I sometimes have to shoot video in low-lit, really low-lit, clubs to cover bands. And since I'm using a GL-1, the results are often poor. Is the VX2100/PD170 so much better in this type of environment to justify the purchase of one? I havn't been able to use one to find out myself, and I realize my discription of the club as "low-lit" is vague, but hopefully someone can hep me out a bit. By the way, the video is used for website only (TexasGigs.com).Thanks.

The short answer to your question is YES! I have done a bit of club work in the past and I use my old beatup PD150 instead of my JVC5000. Obviously it's samller and easier to get around with but the main thing in those situations is the low light capability of the camera and for a dimmly lit night club the 150/170 is tops.
Of course that's just my opinion ;-)
Don

In addition to camera performance, you also really need to look at your business as a whole also (revenues, profit, projected growth, etc.), to make a good determination as to whether it's "worth it."

That said, you might consider renting a VX2100/PD170 for a day, and try it out in one of the clubs. You might also consider more alternatives, like a GY-DV300 (not as good in low light as a VX2100/PD170 perhaps, but lower in cost and I believe it would offer an improvement in low light situations, as well as in good lighting).

I have shot in the VX2000 at lowlight levels in clubs, against cameras like XL1S and it clearly outperformed and gave much better rendition of the performance than the Xl1s. I don't think there is any doubt that you would be very happy with the capture in that situation through the VX or its Pro alternative Pds.

I could be wrong, but I think a DV300 would keep up with a VX2000/PD150 in low light and perhaps offer a slightly better image (a VX2100/PD170 would outperform a DV300 in low light though).

Any of the cameras mentioned (DV300, VX2000/PD150, VX2100/PD170) should outperform a GL1 in low light, considerably.

I could be wrong, but I think a DV300 would keep up with a VX2000/PD150 in low light and perhaps offer a slightly better image (a VX2100/PD170 would outperform a DV300 in low light though).

No it won't, Robert. The only difference between the 2000/150 and the 2100/170 is a slightly better DSP/Amp combo that reduces the noise a little bit. They all use the same CCDs. In low light the picture detail is the same between the two generations of camera.

I had been under the impression that low light performance was improved with the VX2100/PD170.

Only the noise level was improved and that by not a whole lot.

Got me thinking, just wait until there's a few dozen different HDV cameras out there. Then things will really get hard to keep track of.

As a VX2100 owner, I am extremely impressed with the low light. I wish I could tell you how it compared to the GL1, but I have never owned nor used one. I do, however, own an XL1s, which has really good low light performance, but the VX2100 far surpasses it in sensitivity and clarity.

The noise level is much better on my VX2100 than my XL1s, but its still noise

As a current VX2100 user and former Gl1 user, I can tell you that the results are amazing. I shot a band in a club with my GL1 and it came out well because of the lights. In well lit situations the 2 are not worlds apart, but in a dimly lit wedding reception it is like magic. You really think your eyes are playing tricks on you, the difference is that noticable. I got my VX2100 for 1900 used. It is totally worth it. I will say, so far, that I still prefer the audio on the GL1 but I haven't had much play ith the vx2100 audio.

Bill

I got my DV300 for under a grand (enough under to take my girlfriend out for a really nice dinner), with only 20 hours on the drum. I'd love to have a VX2100 for shooting in really dim light, but bang-for-the-buck, this DV300 is just an amazing value for a hand held 4:3 SD cam. I kind of doubt I'll ever buy another SD camera though.

The VX2100 virtually lightens a dim scene. That's desireabe sometimes and not others. I'd take my VX to a club, but I'll take my GL2 over the VX to a stage production where lighting design is an important part of the show.

But the degree of 'lightening' is a matter of where you set the controls on the camera. You can set the Sony's to perform at the same levels as the Canon, All you have to do is reduce the gain and close down on the aperature.

I don't know, because I've never had my hands on either, but I would think the 1/3" CCDs in the VX would produce a cleaner image than the 1/4" CCDs in the GL2. I know the DV300 sure shoots clean (1/3" CCDs also) for a camera in this general category.

