170 or 250? at DVinfo.net

Patrick Grealy · February 3rd, 2004, 05:18 AM

Hello All

Am considering getting a 2nd camera possibly a 170 (to add to my PDX10) and have come across a 250 at perhaps $1400 more than a 170

Increasingly I find myself filming events with more than one camera and I usually have one on a tripod as a good safety shot and one roaming.

It may be an an open question but would the 250 be worth considering?

The one feature that jumps out at me is being able to use the larger DVCAM tapes with greater tape length.

Also, I need to archive shows I film and each act is usually over 60 minutes long. It would be nice to put a complete show on one tape.

Any other benefits that would justify the price difference?

Are there 4 audio tracks available on the 250?

Regards P

Paul Vlachos · February 3rd, 2004, 09:29 AM

specs are in the pdf located here:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professiona...=57127&d=10000

it says that, "in addition to the front XLR input, the DSR-250 comes with two XLR audio input connectors for connecting professional microphones."

Don Bloom · February 3rd, 2004, 10:04 AM

The front XLR is generally used for the on cam mic (shotgun) and the rear 2 input for either handheld or wireless setups. Much the same as the PD150 which only has 2 XLR's the 250 has the 3 but the 2 rear inputs run to the same channel.
The 250 is VIRTUALLY the same camera as the 150 except of course its full size, can use full size tapes, has better iris control than the 150, easier controls for audio. Remember also that a full size camera also uses different batteries that can run upto $500 each plus a charger.
Pays your money, takes your choice
Don

Jon McLean · February 4th, 2004, 04:31 PM

You can only record two tracks at a time on the 250 although it does have a dub/insert facility if you run the audio in 32KHz mode. I use a 250 and a 150 and I like using the 250 more (nearly double the head hours!).
Hmmmm some reasons why....

It can record for over 4hours in DV mode(274mins).
Has manual controls(switchs/knobs) for a lot of items e.g. audio levels/gain/whitebalance etc that you can get to while shooting.
Standard XLR4 pin external power for those marathon shoots!
Better zoom action (using the rocker).
Better Iris control than the 150 (I think the 170 is now equal?)
Heaps better CRT viewfinder(DXF801) and you still have an LCD if you need it.
Looks the part (depending on who your clients are - might matter - might not).

Of course you still have your PDX10 for the shots the 250 is too big for. See if you can find one to have a play with and go from there.

Law Tyler · February 4th, 2004, 10:06 PM

I have the 250. Wonder when the 270 will come out? Don't really see the need for it, except for the new hood/lens cap.

Is there that much difference in the quality of 150 and 170?

Doug Okamoto · February 5th, 2004, 02:22 AM

Yes there is a big difference between the 150 and 170 in quality. The CCD's in the 170 are the new Advanced HAD chips that have a higher sensitivity and better signal to noise ratio than the 150. The 170 min illumination is 1 lux instead of 2. The LCD is brighter, the viewfinder is bigger (the magnifier is larger too) and the biggest thing for me is the simultaneous operation of the LCD and viewfinder. You don't know how many times I wanted to be able to see both!

HTH

Doug

Patrick Grealy · February 5th, 2004, 03:24 AM

Thanks Guys

I will have a play with the 250 in my local store.

Interestingly, my dealer in the UK tells me that his stock of PD170s now have the HISS audio problem solved.

Should I believe him ?

Regards P

Shawn Mielke · February 5th, 2004, 08:05 PM

I didn't know the 170 has different chips than the 150.

Mike Rehmus · February 5th, 2004, 10:45 PM

That's not what Sony says. They say it is because of improvements in the DSP IRC. They said there were no CCD changes.

Doug Okamoto · February 6th, 2004, 04:54 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : That's not what Sony says. They say it is because of improvements in the DSP IRC. They said there were no CCD changes. -->>>

Hi Mike how ya doing?

When I talked to a Sony person at DV Expo he did state that the PD170 had the Advanced HAD CCD's (and all their literature states that as well) which is fairly recent technology. Are you saying that Sony put new technology onto an old chip design without doing anything to the chips? Inquiring minds want to know! :)

Doug

Law Tyler · February 6th, 2004, 09:44 AM

Yeah, all I want to know is under the exact same lighting level, are the pictures improved on the 170?

Actually I have a 250 and a VX2100, but haven't done any test. Seems pretty close to me.

Mike Rehmus · February 6th, 2004, 12:49 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Okamoto : <<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : That's not what Sony says. They say it is because of improvements in the DSP IRC. They said there were no CCD changes. -->>>

Hi Mike how ya doing?

