PDX10 vs TRV950
 

What benefits are there for buying PDX10 vs TRV950 (siblings as near as I can tell)?? Can't get good answer from Sony people or literature. What I have found through this forum and other research is PDX10 provides "true 16X9" versus masked 16X9 of TRV950 so PDX10 has some benefit there. Also PDX10 comes with XLR features but as others have pointed out I could buy add-on XLR for TRV 950. This forum helped clear up no real benefit to DVCAM format vs MiniDV (other than robustness) so no real benefit to PDX10 there. PDX10 advertises and Margus pointed out 14 Bit DXP (or DSP) which I don't think TRV950 advertises but maybe TRV950 has 14 bit DXP (DSP) and Sony just doesn't want to advertise it vs PDX10. Advice appreciated as always and thanks in advance.

hi Dennis,
that 16:9 mode difference was quite a surprise for me, it's first time i know, where Sony built pro/consumer cameras so differently. Still think they both use 14bit DSP, but not so sure anymore (that guess-yourself game made by guess who?).
pdx10 gives you +48V phantom through xlr adaptor (not sure if third-party adapters can do), possibility to control both audio channels separately, and b/w viewfinder instead of color wf.
It's your desicion if these things are worth these additional bucks or not. Or maybe someone who have used both 2000 and pd150 can tell opinion. These last differences are similar to 2000/pd150.

regards, Margus

PDX10 and TRV950
 

Hi Margus and thanks for taking time to help out learning novice. I learned quite a bit by doing a search on your previous posts covering wide range of topics including the "grumpy old beer drinking bear" relating to IBC-- maybe just poetic license on your part! Regards, Dennis

Dennis

If you want to see TRV950E clips using an Optex anamorphic I have uploaded some clips for you to examine. Both avi files have been winrar'd over 4 files (self extracting) and you will need the four parts of each to extract the avi. They are both PAL FHA aspect so you will need to set your NLE to widescreen mode prior to importing them. Also included is a picture of the rig they were shot with.

download from here -->

http://briefcase.yahoo.com
login = agentpurpleone
password = matrix

for files part1, part2, part4
in the folder trv950e

http://briefcase.yahoo.com
login = agentpurpletwo
password = matrix2

for files part3
in the folder trv950e

j

950 does have 14bit DXP
 

The 950 also uses 14bit DXP. This was highly touted in all Sony's early press releases.

Had I known the pdx10 would give the more full 16:9 picture than the cropped 950, I would have been sorely tempted to wait those extra few months past Sony's initial "Summer" release dates for the pd version.

On the other hand, the it's VF has the same spec as the 950's, except in B/W. I haven't seen it, but doubt it's really significantly better for judging focus or exposure values, and otherwise I prefer to see color in the finder.

I want an HD trv960!

Anamorphic J
 

Hello j, and appreciate the effort to download clips and shooting rig photo to show anamorphic TVR950E. I am sorry to admit I am internet and extraction challenged but I am working at downloading and then viewing the clips. Did download and view the shooting rig with descriptive script--very nice. The spirit level idea is the sort of hint appreciated by novices like myself. Instructions you gave are very good and downloading this is probably patently obvious to those skilled in the art as we used to say-- unfortunately at this stage my skills are just one step above the morphic let alone anamorphic. Thanks again.

Psurfer1 ,
I think it is obvious we need a "fix" for the 16:9 difference between the 950 and 10 .As they are the same CCD's and same most everything else the difference must be a software one eh?Surely someone can come up with a way to correct the deficency with software.I hope so anyway :0)
KennJ

"Calling Dr. Moe, Dr. Larry, Dr. Curley..."
 

KennJ, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a home-brewed fix for that one. On the other hand, if you're willing to offer your 950 as sacrificial guinea pig, then I'm sure some crackpot --I mean electronics wizard-- on the web would be more than happy to dissect it. Who knows?

Tell ya what I'll do :0)
Once this one hits the floor or the lens cracks I will gratuetously pass it on to the closest electronic hack in my area for a go round.
KennJ

TRV950 vs PDX10 in 16x9
 

Hello,
I am wondering if the PDX-10 and TRV950 handle 16x9 the same? I was told by someone who owns both cameras that the PDX10 offers the higher (680,000) pixel count, where as the 950 crops 16x9 from the (680,00 4x3).
If anyone knows for sure, your comments are much appreciated.
Many thanks,

Brian Broz

I heard the same thing Brian.... My camera is on it's way but with everything I have read about the camera wbay you state here is correct with the addition that in 16X9 the PDX-10 uses all of it's pixels to formulate true 16X9 which the 950 doesn't do.

