Matching PD170 & VX2100 to other cameras

Chris Harvey · December 17th, 2004, 05:16 PM

I probably should go that route and upgrade to the pd170 first. My question remains the same since the image of the 2100 and 170 should be the same. Besides the 170/2100 performing slightly better in low-light situations, is there any noticeable difference in the image quality between the vx2000 and the pd170/vx2100? Is anyone using this combination of cameras, and if so, have you had any problem matching the image?

Chris

Rick Barry · December 17th, 2004, 05:37 PM

I still think you will be wasting your money purchasing a VX2100 when you already have a very similar camera in the VX2000. See this posting on these boards:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31153

Given that both of your options will be "mismatched" (and I say that in the loosest of terms), why not take advantage of the major benefits the pd170 will give you.

Alan Christensen · December 20th, 2004, 03:33 PM

I have a VX2000, VX2100, and PD170. I purchased them in that order, with the PD170 being a recent purchase. I'd recommend the PD170 as your second purchase as the audio is just so much more versatile.

The video shot with all three cameras is identical if you manually white balance them under the same light and if the custom presets are adjusted similarly or turned off completely.

I have a TRV-22 that I also use as a backup camera. The color matches pretty well with it, but the color saturation and general quality of the picture is not on the same level as the other three cams. Thus I can spot the TRV footage even when I play around in post to trim up the differences. It is however, much closer to the VX series than our old Optura Pi which couldn't be made to match no matter what you did in post.

You shouldn't worry a bit about matching the video from any of these three cameras.

Ray Saavedra · April 12th, 2005, 08:22 PM

For those that own both these cams and do wedding events. How do you guys match these two cams before shooting the reception?

I usually WB both of them with the same card at the same distance. Sometime I set it to auto WB. Both cams has the same setting. On the PD170 I use to have the ire setting to 7.5 but recently change it to 0. The VX2100 seems to have blacker black than the PD170. Does anyone know what the ire setting on a VX2100.

My problem is during the reception when the house lights dims and I have to use manual gain and exposure. The PD170 has independent control and sometime set it to F1.6 and 12dB as an example. But as everyone knows, you can't set the VX2100 the same way. It's OPEN and 12dB. So it is much brighter than the PD. How do you guys deal with these? How do you guys set your PD and VX.

Also, as a test I put both on auto mode and the VX has blacker black. Is it just the LCD?

TIA,
JR

Mike Rehmus · April 13th, 2005, 10:17 PM

The IRE setting does nothing to the recorded signal. DV is 0 IRE. The setup is if you want to drive an U.S. based NTSC receiver.

You cannot use the flip-out LCD for accurate work even if you calibrate it. If you look at the outputs on a calibrated CRT monitor, they should look the same (try flipping the IRE setting on the 170 either way . . . one should make it match the 2100).

With my uncalibrated eyes, I much prefer to look at a waveform monitor when matching cameras. I know, they are hard to carry on a wedding, eh?

J. Stephen McDonald · April 15th, 2005, 12:13 AM

According to what I've read, the VX2100 has slightly more sensitive CCDs than the PD170. The VX2100 was given these CCDs as an upgrade from the VX2000, but the PD170 has the same CCDs as the PD150/VX2000.

You could always do some extensive practicing with these two models while they are wired live to the same monitor. Keep trying various settings at different light levels, while you switch between the two. Eventually, you could learn to work them so you could choose balanced settings. Play them like musical instruments, instead of by the numbers, like you would with high-end pro models, that have full manual controls with fine degrees of adjustment. Or, borrow a wave-form monitor and see if you can match them better with that. Probably, using both methods
would be best.

Mike Rehmus · April 15th, 2005, 12:54 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by J. Stephen McDonald : According to what I've read, the VX2100 has slightly more sensitive CCDs than the PD170. The VX2100 was given these CCDs as an upgrade from the VX2000, but the PD170 has the same CCDs as the PD150/VX2000.

That isn't what Sony said at the introduction IIRC. And as far as anyone can tell, and what Sony said early on, the CCDs aren't more sensitive, the post-processing system is more noise-free.

The low light images I've seen from both 'sets' of cameras shows images with no difference in luminance but a noticable difference in image noise.

Pete Wilie · June 16th, 2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Christensen

I have a VX2000, VX2100, and PD170.

Alan,

Your post turned up in a search I did on VX2100 and PD170. Since you own both cameras, can you comment on the video quality between the two cameras?

It has been reported by some that the VX2100 produces less video noise. Can you confirm/refute this report?

TIA.

Best Regards,
Pete

Tom Hardwick · June 17th, 2005, 07:13 AM

Another one of those floating myths. It would cost Sony more to downgrade one over the other, and for what possible gain?

Alan Christensen · June 20th, 2005, 11:47 PM

I have all three cameras, a 2000, a 2100, and a 170. I think the 2000 takes some of the best video of the three. It seems just a bit sharper than the other two when all three are in default settings. I sometimes wonder if maybe Sony's lens quality has declined a bit from the early days...

