News from IBC2007:

The PDW-700 will be the "Top-of-the-range XDCAM HD camcorder recording HD material at up to 50Mb/s onto Dual Layer Disc – Three 2/3-inch CCD sensors, Full 1920 x 1080 4:2:2 operation and 1080/720 switchable."

Also announced is the PDW-HD1500 recorder to go with it.

See http://www.sonybiz.net/biz/view/ShowContent.action?site=biz_en_EU&contentId=1184310553385

Hi Chris,

Any idea on a release date for this camera?
Would it be around the same time as the PDW EX1?

Since the company I am doing some work for are looking at this camera and I'd been really keen to get my hands on it.


Thanks

No date mentioned in the press release, but I would assume its target delivery date is intended for early 2008 and not at the same time as the PDW-EX1. I'd love to be proven wrong, though!

They will be released early 2008 according someone from Sony yesterday at IBC. They had two camera's on their booth at IBC. From what I saw it looked very good. The time to play with was very short, because everyone wanted to see and touch this beautiful toy! ;-)

Was there any indication of price?

Any sign of Cinealta logo in the camera, since there is no 24f at the link?

I couldn't get a price indication, but you can expect it somewhere between an PDW-F355 and HDW-730S. That's nothing new because I guess you already knew that.

As far as I can remember there was no CineAlta logo on the camera.

Any sign of Cinealta logo in the camera, since there is no 24f at the link?

This camera isn't supposed to have 24P (or at least that was the case at NAB). It's aimed at high quality network news gathering.

-gb-

This camera isn't supposed to have 24P (or at least that was the case at NAB). It's aimed at high quality network news gathering.

-gb-

And otherwise it would really knock a hole in the HDCAM sales.

I thought after the EX1 Sony had started giving the shooter what they want, not just what Sony wants them to have. :(

I thought after the EX1 Sony had started giving the shooter what they want, not just what Sony wants them to have. :(

As a manufacturer, you do have to protect the investments of your customers or else you won't have any in short order.

Sony has three levels of HD market segment...

HDV - aimed at consumers and low end professionals
XDCAM HD - mid level quality for production houses and indy film makers
HDCAM/SR - the high end imagery for those that demand it

Sorry if that bothers you, but that's the way it is.

-gb-

Sorry if that bothers you, but that's the way it is.

-gb-

You say this as if you are complicit or at least agree with their thinking?

I think it's a huge mistake if that's how their going to operate. Too bad.

You say this as if you are complicit or at least agree with their thinking?

I think it's a huge mistake if that's how their going to operate. Too bad.


This is not unique to Sony. Many manufacturers of many different products have a product line differentiation with pricing that reflects it.

When I was recently looking up engine parts for my Briggs and Stratton powered pressure washer, I found that even they have different tiers of engine build quality depending on expected end use.

Or, how about a 1 ton dually pick up vs. a 1/2 ton pick up. They both haul things in the bed, but the former will cost much more because it has a lot of extra heavy duty build quality.

HDCAM/SR = 1 ton dually with diesel engine
HDV = 1/2 ton pickup

I could go on with more examples, but I hope you get the point.

As to complicit, well, I do get hired by Sony occasionally to demo and teach the XDCAM HD stuff, mainly because I was an early adopter. To that end, I know where they officially position their HD product segments.

-gb-

I think it's a huge mistake if that's how their going to operate. Too bad.

I agree. While Sony 'has' to protect the customers' investment, IMHO this specific delineation point (optical) is stupid, in that Sony wants to use their most highly spec'ed format for interlaced images only (at least in the initial specs)?????????

I believe there is space for BOTH highly spec'ed optical and tape-based formats. The high-end pros will likely stick to the tape-based F900/R and many high-end indie filmmakers could use the pdw-700. At least Sony could install 24P recording via an OPTION board (like the old XDCams)...!

Just as well for Sony, then, because this move might drive indies who want highly spec'ed file-based recording to the Red camera (assuming Red can increase their manufacturing throughput) or to Panasonic's 2/3" camp (where P2 cost may not be an issue for the high-end folks)...

cheers,
-G

(I own an F350 rig, BTW so I don' mean to troll)

When Sony and Panasonic introduced the DV format, as we all know they made it 4:1:1 (NTSC). This intentional hobbling was to protect both companies' high-end digital formats, Digital Beta and D-5.

