A friend of mine is in the market for a 2/3" HD camera. He's looking in the 20-grand price range. So far, he's narrowed his choice between the HPX2700 (with a 2/3" camera trade-in special deal) or the Sony PMW350. The cameras will be used for a variety of tasks, whatever jobs a freelance camera operator can get. He will edit onto the latest version of FCP.
So, any recommendations? Obviously, the Sony isn't even out yet, but the special deal on the Panasonic expires at the end of this year. So, time is of the essence. Does he buy a proven workhorse, or wait for the newest Sony? Which camera has the superior codec? Better features? Which would you prefer, if it were your decision?

Well I'll lay my cards on the table first and state that I'm a fan of Sony kit, so consider that when reading my answer.

In codec terms, this has been debated many times on many forums. There is little to choose between them from the image quality point. There are pros and cons to both and one will outperform the other in differing scenes. One thing that is indisputable though is that AVC-intra at 100 Mb/s uses 3 times more storage than 35 Mb/s XDCAM. With the high price of both P2 and SxS this has to be considered. The large file size on the Panasonic system also slows down the workflow as everything takes much longer to copy.
I think you also need to consider the fact that P2 is based on the now out of date PCMCIA connector while SxS uses the new Express card slot found on many new laptops.
The other nice thing about the Sony EX's is that they can use both SxS cards and via adapters a range of other much cheaper memory cards. Sony now have an adapter for Memory sticks and several companies make adapters for SD cards. Personally I would only use SD cards as a backup for emergencies where you run out of SxS, but at least that option exists.

What about broadcast acceptability? Out of the box the Panny 2700 probably currently has the edge here. AVCIntra and DVCPRO HD at 100Mb/s are widely accepted for HD broadcast, while 35Mb/s XDCAM is currently less widely accepted. This may or may not change in the future. You can get around this very easily by using a NanoFlash on the 350 to record at 50Mb/s or even 100Mb/s but this adds cost to the XDCAM package. However it should be remembered that the 2700 is a native 720P camera and a high percentage of HD broadcasters are trying to phase out the use of 720P in favor of 1080i/P, so over time 720P cameras will becomes less acceptable. In the longer term I think the 2700 will become less acceptable while a bare bones 350 will become more acceptable. As I said adding a NanoFlash to a 350 makes it fully acceptable in all respects.

What about usability? Both are very useable and offer similar feature sets. The 2700 has CCD's so will not exhibit any skew or flash band issues. The 350's new CMOS sensors on the other hand are very sensitive (1 stop more than 2700) and produce an incredibly noise free picture, so you can use more gain before the picture becomes unuseable. Skew is IMHO very over hyped. Sure it exists but in 2 years of shooting with EX's I have never had a shot that has been spoilt by it. Flash band can normally be corrected using Sony's clip browser tool. One particularly strong point with the PMW-350 is that it has a really good color viewfinder.
Another 350 strength is its remarkably low power consumption. Batteries will last 3 to 4 times longer on a 350 than a 2700, so you need fewer batteries which will save you money.
Overall I think the 350 offers better picture quality. It is lighter, lower power and has that wonderful color viewfinder. It is also native 1920x1080. With a NanoFlash you can record at 50Mb/s or higher so it ticks all the boxes for current and foreseeable future HD broadcast work. If you by the 350K which comes with a surprisingly good 16x8 HD lens it represents remarkable value.

I think you do have to ask yourself why exactly have Panasonic felt the need to discount the 2700 so heavily? Could it be because they can't sell them? If that's the case you need to work out why they aren't selling. I think it's because no-one wants to invest in 720P anymore, certainly not at this price point.

So there you have it. My opinion, go for the PMW-350 OR look out for a used PDW-700. I'm sure there will be a few coming on to the market as some people switch from the 700 to 350.

I would say it depends a lot of what the clients demand, in the past do they prefer 1080 or 720? I would look back and see what the clients demanded before, maybe some even demand sd..

If his work include shooting say news or other projects where you deliver directly to a client with no time to fix flash band in post I would consider if a cmos camera is a good choice at all. I don't think the skew will be a big issue, did not look bad on the Ex1 I used last year.

The 2700/3700/3000 all can be used with Panasonic's color VF, although not cheap. So the panny 2700 might be a more expensive to run with color VF, batteries needed and P2/bitrates.

I would say it depends a lot of what the clients demand, in the past do they prefer 1080 or 720? I would look back and see what the clients demanded before, maybe some even demand sd..
Surely you must look at the future not the past. While clients may have used 720 or SD in the past, this does not mean they will continue to do so in the future.

Flash band does not necessarily make pictures unusable, just different. Most end viewers won't know why or even care that the pictures look a little different. If you shoot strobe lighting on a daily basis then it may be an issue. I shoot a lot of lightning, but can still get excellent results with CMOS by using the slowest possible shutter speed. At night I shoot with a 2 frame shutter and in the day at 25P or 24P with no shutter.

I too am in the same process of trying to decide if the 2700 deal is worth executing or not. In truth the 2700 is going to be 24K US once you add the B+W viewfinder. You also need a lens so you are looking at a much more expensive purchase than the 350 which seems to be coming in at street price of 19K with lens.
As far as the merits of the cameras and delivery to clients a Nanoflash makes sense as a straddle for either unit. If you client wants Sony style you could deliver files in the Sony format from the Panny. The Sony will never deliver P2 but the Nano lets you deliver some higher quality signals if needed.
In my opinion the differences between the pixels at this level on the sensors is not as critical as some people think as long as the files can be delivered in 1080 or 720. Unless you are shooting side by side on the same subject I think most people will see a good picture from either camera with differences based on other parameters.
At this point the question is almost one of commodity. Is the 2700 going to be the camera which brings in a higher rate of return or the 350? Or neither as we all look at DSLR's with video as the subversive element. I haven't been able to decide on a future course of action because the work has been all over the map with no clear pattern

A large investment like this has to take into account what one's clientele is looking for. Unfortunately that is a moving target more so than ever. We have an HPX2700 in our rental inventory, but also an EX1, HPX170, Sony DSR and BVP SD cameras.

My take on the HPX2700 vs. PMW-350:

2700 is Panasonic's second from the top 2/3" camera, 350 is at the bottom of the 2/3" range. 2700 rents for around $900/day, I wouldn't expect a 350 to rent for much more than half of that, and many clients would just stay with the EX1 or EX3 for half of that.

Panasonic is known for their colorimetry and Film-Rec gammas, now at 600% dynamic range, which records all the dynamic range available from the CCD's.

2700 w/AVC-Intra 100, Film-Rec 600 has 11-stops of latitude and an ASA of 640.

Varicam name is known for high-end production, has frame ramping during recording.

Yes, 2700 discounted by 50%, ditto the 3700, a full raster camera, so it's not the 720p issue.

I prefer CCD's over CMOS, but recognize there are pros and cons to each.

