So many different forums, I hope i've listed in the correct one.

I'm in the enviable position of being able to afford a Sony PMW-350, or an EX1 with a Nanoflash and DOF arrayed with some nice lenses.

My rationale for purchasing the EX1, versus the tastey new pmw-350, is that the money saved from the 350 purchase could be used to purchase more goodies. Plus, I like the small form factor of the EX1.

What I am after is a rig that would be acceptable for broadcast. I intend on producing documentaries. With a Nanoflash recording from the sdi port on the EX1, would that signal yield 4.2.2 colour, and be acceptable for broadcast? I understand it's a higher bit rate.

Unless I have misunderstood my research, am I right in thinking that the EX1, recording sdi to a nanoflash, would create a high enough quality of product that would be acceptale to broadcasters?

Am I right or completely out to lunch?

Yes you are right, but frankly - if I were in your "enviable position"- I'd buy the 350...

I just sold my house, for quite a bit of profit. Almost like winning the lottery :-)

I was thinking that I could save some money with the ex1r, thus leaving enough to purchase things like a good slider, better lights, etc.

I've read the specs of the 350, and and wowed. Especially for the price. I read the specs on Sony's site then popped over to B&H to see how much they were selling them for, and had to reload the page because i thought it was an error.

No doubt about it, the 350 is a honey, but I need a smaller cam. I'm not often in a position where I have the luxury of setting up a cam on my sticks.

Frankly, the image quality of the two ex's blows me away. But I know that broadcasters look for other things, and thats fairly new territory to me. 4.2.2 colour, versus 4.2.0, long gop's versus wrong gops.... I just want to get it right.

Both Cameras are great.

And they in conjunction with the NanoFlash will be acceptable to the BBC.

The advantage of the 350 is superior lenses, shallower DOF, great shoulder camera, very clean picture, low noise, especially in low light. 4 chanels of audio.

The EX1 is lighter, less expensive, still very capable shoulder cam, (shameless plug here) especially with my shoulder brace system. Stronger Tripod Plates . NanoFlash Brackets . Sliders by Westside A V (http://www.westsideav.com/EX1plate/)

What would be ideal is 350 A-cam, EX1R B-cam. If funds are no restraint.

You're THAT Olof. I stumbled upon your site last night and book marked it. I'll definately be picking up a bracket for the nanoflash, and what also caught my eye was the slider with the handcrank. I'm assuming the fluid head is an option or does one have to provide their own? I'll contact you via email to discuss this.

Thanks for the info.

Yes - he is THAT Olof :)

I have Olof's nanoFlash bracket for my EX1, as well as his shoulder support, and they are both great (please see my comments in this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/470690-ex1-shoulder-mount-system.html)

So, my first advise to choose the 350 over the EX1 has probably been provoked by the fact that I could never afford a proper shoulder camera, and I envy you. If you can afford both plus the nanoFlash (or 2) - definitely follow Olof's advise!

Best of luck at your purchase

Piotr

Personally I bought the 350. I think it comes down to ergonomics and your intended market.

If you need a small camera and don't mind sacrificing a little image quality, the EX1 is probably best. I wouldn't buy the 350 just because you can, buy it because it is what you need.

James I own both the 350 and the EX1 not r. And use the Nano with both cameras. If you can afford both go for it but if you can't the 350 is great. But you say it is too big and need other gear so the 350 would be too expensive with the extra gear.

Then I would go for the EX1r. Since the price you see for the PMW350 is less then 1/2 of what you would need to spend before you are ready to shoot. A proper tripod for the EX1r would be minimum $1,500-$2,000 to have smooth pans/tilts. For the PMW-350 this number goes up to minimum $5,500. So you see how the bigger camera adds cost and this is only one example. I know people will say they can use 501 tripod but not at broadcast quality with any movement. I have a 501 and it is not even smooth enough for my Canon 7d. Good gear is expensive but pays for itself if you are putting it to work.

As for the nano I would not own the 350 if the Nano was not on the market. 4.2.2 is worth it alone for the Nano the bit rates are bonus and big bonus.

A slider is a great choice of gear but again you need to look at the weight between the two cameras and see the price difference there.

Go for the EX1r and set it up properly and you will be happy. At that point if you need more buy the 350 and the extra gear needed unless you can afford the 350 with all the proper gear. It is amazing and with great 2/3" glass stunning..