Take a look at this link. Using a little reverse engineering the author attempts to divine the number of pixels used in both 4:3 and 16:9 modes on both the PDX-10 and TRV-950. You will have to draw your own conclusions. On the boards at dv.com several people have questioned the validity of his methods.

However, he makes a convincing case that the PDX-10 uses more pixels when shooting in 16:9 mode, and downsamples the results to produce a full 720x480 anamorphic 16:9 image. When you switch to 16:9 mode on the PDX-10 I can tell you that the field of view actually widens. I haven't used a TRV-950.

But the interesting thing is that he calculates pixel dimensions of 944x528 when shooting in 16:9 on the TRV-950. That would still be enough to downsample a full 720x480 anamorphic frame. His example shows that the 16:9 image is cropped within the 4:3 rectangle however. His calculations show 1152x648 pixels being used in 16:9 mode on the PDX-10.

Your guess is as good as anyone else's as to why Sony would do this... perhaps as an incentive for people to buy the PDX-10. Of course there are plenty of other reasons to choose the PDX-10, like the pro audio, BW viewfinder, DVCAM recording, etc....

The problem with that link is that the poster doesn't even know if the TRV950 he's comparing is PAL or NTSC, so until you get a valid side-by-side comparison it's not very useful.

I can, however, verify this for you: the TRV950 does not get wider when going to 16:9. The image width stays precisely the same whether in 4:3 or 16:9.

That would imply that perhaps they do indeed process 16:9 differently. This different-feature-set situation is not necessarily a "first"; the DSR200A was the professional DVCAM version of the VX1000, and the NTSC DSR200A had 16:9 mode, whereas the NTSC VX1000 never did offer it. (even though it was only a software change, and I believe various RM-95 hackers enabled 16:9 on their VX1000's, so the code was in there, but Sony purposely limited it to being available on the DSR200 only. I believe the PAL version of the VX1000 always had 16:9).

Here are some frame grabs from either camera.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.big.or.jp%2F%257Ea_haru%2Findex.html&lp=ja_en

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/urltrurl?tt=url&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/exknow2002au/index.html&lp=ja_en

http://www.greenmist.com/pdx10/

The matter of the PDX10 and the TRV950
 

This is probably one of those questions that got it's answer well over a year ago, but I just gotta know so here it goes:

Anyone know if the bodies of the PDX10 and TRV950 are made of the same stuff? Or is the 950 consumer grade plastic?
Thanks,
Shawn

Both cameras are the same. Same lens and chip assemblies, same body, same in-built mikes. The PDX has no pop-up flashgun, but it does have the XLR adapter, two lens hoods and DV CAM recording (no LP mode though).

The PD100 used far more metal in its constuction, but the PDX10 at 1.42kg is no lightweight.

tom.

Gotcha, thanks Tom. I actually shoot with the PDX10, but couldn't find a succinct answer on materials used for the 950.

RELATED QUESTION
 

Here's another one.

Do the 950 and the PDX10 come out of the same manufacturing plant or whatever you call them, or are there separate professional and consumer "branches"? What I'm really wondering is if there are different quality standards that might be exemplified by these two units........

Shawn

I can't answer you for sure Shawn but my guess would be 99% that both camcorders would roll down the same assembly line. They have the same chassis and body panels, same lens/chip blocks and the small differences (XLR adapter, flash gun, body colour) are easy to keep track of.

To keep production numbers high, and therefore unit costs low Sony would run them together. The 16:9 is probably blocked on the TRV950 and can be unblocked by those with the firmware upgrades - I wouldn't have thought it worth Sony's time to design different PCBs or CPUs for the two cameras.

Again it's Sony's ability to subdivide the niche market that keeps them ahead of the competition. Any buyer - at whatever level and price-point - can walk into a Sony shop and find a camcorder that fits him. No other manufacturer can say that with such distain.

tom.

Makes sense to me, Tom. Thank you.

TRV950 or PDX10?
 

Dear friends,

I will make a 1.5 year around the wolrd trip. I want to take small semi professional camera to document the trip and make a program for TV afterwards + before I will go for the trip I want to make short 15 min movie

I want to choose between the 2 cameras:
- sony pdx10p - $2000
- sony trv950e - $2550

The difference in cost is something for me. I am afraid that the camcoder will be stolen somewhere on the way and I will have to buy a new one, so chepaer is interesting. On the other side I would like to have better performance - to be sure that televison will accept the material. Is the difference (DVCAM, 16x9, ...?) worth paying? Is there any difference in low-light conditions between the two?

I would appreciate your help enormously, as I am great enthusiast, but still a novice.

j.

Well, its usually better to pre-sell your show to a broadcaster if you want to get something on TV, but anyways..

Which broadcaster and which country?

If it's Europe, you would need to shoot in 16:9 as that is their preferred format. Now, it doesn't matter for North America really, although some broadcasters will tell you 4:3, but you can still get them to do 16:9.

