I attended the HD Expo Sony Intensive on the XDCam EX yesterday and Jody Eldred was one of the speakers. Here is what I remember from the meeting.

According to him, the effective ASA is 800. They double checked it because they couldn't believe it either.

He was very impressed with the camera and they showed some footage shot with it where it was strapped behind Patty Wagstaff's cockpit seat in her aerobatic plane. During the shoot, she pulled 10 G's, and the camera never blinked.

According to Jody, they shot the EX along with with the XDCam 330 and 350 and according to him, he couldn't tell the difference in the footage.

According to one of the Sony techs who is an XDCam expert, it is TRUE 10-bit from the camera head out the SDI.

According to the Sony guys, the PDW-U1 XDCam drive WILL eventually support full 1920x1080 archiving.

As far as file support in various editors, Sony said they have been in touch with all the major software manufacturers and they all pledged support for the native MP4 files from the EX1. Right now, you have to use the clip browser to unwrap/wrap the files into the MXF format.

That's all I remember as I didn't have anything to take notes on.

For what it's worth...

According to him, the effective ASA is 800. They double checked it because they couldn't believe it either.

According to Jody, they shot the EX along with with the XDCam 330 and 350 and according to him, he couldn't tell the difference in the footage.

According to one of the Sony techs who is an XDCam expert, it is TRUE 10-bit from the camera head out the SDI.

.

Thanks James. That is impressive info. An HD camera with an 800 ASA rating. I would have been happy with 400. That's rating very fast and will allow this camera to be used any a wide range of shooting scenarios.
The fact that it is very close in quality if not in some ways equal to the other XDCAM cameras may bode well for its acceptance as a broadcast worthy camera. And 10 bit out HDSDI sort blows me away. Now I hope someone will make an affordable HD recorder, (Maybe Convergent can up their specs??) that uses 10bit codecs in addition to 8bit.


Cheers

Now I hope someone will make an affordable HD recorder, (Maybe Convergent can up their specs??) that uses 10bit codecs in addition to 8bit.

Agreed. If Convergent would make a 10bit recorder, I'd buy a few.

Cheers
G

I attended the HD Expo Sony Intensive on the XDCam EX yesterday and Jody Eldred was one of the speakers. Here is what I remember from the meeting.

According to him, the effective ASA is 800. They double checked it because they couldn't believe it either.

He was very impressed with the camera and they showed some footage shot with it where it was strapped behind Patty Wagstaff's cockpit seat in her aerobatic plane. During the shoot, she pulled 10 G's, and the camera never blinked.

According to Jody, they shot the EX along with with the XDCam 330 and 350 and according to him, he couldn't tell the difference in the footage.

According to one of the Sony techs who is an XDCam expert, it is TRUE 10-bit from the camera head out the SDI.

According to the Sony guys, the PDW-U1 XDCam drive WILL eventually support full 1920x1080 archiving.

As far as file support in various editors, Sony said they have been in touch with all the major software manufacturers and they all pledged support for the native MP4 files from the EX1. Right now, you have to use the clip browser to unwrap/wrap the files into the MXF format.

That's all I remember as I didn't have anything to take notes on.

For what it's worth...
Any News on a shipping date? Are they still saying Nov. 19th?

Agreed. If Convergent would make a 10bit recorder, I'd buy a few.

Cheers
G

Can't ever happen with mpeg2. Mpeg2 can only ever encode 8 bit color channels. That is just the way it works.

The new device would have to be made with a whole new encoder based on Cineform or a really high profile of mpeg4.

Can't ever happen with mpeg2. Mpeg2 can only ever encode 8 bit color channels. That is just the way it works.

The new device would have to be made with a whole new encoder based on Cineform or a really high profile of mpeg4.

You can find your recorder at Panavision, Australia. A little bit overkill, but...
Link: http://www.panavision.com.au/News/Solid_state_Recorder.htm

Can't ever happen with mpeg2. Mpeg2 can only ever encode 8 bit color channels. That is just the way it works.

The new device would have to be made with a whole new encoder based on Cineform or a really high profile of mpeg4.

