Here's my quandry: I own an HVX200 and have a pair of 8gb P2 cards. I'm at a crossroads: should I invest more $$$ in P2 cards or sell the HVX200 and buy a Sony EX1? It seems to me that the EX1 is a better camera all around and ultmately won't cost any more than investing in more P2 cards. I really like the HVX200 but it falls short in several areas: low light, noise, LCD resolution, etc. Can anyone tell me why it might be better to hang onto the HVX200 and invest more in P2? 'Cause right now I don't see much reason. Where is the HVX200 better than the EX1 (at least on paper)? I shoot a lot of weddings and outdoor stuff if that's any help.

Dealing with LONG GOP intraframe is always that issue with me.

We had a Z1U. Great image.

Long GOP just wasn't worth it.

Dealing with LONG GOP intraframe is always that issue with me.

We had a Z1U. Great image.

Long GOP just wasn't worth it.

Specifically, how did Long GOP affect you? I am very interested to know.

Thanks.

Here's my quandry: I own an HVX200 and have a pair of 8gb P2 cards. I'm at a crossroads: should I invest more $$$ in P2 cards or sell the HVX200 and buy a Sony EX1? It seems to me that the EX1 is a better camera all around and ultmately won't cost any more than investing in more P2 cards. I really like the HVX200 but it falls short in several areas: low light, noise, LCD resolution, etc. Can anyone tell me why it might be better to hang onto the HVX200 and invest more in P2? 'Cause right now I don't see much reason. Where is the HVX200 better than the EX1 (at least on paper)? I shoot a lot of weddings and outdoor stuff if that's any help.

I wouldn't say any camera is "better all around" so much as "better for certain uses."

I used the HVX200 system for a solid year before switching to the Canon HDV workflow. I was willing to accept the trade-offs (Long GOP compression and susceptibility to dropouts; reduced color space; real-time capture, etc.) in favor or simplicity and economy. Still not 100% happy with it, but better for my style of working.

The Codec of the HVX MAY be a bit better, but I don't know if it will matter much. Maybe the HVX will give you a more filmic look out of the box.
I think that's about it with the advantages of the HVX, the EX seems like the better cam.

Why not wait until it comes out and people put it through its paces before deciding?

The biggest points of concern for me are the long-GOP recording mode (it's about 33% more data than HDV, with about 40% more bandwidth, so it may end up being about as robust as HDV) and the potential for CMOS rolling shutter issues. If you don't need it right now, why leap on it? Why not let others be the early adopters, and then you can make a more informed decision?

Bill,

Why not get a P2Store at 60GB ... since you have 2 x 8GB P2 cards, you could record on one P2 card and get P2Store to offload the other. Then you can get your continuous recording needed for weddings, etc.

I think the move to half inch chips is what it's all about Bill. If you shoot a lot of weddings you'll know that low light is your enemy and differential focus is your friend, and the EX1 answers these with it's bigger chips and great 14x non-ramping f/1.9 zoom. Forget the long gops - when were you last attacked by them, huh?

Of course the move from the Panasonic will cost you dear and in reality few clients will notice, but you and I and everyone here will. The HVX was really a modified DVX100, pumped up and fed expensive cards. The EX1 is a rethink in very many ways, but of course it's the big chips that lift it out of the prosumer dof humdrum.

tom.

The biggest points of concern for me are the long-GOP recording mode (it's about 33% more data than HDV, with about 40% more bandwidth, so it may end up being about as robust as HDV) and the potential for CMOS rolling shutter issues.
CMOS rolling shutter issues? Haven't heard about this... what is it?

It's something any shooter should educate themselves on. CMOS chips expose differently from CCD chips, and the old rules don't necessarily apply.


For more info, just type in "rolling shutter" here on DVInfo and you'll find gobs and gobs of posts, mostly about the HV20 and FX7/V1U since those are the most prevalent CMOS cams out so far.

Thanks Barry,
Great article, as always very informative.

Bill,
If you can wait, I'm testing/evaluating the new SonyPMW-EX1 sometime next week.
I own 2 HVX, I'm planning to run tests to compare the 2 cameras.
I'll post my results.
So take Barry's advice, don't jump in the water just yet :)
e.

