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.

Well said.

Switching gears, I was able to read the entire PMW350K review by Adam Wilt. I found it very postive, and very supportive of what Alister has been saying, so I think the criticism toward Alister who stated in his first post in this topic that he is a Sony fan, has nothing in it to cloud the objectivity of his own review, which is insightful.

Adam did express concern about PMW350 knee saturation, but it seems to have gone ignored that hypergammas (which don't use it) were not working on the prototype, and may not even be an issue for production cams. The kit lens also was well regarded, even though chromatic aberration correction circuit was not working on the prototype. There have been a lot of non-specific criticisms of this lens, (that you don't have to purchase) mostly owing to the fact that it's too cheap to be any good, therefore perhaps Sony could molify some people by raising the price of it to a level they feel would eliminate the cheapness concerns.

Which brings up the overall criticism of the camera package which is the price and the codec. Adam could not have known back in November when he reviewed the PMW350K that Sony would reduce the kit price by $3,100. That's a significant drop, the cam + lens now lists for $18,900. Auto focus for the first time in 2/3 inch...hmmm, that's a bargain as I see it. That just paid for the Nanoflash, so there's the 4:2:2 codec with more bit rates and options than AVC-Intra or DVCProHD, and low cost compact flash media to boot.

Lightweight, full raster, low noise, high sensitivity, low power and affordable. I think the critics are right, pass on this camera now. The animals won't like having their picture taken with the kind of detail and beauty this cam is going to make affordable.

Alister "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."
Appreciate that, me too, I'm only trying to be helpful and am genuinely reporting my findings with no agenda. Also I think it might be of interest/use to some people to know what's going on in the NHU and other blue chip wildlife houses with which I have some involvement and which might not otherwise be public knowledge.
As a brief summary, I actually don't think there is any camera for moving images that I would consider a really good choice for wildlife, all of them have issues. If cash is no object I'd choose the SRW9000 at present, needing an SR recorder/player with it though as it's a tape camera, so moving the price even higher and beyond most people an common sense. At semi-sensible budgets I'd choose the Varicam, or possibly the PDW800 as when I had a PDW355 very briefly I was quite impressed with the half-vertical-rez overcranking and the 800 works in the same way but with a much better image to begin with. I'm still far from convinced about the EX3 even though I'd love to like it as it has so many big advantages for wildlife (small and light, 1 tiny 200g battery will last as long a 7kg of Varicam batteries, extra telephoto reach, cheap, good lens included, excellent wide lens option at a tiny price). Likewise the RED has a long long way to go for wildlife to for me.
Steve

Steve, have you looked into the new digital Arri's that are due out this year? Around $40k, but they look really nice.

Thanks Simon, which one do you mean, is it along the lines of the D21? do you have a link?
Steve

David,

In the U.S. the ATSC digital broadcast specs for 1080 allow for 1080/60i or 1080/60P according to a broadcast engineer friend of mine. There is no 1080/24Psf being broadcast or cablecast, according to him. Nor is there 1080/60P except for some DirecTV satellite PPV movies. Everything else is 60 fields interlace, 3:2 cadence from film source or 23.98 frame video.

I asked him if he or any engineer he knows can tell the difference between 1080/60i and 720/60P and he said, "yes, of course, the motion is much better with 720/60P". He said the resolution difference was imperceptible. He did say that when up close to a full raster display he can see diagonal lines that are smoother with 1080 vs. 720.

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

Jeff you are only referring to US TV broadcast, what about the rest of the world? This is a global market after all. I believe that there are more 50Hz countries than 60 Hz and in these regions 25PsF is the norm for movies and common for most high end drama and documentaries. What about BluRay, web delivery (which is almost always true P) etc.

Producers making programmes for Discovery are some of my biggest clients. I deliver 1080P material to them most months. It may be broadcast within a 60i stream, but it's still progressive.

Anecdotal references from people that claim they cannot see the difference with "average" screen sizes at "average" distances are just individual opinions. The irrefutable fact remains that 1080i or 1080P has significantly more horizontal resolution than 720P. 1080P also has higher significantly higher vertical resolution. These are facts. It is also a fact that the temporal motion in 1080i60 and 720p30 is the same, the refresh rate is after all the same, the problem is that progressive displays often have a hard time dealing with interlace.

David's and my comments on the resolution of the human eye and theoretical viewing distances and screen sizes are also based on well proven, sound optical science, not opinions or hearsay.

Even if some people struggle to see a difference, for whatever reason, there are plenty of others that can, perhaps they choose to sit closer than the "average" viewing distance, perhaps they have a larger than "average" screen, perhaps they choose to watch on a computer screen just a few inches away.

So who should we cater for? Should we just make programmes that Mr Average viewing an "average" screen from the "average" viewing distance thinks is OK or should we strive to produce the best that we can? Should we not bother to produce programmes for those that can see the difference or should we just let them suffer ;-). Should we be producing material that is acceptable to some broadcasters in some region, or all broadcasters?

Even if this is just marketing hype (which I don't believe it is), should we not be producing 1920x1080 programmes to make the end customers feel good about their 1920x1080 equipment investment. After all these people are not just the customers of the TV manufacturers, but they are our customers too, at the end of the day these are people that help keep us employed.

If we took the view of simply producing programmes for Mr Average and ignored everyone else we would probably still have 405 line or NTSC TV. I'm quite sure that 10 years ago Mr Average thought that SD TV was just fine, I know my wife did. I also remember many, many people claiming that there was little difference between SD and HD in the early days. Thankfully though there were enough people that wanted something better. These were not Mr Average but people striving to improve the quality of their viewing experience. It's only by catering for the "few" and pushing technology forwards that things get improved. If we all took the view that "average" is as good as we need we would get no-where. We would all be driving "average" cars. Lets face it if you drive normally an "average" car well get you to your destination just as quickly as a luxury car, yet strangely many people like to buy luxury cars.

1080P is a logical forwards progression from 720P. Even if the difference is small, even if Mr Average can't see a difference at "average" viewing distances there are many good reasons for shooting at the highest resolution you can. Even if your end product will be 720P by shooting at 1080P you can crop and zoom in post with no discernible quality loss. You could use this to remove an errant boom mic or simply to compensate for a lens that's not quite long enough. It's excellent for green screen where any small keying issues disappear when squashed down to 720P. You can also composite a green screen scene at 1080 and then do a pan-and-scan within the scene while still retaining 720P resolution.

I'm afraid I have yet to hear a truly valid reason in resolution terms at least, for shooting 720P over 1080P. In an ideal world we would have 1080P60 or P50. Were not there yet, but I'm sure that will come. Buy a 720P camera and that's it. Buy a 1080P camera and in most cases you can choose to shoot 1080P or 720P.

One thing I don't think many people realise is that an EX recording overcrank at 720P60 records at 70Mb/s. Yes it's 4:2:0 but in progressive the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is tiny (yes I would prefer 4:2:2). Also consider this: I think we all agree that an EX at 1920 x 1080 35Mb/s produces a good image. What about an EX at 1280 x 720 35Mb/s? Same bit rate but now only recording less than half as much data. My opinion is that at 720P the EX pictures are about as good as it gets for a 720P camera.

Thanks Simon, which one do you mean, is it along the lines of the D21? do you have a link?
Steve

Everything is about to change... | ARRI Digital (http://www.arridigital.com/teaser)

I think that these may be the dark horse of this year that might take a few by surprise.

What about an EX at 1280 x 720 35Mb/s? Same bit rate but now only recording less than half as much data. My opinion is that at 720P the EX pictures are about as good as it gets for a 720P camera.