When I talked to a Sony person at DV Expo he did state that the PD170 had the Advanced HAD CCD's (and all their literature states that as well) which is fairly recent technology. Are you saying that Sony put new technology onto an old chip design without doing anything to the chips? Inquiring minds want to know! :)

Doug -->>>

Doug,

I read that in a Sony press release. It could have been wrong info but they were very specific that the Optical Block had not changed and the improvements were downstream in the image processing bits.

From what I've seen in comparisons between the 150 and the 170, the difference is only in the level of noise present in the image. The 170 image is not lighter as you would expect if the CCDs actually got more sensitive. All Sony claims is that the noise floor is lower and that allows them to SPEC the camera at 1 Lux.

Alan Christensen · February 6th, 2004, 01:02 PM

Mike's observation about it being a noise floor improvement jives with some low light experiments that I have done with my 2100 vs my 2000. The 2100 picture is not brighter in very low light, but it does have less noise. This noise advantage persists for a little while as small amounts of light are added, but then disappears as the light level increases to the point where the noise disappears on the 2000.

Law Tyler · February 6th, 2004, 03:27 PM

In that case, then couldn't some software processing on the computer improve the 150 footage? Would be nice, even though 150 is pretty good most of the time.

Alan Christensen · February 6th, 2004, 04:28 PM

Yes, you can post process noisy video and improve its appearance. For example, applying the "deflicker" setting to a clip in Premiere will remove noise at the expense of some blurring of the horizontal edges. There are specialty software programs that do this even more effectively for still pictures using custom noise profiles for each type of digital camera. They seem to work somewhat better than running a simple noise filter in Photoshop. (They remove noise without getting as much blurring of the edges as you do with simple filters.) Perhaps Sony is doing something along this line, using the noise characteristics of the sensors to eliminate noise to the greatest extent possible. I'm sure a similar thing could be done in post processing. However, the amount of time that it might take to do this sophisticated processing frame by frame might be exhorbitant.

February 3rd, 2004, 05:18 AM	#1
Patrick Grealy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 90	170 or 250? Hello All Am considering getting a 2nd camera possibly a 170 (to add to my PDX10) and have come across a 250 at perhaps $1400 more than a 170 Increasingly I find myself filming events with more than one camera and I usually have one on a tripod as a good safety shot and one roaming. It may be an an open question but would the 250 be worth considering? The one feature that jumps out at me is being able to use the larger DVCAM tapes with greater tape length. Also, I need to archive shows I film and each act is usually over 60 minutes long. It would be nice to put a complete show on one tape. Any other benefits that would justify the price difference? Are there 4 audio tracks available on the 250? Regards P __________________ Sony PDX10 by 2, DRS-11, Dual G5, FCX, DVDSP and Logic Plat. www.VarsityMusicVideo.com

February 3rd, 2004, 09:29 AM	#2
Paul Vlachos Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 88	specs are in the pdf located here: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professiona...=57127&d=10000 it says that, "in addition to the front XLR input, the DSR-250 comes with two XLR audio input connectors for connecting professional microphones." __________________ One day at a time.

February 5th, 2004, 03:24 AM	#7
Patrick Grealy Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 90	Hiss problem solved ?? Thanks Guys I will have a play with the 250 in my local store. Interestingly, my dealer in the UK tells me that his stock of PD170s now have the HISS audio problem solved. Should I believe him ? Regards P __________________ Sony PDX10 by 2, DRS-11, Dual G5, FCX, DVDSP and Logic Plat. www.VarsityMusicVideo.com

February 5th, 2004, 08:05 PM	#8
Shawn Mielke Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Santa Rosa, California Posts: 745	I didn't know the 170 has different chips than the 150. __________________ Breakthrough In Grey Room

February 5th, 2004, 10:45 PM	#9
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	That's not what Sony says. They say it is because of improvements in the DSP IRC. They said there were no CCD changes. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

February 3rd, 2004, 10:04 AM	#3
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	The front XLR is generally used for the on cam mic (shotgun) and the rear 2 input for either handheld or wireless setups. Much the same as the PD150 which only has 2 XLR's the 250 has the 3 but the 2 rear inputs run to the same channel. The 250 is VIRTUALLY the same camera as the 150 except of course its full size, can use full size tapes, has better iris control than the 150, easier controls for audio. Remember also that a full size camera also uses different batteries that can run upto $500 each plus a charger. Pays your money, takes your choice Don