But the degree of 'lightening' is a matter of where you set the controls on the camera. You can set the Sony's to perform at the same levels as the Canon, All you have to do is reduce the gain and close down on the aperature.I don't find it to be quite that simple, Mike. I find autoexposure mode to be a must to keep up with lighting changes in a dynamic production--manual adjustments stick out like a sore thumb. Without any presets in the VX, both cams compute similar exposures within most of the range and I wouldn't want to change that. But below a certain brightness level the Sony's gain kicks in while the Canon's response continues to track with the lighting of the scene.

I find autoexposure mode to be a must to keep up with lighting changes in a dynamic production--manual adjustments stick out like a sore thumb.

Unfortunately the VX was designed such that the manual iris moves in very noticeable "clicks." However I can't agree with your assertion there, if you're serious about shooting performances you need to use manual controls and make the best of them. I've been shooting video of our performances here at the Opera Company for several years, and wouldn't dream of setting the camera on automatic.

But this is one reason not to favor the VX cameras for such an application. The PD-170 has twice the number of iris clicks in manual mode and should perform better. I'm now using a Z1, and it has an excellent iris knob which can be adjusted very subtly.

I don't know, because I've never had my hands on either, but I would think the 1/3" CCDs in the VX would produce a cleaner image than the 1/4" CCDs in the GL2...Well, I've had my hands on both plenty, and I believe I do know. Yes, the Sony's image is slightly crisper, and that's good for ENG and documentary footage and such, but that's not what I want for dramatic / romantic footage. The GL2 wins there, IMO, with its very clear but softer edged image, its warmer tone, its frame mode effect, its 20x lens and its more accurate autoexposure tracking with stage lighting conditions.

...if you're serious about shooting performances you need to use manual controls and make the best of them. I've been shooting video of our performances here at the Opera Company for several years, and wouldn't dream of setting the camera on automatic...Boyd, why? In the absence of specific reasons that simply sounds snooty. I'm quite serious about my work. I shoot from three angles. If the three operators were each excercising their discretion with manual adjustments, the result would be a mess in post. I know--I actually tried it. Using the features and capabilities of all three cams that I paid for, I get polished results. If your results are as good or better than you would get with auto, it must be that you are very familiar with and able to anticipate the changes. Making visible corrections for changes after they've occurred doesn't look good.

I use a combination of auto, manual, and sometimes all manual. I work with a guy that only uses all manual and it is a pain to edit his footage compared to mine because his footage has noticable adjustments that needs to be edited out while mine doesn't. I tried to teach my method to him but he tells me he is old school and refuses to learn anything from someone younger than him. All manual is the only way to be professional is his motto. I don't agree. I think different situations call for different controls especially in event capturing.

Tonight I came up with a great method for extreme lighting differences on a stage when using the pd 170. Changing the shutter from 30 to 60 to 125 to 180 to adjust for the low lights and the bright lights nailed the performance. The only thing I left in auto was the iris and focus everything else was manual except for the audio. The iris worked with me so when I zoomed in & out it would adjust smoothly. I reviewed the footage and it came out great. I took a chance against what most others say about keeping the shutter at 60 and found a great way to control the image in extreme light differences. When I used the manual iris I was not getting the control I needed and the manual shutter brought in that control. I was lucky and able to try out many combinations in rehersal so I could find the best combination.

The pd170 is a great camera for low light and the different combination of manual and auto controls should be explored. That's what they are there for.

We all shoot what we want, nobody is arguing which way is best and I'm not saying you are wrong, Fred.

The custom presets (at least with the 150/170 allow you to change the level of sharpness and limit auto gain to 6 dB or 12 dB.

While auto operation will allow you to make, perhaps, a better looking video, it won't reflect the lighting designer's effects and it certainly can look strange as the background gets lighter and darker and actors not in the lights do the same. From a personal taste standpoint, I wouldn't like the results and neither would the Artistic Director that hires me to do the work.