This is excellent info. Thanks to all. I gather, then, the ability of the EX1R to create a colour depth of 4.2.2 is a function of the higher bit rate facilited by the Nano?

I'm still a little fuzzy on this 4.2.2 business, gops, 8 bit versus 10, but the bottom line is that an ex1r with a non will yield footage acceptable for broadcast?

I "filmed" a movie last summer with an ex1, letus dof adapter, and a bunch of Zeiss slr primes and was blown away by the quality of the image. But I'm also aware that the pro's look for other things in a piece of footage.

Clearly for my needs the Ex1r is the better buy, leaving funds left over for a nano and other goodies. Purchasing both a 350 and an Ex1r is possible, but then i wouldnt have much left over to buy another house with. One can be in a worse situation :-)

You guys are wonderful, my deepest thanks for helping me make a decision.

James

James the higher bit rate and color spacing are two different items. They both help picture quality. Let me try and explain and please let me know if this makes sense or not?

I think if you had your DOF adapter and Zeiss SLR primes hooked up to an EX1r then recorded with and with out the Nano on a static shot you would see the color spacing.

Then try it again with and with out Nano and do a smooth but on the faster side pan, and you would see the benefit of the higher bit rate.

All in all both will help your picture quality one with deeper richer more accurate color and the other with more information being recorded to keeping the picture more accurate with less artifacts.

With the set up you are talking about buying you will have the opportunity to forget about gear and just have fun being creative. Sounds like you are on track for a very nice setup.

Indeed, that puts things a little more into perspective. I'm curious about your Lobstermen footage, what setup did you use for that?

That was when I shot in the helicopter with the EX1 camera on a custom Gyro system. I now use the 350 on a modified set up with better glass.

Sorry my pilot asked me to remove details I had posted. Don't know why all you have to do is see a picture of us shooting but I respected his request.

Geez, paul, i wish I had known of your blog before i even posted this question this morning. All the info i was looking or is in there, and more. Abel Cine is a find, too, and I talked to them this aft about all the stuff i will be ordering in the next week. Just have to figure out where to ship it to so i can avoid paying NY state tax.

Excellent review of the 350. That'll be my next purchase. I expect Sony will sell a ton of these.

Huge thanks for dipping into your well of enlightenment and helping me make my decision

James

The EX1 and PMW350 are both great cameras, worry not. I definitely prefer the easy handling of the EX1, also like shot transition mode and optical image stabilization. The PMW350 is a lot more hassle, but delivers clean images in low light.

The Nanoflash improves the image during motion and with interlaced video, but the XDCAM-EX 35 mbps HQ codec is surprisingly good too. I carry the PMW350, the tripod and Nanoflash into the field, and it's a strain on me to carry it all in deep alone. I'm still recovering from some health problems, and it's tough. Piotr and I need to get (together) with some sherpas to carry our stuff, or find some European Classical music masters and venus to collaborate on :)

Myself, as well, Tom. 48, and find myself huffing and puffing when hauling gear around. last summer I was dop on a low budget movie but was fortunate enough to have a lacky to carry everything, even move the camera between setups.

It's good to see cameras are getting lighter. At least we're not in the bad old days of lead oxide pickup tubes et al :-)

I'm still recovering from some health problems, and it's tough. Piotr and I need to get (together) with some sherpas to carry our stuff, or find some European Classical music masters and venus to collaborate on :)

Yeah - the two of us would make a great team, wouldn't we Tom :)

James glad I could help. Don't hesitate to ask more questions that is why the forum is here.

The team at Abel are the best I have dealt with in the industry you are in very good hands.

I have the EX1 and as much as I love it given the choice between the EX1 and an EX1 in the 350 form factor with its viewfinder if I could not put the camera on a tripod the 350 would win. Given all the other things that the 350 has it's a no brainer for ENG style shooting.
No matter how you bend pieces of metal and join them together you cannot make the EX1 or the EX3 as easy to hoist onto the shoulder as a camera designed to go on the shoulder from the ground up. If going down the 350 path means only shooting in 4:2:0 at 35Mbps so be it. If the camera is a bear to handle and you miss a shot or you're too tired to be even bothered from a sore arm then the chroma resolution and lack of blocking or all the other stuff matters nought.