But JVC didn't have a high-end digital format to defend, so they introduced Digital-S (later called D-9) which was 4:2:2, higher data rate and lower compression than DV. It was virtually as good as Digital Beta, something that Sony would not do at the lower price point, which of course they could have easily done.

Sadly, most videographers failed to notice the incredible value proposition of D-9 and supported the vastly inferior DV. Later Panasonic gave the D-9 fomrat a nod by cloning it into DVCPRO 50. Anyway, thanks to Sony's market stratification, I made my living for six or seven years with my D-9 camera and deck primarily by upselling clients from DV to D-9.

Hence my email address of tipsd9video@msn.com which I guess I should update someday to tipsxdcamhdvideo. No, it just doesn't roll off the tongue.

Tip

HDCAM/SR = 1 ton dually with diesel engine
HDV = 1/2 ton pickup


Greg, I understand why they may exclude 24p from this camera and it is not for the customers benefit.

The point is that 24p could easily be included as it has been on many lower end cameras. I doubt it would add anything to the price as it would likely be a software setting. It's not like they are having to build a bigger pickup truck.

Of course, Sony can "give away" 24p on lower end cameras because high end users demand 2/3" chips and better codecs. The PDW 700 would supply these, and with 24p would take business away from HDCAM.

The specs do mention progressive scan, so it should have 25p in PAL land. Hopefully 24p will be there too by the time of release.

Greg, I understand why they may exclude 24p from this camera and it is not for the customers benefit.

Ironically, it is for a customer's benefit. They wanted to have the camera ready for a certain major customer by a certain deadline. It had to be able to shoot 720P so that's where the emphasis on functionality went. 24P/over/under crank were not the design priority. It is not so much crippling as simply making a deadline.

This camera is aimed squarely at HD ENG markets.

-gb-

They wanted to have the camera ready for a certain major customer by a certain deadline.

Let's hope that a firmware update will make these very desirable features available at a later date.

Let's hope that a firmware update will make these very desirable features available at a later date.

If it's got 25P I wouldn't worry too much if you're in the UK. Lots of low budget features and TV dramas use 25P on the HDW 750 in Europe or PAL countries.

24P is more an NTSC effect or theatrical film out ideal. However, you can still do a film out with 25P - 16mm & 35mm films have been shot at 25 fps and projected at 24fps.

If it's got 25P I wouldn't worry too much if you're in the UK. Lots of low budget features and TV dramas use 25P on the HDW 750 in Europe or PAL countries.


I'm not too worried as I mostly use 25P anyway, it's more the principle I was complaining about. I just don't like to see products being deliberately crippled.

I think Greg's analogy is correct about the tiers of pricing but I think it also supports other's feelings that the 700 should be a CineAlta camera. I think we would all expect to pay somewhere between the 350 and the HDCam for the benefit of 50 mbps 1080p24 HD thus creating yet another price point. C'mon Sony...PDW-F700 CineAlta. I'll take 3 to add to our existing 3 350s.

Im Confused…. Are you saying this camera will record progressive scan in the form of 25p? Or will it only do Interlaced recording? And any word on if it will be switchable between 50i and 60i ?
Thanks,
Ben.

I think the 700 will be a little restricted at launch as Sony are trying to get the camera to market quickly. Some features may not be available when the camera is first released. Then like the F350/F330 there will be upgrades that will add further features once the engineers get the time to work on the firmware in more depth. There is still a lot of work being done on the existing 35Mb XDCAM range to improve the feature set and performance.

It should be available around NAB time or shortly after. I had a play with the ones on the stand at IBC and it felt really nice on the shoulder and the pictures looked fantastic. It has a newly designed CCD chip set using technology shared with some of the top end HD studio cameras. Having said that on the smallish monitors the cameras were plugged into the F355 and 700 looked very similar. The real test though will be to see how the 50Mb encoded data compares to the 35Mb.

I'm not sure there will be a massive difference. The 700 will be 1920x1080, 4:2:2 so there is quite a bit more data to compress. It should have an edge in terms of detail (particularly chroma) and noise, but the compression ratio won't in fact be all that different to the current cams.

The big difference really is the 2/3 lens mount. I would expect the 700 with a really good HD lens to be very nice. It's the 1/2 inch lens (non) issue that has put many of the larger production companies off XDCAM HD. When the 2/3 inch cams come online the uptake by broadcasters is sure to increase so us users of XDCAM HD will have a broader market to sell our material to.