If someone wants me to tape a stage play so it looks more like a movie of a stage play, then I want control over the lighting, I don't want an audience and I will shoot the same scenes several times in single-camera mode. It has become a movie and not a play. Generally, just raising house/stage lights can level out the lighting enough to obtain good shots while not destroying the lighting designers work.

However, I think the 2000/150 & 2100/170 camera as with most of the integrated prosumer cameras, not to be particulary good at taping stage plays. I always use my DSR-300 with the stepless aperature, better DSP and smoother zoom. Easier to focus in dim light too. Overall the pro cameras just work faster. And a good trio of camera operators with pro cameras will deliver very good footage.

'Smoothness' is a processing artifact that can be obtained in the camera or in Post. I prefer to obtain a neutral image and then manipulate it in post for a specific application.

Boyd, why? In the absence of specific reasons that simply sounds snooty.

OK, maybe I was a little inflexible by saying "if you're serious about shooting performances you need to use manual controls." If you're getting results that you like with automatic settings then by all means keep doing it.

But I would not personally be happy with this, mainly for the reasons which Mike mentions (and I'm a lighting designer myself :-). There are times when you want everything to look dark. And there are lots of other conditions under stage lighting which will confuse autoexposure. And yes, I try to be very familiar with the work that I'm shooting in advance, so I have a general idea of when a lighting change is coming that I'll need to adjust for.

But I do agree that the VX makes it hard (if not impossible) to subtly adjust the iris as you shoot. I shot a lot of performances with my PDX-10, and it has the exact same controls. You will get some noticeable bumps as you adjust, but I found this an acceptable trade-off for having the manual control I wanted. But as I mentioned, I don't use my VX-2000 or PDX-10 anymore to shoot performances. The Z1 is much better, mainly due to the iris control.

The Z1 is much better, mainly due to the iris control.

Not to mention the black stretch functionality for those lower lit conditions. The additional fortunate fact about the Z1 is the fact that adding gain in small increments in lower lit conditions does not adversely affect SD delivery - even by up to as much as 12db.

Furthermore, the PD150 and VX2100 are as far as I know no longer being manufactured by Sony

Cheers

Well clearly the PD-150 is out of production. Nobody can say for sure whether the PD-170 and VX-2100 are actually being manufactured today, but Sony lists them both as current models on their US websites. I think it's safe to assume that their days are numbered, but Sony will probably keep selling them as long as the demand is there.

Yes, black stretch does help. And you definitely don't want to use the CinemaTone settings in dark conditions. 12 dB of gain is still quite clean. I think the VX and PD still have a bit of an edge in filming REALLY dark things however.

But I wish there was an option on the Z1 to make the gain behave like my VX-2000. In other words, after you open the iris completely, with each additional turn of the wheel you add gain in 3 dB increments. The 3 position gain switch is nice, but can be problematic for shooting performances where the light levels change a lot.

Boyd and Mike, thanks for your patient indulgence of my views. I know that you guys are quite expert at all this.

I suppose that one difference in my approach is philosophical and was nailed by Mike--I definitely am looking to reproduce the play as more of a movie. That's why I shoot three angles and sometimes choose closeups and two-shots for my finished video at the expense of coverage of the whole stage. I think that some of the elements of a satisfying entertainment experience are different in the living room than they are in the theater.

If it were my objective to accurately chronicle what happened in the theater I'd be more worried about any compromises attending the use of autoexposure. But I'd also probably go with one camera, using a static framing of the whole stage.

Sorry for taking this thread on a side trip. My initial point was on topic--that the senstitivity of the VX was indeed all that it was cracked up to be but that its implementation in the VX did not always make it a better choice than cams with a lesser range--that, for example, the GL2 does a better job in autoexposure mode than the VX in autoexposure mode for stage lighting IMO.

The 3 position gain switch is nice, but can be problematic for shooting performances where the light levels change a lot.

