What are you doing?

Dave Dodds · June 9th, 2007, 02:03 PM

This brings me back to my original post.

It's a great camera. I love what it can do (everything from the low-light to the custom preset options). But for that "film look," it's not what people want. Sure, with the flash mode (which I have played with only briefly) and even the 1/30 shutter (which is my preferred mode of shooting for just about everything) it produces some pleasingly different-looking video. That said, it's not 24p. When people want 24p SD, the DVX is the request/demand.

The 170 gets a lot of use in news (it's a frequent b-cam at 20/20 and Primetime), documentary (Albert Maysles swears by it - see http://www.mayslesfilms.com/companyp...sles/note.htm), and the event guys LOVE it. It's got respect, just not with the "film guys."

By the way, thank you to everyone on here so far. I'm feeling pretty good about the camera again.

~~Dave

Kevin Hodes · June 11th, 2007, 10:48 AM

Dave, my experience supports yours (i.e., you'll get more work if you've got a 24p camera as opposed to a PD-170).

A couple of years ago I did some freelance shooting for a producer friend who at the time was producing stuff for the History Channel. The other shooters ("full-timers" for the production house producing the program) were all using the dvx100a. I had a 170 and my producer friend let me use it but I was third camera and shooting only B-roll.

At that time - after seeing what shooters in the field were using - I was really questioning my decision to purchase the 170.

Around the same time, I also worked on an independent film (low budget) that was shot entirely with the dvx. The DP on that shoot did a lot of work for cable and he was in love with the dvx.

The word I always heard from the pro shooters/DP's was "flexibility." The absolutely loved the flexibility of the dvx.

I do think the 170 is a nice camera. I still have mine and I'm shooting a documentary with it. But I also know that if I really wanted to get a lot of shooting work back when I was looking for that sort of thing, I would have been much better off with the dvx100a. That was THE camera to have.

Gabe Strong · June 12th, 2007, 12:07 PM

It really all depends. I'm sure there are places where you are absolutely correct and if you have the DVX or XL-2 or a 24p camera, that you will get more work. Although, now, that has probably changed somewhat with the introduction of HD cameras.....will they want 24p SD if they could have HD? And then price plays a factor as well, are they getting the same price for 24p SD as HD or regular 60i SD?

For me, I have never, ever, ever, been asked for anything shot in 24p. I usually get asked if I can "make a commercial", or "get some video of the sinking cruise ship" or "produce a DVD" or something of that sort. My clients care about one thing, what the finished product looks like. I have used Nattress's 24p Film look filters before to produce something that looks a little different (it was for a wedding with subject matter that I thought was appropriate for this type of 'look'), but it wasn't something I was asked to do. So, as I said before, it probably really depends where you live, who you work for, and such. Personally, I think the whole 24p thing is a bit of a marketing bill of sale. Is it different? Yes. But there are so many people out there using it just because they "heard about it" and don't really understand WHEN they should use it. It's an "effect" and it doesn't "magically" make everything you shoot better. But people seem to think that it does.

Here's an example. Here in Alaska, the governor's press guys started producing a weekly show called "Our Alaska" They had an anchor, video packages of what the governor was doing that week, etc... It looked very similar to a news show....(of course it was pretty one sided/based on what the governor thought). Guess what they shot in? That's right....24p. Do you think that made it look more like a news show?? Can you guess WHY they shot in 24p? Ya, because it was 'cool' and 'everyone was doing it'. My opinion, (and this is my opinion only) is that if they were doing a 'news type' show, they should shoot what news shoots....60i. Shooting 24p for news/reality just looks strange to my eyes. So just using 24p for everything, is something I think has become a problem.

All this of course is a little off the subject. AND if flexibility is key, then 24p is an option you don't have in camera with a PD-170. Of course you don't have the option for HD with a DVX so maybe you should just go to an HVX. But then you are using chips with a low pixel count so maybe you should go to the new Sony EX XDcam when it is released. Of course then you are using 4:2:0 colorspace so maybe you should go to the Varicam or wait for something new.........and so on. Nothing is perfect (until you get to the extremely high budget cameras and even then maybe not). So I say, shoot with what you've got!

