150 vs 170

J

Jim Simon

Veteran
2011 will be the year I finally upgrade to HD delivery. My customers are finally starting to ask for it, and I mean to deliver. But which camera to choose?

150 Advantages

1. Less expensive
2. Cheaper media
3. Full 1920 x 1080 recording
4. Two remote inputs, one for zoom/record, and one for focus/iris (handy for studio config shooting)

150 Disadvantages

1. 4:2:0 recording
2. Long GOP
3. AAC audio
4. Only 1080p/60 capture, with all recorded frame rates derived from that
5. No SD modes


170 Advantages (that matter to me)

1. 4:2:2 recording
2. I-frame only
3. WAV audio

170 Disadvantages

1. Much more expensive camera
2. VERY expensive media
3. 1280 x 1080 recording
4. Only one remote input for zoom/record. No focus/iris remote
5. Only 1080p/60 capture, with all recording derived form such


Now, the 1 and 2 disadvantages for the 170 are so large for me that the advantages of the 170 really need to be HUGE for those to be overcome. My question is for anyone familiar with the media from both cameras.

Is the 170's DVCPRO HD so far superior in image quality that it can make up for the huge difference in price? I'm not concerned with the work flow here, only the final image quality as delivered on Blu-ray. There will be some minor CC work via MB Looks and Colorista, but no green screen or other such work. My business is primarily event work - weddings, plays, recitals, sports, etc. And I will retain my trusty tape based DVC80 for SD work if need be.

So, is the 170 justified in it's severe price difference for the event shooter?
 
I own a 150, and I've shot alot of stuff with the HVX200 (not the 'A' version that has the same chip as the 150/170). The senser in the 150 and 170 is the same, so the image quality between the two is pretty much exactly the same.

I've never tried keying with the 150 footage, but beyond that, I've found the 150's codec holds up pretty well in post. I've been able to get away with the same amount of color correction as I have with DVCPROHD footage.

Keep in mind, editing DVCHDPRO is a *much* smoother experience on older systems, unless of course, you transcode the AVCHD from the 150.

On newer systems, like an Intel I7-920 and up.... the experience of editing AVCHD native improves greatly.

Hope that helps!
 
Jim Simon said:
170 Disadvantages
3. 1280 x 1080 recording
Click to expand...
That's not really that big of a deal. The chips in the 170 (and 150) are said by Panasonic to deliver a maximum of about 1400 x 810 resolution, so the downsample to 1280 really doesn't give up much.

4. Only one remote input for zoom/record. No focus/iris remote
Click to expand...
Not true. The 170 has the same focus/iris remote input that the 150 does.

5. Only 1080p/60 capture, with all recording derived form such
Click to expand...
Not true. It's 1080p at whatever frame rate you tell it to go at, so it could be 1080/2p, or 1080/24p, or 1080/42p, or 1080/60p.
Click to expand...
 
The 170 also has dual-card slots for hot swapping. The 150 only has one slot. Is there really a difference between AAC and WAV audio?
 
I was in the cross road just few days ago; I finally made my decision to go with 170. I love it. I’m glade I did. Not sure if you can get Full 1920 x 1080 recording on 150.
 
Thanks for the responses. I did notice afterwards the 170 also has two remote inputs, so that point is moot.

Can you guys go into any detail about why you prefer the 170? Keep in mind I'm primarily an event shooter with little need for heavy effects or post work. But price is a BIG concern for me. Does the 170 justify it's nearly double the cost of operation? (Camera plus recording media.)
 
there is a lot of stuff that may come down to opinion or perception. like what one person accepts as desirable or "professional"
but for me, the big selling point is the dvcproHD codec from the 170 is an absolute pleasure to work with.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, dude. But again I'm less interested in work flow and more interested in the quality of the image at final delivery on Blu-ray. Do you find the 170 offer such a superior image that it's work the heavy price upgrade?
 
Just throwing it out there, I usually rent an HVX from the public access station in my town when I do weddings. I have to periodically dump BOTH 64GB P2 cards on my laptop to get through the ceremony and reception. The most recent wedding I did was that case, and we had 2 other cameras rolling as well. This was all shot in DVCPRO HD 1080p/24, so I really couldn't have gone much higher quality, but I am sure two 64GB cards would cost a lot, versus 128 GB worth of SD cards. I have only used a 150 once, so I can't give you much of an accurate opinion, but I enjoyed the camera the one time I used it, and it edited very nicely on my iMac i7 (so did DVCPRO HD).
 