If you can wait, I'm testing/evaluating the new SonyPMW-EX1 sometime next week.
I own 2 HVX, I'm planning to run tests to compare the 2 cameras.
I'll post my results.
So take Barry's advice, don't jump in the water just yet :)
e.
I will definitely wait! I'll be very interested in hearing if the shutter issues are present in the EX1. Thank you so much for doing this comparison!!!

but of course it's the big chips that lift it out of the prosumer dof humdrum.


With 1.9 on the wide end, this cameras DOF isn't going to be perceptually that different than a 1/3" camera. I mean, we're talking about 8mm film DOF. Your clients aren't going to see a difference.

If you shoot a lot in low light, the EX1 will definitely pay off in very little time and is reason enough to switch.

But if low light isn't an issue and you do a lot of grading, DVCPro HD is vastly superior to the codec than you're going to get with the EX1. With a 4:2:0 color space, you'll constantly be hitting the limit of where you can go with your grading, usually way before you want to stop.

But if you can fit a Convergent XDR into your budget, then the EX1 would be my choice. Low light performance, AVC Intra, and compact flash.

The problem is that "some" jump on the typical response about all rolling shutters are the same. Yes, wait until there's footage and decide at that point.
Don't be persuaded and jump to the thought that Sony stuck the same exact CMOS shutter that's implemented in another cheap CMOS camera.
RED is using a rolling shutter.

The EX1 is going to turn a lot of heads soon.
422 10bit SDI
1/2 CCDs
1000 lines horz. rez
Not to mention, true 1080 full HD raster sensors, NOT pixel shift.
$6449 USD

With 1.9 on the wide end, this cameras DOF isn't going to be perceptually that different than a 1/3" camera. I mean, we're talking about 8mm film DOF. Your clients aren't going to see a difference.


The (4:3) half inch chip has a surface area of 30.72 mm2. The 1"/3 chip has a surface area of 17.28 mm2 - or roughly 50% less. The EX1's 5.8 to 81.2 mm f/1.9 lens sure will make a dof difference, I can assure you. The Z1's full tele of 54 mm at a smaller f/2.8 aperture is feeble in comparison.

tom.

But if low light isn't an issue and you do a lot of grading, DVCPro HD is vastly superior to the codec than you're going to get with the EX1. With a 4:2:0 color space, you'll constantly be hitting the limit of where you can go with your grading, usually way before you want to stop.

Given that the EX1 will have up to 518K chroma samples per frame, it will be interesting to see how people feel about grading footage from it once they actually get a chance to do so.

In any case, if the EX1 is better in low light and can record longer per memory card than the HVX200, it will likely become more popular for event videography. Whether it's worth switching from one to the other is something to wait and see as discussed in previous posts.

"But if low light isn't an issue and you do a lot of grading, DVCPro HD is vastly superior to the codec than you're going to get with the EX1."

On the outset, this statement is correct, however there is ALOT that can be done in an 8bit 4:2:0 world.
Consider Vegas 32bit float rendering as a starter.
Then consider the same render or even the source itself, to be a transcode from Cineform or Sony YUV at 4:2:2.
The differences will be barely noticable to DVCproHD.
Considering the Luma sampling of the EX is sourced at 1920x1080 native pixel res (as opposed to 960x540 on the HVX), dropping this down to 720p or even 1440x1080, increases the colour sampling range anyway.

DVCproHD is an incredible format, no doubt, but its not the bees knees.
In addition, if codecs are an issue, the fundamental difference between the 2 units is SDI. HVX does not have this.
And with the coming of the bolt on SDI capture to CF adapter, it will be the definitive option for running and gunning uncompressed footage.
I do not doubt that we will see the EX used in motion pictures as stunt cams, steadicams, crash cams or even B Roll.
Its cheap, looks incredible as is, (uncompressed is even better) and extremely flexible in regard to output options.

The (4:3) half inch chip has a surface area of 30.72 mm2. The 1"/3 chip has a surface area of 17.28 mm2 - or roughly 50% less. The EX1's 5.8 to 81.2 mm f/1.9 lens sure will make a dof difference, I can assure you. The Z1's full tele of 54 mm at a smaller f/2.8 aperture is feeble in comparison.

I agree, but that's all lensing and not chip size. 1/2" is still 8mm DOF, and it's just not going to be perceptively that different than than 1/3" in general shooting. In the wide range the 1.6 of the HVX isn't going to look any different than the 1.9 of the EX. If you spend the bulk of your time doing close field or telephoto work then you might make the decision based upon DOF.

