On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 20:06:30 GMT, "Bill Farnsworth" <bill.farnsworth@verizon.CUTOUTnet> wrote:

>I just got back from a shoot in Kentucky. One day of green screen using a

>DVW-700 DigiBetacam. And one day of B-Roll using a PD-150.

>

>The PD-150 was used with the idea that the footage would be shot at 1/30th

>and graded in post.

>The footage won't be tweaked until later next week, so I can't comment on

>that.

By shooting at 1/30th, you have halved the vertical

resolution. I would never recommend shooting this camera

below 1/60th (NTSC) unless low-light conditions require

it - then results are acceptable down to 1/15th if motion

is kept minimal...

>However, I thought I would pass along my impression of the PD-150's

>operational characteristics based on the camera being touted as a Pro-sumer

>imaging tool.

>Here are my thoughts.

They are appreciated, from a pro-shooter's perspective,

but this perspective may not have yet opened you to

some possibilities... (more, below).

>The only operational "Pro" parts of this camera are the two XL audio inputs.

>The rest of the camera is all "-sumer".

>

>What I liked......

>LCD flip out screen.

>The size of the camera body.

>Changing batteries was easy.

>The menu is simple and almost logical.

>The white balance worked reasonably well.

>34 minute DVCam tapes.

It will also take Mini-DV tapes, and shoot Mini-DV

up to 82-minutes, if needed...

>What I didn't like.

>Damn near everything else. (I could stop right here, but I MUST warn the

>professional shooters)

>The power switch has one serious flaw. It needs a lockout, or a greater

>distance in the throw of the switch between "ON" and "ON Memory". It is way

>to damn easy to loose temporary settings when powering up the camera because

>of that switch.

It does have a lock-out, though it is rather tiny...

>Black and white viewfinder does not come even remotely close to being

>anything "I" would consider having on a camera that has the name "PRO" in

>it. The viewfinder is as equally important to a professional user as the

>quality and usability of the lens. It is to small for any practical purpose.

>Especially focus.

One can get used to it - putting a full-sized finder

on this little camera would make it not a little camera

anymore...;-)

>Speaking of focus...... The lens' manual focus is nothing more than (pardon

>my french here....) a fucking joke and is completely worthless. Hey Sony!

>Manual servo control is in no way, shape or form, a professional

>videographer's idea of manual. What the hell are you people thinking?

Try the AF - you may be surprised how good it is...

>The zoom rocker is almost tolerable in it's ability to finesse a slow move.

>But it doesn't make the grade either.

But, it isn't TOO bad as these things go...;-)

A Varizoom, BTW, can give you continuously-variable

zoom rate while zooming...

>And I would love to meet the fucking idiot that came up with the manual iris

>control. A little wheel on the camera body. What is up with that?

Unless you need to lock down exposure, try AE (and you

can select the aperture to the i/2 stop in AE-A). If

you come from a full-manual "pro" camera perspective,

the manual controls on this camera will seem to be

a bad joke - but if you rely on the excellent automatic

controls (AF, AE, AWB), when appropriate, and bias these

auto controls to taste with the "custom controls", you

just may find that you can shoot very fast and easily

with this camera, with surprisingly good results...

Consider it the "Point-'n'-Shoot" equivalent in the

video world of these in the photo world. While it would

not be the first choice for gear for many jobs, for

some it is appropriate - and capable of high-quality

results (like an $800 Nikon, Canon, Leitz, etc. "P-'n'-S"

can do in the still world when you nedd something

small, quick and easy to use, but still capable of

very good results. When people view the images, they

are not going to care what you used to get them, and

small automatic cameras can get you places and footage

where the big ones can't, superior as their output

may be...

>In all fairness, the lenses that professional videographers use cost a

>minimum of $6,000. And that is twice the value of one PD-150. But then

>again, the camera is touted as "Pro" and will take lots of heat from

>professional users

Not so long as it is not used as a replacement for more

flexible "big" pro cameras, but learn its place, and what

it does better, and the PD150 et al. can serve "pro"

purposes quite well...

>How it handles white clips and flare is sad. The dynamic range is nowhere

>near what a professional user would expect. But the jury is out until the

>tapes get massaged in post. I'll leave that one alone for now.

You may be surprised..., though mebbe not...;-) The

inherent contrast on these is higher than for the bigger

cameras (and tonality in general is not as good), but

the tonal range is handled well enough with some of these

that work in post is rewarded...

>I can't comment on the audio because the audio from this camera on this

>particular shoot is nothing more than scratch track reference.

Depending on the kind of shoot, here, again, you may be

surprised...;-)

>I can't seem to find a home for this camera. It's too small for practical

>professional users. But at the same time, it too big to be used as an

>"optional interesting angle" on a action shoot or. I'd rather use something

>more compact that has less fragile pieces sticking out of the body, like the

>viewfinder and the entire audio array.

Try a VX2000...;-) Or, in bright light, a TRV950...;-)

>Overall....... I think the camera is a yawn.

It may grow on you, giving you more range in what

and how you shoot. It is easy to "crane" this

camera using cheap gear, it is easily hand-held

and "flown" almost anywhere (under bushes, through

crowds with little disturbance, changing viewpoint

heights easily, etc.). It is not just a "hand-held"

camera, but it can be held or supported in places

big cameras cannot be. And, you can take it places

and shoot where a big camera would be too obtrusive...

>One other piece of gear that I did like however was the Century Optics Zoom

>Thru Wide Angle Adapter. It's well made, rugged and (as far as I could tell)

>sharp. THAT piece of glass is an invaluable tool.

You may want to try others. See:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm. Some

of the alternatives are very light, cheap, and

compact in addition to being sharp. With these small

cameras, you can afford to try a wide range of

optical "toys" (in the good sense...;-), giving you

more variety/versatility...

>There you have it.

>I'll let you know the result of the grading after the show is cut.

>

>Bill F.

Expect "jaggies" and jitter from that 1/30th...