The VX-2000's only problem is that it has a tendency to overexpose in bright outdoor lighting. The 2100 does this less, and the 170 least of all using default settings. I typically compensate for the slight tendency to overexpose on the 2000 by dialing back the custom preset on the 2000 by one notch.

The differences that I am noting are very slight, and shouldn't be taken as a reason to buy one vs another.

I do find it very easy to match the colors of the cameras by doing a manual white balance with all three cameras at the same spot under the same lighting. Once I have done this, the resulting video from all three cams can be edited together and you won't notice any color shift at all when switching from one to another.

I haven't compared the cameras in candlelight type conditions. My guess is that the 170 and the 2100 would do a bit better than the 2000 in this situation.

Tom Hardwick · June 21st, 2005, 01:12 AM

Interesting, as both my VX2000s have to have their exposure settings dropped by two notches in the custom presets. This does two things - it means smaller apertures are used outside in strong sunlight, so that even with both NDs in place I often have to double the shutter speed to keep away from f/8 and smaller.

Next, it enables the camera to work in darker places before gain-up is applied. This is quite a bonus.

So I get less washed out footage, less burn-out of the highlights and all's well.

tom.

Jeff Toogood · June 22nd, 2005, 11:48 AM

How hard would it be to use footage from both of these cameras and match it up in post?
The reason I ask is because I just got an insane offer to buy a friend's complete XL1S kit, the deal is SO good I can't pass it up.

Mike Rehmus · June 22nd, 2005, 03:03 PM

Apparently not too easy. Do a search on the forums for 'matching cameras' and see what you find. This discussion has been captured here several times.

Robin Davies-Rollinson · June 22nd, 2005, 03:29 PM

As an exercise, I matched up my FX1 with the XL1s a few weeks ago with no problems.
I just used the colour correction tools in Avid, but you could do the same with Vegas or FCP (and others...)
It really didn't take very long; but in reality, I don't think that I could really be bothered to have to render a lot of footage ;-)

Robin

Eric Chan · June 22nd, 2005, 04:28 PM

What about the sharpness of the images? I had tried to mix images btw 170 and GL2 and I found out that images produced by GL2 looks much sharper than the 170s. Do ppl use the custom preset and pump up the sharpness setting on the 170 to match better with Canon's camera, specifically GL2?

April 12th, 2005, 08:22 PM	#19
Ray Saavedra Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 127	Matching PD170 and VX2100 For those that own both these cams and do wedding events. How do you guys match these two cams before shooting the reception? I usually WB both of them with the same card at the same distance. Sometime I set it to auto WB. Both cams has the same setting. On the PD170 I use to have the ire setting to 7.5 but recently change it to 0. The VX2100 seems to have blacker black than the PD170. Does anyone know what the ire setting on a VX2100. My problem is during the reception when the house lights dims and I have to use manual gain and exposure. The PD170 has independent control and sometime set it to F1.6 and 12dB as an example. But as everyone knows, you can't set the VX2100 the same way. It's OPEN and 12dB. So it is much brighter than the PD. How do you guys deal with these? How do you guys set your PD and VX. Also, as a test I put both on auto mode and the VX has blacker black. Is it just the LCD? TIA, JR __________________ junray@yahoo.com

April 13th, 2005, 10:17 PM	#20
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	The IRE setting does nothing to the recorded signal. DV is 0 IRE. The setup is if you want to drive an U.S. based NTSC receiver. You cannot use the flip-out LCD for accurate work even if you calibrate it. If you look at the outputs on a calibrated CRT monitor, they should look the same (try flipping the IRE setting on the 170 either way . . . one should make it match the 2100). With my uncalibrated eyes, I much prefer to look at a waveform monitor when matching cameras. I know, they are hard to carry on a wedding, eh? __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

April 15th, 2005, 12:13 AM	#21
J. Stephen McDonald Major Player Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 909	According to what I've read, the VX2100 has slightly more sensitive CCDs than the PD170. The VX2100 was given these CCDs as an upgrade from the VX2000, but the PD170 has the same CCDs as the PD150/VX2000. You could always do some extensive practicing with these two models while they are wired live to the same monitor. Keep trying various settings at different light levels, while you switch between the two. Eventually, you could learn to work them so you could choose balanced settings. Play them like musical instruments, instead of by the numbers, like you would with high-end pro models, that have full manual controls with fine degrees of adjustment. Or, borrow a wave-form monitor and see if you can match them better with that. Probably, using both methods would be best. __________________ Steve McDonald https://onedrive.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/ http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos

