An interesting weekend!

We had the full range of Sony cameras to film both the Royal International Air Tatoo and Flying Legends at Duxford. Unfortunately RIAT got cancelled when the car parks became flooded by rain, so I we ended up with almost everyone and the pick of the kit covering the Duxford airshow. At Duxford we had one HDW790, PDW700, PDW-F350, EX1 and the great Phil Bloom with his EX1 and Letus.

The difference between the 790, 700 and EX1 is remarkably small. On the day the 790 seems to have produced the best looking images, but the 790 had some very nice Paint and Gamma settings. We tried to match the other cameras to the 790 and got very, very close, given more time we think we could make the 700 look as good as, if not better than the 790. The 700 has a very similar menu structure to the HDCAM cameras and the paint settings include various gamma curves and gamma adjustments as well as step gamma. In addition there are all the usual matrix settings, detail and knee adjustments.
Lens choice for the 700 seems critical we used a range of HD lenses including a Canon 44x, and a Canon Wide.

The PDW-700 was much as I expected, a very nice competent camera producing nicely balanced, pin sharp pictures. The professional disc workflow is delightful, although I have to say the transfers from the camera seem slow, guess the larger 50Mbps files account for that. The HDVF-20A viewfinder is clear and sharp with a wide range of peaking adjustment that helps make focusing easier. The microphone supplied by Sony was a ECM-680S which is a stereo/mono switchable gun mic. This is a long microphone and this could give matte box users a small problem as it protrudes a long way from the mount.

A lot of the time we were filming aircraft against a sky filled with bright cumulus clouds. Both the PDW-700 and EX1 handheld the extreme contrast range very well. One nice feature of the PDW-700 is the ability to programme the response of the iris, a function very useful when filming aircraft.

The EX1 once again stunned everyone. Including Dave Crute, a discerning DOP that until now has always considered small form factor HD cameras to be "toys". Dave is now looking to add an EX1 to his kit list. In many cases it is difficult to see the difference between the EX1 and the PDW700. We stuck the EX1 on a lightweight telescope pan and tilt head to do some panning timelapse shots, we put it on the end of a microphone boom pole to get overhead shots of the aircraft, we used it in a "follow me" car to get tracking shots of taxiing planes. It even went up in a B17 bomber to film air to air shots of a classic Mustang fighter. You just couldn't get those shots with a full size camera.

I have to congratulate Sony on these two cameras. Together they are the perfect combination for just about any kind of shoot. The PDW-700 gives you the ability to take a wide range of industry standard lenses and accessories. The professional disc system is robust and fool proof. The EX1 is a go anywhere, do anything camera that does not sacrifice quality for size and weight. In the right hands it produces beautiful picture that can rival and in many cases exceed far more expensive cameras. With tools like these there is no reason why anyone should not be able to produce beautiful images in even the most demanding of situations.

The pictures from the F350 just don't have the subtle detail of the EX1 and PDW700. The F350 pictures still cut together fine with the EX1 and 700 pictures in the majority of cases. However if you do a side by side, same shot comparison the F350 looks a little more enhanced or electronic. Turning the detail down reduces the enhanced look but the images start to look soft compared to the PDW-700. Don't get me wrong the F350 produces a good picture but you can definitely see the extra resolution of both the EX1 and PDW-700. The one area where the PDW-700 excels is in the detail in highly saturated parts of the image. Grass for example looks more natural from the PDW-700 than the HDCAM or the EX1 or F350. This is no surprise as the PDW-700 has full 4:2:2 sampling.

Don't say that, I've just ordered an F355!!!

Steve

I'm just about to buy an EX3, but I won't be getting rid of my F350. The F350/F355 is still a good work horse. The pictures are excellent and I prefer the Disc based workflow over the SxS workflow (either is sooo much better than tape!). The EX1 and F350 are different animals and both have strengths and weaknesses. The f350 has cache record, CCD's shoots SD and HD, and is a proper shoulder mount. On the other hand the EX1 is higher resolution, smaller and lighter. It really depends on what you need the camera for. I would suggest that for corporate work or work where you must hand over your material the F350/F355 is the better bet, while for in-house projects the EX1 might be a better choice. It is not a simple choice. If it was purely a picture quality choice I would go with the PDW-700 first, EX1 or EX3 second then F350. But if I could have only one camera and the 700 is too expensive then I think it would have be the F350/F355 as it is possibly a better all-round camera. I still need a camera that can shoot SD and my clients like to walk away with the Discs.

