DV-List: Perry's PD-150 tests

.footer { }

Knowledge

Hardware

Software

DV-Movies

HowTo

Misc

A DV(L)-FAQ [e]

DVL-Digest 541 - Postings:
Index

Perry's PD-150 tests

Perry's PD-150 tests - "Perry"

Barry G. posted:
>The visual difference in sharpness is stunning. Looking at the doll's
toes and the bear's fingers, the difference is so significant it almost
looks like the VX-1000 is slightly out of focus. In your opinion, would
you attribute the better picture to the electronics (CCD's and DSP's etc),
or the new lens, or the (likely) deeper depth of field on the PD-150?<
(Perry)I would put most of this down to the increased d.o.f. due to the
increased sensitivity and hence smaller aperture (I had turned off the auto
shutter). There is also significantly less softening anti-aliasing optical
filtering on the later camera.
>The sharpness test was incredible - the PD-150, on "minimum" sharpness,
was clearer and resolving more lines than the VX-1000 on "maximum"
sharpness, with no aliasing... although the contrast seems to have gone to
pot.<
(Perry)Don't think I agree with you Barry! The 'minimum' values for both
cameras are very similar until the VX1000 optical anti-alias filter clearly
restricts the resolution at about '8' on my arbitrary scale. The
antialiasing on the PD150 has a minimal effect on resolution, even at '10'.
The range of sharpness adjustment is much higher on the PD150, so that the
'medium' sharpness is about the same as the VX1000 on maximum; you can
clearly see quite a bit of overshoot on the PD150 (white halo to black
bars). Most particularly you are seeing considerable aliasing on the PD150
at medium and maximum, whereas the VX1000 is almost clear even at maximum.
The contrast is fairly low to avoid any clipping effects hiding the
overshoots.
>Your resolution chart showing the VX-1000's single-field photo mode was
very illuminating. Do you have the capability to run one more test? I'd
love to see that same resolution chart test, but comparing the PD-150's
normal mode with its 1/30th (or 1/25th) shutter speed mode. At N.A.B., it
just didn't look like 1/30th caused anywhere near as much resolution loss
on the PD-150 as it does on the VX-1000, but it would be nice to see
factual examples<
(Perry) No I don't have the camera anymore but these tests are easy to
conduct if we have another volunteer!
>Finally, your 16:9 picture is downright frightening. It seems like the
momentum on the list had clearly shifted to saying that "fake 16:9" was
okay. Your tests seem to clearly indicate that "fake 16:9" must never be
used, and that Adam Wilt's original advice about "crop it and expand in
post" was right on the money all along.<
(Perry) Agreed! The alternative of using an optical anamorphic adaptor is
the theoretical best but most expensive. I wouldn't say 'fake 16:9' is
unusable, you have to judge it on real pictures; but I think this does
settle the theoretical arguments about which is best. Remember that doing
it in Post does cost a lot of time.
>Thank you very much for taking the time to post this!<
You're welcome!
Perry Mitchell
Video Facilities
http://www.perrybits.co.uk/

(diese posts stammen von der DV-L Mailingliste - THX to Adam Wilt and Perry Mitchell :-)

[up]

last update : 21.Februar 2024 - 18:02 - slashCAM is a project by channelunit GmbH- mail : slashcam@--antispam:7465--slashcam.de - deutsche Version