Frames from DVX100 and VX2000

Frames from DVX100 and VX2000 cameras

John Beale, Nov. 16 2002

This is in no sense a careful experiment, just two frame grabs from a dance event. These two images from the DVX100 and VX2000 were taken at the same time, but from different camera angles. The DVX100 was operated by a friend grabbed at the last minute who had never seen the camera before. The VX2k used a Raynox "0.66x HD" wide converter (a fairly good quality lens). The DVX100 did not need a wide adaptor in this case. The VX2k in this case is probably about 0.5 stops overexposed, meaning it has approximately the sensitivity in interlaced mode as the DVX100 does in progressive scan.

	DVX100 f2.4, 0dB Detail Level -1 Chroma Level -2 Chroma Phase 0 Color Temp 0 Master Ped -5 A.Iris -3 Gamma NORM Skin tone OFF Matrix CINE-LIKE V. detail THIN White Bal. 3.2k 16:9 wide manual focus (preset) 30 frames/sec progressive scan
	VX2000 f2.0, 0dB Color Level +1 Sharp 0 WB shift 0 AE shift -4 AGC Limit 12dB Spotlight mode White Bal: Tungsten 16:9 wide Autofocus 60 fields/sec interlaced

The DVX100 and the VX2000 record in 16:9 modes differently. Both record a standard 720x480 pixel NTSC DV frame, but the DVX uses a letterbox style to record black bars at top and bottom, with only 372 active image lines. The VX2k anamorphically stretches the image to the full 480 scan lines, so it looks "tall and thin" on a standard 4:3 display. In this case I simply cropped the DVX frame to 720x372, and I scaled the VX2k frame vertically in Photoshop to match those dimensions. Both images are still using the non-square, 0.9 aspect DV pixel, but at least now they are directly comparable. Both images are "full frame" without field interpolation. You do not see the interlaced comb-type motion artifact on the VX2k example which you would normally expect, because this is a frozen pose at the end of a dance.

I definitely see a difference in resolution between the two cameras.

Back to main page