I've wondered about this a few times, about whether the compressor just records at a lower bitrate rather than keeping the same as it would for 1080. After all a lot of the time the EX records well under the 35Mb/s specified top rate.

But I agree, we should always strive to produce the best possible.

For info if any people are not familiar with what cameras are currently approved for HD at the BBC there is a list on-line: BBC - Commissioning - Producing High-Definition TV (http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/production/hd.shtml)

Of course there are exceptions and I know of one definite programme that was all shot on an EX-1 Liz Smiths cruise prog was done this way by an independent and I spoke to the director and got the in-story of the shoot more reading here:http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=48982&highlight=liz+smith

As previously mentioned I am using a 2700 as main camera for broadcast and have now been told that it is OK to use the 301's as b-cameras.

Well I am not a broadcast engineer and I can very clearly see the difference between 720p and 1080p footage on a full resolution display WHEN the footage was shot with a full raster 1080 camera.

I shoot with a guy that runs a Panasonic at 1080p/23.976 and his footage is clearly not up to the 1080p resolution of the Sony, it looks more like 720p in terms of detail. Thats because his camera is using pixel shifting to achieve 1080 resolution. And it doesn't substitute for a true 1080 full raster images. So yes, his 1080p really isn't any better than his 720p. But he can only speak for himself, even on a lowly Sony EX1, the difference between 720p and 1080p is striking even on a smallish 37" LCD TV.

So I don't doubt some people are seeing little difference between 720p and 1080p resolutions.

The difference in quality is so big that I almost cringe kicking down to 720p to overcrank, I already know that in post I will see the resolution drop when I intercut that footage into my native 1080p files.

The difference in quality is so big that I almost cringe kicking down to 720p to overcrank, I already know that in post I will see the resolution drop when I intercut that footage into my native 1080p files.

That's my experience too. I'd almost rather produce the whole show at 720P than intercut 1080P and 720P, the difference is not insignificant.

I agree I either do 720p or 1080p and never mix and match, my first question to a director is always do you need slo mo? if so then I shoot at 720p.

Of course with the usual chaos of production bods who struggle to name the frame rate required it is never a perfect world and looking at some of the mix of definitions on certain programmes it will take time for things to settle down.

I heard a story lately that progressive shooting was not to be done at all on a certain BBC house buying type programme and it puzzled me.

(I heard a story lately that progressive shooting was not to be done at all on a certain BBC house buying type programme and it puzzled me.)

Well if the viewers are like me, panning around a house at 30p is very disturbing because of the judder. Since there isn't 1080P60 yet there is no options at 1080 other than interlace to get smooth motion. In this case 720P60 would work!!!!
I have recognized that a lot of programs are now 30P and I find this disturbing to the point of not watching. For steady camera movement its close to acceptable but unfortunately most shoots are not that steady.
With most all of the selling being directed to 1080p sets the sooner we get 1080P60 the better.
I may be very sensitive having shot film and video since the early 60's all as an amateur. But I can clearly see differences in resolution and frame rate and I am sure so can many others. Quality differences are more evident on my Panasonic Plasma as I think the 240HZ Sony masks a lot of issues. Its sad that the display has to make up for the source!!!!

Ron Evans

Actually, the current HD camera's the company I work for use, can shoot 1080p50/60. The camera is the Grass Valley LDK8000 Elite. Although that is the top section that Grass Valley produce, it does show Grass Valley have gotten atleast some demands for it and are putting it in their current camera's allready.

However there is not much demand yet for those formats in the day to day use around here.

I shoot with a guy that runs a Panasonic at 1080p/23.976 and his footage is clearly not up to the 1080p resolution of the Sony, it looks more like 720p in terms of detail. Thats because his camera is using pixel shifting to achieve 1080 resolution. And it doesn't substitute for a true 1080 full raster images. So yes, his 1080p really isn't any better than his 720p.

Cris,

You don't mention which Panasonic camera model, but no native 720P Panasonic camera, Varicam 27H, HDX900, HPX2000, HPX2700, does pixel shifting. My guess is that you are talking about an HPX500 or HVX200/A, HVX200, HPX170. Those cameras use 540x960 SD CCD's and do a pixel offset to derive 1080P. Please don't compare that approach to a native 720P camera such as a Varicam, apples to oranges. The P2 720P cameras scale to 1080 in a 32 bit processing environment and are recorded onto a full sample AVC-Intra codec, not DVCPRO HD that sub-samples 720P to 960 horizontal rectangular pixels.

Alister,

I was not referencing an average viewer, but a seasoned broadcast television engineer who works in network affiliates, sat trucks, microwave trucks. I trust his eyes more than any average viewer.

I do agree with your points about the flexibility of 1080, but, again your experience and mine don't match. Live action, same scene at 720 and 1080, not visible to me in normal conditions, not visible to TV display reveiwers, not visible to experienced broadcast engineer, not visible to DLP projection engineer, never mind small screens, I'm talking large screens.

Given two CCD's of the same size, one with full raster 1080, the other with full raster 720, the latter will have better light sensitivity or less noise for the same amount of sensitivity.

XDCAM EX in 1080/60i is very poor, so that limits any camera using that codec. EX1 and EX3 don't use a low pass filter in front of the sensors and are known to produce lots of IR contamination. Only circular polarizer filters should be used, not linear. I hope the 350 has a low pass filter in it, every other 2/3" camera I know of does.

As far as an EX1 being as good as 720P cameras get, not bloody likely.

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

In the U.S. the ATSC digital broadcast specs for 1080 allow for 1080/60i or 1080/60P according to a broadcast engineer friend of mine.
Well, yes, but from a transmission point of view there is no difference between 1080i/30 and 1080psf/30 apart maybe from setting a data flag to tell the receiver. That's the whole point of psf! It allows progressive carriage over an interlace transmission medium. (Obviously limited to the system framerate- 30fps in the US, 25fps in Europe.)
There is no 1080/24Psf being broadcast or cablecast, according to him..........Everything else is 60 fields interlace, 3:2 cadence from film source or 23.98 frame video.
Errr, but then what is psf if not "60 fields interlace, 3:2 cadence from film source or 23.98 frame video"!?! If I was asked for a definition of 23.98psf, then I'd be hard pushed to come up with a better one than that!

I'll admit my experience is based on 50Hz standards and equipment, but I'd expect the principles to be the same - just without the 3:2 pulldown. Of course, it's conceivable that as the UK didn't broadcast HD until well after the US, the delay may have meant that more subleties were incorporated into European systems than in the US, and psf recognition at reception could be one. That doesn't change the point of all this - that if properly sourced, transmitted and displayed, the resolution difference between 720p and 1080p should be easily visible to most people.
I asked him if he or any engineer he knows can tell the difference between 1080/60i and 720/60P and he said, "yes, of course, the motion is much better with 720/60P".
I've never previously heard of anyone able to tell the difference in motion portrayal between a 60p and an 60i system. I can only suspect he must have thought you were still referring to 720p/60 and 1080psf/24.

But as Alister has said, the resolution issue all depends on source and display. A colleague of mine said very similar to Jeffs engineer friend a while back, and on closer questioning it turned out he was referring to an HVX200 or 171, and displayed on a screen with less than 1920x1080 resolution. He also said the resolution difference was slight.

