important factors.. Already have DVC80 so buy another the video will match.. Dry film lube.. From having a military background I understand the premise fo dry film lube as opposed to wet.. Wet gums up the actions of rifles.. 10 years or more ago the military started using dry film to keep their weapons from fouling up.. Its just good common sense..

Well I have only used the 170 for about 30 minutes but you can size up the important stuff pretty quicky if you know what you're looking for.

Comparing the footage to the 80/100 of course there is less grain in mid to low light with the Sony. How significant I'll see after I do a few receptions. I think at least as important however is the way the camera adjusts for color in auto mode. With the 80 I have to fiddle with the white balance all the time going into different rooms or outside to inside but the auto mode on the Sony pretty much eliminates that. It very accurately represents the color everywhere I have gone today without changing a thing.

Having said that I find that the Panny's picture is a touch sharper than the Sony especially on closer face shots. The 80 is a really great cam and a hugh bargin right now I believe because the audio is so great. For many people $1300 more for the 170 would not be worth it. Is it for me? We'll see in a few months.

Also I like the little sony 10/20 light better than the Cannon 10li I have been using. Its spot is more even and you can use 20w when needed.

Also forgot to mention. No HUM here with the LCD open.
Serial is 115xxx

Congrats on your purchase- welcome to the brotherhood...lol. Seriously keep us informed on your findings. Have fun!

Speaking of the 10/20 light- did you diffuse it yet? It's a great light but needs a bit of diffusion...way too harsh. I purchased a Smith & Victor diffusion material from B&H I have extra if your interested. Simply took the light apart...used the glass as a template and cut the diffusion out on top of cardboard. Used two peices of "frost". I also have "light silk" and "tough spun". I felt the "frost" gave the best diffusion. Also two peices gave me a good balance between soft light and decent light output.

Yeah I followed the your posts on the VU about that Glen. I could tell it was the same Glen in this thread. I bought the Lumiquest soft box they talked about but I think a piece of diffusion paper would be better. I don't want to use much but maybe a bit to take the edge off. What I love about these little lights is that I can use them on the camera with the flowpod. I couldnt use the flowpod if I was using a battery belt with a cord attached to the light.

Congratulations and yes please do keep us posted about your findings. I'm particularly interested in the differences between the two cams. I also recently came into a pd170 to go with my PDX10s and will be more and more coming from that perspective (the differences between them), should anyone care...

So, you played footage back on a tv and you say the picture from the 80 is sharper? Interesting. I would not have guessed that.

Yep, on TV. It's just a bit sharper on close ups. The Sony has a bit of a softness to the picture. I don't think I can sharpen the Sony as I haven't yet seen a sharpness control like there is on the PD like there is on the Panny and GL2. The GL2 is actually a bit sharper that the Sony as well. It could be the 410k pixels of the 1/4 inch chip on the GL and the 410k pixels of the Panny 1/3 inch chip vs the 380k pixels on the Sony 1/3 inch chip. Could be assisted by the the Flourite lense on the GL or the Dicomar on the Panny as well.

The Sharpness control for the PD170 is part of the custom presets menu, the button for which is located on the rearend of the handle.

It's interesting, I haven't spent that much time with the 170 yet, nor have I put the PDX side by side with the 170, but I'm just not noticing a difference in sharpness. Will check it out.

The Sharpness control for these cams is a joke, IMO, serving only to make messy the edges of things. It's clearly not anything but a cheap trick of illusion that my eye no longer buys, unfortunately? I pretty much leave it dialled all the way down on all of my cams. It's effect does not seem as drastic as it does on the 170 as it does on the PDX, but, again, my experience is limited...

To sharpen the SONY, go into custom preset mode and bring up the detail 75%. Then lower the saturation 1 click to the left AND make sure you manually white balance. You will see a somewhat sharper picture.

A few months back we experimented with our Panny 100 and the VX2100/PD170. We noticed only a slight sharpness in the Panny up to and including 6db's. Over 6db and in lower light the SONY's did in fact outshine the Panasonic with a cleaner picture which would indicate a higher signal to noise ratio.

