Hello all.

I'm sitting with the issue of purchasing a second camera and was wondering if I should stick with another PD-170 or get a HVR-A1.
I will for now be exclusivley outputting to DV fromat.

The reason I was considering the A1 was because of the price and size.
I shoot mainly music videos and some corporate stuff.

My main question is. Is the DV footage from the A1 (wheather shot in HDV and downsampled or shot in DV mode) as good as that of the PD-170?

That's my main concern..for now..

Thanks.

I would lean towards getting the A1 personally. Downrezzed in post,the output should be as good or better than the output of a PD170. And the sound on the A1 is much better with attenuated XLR inputs with phantom power, etc. And you would be prepared as things head more towards HD in the future.
That said, the big concern would be the low light capacity of the A1 which is not great.

I would lean towards getting the A1 personally. Downrezzed in post,the output should be as good or better than the output of a PD170. And the sound on the A1 is much better with attenuated XLR inputs with phantom power, etc. And you would be prepared as things head more towards HD in the future.
That said, the big concern would be the low light capacity of the A1 which is not great.

Doesn't the PD-170 have the same Audio XLR inputs?

But I'm more concerned about the original question if anyone can elighten me. Thanks

Mike

The short answer to your original question is yes. But remember that the A1 will be 16:9 and won't match with the PD170's 4:3. And 16:9 on your PD will kill your resolution.

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-etc.html

You can also shoot 4:3 on the A1, so if that's what you want, no worries.
But either way you shoot, the footage from the A1 is definitely going to look as good as your PD170 footage, if not better.

Yes, excellent point. Was going to edit and add that, but you beat me to it...

sort of satisfied a1 owner ; but IMO pd170 clearly outperforms a1 with respect to low ligth capablilities & image quality . So if you intend to work with SD and don't need 16:9 my choice would be clear in fawor of 170'.

a1 has advantages on portability and greaty battery stamina, but i guess you'll fid the "on screen command driven" interface quite annoying . quite annoying ....

I'm thinking you have a PAL PD170, in which case the 16:9 performance is very good. Not quite up to its 4:3, but as it's electronic anamorphic, quite acceptable. Have you tried it out?

If you're shooting with the A1 you can of course shoot in the 4:3 mode (in SD only, of course). But it's just way behind the PD in the gloom, and however good the lens, however lovely the 16:9 and Hi-Def options are - when the light gets low it just gives up.

Music videos and some corporate stuff you say. Well the latter may well still be 4:3, but the former surely aren't, so the A1 takes on added appeal, especially as it gives you the HDV option and is more future-proof. But there's little carry over (different batteries etc) so another 170 (while they're still available) might be a good idea. Or how about this - a second hand PD for half price as everyone moves to the Z1.

If you love the PD's shooting control the A1's hopeless exposure 'bar chart' will annoy you. You won't know when you're in gain-up or ND mode, or what aperture you're shooting at. But it's small and light, and in HDV and good light the results are eye-widening.

tom.

If you are looking to mix the footage I would definitely go for another PD170 unless you are always working in good light. As soon as the light drops away the A1 needs work in post as the saturation and sharpness deteriorate. Reds are difficult to match with a Z1E and I would think a PD170 with its excellent low light performance would really show up the A1's deficiencies.

When you want to go HD change both cameras is my advice.

A few things here:
The A1 is easily as good quality as the PD170 when downrezzed to SD and usually a bit better if you have a decent workflow and don't downrezz in camera. If you are not getting as good or better output, look to your workflow for the cause of your problems..

Again, low light is the A1's achille's heel. If you plan on doing any low light stuff you will probably want to stay with the PD170 which does extremely well in low light. If you will be lighting everything then the A1 is back in the running.

The exposure settings on the A1 is a little annoying at first, but there are charts around here that show the fstop equivalents, where the ND filters come in (7-13), and where gain starts getting added (19).

The batteries will be different so that will be a minor expense/hassle.

Right, thanks for the info guys. After a lot of research, I eventually bit the bullet and purchased the A1. It's a lovley little thing, and of course I immediatley set it up against my PD-170 and did some comparative shots.