We repeated the exercise with a full HD screen, and 720 and 1080 modes on a borrowed EX1. He now no longer questions the difference in principle between 720 and 1080. (To the extent that he now uses an EX1 himself.)
Those cameras use 540x960 SD CCD's and do a pixel offset to derive 1080P. Please don't compare that approach to a native 720P camera such as a Varicam, apples to oranges.
That's completely missing the point of what Cris was saying. Yes, a 1280x720 chipped camera such as the 2700 will be better than a 960x540 one with pixel shifting, but the resolution difference between it in 1080 mode and 720 mode will be slight if anything - it's the chips that are the limiting factor, not the recording mode.

Repeat the exercise with a 1920x1080 chipped camera and it is a completely different story. The 1080 mode will be far sharper than the 720 mode. (Which I think is what Cris was implying?)

As far as the 960x540 goes, then pixel shift predicts a resolution boost of about 1.5x for luminance only, compared to non use. In the Panasonic case, using it for both H&V means about sq rt 1.5x on each axis, or about 1.2x. That means you can expect some detail up to about 1150x650, so respectable for a camera using a 720p recording mode, but it should give an idea why true 1280x720 chips are better. (And that's before we even think about mtf's.......)

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/136850-review-hpx2700-varicam.html




Well I'm sorry but these native 720p cameras clearly advertise their 1080p capabilites, simply check Panasonic's own website to see how these units are advertised. I do not consider a 720p front end, covered by a "full 1080p processing engine", a 1080 camera.

I know they are fine cameras and I wont argue that one bit, but to say there is no discernable difference between 720p and 1080p is simply untrue. What I would believe is a broadcast enginneer is looking at a native 720 camera that says it shoots 1080, and then says "the 1080 footage really isn't any better".

Basic logic would tell you that an image with real 921,600 pixels of information versus an image in the same space (both videos on a 42" Plasma for example) as real 2,073,600 pixels. Based on both the the math and my eyes, I feel like there is a clear visual difference.


I never record the EX's in interlaced, to me interlaced looks horrendous no matter the camera. I'm not saying a lot of people dont do it and need that capability but that is not what I would ever shoot.

Cris,

Yes, I agree with what you just posted, except the part where you can see a big difference at normal viewing distances. On your previous post, you mentioned a Panasonic camera, no model number and pixel shifting--this is not a native 720P camera, that was my only point.

I definitely agree with your view of 1080/60i or any interlace signal, and feel that XDCAM EX would be the last codec I'd want to shoot it with. I do have clients that want 1080/60i, typically HDCAM and DVCPRO HD.

David,

The MTF curves of a 2700 and 3700 are quite similar. My engineer friend was adamant that no 1080/24Psf or 30Psf is broadcast in the U.S.

There is a difference in temporal resolution between 1080/60i and 720/60P. The smoother,
more detailed motion of the latter is a big part of why ESPN chose that format for sports programming, ditto Fox.

Yes, I do believe that a higher pixel count pays dividends on resolving fine details in wide shots, I've gone to 65mm movie screenings and there is a big difference with wide shots, closeups and medium shots, not so much.

I certainly understand the on paper differences in pixel count between 720 and 1080, even though for years much of what has been seen from HD video sources has been sub-sampled 1080(and 720), so only in the last couple of years have full raster one-piece cameras become more common.

Going by comments that full sample 1080 is such a huge, glaringly improved image over full sample 720, one would think that every F900 series camera, every Varicam 27 series camera would have been retired on the spot. Reality is that DP's have a lot of other priorities when it comes to image making and camera feature sets--not just pixel counting. Same reason a Panavison Genesis and Sony F35 are 1080 cameras, not 4K.

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

Cris,


I was not referencing an average viewer, but a seasoned broadcast television engineer who works in network affiliates, sat trucks, microwave trucks. I trust his eyes more than any average viewer.


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

Yes, but we make programmes FOR the average viewer not "Seasoned" broadcast television engineers and many people actually CAN tell the difference.

But if he's a seasoned broadcast engineer he must be right and my seasoned online editor trained eyes must be wrong

Steve,

How close is your evaluation monitor to your sitting position?

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

The P2 720P cameras scale to 1080 in a 32 bit processing environment and are recorded onto a full sample AVC-Intra codec, not DVCPRO HD that sub-samples 720P to 960 horizontal rectangular pixels. But it still isn't what I would regard as real 1080. Its 720 in a 1080 wrapper. IMHO this is worse than using pixel shift. You cannot gain resolution that is not there in the first place, certainly not with the kind of processing going on in-camera. No wonder you cant see a difference between 720 and 1080.... because in this case there isn't one.
Live action, same scene at 720 and 1080, not visible to me in normal conditions, not visible to TV display reveiwers, not visible to experienced broadcast engineer, not visible to DLP projection engineer, never mind small screens, I'm talking large screens. There you go again "In normal conditions" but not all conditions are normal. What about all the people that have posted to this thread that say they
see a clear difference? Are you suggesting they are wrong? Maybe not everyone thinks there is a difference but clearly many people can see a difference. If you can't accept that, then that's great for me and all those that can see the difference because we won't have to worry about any competition from you in the future. TV will move on and you will still be adamant that 720P is good enough.
I am a seasoned engineer with 25+ years of broadcast experience. I have a degree in electronic engineering. One of my first jobs was developing cameras for the BBC to use in F1 racing and the world rally championship and I'm not talking about camera systems, I'm talking about board level design. I can fault find to component level (a skill that is becoming rare theses days) and I absolutely do know what I am talking about.

Given two CCD's of the same size, one with full raster 1080, the other with full raster 720, the latter will have better light sensitivity or less noise for the same amount of sensitivity.Oh really? Explain 1920x1080, F13 @ 2000 lux and 59db noise figure. A full stop more sensitive than the 1280x720 HPX2700 and 5 db less noise. Sensor performance depends on the design of the sensor, pixel level noise reduction, microlenses and much much more. That statement that a 720 sensor will be more sensitive than a 1080 sensor is just far to general. Yes if you had identically designed pixels, microlenses etc and then made one chip with bigger microlenses and pixels it may be true, but sensor design is rarely that straight forward . Even if your argument was correct, just how much sensitivity do you need? I struggle with the PDW-700 in bright light, it's simply too sensitive at times.

XDCAM EX in 1080/60i is very poor, so that limits any camera using that codec. Your opinion and one not shared by a lot of well regarded individuals and organizations.
EX1 and EX3 don't use a low pass filter in front of the sensors and are known to produce lots of IR contamination. Only circular polarizer filters should be used, not linear. I hope the 350 has a low pass filter in it, every other 2/3" camera I know of does. They do have a low pass filter, if they did not then you would have all kinds of IR issues. Pointing an IR device at an EX will clearly demonstrate that they do have an IR cut filter. The problem is that there is a trade off between red reproduction and far red cut-off. I agree it would be nice if the cameras didn't exhibit the hue shift on certain man made fabrics under certain lighting conditions, but anyone that's used the Tiffen T1 on an EX1 will also tell you that a lot of the cameras "richness" is lost. The EX is not alone with this problem. Adam Wilts test of the 350 show that the issue is drastically reduced, possibly to the point where any hue is actually comparable to what people actually see with the naked eye.

Steve,

How close is your evaluation monitor to your sitting position?

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

I have a broadcast HD monitor about 4 feet away and a client HD monitor about 8 feet away, I can spot the difference on both.

This is becoming a ridiculous argument, you are trying to tell people that the differences they can see aren't actually there. Lots of people have said it on this thread are you saying they are all wrong?

The difference in quality is so big that I almost cringe kicking down to 720p to overcrank, I already know that in post I will see the resolution drop when I intercut that footage into my native 1080p files.

