Worth viewing!!! ... Video clip is 20 Minutes.
Video Clip provided by Philip Johnston of Preston Media....Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Sony XDCAM PMW-350K Overview UPDATED on Vimeo

Test Footage provided by Corkscrew Media... Alberta, Canada
Total Run Time: 1 minute & 25 seconds
Sony PMW-350 Test Footage on Vimeo
Enjoy!

Some more footage here
YouTube - Banff Selects Jan 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leHYe1LN7aA)
YouTube - SONY XDCAM EX PMW-350 + Glidecam4000Pro with X-10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssiu2DHFiEg)
YouTube - PMW-350 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu_JvY8KZU4)
YouTube - Test Footage of Sony PMW-350 on the .video show, with Jesse Miller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DOoPvwgV1o)

After checking this footage, including those 50i airshow shots from Mr.Chapman, shot with the nano, as well as comparing the cameras at a recent sony event, I have to say I don't understand all the hype and praise of ex350. There is budget look to all this footage. In my option the PDW-700 images just has a much better quality and feel, I guess it is CMOS vs CCD, perhaps also the prism block and such things are better. I'd love to try out the EX350 with digiprimes at some point when it becomes available here. But I don't see how this camera could do the job of a 700/f800 as people are suggesting.

You'll have to take my word for it but 350 and PDW-700 footage is pretty much indistinguishable in most cases. I have one of each and I didn't want the 350 to be as good as it is as I have already invested in a PDW-700, but it's extremely good. It needs a little dialing in with the scene files as it's way to sharp out of the box, but once you get it set up there is absolutely nothing budget about the images. You can't use Vimeo or YouTube to make judgements about picture quality.

I'll get some short clips straight from the camera and see if Chris will host them for a while. Won't be before Friday though do to other commitments.

It would be great to see some native progressive footage.

I think you can judge footage in crappy web quality, to some degree. If there was quality to begin with, you can tell.

I've yet to see this color definition coming off those 350 cmoses

XDCam pdw-700 Around Melbourne Demo on Vimeo
Sony PDW-F800 Test Footage Part 1 on Vimeo

The first clip is seriously graded. That's not native out-of-the-box footage. The second set of clips were shot in superb lighting conditions. Take a look at my Goodwood clip if you want well saturated colours and that was with an EX3.

Goodwood Revival By Alister Chapman On ExposureRoom (http://exposureroom.com/members/alisterchapman/a1db4f3d00ee4587b48bd5e964877344/)

There are far too many variables in all these clips to make any kind of accurate comparison. Lighting, type of shot, clip size, compression ratio, codec all come into play.

I think we just disagree.

This is not about the grading, I can see beyond that of course.

There is something about that 700/800/HDC-1500 chipset, a feel to the image, that is just not there at all with the EX cameras, hence my initial post.

EDIT:
By the way I don't think that Melbourne clip is much graded if at all

You are right of course Alister, BUT, I have to say that Melbourne clip does look amazing Joakim!
Steve

...So, which has the better picture?

Not wanting to start an argument with Alister. But. When the EX1/3 first came out his tests made him say that they were very close. The when the 350 came out he thought it was quite a bit better than the EX3 and about the same as the 700/800.
Sorry if I've mis-quoted you Alister, but that's how I remember it, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Steve

In self defence, I've dug out a quote "The pictures from the EX3 are remarkable close to the pictures from the PDW-700" from this post http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-hd-cinealta/138868-ex1-sony-f350.html
And then this quote "The PMW-350 is fair bit better than the EX3" from this post http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-hd-720-1080-acquisition/469669-hpx2700-pmw350-3.html
By extension then the PMW350 is a fair bit better than the 700/800.
I'm not having a go, I promise, just be interested to get a clarification of your opinion. I haven't seen the 350 so I don't have an opinion and do value yours.
Steve

All CMOS cameras seem to have a somehow muted color palette. I think there is a distinct difference in image-feel between a CCD and a CMOS camera. Even the F350 has something robust in its image that is lacking in the EX cameras. And the EX IR problem does not help.

Compared to what? All CCD cameras? A far too generalized and inaccurate statement. Most of the best digital stills cameras are CMOS, with the exception of Phase One, which would be considered the Sony F35 of digital stills at this point.

Those PDW-700 shots were obviously finessed, and some shot with filtration, it appears that at least one was shot with a colored grad.

Who knows if the 700 was painted by a guru and if the 350 was straight out of the box.