2700 records in full sample 1080X1920 by scaling from 720P via very high bit depth processing.

AVC-Intra is 10-bit, that's 4X more shades of gray than any 8-bit codec, plus 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0, I-frame vs. Long GOP for XDCAM EX, the lowest spec of XDCAM(much prefer XDCAM 422 at 50Mbps).

AVC-Intra is a true Progressive, Native codec, when shooting at 720/24PN, that is only 40Mbps, not 100Mbps. The 1080 frame rates are also Native, so a bit under 100Mbps, except for 60i. AVC/MPEG4 codec is generally twice as efficient as XDCAM MPEG2.

With 5)64Gb P2 cards, that's 800 minutes of recording in 720/24PN, 400 minutes in 1080/24PN--no need to change cards during the shoot. SxS cards cost more than E series P2 cards, albeit have more record time due to low bit rate XDCAM-EX. SDHC cards are not recommended for 60P or any overcranking, take three times as long to download as SXS, but SXS does download faster than P2, unless E series via PCD35 reader into PCIe slot.

Yes, PCMCIA slots are gone on most computers, much like new Mac Book Pro 13" and 15" models are missing an Express Card slot. This is no reason to compromise on your codec.

My rental clients would not allow me to put a $1600 lens on a high-end 2/3" camera. We use HA series Fujinon glass only.

At Varicamp, nobody could tell the difference between a full raster HPX3700 in 1080P and a 2700 in 720P on HD CRT, LCD or Plasma monitors, except the 2700 was a stop faster. To get the most from a full raster camera, the lens must be very high end, like DigiPrimes, Fujinon 10X10 Cine zoom, etc. NOT $1600 ENG zoom lenses. Chromatic aberration compensation correction can't make a lens resolve more detail.

To have to buy an external recorder for a brand new model camera is a band aid. P2 cards, with built-in mini-Raid arrays, 1.2Mpbs throughput, great durability and news proven reliability since 2004 is what the 2700 offers, in addition to a superior codec in AVC-Intra.

There is no more reliable, high quality record media/codec to be found in a one-piece camcorder than AVC-Intra--speaking of looking at the future, 8-bit 4:2:0 is not part of it. I'd rather buy a used HPX3000 than a new 350.

As far as video DSLRS, lousy latitude, lousy super compressed low bit-rate codec, aliasing and moire on edges, resolution nothing special, lousy audio, lousy monitoring, little control of image parameters, ergonomics from hell, shallow DOF to the point of being unusable on a narrative, no smooth zooms, no one lens does all without severe f-stop ramping.

But hey, video DSLR's are trendy and hip and, most importantly, cheap. Most young filmmakers these days have never used 2/3" cameras, don't know what they're missing.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com

Alister,

Excellent, well balanced analysis. I would have put a bit more emphasis on the weight factor. The 2700 is quite heavy and because of the power comsuption will require large capacity and heavy batteries. The F350 is a much lighter beast and use three times less power and is rated at a mere 15W. The F350 will be a much better camera to use when traveling and when shooting gun and running style or in tight spaces.

Thierry.

Thiery,

I'm assuming you're not posting about a PDW-F350, but the PMW-350?

Power consumption with viewfinder on the 350 is 18W, 2700 is 38W, so yes, that's a big difference, but with a Dionic 90 battery, the 2700 is still good for approx. 2 hours.

The 350 body weighs 7 lbs, 2700 body is 10 lbs.

350 measures 5"WX10 5/8"HX13 1/8"D, 2700 is 5 7/16"X8 1/4"X12 9/16", so the 350 would seem to be taller and longer and less than 1/2" thinner--meanwhile the 2700 can hold 5 cards vs. 2 for the 350. Also, the 350 viewfinder is huge, not so easy to travel with.

I see absolutely no advantage in shooting in tight spaces, assuming similar lenses and battery sizes.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
www.ssv.com

I think the cost has to be a factor. With the Varicam I've found you need pretty good lenses for it to look good, so you'll be talking about £10k+ for something decent, making the Varicam close to twice the price of the Sony.
Alister, quite a claim that the 350 will have better image quality, I'm sure there are many out there who would dispute it! Presumably you mean in 1080 mode and not in 720 (ie when able to use overcrank as you can in Varicam)? Even in 1080 I'd be dubious, but no way in 720. Can't give any scientific proof tho.
Steve

The PMW-350 has full raster 1920x1080 sensors. It resolves at least 1100 tvl in both H and V with all detail enhancement off. This is about as high as you would ever want from any 1080 camera, any higher and you will have bad aliasing. It has the lowest noise figure of any 2/3" HD camera that I know of, 59db! This can clearly be seen in the video from the camera, it is very, very clean which will make it a delight to work with in post. In 720P mode this noise should be even less noticeable due the the pixel averaging that takes place. It is also very sensitive at F13. This will be a bonus when shooting at high frame rates or in low light. Subjectively 12db of gain on the 350 looks no worse than 6db of gain on a F900R.

It has the full range of Scene File and paint settings as found on the F900R etc. It can be set to use the Sony Hypergammas that permit 600% D-Range recording. My latitude tests indicated between 11 and 12 stops of dynamic range. There are 6 different colour matrices to choose from plus a user matrix and the ability to mix a standard matrix and user matrix to roll your own colorimetry. Highlight handling is very smooth and natural.

Those that claim that there is little difference between 1080 and 720 really need to look at how they are viewing the material. To my eyes, on a big screen the difference is very distinct. Where I have intercut 1080 and 720 footage from my EX's in the same production on any full resolution display larger than around 40" there is a noticeable softening of the image each time you go to the 720 material. Consumer screens are getting bigger and bigger. The use of full HD projectors is become more common place. On corporate events we often work with 4K Sony SXRD projectors with 30ft screens. At these scales the difference between 1080 and 720 is huge. Again you have to look to the future. Material you shoot today may be used for many years to come. How big will the average consumer TV be in 5 years time?

The 350 is a very light camera for it's size, the weight including the VF is 3.5kg. Because it uses so little power you only need a 90Wh battery for 4 hours of continuous use, this keeps the complete package weight way down. The viewfinder is not particularly big. It's design and shape is different but not excessively large like the EX3 VF. It is detachable. For many jobs you would only need 2 batteries for a days shoot and if you travel a lot, especially by air, this is a big deal. For me it means I can travel with the camera, lens and 2 batts broken down and packed in a single regulation carry-on size bag. A small dual channel charger could then go in a laptop bag leaving my checked baggage allowance for tripod, lights, clothes and everything else. If you get the kit lens the full package with a battery comes in less than 7Kg so you can also comfortably use a fairly light weight tripod.

The new 32Gb SxS-1 cards are almost exactly the same price per Gb as the P2 E series cards. While AVC-Intra may well be 10 bit, what is often forgotten is the 30% recording overhead that introduces. Many people seem to forget that AVC (and Mpeg4) is simply a further development of Mpeg2. It is not really a "new" codec, the basic methods and coding technologies are largely the same. Quite how Panasonic have managed to take a codec designed from the outset to use long GoP's, then thrown away the key thing that make it efficient, the long GoP, and then still claim it to be 2 times more efficient than a very similar codec being used in it's most efficient form I do not know.