My results after extensive testing.
HDV footage donconverted in camera to SD, is better than shooting in SD.
Colours and sharpness is increased.
Lowlight = quite satisfactory actually, and not that bad at all. By the time it gets bad enough, I would be using lighting anyway.
Zoom/focus ring = quite flimsy and inconsistent, more of a gimmic i.m.o.

PD-170 VS HVR-A1
Everything captured as SD..i.e. 4:3 (native PD-170 mode)
The PD still rocks and consistently has better image quality, sharpness, colour reproduction than the A1.
The A1 isn't bad, let me just add that in, but the PD's images are superior, by about 25%.

When zooming in to someone's face for instance, the PD's picture is very detailed. The A1 is slightly blurry in comparrisson.

I am talking about real world application here, in a DVD delivered format. I am not saying that if delivered in HDV that the PD outshines the A1.
I am delivering a DVD and that is what I can use and deliver to clients today.

In a few years, when HDV is the norm, the PD will make a nice doorstop.

But today, right here and now, for corporate DVD's and medium still transferred to Betacam, the PD-170 still rocks.

I also did a documentary style test shoot using the A1 exclusivley, and viewed the footage. (SD of course) and it was fine, as I was not comparing to the PD at the time. I walked around some building sites where there was no light indoors, just natural light filtering through any open doors or windows, and the A1 performed superbly.

My final conclusion??

I would not hesitate to use th HVR-A1 as an additional camera on a shoot, and intercutting between the two is not a major problem. I would however not rely on it as my main camera at this point in time.

Hope this makes sense..

The reason that occurred is that downconverting in camera doesn't produce very good results as I mentioned before. With a good workflow, downconverting in your NLE instead of in camera, you will find the A1's output to be at least as good as your PD170 and probably better.

Keep testing Mike - nice purchase btw


I have VX2100 (PD's lil bro) and A1U. After getting a 2x zoom, macro, and super fisheye lenses for the A1U, I'm in love, again.

I now use the A1U a lot more, but still reserve the VX/PD for low light situations or more "rugged" locations.

Hi all
Thanks for all the responses. I have in the mean time aquired an andditional camera, the VX2100. Yes I know it does't have all the gadgets of the PD 170, but as an additional camera it's perfect and matches the PD170 in footage, frame for frame....so that's cool. It actually has a surprising number of manual features, and is still more camera than I can handle..

Back to the HVR-A1..did some more testing, more side by side shots, and consistently, the PD is a fraction sharper, a fraction better colour.

Today I'm going to dump some HDV footage, and downconvert in the NLE and then redump the same footage as DV and do a side by sied comparrisson by burning onto DVD and splitting the footage halfway on the screen. I'll post some stills for anyone interested.

You might want to experiment with your A1U settings Mike as well as your workflow (unless you're still doing the downrez to SD in camera that is).

Even being severely hampered by having it's resolution brought down severely and cropped to 4:3 it should be looking at least as good as the PD-170, except in low light where the PD-170 clearly shines. Part of this is the superior lens on the A1U. But the differences won't be great because the downrez will throw away most of the information recorded in 16:9 HD. It's kind of like saying a Maserati isn't so fast when you put square tires on it...

In it's native HD and 16:9, of course the A1U will deliver you breathtaking output that will give several orders of magnitude greater resolution.

Right, did some more test and tried all possible camera settings to achieve the best results, not everything just in auto mode, but I really tried to get the best out of the camera.
Captured HDV footage in Ulead using 1080 50i profile. (I have demo version of PP2 so that don't work)
Rendered as DV footage.
Captured same footage as donconverted DV (on camera).

Split the screen in half, and inserted both bits, rendered to DVD...
I challenge anyone to tell me where the split is.

Needless to say, watching the hd footage, even converted to WMV using the fattest HDV profile, absolutley blows away any of the DV footage....THAT goes without saying. That is not the point however.

Next I took the HD footage and created a DVD without any other mods to the fotage. Once again I cannot tell any benefit to this route.