I do agree you need to carefully cost out the total price of the 350. You need to buy batteries and a charger and these are not cheap. You need to buy the VCT release plate and if you do decide to buy one of the very desirable diversity wireless systems that slot into it you will be adding a lot to the cost of the camera. Also I doubt you'll ever get the 350 on a plane as carry on, nor will you ever look like a tourist with it on your shoulder.

Just my two bobs worth but for the role being discussed here I feel the physical attributes of the camera are more important than the technical differences in image quality.

Bob you bring up some good points.

For ENG style shooing I love the 350. But there I times it will not work so I have to use my EX1. And as I posted above I would not buy either with out the Nano that is just my opinion.

As for carrying the 350 for long stints for me it is easy. I have no problem putting 40 lbs on my back and going for miles, do it all the time to get the shot. But that comes down to the person there health and fitness which I work hard on daily.

Carry on with the 350 is not a problem. I have now flow twice with mine and piece of cake. PortaBrace Carry on works perfect. I check the tripod and extra gear in the case and carryon the camera with everything needed to shoot..

The problem we have now is that there is a choice! Only a few years ago if you wanted true no compromise professional image quality you had to buy an expensive shoulder mount camera. Now with cameras like the EX1 you have a choice. The difference in picture quality between the EX1 and 350 is small enough that in most cases, in the end product it would be hard to tell which is which. The 350 is better, no doubt but it's not like the difference there used to be between a DV handycam and a full size DVCAM camcorder. So really it comes down to ergonomics (as has already been said). It is a case of choosing the right tool for the job. As an example when I go storm chasing a small handheld camera that can be grabbed quickly and used to shoot from inside a moving vehicle is essential, so for this an EX1 works best. But then for the tripod mount beauty shots of developing storms or interviews with people a full size camera is easier to use, so the 350 will be used for this. The Sony EX3 is a bit of a hybrid, not quite handheld, not quite shoulder mount, but it can be used for both, it doesn't excel at either but it's not a bad half-way-house. I'm lucky, I have both an EX1 and PMW-350 so I can pick and choose, but if I didn't have either I would have to consider the EX3 as a possible option.

Also, there are times an image stabilization in the camera is very useful. Anathema to the pros, I am sure, but I run into occasions when I need it. For me thats a biggy.

I wouldn't associate the usefulness of image stabilization with the operator being a pro or not, but with the camera form factor - it certainly is much more useful (if not essential)with hand-held EX1 than with the heavier and naturally balanced 350.

Piotr form factor helps with IS but you still need help with special Optical Stabilizers from Canon and Fujinon. These stabilizers are used more then most people know having researched both in great detail for the last 6 months. I will be testing both next week. Also Canon has just announced a new Optical Stabilized 2/3" lens that was used on the Tour de France last year while on the back of motor cycles with great success. I will be testing this lens in early April. Retail is $30K

Check it out:
Canon Europe - Canon HJ15ex8.5B (http://www.canon-europe.com/TV-Products/Products/Canon_HJ15ex8.5B.asp)

Alister hope your trip went well and you were able to get great footage. As for the difference in EX1 to 350 picture I would call it a big step. We did a interesting test for a client shooting side by side gyro stabilized EX1 and PMW-350. The image quality was bigger then I expected. And that was with the stock lens. We will do the same next week with a Canon HJ17x and Canon Optical Stabilizer on the end of the lens. Look forward to the findings with this setup on our gyro system. We are hoping for twice the focal length.

Paul, on your website you mentioned you bought a Red and then sold it. I'm curious as to why, and your thoughts on the camera.

James the Red One is a great camera for shooting digital 35mm but that does not fit my business. 2/3" HD broadcast gear is what my client base requires.

If you need 35mm then the Red is worth the look. But the cost is high compared to 2/3" HD broadcast gear and postproduction is expensive and cumbersome.

I was also very disappointed in the 120fps slow motion and did not know when I purchased the camera that this mode only used ½ of the sensor. My mistake.

I think Red is doing great things pushing the industry along with Canon HDSLR. I own a Canon 7d for time laps. But for me they do not fit my daily business at this time, but I always keep an open mind.

I say to people who ask me this question who really want to know is, “You need to rent.” Call Abel Cine Tech rent the Red One, HDSLR, PDW-800, PMW-350, EX1, EX3, and see what works for you and what will help you achieve your creative business goals. That is really the only way to know! Everything else no matter how good the advice is just guessing for the buyer.

Now with the EX1 and your DOF adapter you have already shot footage you are happy with so you have done your homework.

I hope this helps.