I'm sure all that's correct Alister, but the fact is that the 2700 wouldn't have been chosen for these megabucks series if it wasn't the producers could have got a better camera for half the cost! We're talking about producers like Mark Linfield who with Alan Roberts set up the Planet Earth camera kits - he knows his stuff and is using the 2700 for Frozen Planet and not the 350. Same with the new Discovery America series with a bigger budget than Planet Earth even, they've got 5 2700s and a 3700, the EX cams never came up in the discussions. Again, they must have had their reasons.
Oe thing the 2700 has over the 350 even in a paper exercise is that it's 10 bit vs 8 bit. I suppose also CCD vs CMOS could be a factor.
Steve

Depending on how things go this coming year I intend to look seriously at the 350. There are other pieces of equipment I want to invest in first that add far more to a production than a new camera though, so it'll have to wait a bit. I would definitely buy one with a Nano.

However as per always it is just down to the work you do. The 350 probably wouldn't suit what Steve does due to the CMOS and the requirement to use extreme telephoto lenses. While I haven't generally had any issues with CMOS, I did notice a slight wobble on my Severn Bore footage taken from a boat when I was zoomed in all the way. It didn't ruin the footage, but any more telephoto and it might have been an issue.

It's a trade off as to which features of a camera are more valuable to any one individual operator or production. Personally I think that the advantages that CMOS sensors give for lower priced cameras far outweigh the disadvantages. In my own situation most of the types of shoots that I do don't cause CMOS attributes to show themselves. I haven't had a problem on any of the high action stuff that I have shot.

Those that claim that there is little difference between 1080 and 720 really need to look at how they are viewing the material. To my eyes, on a big screen the difference is very distinct. Where I have intercut 1080 and 720 footage from my EX's in the same production on any full resolution display larger than around 40"

I notice it even on smaller 24" displays. I think the myth came about because of minimum viewing distances. The difference between 960x720 and 1920x1080 is pretty huge. 960x720 isn't far off SD.

Regarding resolution, then the more resolution you start with, the less you're likely to need any detail enhancement. And the less of that you need, the more natural (ie "filmic") it's likely to be in that respect. Having full raster chips is going to give any camera a big headstart in that respect.
Power consumption with viewfinder on the 350 is 18W, 2700 is 38W, so yes, that's a big difference, but with a Dionic 90 battery, the 2700 is still good for approx. 2 hours.
The real difference is when you start adding accessories to either camera though. Radio mic, camera headlight, maybe even a radiocam transmitter if used for broadcast news. It then becomes less an issue of how long will a battery last, but if it's capable of delivering the required power at all without shutting down. There are ways round it (some IDX batteries can be doubled up, for example) but at very least it's likely to mean extra expense and weight for a 2700.

Talking of radio mics the PMW350 will natively accept either the standard slot-in receivers and/or the new two channel (highly desirable) digital systems. I don't know what the situation is in the rest of the world, but in the UK there are plans to take away the current frequencies used by radio mics and force everybody to move to different frequencies. (The argument now is not if, but how much compensation users will be given.)

In terms of broadcast acceptance, neither of them ticks all the boxes for full future spec approval - the 2700 fails due to chip resolution, the 350 due to codec. As many others have said, there's no retrofit to get round this with a 2700, but you can add a nanoFlash to a 350 to make the latter fully approved. To Jeff, yes, it does smack of being a band-aid solution - I've made no secret on another thread that I'd prefer to see it with the 50Mbs codec - but pragmatically, I feel better to be able to apply a band-aid than put up with the "open wound" of the 720 chips of the 2700.

As far as the current offer goes, then I also agree with Alister, you have to ask why Panasonic are making such an offer. Would they be doing it if the cameras were flying off the shelves? And come the New Year, will the price simply go back up to where it was? How many 2700s do you think will get sold then!? So my own feeling would be not to get rushed into a hasty decision because of that.

If the purchase can be delayed, my feeling is that a version of the 350 is likely with the 50Mbs codec, hopefully for not too much extra, and that then really becomes the one to go for. And could the heavy discounting of the 2700 be a sign that it's about to be superceded itself?

Alister,

I have no doubt the 350 makes lovely images and I know my EX1 is very clean, so would expect 2/3" CMOS sensors to be even cleaner and faster. Any of these cameras bury a RED One in sensitivity and low noise.

The full raster 2/3" CMOS chip set can only resolve what the lens allows. I would be concerned about the MTF on a $1600 ENG zoom lens.

I have had a 1080 DLP front projection system with a 100" wide screen since 2006. I can't tell the difference between satellite and off-air delivered HD that is 1080 and 720, I can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 out of my EX1.

I prefer shooting 720PN with its frame rate flexibility, work flow convenience and it doesn't require the uber-glass to get the most out of it, but still very good glass.

A three pound heavier body is not a big deal, power consumption is due to CCD's vs. CMOS.
The body is about the same size, yet holds 640Gb of memory vs. 64Gb.

I agree that it is unlikely for AVC-Intra, being 4:2:2, 10-bit, I-Frame to be twice as efficient as MPEG2 Long GOP 4:2:0, but there are many years in between when MPEG2 and MPEG4 were developed. Obviously the above specs are the reasons why AVC-Intra 100 needs a higher bit rate in 1080 than XDCAM EX.

A 2700 recording in full sample 1080P, AVC-Intra 100 looks plenty sharp to me. I find Sony HD cameras to look too video like out of the box and prefer the Panasonic's more organic, filmic, look and colorimetry, but recognize that any of these digital cameras with fantastic menu control can be made to look the way one wants--that is the point of a high end digital camera, unlike those that record in RAW and depend upon post to get the look.

The new series Pro Media SxS 32Gb cards are $750 USD vs. $600 for E series 32Gb P2 cards. I like being able record on five cards vs. two in the camera, but yes, one would need to carry four batteries vs. two.

Bottom line for me is that the codec is superior, I prefer not ever having to worry about CMOS artifacts, I prefer the look of Panasonic cameras, but haven't seen the 350 yet. I do think the 700 is lovely. The 2700 at $40K was overpriced, ditto the 3700 at $60K, but for my money, literally, the 2700 at $20K is a fantastic opportunity(plus VF, lens, plate, mic, case, P2 cards). I guess if a $1600 lens can look good on a full raster camera, it should look good on a 720P camera? I guess Fujinon and Canon should stop building high-end HD lenses if true.

To me, the biggest problem with the 350 is that it shares the same codec with an EX1 and 3, has no more card slots, 1/2" to 2/3" sensor size difference not that huge, but costs $20K vs. an EX1R for $6500. We know there are some worthwhile differences, just not sure about producers.