Is that with an EX? I'm sure you'd find it very different with a Varicam.
Don't know if you've had the new "Life" series in the US yet, but over here I've heard nothing but good comments about the quality of the pictures. I only did a small amount of it but know that everyone else shot the same as me - tape Varicam.
Steve

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/136850-review-hpx2700-varicam.html




Well I'm sorry but these native 720p cameras clearly advertise their 1080p capabilites, simply check Panasonic's own website to see how these units are advertised. I do not consider a 720p front end, covered by a "full 1080p processing engine", a 1080 camera.


I agree entirely, there is no way they can be claimed to be 1080 - it's very misleading and several producers I've spoken to have been under the impression that they are 1080 cameras - which of course they sort of are, but as you say, not really.
Steve

But it still isn't what I would regard as real 1080. Its 720 in a 1080 wrapper. IMHO this is worse than using pixel shift. You cannot gain resolution that is not there in the first place, certainly not with the kind of processing going on in-camera. No wonder you cant see a difference between 720 and 1080.... because in this case there isn't one.

edit
Oh really? Explain 1920x1080, F13 @ 2000 lux and 59db noise figure. A full stop more sensitive than the 1280x720 HPX2700 and 5 db less noise. Sensor performance depends on the design of the sensor, pixel level noise reduction, microlenses and much much more. That statement that a 720 sensor will be more sensitive than a 1080 sensor is just far to general.
edit
Your opinion and one not shared by a lot of well regarded individuals and organizations.
edit
They do have a low pass filter, if they did not then you would have all kinds of IR issues. Pointing an IR device at an EX will clearly demonstrate that they do have an IR cut filter. The problem is that there is a trade off between red reproduction and far red cut-off. I agree it would be nice if the cameras didn't exhibit the hue shift on certain man made fabrics under certain lighting conditions, but anyone that's used the Tiffen T1 on an EX1 will also tell you that a lot of the cameras "richness" is lost.

Alister,

In-camera upscaling is done in a 32 bit processing environment, doing the same in an 8-bit environment, once the image is recorded is not as good, but I agree that if content is not resolved in the first place, it can't be manufactured later.

Please remember that I own an EX1, I have done lots of viewing of the same scene shot in both resolutions with that camera. If I thought the EX1 was all the camera any of my clients would ever need, I wouldn't have bought an HDX900 or HPX2700. I do not see myself spending three times as much as an EX1 for another XDCAM EX camera, despite its
2/3" sensors.

The difference in sensitivity between 720 and 1080 CCD's is what I cited, the 350 uses CMOS. If you took a native 720 CMOS sensor of the same size as a 1080 sensor(not sure any are available in a camera), all else being equal, the former would have a sensitivity advantage, if CMOS responds similarly to CCD's. The 2/3" CMOS sensors in the 350 look to be very fast and quiet, but we also know that they suffer from the same CMOS artifacts as the 1/2" EX1 CMOS sensors.

Adam Wilt has told me personally that 1080/60i shows the weaknesses of XDCAM EX, it's not just my observations.

You're correct about the low pass filtering, most of the problems are far red, not IR. Clearly Sony decided that filtering out more near red would affect the color rendering characteristics of the camera too much. Again, another CMOS artifact that I don't worry about with CCD's. If this has been improved on the 350, that's good, even if image skew and flash band artifacts haven't.

Again, all else being equal between a 1080 native camera and a 720 native camera, I would choose the former, and I do own an EX1. However, my P2 Varicam suits the needs of many high end DP's better than an EX1. Many DP's are resistant to CMOS sensors, prefer high bit rate, 10-bit, I-frame, 4:2:2 codecs, love the frame rate flexibility and look of the Varicam and Panasonic cameras in general. Some will opt for the 3700 instead.

At the end of the day, it's my own eyes and the needs of my clients that count. Doesn't mean anybody on this thread is wrong. Alister, I do not doubt your credentials in any way.

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

Jeff, this discussion isn't about EX1's it's about PMW-350's, a totally different camera, not just different sensors but different processing, capabilities, form factor etc.

So what about the PDW-700 sensitivity and noise, almost exactly the same as the 2700. Your argument still doesn't hold water. On both CCD and CMOS sensors the light sensitive bit, the pixel or MOS capacitor is in many cases exactly the same technology. Sensitivity and dynamic range are limited by the MOS capacitors, it's the way the pixels are connected and the amount of electronics on the chip that's different between CMOS and CCD. Again design variations in individual sensors are what makes the difference.

Yes CMOS has artifacts. Artifacts that are only present in certain types of shot. Skew is rarely noticeable, let alone a problem. Agreed, Flash and strobe lighting handling is different to CCD and as I said at the very outset, if you shoot under strobe lighting day in day out, consider a different camera. IMHO shooting 720P compromises every shot, not just a few very specific circumstances. Sure there will be circumstances where you have no choice such as overcrank, but for everything else why compromise?

If your have clients that will make your camera pay then you have not made a bad choice. Perhaps for you specific needs you have made the best choice. But right now I personally just would not want to invest in yesterdays technology.

Alister,

I bring up the EX1 because you made it sound like I don't have access to a full raster camera. I also brought it up because it features the same low end version of XDCAM that the 350 has.

Are you saying that if the CCD's in a 700 were native 720P, with larger photo sites per pixel, there wouldn't be a sensitivity advantage? Or were you saying that the 700 and 2700 are the same sensitivity wise? Even in 720P mode?

Regarding image skew from CMOS, it is a problem. I have DP's that refuse an EX1 on that basis.

Just as you believe a native 720P sensor compromises every shot, I believe the same about low bit rate, 8-bit, 4:2:0 codecs. That is yesterday's technology to me. Of course one can always strap on a nanoFlash for higher bit rate and 4:2:2, but it's still 8-bit.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing the 350 at a trade show this month in SF. If I get clients asking for it, I will give strong consideration to buying it.

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

The MTF curves of a 2700 and 3700 are quite similar.
I just don't see how you can say that, when one has 2 megapixel chips, the other 1 megapixel. The 3700 will deliver quite a high percentage mtf around 8-900 lines, the 2700 will only deliver aliasing at that spatial frequency! How can they have "quite similar" mtfs!!
My engineer friend was adamant that no 1080/24Psf or 30Psf is broadcast in the U.S.
I certainly understand what he described ("60 fields interlace, 3:2 cadence from film source or 23.98 frame video") to be psf. If he disagrees, I'm very interested to know exactly what he does think psf means? It may be a matter of differing nomenclature? That doesn't change the fundamental point - you can still get full 24/25fps progressive resolution through a 1080i system, whatever you call it. Over here, it's definitely psf.
Of course one can always strap on a nanoFlash for higher bit rate and 4:2:2, but it's still 8-bit.
Meaning? So have DVCProHD, HDCAM etc been, but how much has it mattered in the past?

OK, everyone wants more and more, and 10 bit may well be more than 8. But at the moment, the whole business is one of compromise, and it's necessary to ask which factors are significant and which aren't. And if 10 bit means higher compression within the frame, it's necessary to ask if the precious bits may not be better spent in other ways. Have you ever looked at anything in the past, on HDCAM or DVCProHD, and said "that looks bad, if only it was 10 bit....!"

