I just wondered if any of you have noticed that here in the UK the PD170 price as risen to over £3k at Mitcorp and Creative Video, you would have thought that because of the credit crunch it would have dropped i know its a 1st class camera but with the credit crunch you would have thought it would have dropped a bit in price

It even costs more than the V1 HD camera, anybody now why?

no clue.

i just bought mine of Ebay (used) for $1350 (includes shipping, insurance and a 5 hour battery).

Ian, it just reflects the Pound to Yen exchange rate, and the fact that (most probably) Creative don't stock this fairly ancient camera and have to buy them in one at a time from Sony when customers demand one.

They buy V1s in by the bucketload because the demand for that camera will be far higher. As a result they get them form Sony at a better price. Are you in the market?

tom.

Tom
It may have been around abit now but it still takes some beating, and no iam not in the market for a V1 i much prefere the 170

As a 4:3 camera it does indeed take some beating Ian. It's ability to turn night into day is legendary and it's tough as nails, having been used in war-torn hot-spots all over the world.

But if you switch it into its 16:9 mode then it's easily beaten, and by cameras costing 1/5th of the price (the HV30 for instance). This is down to its age - it was released as the VX2000 9 years ago when 16:9 TVs are few and far between - so its no reflection on the original design concept.

What is it that you film that needs to be in 4:3 these days? And what is it about the PD170 that makes you prefer it to the V1? The latter may have smaller CMOS chips, but in all other respects it is indeed the true PD170 successor, even to having the side rather than the top screen.

tom.

From a thread I created earlier it seems like the Sony Z5 is more the low light champion than the V1 and thus a better follow up from the PD170. I still do lots of corporate stuff in 4:3 and would like to get my PD170 repaired or replaced. I hypothesized that the price is up there with HDV cameras to make customers more likely to take the leap to HD so that they can cease production of professional SD sooner.

What is it that you film that needs to be in 4:3 these days?

tom.

Well I know I am not the OP. But just for the purposes of discussion I will answer this the question....EVERYTHING! TV commercials, corporate videos, web videos, promos,
documentary videos, freelance news, every single thing I shoot. Every single client I have still wants 4:3. I have had almost no requests for HD or 16x9. It really depends on where you are, there are many people out there that are a little resistant to change as they know what they have and don't want to figure out something new. Others just don't have the cash to drop over 1 grand on a new 16x9 HD TV so they stick with their TV they have which works just fine.
Some cable companies and TV stations (every one where I am at) do not even accept
TV spots in HD, they want their 4x3 SD for every spots. They don't want to spend
money upgrading until they have to. There are a LOT of places in the world still
that are happy with their 4x3 SD TV sets and content. Sometimes as 'techies' we
who work in the industry forget this.

Now we all know that eventually HD content with it's 16x9 aspect ratio will take over.
It's the wave of the future, and it WILL be what everyone wants eventually. Right
now, we are in a strange limbo in many areas (especially rural areas). There is the
ABILITY to shoot and deliver HD, but the whole infrastructure surrounding HD
just isn't there yet. When Blu Ray players are as common as DVD players, when HD
TV's are as common as regular TV's, when TV stations and cable companies will
accept HD spots, THEN we will be there and there will be no questions, everyone
will expect HD. Right now, there are pockets of the country that DO have the infrastructure surrounding HD and others that do NOT......actually this probably
applies to to other countries as well, but I know for certain that it applies to the US.
So again, it depends on your market. As for mine, I am shooting EVERYTHING in SD
4x3 and will continue to do so until it is necessary to change. Not because I want to....
believe me, I'd LOVE to jump into HD.....but because it doesn't make business sense for
me to do so. Spend 10 or 15 grand to upgrade to HD only to continue charging the
same prices because no one wants HD yet? Not a good idea for me. But have no
fear, us late adopters will move into HD eventually......we will have to. Until then.....
we'll just get by doing what we've been doing for the last few years.