Excuse the novice question here, so what exactly is coming out of the SDI port?

This thread presents an issue.

It's making my wait for the camera even harder ! LOL

Thanks James, The EX1 sounds like it's going to be real hot.
Man, I hope that the full 10 bit out to SDI turns out to be true.
If so, This camera is going to open a few more doors.

Can't ever happen with mpeg2. Mpeg2 can only ever encode 8 bit color channels. That is just the way it works.

The new device would have to be made with a whole new encoder based on Cineform or a really high profile of mpeg4.

Thomas,

I know the mpeg 2 8 bit limitation. Cineform may be an alternative if they decide to go with 10 bit.

Cheers,
G

800 ASA? Really? Just for reference, what was the old PD-170 rated? Or for that matter the F900?

I'm wondering about ASA ratings without gain dialed in and at a "normal" shutter speed like 1/60th because if I recall, I think the F900 was rated somewhere around 320 - 400, so 800 seems like a high number to me.

That is a really high ISO rating. I hope it is true.

OK. Educate me on this. 800 ASA or ISO? I know david said

An HD camera with an 800 ASA rating. I would have been happy with 400. That's rating very fast and will allow this camera to be used any a wide range of shooting scenarios.

Why ASA or ISO? Isn't the camera digital and doesn't that apply to film speed rating? What kind of wide range are we talking about? My V1U is pretty versatile. Would this allow for more? Enlighten me please.


Thanks.
Winston Ashley
XDCAM EX is on order!

Why ASA or ISO? Isn't the camera digital and doesn't that apply to film speed rating? What kind of wide range are we talking about? My V1U is pretty versatile. Would this allow for more? Enlighten me please.

Someone can give me a big slap on the hand if I'm wrong, but I believe the ASA rating is purely analogous - a point of reference because we're familiar with what this means in the film world (it's the same when you dial in ISO levels on a digital SLR). I'm guessing the V1 would be somewhere well below 200 ASA (equivalent)... at least 2 to 3 stops slower than the EX.

So... yes, that should provide you with plenty of opportunities to get great shots with the EX where the V1 struggles (ie, dimly lit environs).

Someone can give me a big slap on the hand if I'm wrong, but I believe the ASA rating is purely analogous - a point of reference because we're familiar with what this means in the film world (it's the same when you dial in ISO levels on a digital SLR).
No slap - you're spot on. Which is why all pro camera sensitivity ratings have to have three criteria specified - such as f8 at 2000lux, S/n 52dB.

An ASA rating only fixes the first two, so a statement such as "this camera is rated at 800ASA" is, by itself, meaningless.

The DSLR analogy is very sound - on my Canon I can make it anything between 100 and 3200ASA. To compare it sensitivity wise to another camera, you need noise level figures at any given ISO rating.

All that said, my brief experience with the EX left me feeling that it does indeed perform very well in low light. Far better than any of the current 1/3" cameras.

According to the Sony guys, the PDW-U1 XDCam drive WILL eventually support full 1920x1080 archiving.

Of course. After a firmware update somewhere early next year, the drive will handle all flavors of XDCAM HD and SD in both directions.

No slap - you're spot on. Which is why all pro camera sensitivity ratings have to have three criteria specified - such as f8 at 2000lux, S/n 52dB.

An ASA rating only fixes the first two, so a statement such as "this camera is rated at 800ASA" is, by itself, meaningless.

The DSLR analogy is very sound - on my Canon I can make it anything between 100 and 3200ASA. To compare it sensitivity wise to another camera, you need noise level figures at any given ISO rating.

All that said, my brief experience with the EX left me feeling that it does indeed perform very well in low light. Far better than any of the current 1/3" cameras.

The EX is "rated" at 800 ASA at -3dB gain. The Z1 is 250 ASA at 0dB. That gives you a baseline for comparison.

The EX is "rated" at 800 ASA at -3dB gain. The Z1 is 250 ASA at 0dB. That gives you a baseline for comparison.
Not without S/N figures. They'd only give you a baseline if the EX at -3dB and Z1 at 0dB had the same S/N figures at those gain settings. That may be the case, but if not, those ASA comparisons are meaningless.

