:3 they both only scan 1/4.7. They both use the full 1/4 inch in Memory mode, hence the wider picture. But in 16:9 the 950 crops and looses resolution where as the PDX uses the full CCD as in memory mode. I personally fell cheated by this as it seems to be a conscious decision by Sony to reserve this feature for the PDX when the 950 is just as capable of doing it on paper. I just hope that some genius comes up with a way of hacking into the 950 firmware to enable true 16:9.

You shouldn't feel cheated Patrick, you chose the flash gun, others chose the 16:9 option. And you paid a lot less than the PDX guy for the same imaging lens/chip assembly.

The PD100 wasn't much of a sales success alongside the much more popular (and much cheaper) TRV900, and Sony learnt from this. They've now given the PDX10 an USP that even makes potential VX2000 buyers sit up and take notice.

But like you I think it can be hacked. The very fact that the stills utilise the full chip width points to the fact that the 950's black bars are just a way of hiding what's actually going on in the background. Think on this: The 950's black bars are simply vertical (pillar box), hiding the full width and wider-angle view of the 16:9 capability. How's that for a conspiracy theory?

tom.

Patrick,

This has been discussed in the past, but I don't know that there is a definitive answer. I can't find the link, but a year or so back somebody did a few interesting tests to try and determine how many pixels were actually used in the various modes on the PDX-10 and TRV-950. Basically what he did was take a still photo (in photo mode) since that uses all the pixels. Then, without moving the camera he shot some 4:3 and some 16:9 video. By comparing these with the still photo he was able to divine how much of the CCD was being used.

The results indicated that the PDX-10 did expand the field of view and use enough pixels to acheive a "real" 16:9 image. The TRV-950 used a smaller section of the CCD, however it still appeared to use more than 480 vertical lines, and did not crop to 360 like many other camcorders.

So the consensus was that while the TRV-950 doesn't use as many pixels as the PDX-10 in 16:9 mode, it should still surpass the vertical resolution of cameras like the PD-150 or VX-2000. But I should point out that others questioned these findings as well.

Whoa... hold the phone a minute... I just dug through some old postings and find the link in question: http://www.techshop.net/PDX-10/!

Really? Vertical black bars in the VF? I would think Sony would at least be a little more subtle!

Intersting note Boyd. I would think other megapixel DV cameras might also offer better 16:9 performance even if the image does not visibly widen when changing modes.

The link you posted shows what I've found Boyd - that the PDX10 doesn't use the full 4:3 vertical resolution when put into the 16:9 mode. Why Sony have 'degraded' the resolution potential of the 16:9 image I can't imagine.

Graph paper filming tests show that the 16:9 mode uses 10% less vertical CCD pixels than in the 4:3 mode but 20% more horizontal pixels. In a perfect world the vertical resolution would remain unaffected and the horizontal pixel count would increase by 25%, but this Sony solution is most certainly a step in the right direction. Low light sensitivity, Steady Shot and camera control are all unaffected by the switch to widescreen, though the telephoto reach is somewhat reduced and the slight barrel distortion visible at the wide-angle end of the zoom becomes more apparent.

tom.

You say:

Now if there were a nice algorythm to get rid of the vertical smear, we would all be happy!

But surely, Sony know how to fix this fault. Neither the PD100 nor the PD150 smear in this way, and both of them are older designs. So what's the common demonitor? Why, bigger chips. Easy, huh? The smear seems a high price to pay for the mega-pixel capability if you ask me.

tom.

TRV950 & 16:9
 

I thank you all for this discussion, I have been interested in this myself. Another interesting thing, I also have a Sony 510 Digital 8. It seems to have true 16:9. When I turn it on the image is much wider. I also have the Canon Optura PI. In the 16:9 setting the image is taller. My 950 is as you described, just bars across top & bottom. The 510 D8 seemingly has true 16:9, but also has Bars top & bottom. The Optura PI produces a taller image in 16:9. I don't understand how it is able to convert to a wider image.

Thank you all for the excellent response to this thread.

The link provided by Jeremy is an interesting one but I am not sure if this technique will work although it certainly demands a little more investigation.
I even read in a French forum that the true 16:9 capability of the PDX10 was a hardware issue and not firmware. I have not come across any reliable information that says the 16:9 in the PDX is hardware enabled or vice versa, so I guess I am still in the dark. As it stands, I think I am investing too much time chasing this Holy Grail and should concentrate more on improving my film making skills in good ol fashion 4:3. Hell, I don’t even have a wide screen TV!.

Thanks to you all again.

P.S Jeremy, dont know if I understand you right but you certainly can read the memory stick over USB and access mem stick in windows.

Yes Bob, the Sony 510 Digital 8 does seems to have true 16:9. because in 16:9 mode the view is much wider, it's using the full with of the mega-pixel chip. On the Canon Optura PI the image is taller but that's simply because the viewfinder is not adding the black bars to undistort the image. How lazy of Canon. If you replay this Canon 16:9 footage on a 16:9 TV all will look ok, but on a 4:3 TV the image is horizontally compressed.

The 950 has bars across top & bottom of the V/F, but this is a compositional aid, and is done to show you the correct aspect ratio while shooting. Again - on a 4:3 TV the image will be horizontally compressed - and on a 16:9 TV will be stretched sideways to look correct.

The PDX10 in the 16:9 mode is like having a TRV950 with a 0.8x wide-angle permanently in place (in the horizontal only). The camera cries out for this, and the 950's wide-angle certainly should be called something else. It's not wide-angle in the slightest.

tom.

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Hardwick : The link you posted shows what I've found Boyd - that the PDX10 doesn't use the full 4:3 vertical resolution when put into the 16:9 mode. Why Sony have 'degraded' the resolution potential of the 16:9 image I can't imagine.

Graph paper filming tests show that the 16:9 mode uses 10% less vertical CCD pixels than in the 4:3 mode but 20% more horizontal pixels. In a perfect world the vertical resolution would remain unaffected and the horizontal pixel count would increase by 25%, but this Sony solution is most certainly a step in the right direction. Low light sensitivity, Steady Shot and camera control are all unaffected by the switch to widescreen, though the telephoto reach is somewhat reduced and the slight barrel distortion visible at the wide-angle end of the zoom becomes more apparent.

tom. -->>>


what Tom is saying is essentially correct,

put another way and comparing the 16:9 from an x10 and a 950 from the same country, you will find that the x10 has 20% more pixels in the horizontal AND 20% more pixels in the vertical

thus the 16:9 vertical resolution of the x10 is 20% more than the 950

However if you compare the 16:9 of a NTSC x10 with the 16:9 of a PAL 950 you will find they have the SAME vertical resolution, this is because PAL has 20% more vertical resolution over NTSC (576/480 = 1.2). The vertical resolutions are the same but the NTSC x10 uses 20% more pixels to achieve it than the PAL 950

So Patrick, how do you like those apples?

So PAL *is* better
 

This would explain why, when both are available from the same store, PAL models cost more than NTSC models, even in PAL countries!

Take a look at this thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&postid=109457#post109457

Now if only PAL were 24 instead of 25 fps ;-)

Whats with the apples?

I am aware of how the PDX acheives 16:9. What I want in my 950 is the wider 16:9; full horizontal scanning of the whole 1/4" CCD with a little vertical res sacrificed to bring ratios into correct proportions. How the pdx does this and whether its technically possible to get the 950 to do it is what I am curious about. I have an unfounded huntch that It all lies in different firmware configs as discussed earlier in this post. Perhaps one day i will find an answer but hopefully by then my 950 will be retired, replaced by a DVX100 :)