Thanks Alister, for sharing your impressions from your shoot. I had heard rumors there were some problems with the PDW 700 and B&H has pushed back the arrival date for the camera so its good to hear about it. Its also great to hear about the EX1 intercutting so well with the other formats as I am quite interested in the EX1 & EX3.

Thanks again

Mark

I think the PDW-700 problem is that the demand has far exceeded Sony's expectations and they just can't fulfill the orders. I believe most of the first batch are going to China for the Olympics.

I don't think there is anything revolutionary about the 700. It is just a very good match of an excellent camera head with the flexibility and robustness of XDCAM HD. Bringing the data rate up to 50Mb and using 4:2:2 sampling makes the whole package a really good one.

Looking again at the pictures from the weekend I find it hard to fault the camera. It really does do what it says on the tin very well with little fuss. If I could afford one I would have already handed over the cash. I am sure I will be hiring 700's for all my high end productions. I can't really see why anyone would now buy an HDCAM camera. The PDW-700 appears have the potential to optically out perform HDCAM with the added advantage of file based workflow, tight NLE integration and incredibly robust media.

It is not a simple choice.

Yeah, tell me! Those damn little bastards! ;-)

Thanks for sharing this review.

Don't say that, I've just ordered an F355!!!

Don't worry! I'm also getting a new one shortly. After trying them all, the 700, 355 and EX1, I still will be getting a new 355. The 700 is like Alister says a fantastic camera. But too expensive for the things I'm doing at the moment. The EX1 is also a wonderful camera, but I just hate to shoot with those small handheld things. They make me nervous. All those little controls and knobs. I owned an EX1 and sold it again after two weeks because I did not feel comfortable with it. Too heavy for handheld shooting. And in your hands it is the most worst balanced camera ever! So that leaves me with the 355. If i need higher quality I'll rent a 700. It's very difficult to buy a new camera or other high-end electronics these days. That world is just changing too fast. That's why I'm renting for several months now. ;-)

The other problem is that a lot of the broadcast clients now have their own kit, so that even if you spent a fortune on gear they'd want to use their own. There seems to be very little interest by broadcasters in XDCam still, even the PDW700 hasn't been talked about, it's still all HDCam and (for wildlife especially) Varicam. I'm still not sure about the long GOP compression on the PDW700 (not that I've tried one yet), but when you factor in the extra lines of resolution and the colour space over the F350 it's probably about the same compression ratio. HDCam, tape though it still is, is stil I-frame at 144 mb/sec, and it's that rate for a reason. I still think that when it comes to fast motion subjects the long GOP schemes will always struggle. But I'm no engineer and am prepared to be proved wrong!
I've bought the F355 mainly just for personal stuff, I know that 99% of my broadcast work will still be HDCam/Varicam for a good while to come.

Steve

In the corporate world I have seen a very steady increase in the use of XDCAM HD. I now have many clients that use XDCAM HD as their format of choice. I think the introduction of the 700 will greatly increase the take up of XDCAM HD as a format. The PDW 700 is the camera many broadcasters have been waiting for. 4:2:2, full raster, 2/3" B4 lens mount, file based, cheap re-useable media. That's what many have been looking for for some time. This can only be good news for the users of the F350/F330 cameras as the 50Mb players and drives such as the U1 will also work with 35Mbps XDCAM HD and editors and producers will soon learn the advantages of file based workflows and not want to go back to tape. A well exposed or well lit, well composed, in focus image from a F350 will still look better than a badly shot 700 shot. Taken in isolation the pictures from the F350 etc looks very good. You only really see the difference in side by side, like for like shots.

When it comes to compression the numbers never tell the true story. I wont disagree that HDCAM is less compressed than XDCAM, but long GOP is not the work of the Devil as some would have you believe. 50Mb 4:2:2 XDCAM certainly appears on paper to have the same compression ratio as 35Mb 4:2:0 XDCAM and looking at the pictures from the 700 what I see is much better colour reproduction, which again is to be expected. I also see an improvement in resolution, but I expect that comes from the better front end and the simple fact that it records full raster.

As for compression artifacts due to the long GOP's. Well my experience is that the XDCAM HD version of MPEG II is very robust. It is NOT HDV. It isn't an editing codec, I would not want create several generations of XDCAM HD, instead using something like ProRes or un-compressed but it is IMHO a very good acquisition codec offering a good picture quality at a sensible bit rate.

I and hundreds of others at IBC, NAB and other events have watched my edited footage projected using a 4K projector onto screens 11m across. Even at that size the footage (from my F350) looks good and not that dissimilar to the film sequences shown before and after. No-one has ever complained or even commented about artifacts, soft pans or any other so called long GOP issues. I expect the PDW700 set up right would look simply stunning on a big screen.