If in your example the Z1 had a S/N of (say) 56dB at -0dB, and the EX had 50dB at -3, you'd have to set the Z1 to +6dB to make relevant comparisons.

If in your example the Z1 had a S/N of (say) 56dB at -0dB, and the EX had 50dB at -3, you'd have to set the Z1 to +6dB to make relevant comparisons.[/QUOTE]

Interesting comment. Though I really would like to know how you have worked this out. So how can I compare my existing Sony camera (DSR 300) rated at sensitivity of f11 @ 2000lux with a S/N of 62dB with the EX1 rating of f10 @ 2000lux with a S/N of 52dB? Until I've read your comment above I thought that I will have a third of a stop less - but I'm not so sure now. Any feedback would be most welcomed.

An ASA rating only fixes the first two, so a statement such as "this camera is rated at 800ASA" is, by itself, meaningless.

It's not meaningless at all. If you shoot 35mm film, the ASA rating tells you how fast the film is, and therefore what light levels are required for the exposure you desire. Jeff Cree and I lit a chip chart with a specific, measurable volume of light, adjusted the iris on the XDCAM EX for correct exposure utilizing a waveform monitor, used no gain, no N.D., frame rate was 23.98P, then measured the light with a Spectra light meter and determined the camera was rated at about 800 ASA.

So for me as a D.P., I can light for the XDCAM EX the same as I would 35mm film rated at 800 ASA. If I want to use my light meter for lighting with the XDCAM EX, I can set it for ASA 800 and I'm good to go.

For those of use who rarely if ever use a light meter, the value of knowing it's rated at 800 is at the least a guide that tells us, "This camera does not need much light to make properly exposed images." 800 is darn fast, particularly when you know the F900 is below 400 (closer to 320). Shooting at 24P or 60i changes things, but the baseline is indeed useful and meaningful.

If I can find my notes and comparisons with the F900R and XDCAM HD F350, I'll share them.

Interesting comment. Though I really would like to know how you have worked this out. So how can I compare my existing Sony camera (DSR 300) rated at sensitivity of f11 @ 2000lux with a S/N of 62dB with the EX1 rating of f10 @ 2000lux with a S/N of 52dB? Until I've read your comment above I thought that I will have a third of a stop less - but I'm not so sure now. Any feedback would be most welcomed.
You have to put gain in the less noisy camera until the two have comparable S/N figures. Hence, given your figures, you'd need to put 10dB of gain in the EX to equalise the S/N figures, so it would then need to be reset to f16-22 to regain correct exposure.

But are you sure about the 62dB figure? It sounds somewhat high.

In practice, things get much more complicated, since prosumer cameras like the PD150 add processing as the gain is increased to reduce the noise - but at the expense of degrading the picture in other ways.

My "quick and dirty" test (in the absence of S/N meters etc) is to take both cameras somewhere pretty dark, open up the irises, and add gain to get correct exposure. Then compare pictures.

It's not meaningless at all. If you shoot 35mm film, the ASA rating tells you how fast the film is, and therefore what light levels are required for the exposure you desire.
It may have meaning in that sense, but not for comparison with other cameras, which is what is being discussed here. All cameras don't have the same S/N ratios at their 0dB gain setting, and sensitivity comparisons must have that taken into account to have meaning.

*IF* the 900 had an inherently much less noisy picture at 0dB setting, such that 9dB (say) could be put in without it being any noisier than the EX at 0dB, that would make it inherently MORE sensitive than the EX, even though it has a lower ASA figure at 0dB.

Exactly as with a DSLR, which can have any value from 100-3200 dialled in. How do you define it's sensitivity then? You have to specify the third parameter with electronic cameras to get like for like comparisons.

True, though if the EX1 is squeezing off 800 ASA at -3dB, I'd bet that it is fairly clean too.
David you are correct for wanting exact signal to noise reference to compare cameras.

