Dreaming, Area51 or Maybe at DVinfo.net

Bob Harotunian · January 23rd, 2007, 03:36 PM

Like everyone else, I've been intigued with the thought of delivering HD content but have also been turned off by the anticipated cost to upgrade just about everything. But, it's really not HDV that I want now...it's Sixteen Nine, plain and simple.

I've seen enough video produced with this camera to know it's capability with skilled shooters. So, I thought I'd just throw this question out here. Is there any chance that Sony would re-tool the PD170 with native 16:9 CCDs?

I know, there are many reasons why Sony would never do this but just think of the creative possibilities for us and the sales that Sony would reap. Just a thought.
Bob

Chris Barcellos · January 23rd, 2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Harotunian

I've seen enough video produced with this camera to know it's capability with skilled shooters. So, I thought I'd just throw this question out here. Is there any chance that Sony would re-tool the PD170 with native 16:9 CCDs?

I know, there are many reasons why Sony would never do this but just think of the creative possibilities for us and the sales that Sony would reap. Just a thought.
Bob

Bob:

Sony already has. FX1 shoots true 16:9 DV. The FX7 shoots true 16:9 DV, and has better latitude. So does V1U and Z1. And to boot, they all shoot HDV too, as another option.

Boyd Ostroff · January 23rd, 2007, 03:49 PM

I agree with Chris. As far as Sony is concerned, they've already done this with the FX1 and FX7. You can leave both of these cameras in DV mode and they will essentially be a 16:9 VX-2100, plus some nice upgrades to the controls and LCD screen.

Before that, Sony had the PDX-10 which might also be considered a 16:9 version of the PD-150 but with smaller chips. Unfortunately it is now discontinued, but you can find them in the used market.

Bob Harotunian · January 23rd, 2007, 06:19 PM

Chris and Boyd,
I'm not sure the FX1 is a real upgrade to the PD170 especially in DV mode. Everything I've read so far indicates that it is inferior to the PD170 in low light not to mention that it doesn't have XLR audio. It looks like the FX1 is about $500 more than the PD170 now @ B&H not to mention the add on cost for an audio adapter.

I produce weddings and as you know many receptions are dimly lit. I use to sweat bullets before a wedding when I owned GL2s. Now, I don't worry about low lit weddings with the 170. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Bob

Boyd Ostroff · January 23rd, 2007, 07:27 PM

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the VX-2100. For the PD-170 I should have said the Z1 and V1. I'm not sure that the difference is as great as you think if you're only interested in standard definition. You can crank up the gain higher on the Z1. You will start to get some noise at 15 and 18dB, however if you shoot HDV and capture as DV it won't be too bad because you're downsampling the noisy pixels. You can also shoot at 1/30 sec without losing resolution if you only want DV. And the Z1/V1 have black stretch which also helps with low light.

Now you may get slightly better low light performance with the PD, but I don't think the different is so large if shooting HDV and downconverting to DV in-camera. See the following about the Z1/FX1 in low light for lots of discussion:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54414

Now you still might want a widescreen version, but I'm pretty confident this just ain't gonna happen. Sony has been pretty clear about phasing out their SD prosumer camcorders and other companies seem to be following suit.

Bob Hart · January 24th, 2007, 12:44 AM

I have my suspicion Sony may have intended or left their options open for a 16:9 upgrade with a wider CCD of the same pixel size and pitch because the lens optical centre is offset relative to the centre of the CCD on the PD150 style camcorder family.

It seems CCD developments went down the route of CCDs which remained 1/3" but were less tall, had more and smaller pixels rather than going wider with the same height. Rather a pity I think, because the native 16:9 camera with the same low-light performance would have been a killer combination.

Ruben Senderey · January 24th, 2007, 11:05 AM

you can try anamorphic lens (from century ) on the pd150,

January 23rd, 2007, 03:36 PM	#1
Bob Harotunian Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 360	Dreaming, Area51 or Maybe Like everyone else, I've been intigued with the thought of delivering HD content but have also been turned off by the anticipated cost to upgrade just about everything. But, it's really not HDV that I want now...it's Sixteen Nine, plain and simple. I've seen enough video produced with this camera to know it's capability with skilled shooters. So, I thought I'd just throw this question out here. Is there any chance that Sony would re-tool the PD170 with native 16:9 CCDs? I know, there are many reasons why Sony would never do this but just think of the creative possibilities for us and the sales that Sony would reap. Just a thought. Bob

January 24th, 2007, 11:05 AM	#7
Ruben Senderey Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: LAUDERHILL FLORIDA Posts: 47	lens you can try anamorphic lens (from century ) on the pd150,

January 23rd, 2007, 03:49 PM	#3
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,798	I agree with Chris. As far as Sony is concerned, they've already done this with the FX1 and FX7. You can leave both of these cameras in DV mode and they will essentially be a 16:9 VX-2100, plus some nice upgrades to the controls and LCD screen. Before that, Sony had the PDX-10 which might also be considered a 16:9 version of the PD-150 but with smaller chips. Unfortunately it is now discontinued, but you can find them in the used market.

January 23rd, 2007, 06:19 PM	#4
Bob Harotunian Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Somerville, MA Posts: 360	Chris and Boyd, I'm not sure the FX1 is a real upgrade to the PD170 especially in DV mode. Everything I've read so far indicates that it is inferior to the PD170 in low light not to mention that it doesn't have XLR audio. It looks like the FX1 is about $500 more than the PD170 now @ B&H not to mention the add on cost for an audio adapter. I produce weddings and as you know many receptions are dimly lit. I use to sweat bullets before a wedding when I owned GL2s. Now, I don't worry about low lit weddings with the 170. Correct me if I'm wrong. Bob

January 23rd, 2007, 07:27 PM	#5
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,798	Sorry, I thought you were talking about the VX-2100. For the PD-170 I should have said the Z1 and V1. I'm not sure that the difference is as great as you think if you're only interested in standard definition. You can crank up the gain higher on the Z1. You will start to get some noise at 15 and 18dB, however if you shoot HDV and capture as DV it won't be too bad because you're downsampling the noisy pixels. You can also shoot at 1/30 sec without losing resolution if you only want DV. And the Z1/V1 have black stretch which also helps with low light. Now you may get slightly better low light performance with the PD, but I don't think the different is so large if shooting HDV and downconverting to DV in-camera. See the following about the Z1/FX1 in low light for lots of discussion: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54414 Now you still might want a widescreen version, but I'm pretty confident this just ain't gonna happen. Sony has been pretty clear about phasing out their SD prosumer camcorders and other companies seem to be following suit.

January 24th, 2007, 12:44 AM	#6
Bob Hart Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: PERTH. W.A. AUSTRALIA. Posts: 4,476	I have my suspicion Sony may have intended or left their options open for a 16:9 upgrade with a wider CCD of the same pixel size and pitch because the lens optical centre is offset relative to the centre of the CCD on the PD150 style camcorder family. It seems CCD developments went down the route of CCDs which remained 1/3" but were less tall, had more and smaller pixels rather than going wider with the same height. Rather a pity I think, because the native 16:9 camera with the same low-light performance would have been a killer combination.