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

I notice it even on smaller 24" displays. I think the myth came about because of minimum viewing distances. The difference between 960x720 and 1920x1080 is pretty huge. 960x720 isn't far off SD.

Simon, I don't see the difference between 720P and 1080P on a 100" screen. 720P via AVC-Intra is full sample 720X1280, not 720X960 as it is with DVCPRO HD.

David, the HPX3700 had the same 3700 half-off sale, that's a full raster camera, one that did very well at the ASC/PGA camera assessment tests. No camera is flying off the shelf, with the exception of RED One and Canon 5D and 7D. I'm dubious as to whether a 350 will fly off the shelf.

Mark my words, Sony is NOT likely to make an SxS camera with 50Mpbs capability--that would affect sales of the 700 and 800. Meanwhile, Panasonic has put its best codec in its very affordable HPX300 at an EX3 price.

Again, the Varicam name means something to many filmmakers, as does the CineAlta name, I would just say that to me, the codec compromise in the 350 is a deal breaker for, which a 720X1280 CCD chip set is not. I certainly understand if somebody feels the opposite.

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

I'm sure all that's correct Alister, but the fact is that the 2700 wouldn't have been chosen for these megabucks series if it wasn't the producers could have got a better camera for half the cost! We're talking about producers like Mark Linfield who with Alan Roberts set up the Planet Earth camera kits - he knows his stuff and is using the 2700 for Frozen Planet and not the 350.

The PMW-350 wasn't even on the horizon when the kits were chosen for those programmes so that's hardly a fair comment. As you know Alan Roberts was highly impressed by the EX1 and EX3 when he evaluated them and the 350 is in a different ball park to the EX1 and 3. It's also common knowledge that the BBC NHU just about got their cameras for free from Panasonic, a point which I am quite sure had a strong influence on the choice of cameras. Panasonic are well know for their stunning deals on cameras for high profile productions.


Oe thing the 2700 has over the 350 even in a paper exercise is that it's 10 bit vs 8 bit.
Steve

But this is only going to make a difference if you also increase the bit rate appropriately, and not just by the additional 30% required to record the extra bits. This was borne out by the EBU's codec tests that showed that with all the commonly used shooting codecs 10 bit gave no discern-able advantage. Generally with all the current in camera codecs, XDCAM and AVC-I included, any stair stepping in post tends to stem from mosquito noise and macro blocking. Before you start worrying about increasing the bit depth you really need to significantly reduce the macro blocking and mosquito noise. That's why whenever possible I shoot at 100Mb/s with the NanoFlash as this has a dramatic effect on the gradability of my footage. Of course you could also put the Nano on the 2700.

I agree that CMOS v's CCD will be an issue. It's one that I have spent many hours deliberating over. I have a PDW-700, which produces really good pictures but for me with all the travel I do it's a bit of a pain having to take a large 4 channel charger and four 160Wh batteries plus a colour HD monitor. As I also usually take an EX as a B camera I have to deal with two different workflows. For those reason I have decided to get a PMW-350. I know from my EX3 experience that skew won't be an issue, we've used them to shoot airshows and motor racing with long lenses and even then skew just hasn't been an issue. It is there, for sure but in a fast pan the background blur masks the slight tilt. I know how to minimise partial frame exposure problems when shooting lightning to the point where out of 100 lightning bolts I probably only have issues with 10. If I have to shoot where flash guns are present then I will have to use clip browser to sort things out. For me thit is a small price to pay for improved portability and I believe better overall picture quality as I think the 350 at 50Mb/s via the Nano is actually marginally better than the 700 when at 50Mb/s.

I too would love to see a PMW-350 with 50Mb/s (or even 100Mb/s). This would be pretty close to my perfect camera. To be perfect it would also need to be CCD.. but with the same low power consumption, sensitivity and noise. But I just don't see 50Mb/s ever being added to the EX range. I think we are more likely to see a 50Mb/s NXCAM than a 50Mb/s EX.

When I picked up the pre-production 350 for review I didn't want to like it. I had recently forked out a large chunk of money on my PDW-700. I didn't want the 350 to be better and to be honest I didn't expect it to be better. Sure I expected it to be good and I expected it would be "almost" a PDW-700 recording at 35Mb/s. I spent the first day with the camera dialing it in and doing lots of tests, some side by side with my 700. At this point I became quite cross! How dare Sony put such an amazing front end on this camera. Then I used it to shoot an airshow under very difficult light conditions and you know what it really excelled. Just ask Steve Connor who also used it, he felt it produced the best pictures he had seen under the conditions. I really think, much like the EX1 did, that the PMW-350 will change peoples perceptions of cameras at the lower cost end of the market, especially when paired with a NanoFlash or Ki-Pro.

Even if the 350 had been around they still would not have chosen it. In fact the EX3 is a better camera for wildlife as it's smaller, lighter and has bigger magnification on the lenses - all big deals. There are several other projects being kitted up as I said, including the Discovery one, and the 350 would have been an option, but I doubt if it was ever even considered. I spoke to the producers recently suggesting they take a really good look at the Sony SRW9000, so it's not that I'm anti Sony. I just wouldn't have suggested the 350 to them because I know they would not have been the slightest interested in it despite all its on paper advantages.
Steve

As you know Alan Roberts was highly impressed by the EX1 and EX3 when he evaluated them

I bet if you ask though if he thinks they are even close to being as good as even the old tape Varicam he'd laugh at you. Could be wrong, ask him next time you speak to him.
Steve

I've got an EX1, latitude is about 7-stops, it's slower than my HDX900 was as well as my HPX2700. But, in controlled situations, it can produce images way above its pay grade--it's just the CODEC and potential CMOS artifact(and lousy ergonomics) that let it down.

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

The full raster 2/3" CMOS chip set can only resolve what the lens allows. I would be concerned about the MTF on a $1600 ENG zoom lens.

Didn't plot the full curve but certainly easily resolved 1100 TVL across most of the frame. It is a servo driven lens that uses a LUT, like the EX lens. This makes it much cheaper to manufacture than a traditional lens. In addition, as CA is dealt with by the camera electronics the lens design is simpler and cheaper, less exotic glass can be used. Of course you don't have to use the kit lens and many will choose not. It is a standard B4 mount after all.


I have had a 1080 DLP front projection system with a 100" wide screen since 2006. I can't tell the difference between satellite and off-air delivered HD that is 1080 and 720, I can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 out of my EX1.
Then I would suggest you might want to get a better projector, one that can actually resolve 1920x1080 because at that screen size the difference should be leaping out at you.



I prefer shooting 720PN with its frame rate flexibility, work flow convenience and it doesn't require the uber-glass to get the most out of it, but still very good glass.
Seeing as you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 that's understandable. Im sure there are many that would disagree. Including the EBU, BBC, Nat Geo, Discovery etc who all now want 1920x1080.



yet holds 640Gb of memory vs. 64Gb.