Of course I would take a 700 an day, but it does not appear to offer near the value of the 350 at this point. Shoot the same exact footage and have both cameras painted to something like a DSC Chroma DuMonde, and shoot the 350 into a Nanoflash with a Schneider 750 or Tiffen T1IR filter. I'm not sure I would see enough difference to make me think the 700 is worth THAT much more than the PMW-350.

The best digital stills cameras are still CCD
Hasselblad.com (http://www.hasselblad.se/)
Sinar Photography AG (http://www.sinar.ch/)

Really? All the top Canons and Nikons use CMOS. As does the Phantom HD.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a CMOS fan due to skewing on moving targets.
Steve

Nikon and Canon are not the best stills cameras. Thats semi-pro. What I don't understand is that the CCD vs CMOS discussion is always about skew/wobble etc and never about the distinctly different look and feel they produce. One technical reason may be that a CMOS pixel has a much lower fill-rate (albeit counter-acted with micro lenses ) than a CCD which has an almost full grid of pixels. Backlit cmoses may change that. Maybe it's a taste thing and my eyes are more sensitive than others, or it's silly to argue about this, but I think the difference is very clear. For example the RED look is a CMOS look ( and the ex camera looks very similar ) then F23 has the SONY 3-CCD look which I think just feels much more new and 2010.

Canon 1ds are used by most of pro photo jurnalists I know and are constant winners
of world expo photo. If you don't like the camera/whatever just don't use/buy it.
It is all tools and not everybody can afford using f23/f35/d20/arri. Some people have enough tallent to produce works of art on home cameras others will not come with anything
interesting on a 70mm.

Nikon and Canon... Thats semi-pro.Sorry but no, that is quite incorrect. There are many more professional photographers shooting with Nikon and Canon than there are shooting Hasselblad or anything else. The Canon 1D, 1Ds, Nikon D3 and D700 are very much pro-level cameras.

Just a reminder to the person whose posts I am removing from public view: DV Info Net is a *flame-free* zone. You may challenge an idea but I will not allow personal attacks here. This policy is very strictly enforced, so please cease fire. No response required. And now, back to the topic...

My point being when image quality is of outmost importance CCD seem to still be the way to go. The Hasselblad and Sinar cameras are the absolute top-of-the-line. And the new SRW-9000 is 3-CCD and not 3-CMOS. And I happen to agree with these choices, however the new ARRI will be some new CMOS so thats interesting. The point is to make your own judgement, so if you're happy with the CMOS look, then good, I just disagree, and so do others - complaints about color-tone and weird skin tones is not that uncommon with regards to EX and RED cameras. Now I am seeing these same problems with the EX350 which is what we where discussing.

My point being when image quality is of outmost importance CCD seem to still be the way to go. The Hasselblad and Sinar cameras are the absolute top-of-the-line. And the new SRW-9000 is 3-CCD and not 3-CMOS. And I happen to agree with these choices, however the new ARRI will be some new CMOS so thats interesting. The point is to make your own judgement, so if you're happy with the CMOS look, then good, I just disagree, and so do others - complaints about color-tone and weird skin tones is not that uncommon with regards to EX and RED cameras. Now I am seeing these same problems with the EX350 which is what we where discussing.

Then you must have a big problem with virtually all printed material in the world at present from top grade wildlife to fashion, portraits, landscape etc etc. all shots on CMOS DSLRs.
Sorry, but you're just plain plain wrong. It's not just that it's CMOS, there's much more to it than that.
Phantom HD is CMOS, nothing wrong with that either.
And I'm speaking as one who agrees with you, I prefer CCD too, you're just not seeing the whole picture and you're degrading some of the world's best photographers by calling them semi pro.
Steve

The whole pro/semi-pro was a poor choice of words and is a silly labelling. Let's just say that the ultra ultra high end is still CCD.

I still don't buy that I'm afraid.
Some of the pros using CMOS stills cameras will be among the most highly paid and with the largest audiences and on the most prestigious projects in the entire world. I don't see how much more high end than that.
Steve

If something is better than the other that purely up to taste, this was a scientific theory about accuracy. CCDs seem to be more accurate, perhaps because of the higher fill factor. But the CMOS look may be more artistic, this is what people love with the RED for example. CMOS sees light differently. CMOS has a more film-like rolloff in the highlights. Alister pointed that out in some EX350 test. And the somehow muted color palette is very *in* at the moment. I think the 3-CCD sony look offers something new, never before seen, hyper color definition, even better than super 35, perhaps because of it's accuracy.