I'm willing to believe Jody regarding the EX1 sensitivity.

By the way, welcome to the board Jody. You're well respected in my book.

There's not much point in debating in theory how one camera might perform relative to another, we just have to set them up and test. However the 800 rating has been obtained by various DPs whom I believe to be critical reviewers, so until I get hold of one and prove them wrong I don't see much to argue about. Anyone wanting really great low light capabilities will test before buying. Also there is a lot more to a good image than low noise (speaking as someone who remembers Tri-X).

Thing is though if the camera is at -3dB what the S/N ratio is, is kind of irrelevant in terms of the ASA rating, the same as it is with film. There's nothing you can do about it. Increasing the amount of light means you've either go to iris down or up the shutter speed otherwise you're over exposing.
Now hopefully Sony haven't sacrificed S/N to get a higher sensitivity, that'd really bug me as there's nothing you can do about it. Noisy images in low light from upping the gain are one thing, noisy images in daylight are another matter.

Noisy images in low light from upping the gain are one thing, noisy images in daylight are another matter.

Agreed!! But if that happens with the EX it won't sell many.

You have to put gain in the less noisy camera until the two have comparable S/N figures. Hence, given your figures, you'd need to put 10dB of gain in the EX to equalise the S/N figures, so it would then need to be reset to f16-22 to regain correct exposure.

But are you sure about the 62dB figure? It sounds somewhat high.

In practice, things get much more complicated, since prosumer cameras like the PD150 add processing as the gain is increased to reduce the noise - but at the expense of degrading the picture in other ways.

My "quick and dirty" test (in the absence of S/N meters etc) is to take both cameras somewhere pretty dark, open up the irises, and add gain to get correct exposure. Then compare pictures.


Yes David - actually I've checked again and my model is the DSR-300P and it is rated as 60db, The DSR300 is rated as 62db (which I believe is the NTSC version of this camera). It is one hell of a beast when it comes to film in low light and in the past 9 years I very rarely used any lights at all - and when I did, I only used a 20 watt lamp on board powered by the camera itself (for event/wedding filming). Obviously I use gain between +6 and +9 (never more) and one can detect some grain - however the ability to film quickly and unobtrusively without lights and producing a good picture far outweighs the fact that some grain can be detected. Having said that recently I viewed some of my work (SD) on a 40' Panasonic plasma (full HD) via a PS3. The picture was awesome and the upscaling managed to hide most of the grain!

Will leave the real techie stuff to you guys but with a new camera, much like a new film......theres not a lot of actual test footage floating around the net.

Thinking of the movies that don't get coverage before they are out.

Anyone who has seen test footage actually disapointed with the EX1?

However the 800 rating has been obtained by various DPs whom I believe to be critical reviewers, so until I get hold of one and prove them wrong I don't see much to argue about.
Serena - I'm not doubting that these reviewers have accurately measured an 800 rating for this camera at it's 0dB setting. But that doesn't uniquely define it's sensitivity relative to other cameras. You need the relative S/N figures for that, for all the cameras.

Not giving S/N figures is analogous to giving someone two different maps without scales. Each is accurate and useful within itself, but useless for comparing RELATIVE distances from one map to the other.
Now hopefully Sony haven't sacrificed S/N to get a higher sensitivity, ..........
Which is the importance of quoting S/N figures when giving sensitivity ratings! It ensures you're comparing like with like, otherwise there is no baseline.

All this said, my own quick looks at the EX make me feel that it's sensitivity performance is very good indeed, and it substantially outperforms other cameras in this price range.

David, agree with your technical argument and just suggesting that until we get the camera it's all a bit academic. The 800 figure predicts that we'll find it much better in low light than available HDV cameras, but until we see what Sony has built in for noise suppression and what effects that has on image quality we really are in the dark.

Well, in a couple weeks there will be a lot more info.

My camera should be in my hands the week of Thanksgiving. At worse, the week after.

David, agree with your technical argument and just suggesting that until we get the camera it's all a bit academic. The 800 figure predicts that we'll find it much better in low light than available HDV cameras, but until we see what Sony has built in for noise suppression and what effects that has on image quality we really are in the dark.

