Sony HVR-AU1 vs. DSR-PDX10

D

Dave Alvin

Member
Hi, this my first post!

Okay, so obviously one camera is HDV and one is SD. I know that already, but here is what I am thinking;

1-The PDX 10 is 3 chip, so the colors should be better, right? Or is the AU1's CMOS single chip able to reproduce the colors equally (or better)?

2-Both can be purchased for about the same at B&H and both have features that are very important for me;
True 16:9
XLR inputs
Approximately the same low light performance
Low cost

3-I won't really be working in HD right now, but I know that is the way of the future. But is HDV definitely part of the big picture, or is it just the flavor of the month. And since distribution and editing seems problematic right now, why not stay with SD for a little longer and wait for it all to be worked out in the next couple of years? I'd like HD, but I have been working with SD and the results are very good.

Please let me know what you think about my questions/comments. I need to buy a camcorder very soon, so any opinions from other users would be greatly appreciated. If I could I would get the HVR-ZU1, as that would meet all of my requirements, but the price is like double what these other two cost.

Thanks in advance!
 
If you compare HDV to SD (as many others do) this means two things:
1. The HDV promotion strategy, marketing and technology has (currently) failed.
2. You don't appreciate or need high definition or you just can't take advantage of it.

I have only seen some footage from A1U and I didn't like it (although the human factor was unknown) compared to my Z1 (or FX1) but I haven't seen footage from PDX10.

So my guess is:
A1U advantages:
1. A bit swallower DOF because of the larger CCD (1/3" vs 1.47") -if you need it.
2. Sharper SD even if you just shoot at SD mode (instead of shoot-edit-convert from HDV).
3. You can switch to HDV later when you change your mind but then there will be much better models available so you'll probably sell it before switching to HDV.
4. If you don't mind torturing yourself now with shooting-editing-rendering-converting in HDV you'll have the advantage of using the current footage later when SD will be dead (yes, it will die for good in 5 years or so, eventhough HDV is temporary).

PDX10 advantages:
1. Much better noise (grain) performance in low light (because of the larger pixels even if the CCD is smaller and even if the beamsplitter decreases light).
2. Better color performance.
3. Less ugly sharpness effects like black outlines in high contrast scenes.
4. Greater latitude -easier exposure, less clipped highlights or crushed blacks.
5. Better sound quality (if you can take advantage of it).
6. Less motion artifacts.
7. Fast and easier editing, less damaged frames from a possible drop.

Personally I would choose FX1 to have all advantages regarding image quality (except FX1's larger size) even if it doesn't have XLR inputs. XLR serves two purposes: It accepts XLR connectors and eliminates noise pickup. You can have both if you add a small portable preamp with XLR inputs. The audio recording in tape might not be of the same quality as in PDX10 but you'll notice the difference only if you do some serious audio capture/work.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. You make some great points. I don't think HDV is going to last, but of course SD's days are obviously numbered, too. The thing is, most people are still shooting SD.

Anyone know about the 16:9 capabilities on the Panasonic 100B? I'm more concerned about 16:9 than using HD right now. That seems to more of an immediate concern.
 
I used the Sony 950 which is the consumer version of the PDX10 to shot over 75 weekly sermons for our church with no trouble. I did notice a little problem in the "low light" area. But the videos were more than useable when converted to DVDs.

I moved up to a Panny DVX-100A, using both the squeeze and adaptor for 16.9. I found both put out great pictures (ie video) and there should be no reason that the 100B doesn't work as well or even better. It depends on what and where your final product will be going as to which you would use. I found for the church videos, that the squeeze was great and I didn't need to us the 16.9 adaptor, but had I been wanting to take the video to film, then it would have been the adaptor.

Hope this helps.
 
Proteus said:
If you compare HDV to SD (as many others do) this means two things:
1. The HDV promotion strategy, marketing and technology has (currently) failed.
2. You don't appreciate or need high definition or you just can't take advantage of it.

I have only seen some footage from A1U and I didn't like it (although the human factor was unknown) compared to my Z1 (or FX1) but I haven't seen footage from PDX10.

So my guess is:
A1U advantages:
1. A bit swallower DOF because of the larger CCD (1/3" vs 1.47") -if you need it.
2. Sharper SD even if you just shoot at SD mode (instead of shoot-edit-convert from HDV).
3. You can switch to HDV later when you change your mind but then there will be much better models available so you'll probably sell it before switching to HDV.
4. If you don't mind torturing yourself now with shooting-editing-rendering-converting in HDV you'll have the advantage of using the current footage later when SD will be dead (yes, it will die for good in 5 years or so, eventhough HDV is temporary).