Interestingly, once the PDW700 gets its 720/50P "upgrade" in autumn (apparently) it will actually be the only realistically priced camera that will do both 1080 and 720/50P at a good resolution, making it a catch-all camera for wildlife production; for regular 25fps work, scenics, interviews etc., you can use 1080/25P, for slomo you can switch to 720 and do 50 or 60P. The HPX3000 only does 1080, the Varicam 3700 only does 1080 to 30fps, the F900 only does 1080 to 30fps, the Varicam 2700 does 60P but only in the 720. You have to go to the F23 to get 1080/60P, and the price and size of the unit is just unreachable to even large TV productions.
So, assuming the compression does its job, it could well be a killer cam. I like the disc media, wasn't sure to begin with but it does seem to be the best of both worlds; an archive plus a drag and drop format, delete individual clips in the field etc. And by all account (including Wade Fairley in the Antarctic) it's pretty robust too.
I'm going to play with the F355 and if it's not satisfying me may well hook it up to a Flash XDR and see how that looks. BUT unless it's a massive improvement I'd prefer to shoot to disc to be honest.
Steve

The HDVF-20A viewfinder is clear and sharp with a wide range of peaking adjustment that helps make focusing easier.

Isn't it though! I really wish this viewfinder could be mated to my F350. *sigh*

-gb-

Greg, I gather the viewfinder output on the F350 is SD so even if you could adapt the plug (which you probably could) it still wouldn't be as good as on the PDW700.
Steve

interesting Alister, I didn't know you were planing on going to RIAT, I had tickets for Sun, shame it was cancelled :( was this for the organizers or Sony etc? Is the footage going to be available somewhere ?

Paul.

RIAT was to be for the official DVD of the show. Although the show got cancelled we did on the Friday get to shoot the Raptor close up on the ground and doing it's display practice which was very impressive. Then when RIAT got cancelled I joined another crew covering Flying Legends at Duxford, again for another official DVD shoot. This was NOT a Sony job, it's just that at the moment Sony (for me at least) have the best offerings of cameras with low cost HD workflow.

Steve: I've taken the HD-SDi from my F350 and recorded it uncompressed to compare with the 35Mb compressed. To be honest I didn't really see that much of a difference, I think you will be surprised at how good the XDCAM codec is. I'm sure that recording to a Flash XDR or similar at 100Mbps MPEG II will have less artifacts and so be more robust over multiple generations but it isn't a big difference.

IMHO the biggest difference between the F350 and PDW-700 is not the 50Mbps codec but the better CCD's and optics.

Thanks Alister, I was hoping someone had done that test, very interesting.
Steve

However if you do a side by side, same shot comparison the F350 looks a little more enhanced or electronic. Turning the detail down reduces the enhanced look but the images start to look soft compared to the PDW-700. Don't get me wrong the F350 produces a good picture but you can definitely see the extra resolution of both the EX1 and PDW-700.

I've been saying this for a while. In comparison to the EX I found the pictures from the 350 to look 'coarse', and as you say the extra resolution on the EX is noticeable despite what some try to say.

50Mb 4:2:2 XDCAM certainly appears on paper to have the same compression ratio as 35Mb 4:2:0 XDCAM

Not quite. Remember that 350/355 is variable bitrate while the 700 at 50Mbps is constant bitrate. So in situations where the 350/355 compression gets it wrong, or lowers the bitrate a lot because it thinks there isn't much happening, the 700 will keep a constant 50Mbps (equivalent to a constant 35Mbps but with 4:2:2 colour). So there should be many situations where the 700's compression holds up much better than the 350/355.

Going back to the comparison between the 350 and 700 again for a second. The lower resolution of the 350/355 is one reason I think Sony will, in contrast to what they will say when asked, release a successor to the half inch cameras with a full raster CCD. They will have to upgrade that segment at some point. Maybe not an entirely new camera, more of an update. The 355 was more of a point release too, and is still basically a 350 with a few odds and ends. Really a three year old camera by the end of this year.

If they have the lower end segment covered with the EX series, and the high end with the 700, then it makes sense now to update the mid segment which appears to be falling behind the others. I'm sure there are many who will forego the ergonomics in favour of the picture quality of the EX3 instead of a 335 or 355.

Alister,

We're all of the shots progressive or did you shoot any interlace?

Tom, the camera we had only had the stock firmware so was interlace only. There is new firmware that includes progressive but that was not installed on the camera we had.