April 15th, 2005, 12:54 AM	#22
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	<<<-- Originally posted by J. Stephen McDonald : According to what I've read, the VX2100 has slightly more sensitive CCDs than the PD170. The VX2100 was given these CCDs as an upgrade from the VX2000, but the PD170 has the same CCDs as the PD150/VX2000. That isn't what Sony said at the introduction IIRC. And as far as anyone can tell, and what Sony said early on, the CCDs aren't more sensitive, the post-processing system is more noise-free. The low light images I've seen from both 'sets' of cameras shows images with no difference in luminance but a noticable difference in image noise. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

June 22nd, 2005, 11:48 AM	#27
Jeff Toogood Major Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: St.Thomas, Ontario, CANADA Posts: 428	Matching PD170 to XL1S? How hard would it be to use footage from both of these cameras and match it up in post? The reason I ask is because I just got an insane offer to buy a friend's complete XL1S kit, the deal is SO good I can't pass it up. __________________ Toogood Studios

December 17th, 2004, 05:16 PM	#16
Chris Harvey Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: North Dakota Posts: 72	I probably should go that route and upgrade to the pd170 first. My question remains the same since the image of the 2100 and 170 should be the same. Besides the 170/2100 performing slightly better in low-light situations, is there any noticeable difference in the image quality between the vx2000 and the pd170/vx2100? Is anyone using this combination of cameras, and if so, have you had any problem matching the image? Chris

December 17th, 2004, 05:37 PM	#17
Rick Barry New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Cheshire, U.K. Posts: 7	I still think you will be wasting your money purchasing a VX2100 when you already have a very similar camera in the VX2000. See this posting on these boards: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31153 Given that both of your options will be "mismatched" (and I say that in the loosest of terms), why not take advantage of the major benefits the pd170 will give you.

December 20th, 2004, 03:33 PM	#18
Alan Christensen Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: California Posts: 139	I have a VX2000, VX2100, and PD170. I purchased them in that order, with the PD170 being a recent purchase. I'd recommend the PD170 as your second purchase as the audio is just so much more versatile. The video shot with all three cameras is identical if you manually white balance them under the same light and if the custom presets are adjusted similarly or turned off completely. I have a TRV-22 that I also use as a backup camera. The color matches pretty well with it, but the color saturation and general quality of the picture is not on the same level as the other three cams. Thus I can spot the TRV footage even when I play around in post to trim up the differences. It is however, much closer to the VX series than our old Optura Pi which couldn't be made to match no matter what you did in post. You shouldn't worry a bit about matching the video from any of these three cameras.

June 17th, 2005, 07:13 AM	#24
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Another one of those floating myths. It would cost Sony more to downgrade one over the other, and for what possible gain?

June 20th, 2005, 11:47 PM	#25
Alan Christensen Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: California Posts: 139	I have all three cameras, a 2000, a 2100, and a 170. I think the 2000 takes some of the best video of the three. It seems just a bit sharper than the other two when all three are in default settings. I sometimes wonder if maybe Sony's lens quality has declined a bit from the early days... The VX-2000's only problem is that it has a tendency to overexpose in bright outdoor lighting. The 2100 does this less, and the 170 least of all using default settings. I typically compensate for the slight tendency to overexpose on the 2000 by dialing back the custom preset on the 2000 by one notch. The differences that I am noting are very slight, and shouldn't be taken as a reason to buy one vs another. I do find it very easy to match the colors of the cameras by doing a manual white balance with all three cameras at the same spot under the same lighting. Once I have done this, the resulting video from all three cams can be edited together and you won't notice any color shift at all when switching from one to another. I haven't compared the cameras in candlelight type conditions. My guess is that the 170 and the 2100 would do a bit better than the 2000 in this situation.

June 21st, 2005, 01:12 AM	#26
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	Interesting, as both my VX2000s have to have their exposure settings dropped by two notches in the custom presets. This does two things - it means smaller apertures are used outside in strong sunlight, so that even with both NDs in place I often have to double the shutter speed to keep away from f/8 and smaller. Next, it enables the camera to work in darker places before gain-up is applied. This is quite a bonus. So I get less washed out footage, less burn-out of the highlights and all's well. tom.

June 22nd, 2005, 03:03 PM	#28
Mike Rehmus Wrangler Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vallejo, California Posts: 4,049	Apparently not too easy. Do a search on the forums for 'matching cameras' and see what you find. This discussion has been captured here several times. __________________ Mike Rehmus Hey, I can see the carrot at the end of the tunnel!

June 22nd, 2005, 03:29 PM	#29
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	As an exercise, I matched up my FX1 with the XL1s a few weeks ago with no problems. I just used the colour correction tools in Avid, but you could do the same with Vegas or FCP (and others...) It really didn't take very long; but in reality, I don't think that I could really be bothered to have to render a lot of footage ;-) Robin

June 22nd, 2005, 04:28 PM	#30
Eric Chan Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 60	What about the sharpness of the images? I had tried to mix images btw 170 and GL2 and I found out that images produced by GL2 looks much sharper than the 170s. Do ppl use the custom preset and pump up the sharpness setting on the 170 to match better with Canon's camera, specifically GL2?