Question on Sony PD 170 / 150

[Tray]

I'm gearing up to make a documentary. I'm new at this, so I'm doing research on what kind of video camera to buy in the 3-4 thousand range. People have recommended the Sony PD-150, but it looks like the more up to date Sony PD-170 is what is available now. I've read, however, that the PD-170 is not a great camera for indie-filmakers. Anybody have an opinion on the PD-170 for indie filmmakers, or on another good camera in this price range?

Edited April 2, 2005 by Tray

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

I'm gearing up to make a documentary.  I'm new at this, so I'm doing research on what kind of video camera to buy in the 3-4 thousand range.  People have recommended the Sony PD-150, but it looks like the more up to date Sony PD-170 is what is available now.  I've read, however, that the PD-170 is not a great camera for indie-filmakers.  Anybody have an opinion on the PD-170 for indie filmmakers, or on another good camera in this price range?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you're considering buying a new (not used) camcorder, I'd recommend the PD-170 over the PD-150 for a documentary application. The PD-170 is a good 1-2 f-stops more light sensitive than the PD-150. This can be importatnt in doc-style shooting, in low available light, sometimes allowing you to get a usable shot instead of a murky one.

 

Both the PD-150 & PD-170 are & have been used by many "indie-filmakers", and some of the resulting "films" have been quite good. Especially the ones which have compelling content.

 

But good lighting & audio techniques and a compelling story are required to make good/enjoyable video. Camcorders in this price range are about the bare minimum required to handle the technical side of this equation. The compelling story part is up to you!

 

As of today (this minute), these two DV cams are not the latest & greatest in their price range. Newer DV & HDV models have appeared over the course of the past few years & months, each with certain features which best these two, but at slightly varying price points.

 

For example, the DVX-100a is newer than the PD-150 and has slightly higher resolution and can record 24p in addition to 60i (the 2 Sony cams mentioned above only do 60i). The DVX-1ooa's 24p feature has made it very popular among "indie-filmakers" and others. For example, some of my corporate clients like this 24p "look" for their lower budget projects.

 

The Sony FX1 is around the same price as a PD-170 or DVX-100a, and unlike these latter two, the FX1 has native 16:9 aspect ratio CCDs (it can also record 4:3 video). The FX1 records 60i DV video which is about as good (maybe slightly better) compared to the PD-170 or DVX-100a, especially comparing 16:9 modes, but the FX1 does not record true 24p like the DVX-100a. The FX1 is somewhat less light sensitive than the PD-170 or DVX-100a. The FX1 has a _simulated_ 24p mode which many people, including myself, do not like at all. Oh, and of course, the FX1 can also record in HDV mode. Although this results in _slightly_ better actual recorded resolution than the PD-170 or DVX-100a, the video is otherwise very similar in terms of color quality, noise level, motion artifacts, contrast & color control, and so forth. In other words, the FX1 can record what I refer to as "HD-lite". Not real, pro HD, but about what you'd expect given its 1/10 price compared to the price of a real HD camcorder.

 

Note that a big annual industry expo, NAB, is held in Las Vegas every April and major product announcements are expected on April 18th. So you might want to continue your research until at least then. Once the big news is out, existing camera models may become temporarily less expensive before they are replaced by new models, and new models (some of which will ship "immediately" or "soon" or "later") may or may not be a better fit for your needs & budget.

 

Hope the above info is helpful.

 

All the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

[drew_town]

The PD-170 is popular among documentary filmmakers because it's an easy camera to shoot with. It's unobtrusive as opposed to Canon's XL series and lighter weight. The PD-170 is pretty consistent in a lot of different situations, be it natural exteriors, interiors, or lit scenes. The camera is a good choice when you want to rely on automatic features like focus and exposure. I will recommend this camera over a Canon XL or the DVX100A if you intend to shoot docs. I would not, however, recommend this camera if you want to do any kind of narrative work. I think the PD-170 looks like junk it you're trying to pull off a film-like picture quality. I describe the PD-170 as having a "news" type look to it.

[jasarsenault]

Im gearing up to shoot my second doc. This is the first on video and after weighing a lot things I have chosen two pd-170's. Price, low light ability and portable size were all factors.

[Rik Andino]

I would not, however, recommend this camera if you want to do any kind of narrative work. I think the PD-170 looks like junk it you're trying to pull off a film-like picture quality. I describe the PD-170 as having a "news" type look to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's funny because

Most of the feature films shot on video

That have made it to the big screen have been shot on the PD150

Which is the PD170's younger brother.

 

Manic

Pieces of April

Open Water

Dancer in the Dark

Personal Velocity

Tadpole

American Gun

Super Size Me

In Search of Ted Demme

 

Just to name a bunch

 

So far there aren't any big-screen releases of films shot on the DVX100a

Although I think Steve Buscemi is supposed to bring one out soon

 

And the XL1 only got a few (and it's been around lot longer than the PD150)

28 Days Later

Full Frontal

Pinero

Party Monster

& Julien Donkey Boy

 

So not to put a monkey wrench into your very good theory

The PD170 is still very useful for shooting narrative film.

