Hi everyone .. :)

I was deciding to go with Sony CineAlta HDCAM F900R for my top quality TV advertising production, but some friends recommended to go with Sony XDCAM HD 700, because its price is FAR lower, and the picture quality is similar. Is that true?? If yes, why the huge difference in price? If not, is the quality difference noticeable?

I was recommended as well to use Wafian Direct-to-Disk HD video recorder with CineForm codecs to achieve better picture quality than recording straight to tape with F900R, or Disk with the 700. Is that true also?? and how?

Finally, can I use Letus adapter with either cameras to get better DOF?

I appreciate any help ...

Hi there,

I hope this link helps you in making the decision

http://www.videoscope.com/pdf_files/Sony_HD_Formats_Guide.pdf

Hi everyone .. :)

I was deciding to go with Sony CineAlta HDCAM F900R for my top quality TV advertising production, but some friends recommended to go with Sony XDCAM HD 700, because its price is FAR lower, and the picture quality is similar. Is that true?? If yes, why the huge difference in price? If not, is the quality difference noticeable?

I was recommended as well to use Wafian Direct-to-Disk HD video recorder with CineForm codecs to achieve better picture quality than recording straight to tape with F900R, or Disk with the 700. Is that true also?? and how?

Finally, can I use Letus adapter with either cameras to get better DOF?

I appreciate any help ...

The Wafian will give you better quality than recording on HDCAM, although how important this will be to your commercial really depends on the content and if you're doing vfx like greenscreen. It's 10bit 4.2.2, which is much better than the 8 bit 3:1;1 of HDCAM. However, if it's just straight live action I wouldn't bother unless the post house is already set up for handling it.

Wafian HR-1 (http://www.cineform.com/products/WafianHR1.htm)

Much depends on how much effects work you're doing. HDCAM isn't wonderful and I suspect XDCAM HD 4.2.2 may have some issues for high end vfx work. In the end the choice could come down to cost and which HD format your post house can handle.

The cost difference may just come down to the cost of tape VTRs, which aren't cheap to manufacture

The Letus is more designed for use on smaller cameras, I doubt it would cover the front element of a 2/3" HD zoom lens. Usually a P & S Pro 35 is mounted directly onto the camera's B4 lens mount without any other lenses fitted to the camera.

Steve Philips compares the HDW750 to the PDW 700 in this thread.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdcam-hd-cinealta/140625-pdw-700-25p-mixing-f900r-23-98p-final-cut-6-a.html

The F900R camera head is better than the head on the HDW 750.

Thanks people for your feedback, and help .. I appreciate it so much :)

Noel .. thanks for the link, hopefully it will help me.

Brain .. thanks man for the details and for clearing up the story of Letus adapters. I will be doing alot of vfx, and greenscreen. I did not know that the color sampling of HDCAM is that low (3.1.1)!!
How about using Wafian with XDCAM HD? Will the quality will be identical to HDCAM with Wafian??

I have not decided yet on my post-production equipments, but will do after choosing the best camera for my work (HDCAM or XDCAM HD)

"The cost difference may just come down to the cost of tape VTRs, which aren't cheap to manufacture" are you saying that no extra quality involved in HDCAM F900R when comparing to XDCAM HD 700?

Feedback apprecaited :)

Thanks people for your feedback, and help .. I appreciate it so much :)

Noel .. thanks for the link, hopefully it will help me.

Brain .. thanks man for the details and for clearing up the story of Letus adapters. I will be doing alot of vfx, and greenscreen. I did not know that the color sampling of HDCAM is that low (3.1.1)!!
How about using Wafian with XDCAM HD? Will the quality will be identical to HDCAM with Wafian??

I have not decided yet on my post-production equipments, but will do after choosing the best camera for my work (HDCAM or XDCAM HD)

"The cost difference may just come down to the cost of tape VTRs, which aren't cheap to manufacture" are you saying that no extra quality involved in HDCAM F900R when comparing to XDCAM HD 700?

Feedback appreciated :)

Brain .. thanks man for the details and for clearing up the story of Letus adapters. I will be doing alot of vfx, and greenscreen. I did not know that the color sampling of HDCAM is that low (3.1.1)!!
How about using Wafian with XDCAM HD? Will the quality will be identical to HDCAM with Wafian??

I have not decided yet on my post-production equipments, but will do after choosing the best camera for my work (HDCAM or XDCAM HD)


With the Wafian you're only using the camera head, the on board recording system isn't an issue. The Wafian uses the HD SDI output, so by passing the recording end of the camera.

According to Sony the PDW 700 has "three newly developed 2/3-inch progressive Power HAD FX CCDs at 1920 x 1080 resolution. 14-bit A/D conversion and advanced digital signal processing are also used to ensure the highest picture quality." While the "HDW-F900R features 12-bit A/D conversion"

It sounds like the PDW 700 has same camera head as the latest HDW650 HDCAM camera. So if you're going to record the HD SDI output from the camera to the Wafian recorder using Cineform and the PDW 700 is cheaper, the latter would seem the best option for this job.

As Steve Philipps points out in the other thread, the GOP in the XDCAM HD 4:2:2 could cause problems with motion. Although, I suppose it depends on what you're trying to do and what is acceptable to you.

Brain .. thank you very much for your help. You are almost convincing me to go with this setup.

How about this:
"The Wafian HR-2 is a 10-bit 4:4:4 dual-link HD-SDI recorder for digital film workflows. The HR-2 records into the CineForm 444 format at 360 Mb/s and as with the HR-1, the new HR-2 empowers film-makers and broadcasters with affordable and efficient workflow options without sacrificing quality."

Will I get a 4.4.4 color sampling from XDCAM HD 700 using this unit, or it is limited to sensors of the 700?

I also learned from other forum that a product called Flash XDR will do the same. How do you compare it with Wafian products?

Thanks for your help Brain :)

Sorry .. forgot to mention .. you said "the GOP in the XDCAM HD 4:2:2 could cause problems with motion" .. what dose that mean? I did not get it?

Brain .. thank you very much for your help. You are almost convincing me to go with this setup.

How about this:
"The Wafian HR-2 is a 10-bit 4:4:4 dual-link HD-SDI recorder for digital film workflows. The HR-2 records into the CineForm 444 format at 360 Mb/s and as with the HR-1, the new HR-2 empowers film-makers and broadcasters with affordable and efficient workflow options without sacrificing quality."

Will I get a 4.4.4 color sampling from XDCAM HD 700 using this unit, or it is limited to sensors of the 700?

I also learned from other forum that a product called Flash XDR will do the same. How do you compare it with Wafian products?

Thanks for your help Brain :)

Neither of these cameras give you a dual link HD SDI output, so you're limited to the 10 bit 4:2:2 HD SDI output. If you wish to use this you'll need to get a camera with a dual link output.

GOP = group of pictures.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/files/micro/XDCAM_FAQs.pdf

MPEG-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2)

Group of pictures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_pictures)

You'll find a diagram at figure 7

ARCHITECTURES FOR VIDEO PROCESSING (http://lsiwww.epfl.ch/LSI2001/teaching/webcourse/ch13/ArchiMultimed.htm)

I'd talk to the people handling the post production before making a decision. There's little point in coming up with a recording format that they can't handle.

Neither of these cameras give you a dual link HD SDI output, so you're limited to the 10 bit 4:2:2 HD SDI output. If you wish to use this you'll need to get a camera with a dual link output.

GOP = group of pictures.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/static/files/micro/XDCAM_FAQs.pdf

MPEG-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2)

Group of pictures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_pictures)

You'll find a diagram at figure 7

ARCHITECTURES FOR VIDEO PROCESSING (http://lsiwww.epfl.ch/LSI2001/teaching/webcourse/ch13/ArchiMultimed.htm)

I'd talk to the people handling the post production before making a decision. There's little point in coming up with a recording format that they can't handle.

Thanks again Brian for your time and explanation. I will check the links tomorrow .. I have to go to sleep now.

The people handling the post-production are my employee .. it is my company, so I have the flexibility to choose he post equipments after I select the camera.
Any idea what Sony camera support dual link HD SDI output?

Thanks and good night for now ...

Thanks again Brian for your time and explanation. I will check the links tomorrow .. I have to go to sleep now.

The people handling the post-production are my employee .. it is my company, so I have the flexibility to choose he post equipments after I select the camera.
Any idea what Sony camera support dual link HD SDI output?

Thanks and good night for now ...

If you're going to this trouble to shoot commercials I'd consider a RED ONE. It seems they can now deliver a camera without waiting months and I've heard very positive comments on using it for green screen and it's cost effective. However, it has a very different workflow to traditional HD video cameras, since it records RAW and it also uses a 35mm sized sensor rather than 2/3".

Sony seems to be going for HDCAM SR cameras for portable 4:4:4 high end work. The old Sony F950 has a dual link output, but I don't think the make it any more, although you could check out their 1000 series cameras.

PDW-700, HDW-650, HDC-1500 and F23 all share the same sensors.

Noel thanks for that great link. The best comparison I have seen to date on the Sony HD cameras.

There's some interesting details in the Sony guide. Things like the fact that 35Mb XDCAM HD is only compressed 16:1 while 50Mb XDCAM HD 4:2:2 is compressed much more at 20:1, yet the pictures from the 16:1 compressed cameras are nowhere near as good as the ones from the 20:1 cameras and it's not just because of the colour space.

I note that they put XDCAM HD 4:2:0 above XDCAM EX on the production pyramid, yet most owners and users will tell you that the quality from the EX is quite a bit better than from the current crop of XDCAM HD camcorders.

Hi everyone .. :)

I was deciding to go with Sony CineAlta HDCAM F900R for my top quality TV advertising production, but some friends recommended to go with Sony XDCAM HD 700, because its price is FAR lower, and the picture quality is similar. Is that true?? If yes, why the huge difference in price? If not, is the quality difference noticeable?

I was recommended as well to use Wafian Direct-to-Disk HD video recorder with CineForm codecs to achieve better picture quality than recording straight to tape with F900R, or Disk with the 700. Is that true also?? and how?

Finally, can I use Letus adapter with either cameras to get better DOF?

I appreciate any help ...

Hi Yasser

If you are still interested in the 900, a dealer here in Switzerland is selling their rental version for 30'000 Swiss Francs instead of 188'000... (it seems the national Broadcaster is just buying the XDCAM HD 422, hence they can't get rid of the HDCAM anymore)
here is the link...

Schweizer AG :: Professionelle Videotechnik ->> Occasionen (http://www.schweizervideo.ch/web/occasionen/?sid=956869396)

This may explain why the quality of the CCD/CMOS sensor may be more important that just the color space.

T.

If your looking at second hand there is a big difference between the 900 and 900R. 900's can be picked up really cheap but that's an old camera now and technology has moved on.

If your looking at second hand there is a big difference between the 900 and 900R. 900's can be picked up really cheap but that's an old camera now and technology has moved on.

The F900 advertised looks like a version 1, so that's really old, usually you only come across the F900v3 these days. Even these are now tending to be replaced by the F900R in the rental fleets.

Sony have brought out the HDW 650 which is the latest version of HDCAM camera. There's a lot of HDCAM kit out there and it'll be serviceable in broadcast work for many years to come.

It's more a comment on the age of the camera than on HDCAM as a format. You do have to consider that the cost of ownership of a tape based camcorder can be a lot higher than the cost of ownership of a disc or solid state camera. Tape transports must be kept clean, serviced regularly and heads need replacing every 1000 to 2000 hours depending on how the camera is used. A new upper/lower drum fitted and aligned along with pinch rollers etc for an F900 costs as much as an EX1. I would also want to take a good look at the CCD's on an older camera as the masking circuits are limited to the number of out of spec pixels they can mask. It only takes a couple of trans-atlantic flights to fill the masking memory. If the memory is full and you get a hot pixel mid screen your in for some serious bills.

Also most of the file based workflows are so much cheaper, easier and faster, saving further money. You don't need expensive playback or record decks (which also wear out).

It's more a comment on the age of the camera than on HDCAM as a format. You do have to consider that the cost of ownership of a tape based camcorder can be a lot higher than the cost of ownership of a disc or solid state camera. Tape transports must be kept clean, serviced regularly and heads need replacing every 1000 to 2000 hours depending on how the camera is used. A new upper/lower drum fitted and aligned along with pinch rollers etc for an F900 costs as much as an EX1. I would also want to take a good look at the CCD's on an older camera as the masking circuits are limited to the number of out of spec pixels they can mask. It only takes a couple of trans-atlantic flights to fill the masking memory. If the memory is full and you get a hot pixel mid screen your in for some serious bills.

Also most of the file based workflows are so much cheaper, easier and faster, saving further money. You don't need expensive playback or record decks (which also wear out).

You really need to know the needs of your clients. If you're mostly doing everything in house, the tapeless workflow makes a lot of sense. However, if you're working mostly for people still using HDCAM, that would be the way to go.

Best be careful with older kit, especially if it's been worked hard by say a broadcaster.

You really need to know the needs of your clients. If you're mostly doing everything in house, the tapeless workflow makes a lot of sense. However, if you're working mostly for people still using HDCAM, that would be the way to go.
Provided your clients intend to stick with HDCAM for the pay-back period of your chosen camera. Used HDCAM prices are tumbling which is a reflection on the number being traded in for other formats. I may be wrong but buying HDCAM now would IMHO be a bold move as in a couple of years time you may have an expensive camera that no one wants and has little second hand value. However if you have a job or jobs that are guaranteed to recoup the costs of the camera then go for it. Otherwise renting could be the safest option.

Otherwise renting could be the safest option.

Renting makes a lot of sense these day with the high end cameras, there are so many currently HD formats out there.

I know one rental company took 18 months as the pay back time on a high end video camera from the rentals, after that being the profit.