Simon: I keep forgetting the 4:2:2 codec is CBR. For a given average bit rate VBR should give a better end result than CBR. However you look at it the compression ratio is roughly the same for 4:2:0 1440x1080 35Mbps and 4:2:2 1920x1080 50Mbps.

For a given average bit rate VBR should give a better end result than CBR.

Not sure why that should be. VBR is only there to help maximise storage space and only to use the higher bitrates when needed. Most of the time the 350/355 will be on a fairly low actual bitrate even in HQ mode. CBR should give better quality all round because there is no variation or reliance on predicting what needs a higher bitrate or not.

You are right though about the actual compression ratio, assuming the maximum bitrate at any one time. Although in reality the 1440 codec of the 355 has more 'mbits per pixel' available as it were due to the lower resolution. Again assuming the full bitrate is actually being used.

Good to finally meet you Alistair!

I have done a little blog entry http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Blooms_Blog/Blooms_Blog/Entries/2008/7/15_Duxford_Air_Show_with_Redrock_Matte_Box.html

there is also a link there to a cut together I did of a bit of my footage. I shot 60gb at the end of the weekend. Very pleased with results, especially day two for people, but day one for clouds! Will put it up when I get permission from Steve.

Phil

Going back to the comparison between the 350 and 700 again for a second. The lower resolution of the 350/355 is one reason I think Sony will, in contrast to what they will say when asked, release a successor to the half inch cameras with a full raster CCD. They will have to upgrade that segment at some point. Maybe not an entirely new camera, more of an update. The 355 was more of a point release too, and is still basically a 350 with a few odds and ends. Really a three year old camera by the end of this year.

I guess that this update will not happen. If you add full raster CCD's to a PDW-F3xx, then you will be getting in the PDW-700 his water. Why should I buy a 700 when I can get a 355 with that records full raster? I know, 2/3" CCD's vs 1/2" CCD's. But is that going to make such a big difference in the end? I think not. Actually I hope they do release one at IBC this year. ;-)

VBR has the advantage that the bit rate can peak quite a bit higher than the average rate when the picture complexity needs it.

According to Sony XDCAM EX is compressed 21.3:1 and 4:2:2 is 19.9:1

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/NAB2008/docs/Sony_HD_Formats_Guide.pdf

VBR has the advantage that the bit rate can peak quite a bit higher than the average rate when the picture complexity needs it.

And can actually jump a bit higher than 35mb/s on occasion.

-gb-

And can actually jump a bit higher than 35mb/s on occasion.

That's interesting.

I guess that this update will not happen. If you add full raster CCD's to a PDW-F3xx, then you will be getting in the PDW-700 his water.

I don't agree. Owners of the 700 want the 4:2:2 colour sampling because their work demands it. So adding 1920x1080 to the 355 style cameras wouldn't affect it because they would still be 4:2:0.

At the moment I would argue that the EX series has seriously infringed on the 300 series market. While ergonomics are one issue it cannot be ignored that the EX series not only has higher resolution chips, but lower noise without the need for noise reduction, slightly better low light abilities because of that lower noise, much higher resolution variable framerate, and no loss of resolution when the shutter is turned on in progressive scan modes.

The EX1 might be a stretch, but the EX3 certainly could dent the sales of the 335. Especially since it can use the same lenses, so the whole optical advantage of the shoulder mount cameras has also been thrown to the wind.

So I think a 1920 version of the half inchers is definitely on the cards. Sony won't be standing still otherwise they won't have anything to announce at NAB :-) I'm also reminded of the number of times I've suggested possibilities to Sony employees only to have them tell me something will never happen, and then 3 months down the line they announce what I predicted. I still think I'm going to have fun with this one, even if it doesn't turn out to be a disc based camera :-)

I think Simon is right. With one Proviso. Will Sony keep more than 1 tier of XDCAM HD?

If you look at the DV and DVCAM lines there has always been a range of cameras. Large tape 2/3" DSR-450, Large tape 1/2"DSR350, Small tape Shoulder mount fixed lens and handycams. I see XDCAM becoming a similar range so it would not surprise me at all to see further 1/2" cameras disc cameras. I would also expect any further mid-range cameras to be full raster but still 4:2:0.

But this may be some way off. I think the R&D guys at Sony have been flat out getting the latest cameras out and are still working on firmware. So it could be a while before we see a true F355 replacement.

But this may be some way off. I think the R&D guys at Sony have been flat out getting the latest cameras out and are still working on firmware. So it could be a while before we see a true F355 replacement.