I am in absolutely no doubt that given a choice between 10 bit and 1920x1080 chips, one or the other, I'd take the latter any day. If you have an EX, and have done side by side comparisons with it in 720p and 1080p modes, I just can't believe you can't see a big difference, and it seems that's the feeling of a lot of others here. Obviously, I'd like both 10 bit AND full raster chips if possible, and far higher bitrates than either XDCAM 422 or AVC-Intra, but aren't we now into HDCAM-SR territory and prices? I also don't deny the 50Mbs XDCAM codec would be desirable, but as you yourself say - there's always the nanoFlash option.

Still disagree? The EBU tests came out in favour of full 1920x1080 chips and recording, at least 4:2:2 XDCAM or AVC-Intra 100 recording codec, and chips of 1/2" or above as the most significant factors for next generation cameras, and specifically downplayed the advantage of 10 bit for all but the very top end systems. I'm more inclined to believe them than any manufacturer speaking with vested interests.

David,

I was told by Panasonic at Varicamp that the MTF curves of the 2700 and 3700 are similar, I have it in my notes.

My engineer friend said no 24 or 30Psf in the U.S.--not part of the ATSC digital standard.

I find it interesting for all that think full raster 1080 is such a big deal that for years we were all shooting with sub-sampled HDCAM and DVCPRO HD, many still are--yet full raster is mandatory for a good looking image all of a sudden? Absurd. Have I seen banding from 8-bit codecs in post? Yes. Noise? Yes. Compression artifacts? Yes. Intra 100 has less noise and more bit depth than any 8-bit codec I've seen. I have not seen compression artifacts thus far. I certainly have with DVCPRO HD.

I have a high end DIT friend in Hollywood and he dismisses 8-bit codecs out of hand. His favorite camera is the F35, although he ends up using the RED a lot.

He never used Panasonic P2 cameras or took them seriously until AVC-Intra was released. Now they shoot AVC-Intra 100 and convert the files to DPX for the DI.

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

Simon,

They do seem to be a bit of a game changer, assuming things develop as planned. Awesome latitude with super low noise. But do we know much about what they're recording onto? The form factor is very lunch boxesque, but it seems to work for RED One--if not the operators who have to hand hold it.

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

I was told by Panasonic at Varicamp that the MTF curves of the 2700 and 3700 are similar, I have it in my notes.
Jeff - just think about it. Look at the results and charts for those cameras with your own eyes. The 3700 has a high mtf % at places where the 2700 has none. How on earth can they therefore have similar mtf curves?

Either the person from Panasonic doesn't have a clue what they are talking about (Can you name who it was?), your notes are in error, or you're having a laugh at all of us. Which is it?
...... yet full raster is mandatory for a good looking image all of a sudden?
"Mandatory" is your word, nobody else's. The EBU recommendations are just that - recommendations. Albeit independent of vested interest, and after a lot of science. See http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r124.pdf if you don't believe me.

You are making a lot of the supposed huge significance of 10 bit v 8 bit, but the EBU tests simply don't bear that out. From the same document:
For acquisition of mainstream HD material, it is recommended that

• 8-bit bit-depth is sufficient for mainstream programme (10-bit bit-depth is preferred for
high-end acquisition).
and by "high-end acquisition", we are not talking about cameras in the price range of the 2700 or 350. It's quite clear that they regard full raster chips as far more significant than 10 bit. And there's more. Even for broadcast PRODUCTION (let alone acquisition) 10 bit doesn't seem to have a high importance compared to other factors:
• For normal moving pictures, an 8-bit bit-depth in production will not significantly degrade the HD picture quality at the consumer’s premises.
I don't know what your connection with Panasonic is, but their assertions of the "huge significance" of 10 bit are simply not borne out independently. It's one factor, yes, but relatively minor compared to others, even for mainstream HD broadcast production. But marketing departments love big numbers, and science is for geeks anyway.......

I'll let others make up their own minds as to who is right. Which is most important, 10 bit or full raster camera chips.

My personal feeling is that it's the more down to earth features of the 350 that really make it so appealing anyway. Power consumption - media costs - media versatility - weight - ............

Well if we need full raster 1920x1080 at 10bit 4:2:2 we can now get it from the HD/SDI output from the newly announced Sony NXCAM NX5U at about $5000 !!!! I know you guys may not think this is great but it will be wonderful replacement for my FX1 and the output will look a lot better than lots I see on TV!!!!

Ron Evans

Easy does it, fellows. Thanks in advance,

David,

Varicamp had Suny Behar, a DP and Panasonic consultant, as well as a second instructor, Nick something Greek, a high-end DIT. Suny has written some of the Panasonic white papers. As a DP, he shoots with a lot of different cameras, including RED One. Obviously, he has professional ties to Panasonic so is pretty negative about HDV, but not about XDCAM flavors, although he's not a big fan of Long GOP frame structure. I work with an editor who everytime I mention XDCAM of any flavor, just says, "HDV". He's not a fan.

I have no connections to Panasonic other than as a paying customer, as I have been to Sony for three decades.

I have not attributed 10-bit as a big Panasonic hot button, I attributed that to an independent high-end DIT friend of mine, who dismisses 8-bit out of hand. But I agree, this is normally not a big deal in the $20-30K camera class, but doesn't mean it couldn't be in the future, or 12-bit for that matter.

I have already shown the cost difference in media, 32Gb P2 cards are $580-650, 32Gb SxS cards are $745-850 USD. Media versatility, not sure what this implies, are you referencing low cost non-SxS cards? They are forbidden by Sony, could cause warranty issues, can be problematic when overcranking or shooting at 720/60P. Weight, yes, three pounds difference, power difference is significant--not as much if you add a nanoFlash to the 350.

Again, funny how F900R was considered the gold standard until very recently, now it has to be full raster or nothing. All those beautiful images shot with Varicams are now not beautiful. But a CMOS, low bit rate, low color space, Long GOP camera with $1600 lens is the hot setup. Time will tell.

Chris,

This is all in good fun for me--Alister and David are very bright, articulate, knowledgeable chaps who I have learned from, even if I don't agree with everything they post. I would never attack them personally, as they have been gentlemen towards me. I hope some forum members have received some useful info from this long thread. I have.

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

Well if you are going to argue the merits of a 10 bit codec versus the typical 8 bit, one could also argue shooting totally uncompressed HD versus using any of these compression algorithms. The whole industry is full of tradeoffs, 4:4:4 HDCAM SR is going to look just a little nicer than 100mbps AVC-Intra. :)

Frankly I would prefer a 10 bit acquisition, BUT only at a higher bit rate such as 440mbps. Then look at the storage and computing situation, shooting the Nanoflash at the highest bitrates already tears through 32GB flash cards.

I guess that you could make the case for shooting 720p/10 bit versus true 1080p/8 bit. I will take the additional resolution any day, and if the situation permits shoot to a MacPro via SDI into a Kona3 if I need to shoot 1080p/10 bit ProRes 422HQ.

I guess that in the end if the story or show sucks, who really cares if it was shot with an F35 or a iPhone.

oh man I am in total agreement with you Jeff. I would bow out if it ever got ridiculous anyway, at that point the conversation doesn't help or advance anything.

I have already shown the cost difference in media, 32Gb P2 cards are $580-650, 32Gb SxS cards are $745-850 USD. Media versatility, not sure what this implies, are you referencing low cost non-SxS cards? They are forbidden by Sony, could cause warranty issues, can be problematic when overcranking or shooting at 720/60P. Weight, yes, three pounds difference, power difference is significant--not as much if you add a nanoFlash to the 350.

Look around on the web. There are plenty of mainstream dealers selling the 32Gb SxS-1 cards for a less than $600.

