Sony PD170 or Panasonic DVX100

Bryan Beasleigh · March 27th, 2004, 07:22 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : We have one forum regular who apparently ruined the 1/8" socket on his new VX2100 with one strain on the cable. That bent the internals of the socket and it required a trip to the shop. I believe he even had a right-angle plug on the end of the cable.

The difference in price between the 2100 and 170 isn't even one screwed up wedding IF you lost the sound because the socket failed. Lots of people use them with no problems so it can be done. But if there were a chance, I KNOW I'd break the socket in the middle of the most important event of the year. -->>>

I agree with mike on this one and had regretted buying the VX2000 for the past year and a half.

Things have turned out for the better though. As some of you know i had the "BBC" mods done and now have audio cleaner than any of the cameras mentioned. All my inputs are through the RCA's now and at line level.

Had it not been for this stroke of luck , I would have bit the bullet and bought a PD170 or a DVX100A sooner than later.

Tung Bui · March 29th, 2004, 04:01 AM

I own a dvx100a and I find that you can optimze for lowlight performance basically by turning up the master pedestal black level and using one of the gamma curves that crushes the black. Also biasing the color temp to orange eliminates alot of grain.

However the consensus seems to be less grain with the vx/pd. I note from another thread here that most guys dont go above 6db anyway ( to avoid mpeg compression showing grain) so the picture with the dvx would still be comparable at this level.

I also observe that on the tv if you turn down contrast and increase brightness you can eliminate alot of grain and see more detail as well. Its something that cost you nothing to do and works.

Just my 2c worth from someone who is very interested in lowlight ( got burnt with a pana mx500 before).

Glen Elliott · March 29th, 2004, 09:08 AM

No matter how you cut it the DVX, albiet a great camera, is not comparable to the PD-170/2100 in low light. Tweaking the black ped./gamma can make the picture appear brighter though it's simply displaying blacks as dark grey. Shadow detail lost from low light is exactly that....lost.

Plus regarding your decription on how to reduce the visibility of noise on a monitor or TV, it may very well help reduce the visibility of grain/noise however that would throw off your real world reference. Your monitor/tv should be calibrated to a standard not till it "looks the best" or "reduces the grain". That way you'd be editing footage that looks fine on your monitors then when it goes out to a client it ends up looking like garbage on theirs. It's best to tweak it image of any monitor/tv to be as "accurate" as possible not for the "best" picture.
If this makes any sense.

Tung Bui · March 29th, 2004, 10:48 AM

Glenn,
I totally agree if you are doing stuff for other people then you should calibrate it to "real life" and standard settings. Note that people can calibrate their tv sets and each tv has its own different look that the manufacturer pre-sets anyway.

I was just making an observation on stuff that I do for personal consumption. I mounted the camera on a tripod and shot my girlfriend reading and tweaked the image with the camera at different tv settings to see what gave the most accurate and least grainy picture.

It does make a huge difference I think and its not complicated to do. Most tvs in their at their factory presets are excessively contrasty and just like with the camera presets, turning down sharpness and exposure will improve the image but of course alter the look.

We talk alot about the camera and the editing in post but the tv is the final link in the chain that we can change.

March 27th, 2004, 07:22 PM	#61
Bryan Beasleigh Trustee Join Date: May 2002 Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,922	<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : We have one forum regular who apparently ruined the 1/8" socket on his new VX2100 with one strain on the cable. That bent the internals of the socket and it required a trip to the shop. I believe he even had a right-angle plug on the end of the cable. The difference in price between the 2100 and 170 isn't even one screwed up wedding IF you lost the sound because the socket failed. Lots of people use them with no problems so it can be done. But if there were a chance, I KNOW I'd break the socket in the middle of the most important event of the year. -->>> I agree with mike on this one and had regretted buying the VX2000 for the past year and a half. Things have turned out for the better though. As some of you know i had the "BBC" mods done and now have audio cleaner than any of the cameras mentioned. All my inputs are through the RCA's now and at line level. Had it not been for this stroke of luck , I would have bit the bullet and bought a PD170 or a DVX100A sooner than later.

March 29th, 2004, 04:01 AM	#62
Tung Bui Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 101	I own a dvx100a and I find that you can optimze for lowlight performance basically by turning up the master pedestal black level and using one of the gamma curves that crushes the black. Also biasing the color temp to orange eliminates alot of grain. However the consensus seems to be less grain with the vx/pd. I note from another thread here that most guys dont go above 6db anyway ( to avoid mpeg compression showing grain) so the picture with the dvx would still be comparable at this level. I also observe that on the tv if you turn down contrast and increase brightness you can eliminate alot of grain and see more detail as well. Its something that cost you nothing to do and works. Just my 2c worth from someone who is very interested in lowlight ( got burnt with a pana mx500 before).

March 29th, 2004, 09:08 AM	#63
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	No matter how you cut it the DVX, albiet a great camera, is not comparable to the PD-170/2100 in low light. Tweaking the black ped./gamma can make the picture appear brighter though it's simply displaying blacks as dark grey. Shadow detail lost from low light is exactly that....lost. Plus regarding your decription on how to reduce the visibility of noise on a monitor or TV, it may very well help reduce the visibility of grain/noise however that would throw off your real world reference. Your monitor/tv should be calibrated to a standard not till it "looks the best" or "reduces the grain". That way you'd be editing footage that looks fine on your monitors then when it goes out to a client it ends up looking like garbage on theirs. It's best to tweak it image of any monitor/tv to be as "accurate" as possible not for the "best" picture. If this makes any sense.

March 29th, 2004, 10:48 AM	#64
Tung Bui Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 101	Glenn, I totally agree if you are doing stuff for other people then you should calibrate it to "real life" and standard settings. Note that people can calibrate their tv sets and each tv has its own different look that the manufacturer pre-sets anyway. I was just making an observation on stuff that I do for personal consumption. I mounted the camera on a tripod and shot my girlfriend reading and tweaked the image with the camera at different tv settings to see what gave the most accurate and least grainy picture. It does make a huge difference I think and its not complicated to do. Most tvs in their at their factory presets are excessively contrasty and just like with the camera presets, turning down sharpness and exposure will improve the image but of course alter the look. We talk alot about the camera and the editing in post but the tv is the final link in the chain that we can change.