And the advantage is??? I can swap out any full cards as I shoot so I don't need more than 2 slots. Besides which most production insurance companies will not insure productions where more than 1 hour of footage is stored in the camera. The failure of the cameras power supply could destroy all the cards in the camera instantly. Unlikely perhaps but it has to be considered.

A 2700 recording in full sample 1080P, AVC-Intra 100 looks plenty sharp to me. But you've already told us you cant tell the difference between 720 and 1080 and the 2700 is a 720 native camera.

Bottom line for me is that the codec is superior, Superior to what? And who says it is superior? I've seen the Panasonic demos where they have managed to make XDCAM fall apart by pointing the camera up at a tree and twirling the camera around. I've also seen the Sony demo where they do a slow pan across a street scene and the AVC-I falls apart. Both very carefully selected scenes where they know each others codec will fall apart. The independent EBU tests show that XDCAM HD422 @50Mb/s and AVC-I to have remarkably similar performance. Both have pro's and con's, both can be broken, both are capable of great results. AVC-I with it's 4:2:2 color space quite probably has a small edge over 4:2:0 35Mb/s XDCAM. But to use an old computing adage "Rubbish in Rubbish out". You could have the best codec in the world but it will never make a bad front end look good. Now before I get shot down in flames, I'm not saying the 2700 front end is bad or rubbish, it's just that the codec is just one part of the whole system.
Which would produce the better image? an $100 Aiptek recording to HDCAM SR or Arri D21 recording on HDV? I know which combo I would want.

The 2700 is a good and very capable camera, no doubt about that, but it has a 1280x720 front end and HD is moving more and more to 1920x1080. Will anyone accept 1280x720 in 3 or 4 years time. As has been said if you start with a good 1920x1080 front end with an HDSDi output you can add various external recording options if you find the internal recording doesn't do what you need. It may not be the perfect solution, but at least it can be done. If your stuck with a 1280x720 front end, no codec or add on recorder will ever magically turn that into a 1920x1080 camera.

I've got an EX1, latitude is about 7-stops Well Alan Roberts, BBC R&D and many, many others would disagree with that. A well setup EX1 is quite capable of 10 stops.

Alister,

Yeah, 1080 vs. 720 should leap right out at me. Must be my lousy 1080P $7,000 projector and $2000 2:35 screen or my eyes. Same as at Varicamp, every display and every set of eyeballs was faulty!

I will read your review of the 350 in XDCAM User. So far, the only XDCAM products that have had any success in San Francisco are the EX1 and 3 models, no F330's, F350's, F335's, F355's, 700's, or 800's.

I am very happy I didn't invest in any of the disc based XDCAM HD cameras. The HDX900 is ubiquitous, very few F900R's, a few 3700's, a couple of 2700's.

10-bit is 4X better than 8-bit in gray scale--this is indisputable. 100Mbps with a new MPEG4 4:2:2 codec vs. old MPEG2 at 35Mbps VBR and 4:2:0 color space would seem to be advantageous as well, to say nothing I-Frame vs. Long GOP.

Many DP's regard Panasonic cameras as being their favorite in colorimetry, fleshtones and tonality.

Most DP's would agree that the best lenses pay dividends in image contrast, ability to resolve small detail and lack of CA, plus constant aperture, less breathing. I've never used a cheap zoom lens that didn't breathe, lose light level when zoomed in as well as get soft and lose contrast wide open.

I look forward to seeing a 350, but know that my clients would not perceive it to be on the same level as an HPX2700 P2 Varicam and would pay accordingly.

Looks like Abel-Cinetech already took delivery of a couple of 350's!

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

Including the EBU, BBC, Nat Geo, Discovery etc who all now want 1920x1080.

.

I just said quite a few times that the latest Discovery and BBC high end progs are on the 2700. These include the massively budgeted Frozen Planet, the new Discovery series, new BBC Africa mega series, as well as the recent Life series (which we did mostly on tape Varicam!)

Steve

10-bit is 4X better than 8-bit in gray scale--this is indisputable.
10 bit is undeniably a good thing if the compression quality is common between the two systems you're comparing. But like for like 10 bit will (as Alister has already said) need a 25% bitrate hike compared to a comparable 8 bit system.

Therefore, with a fixed bitrate, a 10 bit system will be more highly compressed than an 8 bit system, so may have more artifacting. It's quite conceivable that that will hinder any post process more than a bitdepth of 10 will help. The human eye can't notice any difference between 8 bit and 10 bit in a raw form - the advantage only comes in for 10 bit when you start to manipulate the image.

Panasonic are very keen to point out the good numbers (10 bit), but more reticent to point out the negative implications of it's implementation (higher frame compression).
100Mbps with a new MPEG4 4:2:2 codec vs. old MPEG2 at 35Mbps VBR and 4:2:0 color space would seem to be advantageous as well, to say nothing I-Frame vs. Long GOP.
Well, MPEG4 should bring some benefits relative to MPEG2 (at the expense of complexity) as should long-GOP v I-frame, so it's swings and roundabouts. Panasonic have taken one set of trade offs, Sony have taken the other. The EBU have stated that they fully approve of both AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM 422 for general acquisition, and that means either is good enough for me. I think Alisters quite right to say that one breaks down under one set of conditions, the other under a different set. Neither codec can sensibly be said to be better than the other.

Both are undeniably somewhat better than 35Mbs XDCAM, but.... as said before, you can't put different chips on the 2700, you can put an external recorder on the 350.

As far as camera usage goes, then any choice has to be made by taking all factors into account, looking at what's available, and seeing what ticks the most important boxes. There will inevitably be a degree of compromise, and what's appropiate for one production may not be appropriate for another. For wildlife, I'd expect off-speed capability to have quite a high significance, and at the moment that realistically means 720p working. It doesn't really surprise me that an exemption has been made in this case to rule the 2700 most suitable.

But if any camera ticked all the same boxes as the 2700 AND had 1920x1080 chips, it would likely be a different story. It will be very interesting to see what the takeup of the PMW350 by broadcasters is.

Yes David, but if the EX cameras were up to it surely they'd be used as they have off-speed capability too. So you'd then have the best of both worlds, at the flick of a switch you can shoot 1080 for 25P for scenics etc and anything else not needing slomo, then just use the 720 for overcranking. And the EX3 is smaller, lighter, much cheaper, lower power consumption, has longer lens reach - it's a no brainer, no-one would ever want a Varicam. But they do.
Steve

10 bit is undeniably a good thing if the compression quality is common between the two systems you're comparing. But like for like 10 bit will (as Alister has already said) need a 25% bitrate hike compared to a comparable 8 bit system.

Well, MPEG4 should bring some benefits relative to MPEG2 (at the expense of complexity) as should long-GOP v I-frame, so it's swings and roundabouts.