As about the only person on the planet with a lot of experience with the EX (I shot and edited the very first test footage with the Japanese the week prior to 2007 NAB, and have shot many hours worth for the Sony demos soon to be available on the web and other places), and as a longtime owner/operator of an F900, and one of the testers and first users of the Z1U, A1U, V1U, and XDCAM HD F350 (all of which I own), I can say conclusively that whether or not you choose to ascribe meaning to Jeff Cree's and my rating the EX at 800 ASA, it is a VERY good camera in low light and has very clean blacks. I have a lot to compare it to.

A "low light camera" with noisy blacks is not a low light camera in my book. Part of the criteria for being called a "good low light camera" necessitates clean blacks; otherwise it's useless in low light (unless you like that look.)

Test it for yourself when you can, or believe me and my tests and experiences with it. Or both. Doesn't matter to me!

:-)

High-end DPs (and even Lucasfilms) LOVE this camera and orders are through the roof. These aren't prosumers or amateurs-- they are top-of-the-foodchain DPs who shoot 35mm film and F900s. They must know something...

Jody, well said.

Fellow geeks, pull your thumbs out of your backsides. for $6,700 this is a great camera. Really it is!!!

David, agree with your technical argument and just suggesting that until we get the camera it's all a bit academic. The 800 figure predicts that we'll find it much better in low light ......, but until we see ......we really are in the dark.
Well - at least in low lighting levels! :-)

The technical argument is one thing, but I'm basing my first impressions not on reading the 800 figure but what I saw at a show. They are first impressions, but do reinforce what everybody else seems to be saying. It does seem far more sensitive than such as a Z1 or HVX200, no argument there.

Wow, I feel ignorant. What's ASA? It sounds like something from film cameras. I've never seen that listed on any camera's spec sheet until now.

As about the only person on the planet with a lot of experience with the EX (I shot and edited the very first test footage with the Japanese the week prior to 2007 NAB, and have shot many hours worth for the Sony demos soon to be available on the web and other places), and as a longtime owner/operator of an F900, and one of the testers and first users of the Z1U, A1U, V1U, and XDCAM HD F350 (all of which I own), I can say conclusively that whether or not you choose to ascribe meaning to Jeff Cree's and my rating the EX at 800 ASA, it is a VERY good camera in low light and has very clean blacks. I have a lot to compare it to.

Jody,

Am I reading that you are a beta tester for Sony? If so, welcome(If not, welcome anyway!). Unlike Panasonic, Sony does not post here (as far as I remember). I for one would be very interested in your opinions and observations on the EX as well as other Sony offerings.

Cheers,
G

Jody,

Am I reading that you are a beta tester for Sony? If so, welcome(If not, welcome anyway!). Unlike Panasonic, Sony does not post here (as far as I remember). I for one would be very interested in your opinions and observations on the EX as well as other Sony offerings.

Cheers,
G

So would I.

Jody, can you give us the nitty gritty on the EX....

So far all I have heard is good things about the camera... about the only thing I have heard bad about it is small buttons...

there's got to be more

I believe Jody summed up quite a bit about the ASA/noise question.
This is really going to be one heck of a camera.

I realize the low light ability is one aspect; although , one very important aspect, especially for myself. knowing that the EX1 appears to offer the higher end image profile, it should have the ability to capture some amazing looking footage.

I believe there are quite a few videographers that are "on the fence" with their decision to buy into the EX1. I believe their opinion is probably changing fast.

I really believe Sony has stepped up and offered us a portable package that offers highend results. I imagine this was Panasonic's intentions for the HVX200. It should be interesting what rolls out over the next few years.
I have a feeling 4:2:2 captured internally to a portable cam is coming in the near future.

I would not be surprised if Sony get's there first.

The EX1 with 4:2:2 true 10bit SDI, is really going to open a few more doors.
I wish the upcoming XDR Flash drive would support 10 bit, but regardless, it should produce some nice stuff.