That being the case, you should go with the PDX10. Where are you going to buy it? ITs funny, even though the price has dropped faster than the 950, its a better camera.

The 950 doesn't do 16:9 the same as the PDX10 as well??? I think I read something here (I'm new to this forum as well). It's a crop job? Did someone come up with a reliable hack for this, that won't screw up the camera, as they use the same chips as the PDX10?

Big thanks for fast reply!

Country Poland. Sorry for a silly question, I thougt the television here (PAL) uses 4:3, not 16:9 (I might have learned from wrong sources)?

I will buy it in US (still PAL version). PDX10 offered by www.bhphotovideo.com and TRV950 by www.profeelvideo.com. I have bought my still camera there, everything fine. Resonable prices, no issues.

Is 16:9 - the only aspect in which PDX10 is better?

j.

Hello,

PDX-10 also has pro audio inputs (xlr connectors) and can record using DVCAM..Probably worth spending the extra money..

Mike M.

Thanks again.

Some additional explanation. My end-goal is a material for TV. I think I will also have scenes in rooms, evening, etc. (Does it mean low light conditions?) I will not buy PD150 or VX2100 because for size is even more important criterion. (I will carry it everyday for 1.5 years)

Some additional questions:
1. Do I need 16:9?
In television (Poland) they told me that most of materials are still delivered in 4:3. Why do you think this feature is so important?
2. Is there any difference between the two camcoders in low-light conditions? If yes I will definately buy better.
3. Do I need DVCAM? - Is it worth paying additional $550 for having PDX10?

j.

I would pick the PDX-10 for its better audio.

The TRV950 audio (from the on board mic) is better than a typical consumer camcorder but does pick up a great deal of the camera noise, fingers poking around, etc.

Also, why not consider the GL2? Similar in price and offers some features that neither of the above offer.

PS - I own (in shop at moment) the TRV950 and have tested the GL2 pretty thoroughly.

If I had to do it again I would probably go GL2....

Your Canon GL2 consideration added six new dimensions that I will need to consider now. Anybody agrees that Canon GL2, could be alternative for both pdx10 and trv950?

j.

jakub:

i think you have the prices reversed...

If you really want to sell to a broadcaster, and it seems like you haven't looked into that yet, what I would suggest is talking either to someone who has (i.e. a producer) or calling the broadcaster you want to sell to and ask for guidelines.

Then you can get their delivery specs at the same time, 16:9 or 4:3.

Really, selling homemade completed shows on spec like this is a crap shoot.

I hate it when people don't answer the question asked, but here I am about to do it . ;)

Have you considered a VX2100? It's bigger and heavier, yes, than a PDX10, but roughly comparable in price. I use a VX2000 for travel videography and find it's manageable. The primary advantage of the VX2000 over something like the PDX10 or the TRV950 is its stunning low-light capability -- you'll be able to shoot anywhere, and I mean _anywhere_. I'll defer to the pros on this group, but I think the video quality is far better than the TRV950 and more than good enough for commercial television.

Paul, I have a VX-2000 and PDX-10. They are both very nice, but also very different. If you want to shoot 16:9 then you really can't beat the PDX-10; it's way better than the VX-2000. If you just want 4:3 then I'd agree that the VX-2000 is a bit better. But like you point out, the major difference is low light capability. The audio on the PDX-10 (although VX-2100 may have improved) is way better, with XLR's and a better on-camera mike.

Weight would be the other big factor though, the PDX-10 is much smaller and lighter and you can remove the mike and XLR box to make is even smaller (it will still record thru builtin stereo mikes). But one could also argue that the feel of the VX-2000 is more solid and well-balanced (plus I wish the PDX-10 had a handle).

You also have a much nicer, bigger, brighter higher res LCD panel on the PDX-10 or TRV-950. To answer the original question though, personally I think the PDX-10 additional features are well worth the extra $500 as compared with the TRV-950. (I'm also assuming that you have their prices reversed in your inital posting)

Boyd nails it. But back to your original question Jakub.
There's no difference in the low-light capability between the TRV950 and the PDX10, but the 950 does have a little flash gun that's very handy for stills. Very handy because of the poor low light performance.

The PDX10 also has a much better wide-angle in the 16:9 mode, and the 950 doesn't have any wide-angle at all. It's the equivalent of a 49mm on a still camera. Hopeless.

The PDX will only shoot for 40 mins in DVCAM (same A/V quality as DV of course) whereas the 950 will shoot for 90 mins in LP if you're pushed into a corner. Same quality as DVCAM of course.

If you're serious about 16:9 and decent XLR audio (and want to take advantage of both) then there's no contest - the PDX it is.

tom.