Well said Gabe

This debate will go on for ages yet and i for one are not convinced about HDV, yes they do produce a better picture in good light but once it falls off not to sure

I have used the Z1, XLH1, FX1, V1 i have handled the Z5, Z7 and all of them barring the canon build quality is more plastic and are'nt as solid as my 170

As for the 16:9 vs 4x3 nobody i speak to is bothered i have asked them do you want it filmed in widescreen and there response is we just want a well shot dvd of there big day

Anyway i have plugged the 170 into both my WS Tv's and it looks very good to my eyes and iam still getting weddings and corporate work with no complaints

I spent thousands on cameras thinking that if i got the all new singing and dancing camera i would be pulled out with work! not true iam getting more now and only using the 170

I will move to Hd one day but at this moment in time i will use my nearly new 170

As for the 16:9 vs 4x3 nobody i speak to is bothered i have asked them do you want it filmed in widescreen and there response is we just want a well shot dvd of there big day


This sounds suspiciously like you're filming weddings Ian (though you don't say you are). Are you honestly saying that couples that can afford your specialist services (as well as all the other costs that go into a wedding) come home from expensive honeymoon and watch your DVD on an old 4:3 CRT?

It's possible, but not probable. A friend of mine here in Essex has just filmed his last wedding on a PD170. No complaints about the picture quality; the camera is quite excellent at the price. But when he went round to see the last couple they showed him 'how your film looks on our big new telly', and of course they were stretching it to fill all that posh plasma real-estate. Result: bride 25% fatter at a stroke. Not good.

Of course couples want 'a well shot film of their day' as you put it. They know you're the expert and that they can leave all the technicalities to you. If you start talking HDV, Blu-ray, 16:9, double layer and so on their eyes will glaze over - they just want it to fill their TV, to be in colour, sharp and with excellent sound.

tom.

This sounds suspiciously like you're filming weddings Ian (though you don't say you are). Are you honestly saying that couples that can afford your specialist services (as well as all the other costs that go into a wedding) come home from expensive honeymoon and watch your DVD on an old 4:3 CRT?

tom.

Again, I am not Ian, but this is EXACTLY what I am saying! Weddings are not a huge
part of my business, but I do a few of them a year, mostly people who take a cruise
to Alaska and want to get married in front of a glacier or such....and some locals as
well, and yes, they do go home and watch the DVD on their old 4:3 CRT TV! There is a
ton of people out there who have not upgraded....maybe I'm just lucky or unlucky
(depending on how you look at it) but my clients, be they brides, corporate, TV stations
or other are not only ok with 4:3 SD but even ask for it many times. I know, hard
to believe with the superiority of 16:9 HD.

My theory is that there is a certain point beyond which most people don't want to pay....they think it's 'good enough' and don't want to pay for more. This comes from my marketing research and seeing which wedding packages couples pick out (Hint, it's not the high end expensive ones in my area anyways) and which commercial packages (again not the high end ones). They want something that is better than the low end stuff but still fairly reasonable....the 'middle of the road' package as it were. And for these people....4:3 DVD's of a wedding or event, or commercial, or documentary
....are just fine.

My point in these posts is....just because your area is all HD 16:9, don't think that the
rest of the world is just like where you live. There is quite a gamut in this area,
some places are all HD ready, others are not....depending on where you live.....rural, urban, rich area, poor area, as with all businesses, your market makes a HUGE difference and in plenty of places, 4:3 SD will be going strong for awhile, especially with the way the economy is right now.....that is my bold prediction for the day.

Again, I am not Ian, but this is EXACTLY what I am saying! and yes, they do go home and watch the DVD on their old 4:3 CRT TV!

The thing is Ian and I live in England, where 16:9 sets have been on sale for 15 years now. I can well believe things are different in your part of the world Gabe and so be it. BTW, 16:9 SD is the norm here - Blu-ray adoption on a majority scale is still a good 4 or 5 years off I reckon.

tom.

The thing is Ian and I live in England, where 16:9 sets have been on sale for 15 years now. I can well believe things are different in your part of the world Gabe and so be it. BTW, 16:9 SD is the norm here - Blu-ray adoption on a majority scale is still a good 4 or 5 years off I reckon.

tom.