Both are undeniably somewhat better than 35Mbs XDCAM,

David,

You are very knowledgeable about codecs and compression, I've seen from previous posts. Please help me understand:

XDCAM 422 runs at 50Mpbs, 8-bit, 4:2:2, Long GOP, MPEG2 based. Add 25% bit rate to that for 10-bit, that's 62.5Mbps. AVC-Intra 100 has a much higher bit rate, a newer, more efficient codec, MPEG4, but is made less efficient by 10-bit and I-Frame. Isn't there still sufficiently high bit-rate to deal with the overhead of 10-bit and I-Frame? What I'm not understanding is your contending that AVC-Intra 100 frames are more compressed than XDCAM 422?

At least we agree that XDCAM EX is not the equal of either of the above.

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

The PMW-350 has full raster 1920x1080 sensors. It resolves at least 1100 tvl in both H and V with all detail enhancement off.

I intend to test this with Imatest MTF50 resolution testing software when my PMW350 arrives in January, but I remain very dubious of this claim of at least 1100 in both H and V, unless there is separate confirmation, since the U.S. Sony Pro website is only stating the resolution to be 1000 tv lines, same as EX1/3.

When I used Imatest previously to measure the EX1, it actually did resolve 1100 lines in the vertical direction, but not in the horizontal, and this was in the 24p progressive mode, not 60i interlace which had measurably reduced resolution in the vertical.

Fortunately Imatest is able to normalize the resolution measurements to a standard 2 pixel sharpening radius, thus taking the effect Detail-Off (or ON) out of the equation. Sharpening has no effect on the actual resolution, just the perceived resolution.

If you don't use MTF50 software but instead are just looking at ISO12233 charts, it is not possible to pull a number like "1100 lines" that two people can agree on, people will always read them differently. The MTF50 software has the ability to delineate the point between black and white where contrast = 50%, and that's the point where the MTF number comes from. In just eyeballing charts, it's hard to be certain within a 100-150 lines at best. I could almost guarantee that if Barry Green were doing the test, the result will not be 1100 lines, again different people will see it differently.

I'm having a similar purchase question on another camera. What I have come to terms with so far is, there seems to be no one particular camera, mid to high end that will cover all types of jobs for all media type companies. I'll give myself some advice and that is look at where my intended work is going and then look at what cameras will fit into this arena. I might shoot EX1 and the employer is happy with this as their work flow suits, but another employer wants tape, another employer wants XDCAM Disc, P2 card. Where does it stop.

Cheers

Bring back the days of dockable camera heads! You choose the camera head you like then add the appropriate recorder for your customers.

At least with HDSDi equipped camcorders you already have several recording options like the NanoFlash, Ki-Pro or the Panasonic HPG20.

Producers or production companies that are not prepared to consider alternate codecs or workflows need to be re-educated. File based workflows mean that there is no reason to be tied to any one codec or recording technology. All the mainstream NLE's will happily mix different codecs within the timeline. Whether you choose AVC-I or XDCAM neither are good codec choices for grading or post production, for that you are better off with DNxHD, ProRes or Cineform so it really makes little difference to the workflow which acquisition codec is used. Hopefully, the production companies will come to appreciate that with the demise of tape (and the need for expensive tape decks) they no longer have to lock in to just one acquisition format which will make life easier for everyone. The same thing happened to photography. Advertising agencies used to specify specific types of film stock as that's what they were used to dealing with for scanning or enlargement. These days all that matters is that they can open the file.

Steve, as for BBC NHU progs, as you know, they have to send crews out into the field for long periods, tying up camera kits for a long time, given a choice between free cameras that do the job and cameras you have to buy or rent which would you choose? Your talking about shows already in production, the PMW-350 isn't shipping yet and possibly won't be available in quantity for a few months yet. If you take the time to read the BBC's, Discovery or Nat Geos producer guidelines you will know that they want 1920x1080. Yes they will still (for the time being) accept 720 but it's not what they want. You do seem to forget about other big budget BBC progs such as Lost Land of the Volcano which made extensive use of several EX's or Nat Geo's Endurance - Ice Patrol, again EX and XDCAM HD. And what about all the hundreds of lower budget HD shows shot using EX's? The majority of TV is not big budget wildlife shows. Very often the "bread and butter" shows are the ones shot on small budgets like Sky HD's "Road Wars", over 60 hours of prime time HD shows shot with EX1's. What about C4's use of EX3's in the drama series "Skins" or the use of XDCAM HD in "Hollyoaks". A large amount of Animal Planets output is shot using EX's.
I was on standby to shoot a programme about hurricanes for BBC Bristol this year. They wanted me to shoot using one of their old varicams. I told them this was a terrible idea as like almost any tape based camera it would almost certainly fail at some point due to condensation and moisture issues with the tape deck. I recommended that a solid state camera should be used, but no, we were going to use the varicam. Why? because they weren't prepared to pay for a different camera when they have a bunch of varicams sitting on the shelf. This isn't a case of using the appropriate tool or best tool for the job but simply a case of saving money by using what's already available. In the end we reached a compromise and it was agreed that we would also take a couple of EX's, but there were no significant Hurricanes and the shoot didn't happen.

Tom: as I said the tests we did were not in depth. As you know 1100 lpmm is about the limit for a 1920x1080 camera anyway, any more and you will run into aliasing issues, so even if it's "only" 1000 lines like the EX1/3 this is very good performance. The camera has full raster sensors so resolution will be limited by the optical LPF or lens rather than the sensors. The big deal is the noise and latitude performance where the 350 really is remarkable. It will be interesting to see your test results when you get your camera.

It is very wrong to compare the PMW-350 to the older PDW-F350. The older F350 was ground breaking when launched but was quickly overtaken by big advancements in HD sensors. Just because the F350 wasn't a massive hit doesn't mean the PMW-350 won't be successful.

The Discovery mega series has not started shooting yet, they've just finished ordering their gear and the 350 was already available before they made their decision. Same goes for the BBC Africa series, gearing up with 2700s but not starting shooting until next year and delivering in about 2013 I think. Both these series are being produced by former heads of the NHU (Keith Scholey and Neil Nightingale respectively), and it always amuses me when people seem to think that they're making the wrong choices and that they know better!
Steve

The Discovery mega series has not started shooting yet, they've just finished ordering their gear and the 350 was already available before they made their decision.

Steve, you must be talking about the PDW-350 and not the PMW-350. The PMW-350 EX camera hasn't reached the market yet (next couple of weeks perhaps).

As Alister said they are more likely to use cameras that they already have, or have a good deal on. The 350 would also be a new camera, so a large production might not want to be a beta tester for gear.

You can think all of these things if you like, but it's not correct. They don't use them because they don't think they're up to it. As I already said the if they would want to use the 350 they'd more likely go for the EX3 as it's virtually the same in image quality terms (according to Alister's own tests) but with numerous other advantages for wildlife. The series doesn't start shooting until the new year so they could certainly have waited if they'd wanted to, but no, they went for 5 x 2700s and a 3700.
Steve

I have to stay out of this debate. I like both for different reasons. The good news that I just heard is that our first shipment of 350s has shipped. So next week we should have one on our showroom floor and the first orders will be sent out. I'm excited to see the lens that comes with it too.