Thing is a pixel is just a pixel. Any difference will be down to other factors like processing and bit depth.
And 3CCDs better than Super 35 film? I think you'll find yourself in an enormous minority in that view, that's up there with Canons and Nikons being semi pro!
Steve

Mistake, nevermind

Well Guys,
CCD or Cmos is a nice discussion, but to tell you the truth it doesn't matter to me. What I want is a camera that performs well, looks well with a reasonable price and meets my technical and creative possibilities. This 350 has a lot of these potentials.
The look is great; it will open doors for you
The picture looks better than the EX3
The low light performance is very good
The available buttons for div functions and manual operation is very professional and useful; power switch is what we need compared to the EX1 and EX3. The ND filters are now what they should be (4 positions)
The VF is good to excellent; no need for extra hood
The In/outs are on the right place imo with the right connection sockets
The weight is normal
The power consumption is good compared to other shoulder babies
The price is right
The use of "cheap" media(SD memory cards) next to the SxS cards to record to, makes it very attractive
The Stock lens is good and with autofocus(!?)
The shooting modes are for all trades; SD/HD Pal/NTSC
Still to consider are the Flash(light) problem with the Cmos(there we go again) and the IR problem if it still exists.
What I like to see in the package is: Battery/Charger/SxS card 32Gb/Quick release plate
To be short: great camera with reasonable price.

Here you go, 2 very short clips, a 35Mb/s MP4 from my PMW-350 and a 50Mb/s MXF from my PDW-700. Shot within minutes of each other, with the same lens. Other than the slight difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 and some small lighting and cameras setup differences you are hard pushed to tell which is which. If anything I prefer the way the blown out sky is handled by the 350. Both cameras were using Hypergamma 4 and the same lens.
http://www.xdcam-user.com/samples/350-700.zip (54mb)

Thanks, Alister!

I really appreciate you posting this comparison. It only solidifies my decision to eventually purchase the 350.

Very impressive handling of the bare branches in the blown out sky. A much more pleasing image overall. Have you posted your settings for this particular look?

Again, thanks for providing us the info that all of us are curious about, but few of us have the gear to actually compare.

Jac

Yes, thanks Alister, very useful to see an actual direct comparison.
Steve

Thanks very much for doing this test, this is extremely interesting. Toggling between the two as greyscale, and/or with some various gamma curves is also interesting.

If something is better than the other that purely up to taste, this was a scientific theory about accuracy. CCDs seem to be more accurate, perhaps because of the higher fill factor. But the CMOS look may be more artistic, this is what people love with the RED for example. CMOS sees light differently. CMOS has a more film-like rolloff in the highlights. Alister pointed that out in some EX350 test. And the somehow muted color palette is very *in* at the moment. I think the 3-CCD sony look offers something new, never before seen, hyper color definition, even better than super 35, perhaps because of it's accuracy.

As far as I'm aware both CMOS and CCD use the same device to convert photons into electrons. The difference is in how the electrons are handled. The difference in fill factor would affect the size of the actual photodiodes and hence lattitude / sensitivity. I cannot see how there would be any difference between CCD and CMOS that would affect color response as that's detemined by filtration before the detectors.

I have to pipe in here guys with the CMOS vs. CCD debate. I have to ask how everyone is viewing this footage. On a computer monitor (i.e. sRGB-calibrated) on a "real" HD monitor that's calibrated to 709. Because if your answer is the former than you need to re-evaluate. Because I am still to do this day (because I am not monitoring properly) dealing with issues of saturation/contrast in my video and editing on a computer monitor.

In my case I think it boils down to my software is not converting colors properly to be viewed on an sRGB calibrated monitor...which I use mostly for photo to print editing. Video is secondary to my photography, unfortunately.

The images I get from the EX on real HDTVs look just as good as any CCD HD camera...saturation-wise. I do think the colors pop a bit more now with the T1 filter on, but even looking at my footage pre-Tiffen T1 the colors still pop. I think it's all about the Picture Profile...which Sony leaves at a neutral value PURPOSELY from the factory.

My Nikon D300 CMOS still camera has much better saturation than my Nikon D50 CCD camera. And as a matter of fact I think the chips in Nikons are Sony or Sony-based. EXSPEED or something like that?