Ya, you make a good point there, I don't know how many 16:9 sets are in your area
and it sounds like you guys might be much further along than some places in the
US. But 16:9 SD huh? See that's part of the whole mess in my opinion, way too many
types of video...4:3 SD, 16:9 SD, 720P HD, 1080i HD, 1080p HD, then there is all the
different frame rates as well....24p, 25p, 30p, 60i, 60p (in some cases) it's no wonder
that the average person throws their hands up in disgust. 'Is this TRUE HD or not?'
(As a side note, some companies have taken to calling 1080p 'TRUE HD' as a marketing
ploy). When I travel, I see just about anything and everything as far as what type of
video people 'consume' depending on where I go. There's also this strange co existence
of bigger is better (trying to get people to buy that 62 inch HD set) and smaller is
better (we need you to buy an iPhone with video). I think this whole mess is another reason that some average consumers will just throw their hands up annd go with what they are familiar with.....in some areas that is 4:3 SD, in your area it is probably 16:9 SD.
The whole thing seems very 'marketing' driven as companies search for ways to try to
get us to buy more and more. So just when HD has finally reached a good market
penetration all over the world, and it is as easy to make a Blu Ray and bring it to the
average person to pop into their Blu Ray player and it just works.....and all TV stations
and Cable companies will accept HD spots......that is about the time I figure that we
will all learn that HD is 'worthless' and that what we all REALLY need is 'ultra HD' with
'3D imaging' or some such thing.

Yes they may have been available here for 15 years but 16:9 is not the norm here, i know loads of people who still have old tv's and will only upgrade when they go bang and that could be while

Anyway what ever you say Tom the footage from the 170 looks ok on my 2 WS tv's,

Hd is the way forward but until its as common as SD DVD players i will hang on to my 170 end of story

i know loads of people who still have old tv's and will only upgrade when they go bang and that could be while. Anyway what ever you say Tom the footage from the 170 looks ok on my 2 WS tv's,


I too know loads of people with old 4:3 TVs Ian. My only thought was that people who can afford my wedding videos almost certainly have widescreen TVs.

Like you I have many 4:3 films shot on my VX2000 and I agree - they look excellent on my 46" 1080p TV. Of course I have to pillarbox them using the remote's 4:3 access button, otherwise the image is distorted to fill the screen.

Again - if brides are doing this to my films I'd be upset. I've spent a lot of money buying a camcorder with a lens that has a distortion figure of 1% tops - and to have customers adding 24% to that is outrageous.

tom.

Yes Tom i have spent thousands on cameras HDV included but have never found that having a hd camera brought me more work nobody was interested, as i said before CONTENT, SHARP FOCUS, CREATIVITY it dosent matter of what format if its good people will be pleased

What happens Tom when an old classic like Dads Army or steptoe and son come on your all singing HD TV do you turn it off because its not WS i think not!

Content and creativity - you've nailed it Ian. You're right - I wouldn't turn off the TV simply because the content was in 4:3. After all, a large number of my weddings were shot in 4:3 and every now and then I like to get one out for a look-see at years gone by.

Interestingly they look much better now than when I shot them, and a lot of that has to do with the remarkable performance of upscaling DVD players playing into modern TVs. When I watch them on my old Sony Trinirton (4:3) all I see is the horizontal picture lines.

tom.

Well at least we agree on one thing, Yes Tom HDV will become the norn and yes i have used them but none of them have really rocked my cradle we have been pushed into HD by the market forces that be and many people have not moved yet

I find that the 170 although not true 16:9 camera is more versatile for my needs the build quality solid as a rock lovely B/W finder and for me gives wonder full images

Yes i will move to HD when the right time comes and of course when funds will allow

Just to make it clear Ian - I haven't moved to HD. I shoot on a Z1 and FX1 but all my work is 16:9 SD.

Tom
Blow the cobwebs of your VX2000 and put in a SonyDM HDV tape and do abit of filming

See what you think!

Tom
Blow the cobwebs of your VX2000 and put in a SonyDM HDV tape and do abit of filming. See what you think!

Not quite sure what you mean by this Ian. Sony HDV tape in the VX2k gives no better (no different) results from bog-cheap Sony Premium tape recorded in the LP mode.

I know what I think - my VX gave me 4:3 SD footage that was quite outstanding for the price, but it gave me 16:9 footage that was 'acceptable' at best. As all my clients now demand 16:9, the VX had to be retired.

tom.