Although I agree with you it's better to use an DVX100 or XL2 in 24P mode

 

And you know what's funny

Most of the things shot with the PD150 and the XL1 have been documentaries.

 

 

I wonder how the new JVC HD100 and the Panasonic HVX200 will look?

I'm sure next summer they'll be the all the rage for indie film productions.

[Nathan Milford]

I wonder how the new JVC HD100 and the Panasonic HVX200 will look?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sure the new Panasonic camera will be made to output a look very similar to the Varicam for which it will make a useful B-Camera.

 

The demo unit of the camera we saw looked remakibly like the DVX100 >8) I almost wonder if they just dragged in a DVX100 and rebadged it for the demo. It was a mock-up at that point and not a working prototype they showed us.

[drew_town]

It was just my recommendation. Not really a theory. It's impractical to shoot docs on film and I imagine it's seldom used these days. Dancer in the Dark stands out on the PD-150 list, but then again, Lars von Trier is amazing. I was just saying if I could choose a vid camera for narrative work it wouldn't be a PD-170.

[nchopp]

A PAL PD-150 or PD-170 can produce a VERY acceptable image for dramatic story-telling. Jacques Thelemaque (MVP of Sundance 2004) produced Dogwalker on a PAL PD-170, and it's being printed to 35 for a theatrical release late this summer. Concentrate on the story, and the rest will follow.

Edited April 4, 2005 by nchopp

[Tray]

Many thanks to everyone who responded. This is very helpful.

 

It was just my recommendation. Not really a theory. It's impractical to shoot docs on film and I imagine it's seldom used these days. Dancer in the Dark stands out on the PD-150 list, but then again, Lars von Trier is amazing. I was just saying if I could choose a vid camera for narrative work it wouldn't be a PD-170.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Drew, are you saying that the PD-170 only shoots on film and that this is a disadvantage? I have to study the tech side of this stuff so I can learn the lingo. Spent close to two hours at Borders looking over books, but found nothing that is both up to date and helpful.

[drew_town]

Drew, are you saying that the PD-170 only shoots on film and that this is a disadvantage?

Oh no. It's a dv camera. Yeah, learn that stuff. A cinematographer shooting film is liable to hit you if you say you like his video camera.

[Rik Andino]

I'm sure the new Panasonic camera will be made to output a look very similar to the Varicam for which it will make a useful B-Camera.

 

The demo unit of the camera we saw looked remakibly like the DVX100 >8)  I almost wonder if they just dragged in a DVX100 and rebadged it for the demo.  It was a mock-up at that point and not a working prototype they showed us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So guy in Times Square tried to do the same thing

Try to sell me a rehoused HD-DVX100--- :D

 

Seriously though (And I feel bad cause I know this is not the proper forum for this)

You've seen one of these things...so they do exist...it just ain't a rumor...

I can't trust them saying it's quality will be like the Varicam

When it'll cost under $10K--I don't even think it'll look like the SDX900.

 

If it can output like a Varicam it'll be more expensive than $10K...

The math just doesn't add up...

 

But I do know it'll be hella popular come next summer...

You can trust indie filmmakers to hop on the newest cheapest technology

& it's 24P! :lol:

 

We'll just have to wait and see

 

By the way Drew I confused recommendatio with theory so I apologize :)

 

I agree Dancer in the Dark is one of the best shot videos films out there

Von Trier didn't concentrate on trying to make the format look like film

He used it as a video camera--and he had a very good story too.

And B'jork's performance was amazing!

 

But I also think Pieces of April look exceptionally good

I didn't know it was shot on video till I saw the credits.

 

Anyways like Nicholas says: concentrate on your story--

That's the essence of good filmmaking.

[Greg Gross]

Well fellows I hate to say it but the public today doesn't really care which

camera you used to shoot your project. Case in point when Open Water

was here in my area I did an "un-scientific" poll with movie-goers, by far

the biggest criticism was the story itself and not the look. They wanted to

see a longer story with more action and spills and chills. When I asked about

the film's look-"oh yea, it looked like all the other films you know." I just fin-

ished a two week shoot(dv feature) with two DVX-100A's,Tiffen filter packs.