Andy

Producers or production companies that are not prepared to consider alternate codecs or workflows need to be re-educated. File based workflows mean that there is no reason to be tied to any one codec or recording technology. All the mainstream NLE's will happily mix different codecs within the timeline.

That thought was swirling in my head as well. How do you get to be a production company and remain so clueless about alternate codecs and workflows? It would have to be a deliberate choice to remain stubborn in the face of opportunity. That type of a mindset will not prevail.

Brands have their proponents. I would like to believe I am open minded enough about all of them, but I have seen enough from Sony to persuade me it will be, "up to it," no doubt. I am putting my own money on this.

As I already said the if they would want to use the 350 they'd more likely go for the EX3 as it's virtually the same in image quality terms (according to Alister's own tests)
Steve

When did I say that? The PMW-350 is fair bit better than the EX3. Much less noise (almost a 6db difference) and better sensitivity, plus the use of Hypergammas and Multi-Matrix makes it a significant step up from the EX1/EX3. What I have said is that is similar to the PDW-700.

No major production is going to stick it's neck out and choose an un-tried, un-tested, un-available camera, come on Steve be realistic. There's only been about 10 pre-production cameras around globally for about 2 months and I know that for Europe the first shipments will be in single digits for most countries. Planning for these big budget shoots takes place months in advance, probably before anyone even knew of the existence of the 350. It's common knowledge how little (if anything) the NHU pay for cameras from Panasonic and all the free support, workshops and training that they give them, you can't tell me that doesn't have a significant influence on their choices. If the BBC NHU were serious about quality over budget they would be using better cameras than 2700's. Maybe not 350's or SRW9000's, but certainly a 1080P camera.

Jeff, I'll try and answer your points in a different order.
What I'm not understanding is your contending that AVC-Intra 100 frames are more compressed than XDCAM 422?
That wasn't really the point I was making, rather a far more general point about 10 bit working. Leaving XDCAM aside, let say we start with an I-frame only system, 8 bit, and 80Mbs available for coding. We then get told we can up the bit rate to 100Mbs - how do we use it? We may decide to make it a 10 bit system, or may decide to improve the overall compression, but keep to 8 bit.

Which would be best? Good question. I'm not trying to make 10 bit out to be a bad thing (far from it), only to point out there is another side to the coin. It's conceivable that it may lead to an undesirable compromise.

XDCAM 422 runs at 50Mpbs, 8-bit, 4:2:2, Long GOP, MPEG2 based. Add 25% bit rate to that for 10-bit, that's 62.5Mbps. AVC-Intra 100 has a much higher bit rate, a newer, more efficient codec, MPEG4, but is made less efficient by 10-bit and I-Frame. Isn't there still sufficiently high bit-rate to deal with the overhead of 10-bit and I-Frame?
Interesting though the debate may be, there's a limit to how much information you can really get by just looking at the headline figures. They don't tell you how efficient actual coders are, and the results will vary widely from scene to scene. That's why I'm just prepared to go along with the EBU findings - AVC-Intra 100 and XDCAM 422 have both been given full approval. Note that the conclusions have been based on generic tests, not on defined pieces of equipment anyway. So it's conceivable that codec A might have the edge on codec B in generic terms, but when you come to compare physical hardware a device using B may actually perform better than one using A!

But having said it's an impossible task, let's just look at the figures in a little more detail. Long GOP should give an efficiency improvement of something like 2-3x over I-frame only, so XDCAM 422 SHOULD equate to I-frame only MPEG2 at something like 100-150Mbs. If AVC-Intra was 8 bit, it would equate to about 80Mbs in compression terms, all else equal, and the question then becomes how much effect the AVC aspect has. "Up to 2x" is quoted for AVC in general, but a lot of that may only be applicable in long-GOP systems like AVC-HD. There may be less tricks to play with if only I-frames. Lets assume it's about 1.5x. If it was, it gives an "MPEG2 I-frame only" figure of 120Mbs, so very comparable with XDCAM 422. I can believe the EBU recommendations. (Which are at http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r124.pdf for anybody who hasn't seen them.)
At least we agree that XDCAM EX is not the equal of either of the above.
No - but things need to be put in perspective. Neither DVCProHD nor HDCAM meet those EBU recommendations, neither is as good as either XDCAM 422 or AVC-Intra 100, but they are probably the most widely used codecs around today. You can't always work with the latest and best equipment, no matter what it is. The recommendations are intended as "bear this in mind when you buy new equipment" - along with many other factors.

XDCAM 35Mbs may well rival, if not exceed, both HDCAM and DVCProHD for quality, so it shouldn't be simply dismissed. Codec choice is only one aspect of equipment choice, and realistically practical issues such as power consumption, connectivity, ability to take new digital radiomics, media issues can be highly influential - to say nothing of native resolution. It's a complicated business, and codecs are only a small part of it.

And that said, you can always stick an external recorder on a 350.

When did I say that? The PMW-350 is fair bit better than the EX3.
If the BBC NHU were serious about quality over budget they would be using better cameras than 2700's. Maybe not 350's or SRW9000's, but certainly a 1080P camera.

You said that the 350 was about equal to the 700 and previously you'd said that the EX3 and 700 were virtually indistinguishable.
You really don't think the NHU are serious about quality vs budget? Less so than you? They can't go for a 1080P camera apart from an SRW9000 or F23 etc., as we need slomo - even 60 fps is not really enough but it's essential, 100% essential, to have at least that.
Steve

I have been following this erudite discussion with interest and amusement but it appears that most of the references, in regards to "accepted" formats, chips, etc, have revolved around those of the EBU or the BBC. However, for those of us on the "other side of the pond," who do not submit to the BBC, Nat Geo and others of similar ilk, I respectfully inquire, where is the relevance?

HPX-3700 can do 60fps and shoot 1920x1080, SRW9000 can shoot at 60fps, Sony F800 shoots 1920x1080 and can shoot 1920x540 at 60fps (i admit I'm somewhat suspect of this frame size). What's wrong with SRW9000?

Ron, your right, as I said earlier the BBC NHU is just one very small part of the global HD market, but some seem to think that only cameras used by them are any good.

Yes, I think the EX3 and PDW-700 can at times be almost impossible to tell apart, but I still think the 700 is undoubtably the better camera of the two. I also think the 700 and 350 are very close. Once I get my 350 and spend more time with it I'll let you know whether it really is better than the 700. I suspect it might be. It certainly has less noise. It is CMOS though and that won't suit everyone.

Each step up in quality is not in itself massive, but each one brings a cleaner image. A cleaner image puts less stress on the codec (whether internal or external) and provides an image that is more flexible in post. Considering the feature set of the 350 and colour VF, when compared to the 700 feature set. The 350 has a lot to shout about.