Lou Bruno
JVC GY DV5000 Forum Moderator


<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Easler : Yep, on TV. It's just a bit sharper on close ups. The Sony has a bit of a softness to the picture. I don't think I can sharpen the Sony as I haven't yet seen a sharpness control like there is on the PD like there is on the Panny and GL2. The GL2 is actually a bit sharper that the Sony as well. It could be the 410k pixels of the 1/4 inch chip on the GL and the 410k pixels of the Panny 1/3 inch chip vs the 380k pixels on the Sony 1/3 inch chip. Could be assisted by the the Flourite lense on the GL or the Dicomar on the Panny as well. -->>>

Thanks Shawn, and Lou I'll check out those settings. I noticed the sharpness on distant objects was about the same for the two cams but say 3-7 foot shots I could se a slight sharpness edge on the Panny. Macro's were pretty much the same. Of course this is for 60i stuff. Obviously the 100A in progressive is much sharper all around. The Sony does oversaturate just a bit, noticably on reds. The Panny can tend to undersaturate a bit in general. Also the Panny has just a slight green cast for mid range colors in general which is slight but it dulls the color separation a tad. When a slight correction is made on the mids toward blue in post the colors pop out perfectly. If you are not comparing these things side by side you won't pick up on it most of the time.

Rob, regardless of how many pixels the ccds have (which you have to be careful in the first place because they can be relating to Gross pixels and not Effective) I believe the Sony has a high on-screen res than both the Canon and the Panny. Panny is 500 lines the Sony is 530 lines.

I do believe, however, the DVX100 cannot be touched in 24p "thin" mode- very very SHARP. Then again sharpeness isn't neccessarily a good trait...most recommend to turn the sharpeness all the way down to smooth the aliasing you can get with high res ccds.

Anyway, yeah, the custom preset menu is great. I found that the 2nd day I had the camera- I kept overlooking it, as it's camoflauged so well on the back of the handle. I don't think I'll be doing any tweaking with it as I prefer a more FLAT picture to start out- give me more latitude in post for color correction and enhancements. The one setting that IS great, and maybe worth keeping CP on at all times is the AGC limit. I like to limit it to 12db because 15 and 18db add grain. That way if I DO switch to auto mode it won't use those gain settings.

<<<-- Originally posted by Mike Rehmus : We have one forum regular who apparently ruined the 1/8" socket on his new VX2100 with one strain on the cable. That bent the internals of the socket and it required a trip to the shop. I believe he even had a right-angle plug on the end of the cable.

The difference in price between the 2100 and 170 isn't even one screwed up wedding IF you lost the sound because the socket failed. Lots of people use them with no problems so it can be done. But if there were a chance, I KNOW I'd break the socket in the middle of the most important event of the year. -->>>

I agree with mike on this one and had regretted buying the VX2000 for the past year and a half.

Things have turned out for the better though. As some of you know i had the "BBC" mods done and now have audio cleaner than any of the cameras mentioned. All my inputs are through the RCA's now and at line level.

Had it not been for this stroke of luck , I would have bit the bullet and bought a PD170 or a DVX100A sooner than later.

I own a dvx100a and I find that you can optimze for lowlight performance basically by turning up the master pedestal black level and using one of the gamma curves that crushes the black. Also biasing the color temp to orange eliminates alot of grain.

However the consensus seems to be less grain with the vx/pd. I note from another thread here that most guys dont go above 6db anyway ( to avoid mpeg compression showing grain) so the picture with the dvx would still be comparable at this level.

I also observe that on the tv if you turn down contrast and increase brightness you can eliminate alot of grain and see more detail as well. Its something that cost you nothing to do and works.

Just my 2c worth from someone who is very interested in lowlight ( got burnt with a pana mx500 before).

No matter how you cut it the DVX, albiet a great camera, is not comparable to the PD-170/2100 in low light. Tweaking the black ped./gamma can make the picture appear brighter though it's simply displaying blacks as dark grey. Shadow detail lost from low light is exactly that....lost.

Plus regarding your decription on how to reduce the visibility of noise on a monitor or TV, it may very well help reduce the visibility of grain/noise however that would throw off your real world reference. Your monitor/tv should be calibrated to a standard not till it "looks the best" or "reduces the grain". That way you'd be editing footage that looks fine on your monitors then when it goes out to a client it ends up looking like garbage on theirs. It's best to tweak it image of any monitor/tv to be as "accurate" as possible not for the "best" picture.
If this makes any sense.

Glenn,
I totally agree if you are doing stuff for other people then you should calibrate it to "real life" and standard settings. Note that people can calibrate their tv sets and each tv has its own different look that the manufacturer pre-sets anyway.

I was just making an observation on stuff that I do for personal consumption. I mounted the camera on a tripod and shot my girlfriend reading and tweaked the image with the camera at different tv settings to see what gave the most accurate and least grainy picture.

It does make a huge difference I think and its not complicated to do. Most tvs in their at their factory presets are excessively contrasty and just like with the camera presets, turning down sharpness and exposure will improve the image but of course alter the look.

We talk alot about the camera and the editing in post but the tv is the final link in the chain that we can change.