The big difference really is the 2/3 lens mount. I would expect the 700 with a really good HD lens to be very nice. It's the 1/2 inch lens (non) issue that has put many of the larger production companies off XDCAM HD. When the 2/3 inch cams come online the uptake by broadcasters is sure to increase...........
I agree with everything you say, but do feel the 2/3 lens issue is very real for many. Not so much because 2/3 is so much better than 1/2, but from compatability reasons - if 2/3" lenses are owned becuase they fit the majority of cameras, no-one wants to own another range of 1/2" lenses just for one camera line.

And whilst uptake may well increase when the 700 comes online, surely the next milestone must be a similar camera with the ability to record to SxS *AS WELL* as disc? With maybe another model being SxS only?

David, I kind of agree. Your argument for 2/3 inch is valid. But I would add that IMHO most that are buying into HD are looking for one camera line. They are unlikely to buy say DVCPRO HD for one job then XDCAM HD for another, so does it matter whether the lens mount is different or not? I would have preferred 2/3 inch from the outset, but for me at least 1/2 inch helped me get on the serious HD bandwagon as the lenses are quite a bit cheaper. When the F700 comes out you will still need to consider the fact that a F355 camera and lens combo is likely to be around half the cost of a F700 camera and lens combo.

But I would add that IMHO most that are buying into HD are looking for one camera line. They are unlikely to buy say DVCPRO HD for one job then XDCAM HD for another, so does it matter whether the lens mount is different or not?
That is certainly true for anyone buying a single set of gear lock, stock and barrel, and the more so if they have an end to end process, delivering a final product.

But a lot of the industry works on a much more piecemeal basis, buying items as and when. Someone I know started freelancing a few years ago with Digibeta - those were the tapes his clients wanted to take away at the end of a shoot. Subsequently he was offered work from other sources, but they wanted DVCAM tapes, and the work was enough to warrant buying a DSR570. Occasionally a job would come up which needed hiring an SX camera body - the client demanded it. But the only thing which changed was the camera body - all his other gear, tripod, lights, sound gear, and LENSES were good for all jobs.

Subsequently I've heard he's now upgraded the lens to a very expensive HD wide angle zoom - which can be fitted to his Digibeta, DSR570 or any hired camera (SX, HDCAM etc) - except current HD-XDCAM. As clients may start to want that format, see why he thinks a 2/3" version a very good idea? (Yes, he could use an adaptor, but that reduces the angle of view, and rather takes most of the point away from the wide angle lens.)

Equally for hire companies, with a stock of lenses and different format camera bodies - much more satisfactory if all the lenses are suitable for all the bodies.

And broadcasters may currently have a mix of cabled cameras for OB and studio work, and camcorders of more than one tape format . Again, there are very good reasons for them to want all their lenses to be able to be fitted to all their cameras.

If ALL broadcast cameras were to be headed towards 1/2" I'd agree it was a non-isue, but that doesn't seem to be the case - even within Sony. You said that "when the 2/3 inch cams come online the uptake by broadcasters is sure to increase", and with that I would agree.

Yes.. but you can buy an F350 with a decent lens for less than a F700 body alone is likely to cost. What I was talking about was businesses upgrading from SD to HD, a situation where they will need to buy new lenses anyway. If you need a quality low cost HD solution NOW or 18 months ago then to not buy XDCAM HD because of the size of the lens mount is IMHO daft. 35Mb XDCAM HD represents amazing value for money, I'm not sure that 50Mb XDCAM HD will in reality be quite such a bargain.

Yes.. but you can buy an F350 with a decent lens for less than a F700 body alone is likely to cost. What I was talking about was businesses upgrading from SD to HD, a situation where they will need to buy new lenses anyway. If you need a quality low cost HD solution NOW or 18 months ago then to not buy XDCAM HD because of the size of the lens mount is IMHO daft. 35Mb XDCAM HD represents amazing value for money, I'm not sure that 50Mb XDCAM HD will in reality be quite such a bargain.

I agree. It seems a very high price for lacking some key features. Sky News have jumped on board the P2 bandwagon and splashed out on dozens of DVCPROHD p2 Cameras at a price point similar to the F350. If they are keen on taking the HD news ENG market then they are in danger of pricing themselves out of the market...and this is from someone who loves his F350.