Have you tried a hdv tape in the VX then?

so all your clients ask for 16:9 do they! must be a very posh area then everybody with all singing and dancing new tellys, because i have a good few weddings + corporate work lined up no interest at all in 16:9 and i did a conference 2weeks ago and used a Z1 downconverting to DV there was nothing to my eyes that made it any better than the 170
infact in some low light shots it looked a lot worse than the 170

Anyway lets beg to differ you carry on shooting with your Z1 blowing them away with the quality, and i will carry on with the 170 until i start getting requests for 16:9 then i will have a look round to see if there is a camera in the price range that can truly beat the 170

Have you tried a hdv tape in the VX then? so all your clients ask for 16:9 do they! must be a very posh area then everybody with all singing and dancing new tellys

There's no such thing as HDV tape Ian. Tape is tape, and Sony choose to label it up as Premium, Excellence, HDV, DVCAM and so on. The differing prices show tape with chips, tape with more batch inspection, tape with tougher cases, tapes spooled from different slitting positions in the sheet and so on. I used DVCAM, Excellence and Premium in my VX2k, and all gave exactly the same results.

The aspect ratio of my corporate work in no way refects the 'poshness' of my area, and in fact Grays Council in Essex is far from posh. I do a lot of work for them. If my DVDs happen to be shown on a 4:3 TV then of course they appear letterboxed

I should say that if I shoot with the Z1 in SD 4:3 then the quality is noticeably inferior to the VX footage, regardless of the ambient lighting. But the Z1 in 16:9 SD is far better than the VX in 16:9, even in pretty poor light.

I don't think you will, 'start getting requests for 16:9' as you put it. People don't request that it be in colour, be on DVD, have good sound and so on - they simply expect it these days.

tom.

Have you tried a hdv tape in the VX then?
This question implies that you think there is an *image* quality difference between regular and "HDV" tapes, when in fact such a thing is quite impossible. It's all digital, all 1s and zeros, and they are either on the tape or they are not. In the old analog days, a case could be made that a "better" tape meant a "better" picture, but in the digital world it's just not possible.

No one says the VXes and PDs aren't brilliant in 4:3 mode; they are. And they are equally wonderful in DV Wide mode if viewed on a 4:3 TV, letterboxed. The problems occur when you view the Wide DV video on a 16:9 screen, where the resolution of your tape is shown to be about one-third that of HDV. It's that alone, rather than the "HD-ness" of HDV, that made me move to the FX1 and, later, the FX7 and FX1000.

It's certainly possible that the 4:3 picture from the VX and PD are as good as a 4:3 DV mode picture from an HDV cam, and possibly better because of the excellent low-light performance of the older cams. But in Wide mode they can't compare, even if the HDV cams are in DV wide mode. The HDV cam will almost always win, except possibly in very low-light situations, and my understanding is that the FX1000 and Z5 can easily match the VXes and PDs in those situations.

I don't think you will, 'start getting requests for 16:9' as you put it. People don't request that it be in colour, be on DVD, have good sound and so on - they simply expect it these days.

tom.

Do you REALLY think that people expect the video to be shot in 16:9 in the same way
they expect it to be in color? Again, I'm not in England, but I find that a little
hard to believe. I can buy that a client would 'expect' a video to be in color. But for them
to expect it to be 16:9 without clarifying that with you first? Not a client I'd ever want
to have.......at least if there is any bit of 4:3 work at all still done over there, which it
sounds like there is...... Now of course, the way a person should handle it is to
ask them when you are being hired to produce a video for them. If they want, I'll rent
something if someone wants HD, I've used the Sony 750 HDCam before on
a documentary.....but the people that wanted the video PAID for that. So
I give the client one budget for 4:3 SD.....another one for HD, and another
for 16x9 SD if they wanted that. The clients that want HD video but
want to pay my 4:3 SD rates....someone else can have them. Older gear and
technology is cheaper....if they can't understand that than they probably are not
a business I want to work for. With the strange mix of all formats that is around now,
both the client AND the producer should be very clear about what they are getting, or
producing, but to just EXPECT it to be a certain way without clarifying? That seems
awfully presumptuous to me.....unless again there is some sort of 'standard' over in
England, which does not seem to be the case here in 'the states'?

Gabe quite possibly there is a difference between England and N America (or at least Alaska). My experience chimes much more with Toms'. The majority of people have widescreen TVs and most people expect a DVD to be widescreen. Go into a store in England and you will find it difficult to buy anything other than a widescreen TV.

If Ians' customers are solidly 4:3 then it's a bit surprising, but he's happy with that, his customers are happy, so there's no problem, but again my experience is much more in line with what Tom has said.

Do you REALLY think that people expect the video to be shot in 16:9 in the same way they expect it to be in color? Again, I'm not in England, but I find that a little hard to believe.

