PDX10P for documentary, will it do? at DVinfo.net

Kristofer Lonna · July 19th, 2004, 08:20 AM

Hi!

I'm planning a couple of documentaries and want some input on if the PDX10P (which i like a lot) will do. I want to shoot everything in 16:9 and the aim is TV-networks.
The documentaries will consist of interviews and actionshots of people walking and working. They will tell the story of one persons life and work.
The question is will the PDX10P hold up in 16:9-mode? or would it be better to go with a DVX100 (i have the oppurtunity to get the "not the A-model" for a real steal ...

Will post it in FCP and probably Magic Bullet it ...

ps. ofcourse i live in PAL-country if that would help ...

//Kris

Ignacio Rodriguez · July 19th, 2004, 05:06 PM

I think even though the PDX10 has real 16:9 and the DVX does not, if your final output will be 30p or 24p you might get better results with the DVX, because it does real progressive scan. What you would gain with the PDX10's 16:9 you would lose though deinterlacing, which you don't need to do with the DVX100, plus the DVX has better low light... so if the price is equivalent I would go for the DVX. And of course if you can go anamorphic that would be even better but there is the extra cost of course.

Ronald Lee · July 29th, 2004, 03:33 AM

if this is for tv broadcast, then you are fine.

just a side note, if you are planning to sell to the broadcasters (in your own country I assume), try to PRE-sell them or at least see if they would be interested in your show first.

Kevin Clarke · July 29th, 2004, 05:09 AM

I have made a few short docs using my trusty PDX10p all in 16:9 that made it to TV and our local cinema, all with no problems.
Native 16:9 looks SO much better, and with a careful set-up of both the camera, the shoot itself and a little time spent in post (Magic Bullet... mmmm! It will have to wait until I can find a buyer for this kidney...) you'll be v. pleasantly suprised at what can be achieved.
Also, I would echo what Ronald notes about pre-selling to broadcasters - it saves a lot of shoe leather!
Good luck with it and let us know how you get on.
Kevin

Sean McHenry · August 11th, 2004, 09:54 PM

Don't forget, that venerable workhorse, the Canon XL1 has made way for the new XL2 with (dun da da dah) 24p AND XLR connections. Sure, it isn't actually available yet but I see bigger things for this setup than the Panasonic 100A.

Interchangable lenses are going to go a long, long way with the film schools and mid level braodcast work.

Sean McHenry

Tom Hardwick · August 12th, 2004, 08:53 AM

Yes, I'd go with the flow here and suggest that the PDX10 is the camera for you. Panasonic very quickly realised that the DVX100 was in pretty desperate need of the modifications that turned it into the A model, which is why you've been offered it at a 'steal' price.

The PDX10 does have its limitations, especially in low and difficult lighting, but if you've been reading the threads here you'll know the work-arounds. But your clinching sentence is that you want to shoot in 16:9. Go for the PDX10.

tom.

Laurence Kingston · August 27th, 2004, 08:20 AM

Interlacing isn't that big a deal, even if you are going to film. The standard 3:2 pulldown transfers look just fine. I would be much more worried about low light performance and carrying around some extra lighting.

By the way if you really want that 24P film look, DV Film Maker works about as well as Magic Bullet, and you can keep both of your kidneys:

http://www.dvfilm.com/maker/index.htm

Sean McHenry · August 27th, 2004, 10:42 PM

On the 100 and 100A...

One of the small arguments I had with the JVC rep went like this...

The Panasonic 100 (at that time) had a 24p mode we were discussing. He poo-pooed it asking why any video guy would choose it over the JVC models with a higher pixel count.

My response was that he may be looking at it a bit backward. For an old school video pespective, the JVC had the high pixel count and would give a very clean image. Video guys almost always go for pixel count over fancy doo-dads. Not always but most will. Why would anyone go for less pixels just for 24p was his comment.

My reply was that this camera, the 100, was seemingly meant for film people that wanted to shoot film - on video tape. Hence the way the controls worked and the letterbox mode, etc.

Personally, I think Panasonic did the film people a bit of a disservice by making the 100A more video like in it's handeling but that's just my opinion.

It was intended to be a film camer that just happened to shoot on tape rather than a video camer that just happened to have 24p.

Sean

Ignacio Rodriguez · August 31st, 2004, 10:45 AM

> I have made a few short docs using my trusty PDX10p
> all in 16:9 that made it to TV and our local cinema, all with
> no problems.

Kevin, how do you deliver the product for TV in such a way that the extra resolution is not lost? You give them an anamorphic DV tape? Because if you give them a letterboxed DV tape then you have lost vertical resolution. Whatever you give them, it also depends on what they do afterwards. I have always wondered how this is to be handled.

John Hartney · September 15th, 2004, 05:24 PM

Kevin??

Ronald Lee · September 18th, 2004, 01:55 AM

The vertical resolution, even letterboxed, should still more than satisfy broadcast TV requirements. I don't see how delivering on miniDV tape would be viewed negatively by broadcasters today.