No disrespect to anyone, but whatever the Sony engineers are doing, they need to KEEP doing it. They are kicking everyone's butts right now. Panasonic shook up the market with the DVX and HVX, but really let them languish. Only the smallest upgrades. JVC really edged in with a network ready 720p camera, but kinda held there. Sony seemed to be stumbling, but they have leapfrogged everyone in the past year from what I see.

About the only thing I wish was that Sony would go to open market recording technology, at least on the consumer and prosumer cameras. If the Ex1/EX3 had come with SDHC, I can't imagine how much more I would have been thrilled. Panasonic with the P2 card kinda hits me the same way. Panasonics new releases though do seem to leverage common storage which I think is terrific.

I guess Sony have always played by their own rules though when it's come to storage. Whether its Beta, minidisc, bkuray, or whatever. I'm on board for the SxS ride for now I guess.

I'm just about to buy an EX3, but I won't be getting rid of my F350. The F350/F355 is still a good work horse. The pictures are excellent and I prefer the Disc based workflow over the SxS workflow (either is sooo much better than tape!). The EX1 and F350 are different animals and both have strengths and weaknesses. The f350 has cache record, CCD's shoots SD and HD, and is a proper shoulder mount. On the other hand the EX1 is higher resolution, smaller and lighter. It really depends on what you need the camera for. I would suggest that for corporate work or work where you must hand over your material the F350/F355 is the better bet, while for in-house projects the EX1 might be a better choice. It is not a simple choice. If it was purely a picture quality choice I would go with the PDW-700 first, EX1 or EX3 second then F350. But if I could have only one camera and the 700 is too expensive then I think it would have be the F350/F355 as it is possibly a better all-round camera. I still need a camera that can shoot SD and my clients like to walk away with the Discs.

So do I understand that EX3 is better than 355 ? now I m thinking of choosing sony equipment, 700, 355 and EX3. we are working on a project and I have to decide which sony ?
I read all of your comments Alister, but my biggest concern is EX3 CMOS with rolling shutter. I ve told some people and read some thread here that fast moving objects and fast pans a kind of "motion artifact" called "judder ?", seems like hdv codec with fast actions.

I ve used XLH1 with 5 months and didn't like its codec and dynamic range because of fast pans and motion artifacts.so I wont use it and will jump to sony. 355 has ccd and ex3 has cmos. could you please comment this issue.

Yesterday I ve already sent the equipment list to the sony turkey; if they have 700 they will suply, but as a B cam I choosed ex3. But, in case of they dont have 700 yet, I wrote 355 as a A cam.

so is it useless or unlogical to have both ex3 and 355 ? and also small and light ex3 save me a lot in the field,

thanks,

alkim.

Thanks for all the great information.

I cant wait to get my PDW-700 even more now :)

I think the dividing line is CMOS/CCD.

Until they can make the CMOS imagers bulletproof in all shooting situations, I don't think they will put them in the broadcast tier.

What I notice is most of the camera offerings of all companies seem to be at each end of the spectrum, 1/3" under $8,000 or 2/3" over $20,000.

The middle segment is a bit empty, which would seem like the 1/2" chip world will get some attention in the near future.

CMOS seems like the future with its lower heat output and cost of production.

Maybe they will come out with RSC - rolling shutter compensation!

Alkim, I wish I had the answer for you but I don't.

In most shooting situations I think picture quality wise the EX1 or EX3 will outperform the F355. Rolling shutter is not really the big issue many are making it out to be. Unusually fast pans may reveal a bit of skew and flash or strobe lighting can give part exposed frames. If you slow the shutter speed down the strobe and flash issues all but go away. I've shot hundreds of hours of footage with my EX1 and have no issues with the rolling shutter.

I prefer the Disc workflow to the SxS workflow, but both do work and work well.

The F355 is going to be easier to use with heavy lenses than the EX3. The EX cameras only have a single 1/4" screw for tripod mounting while the F355 has a proper sony snatch plate. The F355 is a lot more robust than the EX and will take knocks and bumps better.

It really depends on your shooting style, whether you need to be light weight and portable or need compatibility with industry standard batteries and accessories plus the credibility that a large camera like the F355 brings.

http://www.vimeo.com/1387717

This ungraded trailer mixes footage from HDCam790, the 700, EX1 and "Phil Bloom'ed" EX1

About the only thing I wish was that Sony would go to open market recording technology, at least on the consumer and prosumer cameras. If the Ex1/EX3 had come with SDHC, I can't imagine how much more I would have been thrilled.
I agree with your sentiments, but surely Sony already are using open market technology at the lower end - SD for consumer cameras, Compact Flash for the Z7/S270? For the EX1/EX3 I'd say CF would have been a better way to go than SDHC, but in principle I think most people will say you're right.