Sony do not forbid the use of non-SxS cards. Sony now have the MEAD-MS01 adapter that allows the fully approved use of $190 32Gb HX memory sticks. This adapter may work with other cheaper sticks as well, but that's yet to be tested.

Media cost is a big deal, especially if working in remote locations for long periods. While there are some very good backup solutions such as the NextoDI etc this is often far from ideal. The ability to use cheap memory sticks will be a huge boon to wildlife film makers or expeditions. It will also be most welcome by owner-operators or those on a budget. IF the cheaper $30 8Gb HX cards can be used then this will be very good for news crews that need to hand off material. In addition the compact 35Mb/s codec means less storage is needed.

The weight difference is nearer 4 pounds when you remember to add in the viewfinders. Four pounds is a big weight saving on it's own. It means the 2700 is 35% heavier. Add in further savings with the smaller lighter batteries needed for the same shoot duration by the 350 and it's not an insignificant saving, the lighter batteries more than making up for a NanoFlash if you choose to use one.

Weight is a massive deal for me. I travel by air a lot. I can get a PMW-350 with lens and enough batteries for 8 hours of non-stop shooting plus a basic charger in a regulation size carry-on bag. That leaves my entire checked baggage allowance for tripods, clothes etc. It also means I can comply with the FCC regulations by taking my batteries as carry-on and I stay under all the lithium limits. If I take my PDW-700 then the camera, lens and one small battery go carry-on. The rest of the battery kit, 4 batts and a 4 way charger go in a flight case in the hold eating up a significant amount of my allowance and run the risk of delays or loss. This means that for some shoots, especially those involving small aircraft and high excess baggage charges I don't take the PDW-700, I take my EX1 or EX3 instead.

It has to be remembered that HDCAM is a 12 year old format now (gosh hadn't realized it's been around quite that long). Technology has moved forward massively since 1997. The F900 was introduced in 1999, while it has been upgraded several times since then it is still using less advance technology than is available in newer cameras. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect better pictures from more modern cameras.

Look around on the web. There are plenty of mainstream dealers selling the 32Gb SxS-1 cards for a less than $600.

Sony do not forbid the use of non-SxS cards. Sony now have the MEAD-MS01 adapter that allows the fully approved use of $190 32Gb HX memory sticks. This adapter may work with other cheaper sticks as well, but that's yet to be tested.
edit
It has to be remembered that HDCAM is a 12 year old format now (gosh hadn't realized it's been around quite that long). Technology has moved forward massively since 1997. The F900 was introduced in 1999, while it has been upgraded several times since then it is still using less advance technology than is available in newer cameras. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect better pictures from more modern cameras.

Alister,

I was just using pricing from the largest dealer in the world, BH Photo. I can get better P2 prices as well, no problem getting 32Gb P2 E series cards for under $600 all over the place, so comparing SxS to P2 E cards does not represent a media cost savings.

When people first started using an adapter with SD cards with the EX1, Sony told me that it would void the warranty on my EX1. That, plus the concern about overcranking or 720/60p being problematic, putting my company in a liability position if I rented the camera out that way, put a quick end to that idea, one that I don't intend to revisit. I haven't been in this business for 28 years by taking risks or shortcuts with my client's productions.

I agree, both HDCAM and DVCPRO HD are old formats, but I don't recall people then or now being up in arms over a lack of image quality due to watching sub-sampled horizontal resolution.

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

Hi Alister,
I know this is getting away from the topic, oh well.
When you carry onboard a flight with the PDW 700 what bag or bags do you use. I ask this as I fly a lot and would like the camera to travel with me and not in the cargo hold.

Thanks

Jeff I fully agree with your stance on the use of SD cards, which is why I don't use them... normally. I do however have 4x 32Gb SD cards and adapters in my kit purely as a standby.

The Memory Stick option is a different matter. It is all Sony hardware and fully supported and certified by Sony. It's limited to on-speed modes only, so no overcrank but at less than $200 for 32 Gb it's sure to be popular. It's nice to have alternatives.

Many HDCAM users are now using them with NanoFlashes to get around the sub-sampling. Sub-sampling with a tape format is a big deal as when you go through the edit chain you end up un-squeezing and re-squeezing the footage each time you dub or copy from the tape. This is just about the worst kind of concatenation you can have as it has the effect of enlarging any artifacts. Just dubbing from an HDCAM tape to an NLE and back again introduces 2 recompression/re-size steps as the HDSDi stream is 1920x1080. HDCAM, like all codecs was born out of compromises. Those being the maximum bit rate that could be squeezed onto the tape, the type of compression that could be done in realtime with available technology and cost. When it was launched nothing could beat it but now HDCAM is a poor match with todays non-linear workflows. HDCAM SR is very different to HDCAM. Similar tape shell but different codec, full frame, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4.

Simon: I picked up a hard shell wheeled case that is exactly the maximum permissible carry on size in a local department store. I lined it with foam. The camera then goes in a large heavy duty bubble wrap bag at the bottom of the case, the lens in another bag across the top and the VF and batts sit along side the camera. It's a snug fit but it will all go in. If I have to I can get a macbook-pro in there on top of the camera!

I have not attributed 10-bit as a big Panasonic hot button, I attributed that to an independent high-end DIT friend of mine, who dismisses 8-bit out of hand.
Fair enough, but quoting individuals is risky - I could probably find at least one person to back up any view I wanted - whatever it was. As politicians manage all the time........ :-)

The formal EBU position is more significant, IMO.
I have already shown the cost difference in media, 32Gb P2 cards are $580-650, 32Gb SxS cards are $745-850 USD.
There is a big difference depending where you go, but on average I'm finding SxS roughly similar to P2 on average *IN GB TERMS*. But I think the per minute comparison is more important to a user than per GB - and the same amount of money will buy you many more times more minutes with SxS than P2.
Media versatility, not sure what this implies, are you referencing low cost non-SxS cards?
Yes - but see below.
They are forbidden by Sony, could cause warranty issues, can be problematic when overcranking or shooting at 720/60P.
They are not "forbidden". Regarding SDHC, the strongest I've heard was "not supported" (ie. use them at your own discretion, and don't complain to us if you have a problem). My own experience is that a personal query got an answer strongly along the lines of "no comment" (though not those words!) and I've only ever seen one formal published response from Sony about their use - see pages 48-49 of this magazine - http://www.tv-bay.com/imag/issue_027/pageflip.htm . The response is far more interesting for what is NOT said, than for what is. They stress the merits of SxS, true, but don't even go anywhere close to formally recommending against the use of SDHC, let alone "forbidding" their use.

Rental is a separate issue. My own view is that in your position, I wouldn't be keen to rent out an EX plus SDHC/adaptor package as such - though I'm happy to use them in my own right. But if a renter wished to use their own card/adaptor in them, fine, over to them........

Regarding MemoryStick and an adaptor, then not only is their use not "forbidden", but Sony are selling the product and guaranteeing it if used according to their recommendations.

Yes, overcranking is not recommended on none SxS media, that's well known. But standard 720p/50(60) operation is no problem, it's the same 35Mbs data rate as the other modes. I think you're confusing this with S&Q mode - shooting at 50/60p for slo-mo playback at 720p/24(25)?

But by "media versatility" it's not just the other media in themselves, but the way they can be used. Another highly useful feature IMO is the ability to quickly copy clips between cards within the camera, which can now be done on a card by card basis as well as clip by clip. This opens up all sorts of possibilities. Shoot on SxS for overcranking, or maximum possibility reliability, then dump in camera to SDHC for medium term storage. Or make a second copy to hand to client, keeping the original as backup?