Not sure what you mean when you say '8 mm dof', EJ. Super-8 film? Each frame has a projected area of 21.3 mm2, so it sits happily between the 1"/3 and 1"/2 chips. And you're right, down the wide end everything's in focus in all three formats generally.

tom.

1/2" is still 8mm DOF, and it's just not going to be perceptively that different than than 1/3" in general shooting.

I saw a noticeable difference in DOF when I went from a camera with 1/4" chips to 1/3", so I would think there would be a similar difference going to 1/2". Also, going from 540 lines of resolution on the HVX200 to ~1000 lines on the EX1 will probably be noticeable as well.

Given that the EX1 will have up to 518K chroma samples per frame, it will be interesting to see how people feel about grading footage from it once they actually get a chance to do so.

There are plenty of people who are perfectly happy with grading HDV and don't see any problems so I have no doubt there will be people who will think it's great.

But even in a low noise situation, I don't think a 35Mbs 4:2:0 codec is going to have anywhere near the grading latitude as a 100Mbs 4:2:2 codec.

But I would be completely thrilled to find out my guess is completely wrong.

But even in a low noise situation, I don't think a 35Mbs 4:2:0 codec is going to have anywhere near the grading latitude as a 100Mbs 4:2:2 codec.

But I would be completely thrilled to find out my guess is completely wrong.

I concur.

Exactly when is the Sony going to be available for some objective side by sides?

But even in a low noise situation, I don't think a 35Mbs 4:2:0 codec is going to have anywhere near the grading latitude as a 100Mbs 4:2:2 codec.

I doubt the codec itself will be as significant as how well the EX1 works in its progressive recording mode, assuming you do your editing in a robust color space. And as far as the HVX200 is concerned, aren't a lot of people running that at 40-50 Mbps with 720p resolution?

In any case, good observation that people are successfully grading HDV footage, so the EX1 should at least be better than that.

I doubt the codec itself will be as significant as how well the EX1 works in its progressive recording mode, assuming you do your editing in a robust color space.

For grading the codec is everything. Even if you transcode to ProRes422HQ, once the codec has chucked the data, it's gone and it's not coming back. Limited chroma and compression artifacts are where you hit the wall with grading, not your working color space.

In any case, good observation that people are successfully grading HDV footage, so the EX1 should at least be better than that.

I said happy, not necessarily successful. For me HDV falls apart so quickly that it's useless for any serious grading. I know plenty of people are happy with it, just not me. XDCAM EX and the better low light/low noise performance will definitely be better than HDV though.

And as far as the HVX200 is concerned, aren't a lot of people running that at 40-50 Mbps with 720p resolution?

No doubt, which is a shame given that DVCPRO HD is one of the HVXs best features.

But if you can fit a Convergent XDR into your budget, then the EX1 would be my choice. Low light performance, AVC Intra, and compact flash.

Looks like the Convergent XDR uses MPEG2 compression rather than AVC-intra, but with an I-frame recording option at 160 Mbps data rate. Attach one of those to an EX1 and you could have full-raster 1080p I-frame data using memory cards which would cost about $27.50 per minute of recording capacity, which isn't bad for what you get.

Looks like the Convergent XDR uses MPEG2 compression rather than AVC-intra, but with an I-frame recording option at 160 Mbps data rate. Attach one of those to an EX1 and you could have full-raster 1080p I-frame data using memory cards which would cost about $27.50 per minute of recording capacity, which isn't bad for what you get.

Yes, I'm really looking forward to seeing this combination. I wish the XDR would support 10 bit, although I believe it definately will be a step up from the XDCAM EX1 codec.

Looks like the Convergent XDR uses MPEG2 compression rather than AVC-intra, but with an I-frame recording option at 160 Mbps data rate.

Whooops. Too much Panny on the mind. It's not only I-frame, but a Sony codec chip-set. Makes you wonder why they couldn't have used their own module in the EX1. (Probably the same reason why the HPX500 didn't get AVC-Intra)

I will definitely wait! I'll be very interested in hearing if the shutter issues are present in the EX1. Thank you so much for doing this comparison!!!

Just got a Sony EX1 today, I'm putting it to the test along side my HVX,
I'll post my results soon.