Jody,

Am I reading that you are a beta tester for Sony? If so, welcome(If not, welcome anyway!). Unlike Panasonic, Sony does not post here (as far as I remember). I for one would be very interested in your opinions and observations on the EX as well as other Sony offerings.

Cheers,
G

Just to let you know, Jody is one of the best DP's in the business. He worked on Jag, NCIS and several other TV shows. It is a real benefit to us that he has taken the time to post on this forum.

Jody, welcome and thanks for taking the time to post here and share your experiences.

Daniel Weber

Wow, I feel ignorant. What's ASA? It sounds like something from film cameras. I've never seen that listed on any camera's spec sheet until now.

Actually it's very important to know the overall base ASA rating for a camera. And yes it works very much like film. You pick a slow stock or a faster stock depending on the look you're going for. Working with a gaffer and DP lighting a setup everyone has a baseline for their light meter. Then you can say we're going to shoot this scene at f4 and we're rating at ASA 400. Set your meter and go. That can determine what lights to bring in in order to light to the light meter reading which also in turn effects depth of field on the subject your shooting. That effects the budget and other decisions that play into shooting a particular scene. Knowing that the base is as fast ASA 800 gives you the knowledge of how far you can push "the low light boundary" without it crapping out the blacks. I would rather have this info from Jody Eldred, a real DP, than a manufacturers spec sheet. It's real world.

Jody's a true DP while I'm mostly a Producer/Director/Editor who shoots sometimes. On my bigger budget shoots on 16mm/35mm film I always hire a great DoP and a great gaffer. So this is their language and it makes a lot of sense to listen to guys like Jody and I'm glad the camera appears to have this wide latitude for a non-film camera. After all, in digital we can't go a pick a film stock.

So far as I know, there's not a lux "basis" on a light meter. And I second Serena, what's the point of using "lux' anyway. It means nothing when your on a shoot. While if you're working with a light meter knowing the ASA is everything.

Can't wait to get this camera and push it.

Cheers.

.

As about the only person on the planet with a lot of experience with the EX Great to see you here again, Jody -- thanks for coming back!

Welcome Jody, good to see you over this way.

Sony does not post here

No, but they do read here :-)

No, but they do read here :-)

It sure seems like Sony is reading this forum. Sony is doing an excellent job at listening to the end user and providing a competitive solution.

If Sony is watching, I sure wish they had added LANC to the EX for those
of us that like to shoot footage underwater....

but then there still is no info on the control port that we see on the camera...
I'm hoping its going to be a lot more than just a lens controller and that it
is actually more of a LANC controller for us...

As about the only person on the planet with a lot of experience with the EX (I shot and edited the very first test footage with the Japanese the week prior to 2007 NAB, and have shot many hours worth for the Sony demos soon to be available on the web and other places), and as a longtime owner/operator of an F900, and one of the testers and first users of the Z1U, A1U, V1U, and XDCAM HD F350 (all of which I own), I can say conclusively that whether or not you choose to ascribe meaning to Jeff Cree's and my rating the EX at 800 ASA, it is a VERY good camera in low light and has very clean blacks. I have a lot to compare it to.

A "low light camera" with noisy blacks is not a low light camera in my book. Part of the criteria for being called a "good low light camera" necessitates clean blacks; otherwise it's useless in low light (unless you like that look.)

Test it for yourself when you can, or believe me and my tests and experiences with it. Or both. Doesn't matter to me!

:-)

High-end DPs (and even Lucasfilms) LOVE this camera and orders are through the roof. These aren't prosumers or amateurs-- they are top-of-the-foodchain DPs who shoot 35mm film and F900s. They must know something...

Wow...this is all great news! Ever since HD started coming to the masses I've been waiting for a GOOD low light yet affordable (in the low-level professional sense, not $15,000 + body alone models) camera. The EX would be fine as an HDV-level 1/3 camera if it delivered clean blacks at 800 ASA but the full raster, 1/2" chips REALLY do it for me! I will be buying one of these in the next year if it lives up to the hype/after I see test footage and audio samples ;-)