Carlos Corral said:
then the 170 is your baby!]
Click to expand...

But "why" is my question? Is the image of the 170 at final delivery worth the extra price? Is the WAV audio so superior to the 150's AAC that I should spend the extra money?

I guess what I'm asking is, if we ignore work flow and green screen work, is there any reason at all to justify the very large price gap in the 170 over the 150?
 
well. P2 is generally considered a more robust and reliable media format than sd cards. and from my + or - 4 years of constant P2 use, without even a hint of trouble. thats worth the extra cost in my book.
 
Jim,

You have some dual posts going here, so if you missed this one, here is a partial re-quote from the 150 list:

"Both cams can produce great images, so simple IQ is a pretty irrelevant comparison. Between the two cams, you may want to ask yourself what you need in terms of editing for example do you mind transcoding, do you plan additional cams, will you be shooting fast action, do you need variable frame rates, will you be color grading or doing a lot of green screen, do you need HD-SDI or firewire output for live broadcast, do you need more than one memory card slot, do you need the most reliable media. That is a lot of do you(s).

Yes the 170 is a more expensive cam, but it has quite a few pro features if you need them."

Grant
 
wgzn said:
P2 is generally considered a more robust and reliable media format than sd cards.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but that would be more of a "work flow" quality. (Same with your notes, Grant.)

I'm really asking if the higher price is justified by the image (or sound) quality at final delivery, on Blu-ray?

Ignoring everything but what the paying client will see and hear, knowing green screen is not required, is it worth the extra money?

Put another way, considering the two cam's similar hardware, does the DVCPRO HD codec (and WAV for audio) produce an image noticeably superior to AVCHD (and AAC audio) that it's worth almost double the price?
 
Sound, yes. WAV audio much better than AAC. As far as picture goes, you don't have the Luxury of 4:2:2 recording. Also as far as I know, you are not going to get the Full 1920 x 1080 recording, If I'm wrong, please someone correct me on Full 1920 x 1080 recording.
 
Jim,

There was some meaning in my last post, and it seems to have passed you by. Codec (your capture and editing workflow) is very important to your end product; what your client sees. While AVCHD is very good, it can be defeated more easily than DVCHD-Pro since it is a long gop codec and has less color info. So if you defeat the codec, with fast action for example, yes your customer will see it. DVCHD-Pro will color grade better, so if you do much color grading, your customer will see it. If your SDHC memory card takes a powder, your customer won't see it, any image that is.

Now many people use the HMC150 for sports and all manor of stuff and do just fine, so I'm not suggesting there is a problem here. But when pushed to the limit, AVCHD will bust before DVCProHD.

To specifically answer your question, if your are shooting a test pattern, you won't be able to tell the difference. When you start adding variables which test the codec, at some point you will notice. So the real answer is that it certainly uncertain, and will depend on your type of work if AVCHD is good enough. Lots of folks think it is, and don't feel any need for DVCProHD. I shoot both AVCHD and DVCProHD, and both work well, but if I had to choose, I would go with the 170 and DVCProHD every time. Is it worth the extra money, there isn't a perfect answer.

Grant
 
strange that not a lot of people have vast side by side experience. i guess that may be because they are different cameras with different target users...
you may be on your own on this. why dont you rent both cameras and do your own side by side comparison?

keeping in mind, you will need to shoot low light, fast action and other situations that will highlight possible weaknesses...
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 150 does not have variable frame rates like the 170. This to me is the selling point. If you ever do anything in your events where you take footage and speed it up/ slow it down in post your clients will see a HUGE difference by capturing those moments in real fast/slow motion through the cameras variable frame rates. When I shoot weddings I shoot 12FPS while people exit the ceremony, go through dinner lines.... and I shoot 60 frames or 48 frames during special dances to make it seem dreamlike. They have tons of real world applications, and make a profound impact on your productions. The differences in price are less exaggerrated when you buy used as well.

So. To answer your question. If you take both out of the box, turn them on and film something, your image is going to look pretty much the same on both cameras. If you customize scene files, or would like to shoot variable frame rates, or use your camera to its fullest... the 170 will get you further. Also, someone else mentioned this, but I was extremely disappointed when I connected AVCHD media to my PowerPC G5 and got a friendly dialog box informing me I couldn't even transcode the footage on my system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top