Well Guys,
CCD or Cmos is a nice discussion, but to tell you the truth it doesn't matter to me. What I want is a camera that performs well, looks well with a reasonable price and meets my technical and creative possibilities. This 350 has a lot of these potentials.
The look is great; it will open doors for you
The picture looks better than the EX3
The low light performance is very good
The available buttons for div functions and manual operation is very professional and useful; power switch is what we need compared to the EX1 and EX3. The ND filters are now what they should be (4 positions)
The VF is good to excellent; no need for extra hood
The In/outs are on the right place imo with the right connection sockets
The weight is normal
The power consumption is good compared to other shoulder babies
The price is right
The use of "cheap" media(SD memory cards) next to the SxS cards to record to, makes it very attractive
The Stock lens is good and with autofocus(!?)
The shooting modes are for all trades; SD/HD Pal/NTSC
Still to consider are the Flash(light) problem with the Cmos(there we go again) and the IR problem if it still exists.
What I like to see in the package is: Battery/Charger/SxS card 32Gb/Quick release plate
To be short: great camera with reasonable price.

Hi John
Totally agree, i have purchased one a few days ago and the test shots are fantastic!

Regards David

As far as I'm aware both CMOS and CCD use the same device to convert photons into electrons. The difference is in how the electrons are handled. The difference in fill factor would affect the size of the actual photodiodes and hence lattitude / sensitivity. I cannot see how there would be any difference between CCD and CMOS that would affect color response as that's detemined by filtration before the detectors.

If theres no difference then how come CMOS sensor cameras have IR problems that CCD cameras do not?

......how come CMOS sensor cameras have IR problems that CCD cameras do not?
You make it sound like all CMOS cameras have IR problems, all CCD cameras don't, and that's not true.

What mainly determines the cameras level of response to IR is the spectral response of the IR cut-off filter before the sensor. The beamsplitter should ensure that the IR is only directed towards the red chip - but that will give output for any wavelength light (or infra-red) that falls upon it, it's only a "red chip" because only longer wavelength light is directed towards it.

Making filters with very sharp cut-off frequencies is very difficult - it's nearly impossible to block all infra-red without affecting the red end of the spectrum. It's all a question of what designers rate to be the best filter compromises. But CMOS v CCD is irrelevant here - it's all down to the IR cut filter.

I wonder if it has something to do with the prism design. CCD sensors can only be read one way, so the image arriving on the face of each of the chips must be the same way up, in practice this means that each channels light path through the prism involves 2 bounces for each of the red and blue light paths (mirrored plus mirrored equals right way up) or is straight through (right way up) for green. CMOS sensors can be read pretty much any way, forwards, backwards, upside down etc. So this means the prism can be simpler as it doesn't matter if you only have a single bounce (mirrored) for red and blue and straight through for green. This makes the CMOS prism smaller, lighter, cheaper. The extra bounces in a CCD prism may have the effect of giving a sharper cut off for the blue and red channels. Just speculating.

An interesting thought, but I doubt it makes a difference. I'd expect the colour separation within the prism to only work around one wavelength at a time - so (allowing for overlapping) shorter wavelengths get sent the blue route, longer ones the red route, with the inbetween going the green route.

So the red/green separation doing just that, rather than band filtering and cutting out IR.

And what about single chip cameras? Some are affected, others aren't.

You may be correct, but each reflection in the prism is created by a dielectric mirror coating which can act as a band pass or cut-off filter, so with 2 reflections it would be easier to achieve a sharper cutoff than with a single reflection. In most 3 chip CCD prisms the blue is picked off and sent to it's sensor in the first prism block by a high pass mirror dielectric coating on the back of the first prism block, green and red get passed through a band pass filter and in the next bit of glass the red is bounced by a low pass dielectric mirror and green passes through a further band pass. Before getting to the sensor the red gets another bounce via either a Hi/low pass or bandpass coating, so the red goes through 4 possible filtration steps. With a Sony CMOS prism the green is picked off in the first block with a bandpass coating and has a second reflection before reaching the sensor. In the second prism block blue is picked off via a high pass and goes straight to the sensor, red passes straight through the entire assembly directly to the sensor, so red only get 2 stages of filtration, one of which is pretty broad band as it is just picking off the green.
With a bayer filter you have absorption filters in front of each pixel and the quality of these will affect the pixel response. It's very difficult to make an absorption filter with a very sharp cutoff which is one of the reasons why the colour response from bayer cameras is rarely as precise as 3 chip designs, it would also be more difficult to give a sharp IR cutoff. Of course with either there is (or at least should be) some filtration ahead of the sensor block and this is normally where any IR cut takes place. At the end of the day it's probably down to cost rather than what can or can't be done.

Good to see you at BVE.