The cameras belonged to the production company. I had my own PD-170

with me and shot some of the scenes with the the Tiffen filter packs. Using

the same monitor and same Tiffen filters(PD-170,manual,1/60) you could

see just a slight difference on the monitor,believe me the public would have

not cared. I shot with dv-cam format on my PD-170. This observation was

of course before any post-production work. Now I know dv-cam is not earth

shattering format with PD-170. Some of the knocks given to the PD-170 in

your posts here are not deserved. I probably would have had a PD-150 but

no used ones were available,so I went with PD-170. I tested PD-170 and the

DVX-100(A's were not out yet) before I bought. My sound man and I decided

on the PD-170. We could tell no differences between the cameras and they

looked about the same for the shooting we do. We could tell a big difference

with sound quality. I like the DVX-100A and its a good camera for 24p work.

I'm going to wait for the next camera model before I buy one. The director

that I worked with on my last project,called me last monday and asked me

if I wanted to do another dv feature with her,I said yes. She asked me what

camera I wanted to use and she suggested Canon XL2,I said no lets use two

DVX-100A's and shoot in 4:3. I wonder why used PD-150's cannot be found?

 

Greg Gross

[drew_town]

Well fellows I hate to say it but the public today doesn't really care which

camera you used to shoot your project.

Well you might as well say it's not important what kind of guitar a musician uses. The average listner couldn't tell one from another so it must not be important. But I bet it's a pretty big deal to the musician. That's the context of this conversation. Who in the world cares if an audience can distinguish what camera you use? What's important is that you have the ability to get the look you're going for and are comfotable with those means. There's not been any knocks to anything, just opinions. The PD-150/170 is a decent camera, but I wouldn't choose it because I don't like it. That's just my opinion. Others are intitled to their own.

[Greg Gross]

Hey Mr. drew_town, southeast camera operator,

 

Did you bother to read past the word project in my post?

I hope you do better with a viewfinder than you do with

reading a post. My friend the public doesn't care and they

will never care. Point has been proven over and over again.

So go ahead shoot your dream film and try to anticipate what

the public wants. The guys that shot Open Water did. I believe

one of your groupies here labeled the PD-170 as an ugly camera.

I do not know of any camera that I would label as being ugly. I'm

sitting in my camera room right now looking at some Arri 16's,the

PD-170,DSR-500WS,a few Hasselblads,some Nikons and I really

do not see any ugly cameras. The camera is much better than just

for documentary shooting. If your groupies here would bother to

try it out,experiment with it,then they would know. I really do not

care if you like the camera or not , as thats not an issue for me. I

do care about people judging cameras and passing off unfounded

information about what they are capable and un-capable of. My friend

I come from a family with a long line of actors and film production

people and your bullshit does not impress me. I myself am a pro-

fessional photographer of 20 years and a student cinematographer

at the age of 57 with two dv features completed. I'm also a medical

professional and that and one buck will buy me a cup of coffee.

 

Greg Gross

[drew_town]

I read it.

 

But you obviously misread mine because I agree with your response. And there's no need for such hostility and personal remarks.

 

Tray asked for insight on some cameras for a documentary. I gave him my opinion and he can do whatever he wants. I had more positive things to say than negative. And the negative was just my own personal taste, not facts.

 

The tone in your last post was uncalled for. And I'll leave it at that. I'm not here to battle with other members.

[nchopp]

<snip>

 

My friend

I come from a family with a long line of actors and film production

people and your bullshit does not impress me. I myself am a pro-

fessional photographer of 20 years and a student cinematographer

at the age of 57 with two dv features completed. I'm also a medical

professional and that and one buck will buy me a cup of coffee.

 

                                    Greg Gross

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And you have managed to prove yourself quite an ass. If you have to brag to impress us, you don't have much to actually impress us with in the first place. And what in the world does being a "medical professional" have to do with anything? <sigh> Me senses a poser.

[Greg Gross]

hello drew_town,

Sorry if I came off too strong! I do get passionate!

Anyway very sorry if I offended you. Have a good

weekend! I have no objection to your choice of cameras.

 

Greg Gross

[Greg Gross]

nchopp,

I'm not bragging,I'm stating a fact. It seems you cannot handle the fact.

Well too bad! I can tell you one thing and that is that this fact has never

gotten me anything,anything handed to me that is. I think my statement

brought your true colors out. If you notice, I said and all of that and one

buck will buy me a cup of coffee. Believe me I'm not bragging,as that is

not important to me. I apologize if you took it for bragging,it was not it

was a statement of fact. Now I am really sorry but you will have to go

out in the real world and handle it. I use my professional title as a pho-

tographer just like many other people use their titles on this forum. Are

they bragging also? If you think I'm a stupid photographer feel free, I'm

not partner. This whole thing started for me because someone called the

Sony PD-170 an ugly camera, I should have stayed out of it. So I apolo-

gize to you if your feelings were hurt. One amazing capability of the PD-

170's circuits are their ability to control contrast,keeping impossible high-

lights from burning out while retaining real shadow control. I've been ex-

perimenting with this for a long time. Its amazing what the camera is ab-

le to produce. Anyway I'm sort of sensitive about this camera. If you

were offended by my post then you have my apology. I will make it a

point not to mention my family being in the film industry from here on.