My final conlusion, unless someone can prove me wrong is the following.

HVR-A1 recorded in HDV and downsampled in camera delivers the same results as apposed to downconverting in software when final result will be a DVD.
Compare that footage to the same shot on the PD-170, the PD-170 is marginally sharper in every instance.

In (my) conclusion.. The HVR-A1 delivers great pictures when paired up to a 3 CCD DV camera such as the PD-170 or VX 2100 and the footage can easliy be intercut without any big hassle. Possibly +10% contrast and -10% brightness filters can be applied to closer match the footage of the other cameras. When used as a DV camera, the HVR-A1 delivers best results when shooting in HDV and downconverting (either onboard or in post) as apposed to shooting in DV modes from the outset.

These are just my findings over the last two weeks of testing, and my oppinions only. Others may get better results, but for me it's clear. The HVR-A1 is a great 'additional' camera.

Good luck all...

It's really good to read your tests Mike. For years I shot weekly weddings with a pair of VX2ks. As far as image quality goes I could always better it with the DVX100A, but that camera was never as nice to use, so the Sony it was. Looking back at my work the pictures positively glow.

Then I changed to the Z1 & FX1, primarily because of the 16:9 aspect ratio and the far better camera ergonomics. I shot in DV mode because I am only producing normal DVDs for clients, but put simply, I cannot match the picture quality of the old VX, and I don't mean just in low light.

So rather than downconvert between chips and tape, I decided to shoot HDV and downconvert between tape and pc. The results are marginally better. I've not done controlled tests such as yours, but I shoot lots of weddings with the same kit, same style, same skill level. I'm very critical of my own work.

OK, I'm prepared to accept that (say) Canopus' Procoder will give me better downconversion, but I'm just sad to announce that the Z1 and FX1 simply cannot match the VX/PD for outright picture quality in SD mode. So all this talk of black stretch, picture processing, HD Zeiss lenses and T* multi-coating is worthless breath, because up there on the big screen the VX still looks better.

Of course I accept that the Z1 is an HDV camera that blows away the VX when it's allowed to, and that it's only backwards compatible (ie produces SD DV) as a favour to me. I'll just have to live with this, but I do so with a daily sigh of sadness.

tom.

It's really good to read your tests Mike. For years I shot weekly weddings with a pair of VX2ks. As far as image quality goes I could always better it with the DVX100A, but that camera was never as nice to use, so the Sony it was. Looking back at my work the pictures positively glow.

Then I changed to the Z1 & FX1, primarily because of the 16:9 aspect ratio and the far better camera ergonomics. I shot in DV mode because I am only producing normal DVDs for clients, but put simply, I cannot match the picture quality of the old VX, and I don't mean just in low light.

So rather than downconvert between chips and tape, I decided to shoot HDV and downconvert between tape and pc. The results are marginally better. I've not done controlled tests such as yours, but I shoot lots of weddings with the same kit, same style, same skill level. I'm very critical of my own work.

OK, I'm prepared to accept that (say) Canopus' Procoder will give me better downconversion, but I'm just sad to announce that the Z1 and FX1 simply cannot match the VX/PD for outright picture quality in SD mode. So all this talk of black stretch, picture processing, HD Zeiss lenses and T* multi-coating is worthless breath, because up there on the big screen the VX still looks better.

Of course I accept that the Z1 is an HDV camera that blows away the VX when it's allowed to, and that it's only backwards compatible (ie produces SD DV) as a favour to me. I'll just have to live with this, but I do so with a daily sigh of sadness.

tom.

Tom.
I concurr whole hartedly. Right here, right now, as I can deliver format to 95% of my clients, HDV is worthless (to me), so I use the HVR-A1 in the situation it is most usefull in. I.e. - an additional camera complimenting my others, but not as a main camera. I still love it's form and functionality and I'm glad I bought it. I even still use my Sony HCR-DC96 handycam as well for the 'Blairwitch' look and intercut all 4 camera's without a problem. I think it all comes down to the situation and uselfulness of an individual camera.