Yes Gabe, here in England that's exactly what people expect and I do stress 'here in England'. You see we have had 16:9 TVs for just on 15 now, but only recently did they become HD. My understanding (reading the many posts here from those in the USA) is that your 16:9 experiences only began with HD sets, and that you didn't have 16:9 SD sets at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Our broadcasters have been letterboxing their transmissions for years too, and people with 4:3 sets are quite used to seeing the 'black bars' now. It's got to the state where if a program isn't in widescreen it looks positively antiquated, and this is unfortunate for some programming such as WW2 footage, which is quite drastically cropped these days to fit the wide screens.

tom.

tom.

Yes Gabe, here in England that's exactly what people expect and I do stress 'here in England'.

Tom, we are headed in the same direction rapidly here in the US. Just looking at WalMart's website now (largest US discount department store chain), and out of 59 TV sets available only 4 of them are 4:3. A year or two ago you would have found zero 16:9 TV's at WalMart. Today you can get a 19" 720p LCD set there for $189.

To be sure, there are a LOT of old 4:3 tube sets in peoples' homes, but that is going to change pretty quickly here. With the switch to digital broadcasting I suspect many people will just buy a new TV instead of spending $50 on a convertor box.

There is nothing wrong with the PD-170, VX-2100, etc. Great cameras for 4:3 work. If they still meet your needs and make your customers happy, God Bless. But anyone who thinks widescreen is not the new standard is (IMO) not following current events very closely.

Yes Gabe, here in England that's exactly what people expect and I do stress 'here in England'. You see we have had 16:9 TVs for just on 15 now, but only recently did they become HD. My understanding (reading the many posts here from those in the USA) is that your 16:9 experiences only began with HD sets, and that you didn't have 16:9 SD sets at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Our broadcasters have been letterboxing their transmissions for years too, and people with 4:3 sets are quite used to seeing the 'black bars' now. It's got to the state where if a program isn't in widescreen it looks positively antiquated, and this is unfortunate for some programming such as WW2 footage, which is quite drastically cropped these days to fit the wide screens.

tom.

tom.

Ok, that's fair, if that is the way it is in England. I don't know a lot about England, my
brother played basketball in London a couple years ago (London Towers?) and I wasn't over there for very long. I just didn't see that 16:9 was yet to the point of penetration
that color TV was, but again you live there and I saw like 15 people's TV's so you would
know much better than I.

Over here, I'm not sure that 16:9 began with HD. I seem to recall LCD 16:9 SD TV's in
Walmart and some other stores. But they were so expensive, I don't think most
people were buying them. From what I have been told, many people are actually
buying LCD's for space savings.....and over here even among people that buy HD TV's
a large majority don't even have HD programming! And they have no problems with
the quality.....now to me, if you are going to spend the money on a HD TV, wouldn't you
want to see HD quality? But I guess a lot of people either think that buying an HD
TV 'automatically' means they are watching HD, or else they are in an area like me,
that offers very little HD programming.

I myself have a 26' 1920x1280 Vizio in my edit bay that I use, I bought it for Xbox 360
HD gaming and for use as my main monitor for editing, I like to have lots of space in FCP.
It at least should be ready for HD when I do upgrade. And my wife bought a 42' 1920x1280 HD set on Black Friday last year when they had the Walmart super deals.
We get a couple programs in HD from the local cable company, but of our 200 channels
or so we have about 5 in HD. Now we have these things cause I'm a tech freak.....but
around here I am the exception.

I always assumed (ya, I know what they say about that :-) ) that it was kind of a mess out there in the rest of the world with the competing standards of TV just like it was here. Mainly, because of the destination wedding DVD's I do. The people who hire me to do those, are off cruise ships that stop in port here in Alaska, and they come from all over the world. And in every case they have been just fine with 4:3 SD DVD's. I had a call from one of the cruise lines asking for my wedding packages so they could offer them to passengers. I sent them a bunch of packages including an HD package just in case......of course the HD package was more expensive cause I'd have to rent the camera, but I thought maybe people in other countries were more HD ready and I wanted to keep the options open for people. Now I will confess I did not offer a 16:9 SD package because
I didn't really think of it, as you said, I don't think the 16:9 SD thing took off over here,
but maybe I should think about offering that option to see if I get any takers...? I am
guessing that people from your part of the world take cruises too!
Anyways...in every case so far, people have chosen the 4:3 SD package, I have not had anyone go for the HD package. Maybe I have been extremely lucky!!