There are many possibilities - and all possible quickly, and with no equipment other than camera. This to me is media versatility that P2 can't equal.
Again, funny how F900R was considered the gold standard until very recently, now it has to be full raster or nothing. ......... But a CMOS, low bit rate, low color space, Long GOP camera with $1600 lens is the hot setup. Time will tell.
The gold standard has always meant the best realistically available at the time, taking cost into account, and time has moved on. I wouldn't put either the 2700 or the 350 forward as present day gold standard, that belongs to such as the HDCAM-SR, Arri or other digital cinema offerings. What I do feel the 350 is is the BetaSP of it's day. The potential workhorse for cost-effective general broadcast HD acquisition - if not top-end drama.

I agree with you about "I don't recall people then or now being up in arms over a lack of image quality due to watching sub-sampled horizontal resolution." - but then neither were they up in arms with "this is only 8-bit!" on the banners. That was the reason I brought the subject up.
This is all in good fun for me--Alister and David are very bright, articulate, knowledgeable chaps who I have learned from, even if I don't agree with everything they post. I would never attack them personally, as they have been gentlemen towards me.
Well - thank you! I can also assure Chris that I have no complaint about your own conduct or attitude in this thread, even if I disagree strongly with some of the things you have said.

Incidentally, this thread started partly due to concern that the price drop offer on the 2700 was due to end at the end of 2009. Does anyone know what's happened in that regard?

Well if we need full raster 1920x1080 at 10bit 4:2:2 we can now get it from the HD/SDI output from the newly announced Sony NXCAM NX5U at about $5000 !!!!
Regrettably no. Last I heard, that camera is due to have 1 megapixel chips, so although it may give a 1920x1080 raster output, the resolution is likely to be about 1440x810.

I think that's a good compromise for 1/3" chips, and underlines that mostly you get what you pay for.

There are many possibilities - and all possible quickly, and with no equipment other than camera. This to me is media versatility that P2 can't equal.


David,

I think what attracts me to the P2 memory media is the vast amount of resources Panasonic has put into the the work flow options, hardware, features, flexibility. This same memory card can be used with cameras that cost $5,000 t0 $60,000, SD, HD, DVCPRO, DVCPRO 50, DVCPRO HD, AVC-Intra 50, AVC-Intra 100, soon AVC-Ultra for 4:4:4 and 3D applications. They offer a lot of free software to support the cards and codecs, a ton of other hardware, such as P2 Store, P2 Gear, P2 Portable, P2 Mobile, PCD20 and PCD35 5-card P2 readers. It's a very robust, well road-mapped platform that isn't limited to one pricing/production level. P2 has proven its reliability and quality since 2004, memory capacity has continually gone up while pricing has gone down, features and capabilities continue to improve. P2 is the back bone of Panasonic professional video.

Currently, XDCAM EX using SxS cards represents a very small part of Sony's professional product road map. XDCAM EX has been limited in its technical specification purposely to protect the XDCAM HD, XDCAM 422, HDCAM and HDCAM SR cameras and peripherals. Theoretically, the PMW-350K is at the top of the XDCAM EX product line with no way to move up without abandoning the media, hardware and accessories for XDCAM EX.

We both know that low bit rate, 8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP formats are not where the industry is headed, so an XDCAM EX user has to consider an outboard recorder or migrate to XDCAM 422 for a better format, which is completely different hardware, peripherals, media and work flow. Meanwhile, most Panasonic P2 hardware is compatible, no matter the camera or price point, with a clear upgrade path into the future using AVC-Ultra, theoretically.

We also know that there will never be another Betacam again, unfortunately. When it comes to a tapeless format, P2 is the closest to the Betacam ideal being fairly ubiquitous around the world with a huge array of features and hardware options.

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

Alister,

With the PMW-350, how long does it take to go from camera mode to thumbnail clip mode for playback? Is it similar to the EX1/EX3 or faster, more direct, easier?

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

Alister,

With the PMW-350, how long does it take to go from camera mode to thumbnail clip mode for playback? Is it similar to the EX1/EX3 or faster, more direct, easier?

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

You press 1 button, the thumbnails appear in 4 seconds. There is also a last clip review button on the lens handgrip.

David,

We both know that low bit rate, 8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP formats are not where the industry is headed.

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

I might disagree with that as well, no one expected DVCam to become a major format for broadcasters, but budget cuts meant large amounts of broadcast were shot on it here in the UK. I'm expecting XDCam EX to replace DVCam here.

They offer a lot of free software to support the cards and codecs, a ton of other hardware, such as P2 Store, P2 Gear, P2 Portable, P2 Mobile, PCD20 and PCD35 5-card P2 readers.
I don't think you'll like me sayng this, but I tend to see a lot of that as only necessary because of inherent problems with P2 workflow, certainly in the past. You only need to consider field offloading solutions when the memory is so expensive - isn't it a far more elegant approach to have a system with cost/minute low enough to own enough memory for a single day? And to be able to do high speed copies within the camera, to cheap solid state cards if desired ?

As far as the readers go, most SxS users are likely to simply plug the cards straight into the computer to offload. The need for separate P2 readers is fuelled by the obsolescence of Cardbus on newer computers.
XDCAM EX has been limited in its technical specification purposely to protect the XDCAM HD, XDCAM 422, HDCAM and HDCAM SR cameras and peripherals. Theoretically, the PMW-350K is at the top of the XDCAM EX product line with no way to move up without abandoning the media, hardware and accessories for XDCAM EX.
There is no doubt about it, I wish the 350 came with the 50Mbs codec out of the box. But whilst (for whatever reason) that camera may be limited, let's be clear that the media isn't, and neither is the underlying system. There is no theoretical reason (AFAIK) why much higher bitrate products using SxS won't appear in due course, and my money is on exactly that happening.
We both know that low bit rate, 8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP formats are not where the industry is headed, so an XDCAM EX user has to consider an outboard recorder or migrate to XDCAM 422 for a better format, which is completely different hardware, peripherals, media and work flow.
It depends on what part of the industry you're talking about. If it's digital cinema, absolutely right. But news, general documentary, and all sorts of run of the mill broadcast is a different matter entirely. (It's also more accurate to refer to XDCAM as "medium bitrate", I'd reserve the term "low bitrate" for such as HDV.)

And Steve Connor is absolutely right about DVCAM, at least in the UK. Similar arguments were being had a decade ago, purists saying any new broadcast camera had to be 4:2:2 etc. But whilst there was a big difference between Digibeta cameras and early DV cameras, then mating a decent front end with a DVCAM back was a different story. Hence the DSR500 was born, which together with newer models became the defacto next gen BetaSP in the UK for the last decade. Remember for 50Hz based formats, DVCAM is 4:2:0, not 4:1:1.

I anticipate a similar situation now. XDCAM EX becoming the new DVCAM, if not the next Digibeta. But unlike in the past, it's far easier to hook up external recorders like the nanoFlash now, analogous to being able to attach a DigiBeta deck to a DSR500!!

That aside, Panasonic may try and denigrate XDCAM as "low bit rate, 8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP", but in reality it's what large sections of the industry want. The compression is light enough that it can be easily natively edited, but high enough that file sizes and bitrates are small enough to be more easily handled, and can be more quickly transferred.

That's especially significant when you consider the increasing use of such as ftp to move news and other stories from point to point. It's realistic to consider doing it at 35Mbs - much less so at 100Mbs. All that acquisiton at AVC-Intra 100 may sometimes mean is HAVING to do a transcode to a lower bitrate for a satellite feed or ftp. Something not always necessary with XDCAM.