PDX10 advantages:
1. Much better noise (grain) performance in low light (because of the larger pixels even if the CCD is smaller and even if the beamsplitter decreases light).
2. Better color performance.
3. Less ugly sharpness effects like black outlines in high contrast scenes.
4. Greater latitude -easier exposure, less clipped highlights or crushed blacks.
5. Better sound quality (if you can take advantage of it).
6. Less motion artifacts.
7. Fast and easier editing, less damaged frames from a possible drop.

Personally I would choose FX1 to have all advantages regarding image quality (except FX1's larger size) even if it doesn't have XLR inputs. XLR serves two purposes: It accepts XLR connectors and eliminates noise pickup. You can have both if you add a small portable preamp with XLR inputs. The audio recording in tape might not be of the same quality as in PDX10 but you'll notice the difference only if you do some serious audio capture/work.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
I Respect Proteous's opinion, but I think he's about 100 percent wrong on several counts.

(1) HDV is very far from gone, it will be the standard for many years to come. From the logical side, hundreds of millions to billions have gone into developing for this standard.. no one is going to walk away from that investment. .not the camera makers, not the NLE vendors, etc. Its here for a long time. And I personally think it's miles ahead of DV, and all I hear from the camera makers is more.. more.. more HDV. For all its technical flaws, its still the best thing going. I think this is the same kind of talk I remember about CD's never being able to replace wax because of it's audio "inferiority" (didin't have crackling, etc).

Second, the technology of one CCD is the future. The engineering that goes into a 3 CCD system is a Rube Goldburg. This *I* expect to die a pretty quick death over the next few years. Think about it.. the control you can exert over an IC in sub micron accuracies.. compared to placing 3, then working out the optics to keep the images coherent. That is the definition of a cludge.. But it is a tribute to the manufactures that they could do it so welll for so long. I've personally got a HVR-A1U and a Z1 (which I am selling to buy a Canon XL-H1), because it has many advantages.. the performace and picture is really pretty close (honestly.. I can't tell the difference). but the A1U is so easy to run and I would *NEVER EVER* trad it for (obsolete afterthought) FX1. If your trying to do anything serious, sooner or later you will figure out *ALL* prosumer camerase (including the Z1 and the Canon) have really crappy audio, and if you taping anything that you really want to have audio impact, then you need (at a minimum and external preamp mixer and XLR balanced inputs) or a dual system. Which is why I want the canon as they are the only one going for under 10k with LTCs).

Anyway, my 2 cents worth.. the HVR-A1U is a great camera, my only compaints that are real is (1) bottom loading have to take it off a tripod (I can do it in about 30 seconds now. (2) I *WISH* there was a LTC output (2) Manual focus really kinda sucks.. but the auto focus and spot focus work well (thought still a better manual focus is needed for alot of work)..

Good luck on your choice.. I still believe in the long run a great artist can work with crap and an idiot can't make due with the best.. so I wouldn't stress too much.... just buy something and go!
 
yetanotherguy,

wellcome to the forum and thanks for the reply! If my post made you an active poster because "you had to react", I'm glad you did :)

But, I think I've been a little bit misunderstood.

yetanotherguy said:
HDV is very far from gone, it will be the standard for many years to come
Click to expand...

I didn't say HDV is gone, but I wouldn't say "it will be the standard for many years to come" either. I don't know how many years are "many years" but I assume that you mean a decade or more. I said that HDV is temporary and by this i mean that i don't expect it to last more than about 5-7 years from now. Maybe I'm wrong, but there are serious signs that it won't last longer and maybe I'm even optimistic:

a. It is based on MPEG2 which is an old format and has been already *technically* surpassed by the new AVC/h.264 which is far superior in many areas. The MPEG2 won't die very soon though, because of the AVC's disadvantage: It consumes too much processing power for today's computers and the hardware chips will be expensive. But in two-three years these problems will be reduced to a minimum.

b. Sony and Panasonic have already leak information that next year, there will be cameras with this new AVC-HD format.