HPX3700 cannot do 60fps, only 30.
Nothing wrong with the SRW9000, but it is expensive, plus tapeless seems a backward step and you need an SR player recorder to use it.

Steve

Ron, your right, as I said earlier the BBC NHU is just one very small part of the global HD market, but some seem to think that only cameras used by them are any good.
.

It's not that I think that only NHU cameras are any good, but that these guys are vastly experienced and working with budgets that most can only dream about and so if they choose one camera (ie HPX2700) over another (ie EX3) there must be a good reason for it.
And again, it's not just NHU, the series for Discovery is nothing to do with the Beeb and they've gone 2700s, same goes for the highly regarded RSPB Film Unit.
Steve

They can't go for a 1080P camera apart from an SRW9000 or F23 etc., as we need slomo - even 60 fps is not really enough but it's essential, 100% essential, to have at least that.
I think in a nutshell that's exactly the *MAIN* reason they went for 2700s. As I said before, camera choice at this level is not solely about codecs, not solely about absolute resolution, not solely about any one single factor. And the weighting of all the factors will depend on the main use to which any camera or system is to be put. So what's judged to be the best currently available model for wildlife may not be appropriate for other types of work.

Currently, varispeed filming realistically means 720 working. Is 1080p better than 720p with full raster chips? Undoubtably yes. Would it be worth giving up slomo etc options for the sake of resolution for a wildlife documentary? I doubt it.

David, "is 1080p better than 720p with full raster chips?" Not neccessarily, there are lots of 1080 cameras that won't be as good as 720 ones.
And as for slomo, the EX3 and PMW350 will do 720 1-60fps exactly the same as the Varicam, so it ain't just that.
Steve

I try to avoid putting "all else equal" into every post several times, but OK, point taken. :-)

I wouldn't expect varispeed capabilities to be the ONLY reason for choosing a wildlife camera, and 2/3" chips would also, I suspect, be high on the list. (Because of the high range of available lenses, including specialist kit, and especially so if you already have an existing 2/3" investment.) It's for reasons like that I wouldn't expect any non-2/3" camera to be chosen, including the EX3. Legacy issues may also apply - if your entire workflow is set up around P2, it's a big incentive to maintain the status quo, even if something else better comes along. A very different story if you're making the first moves from tape.

If the varispeed capability of the PMW350 matches that of the 2700, it may well be the way of the future for wildlife as well as other programming. (Ignoring anything else in the pipeline from Panasonic.) But the 350 isn't available until next month. At some point, planning has to happen on the basis of what's available at the time.

It is worth remembering that in the U.S., ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and all Fox Networks are 720/60P. I've had to submit D5 and SR tapes in 720/60P to Fox.

When it comes to the original Varicam, there are many, many DP's who still call it the most filmic of all 2/3" video cameras. Many say 720P is kinder to talent. Most 720P was acquired in 720X960 via DVCPRO HD. 720P field acquisition has become better with AVC-Intra and XDCAM EX, 422 being full sample 720X1280.

At Varicamp recently in LA, a large internet company had their video department in attendance because they had recently bought three HPX3700's. They were more than a bit surprised when this six figure investment in cameras would not allow them to shoot 720 or any progressive frame rates over 30 fps(much as Alister didn't know about the 30 fps limit). Apparently they hadn't read the brochure before purchasing. On the last day of the training, they could be seen huddling with Panasonic management, presumably talking about trading in the 3700's for 2700's.

This talk of Panasonic discounting the 2700 due to it being 720P ignores the fact that the 3700 was also discounted the same percentage under the trade-in program. It is also unfair to say that Panasonic gives away cameras or support for high profile productions. Sony has been doing this for as long as I can remember. This is not what put the Varicam reputation on the map.

The Varicam name still holds a lot of cache in the US in higher-end production circles and the P2 Varicams offer a big step forward in most areas. However, the HPX3700 should not have been called a Varicam due to its lack of frame rate flexibility. The 2700 is the true successor to the original Varicam models.

I haven't heard whether or not the Sony 350 XDCAM EX or 700/800 XDCAM 422 cameras do frame ramping during recording, which the Varicam is known for?

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

It is worth remembering that in the U.S., ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and all Fox Networks are 720/60P. I've had to submit D5 and SR tapes in 720/60P to Fox.
There's a significant number of stations in Europe that are also currently 720p/50 (though in a minority). It makes sense (at the moment) for one which is fundamentally all sport or similar live action, much less so when a mixture of programming (especially films and drama) are shown, since 1080i/25 also allows 1080p/25 transmission via psf. The EBU also recommend 720p/50 as the current preferred format for transmission.

So why do they then advocate 1920x1080 chips and codecs as preferred for acquisition? It may be quite a while before we see 1080p/50 transmission, though it's the ultimate goal, but in the meantime there are strong moves towards 1080p/50 ACQUISITION. Partly to get the infrastructure in place for when 1080p/50 transmission is feasible, partly for best quality archiving, but mainly because it seamlessly converts to either 720p/50 or 1080i/25. If that becomes the inter-broadcaster standard, no stations will feel disadvantaged by their chosen transmission standard

In the meantime, 1920x1080 chips are optimum for 1080p/25 production, and downconvert well to 720p. Whereas 720p upconversion can't make good resolution that was never there.
They were more than a bit surprised when this six figure investment in cameras would not allow them to shoot 720 or any progressive frame rates over 30 fps. Apparently they hadn't read the brochure before purchasing.
A good story! Shows a pretty fundamental lack of research on behalf of the buyers, but also begs the question why the 3700 has no 720p/60 recording mode? So take full advantage of the chip resolution when in 1080p or 1080i/30 mode, yet still offer 720p/60 and the varispeed capabilities of the 2700 when desired.

Well Panasonic fooled me too. I read all the talk of the 3700 being a Varicam so assumed it had the full range of Varicam features, especially as it is a much more expensive camera. I had assumed (incorrectly) that it would due 60P, albeit at 720P. I'm quite shocked that it doesn't. Certainly makes the NHU's choice a lot narrower.

No the 350 doesn't ramp while shooting.

Alister,

That's right, the Varicam name should imply variable frame rates up to 60 fps, this is why I thought it didn't make sense from a feature set or marketing strategy to call the 3700 a Varicam. I had been saying this for months. The Varicamp co-instructor said the same thing and felt that "HPX3700 RGB", due to its 4:4:4 dual link output ability, was a better name.

How many HD SDI outputs does the 350 have? Specs show only one, is that correct? I really like having three HD SDI outputs on the 2700 so I don't have to get into looping or DA's for monitoring.

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

\



Seeing as you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 that's understandable. Im sure there are many that would disagree. Including the EBU, BBC, Nat Geo, Discovery etc who all now want 1920x1080.



Not true on NatGeo, they are still 720P.

Yes, Nat Geo is a Fox channel, all of which are 720P.

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