February 4th, 2004, 04:31 PM	#4
Jon McLean Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Palmerston North New Zealand Posts: 44	You can only record two tracks at a time on the 250 although it does have a dub/insert facility if you run the audio in 32KHz mode. I use a 250 and a 150 and I like using the 250 more (nearly double the head hours!). Hmmmm some reasons why.... It can record for over 4hours in DV mode(274mins). Has manual controls(switchs/knobs) for a lot of items e.g. audio levels/gain/whitebalance etc that you can get to while shooting. Standard XLR4 pin external power for those marathon shoots! Better zoom action (using the rocker). Better Iris control than the 150 (I think the 170 is now equal?) Heaps better CRT viewfinder(DXF801) and you still have an LCD if you need it. Looks the part (depending on who your clients are - might matter - might not). Of course you still have your PDX10 for the shots the 250 is too big for. See if you can find one to have a play with and go from there.

February 4th, 2004, 10:06 PM	#5
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	I have the 250. Wonder when the 270 will come out? Don't really see the need for it, except for the new hood/lens cap. Is there that much difference in the quality of 150 and 170?

February 5th, 2004, 02:22 AM	#6
Doug Okamoto Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bellevue, Washington Posts: 145	Yes there is a big difference between the 150 and 170 in quality. The CCD's in the 170 are the new Advanced HAD chips that have a higher sensitivity and better signal to noise ratio than the 150. The 170 min illumination is 1 lux instead of 2. The LCD is brighter, the viewfinder is bigger (the magnifier is larger too) and the biggest thing for me is the simultaneous operation of the LCD and viewfinder. You don't know how many times I wanted to be able to see both! HTH Doug

February 6th, 2004, 04:54 AM	#10
Doug Okamoto Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bellevue, Washington Posts: 145	<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : That's not what Sony says. They say it is because of improvements in the DSP IRC. They said there were no CCD changes. -->>> Hi Mike how ya doing? When I talked to a Sony person at DV Expo he did state that the PD170 had the Advanced HAD CCD's (and all their literature states that as well) which is fairly recent technology. Are you saying that Sony put new technology onto an old chip design without doing anything to the chips? Inquiring minds want to know! :) Doug

February 6th, 2004, 09:44 AM	#11
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	Yeah, all I want to know is under the exact same lighting level, are the pictures improved on the 170? Actually I have a 250 and a VX2100, but haven't done any test. Seems pretty close to me.

February 6th, 2004, 12:49 PM	#12
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Okamoto : <<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : That's not what Sony says. They say it is because of improvements in the DSP IRC. They said there were no CCD changes. -->>> Hi Mike how ya doing? When I talked to a Sony person at DV Expo he did state that the PD170 had the Advanced HAD CCD's (and all their literature states that as well) which is fairly recent technology. Are you saying that Sony put new technology onto an old chip design without doing anything to the chips? Inquiring minds want to know! :) Doug -->>> Doug, I read that in a Sony press release. It could have been wrong info but they were very specific that the Optical Block had not changed and the improvements were downstream in the image processing bits. From what I've seen in comparisons between the 150 and the 170, the difference is only in the level of noise present in the image. The 170 image is not lighter as you would expect if the CCDs actually got more sensitive. All Sony claims is that the noise floor is lower and that allows them to SPEC the camera at 1 Lux. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

February 6th, 2004, 01:02 PM	#13
Alan Christensen Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: California Posts: 139	Mike's observation about it being a noise floor improvement jives with some low light experiments that I have done with my 2100 vs my 2000. The 2100 picture is not brighter in very low light, but it does have less noise. This noise advantage persists for a little while as small amounts of light are added, but then disappears as the light level increases to the point where the noise disappears on the 2000.

February 6th, 2004, 03:27 PM	#14
Law Tyler Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 204	In that case, then couldn't some software processing on the computer improve the 150 footage? Would be nice, even though 150 is pretty good most of the time.

February 6th, 2004, 04:28 PM	#15
Alan Christensen Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: California Posts: 139	Yes, you can post process noisy video and improve its appearance. For example, applying the "deflicker" setting to a clip in Premiere will remove noise at the expense of some blurring of the horizontal edges. There are specialty software programs that do this even more effectively for still pictures using custom noise profiles for each type of digital camera. They seem to work somewhat better than running a simple noise filter in Photoshop. (They remove noise without getting as much blurring of the edges as you do with simple filters.) Perhaps Sony is doing something along this line, using the noise characteristics of the sensors to eliminate noise to the greatest extent possible. I'm sure a similar thing could be done in post processing. However, the amount of time that it might take to do this sophisticated processing frame by frame might be exhorbitant.