Personally I think my 74cm CRT t.v. has a better, brighter, more colourful picture than any new LCD or plasma screen, and my footage and music videos look very professional. So all this HDV 'hype' is great for a one off situation, but in the real world, it's useless to me....at this point.

[quote]
HVR-A1 recorded in HDV and downsampled in camera delivers the same results as apposed to downconverting in software when final result will be a DVD.

If you're doing interlaced then yes. But doing progressive from hdv in post will look so much better than doing progressive from sd that it's not even funny.


Possibly +10% contrast and -10% brightness filters can be applied to closer match the footage of the other cameras.

Mpeg2 decoding (hdv) is usual in the 16-235 luminance range and dv-encoding is 0-255. That means there will be a brightness difference if the player doesn't convert the mpeg's luminance to pc-values.

Right, did some more test and tried all possible camera settings to achieve the best results, not everything just in auto mode, but I really tried to get the best out of the camera.
Captured HDV footage in Ulead using 1080 50i profile. (I have demo version of PP2 so that don't work)
Rendered as DV footage.
Captured same footage as donconverted DV (on camera).

Split the screen in half, and inserted both bits, rendered to DVD...
I challenge anyone to tell me where the split is.


You assume that Premiere has the same downsampling abilities as other applications. It does not. If you read through *most* of the posts on this subject, you'll realize that some apps don't do the same job as others. FCP for instance, was horrible for downconverting whereas Canopus Edius and Sony Vegas are not. Premiere (IMO) also isn't up to par. The in-camera downconvert will always be inferior for one primary reason; you're converting to 4:1:1 prior to transcoding to 4:2:0, whereas staying HDV through the workflow and converting in post not only is a 4:2:0 workflow throughout, but you also are presented with significantly more options at the end of the project that you simply do not have if you convert to DV from the camera.
Weekdays, I capture everything as HD. On weekends at my "hobby" work, I capture between 25 and 40 projects that have a length of 5 minutes that I'll never, ever again see, and don't care about. For these, I downconvert for capture, simply because my laptop used for editing these small pieces isn't up to par for fast HDV editing, plus the render to MPEG2 for DVD is much faster from a DV file vs the greater resolution being downconverted, transcoded.
Try your experiment again with Sony Vegas or Canopus Edius, and you'll see an end difference. Or, have a peek at one of the VASST HDV training discs, and there is a split screen there as well. The difference isn't monstrous, but it's not insignificant, either.

Hello Douglas.

Let me just then finalize my conclusions.

In my experience, and with the software at hand, I have drawn my conlusions. I.e. What can I do with my camera today, at this pint in time.

I of course have not tested every bit of software out there, and neither do I plan to. I am using what I have and need to establish findings according to what I have and can actually produce.

Thanks never the less for your input, I realize there are other methods out there.

Hello Douglas.

Let me just then finalize my conclusions.

In my experience, and with the software at hand, I have drawn my conlusions. I.e. What can I do with my camera today, at this pint in time.

I of course have not tested every bit of software out there, and neither do I plan to. I am using what I have and need to establish findings according to what I have and can actually produce.

Thanks never the less for your input, I realize there are other methods out there.

Fair enough, but it's important for others reading this thread to understand that your conclusions are drawn from a choice in tools that do not necessarily reflect all aspects of a standard.
Some editing applications for example, have horrible MPEG encoders as part of their package. Does this therefore mean that all NLE systems are terrible for encoding? Of course not.
I absolutely agree; if you're shooting HDV and aren't concerned about final output quality and/or output options down the road, *and* using Adobe Premiere or older versions of FCP, then you'll speed your workflow by downconverting in-camera as opposed to working with HDV on the timeline.

Hey Douglas, I couldn't find your split screens on your site..

The split screen showing the differences in detail (both at normal view and at 3x view) are found on all the VASST HDV training DVDs (Canon A1/G1, Sony Z1/FX1, Sony V1/FX7). There is a low-quality version of it on YouTube under VASSTTraining as well. There are no screenshots/images of just the split screen on the VASST site.