The deal-breaker for Sky was the 1/2 inch issue with the F350, all their old glass being 2/3rd inch and they would have gradually upgraded to HD glass over time, buying 1/2inch means a complete change immediately.

35Mb XDCAM HD represents amazing value for money, I'm not sure that 50Mb XDCAM HD will in reality be quite such a bargain.
I'm not disputing the value for money claim - but does this not bring up the question of why Sony are not bringing out more than one 2/3" model? The 700 and a lesser spec'd model (no 50Mbs etc) - but cheaper and still 2/3"?

And whilst indeed "you can buy an F350 with a decent lens for less than a F700 body", it's when you want a top notch lens that things get tricky. Not necessarily in picture quality terms, but certainly in terms of wide angle coverage and zoom range. An 11x4.5 HD (for 2/3") is likely to be around £12,000, and a good few thousand more to get a complementary tighter lens.

You certainly can get equivalent lenses for 1/2" - but at comparable prices to the 2/3" versions, maybe nearly doubling the basic camera cost. And in the broadcast market that sort of lens is what is often wanted. And in some cases the lenses are already owned, and being currently used with HDCAM, Digibeta, whatever.

Well they did make the current 1/2 camera capable of accepting 2/3 lenses with a $700 adapter (cheap in the overall scheme of things). Yes, there is a 1.37 zoom factor applied with this method, but if you are using a fairly wide 2/3 lens to begin with, it's not going to completely kill you. The 16:9 aspect helps in that respect.

I've seen what the 50mb 4:2:2 looks like. It's nice, but as Alister has pointed out, I don't think it's a big enough difference for the price you'll pay to get it.

I believe the optical block on the 700 comes from the HDC-1500 series. When you look at the data rate and color space, it would seem that most of the extra bandwidth is going towards chroma resolution, vs. better handling of motion artifacts. All of that so that it can come right back over the air at 4:2:0 and 19 to 25 mbs in current HD broadcasts.

Larger sensors will be helpful though in news gathering due to the wide variation of shooting scenarios encountered. But even the current models hold their own pretty well.

-gb-

My guess is that it's because the single most expensive component in any broadcast camera is the optical block. The HD prism and CCD chip set is probably 70% of the cost of the camera, the deck and encoder probably another 15%.So while it would be possible to bring out a neutered camera with some functions removed the final price would only probably be 10 to 20% less. Maybe we will see a cheaper 2/3 inch cam in the future but at the moment all the development efforts are going into the 700, the aim being to release a good all round work horse camera that can be updated and improved by firmware upgrades. I do know that at least one of the UK's biggest broadcasters will be taking 50Mb XDCAM HD.

As Greg says the block comes from one of the Sony studio cams. I also agree that most of the extra bandwidth will be consumed handling extra data as opposed to reducing artifacts. Having said that the lower noise of the new CCD's will help by giving the codec a cleaner image to encode.

Basically what I am saying and I think most of us agree, is that whilst the 700 and 50Mb XDCAM HD will be an improvement, I don't think us F330/F350 owners need to worry about our cams becoming obsolete overnight as in terms of final picture quality in most real world situations it will difficult to tell the difference.

I don't think us F330/F350 owners need to worry about our cams becoming obsolete overnight as in terms of final picture quality in most real world situations it will difficult to tell the difference.

True in terms of real picture quality. But there are those who think that the 1/2 camera is just too inferior to do real broadcast news work. Once the 2/3 camera hits the streets, I suspect there's going to be those who will only accept XDCAM HD originating on the 2/3 models. Time will tell of course and maybe pricing will be the deciding factor.

-gb-

But there are those who think that the 1/2 camera is just too inferior to do real broadcast news work. Once the 2/3 camera hits the streets, I suspect there's going to be those who will only accept XDCAM HD originating on the 2/3 models.
I doubt it - and in the vast majority of cases if you hand over an XDCAM disc I suspect most people won't have a clue what size chip it was shot on. I think the advent of the 700 will in fact be positive for most existing 1/2" owners by increasing the take up of the format as a whole.

It's the advent of SxS 2/3" that I suspect will really put cats amongst pigeons, and if Sony don't do it fairly soon, also suspect that is when they will really start to lose sales to P2.

I doubt it - and in the vast majority of cases if you hand over an XDCAM disc I suspect most people won't have a clue what size chip it was shot on.

The metadata is what would give it away. If you hand over the disc, the XML files contain literally everything... camera model #, serial #, rom versions #, codec used, etc.

