Low Light Performance - PDX10 vs VX-2000

Randy Stewart · December 28th, 2003, 11:07 AM

Thanks Boyd and Tommy (discovered that last night also, good deal). Let's close this one out for now. Happy holidays.
Randy

Patrick Grealy · December 29th, 2003, 04:04 AM

Gee, guys....

I feel really bad about my PDX10 after all the discussion about its poor performance under low light conditions. That is until I finished a recent editing task.

Having recently filmed a social gathering (with indoor and outdoor persuits [fishing, bike riding, eating drinking etc] , with some poor lighting situations) all in 16:9 and edited in FCX and DVDSP2 burning the DVD, I was able to use many of the colour correction facilities available in FCX to create some very usable footage of the poorly lit indoor scenes.

The final product when viewed on a decent widescreen TV suggested to me that the PDX 16:9 was worth some of the perceived shortcomings. As long as the lighting is not pitch dark and you have some colour correction tools like in FCX, you should be ok.

Regards P

John Jay · December 29th, 2003, 02:13 PM

Tom

where did you get the 3 stops from?

when I had a vx2k (since sold it) it came out just under 400asa wheras the pdx comes out about 100asa - maybe you meant the vx2100?

also the pdx has longer telephoto than vx in 4:3 so pull back and compare?

maybe theres a spec lying around stating sensitivity f(xx) at 2000 lux somewhere for each cam?

IMO when you consider noise the vx is unuseable above +6db gain, whereas +12db with the pdx is just useable

Tom Hardwick · January 2nd, 2004, 10:01 AM

the three stop difference is determined experimentally John. I had both the PDX10 and VX2000 set up perpendicular to a large white, evenly lit, projection screen. Both cameras were set to give the same picture, the PDX10 at max wide and the VX zoomed in a bit to match the area exactly. I fed both cameras output to a TV using different inputs so that I could easily A/.B switch between them using the TV's remote.

I varied the light on the screen such that on replay the PDX10 showed that maximum aperture was being used, but no gain-up had taken place. In the same conditions the VX2000 was working at f4.8. If I used telephoto the PDX loses another half stop over the VX's f2.4 max aperture.

Interestingly the chips give slightly different colours on screen, the VX had a blueness and the PD had a brown-ness to the grey as it appeared on TV.

tom.

David Korb · January 10th, 2004, 07:41 AM

>the three stop difference is determined experimentally John. I had both the PDX10 >and VX2000 set up perpendicular to a large white, evenly lit, projection screen.
>tom.
Now I wonder about the projection screen Tom…compared to an evenly lit white surface such as a painted wall, or white fabric…it seems the projection screen may have been slightly if not highly reflective and not the kind of scientific control one may think…while in actual shooting environments there may be numerous reflective material in your frame, seldom would one be shooting a solid reflective surface. Useful information perhaps…but not sure how accurate the results would be

Don’t matter though…still love you guys !!!

Tom Hardwick · January 10th, 2004, 08:06 AM

David, you do my experimental technique a diss-service. Of course I used a dead matt white low efficiency screen. What I would say is this though. The PDX10 I had on test needed the exposure preset knocked back two clicks to the left to stop highlights blowing out, so in effect this 'claws back' some low light sensitivity.

tom.

David Korb · January 10th, 2004, 09:28 AM

Tom i highly respect your work and your conclusions...didnt mean to offend...nor do i completely understand projection screens as you may well see by now
Please forgive my ignorance

December 29th, 2003, 04:04 AM	#17
Patrick Grealy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 90	Gee, guys.... I feel really bad about my PDX10 after all the discussion about its poor performance under low light conditions. That is until I finished a recent editing task. Having recently filmed a social gathering (with indoor and outdoor persuits [fishing, bike riding, eating drinking etc] , with some poor lighting situations) all in 16:9 and edited in FCX and DVDSP2 burning the DVD, I was able to use many of the colour correction facilities available in FCX to create some very usable footage of the poorly lit indoor scenes. The final product when viewed on a decent widescreen TV suggested to me that the PDX 16:9 was worth some of the perceived shortcomings. As long as the lighting is not pitch dark and you have some colour correction tools like in FCX, you should be ok. Regards P __________________ Sony PDX10 by 2, DRS-11, Dual G5, FCX, DVDSP and Logic Plat. www.VarsityMusicVideo.com

December 29th, 2003, 02:13 PM	#18
John Jay Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: US & THEM Posts: 827	Tom where did you get the 3 stops from? when I had a vx2k (since sold it) it came out just under 400asa wheras the pdx comes out about 100asa - maybe you meant the vx2100? also the pdx has longer telephoto than vx in 4:3 so pull back and compare? maybe theres a spec lying around stating sensitivity f(xx) at 2000 lux somewhere for each cam? IMO when you consider noise the vx is unuseable above +6db gain, whereas +12db with the pdx is just useable __________________ John Jay Beware *PLUGGER-BYTES*

January 10th, 2004, 09:28 AM	#22
David Korb Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: n.w. minnesota Posts: 35	Tom i highly respect your work and your conclusions...didnt mean to offend...nor do i completely understand projection screens as you may well see by now Please forgive my ignorance __________________ If at first you dont succeed...well so much for skydiving

December 28th, 2003, 11:07 AM	#16
Randy Stewart Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hooper, UT Posts: 177	Thanks Boyd and Tommy (discovered that last night also, good deal). Let's close this one out for now. Happy holidays. Randy

January 2nd, 2004, 10:01 AM	#19
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	the three stop difference is determined experimentally John. I had both the PDX10 and VX2000 set up perpendicular to a large white, evenly lit, projection screen. Both cameras were set to give the same picture, the PDX10 at max wide and the VX zoomed in a bit to match the area exactly. I fed both cameras output to a TV using different inputs so that I could easily A/.B switch between them using the TV's remote. I varied the light on the screen such that on replay the PDX10 showed that maximum aperture was being used, but no gain-up had taken place. In the same conditions the VX2000 was working at f4.8. If I used telephoto the PDX loses another half stop over the VX's f2.4 max aperture. Interestingly the chips give slightly different colours on screen, the VX had a blueness and the PD had a brown-ness to the grey as it appeared on TV. tom.

January 10th, 2004, 07:41 AM	#20
David Korb Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: n.w. minnesota Posts: 35	>the three stop difference is determined experimentally John. I had both the PDX10 >and VX2000 set up perpendicular to a large white, evenly lit, projection screen. >tom. Now I wonder about the projection screen Tom…compared to an evenly lit white surface such as a painted wall, or white fabric…it seems the projection screen may have been slightly if not highly reflective and not the kind of scientific control one may think…while in actual shooting environments there may be numerous reflective material in your frame, seldom would one be shooting a solid reflective surface. Useful information perhaps…but not sure how accurate the results would be Don’t matter though…still love you guys !!!

January 10th, 2004, 08:06 AM	#21
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	David, you do my experimental technique a diss-service. Of course I used a dead matt white low efficiency screen. What I would say is this though. The PDX10 I had on test needed the exposure preset knocked back two clicks to the left to stop highlights blowing out, so in effect this 'claws back' some low light sensitivity. tom.