Boyd, good one there. I'm sure in your environment this happens often - what do you do in a multi-cam shoot with each camerman using his/her own decision on exposure

Cheers

Well I can't do multi-camera performance shoots due to union agreements, not to mention lack of space for cameras during performances. But you need a bit of a strategy with the gain before you begin. For example, on the most recent show I set the gain switch to 0-3-6. But there were two very dark scenes where 6dB really wasn't adequate. This is a problem, because it means going into the menus and changing configuration during the shoot.

Based on what I learned at the first show, I set the switch to 0-6-12 the next time. The 12dB boost made a big difference, however I didn't want to leave it set that high for the whole show, since much of it was quite bright (shooting at ~f2.8 1/60 0dB most of the time). That leaves you with no choice but flipping the switch and cutting gain by 6 or even 12dB during the show... ugh.

But I timed this such that it happened in a different part of the show the 2nd night, so I'll just edit around it as I combine both shows into a single disk.

But I timed this such that it happened in a different part of the show the 2nd night, so I'll just edit around it as I combine both shows into a single disk.

Ahhh, the joys of double takes

In a 'real' video enabled theatre (one of our two is like this) we have all the cameras connected to CCUs. That way, the camera operators are working focus and framing. Nothing else. It is the responsibility of the engineer to keep the camera exposure set correctly.

In the teaching theater (100 seats) we have wall-mounted cameras plus hand- and tripod-held cameras. These can be mixed to a single track or recorded on separate (the non wall-mounted cameras are all camcorders) tracks.

This remote control of camera exposure is the same we have in our television studio. It makes an immense difference on the quality of focus and framing when the operator does not have to worry about exposure.

What almost the entire discussion has wound around is overcoming the inadequacy of the prosumer camera in difficult lighting conditions. Beg, borrow or rent a pro camera for one event and discover the delights of long tape run times and instant and stepless response to exposure changes.

And Fred, as I said before, a savvy operator can change the performance of the Sony's to produce nearly the same video as the Canon.

...It makes an immense difference on the quality of focus and framing when the operator does not have to worry about exposure.Another reason that I use autoexposure ("spotlight mode") and incandescent (or "indoor") white balance at all times in three cams for a stage production.

...And Fred, as I said before, a savvy operator can change the performance of the Sony's to produce nearly the same video as the Canon...Would that it were true. But Mike, your choice of words sounds speculative. Before I got too excited I'd have to hear "Fred, I have personally changed or witnessed the changing of the performance of a Sony VX2100 to produce nearly the same video under challenging stage lit conditions as a Canon GL2." 8>]

My problem with the auto mode and auto-focus is sometime it's not reliable. For example, I recently recorded a high school production from the control room above and in front of the stage with my VX2100 set on auto-mode, mostly due to my lack of knowledge on the manual controls. This was a big mistake because in high contrast situations, the auto-focus was less than desirable, and sometimes it seemed like the VX2100 accounted for my dark surroundings to make the auto adjustments rather that what was lit on the stage. It looked OK on the LCD screen, and I didn't think anything of it, but in post is was so overexposed it was hard to work with.

I have since learned how to operate in full manual mode and it works much better. But like everyone else seems to think, if it works for you... keep doing it.

...it seemed like the VX2100 accounted for my dark surroundings to make the auto adjustments rather that what was lit on the stage...Yes, that's what happens if you don't use spotlight mode. Spoltlight mode adjusts for what the lighting is near the center of the frame. So it works if there is a spotlight, and it works for even lighting.

I'm not in complete agreement with you there Fred. When I select Spotlight mode on my VX2k it works to reduce the exposure of a bright light wherever it appears on screen.

It's an easy test to do. In a darkened room with a single hanging bare light bulb, pan the VX across the light in Spotlight mode. Do the same in auto exposure mode and notice the hige (4.5 stop) difference.

The Spotlight mode is a real boon for stage plays, and I couldn't live without it. It means that some of the very flat-lit scenes are a smidgen under-exposed, but that's a lot better than having all the faces recorded as white blobs.

Spotlight mode is very intelligent; backlight mode is a moron in comparison.

tom.