c. New high capacity media and players are scheduled to be released soon: Blu Ray and HD DVD (HD DVD titles and players are already shipping). These new media will actually boost HDV initially because will make HDV raw recording and playback possible (and enjoyable). Although the first format will be the old MPEG2, it will be replaced eventually with AVC (after some years). The AVC has been approved by the DVD Forum and will be supported from the movie industry.

d. Other re-writable media like solid state memory cards (like Panasonic's) will be cheaper in the next years, but HDV's MPEG2 won't be used much because of it's low efficiency (it wastes too many bytes for a given quality). So the convenience and durability of these media along with AVC's high quality and lower bitrate will pair to make a strong combination that will help spread the use of AVC format.

e. Soon there will be (almost) affordable HD cameras that will provide far greater quality than HDV, like RED and Silicon's 1080p, so the professionals or prosumers who bought Z1 or other HDV cameras because they didn't have a choice, now they would switch to these better cameras/formats if they seek quality.

yetanotherguy said:
I think this is the same kind of talk I remember about CD's never being able to replace wax because of it's audio "inferiority" (didin't have crackling, etc).
Click to expand...

That had to do more with the continued waveform of vinyl and smooth cutoff freq. response vs the discrete /quantized sound of the first CD players that lacked supersampling giving fuzzy and blurred highs especially on hard rock music, but that's another story.

yetanotherguy said:
Second, the technology of one CCD is the future. The engineering that goes into a 3 CCD system is a Rube Goldburg. This *I* expect to die a pretty quick death over the next few years. Think about it.. the control you can exert over an IC in sub micron accuracies.. compared to placing 3, then working out the optics to keep the images coherent. That is the definition of a cludge.. But it is a tribute to the manufactures that they could do it so welll for so long.
Click to expand...

Who said the opposite? I agree with you totally! But I prefer the single CCD solution only when it's indeed *better* than the 3-CCD combination that it is trying to replace.

yetanotherguy said:
the performace and picture is really pretty close (honestly.. I can't tell the difference)
Click to expand...

Of course you won't see too much difference in every shot... only on those situations that you need the best camera you can have. But if you are picky and demanding these situations might be too many.
Personally I've been spoiled with some eye-popping HD broadcasts that I used to see and I would be happy (quality-wise) only with a F900, but I can't afford it. I like Z1 (Canon XL H1 has higher res but also higher noise, chromatic aberration etc) but I can't go lower. Recently I saw Silicon's sample clips and I was amazed (a single chip camera). This might be my next camera -for professional work of course.
Take a look: http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/gallery_footage.html

About the sound: Used to listen with DIY electrostatic headphones (supersonic performance, flat response, distortion free etc) to DVD-AUDIO (not ..DVD's audio) (96KHZ - 192KHZ / 24bit vs CD's 44.1KHZ/ 16bit). So I appreciate only that sound. If I had to invest in a separate recording device to capture really excellent quality I would record to this format. If you hear this sound once, you'll loose appreciation to anything less. It's like comparing 2D to 3D.

yetanotherguy said:
I still believe in the long run a great artist can work with crap and an idiot can't make due with the best..
Click to expand...

That's true, but that doesn't mean it won't restrict the artist...and the idiot!...:)

...I did it again... looong post!
 
Last edited:
FWIW (Not a lot perhaps) I've been using both a PDX10P and A1E to capture sd footage, and I have to say the A1E looks cleaner with slightly more saturated colours, and without the PDX10's tendency to flare. Although the "manual focus" on both is dire, thet of the A1E is slightly less dire (If you get what I mean), the "focus ring" is more responsive, and the bigger chip gives shallower DoF making rack-focus more rewarding.

HTH, Dave
 
It's anyone's guess how long HDV will last, but I fell it will because in three short years, the format is selling well and it's being supported by the major NLE and 3rd party makers.

heath
 
I"m for the most part happy with the images I've been getting with my HVR-A1U, and they are almost as good as what you get with the FX1/Z1U 3-chip cameras, the one area where the HVR-A1U falls flat on it's face is in low light... the low light performance pales in comparison to the FX1/Z1U 3-chip cameras. I've been shooting lately with three cameras (the tiny Sony HVR-A1U, the amazing Panasonic AG-HVX200, and the ENG form-factor JVC-GY-H100) the way I look at it is the size of the HVR-A1U is it's charm and I simply have to put up with granier/noisier images if I want to travel with a tiny camcorder. You can't have it all... as they say, performance, quality, price, pick two out of three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top