And "8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP"? A lot of users may take the view that since that is exactly what is going to be broadcast, then if little treatment is to be done to the pictures, then what's wrong with it? Why go to such as 10 bit, 4:2:2, if the main effect is to raise the bitrate, thereby make a transcode necessary for linking, and maybe lose the 10 bit, 4:2:2 in the process!?!

Regrettably no. Last I heard, that camera is due to have 1 megapixel chips, so although it may give a 1920x1080 raster output, the resolution is likely to be about 1440x810.

I think that's a good compromise for 1/3" chips, and underlines that mostly you get what you pay for.

I don't think we should confuse photos sensor sites with resolution. The arrangement and DSP's have more influence in present day cameras. At 1440 x810 it is still higher than 720P!!! However I do generally agree with your comments. The significance in my mind is that the output from this comparatively low cost camera may well be indistinguishable from medium priced broadcast camera after the transmission compression is applied. The end viewer may have a hard time noticing the difference!!!! Side by side direct feed to a large high quality monitor there will of course be a difference as well as potential editing processing differences though they may be small.

Ron Evans

Sony have already shown prototype SxS recorders for the XDCAM HD cameras and will be releasing the slot in SxS bay for the PDW-HR1 XDCAM HD field editor this quarter. The SxS recorder prototypes all had HDSDi in so can be used as standalone recorders or clipped to the back of a PDW-700/F800 to give the best of both worlds. My assumption is that these will record at 50Mb/s 4:2:2. SxS is rated at upto 800Mb/s, so there is a ton of headroom to play with.

As well as the above, don't forget there is also the PXU-MS240 Mobile storage unit and Esata SxS adapter, the PMW-30 SxS VTR and the SBAC-US10 SxS to USB adapter. There are also various free software applications for managing XDCAM EX and XDCAM HD footage.

I don't think you'll like me sayng this, but I tend to see a lot of that as only necessary because of inherent problems with P2 workflow, certainly in the past. You only need to consider field offloading solutions when the memory is so expensive - isn't it a far more elegant approach to have a system with cost/minute low enough to own enough memory for a single day?

edit

As far as the readers go, most SxS users are likely to simply plug the cards straight into the computer to offload. The need for separate P2 readers is fuelled by the obsolescence of Cardbus on newer computers.

edit

It depends on what part of the industry you're talking about. If it's digital cinema, absolutely right. But news, general documentary, and all sorts of run of the mill broadcast is a different matter entirely. (It's also more accurate to refer to XDCAM as "medium bitrate", I'd reserve the term "low bitrate" for such as HDV.)

And Steve Connor is absolutely right about DVCAM, at least in the UK. Similar arguments were being had a decade ago, purists saying any new broadcast camera had to be 4:2:2 etc. But whilst there was a big difference between Digibeta cameras and early DV cameras, then mating a decent front end with a DVCAM back was a different story. Hence the DSR500 was born, which together with newer models became the defacto next gen BetaSP in the UK for the last decade. Remember for 50Hz based formats, DVCAM is 4:2:0, not 4:1:1.

I anticipate a similar situation now. XDCAM EX becoming the new DVCAM, if not the next Digibeta.

That aside, Panasonic may try and denigrate XDCAM as "low bit rate, 8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP", but in reality it's what large sections of the industry want. The compression is light enough that it can be easily natively edited, but high enough that file sizes and bitrates are small enough to be more easily handled, and can be more quickly transferred.

That's especially significant when you consider the increasing use of such as ftp to move news and other stories from point to point. It's realistic to consider doing it at 35Mbs - much less so at 100Mbs. All that acquisiton at AVC-Intra 100 may sometimes mean is HAVING to do a transcode to a lower bitrate for a satellite feed or ftp. Something not always necessary with XDCAM.

And "8-bit, 4:2:0, Long GOP"? A lot of users may take the view that since that is exactly what is going to be broadcast, then if little treatment is to be done to the pictures, then what's wrong with it? Why go to such as 10 bit, 4:2:2, if the main effect is to raise the bitrate, thereby make a transcode necessary for linking, and maybe lose the 10 bit, 4:2:2 in the process!?!

David,

Your remark about P2 peripherals being needed because of P2 workflow problems is unfair.
I don't know what "problems inherent to the P2 work flow" you're speaking of. P2 is by far the most successful, globally recognized solid state memory media and work flow for professionals in news, sports, high end production-including commercials, indie and commercial features and episodics. It represents cameras from palmcorders to high-end cameras and very sophisticated separate decks like the HPM200 P2 Mobile. P2 has legions of worldwide users, starting back in 2004. The format's mass adoption by broadcasters and independents speaks for itself.

Regarding media costs, and I've shown that 32Gb P2 cards are the same or less money than 32Gb SxS cards previously, when buying a $20K or more camera, I don't feel that spending $3K for 5)32Gb cards is not affordable. These 5)32Gb cards give me 400 minutes of record time at 720/24PN or over 200 minutes at 1080/24PN. This is enough capacity for most one day projects. Double those times with AVC-Intra 50, which is much closer to XDCAM EX, except 10-bit. All these cards are in the camera, no having to pull them out and change them and carry them around separately. This is how I define "elegant".

Regarding card readers, I plug P2 cards into my Apple G4 all the time for DVCPRO HD. Unfortunately, the new MacBook Pro 13" and 15" laptops not only abandoned PCMCIA Card slots, but also Express Card slots. How does one transfer their SxS cards with those computers without tying up the camera? I like the flexibility and convenience of a small five card P2 reader which works with any computer out there via USB or Firewire.

Regarding the options that Panasonic offers in codecs that are found in the HPX300, 2000, 2700, 3000, 3700, there is something for everybody; DVCPRO HD for simple post not requiring high powered computer processing, it runs at only 40Mbps in 720/24PN while still maintaining 4:2:2 and I-Frame structure; for the news world, there is AVC-Intra 50 which is 10-bit 4:2:0 I-Frame at 50Mbps max; AVC-Intra 100 for production requiring grading and color correction because shooting with a format that is more like a delivery format (25-35Mbps, 4:2:0, Long GOP) isn't suited to high-end productions.

No question that DVCAM in 4:2:0 PAL spec is more palatable than 4:1:1 NTSC spec. This is why DVCAM never caught on for broadcast except in small markets and DVCPRO 50 was so popular. DVCAM 4:1:1 would never be confused with 10-bit, 4:2:2 Digi-Beta. I owned a DSR-500 and still own a DSR-450WS for lower-end corporate work--rarely for broadcast.

I can assure you that there is plenty of P2 based material being moved around via sat trucks and microwave trucks because it is much more commonly used in the U.S. for news than XDCAM EX. AVC-Intra 50 has made it even better for news applications.

As far as avoiding 10-bit, I-Frame, 4:2:2 or high bit rate acquisition formats for higher-end productions just because the delivery is very low bit rate, 4:2:0, Long GOP, then why does Sony even offer HDCAM SR or XDCAM 422? Why shoot in 35mm or with an F35? Most production people I know want to start out with the best quality, expecting eventual quality losses downstream.

I think we have a fundamental disconnect between what the DP or producer/director who wants a camera such as a Varicam is looking for vs. somebody who is looking for "general" acquisition and finds XDCAM EX to be good enough. Two different strata of production. Both valid, just different. Same as F900R or PDW800 vs. XDCAM EX.

Alister,

Good to see that Sony is fleshing out the XDCAM EX SxS peripherals to better support the format. It has been pretty thin so far.

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