July 19th, 2004, 08:20 AM	#1
Kristofer Lonna Tourist Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 2	PDX10P for documentary, will it do? Hi! I'm planning a couple of documentaries and want some input on if the PDX10P (which i like a lot) will do. I want to shoot everything in 16:9 and the aim is TV-networks. The documentaries will consist of interviews and actionshots of people walking and working. They will tell the story of one persons life and work. The question is will the PDX10P hold up in 16:9-mode? or would it be better to go with a DVX100 (i have the oppurtunity to get the "not the A-model" for a real steal ... Will post it in FCP and probably Magic Bullet it ... ps. ofcourse i live in PAL-country if that would help ... //Kris

July 19th, 2004, 05:06 PM	#2
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	I think even though the PDX10 has real 16:9 and the DVX does not, if your final output will be 30p or 24p you might get better results with the DVX, because it does real progressive scan. What you would gain with the PDX10's 16:9 you would lose though deinterlacing, which you don't need to do with the DVX100, plus the DVX has better low light... so if the price is equivalent I would go for the DVX. And of course if you can go anamorphic that would be even better but there is the extra cost of course. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

August 11th, 2004, 09:54 PM	#5
Sean McHenry Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hilliard, Ohio Posts: 1,193	Don't forget, that venerable workhorse, the Canon XL1 has made way for the new XL2 with (dun da da dah) 24p AND XLR connections. Sure, it isn't actually available yet but I see bigger things for this setup than the Panasonic 100A. Interchangable lenses are going to go a long, long way with the film schools and mid level braodcast work. Sean McHenry __________________ ‘I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m shooting on D.V.’ - my hero - David Lynch http://www.DeepBlueEdit.com

August 27th, 2004, 10:42 PM	#8
Sean McHenry Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hilliard, Ohio Posts: 1,193	On the 100 and 100A... One of the small arguments I had with the JVC rep went like this... The Panasonic 100 (at that time) had a 24p mode we were discussing. He poo-pooed it asking why any video guy would choose it over the JVC models with a higher pixel count. My response was that he may be looking at it a bit backward. For an old school video pespective, the JVC had the high pixel count and would give a very clean image. Video guys almost always go for pixel count over fancy doo-dads. Not always but most will. Why would anyone go for less pixels just for 24p was his comment. My reply was that this camera, the 100, was seemingly meant for film people that wanted to shoot film - on video tape. Hence the way the controls worked and the letterbox mode, etc. Personally, I think Panasonic did the film people a bit of a disservice by making the 100A more video like in it's handeling but that's just my opinion. It was intended to be a film camer that just happened to shoot on tape rather than a video camer that just happened to have 24p. Sean __________________ ‘I don’t know what I’m doing, and I’m shooting on D.V.’ - my hero - David Lynch http://www.DeepBlueEdit.com

August 31st, 2004, 10:45 AM	#9
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> I have made a few short docs using my trusty PDX10p > all in 16:9 that made it to TV and our local cinema, all with > no problems. Kevin, how do you deliver the product for TV in such a way that the extra resolution is not lost? You give them an anamorphic DV tape? Because if you give them a letterboxed DV tape then you have lost vertical resolution. Whatever you give them, it also depends on what they do afterwards. I have always wondered how this is to be handled. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

July 29th, 2004, 03:33 AM	#3
Ronald Lee Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 435	if this is for tv broadcast, then you are fine. just a side note, if you are planning to sell to the broadcasters (in your own country I assume), try to PRE-sell them or at least see if they would be interested in your show first.

July 29th, 2004, 05:09 AM	#4
Kevin Clarke Tourist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 3	I have made a few short docs using my trusty PDX10p all in 16:9 that made it to TV and our local cinema, all with no problems. Native 16:9 looks SO much better, and with a careful set-up of both the camera, the shoot itself and a little time spent in post (Magic Bullet... mmmm! It will have to wait until I can find a buyer for this kidney...) you'll be v. pleasantly suprised at what can be achieved. Also, I would echo what Ronald notes about pre-selling to broadcasters - it saves a lot of shoe leather! Good luck with it and let us know how you get on. Kevin

August 12th, 2004, 08:53 AM	#6
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Yes, I'd go with the flow here and suggest that the PDX10 is the camera for you. Panasonic very quickly realised that the DVX100 was in pretty desperate need of the modifications that turned it into the A model, which is why you've been offered it at a 'steal' price. The PDX10 does have its limitations, especially in low and difficult lighting, but if you've been reading the threads here you'll know the work-arounds. But your clinching sentence is that you want to shoot in 16:9. Go for the PDX10. tom.

August 27th, 2004, 08:20 AM	#7
Laurence Kingston Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Clermont, FL. Posts: 941	Interlacing isn't that big a deal, even if you are going to film. The standard 3:2 pulldown transfers look just fine. I would be much more worried about low light performance and carrying around some extra lighting. By the way if you really want that 24P film look, DV Film Maker works about as well as Magic Bullet, and you can keep both of your kidneys: http://www.dvfilm.com/maker/index.htm

September 15th, 2004, 05:24 PM	#10
John Hartney Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Elgin, Illinois Posts: 206	Kevin?? __________________ John Hartney Elgin, Illinois USA 847.742.9321

September 18th, 2004, 01:55 AM	#11
Ronald Lee Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 435	The vertical resolution, even letterboxed, should still more than satisfy broadcast TV requirements. I don't see how delivering on miniDV tape would be viewed negatively by broadcasters today.