June 9th, 2007, 02:03 PM	#16
Dave Dodds Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 204	This brings me back to my original post. It's a great camera. I love what it can do (everything from the low-light to the custom preset options). But for that "film look," it's not what people want. Sure, with the flash mode (which I have played with only briefly) and even the 1/30 shutter (which is my preferred mode of shooting for just about everything) it produces some pleasingly different-looking video. That said, it's not 24p. When people want 24p SD, the DVX is the request/demand. The 170 gets a lot of use in news (it's a frequent b-cam at 20/20 and Primetime), documentary (Albert Maysles swears by it - see http://www.mayslesfilms.com/companyp...sles/note.htm), and the event guys LOVE it. It's got respect, just not with the "film guys." By the way, thank you to everyone on here so far. I'm feeling pretty good about the camera again. ~~Dave

June 11th, 2007, 10:48 AM	#17
Kevin Hodes Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 25	Dave, my experience supports yours (i.e., you'll get more work if you've got a 24p camera as opposed to a PD-170). A couple of years ago I did some freelance shooting for a producer friend who at the time was producing stuff for the History Channel. The other shooters ("full-timers" for the production house producing the program) were all using the dvx100a. I had a 170 and my producer friend let me use it but I was third camera and shooting only B-roll. At that time - after seeing what shooters in the field were using - I was really questioning my decision to purchase the 170. Around the same time, I also worked on an independent film (low budget) that was shot entirely with the dvx. The DP on that shoot did a lot of work for cable and he was in love with the dvx. The word I always heard from the pro shooters/DP's was "flexibility." The absolutely loved the flexibility of the dvx. I do think the 170 is a nice camera. I still have mine and I'm shooting a documentary with it. But I also know that if I really wanted to get a lot of shooting work back when I was looking for that sort of thing, I would have been much better off with the dvx100a. That was THE camera to have.

June 12th, 2007, 12:07 PM	#18
Gabe Strong Major Player Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Juneau, AK Posts: 814	It really all depends. I'm sure there are places where you are absolutely correct and if you have the DVX or XL-2 or a 24p camera, that you will get more work. Although, now, that has probably changed somewhat with the introduction of HD cameras.....will they want 24p SD if they could have HD? And then price plays a factor as well, are they getting the same price for 24p SD as HD or regular 60i SD? For me, I have never, ever, ever, been asked for anything shot in 24p. I usually get asked if I can "make a commercial", or "get some video of the sinking cruise ship" or "produce a DVD" or something of that sort. My clients care about one thing, what the finished product looks like. I have used Nattress's 24p Film look filters before to produce something that looks a little different (it was for a wedding with subject matter that I thought was appropriate for this type of 'look'), but it wasn't something I was asked to do. So, as I said before, it probably really depends where you live, who you work for, and such. Personally, I think the whole 24p thing is a bit of a marketing bill of sale. Is it different? Yes. But there are so many people out there using it just because they "heard about it" and don't really understand WHEN they should use it. It's an "effect" and it doesn't "magically" make everything you shoot better. But people seem to think that it does. Here's an example. Here in Alaska, the governor's press guys started producing a weekly show called "Our Alaska" They had an anchor, video packages of what the governor was doing that week, etc... It looked very similar to a news show....(of course it was pretty one sided/based on what the governor thought). Guess what they shot in? That's right....24p. Do you think that made it look more like a news show?? Can you guess WHY they shot in 24p? Ya, because it was 'cool' and 'everyone was doing it'. My opinion, (and this is my opinion only) is that if they were doing a 'news type' show, they should shoot what news shoots....60i. Shooting 24p for news/reality just looks strange to my eyes. So just using 24p for everything, is something I think has become a problem. All this of course is a little off the subject. AND if flexibility is key, then 24p is an option you don't have in camera with a PD-170. Of course you don't have the option for HD with a DVX so maybe you should just go to an HVX. But then you are using chips with a low pixel count so maybe you should go to the new Sony EX XDcam when it is released. Of course then you are using 4:2:0 colorspace so maybe you should go to the Varicam or wait for something new.........and so on. Nothing is perfect (until you get to the extremely high budget cameras and even then maybe not). So I say, shoot with what you've got!