curious about 16:9 discussion

Tommy Haupfear · February 24th, 2004, 08:43 AM

1152x648. That is impressive! So basically the width of the 16:9 mode and the digital stills are the same.

If we could add progressive scan, a few more pixels, and a better recording medium the PDX10 could be a 720p marvel.

Tom Hardwick · February 25th, 2004, 03:17 AM

Yes, the width of the 16:9 mode and the digital stills are the same. But the price you pay for having tiny 1/5" and mega-pixel chips in your camcorder is in low-light performance. It's quite a price; the VX2k is 3 stops more sensitive but the stills to memory and the 16:9 mode (in controlled, non CCD smear lighting) are impressively better on the PDX10p

tom.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

February 24th, 2004, 08:43 AM	#16
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	1152x648. That is impressive! So basically the width of the 16:9 mode and the digital stills are the same. If we could add progressive scan, a few more pixels, and a better recording medium the PDX10 could be a 720p marvel.

February 25th, 2004, 03:17 AM	#17
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Yes, the width of the 16:9 mode and the digital stills are the same. But the price you pay for having tiny 1/5" and mega-pixel chips in your camcorder is in low-light performance. It's quite a price; the VX2k is 3 stops more sensitive but the stills to memory and the 16:9 mode (in controlled, non CCD smear lighting) are impressively better on the PDX10p tom.