DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony TRV950 / PDX10 Companion (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-trv950-pdx10-companion/)
-   -   The next step up 16x9 camera than pdx10 (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-trv950-pdx10-companion/25772-next-step-up-16x9-camera-than-pdx10.html)

Love Mov May 9th, 2004 11:19 PM

The next step up 16x9 camera than pdx10
I always saw people was saying "pdx10 is the bext 16x9 camera under $4000", so which brand/model of 16x9 camera is the next line up? I seem can't find anone talking about it. (one with attached anamorphic lense doesn't count).

Ken Tanaka May 9th, 2004 11:49 PM

In terms of cameras that have a true 16x9 ccd block, Sony's DSR570 comes to mind. It's a 2/3" native 16x9 standard definition camera. But it''s in a completely different price and performance league than the PDX-10.

Boyd Ostroff May 10th, 2004 07:11 AM

I always thought that the "under $4000" figure was very arbitrary (actually I think this began with a statement in the DV Magazine review which called it the best 16:9 under $5000 IIRC). I think the only way you can get comparable or better 16:9 in that price range would be a 4:3 camcorder with an anamorphic lens.

The DSR570 sounds like a great camera, but it lists for $18,000 WITHOUT LENS, and of course you will need much more expensive batteries, a hefty tripod, and other expensive accessories. For that much you could buy 10 PDX-10's and still have money left over....

Love Mov May 10th, 2004 08:31 PM

But 10 PDX10 can't make better video, right? :)
So, the sentense should read "PDX10, best 16x9 under $18000, since nothing do 16x9 in this range?

Boyd Ostroff May 10th, 2004 08:36 PM

Back when that review appeared in DV magazine I heard second hand that the author (Bruce Johnson) did not actually put "best 16:9 under $5,000" in the article, but it was added later by his editor. I have no way of knowing whether this is true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Love Mov May 11th, 2004 06:41 PM

It sounds true, only thing comea close is Pana 853. I searched every and can't find any, so assume it's true at least for now.

Ignacio Rodriguez May 11th, 2004 11:45 PM

It has been mentioned in other posts that because of the DX100's true progressive capability, the resulting video in 16x9 can be as good as the PDX10's interlaced video in terms of spatial resolution, because in 60i the image is spread over time so it has less spatial resolution than progressive. Also, the DVX100A (perhaps the non-A as well) can disable the vertical low pass filter that most DV camcorders use to diminish interlace artifacts. In plain english, this would mean that if the final result is progressive (i.e. film transfer, web-video or non-interlaced 30p NTSC), the resulting video from the DVX100 could be as good as the PDX10's or better. Probably better because of the better optics, less smear, better low light and so on, even without using an anamorphic adapter. I am not totally convinced about this yet though., but feel it is worth mentioning and good food for thought. There is thread comparing both cams here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=178376.

A less expensive camera which seems to have native 16x9 and also has frame mode, is the Pana DV953. It lacks XLR inputs and it's low light sensitivity is probably as bad as the PDX10's though. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&postid=178394

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:30 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network