 

Greg Gross

[nchopp]

nchopp,

I'm not bragging,I'm stating a fact. It seems you cannot handle the fact.

Well too bad! I can tell you one thing and that is that this fact has never

gotten me anything,anything handed to me that is. I think my statement

brought your true colors out. If you notice, I said and all of that and one

buck will buy me a cup of coffee. Believe me I'm not bragging,as that is

not important to me. I apologize if you took it for bragging,it was not it

was a statement of fact. Now I am really sorry but you will have to go

out in the real world and handle it. I use my professional title as a pho-

tographer just like many other people use their titles on this forum. Are

they bragging also? If you think I'm a stupid photographer feel free, I'm

not partner. This whole thing started for me because someone called the

Sony PD-170 an ugly camera, I should have stayed out of it. So I apolo-

gize to you if your feelings were hurt. One amazing capability of the PD-

170's circuits are their ability to control contrast,keeping impossible high-

lights from burning out while retaining real shadow control. I've been ex-

perimenting with this for a long time. Its amazing what the camera is ab-

le to produce. Anyway I'm sort of sensitive about this camera. If you

were offended by my post then you have my apology. I will make it a

point not to mention my family being in the film industry from here on.

 

                                            Greg Gross

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Rrrrright... My feelings are hurt because you consider yourself a professional photographer. "someone called the Sony PD-170 an ugly camera"? Wow. And here I thought I was the one with the hurt feelings... It's a tool, just like any other camera. If you like it, fine. If someone else doesn't, fine. It's a $4,000 30i prosumer camera - there's nothing ridiculously special about it. It's just a tool. Like any other camera.

Edited April 8, 2005 by nchopp

[Sam Wells]

It's impractical to shoot docs on film and I imagine it's seldom used these days.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Docs have been shot on film from 1895 to 2005, not dead yet :D

 

Pick the gear that let's you tell the truth of the situation you encounter.

 

Until recently, Al Maysles (I *think* he qualifies as an experienced documentary filmmaker !) was using a PAL PD-170.

 

No doubt at NAB this month they'll be showing more compact HD, DV kit than you know what to do with.

 

I see photographers walk down the street with two camera bodies, lenses 3 feet long, bags, logos... digital this, 9 point autofocus & exposure with built in GPS.

 

99.5 % of them will never get what Cartier-Bresson got with a rangefinder Leica and a single 50mm lens.

 

-Sam

[Greg Gross]

Okay Mr. nchopp Director of Photography,

How many features do you have under your belt sir? I never said that I

thought I was a professional photographer,I am a professional photographer.

That seems to be a big problem with you! Are you a little tree in the forest try-

ing to grow up to be a big tree? I do run into DP's from time to time who have

a problem with professional photographers? Actually I could care less about that.

You see I'm a big boy who can stand on his own feet. I have two dv features to

my credit,not released yet. I aspire to the independent segment of dv,digital cin-

ema,film. Film I have yet to learn and I am starting in that direction,not an easy

subject to learn where I live. Independent segment is all that appeals to me. I

also write and direct,is this making your blood boil? No, I'm not a film school boy!

I learned a long time ago not to take hollywood too seriously! Here's one for you

that will drive you nuts- In the 60's I was at Fort Benning,GA attending ranger sc-

hool in preparation for transfer to Republic of Vietnam. John Wayne was there and

was shooting "The Green Berets",I got to drive him around in a jeep for social fun-

ctions on post. I have a picture of him right above my desk here, it says Greg, best

of luck and thanks, John Wayne. This one ought to get your blood pressure up.

Now this wipes it for me Mr. Director of Photography no more posts from me on

this subject. Happy shooting and have a nice weekend!

 

Greg Gross

Professional Photographer

[nchopp]

Greg,

 

I have no need to get into an ego argument with you. I have no problem with still photographers, seeing as I AM one. I do portriature, still life, wedding, and fine art photography. I don't claim to be a professional as that implies it's how you make your living, but I suppose semi-professional would be a fine description.

 

I'm rather new to filmmaking, my background is much more heavily invested in broadcasting, sports in particular. I'm the DP\Steadicam Op for a feature film being produced here in Minnesota, and I've worked on more than my fair share of indie and studio projects in LA.

 

 

Nicholas Chopp

Mobile Entertainer, Photographer, A\V Producer, Director of Photography (doesn't like to pick just one thing)

[Annie Wengenroth]

NCHOPP=WIN!

[Rik Andino]

See this is why the Machines are going to win....

We're too busy acting like children. :)

 

I know what ya'll thinking:

{WOW that was outta left field}

It was.

[Sam Wells]

See this is why the Machines are going to win....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ANDINO WHAT MAKES YOU SAY "ARE GOING TO" ? :ph34r: