As an amateur I have followed this thread with interest. My hobby since retirement is video, a little excessive according to my wife!! My camera inventory is an FX1 a SR11 and XR500 very consumer compared to this discussion. However for all the issues raised here the programs have to get to the viewer somehow, mainly cable or satellite and by the time they are displayed on my 42"1080P Panasonic plasma or my 40" 240HZ Sony LCD the best have a job being better than the output from my XR500!! Most are a lot worse, closer to the output from my old DV cameras!!! The Bluray disc I have made of theatre shows with these cameras are at least as good as most of the Bluray commercial discs I have and better than most of them. I can clearly see the difference in programs on my displays. The best at the moment are on Equator or Oasis group of HD channels here on Rogers cable though as expected large variation in quality.
Consumers now have access to AVCHD cameras at low cost that deliver clean, sharp video without judder etc. makes the professional products look not so good a lot of the time.
As a technical person I appreciate the issues being raised however the final delivery is what counts and how many stages of degradation takes place before the final viewer gets to see the production. Most of what i do has little processing, edited with Edius and straight to Bluray. When I watch cable the signal has been degraded many times from its pristine original whatever camera took the shots. Hence the difficulty competing with a $1000 consumer camera ( which may be shooting at more than twice the bit rate of the delivered cable channel).
With this in mind the system that can take the abuse the best is likely the winner!!!! What is the best input to the distribution encoders that results in the best viewer experience?
Ron Evans

David,

What do you mean by this and "next generation" radio mics? The Panasonic 2000 and 3000 series camera have a slot for 2-channel digital radio mic. receivers such as Lectrosonics.

I'm pretty sure you'll find the 2000 and 3000 series cameras have a Unislot mount, and support single channel only, as well as not making use of some of the more advanced features of the new digital radio mics. I think you'll find they'll accept the new digital receivers, but only be able to access one of the channels within the camera. You really need a new generation camera to make full use of the capabilities, and the 350 is designed with the slot to do that.
Sony was the first camera manufacturer to deliver an AVC HD camcorder, so they have embraced AVC codecs due to their superior efficiency vs. MPEG2. This is the same reason AVC h.264 is used with Blu Ray so often.
AVC-HD *CAN* offer superior efficiency to MPEG2, but it doesn't necessarily follow - all coders are not equal. It's also important to define "superior efficiency". If you mean "same quality at lower bitrate", then yes, if you mean "easier editing", then no - it's much more of a pain to edit than MPEG2. Which I suspect strongly is why Sony have stuck with MPEG2 in their pro range, to keep easy native editing albeit at the expense of greater bitrate.

It's also important to distinguish between Blu-Ray production and cameras. With the former, the coding can take place in non real time, likely 2-pass, and use powerful computers. With a camcorder, the coding has to take place in real time and computing power is limited by many constraints. So whereas H264 on a Blu-Ray may achieve the 2x efficiency figure, it's unlikely that a real time coder will in any consumer priced camera. (It most certainly gets nowhere near in the HMC150.)

Real time AVC coders are improving all the time, and that's likely why Sony have left it until now to use the codec in other than low end consumer cameras. At highest bitrate, my experiences have been that overall in the HMC150 it's only comparable at best to HDV (and far more difficult to edit.) New generation coders may change all that, and I'll be interested to see how the NXCAM range turns out.

With this in mind the system that can take the abuse the best is likely the winner!!!! What is the best input to the distribution encoders that results in the best viewer experience?
The simple answer to the question is probably "the cleanest"!

But that can mean a lot of things - low noise original, fewest compression artifacts, and amount of aliasing in the original signal to name just three.

The compression issue may be the most interesting here. Simple logic would have you believe that the higher the original bitrate the better, yes? Because the production process involves multiple decompression/recompression, you need to start off with something that will survive that as well as possible?

I'm hearing stories from people who are interested in cameras for short turn around events (sports, news etc) that XDCAM 35Mbs may be the best option for them, in that although the initial compression may be higher than AVC-Intra 100 or XDCAM 422, the bitrate is low enough to be edited natively and linked back in real time in native form. The savings on transcoding steps more than compensate for any higher compression.

In general, it depends on what you're going to do with the footage. If it's going to need a lot of grading or extensive post work, then 4:2:2 and other factors have far more significance than if the pictures are likely to be broadcast as shot - as is most likely the case for sports, news etc.

In more general terms, what you see at home will also depend on the transmission codec, bitrate, and (most importantly) the actual coders used. In the UK, the BBC HD channel has recently reduced it's bitrate from 16 Mbs to about 9.7Mbs, with little discernible difference. (At least to me, though there's some disagreement about it.) The claim is that the original H264 coders were "little better than MPEG2", the bitrate reduction has gone hand in hand with new and (much) better coders.

Well my friend and officemate Don Lenzer got over to see the camera at Abel today and followed up with a report. It certainly puts on hold his plans for the 2700 although to be fair he was leaning against the trade in before this. He isn't rushing to buy the 350 but is holding off on the 2700.

Don seemed pretty happy with the 350 today. He commented on the weight and size being very nice.

We now have four 350s in our rental department, as well as four plus 2700s. I really enjoy reading these debates because they echo the discussions we have with our clients everyday. I think when making a camera decision it comes down to a couple of key questions. Is the camera high quality? Will my client accept this camera and what it delivers? Will it work for most of my applications? How much can I charge for it? Oh.. and what about the workflow?

I work with many different freelancers and they each have pretty defined opinions about what is best. Usually what is best is what is making them the most money. They have clients that demand a certain format or have a list of acceptable cameras. The HPX2700 has been selling well and working in our rental department so it obviously meets a number of needs. I believe the 350 will also do very well in our rental department, especially because the rental price will be lower than most 2/3" cameras.

They are both high quality cameras. I say look at your client base and get the one that will meet their needs the most.

I'm pretty sure you'll find the 2000 and 3000 series cameras have a Unislot mount, and support single channel only, as well as not making use of some of the more advanced features of the new digital radio mics. I think you'll find they'll accept the new digital receivers, but only be able to access one of the channels within the camera. You really need a new generation camera to make full use of the capabilities, and the 350 is designed with the slot to do that.

AVC-HD *CAN* offer superior efficiency to MPEG2, but it doesn't necessarily follow - all coders are not equal. It's also important to define "superior efficiency". If you mean "same quality at lower bitrate", then yes, if you mean "easier editing", then no - it's much more of a pain to edit than MPEG2. Which I suspect strongly is why Sony have stuck with MPEG2 in their pro range, to keep easy native editing albeit at the expense of greater bitrate.


David,

The 2700 and 3700 have Unislot mounts, they are dual channel and the newest Lectrosonics digital dual channel receivers work with the cameras.

AVC-HD was designed as a low bit rate codec first and foremost and it is up to CPU's and coders to catch up to the processing complexity. When it comes to "easier editing", it's hard to beat DVCPRO HD, especially in Native frame rates. XDCAM EX is more processor intensive, as is any Long GOP frame structure codec. So if efficiency is based upon low processing requirements, my choice is DVCPRO HD with 4:2:2 and I-Frame. Of course any modern dual core higher-end computer should have no trouble with XDCAM EX or AVC-Intra 100.

Andy,

It would be great if you could give us some of your insight regarding codecs or sensors or what you think is hype vs. valuable, but I know you have to walk a fine line being in sales.

I too have these conversations with clients daily. Many times a producer asks me what camera they should use for a particular project. I always defer to their DP and also recommend they speak to their editor. Reality is, any of these cameras and formats can get the job done.

Having owned most every BVP and BVW series Sony camera since 1985, I know they make a great product that is reliable and robust. I'm newer to Panasonic, but am very impressed with the support I receive from them. You can't go wrong with either one, IMO.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

I would be concerned right now if I owned an F900R or 700/800 because of the 350.

Of course, I'm concerned by all palmcorders, RED One and video DSLR's, not to mention Flip HD at this point! It seems 2/3" cameras just aren't sexy anymore.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

You bring up a good point about obsolescence. I buy a car knowing it's a depreciating asset, not expecting to make money on it. In a different sense I am making money on it, because it makes possible the transportation to and from work that pays the bills.

But I don't have to look at each camera purchase and make the judgment about whether it's a specific bread winner or loser. In the rental business, you do and you've been very clear what your expectation for return on that investment would be, i.e. a rental rate twice what the EX3 brings.

But because I'm not in the business of rentals, I would have no fear whatsoever about owning an F900R, or 700/800. In fact I would love to have one. The choice for PMW350 owes to its up-to-date features and benefits, and price point that makes it reasonable for me to jump into the 2/3 inch class.

These cams all remain usable and desirable, but from the viewpoint of business of rentals, and the concern that consumer choice can be fickle, turn on a dime, and be suddenly no longer desirable because a new flavor of the month appears, I understand you have to be conservative about what is worthy of being added to the inventory list.

Maybe subject for another discussion, is the point you raised about whether 2/3 inch just aren't sexy anymore? To me they still are. I own the 5DMkII DSLR and lenses. The image quality does not satisfy me for 1080p video due to aliasing and CMOS artifacts. I once saw a comparison somewhere, it was the Red One and I believe a Sony F23, not totally sure about the latter, but one of the high end Sony 2/3 inch devices. I understand you achieve whatever look you need from the RAW in post, but I still thought the image from the 2/3 inch cam was more highly detailed, and certainly presented an opportunity for achieving a desirable look 'in-cam'. That really counts with me. Speed is time, and time is money. The convenience of having a wealth of image adjustment controls in-cam is very important to me. Perhaps 2/3 inch isn't sexy anymore, the market is increasingly segmented, with pressure from below with great performing 1/2 inch EX cams, from above with the Red, and from the side with video DSLRs, a wealth of riches, but certain to complicate rental decisions.

Tom,

All good points. My observations are that most young film makers haven't used 2/3" cameras, don't know about proper ergonomics/form factor, don't have a clue about what the menu items in the camera offer as far as image control.

We know that 2/3" cameras are used in the thousands daily around the world to shoot just about every kind of project imaginable. They are good in low light, reliable, convenient, have good latitude, shallower depth of field than palmcorders, less noise, and allow for baked-in image control at a level that the little cameras or raw cameras don't have.

I see people judging cameras via super compressed internet clips, where the things like aliasing on the edges of video DSLR cameras isn't apparent. My 2700 is good for 11-stops of latitude in Film-Rec 600%, a palmcorder or video DSLR just isn't going to achieve that.

2/3" ENG style HD cameras are the best for hand held, the lenses have great focal length range with smooth servos, viewfinders are usually good, monitoring capability is usually superior, with proven, robust recording formats and more recording capacity.

I offer Letus Ultimate 35mm depth of field adapters for all my cameras if clients want a shallow depth of field while still retaining the convenience and reliability of 2/3" cameras.
With a video DSLR like the 5D, you get shallow depth of field whether wanted or not, lousy audio, monitoring, codec, record capacity, ergonomics and CMOS artifacts.

One of my rental house competitors has a few 5D's and he tells me he hopes the fad passes quickly. He also tells me his RED One packages are the most unreliable gear he owns.

I am conservative, I don't want calls from the set or edit suite. I don't want to have to send a backup camera with every rental. I've been in this business for 28 years now and don't want to fall into the same holes over and over again--my clients need to be able to trust any piece of gear I offer for rental. If I lose that, I have nothing.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

From another thread on this forum by Gary Natress in answer to whether AVC-Intra is as hard to edit with as AVCHD:

"No it isnt AVC intra is a superb codec and far better for editing than AVCHD, I am using AVC intra 100 a lot and it goes into final cut pro as re-wrapped native AVC to pro res files.

It is a dream to work with and the lower bit rate AVC intra 50 is even easier, the files also go into FCP at 3X real time for AVC intra 100 on my mac machines.

I also use AVCHD from a canon HF11 and find that it is better to transcode to pro res LT than re-wrap and try to use AVCHD for editing.

Hope this helps, I have the HPX301 and the picture quality of AVC intra is superb."

Heard from a DP today who sold an HPX3000 and is considering an HPX2700 now for 720P and overcranking, plus better sensitivity. He has been using AVC-Intra since the 3000 was introduced in 2007 and is very happy with its quality and work flow.

I've been using Intra for a year with sub-rented P2 Mobile, HPX3000 and now my HPX2700, working with several post houses who are editing my client's projects with no problems.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

I agree Jeff the AVC intra 100 from my 301 is superb quality and a joy to edit and work with to delivery, I also have a canon HF11 and as you say transcoding to pro res LT is the best option.

Once that process is done it is also very easy to work with, I am considering a 2700 in the new year and with our two 301's it will give us pretty much everything we need for broadcast and on-line shooting. The big advantage is that everything will be in AVC intra 100 and we are also using the 301's as B cameras all the time.

I have looked at the new 350 but it just doesnt make sense for me as I have decided on P2 as my format and having all three cameras shooting the same codec is a good location workflow for edit in FCP.

I am considering a 2700 in the new year and with our two 301's it will give us pretty much everything we need for broadcast and on-line shooting
I'm curious as to which broadcasters are accepting 301 material?

301's are being used as B-cameras to our current hire 2700 all the time and we have had no complaints so far from any of our broadcast clients.

Sorry cant name them as that would breach our contracts but everything is being shot AVC intra 100 on all cameras so the only real difference is the 1/3" cmos vs 2/3" CCD.

To be honest on some of the live music content we have done it is really difficult to tell which camera is which.

I have also just done a feature film on a 301 and the client was very happy with the results and it met the budget that they had.
We also provided a hire 301 for a commercial that is going on air in the new year : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhVxHNRdz4

I have always done everything with our 301's under the guidance of Alan Roberts report and whilst the BBC do not have it on their list the 2700 is there and we work in a similar fashion to how SD prods have always used Z1's etc for a certain percentage of content, the big advantage is that as said everything is in AVC intra 100 so workflow to edit in FCP and archiving from P2 to hard drive is a smooth process.

I agree Jeff the AVC intra 100 from my 301 is superb quality and a joy to edit and work with to delivery, I also have a canon HF11 and as you say transcoding to pro res LT is the best option.


Gary,

I was quoting you, I don't have a Canon HF11, although I've used AVC HD for in-car cameras and it was a pain to transcode. I'm sorry I misspelled your name. Glad Intra and P2 workflow is working well for you.

Alister,

In the U.S. there are many shows shot with HPX300's, "Players", a Spike TV national cable show, several local broadcast channels for news and local commercials. I don't know of any national broadcast network shows, however.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Wow Gary, you or your production company has worked on broadcast programmes producing material that is there for everyone to watch and enjoy yet your not allowed to say which ones and on which channels. That sucks. I've never come across any contracts like that before. Sure for confidential material or corporate communications but never for broadcast.

When will your feature film be released and what's it called? I'll keep an eye out for it, will be interesting to see a 301 on a big screen.

I have no problems naming broadcasters and programmes that I work for as a freelancer and that is not a problem as they are on my C.V that is in the public domain, but when it is my own facilities company I dont like to breach confidentiality, its something I actually put into my own contract as it also protects their rights and prevents me from showing or discussing any of their material out of context. You can see a list of my clients on my web site and I have worked for most of the big guys over my 30 years in the industry. Sky is on there but as you may know a lot of the sky channels are run under the blanket of larger companies such as virgin and what used to be flextech.

That way my liability insurance is also lower and there is less risk of me being sued for misrepresentaion, some of the bigger players could wipe me out so I make sure I dont discuss my clients on forums unless they have allowed me too.

I have worked for Disney at AMS Neve and Teddington studios and saw the might of their legal department in action when their company practices were discussed openly. I also witnessed how one client of Teddington after Pearson's had sold it to a private company took them to the cleaners for all sorts of things.

There are some great people to work for but these days of fragmentation it is wise to be prepared and my years of running my own dubbing facility in london 10 years ago have taught me a lot about corporate matters.

The feature is due for its edit in Spain next month so it should be in post for dubbing Feb and ready for release in the spring / summer, it has a working title of "The last straw" but this will not be its final release name, the production guys like to keep things a bit mysterious as its a horror film.

Sorry Jeff I though the words seemed familiar, I must read things more carefully.

AVC intra is better for edit in FCP than AVCHD but once that has been transcoded to pro res LT it all works together fine, not that I use the HF11 as a B-cam though it tends to be for behind the scenes videos and my holidays.

Just to add to what I already have said we as media people really have to think long and hard about all this new marketing from sony and panasonic as it maybe that they push 2/3" chip cmos cameras at 35mbs without checking if this is Ok for the dinosaur UK market.

Remember that sony are selling product and the UK broadcast market is now very very small so long term acceptance of cameras such as the 301 with a codec that is already acepted may be the business approach rather than the cameraman shallow dof luvvie aspect!.

It all comes down to £SD and the 350 may be a great camera for 2/3" camera luvvies but my 30 years experience says that cost is king and most of the broadcast prouducers I work with wouldn't know a 1/3" to 2/3" chip camera anyway. Sad, but its the way TV had gone, like it or lump it!!!

Remember that sony are selling product and the UK broadcast market is now very very small so long term acceptance of cameras such as the 301 with a codec that is already acepted may be the business approach rather than the cameraman shallow dof luvvie aspect!.

It all comes down to £SD and the 350 may be a great camera for 2/3" camera luvvies but my 30 years experience says that cost is king and most of the broadcast prouducers I work with wouldn't know a 1/3" to 2/3" chip camera anyway. Sad, but its the way TV had gone, like it or lump it!!!
The UK broadcast market is probably larger today than it has ever been. There are more channels, on air for longer than there has ever been before. Those channels all require content. There is more content being produced now than in the past. But the industry is totally bloated with media students and TV wanna-be's that don't actually know the first thing about TV, but are prepared to work just about for free in the hope of stardom. This is making it possible for accountants to push down budgets as the crew costs can be much lower than they used to be.

Call me a Luvvie if you wish, but it's nothing to do with shallow DoF and more to do with diffraction limiting, thermal noise and lens design. I don't want to be limited to a usable aperture range of only 4 to 5 stops, noise that increases noticeably when the camera warms up and wide lenses that are soft because producing a HD wide lens with a high enough MTF for 1/3" sensors is prohibitively expensive. There are very good reasons why the BBC, Sky, Discovery etc are all against the use of 1/3" sensors, not just from Panasonic but all manufacturers, Sony included.

Yes TV is largely driven by budget, but the cost of the hardware is normally only a small percentage of any production budget. That equipment is cheaper now than it has ever been. My first BetaSP camcorder and lens cost nearly £50k and that was 20 years ago. My rates have only gone up by a small percentage over the past 10 years, but I am more profitable now than I was 10 years ago because my cameras, edit systems and associated hardware cost a quarter of what it used to cost, is more reliable and cheaper to insure. It is a sad day when the attitude of those making programmes stops being one of trying to deliver the best quality to one of lets make it as cheap as possible. This attitude only helps accelerate the downward quality spiral. It is still possible to make high quality programmes in these days of cost conscious budgets. Perhaps if camera operators tried to educate producers and production companies as to why one camera or system is more appropriate than another as opposed to simply giving in and doing it as cheap as possible we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. This is why I believe the BBC and Sky are right to enforce the 1/2", 50Mb/s rule for HD. If they don't take a stand and draw a line in the sand, where will it end? Yes there should be dispensations on a production by production basis for shoots where it is physically impossible, dangerous or impractical to use larger cameras. If we, the people that shoot the material don't take a stand and strive for the best possible image quality then our profession will continue to decline to the point where a "cameraman" is simply a person that points a home video camera on full auto in the vague direction of the subject matter. What brings in my income and keeps my clients coming back is the quality of my work. If you work purely on price, eventually you will be out of business as there will always be someone else or another production company willing to undercut you.

I totally agree with you Alister but sadly these days decisions are made purely on cost not on the quality of content for most broadcasters, I dont actually think there is much being made and it is very sad that we have followed the american model of TV and have zillions of channels with pretty much nothing new on air.

The UK broadcast market is bigger but the amount of new content has shrunk and the influence on manufacturers is a lot less than in the USA and other broadcast markets, that is why panasonic and sony are making lower cost cameras that they can sell more of to new media producers, the 301 and 350 will be accepted in time much as the Z1/V1/Z7 is now the bench mark for a lot of news operations.

Less is more as they say but with advertising now driving the industry and the attitude that a Z1 is an HD camera we luvvies are fighting a losing battle.

My freelance rates as a dubbing mixer have not changed for 10 years but I cant even get any work doing that so now have ventured into shooting and editing.

It may be that due to other personal circumstances that I pack this media lark in this year as I am sick of all the petty arguments about formats and the lack of any real creativity in the industry.

I started at ITV Tyne Tees TV 30 years ago tommorow as a 19 year old trainee and it is a real shame that we now have so many opportunities to create new interesting content but it just isn't happening.

This is all a little off-topic so skip on if you wish!!

The industry in the UK is in a sorry state. Governed largely by not what you know but who you know. There are some good commissioning opportunities to be had, but only if you pitch it to the right person at the right time. I recently met with many of the BBC's commissioning editors and one thing surprised me. While the BBC do have a good (??) online commissioning portal that allows anyone to send in an idea, you can actually save yourself a ton of time and effort by emailing most of the commissioners directly. All over the BBC web site it says not to do this, but speak to the right people and they will say, "yes do send me a brief one paragraph outline and I'll let you know whether it's worth taking further". But what struck me about this was that they were discussing this with other known production companies, so this is not the level and open playing field that it is supposed to be. An example of this is a pitch that I put in via the e-commission portal where I got the standard, "nice idea but...." and the exact same pitch sent directly to the comissioning editor via another production company that has a current strand running on prime time TV. This time it looks like we will be making the programme. What's worse is that as there is now a second production company involved, the budget is now higher, money that perhaps could have gone to make a better programme or into other programmes. One thing that often leads to the loss of a commissioning opportunity is that you have to think not just one year ahead but two. Budgets for 2010 have already been spent, so your best chance of a commission will be for a programme that will be competed in late 2011.
The bulk of UK TV programming is made by around a dozen, huge, production factories producing set formats to fixed recipes in large quantities. Much of what they produce is good, some is not, but there is a steady downward creep in quality across the board, both technical and creative with silly little annoyances like dirty lenses and bad focus becoming more and more common, there is no excuse for this as it cost no more to shoot in focus than out of focus. Once upon a time programmes used to be rejected for such things.
Perhaps the industries saviour will in the end will be the internet. More and more people spend their evenings in front of computers than ever before. With very little in the way of advertising and sponsorship regulation, broadcasters and advertisers are using the internet to boost production budgets with cross-platform formats. Product placement and sponsorship of programmes (something the US has always had) will also help as for example companies such as a DiY chain would be able to see direct benefits by having a sponsored program, using their products on TV as well as a website where viewers can watch the show and find out more information and buy their products which then in turn pays for the programme. Hopefully these types fully sponsored, cross platform programmes will then free up funds for the high end drama or documentaries that would not survive on the internet alone. As broadband improves and with computers already using high resolution screens, ultimately web based HD will be the norm.

One thing I have no doubt about, is if your projects gets commissioned Alister, they will be top quality.

Interesting these observations and perspective, Jeff, Alister and Gary. Seems like the newest concepts are from people with no videocam knowledge trying to do it all, or the opposite, the experienced camera operator DP imparts his will at the detriment of creative spontaneity. I guess the best productions are when you can put the two together. I know my own ideas usually are not good enough, but I can get the technical merits correct for something no one wants to watch, I guess...(sigh). I'm glad I have a regular job. We all know how to do something, and what we are best at is usually what we should stick to.

Wow, these are the types of debate/discussion that get me glued to these forums when I should be working (well, I'm just watching this render progress, so technically, I am still working) ;-)


"We all know how to do something, and what we are best at is usually what we should stick to".

TOM,

Unfortunately, sometimes, some of us never get the opportunities to find out what we're best at...

Here is a review exerpt of a prototype 350 from Adam Wilt of ProVideoCoalition.com:
(Being a prototype means everything is subject to change.)

Pros

* Full-resolution sensors and full-resolution recording.
* 10.5 stops of dynamic range.
* Variable frame rates 1-30fps (1080p) and 1-60fps (720p).
* Progressive and interlaced recording, 60Hz and 50Hz formats.
* High-quality XDCAM EX 35Mbit/sec recording on SxS cards.
* Fully-professional shoulder-mount configuration with excellent, shoot-all-day-handheld ergonomics.
* Superb, huge, color EVF with real, variable peaking control.
* Interval, single-frame, and cache (pre-rec) recording.
* Autofocus-capable yet very affordable 16x lens.
* Works with wide-ranging ecosystem of 2/3” lenses, wireless receivers, tripod plates, remote controls, etc.
* BNC, full-size i.Link, full-size HDMI, and XLR connectors—no weird, proprietary plugs.
* Genlockable; remotely controllable; remotely paintable.
* No vertical smear.
* HyperGammas.
* Very tweakable image looks and operating characteristics.
* Lots of assignable buttons and switches.
* Some of the best EVF data displays around, including histogram, focal distance, and depth of field.

Cons

* A lot more expensive than the 1/2” EX1 and EX3.
* On-board recording is only 8-bit, 4:2:0 sampling; can show compression artifacts when stressed.
* SxS slots on right side of camera are away from the operator, and are more subject to unauthorized access by passers-by than card slots on the operator’s side of the camera.
* Stock lens has noticeable distortion up through 30mm.
* Rolling-shutter “jellocam” artifacts possible.
* DVCAM mode lacks any 24p option.
* No analog component or Y/C outputs.

Cautions

* Everything in this preview is subject to change.
* Prototype’s HyperGammas don’t appear to be working properly.
* Prototype’s knee suffers from EX-series saturation-induced blowout.
* DVCAM mode may not be standard.
* Prototype’s chromatic aberration correction not working, so it’s not possible to say how good the lens will look.

Adam is a great resource of knowledge on the net and I believe he is totally neutral in his review findings, no matter the manufacturer. He's also a nice guy.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

From another forum regarding projected 720P Varicam footage from DP Bruce Greene:

"Recently I had the experience of showing a small movie we shot with the 27H tape based varicam on a very large screen in a multiplex projected through Barco DLP 2k projector. The movie was still a work in progress, and so we played it on my MacBook Pro in quicktime and plugged into the projector as a mirrored computer monitor.

The film was shot in 720p, mostly using an AJA I/O HD box and recording to a HD in Apple ProRes HQ, though a bit was recorded to tape and a few scenes (mostly in cars) were shot with an HPX170. The camera was set to FilmRec mode and we used the lowest setting that could capture the needed dynamic range of the scene. This was usually Dynamic Level 200%, but higher when necessary. This meant that the uncorrected movie looks a little bit low in contrast and saturation so the Quicktime player was set to slightly increase contrast and saturation.

I was a little bit nervous that the 720p image on such a large screen might look a little soft, but it looked amazing! Going next door to glimpse a big Hollywood 35mm print revealed that the 720p digital projection looked as detailed as the 35mm print, and much cleaner and steadier of course. The Varicam projected had much more "life" than the dull 2k DI film print in the next theater (I'm talking about basic image quality, not the cinematography smile.gif )

The DVCproHD shots from the Varicam did not stand out from the full raster, 10 bit, ProRes recordings and I could not tell which were which at the screening, though I have noticed banding in graduated areas of the image from this format at other times.

I guess I'm making these points to say that, detail wise, 720p is darned close to 1080p. And when shooting a movie almost every frame has some amount of motion blur, making the difference insignificant to the eye, even on a very large theatrical screen. The low light advantage of the 720p chips, and the slow motion capability make these cameras a true rival to any of the 1080p cameras that I saw demonstrated in the ASC camera assessment series last month. And while I wasn't able to compare the 720p Varicam directly to the 4k camera named after a color, I would say that after seeing the ASC tests, the 720p Varicam is about equal to or more detailed than that camera on a 2k projection."

Jeff Regan
www.ssv.com

You have to take Bruce Greene's resolution comments with a degree of caution.

Fact: There is over twice as much picture information in 1080P over 720P (assuming the cameras are resolving everything they should be)
Fact: DVCProHD is only 960x720.
Fact: There is 3 times as much picture information in 1080P over DVCProHD.

I really have to question the viewing method if little difference is being seen between a 1920 x 1080 image and a 960 x 720 image. If this is truly the case then why do people in the UK see such a big difference between SD (720 x 576) and 720P which very often is only 960 x 720?

It also appears that he is comparing the 27H DVCproHD footage against "1080P" from the 27H and HPX170. If that's the case then I wouldn't expect to see much difference as the camera front ends are only 720P in the first place, so there would be very little difference anyway. Just because you are recording a 1080P signal it doesn't mean it's a 1080P image. Playing out a quicktime movie from a laptop is hardly going to produce the best possible image.

I watched a natural history show last night with a mix of 1080P aerials and 720P ground based shots. The difference was quite noticeable, especially on subtle textures.

I always have to sigh when I see projection mentioned as a defense that unless the image is magnified on a 105 - 144 inch screen size you can't possibly observe the same detail they are observing therefore don't even try, never mind the resolution lost to the optical lens itself. It's more than easy to spot the difference between 720p and 1080p on a good, native flat panel display such as Pioneer Elite, or Kuro, or Sony Bravia XBR, or any of the good panels that have good scaling, deinterlacing or native 24/25p, just by sitting a little closer.

Last week I spent an afternoon at a projector manufacturer for a demo of their newest flagship DLP projector. I spent a long time talking to their main R&D engineer in the U.S. I asked him how apparent the difference in 720 vs. 1080 sources were to him at normal viewing distances. The screen in the demo room is 160" diagonal. He admitted he couldn't see the difference. I asked him about LCD flat panel displays, same thing--non-issue at normal viewing distances. Then he got into how being too close to a large screen would mean that peripheral vision would be needed and that our peripheral vision isn't as good at discerning resolution.

I setup an LCD flat panel display for my father-in-law yesterday. There was a 480P 16:9 image on the screen and three people were saying how great it looked. I'm pretty sure that they would have a very hard time telling me the difference between 720 and 1080, even when close to the screen. Most people don't watch TV from 4' away, just DP's, DIT's, colorists and editors!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

So Jeff are you saying then that there is no advantage to shooting anything with a higher resolution than 720P as no one can tell the difference between 720P and anything with a higher resolution, even when projected onto a 160" screen, a screen size that could be found in some smaller cinema theaters? Because if you can't see the resolution gain from 720P to 1080P then surely you won't see the difference of higher resolutions.

Are you implying that Panavision, Red, Arri, Sony, Panasonic, Ikegami etc, etc are all wasting their time producing cameras with higher resolution than 720P and that NHK's research into UltraHD etc is a waste of time? Are you seriously convinced that home TV screen sizes are not going to continue to get bigger. Do you honestly think movie producers are wasting their money shooting at 4K. Come on Jeff, there is a difference and it's perfectly visible at normal viewing distances. In the UK and Europe the typical viewing distance is 2.7m (8ft) and with the human eye able to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc it only needs around a 42" screen for the difference between 720P and 1080P to be quite apparent. A 42" screen is not considered large any more and screen sizes are going up and up, while room sizes if anything are getting smaller.

What about web delivery. What's the resolution of the computer screen your looking at now? Would you be happy with a 1280x720 screen or can you see the difference between that and higher resolutions? I know that when I play back 720P and 1080P clips, full screen on my laptop or PC I can see quite a difference and web delivery of video is going to become a bigger and bigger part of our industry. 1650x1050 and 1920x1080 are common sizes for computer displays and most people sit only 2 or 3 ft from their computers. Even YouTube have gone 1080P!

Alister,

All else being equal, then, yes, the more pixels the merrier. However, like 4:4:4 and 10-bit-14-bit codecs, the differences aren't always apparent to the human eye, just to the computers in post that are doing the compositing, scaling, encoding, decoding, transcoding.

I think too many are caught up in pixel counting. We all know that RED One doesn't actually provide 4K resolution in the best of circumstances, and when doing high speed frame rates, loses resolution due to the sensor size getting smaller.

Regarding the ability to see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 42" full raster display at 8', not in my experience.

YouTube proves that it takes more than 1080P resolution to provide a high quality image. Too many places for image degradation in the multiple steps of compression. 1080P is no magic bullet and top end 720P cameras like the Varicam have proven this for years.

Due to full sample codecs like XDCAM EX, XDCAM 422, AVC-Intra 100, ProRes 422, 720P looks better than ever.

Based on Adam Wilt's review, the 350 pre-release unit he saw had issues. He does not believe its CMOS artifacts are any better than with the EX1 and EX3, saw the codec as a weakness, questioned its value vs. an EX1 for 3X less $$. You and I agree that a 2/3" front end is worth the price premium, I'm not sure I want to risk CMOS sensors for all of the varied projects my clients would be shooting and I don't see 8-bit, 4:2:0 codecs as having a place in modern high end acquisition. You don't believe 720P native sensors belong in modern high end acquisition. We can agree to disagree.

I've never, ever had a client complain that my HDX900 didn't provide enough resolution. Indeed, they are normally thrilled with the images. I don't expect expect to hear complaints about my HPX2700 that provides full sample 720P or upconverted 1080P recording.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

It isn't pixel counting, its the irrefutable fact that a like for like 1080P image contains substantially more detail than a 720P image. If 720P really was perfection why on earth would so many broadcasters be wasting bandwidth by transmitting 1080?

I guess we will have to disagree. I strongly believe that 720P is a format that will over the next 5 to 8 years, largely disappear. TV's and monitors will continue to get larger with 50" becoming common place. At this size with normal viewing distances the difference between 720P and 1080P is almost as large as the difference between SD and 720P.

And don't forget that Adam uses and likes his EX1, he's "in love with the images it captures", He also thinks the 350 produces a better image than the EX1. He also thinks the 350 is "very competitively priced". It's very easy to take extracts from a review out of context to make it sound like pretty much anything you want. And as we know the codec is easily bypassed.

Hi Alister this is my first time on DV.INFO, but ive got a burning question i hope you can advise me on. I have owned my own video production company now for nearly 25 years and for just about all that time i have used true shoulder mount cameras. Last year i sold my DSR135 DOCKABLE DVCAM Camera also my PD170 and baught an EX1 and an EX3.The picture quality from both the EX1 and EX3 are fantastic,but i couldnt quite get used to the shape of the EX3.To try to get it to be more of a shoulder mount camera i added a V LOCK battery plate with two IDX batteries clipped together for the rear of the camera and for the front i put on a FUJINON XS17x5.5BRMHD LENS,that made the EX3 90% a good shoulder mount camera (picture quality absolutely fantastic).I now want to purchase a PMW350 I think this camera will be perfect for me.My question is how will the stock lens lens on the PMW350 compare (picture quality wise) with the picture quality i now get from my EX3 with my new lens,will it be better or not as good.My long term plans are to purchase a decent lens for the 350 but i will have to wait for that for a few months.Thanks Wilf.

Alister,
Your argument while logical doesn't prove that humans can or cannot see the difference between 720P or 1080P when shown side by side using optimal technology for each. As a matter of influence we know that people think bigger or more is better so they may persuade themselves that they can see a difference that double blind tests won't show.
We know there is more information in 1080 but it doesn't mean humans on average can resolve the difference in the viewing situations they are in. There is a reason NTSC lasted for such a long time as a standard because the specs were based on human reactions to the signals not just what the equipment could produce. Humans have not evolved substantially since then but the electronic capabilities have. If you are correct why stop at 1080HD for distribution. At what point do you think you would not see an advantage with more pixels? Double? Triple? Quadruple?
As to whether you are correct about the disappearance of 720P I think you are on more solid ground from a market perspective. People hear the higher number and think they need it and the market responds. Apparently the higher number of frames in a 720 60P signal doesn't impress them as much as 1080P at 30. Channels pick their specs based on a combination of inputs and many don't want to be perceived as lower quality so lean towards 1080 as the higher quality spec. Some channels like Discovery would say they wouldn't accept programs which used a lower quality compression/recording because they were worried about quality problems which would show up in the future while not apparent now. Regardless we will probably settle on 1080 over 720 on the off chance that the lower number is not good enough.

It isn't pixel counting, its the irrefutable fact that a like for like 1080P image contains substantially more detail than a 720P image. If 720P really was perfection why on earth would so many broadcasters be wasting bandwidth by transmitting 1080?

I guess we will have to disagree. I strongly believe that 720P is a format that will over the next 5 to 8 years, largely disappear. TV's and monitors will continue to get larger with 50" becoming common place. At this size with normal viewing distances the difference between 720P and 1080P is almost as large as the difference between SD and 720P.
edit
It's very easy to take extracts from a review out of context to make it sound like pretty much anything you want. And as we know the codec is easily bypassed.

Alister,

Just because there are more pixels doesn't mean the difference is obvious to the eye, as Daniel stated. I previously posted an excerpt from a professional display reviewer who absolutely does not back up your assertions about there being an obvious difference in resolution at normal viewing distances. By the way, 720/60P requires more bandwidth (45khz) than 1080/60i(33.75khz). One offers better spatial resolution, the other better temporal resolution. At any given time, 1080/60i is 540 lines vertical vs. 720.

If 720P were to disappear, and this would be news to ABC, Fox, and ESPN, it would be more to do with marketing than image quality. A full raster 1080 display in a 24" or 32" LCD display is silly, ditto a 240Hz refresh rate, but the marketeers position these as being necessary for their video displays.

Regarding Adam's 350 review, I just listed his pros and cons, I didn't take anything out of context. I think readers should go to ProVideo Coalition.com: Pro Cameras, Video Editing, Motion Graphics (http://www.provideocoalition.com) and read the review themselves. Your obvious pro-Sony bias would make me skeptical of any review you have written, however.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

No Jeff you only listed con's from Adams review making it sound as though he didn't like the camera which is not the case at all.

Who was talking about 60P???? where did that suddenly come from? Not me. Your description of 1080i only having a resolution of 540 lines is incorrect anyway because the two fields are offset by one line, the resolution is actually around 800 lines due to line averaging to prevent twitter. You still have twice the horizontal resolution. At least get the facts correct.

I am pro Sony, I stated as much in my first reply to this thread and I don't ever pretend that I am not. I'm no more pro Sony than you are pro 2700. I expect my reviews are biased, because I genuinely believe Sony are currently producing some of the best cameras available.

I don't think we will stop at 1080P, heck 2K and 4K is already available... oh hang on us humans can't see a difference in anything greater than 720P apparently so why bother with those either?

I'm not going to bother with this thread any longer. It's pointless talking to the "720P is the best well ever need" brigade. Go ahead, limit your audience, your potential customers, you post flexibility. At least if you start with 1080 you can always go down to 720P. Start with 720P, stuck with 720P. Nuff Said.

Regarding Adam's 350 review, I just listed his pros and cons, I didn't take anything out of context. I think readers should go to ProVideo Coalition.com: Pro Cameras, Video Editing, Motion Graphics (http://www.provideocoalition.com) and read the review themselves.

For the life of me, I can't find this review, just the NXCAM. Perhaps you have to be a subscriber?

Wilf: There is an excellent, unbiased review of the camera and lens on the Abel website or take a look in the EX section of the XDCAM forum.

It also appears that he is comparing the 27H DVCproHD footage against "1080P" from the 27H and HPX170. If that's the case then I wouldn't expect to see much difference as the camera front ends are only 720P in the first place, so there would be very little difference anyway.

That's a very interesting statement!
I think the reasons why this is quite obviously not the case are the same sort of reasons why the image from a 12mp digital compact will not be on the same planet as those from my equally 12mp Nikon D3 SLR.
As has been said over and over, there's much more to it than pixel counts.
I'm not trying to be smart, but I really can't remember, when Planet Earth was released, any comments about the pictures lacking in resolution. All I remember are comments about how amazing the pictures looked on a big HD screen - largely comments from technical and industry people.
I still feel that there is a level where a certain resolution, assuming all else is excellent, is good enough for even large home TV screens. Just my opinion though.
Incidentally I shot some EX3 stuff over Christmas and put up on a 42" screen via HDSDI it looked decent but subjectively nowhere near as clear, beautiful or even sharp as the Varicam. Subjective though as I say.
Steve

I'm not trying to be smart, but I really can't remember, when Planet Earth was released, any comments about the pictures lacking in resolution. All I remember are comments about how amazing the pictures looked on a big HD screen - largely comments from technical and industry people.

Google it. There are countless posts, far too numerous to even bother with, about the lack of reference quality to this series, from years ago.

What do you mean Tom? Lots of people saying it didn't look very good?
Steve

Alister,



Regarding the ability to see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 42" full raster display at 8', not in my experience.


Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

You can look at the numbers and the theory all you want, my wife and my mother, who have NO technical knowledge whatsoever, can see the difference between 720 and 1080 on broadcasts on our 42" LCD screen.

If you've invested in a 720 only camera you will argue it's merits, if you've invested in 1080 you'll do the same, just the nature of boards like this, it very rarely gets the OP the answer they are looking for

I still follow this thread with interest. Jeff Pro Panasonic and Alister Pro Sony. I can assure you I can tell the difference even with my 68 year old eyes between 720 and 1080 on either my 42" Panasonic plasma or my 40" Sony 240hz LCD, both viewed at about 8 feet (and I understand that both are 1080 displays and thus have to rescale the image. But that is a fact of life and both these displays are top of the line, others will be worse). I may be a little obsessive about video quality but the difference is very evident. Since there is so much rescaling involved most of the time if the whole chain isn't the same format there will be a difference evident. By the way both are acceptable to me when used correctly and can produce beautiful images with 720p60 being better for fast movement( probably a scaling/deinterlacing issue too more obvious on the plasma not visible on the 240hz Sony as it interpolates to a higher frame rate anyway). If there was 1080p60 it would be the one for me!!!
The bigger problems are the miss match between screen resolution, refresh rates and deinterlacing capabilities. The poor shooting of slow frame rates on a lot of programs. Panning, shooting in 24p or 30p for instance is used frequently and poorly. Bad recompression for distribution even on Bluray.
Studio news etc in 1080 or 720 is beautiful only to switch to a program with unknown source or recompression!!!
As I have said in a previous post, most home users with new AVCHD cams are likely to produce a better image directly connected to their new displays than they are going to see from cable on almost any channel whatever it was shot on!!! Sad.
Jeff, on the issue of refresh rates at least 72hz( only available on some plasma displays) is needed to show 24p correctly( emulating a 3 blade projector shutter) 120hz is able to emulate a 5 blade projector shutter. 240 is a little overkill but likely used to make the deinterlacing easier over a larger number of fields( I like the smoother motion).

Ron Evans

For the life of me, I can't find this review, just the NXCAM. Perhaps you have to be a subscriber?

Here you go Tom:

ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/preview_sony_pmw_350_2_3_3_cmos_xdcam_ex_camcorder/)

By the way, much of Planet Earth was shot with Sony F900's in 1080P.

Alister:

720/60P is the only U.S. broadcast standard for 720P. 1080/60i, prior to being deinterlaced for a 1080P fixed pixel display, only shows 540 vertical lines at a given moment in time. Yes, the fields have to be put together for a progressive display, and as you say, filtered to avoid interline twitter, therefore vertical resolution is 800 lines at best after deinterlacing. Many 1080P displays do a poor job of deinterlacing and scaling, thus softening 1080i broadcast material and adding artifacts and softening to 720P sources.

Please look at my post with Adam's review excerpt--both pros and cons are listed.
My point was never that 720P is all we will ever need, just that there are more to images than the number of pixels. As far as objective reviews, I'll put Adam's reviews up against a dealer who makes money selling a camera(no matter the brand) or a forum that is pro XDCAM, anytime. I know Adam, he is brand agnostic. Yes, there is no doubt that Sony makes great cameras, I'm just not all in the bag for CMOS yet, and hamstringing a 2/3" camera with XDCAM EX.

Steve and Ron:

I own six cameras currently, three Sony SD(DSR-450WS, BVP-550, BVP-550WS) and three HD, Panasonic HPX170, HPX2700, Sony EX1. If I thought 1080 native sensors were the most important aspect of image quality(which the EX1 has), I would not have bought a 2700. I like both Panasonic and Sony cameras. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the HDX900(a 720P native CCD camera that records in 720P and 1080P, like the 2700) is king, although the EX1 and EX3 have done well as has the RED One.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

Your argument while logical doesn't prove that humans can or cannot see the difference between 720P or 1080P when shown side by side using optimal technology for each. ............ they may persuade themselves that they can see a difference that double blind tests won't show.
But scientific tests have shown exactly what people can and what they cannot see, and whilst there is some variation between individuals, the generally accepted figure for the human eye is about 1 minute of arc. Do the maths, and the implication is that for the generally accepted viewing distance of 2.7m, 720p is "good enough" for screen sizes up to about 40", but for bigger, you need higher resolution.

Obviously, you don't get an effect where 720p looks brilliant on a 39" screen, awful on a 42" screen - but it does put some science behind the reasons why 1080 is seen as the resolution to be aimed for. Hopefully it also gives an answer to the other question - "At what point do you think you would not see an advantage with more pixels? Double? Triple? Quadruple?"

For normal viewing there does seem little point indeed in going beyond 1080 for TV as we know it. But for medical, military, industrial applications there may be very good reasons for higher resolution systems.

Jeff - I can't comment on your individual examples, but I'm realising more and more that what is frequently happening is a comparison between 720p/50 and 1080i/25 as sources and a conclusion "oh, 1080 doesn't give me that big an advantage". The comparison should be between 720p and 1080p to make it like for like. (When the difference should be obvious.) 1080 doesn't necessarily mean 1080i, and 1080p can be transmitted on current networks via psf, as previously discusssed - as long as the frame rate is no higher than 25fps. To say nothing of Blu-Ray delivery.

Transmission systems are one thing, imaging chips another. The higher the native resolution, the less electronic detail processing is needed. More native resolution can mean a more natural sharpness than lower res chips that need higher levels of sharpening to look good. That's not to say 720 imaging chips will therefore be bad - rather that 1080 chips can only look better.

As far as the two cameras are concerned, the 2700 lacks fully approved chip resolutions, the 350 a fully approved codec. I don't want to have to choose between them - neither situation is ideal - but the huge difference to me is that I can add an external recorder to the 350 to make it fully approved. I can't do anything comparable to the 2700.

Incidentally, I have no vested interests or connections with either manufacturer. I'm just looking to eventually replace my ageing DSR500 when necessary, and couldn't care less in principle whether I have to buy from Sony or Panasonic. The way things are at the moment, I see the PMW350 as easily the better choice over the 2700 at the moment, but who knows what Panasonic may have in the wings?

What do you mean Tom? Lots of people saying it didn't look very good?
Steve

Lot's of people saying all kinds of things. I bought the set a few years back when it was on HD DVD. I Haven't watched the whole series. I found it enjoyable.

David, it is god to put some science to this and what you say makes sense. Can't agree that the 350 is the better choice, and nor do the big players in blue chip natural history at the moment, and I'd not be comfortable thinking I know better than they all do, but maybe you are, that's fine.
Steve, you're right about owners and investers in certain equipment biasing views and it annoys me too, and I like to think that I've never done it, I just call it as I've seen it, and not owning any cameras at the moment (sold the Varicam as so many wildlife producers were buying them that none were going to hire mine!) I'm definitely impartial.
Steve

Steve: Your only impartial as long as it's on the BBC NHU's list, that's hardly un-biased. You've shouted long and hard through this discussion about how good the cameras chosen by the NHU are, and that cameras not on the NHU's list can't be any good othewise they would be using them. That's hardly impartial or un-biased.

Most people will be biased to one brand, camera or another based on past experience. The same with cars and most things. You buy one, from one brand and it works well for you. The next time you make a purchasing decision you are likely to consider that brand more favorably based on past experience. Maybe not consciously, but if you know that brand "A" works for you while brand "B" is less well known to you, you are likely to favor brand "A" as you have some experience there. That's human nature. That's where I am and it's no different to the vast majority of consumers or camera users and probably most camera owners. Everything I have written in my reviews has later been backed up by other reviewers and I always make a point to try not to compare cameras or products from different brands but simply look at a products strengths and weaknesses.

In any discussion or debate in a forum you will always have people that are biased. That's a perfectly normal situation and it's only through all the different views and opinions that follow that people learn about the equipment being discussed

I don't think that there is a 'better' camera. From a spec point of view I would never invest in a 720p only camera now. But by the same token if I had a client who could pay off a 2700 a few times over very quickly then it would be worth considering.

However Steve has brought up another point that is becoming all too prevalent now. Clients that have their own gear and don't want to use your own, and therefore want a cut in rate. So you have invested in a camera that you can only use on some jobs, but doesn't get paid off as quickly because clients want you to use their gear instead at a reduced day rate.

This creates a real problem because there is sometimes not enough clients wanting the cameramans own gear to warrant owning an expensive camcorder, while there are sometimes not enough clients with their own gear to warrant not bothering to own any camcorder.

So in this regard a more inexpensive camcorder like the 350 that can have external recording devices (perhaps even supplied by the client) attached to record high datarate HD will be the way forward.

While we at the head of the tapeless revolution understand that it is all data and files now, and therefore the camera should be irrelevant, unfortunately clients themselves often have their own brand preferences that can't be swayed.

I've never bought into the idea of people rejecting Sony's due to the colour or sharpness settings because all of these can be adjusted to whatever look is desired.

This is all a little off-topic so skip on if you wish!!

The industry in the UK is in a sorry state. Governed largely by not what you know but who you know. There are some good commissioning opportunities to be had, but only if you pitch it to the right person at the right time. I recently met with many of the BBC's commissioning editors and one thing surprised me. While the BBC do have a good (??) online commissioning portal that allows anyone to send in an idea, you can actually save yourself a ton of time and effort by emailing most of the commissioners directly. All over the BBC web site it says not to do this, but speak to the right people and they will say, "yes do send me a brief one paragraph outline and I'll let you know whether it's worth taking further". But what struck me about this was that they were discussing this with other known production companies, so this is not the level and open playing field that it is supposed to be. An example of this is a pitch that I put in via the e-commission portal where I got the standard, "nice idea but...." and the exact same pitch sent directly to the comissioning editor via another production company that has a current strand running on prime time TV. This time it looks like we will be making the programme. What's worse is that as there is now a second production company involved, the budget is now higher, money that perhaps could have gone to make a better programme or into other programmes. One thing that often leads to the loss of a commissioning opportunity is that you have to think not just one year ahead but two. Budgets for 2010 have already been spent, so your best chance of a commission will be for a programme that will be competed in late 2011.
The bulk of UK TV programming is made by around a dozen, huge, production factories producing set formats to fixed recipes in large quantities. Much of what they produce is good, some is not, but there is a steady downward creep in quality across the board, both technical and creative with silly little annoyances like dirty lenses and bad focus becoming more and more common, there is no excuse for this as it cost no more to shoot in focus than out of focus. Once upon a time programmes used to be rejected for such things.
Perhaps the industries saviour will in the end will be the internet. More and more people spend their evenings in front of computers than ever before. With very little in the way of advertising and sponsorship regulation, broadcasters and advertisers are using the internet to boost production budgets with cross-platform formats. Product placement and sponsorship of programmes (something the US has always had) will also help as for example companies such as a DiY chain would be able to see direct benefits by having a sponsored program, using their products on TV as well as a website where viewers can watch the show and find out more information and buy their products which then in turn pays for the programme. Hopefully these types fully sponsored, cross platform programmes will then free up funds for the high end drama or documentaries that would not survive on the internet alone. As broadband improves and with computers already using high resolution screens, ultimately web based HD will be the norm.

That is spot on Alister and a good summary of the current UK industry, all I would add is that the commercial sector is now making programming to suit ratings and advertisers rather than on its content merit.

We have never had a better time for affordable technology that in the hands of the right people can produce content that can inform educate and entertain, sadly the management and creative sector of the industry is full of media graduates that think out of focus and wobbly cam material is a shooting style and top level management that are chasing their shareholders and bonuses.

Steve: Your only impartial as long as it's on the BBC NHU's list, that's hardly un-biased. You've shouted long and hard through this discussion about how good the cameras chosen by the NHU are, and that cameras not on the NHU's list can't be any good othewise they would be using them. That's hardly impartial or un-biased.


That's absolute nonsense! I've not said that I think the cameras chosen by the NHU are good, only that they have chosen them and so they must feel with their vast experience and high standards that they are the best for the job. Who am I to contradict them? And who are you to either?
I have no bias towards the NHU, but I do respect their output and the experience of many of their staff. I have no bias towards any of the camera manufacturers, and use lots of different gear - I just call it as I see it. Others have very close relationships with certain manufacturers and always seem to come down on their side of the fence, but not me.
Look back at my posts and you'll see I've said many many good things about the EX1 and 3, plus the PDW355 and 700 that I've owned, also very much like the dinosaur-like HDW750 I use a lot.
I have no agenda, just trying to be helpful with comments based on my experience of lots of different gear on many different HD broadcast projects, and I'm a wildlife cameraman so one of my main employers and points of reference is the NHU. Sorry if I'm out of line.
Steve

Can't agree that the 350 is the better choice, and nor do the big players in blue chip natural history at the moment, and I'd not be comfortable thinking I know better than they all do, but maybe you are, that's fine.
Steve - it's not a question of "I know better than they do" at all. Any such choice that any person or body takes will only be valid for one period in time. So the people you are referring to no doubt thought (with validity) that 16mm film made most sense in the 70s/80s - that doesn't mean it is now. The decisions you are referring to were taken over the last couple of years before the PMW350 was even announced. They may well have been the right decisions at the time - but I do not see how decisions made before the announcement of one of the cameras are at all relevant to a current 2700 v 350 discussion.

That aside, any decision on a purchase or recommendation may have to take account of existing legacy issues, fitting in with what equipment, workflows and systems already exist. Nobody in their right minds is likely to think 59.94Hz frame rates and drop frame timecode are a good thing in their own right - but they exist for legacy reasons, owing their origins to issues that haven't existed for decades.

That may also apply here. Legacy compatibility may well have been an important reason for the choice of such as the NHU. But for anybody (such as myself) now thinking of switching from SD to HD, from tape to tapeless, etc and with few legacy issues to consider, the reasons for the NHU decision have little relevance. That's completely different to saying they were wrong.

Taken in isolation, I maintain that the 350 is a better choice than the 2700 in most respects bar one - the codec - and that seems to be the only really significant "con" that Adam also identified. (It also needs to be kept in perspective. He also lists under "pros" "High-quality XDCAM EX 35Mbit/sec recording on SxS cards" ! :-) )

And, as has been said so many times before, you can always use the 350 with a nanoFlash.

I've argued hard with Alister in another thread that I'd much prefer to see the 350 with the 50Mbs codec as an option. But given the choice between it and a 2700 (and with no legacy issues) then at the moment it's definitely the one I'd go for.

David, I'm on your side wanting 50 Mb/s internally on the 350, it would be very nice, 100 Mb/s would be better still. I just don't think we'll ever get it. : (

I'm sorry if I have offended or upset anyone in the course of this interesting and at times passionate debate. I do respect the views of all that have contributed, even if I don't agree with them.