I'm hoping that your prognosis is better than mine. ;-)

-gb-

For several years I used to use a Sony UVW100 Beta SP camcorder. This was 1/2 inch and officially speaking not broadcast quality. However I used it for news and no one ever complained about it and most didn't even realize. In quite a few cases I got very positive comments on the picture quality.

It will be harder to get away with it with a F330/F350, but then there will almost certainly be a much wider acceptance of XDCAM HD so at the end of the day I don't think there will be all that much change for 1/2 users.

The metadata is what would give it away.
In theory, yes. In practice, I'd say that for the majority of shoots the material will be handed to a non technical poducer/reporter whatever who will be only interested in the content, and be far more bothered about composition/lighting than what metadata says. As long as they can walk into an edit suite with a compatible disc, they'll be happy.

For top end work camera parameters may be specified - but this may currently require HDCAM or whatever anyway.

I was curious about the compression ratios used for 35Mb and 50Mb so I did some maths.

4:2:0 XDCAM sampling yields 1440x1080 luma samples and 720x540 Chroma samples giving a total of 1944000 samples per frame.

4:2:2 XDCAM sampling yields 1920x1080 luma samples and 720x1080 Chroma Samples giving a total of 2851200 samples per frame.

So 4:2:2 1920x1080 sampling has 46% more data to encode. 1.46 x 35Mb gives 51.1Mb/sec.

So either the true data rate of the 50Mb system is 51.1Mb/sec with the same compression ratio or the 4:2:2 camera will be a tiny bit more compressed than the 35Mb system. I suspect the compression ratio is the same for both systems so in terms of artifacts and concatenation there should be no difference between the two systems.

This new 700 camera should be able to make a prettier picture than the 350. 2/3-inch pickup chips, higher bandwidth, and higher resolution. But the 350 beats the heck out of the 700 on features. Not only is there no mention of 24p capabilities, there was also no mention of under/over cranking. What about the other time lapse, and frame-gathering features of the 350? I didn't see where the 700 offered that kind of stuff.

My Sony guy told me to expect a price somewhere around the mid 30's on this camera. It will be interesting to see if it is available for shipping for NAB.

Not only is there no mention of 24p capabilities, there was also no mention of under/over cranking. What about the other time lapse, and frame-gathering features of the 350? I didn't see where the 700 offered that kind of stuff.

Tim, see my post earlier in this thread.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=742666&postcount=16

-gb-

On a German website I read that the PDW-700 will draw 40 Watts without viewfinder. Can anyone confirm this?

On a German website I read that the PDW-700 will draw 40 Watts without viewfinder. Can anyone confirm this?

I can't confirm that. But if the unit is using dual laser for the increased data storage rate, then that would certainly explain the extra wattage.

-gb-

I was curious about the compression ratios used for 35Mb and 50Mb so I did some maths.

4:2:0 XDCAM sampling yields 1440x1080 luma samples and 720x540 Chroma samples giving a total of 1944000 samples per frame.

4:2:2 XDCAM sampling yields 1920x1080 luma samples and 720x1080 Chroma Samples giving a total of 2851200 samples per frame.

So 4:2:2 1920x1080 sampling has 46% more data to encode. 1.46 x 35Mb gives 51.1Mb/sec.

So either the true data rate of the 50Mb system is 51.1Mb/sec with the same compression ratio or the 4:2:2 camera will be a tiny bit more compressed than the 35Mb system. I suspect the compression ratio is the same for both systems so in terms of artifacts and concatenation there should be no difference between the two systems.

Actually from my calculation just bumping up from 1440x1080 4:2:0 to 1440x1080 4:2:2 would require 50 mbits. this new format pushes it even further by also bumping up to 1920x1080.

The difference between the color alone is about 1.33 times the needed bandwidth. The extra resolution also bumps it up another 1.33x. so really the 50 mbit form of XDCAM is actually going to be compressed harder because there is so much more data there. There is about 1.78x more data while the codec is only given 1.42 more bits to work with. So if you could think of mpeg2 compression in terms of calculations (which is kind of hard) I would say 50mbit compression artifact wise would be like normal XDCAMHD at 28mbits/s. Thats still pretty darn good though if a very good encoder is used. To be honest I usually encode some pretty complex graphics at 50 mbits 4:2:2 and I never really noticed any artifacts. These graphics are rendered particle effects such as fire, explosions and dust effects.