After 4 surgeries and 8 weeks of chemo/radiation, my first post-cancer (tonsil/neck) Cat-Scan result came back fine today. Now I'm stricken with the fear I may actually survive it for a while and even get back to good health! How depressing! ;)

Actually I am very happy!

But here's the crux question regarding the Nanoflash and subject topic:

Assuming I do not want to do color corrections or grading of the PMW350 footage, am I worse off accepting the artifacts from 1200 mbps (pre-compression) capture to 35 mbps EX 4:2:0 codec ported to Blu-ray disk from SXS without further transcoding?

or

Why would Nanoflash 100 mbps 4:2:2 transcoded to 35mbps 4:2:0 Blu-ray be any better that just going straight EX 35mbps 4:2:0 to Blu-ray, since the latter was internally sourced before compression from 1200 mbps 4:2:2 and doesn't require transcoding, while the former was only sourced from 100 mbps 4:2:2 and does require transcoding?

Yes, side by side of course the Nanoflash 100 mbps 4:2:2 looks better than EX 35 mbps 4:2:0! But when I transcode the Nano to Blu-ray 35mbps, will I not just be adding back into the Blu-ray encode all the motion artifacts I just took out with the Nano?

Paul, it all helps. You're also the first person i;ve met who has anything dispariging to say about the Red.

I too have a D7 and it's awsome but cant see recording an entire feature on it, although I recently read of a movie about to be recorded entirely on D7's.

I may be getting off topic here in this thread, but the ARRIFLEX D-21 is my dream camera. I'm not even sure they sell them, possibly they are only available for rent. Anyway, the specs impress me more than the Red.

Oh god it's happened again... get me yapping about cameras and you can't shut me up :-)

The advantage of the 350 is superior lenses,

That's only true if you spend a lot of money. The lens on the EX1/3 is very good, and almost certainly better than many of the "budget" HD lenses out there (ie less than about £10k).
Steve

James not cutting down the Red it just does not work for me. Arriflex D-21 wow you have expensive taste.

Tom I think you would be better off burning a Blu-Ray from the Nano files then the files off the 350. I tried both with the EX1 and the nano files produced a cleaner/richer Blu-Ray.

Tom glad you are on the mend stay strong and remember "it gets better every day"! I will be out in your area late spring if a jobs comes together. If so we should hook up with our 350's and go to the ranch looking for some wild life if you are interested?

That's only true if you spend a lot of money. The lens on the EX1/3 is very good, and almost certainly better than many of the "budget" HD lenses out there (ie less than about £10k).
Steve

You only quoted part of my sentence. I listed other advantages as well.

And I listed advantages of the EX1 as well.

To be more specific about lenses. The fact that you have a 2/3 lens mount and 2/3 chip means you can rent or buy top of the line lenses with stabilization or extremely wide. You can't do this with an EX1. It may not matter to most shooters but there are times when it really matters.

Not everyone will buy the 350 with the stock lens, it is up to you.

The EX3 can also use 2/3 glass but with a multiplier factor so they will not be as wide.

Just another few cents worth.

After 4 surgeries and 8 weeks of chemo/radiation, my first post-cancer (tonsil/neck) Cat-Scan result came back fine today. Now I'm stricken with the fear I may actually survive it for a while and even get back to good health! How depressing! ;)

Actually I am very happy!

And I'm very happy for you getting better, Tom!

Thank you Piotr. And Paul, let's try and hookup if you get out this way.

Somebody please make the 350 go away... it's too tempting, i tell you! Just,,, a few.. keystrokes to.. enter my credit card info... and.. the 350 will be all mine, MINE, i tell you!!

It's driving me crazy.

Batteries, that's all I'd have to get.. I.. I have everything else....

If I was in your enviable position the 350 every time. But buy the Nanoflash as well, especially if you plan to do any chromakey work. Just remember when you buy the Nano that there are associated costs - decent CF cards don't come cheap (although cheaper than SxS) and you'll probably want a Nexto as well to offload footage on location.

Just as a point of interest, for chromakey I use Ultra, a version from the days when it was still owned by Serious Magic. The program is amazing, even the cheapest of cameras are processed flawlessly in Ultra... I've always found chromkey work in After Effects to be a heart stopping affair. It's effortless and flawless in ultra. No idea what it;s like now that Adobe has purchased it.

James if you do go 350 make sure you don't have surprises when you purchase extra gear. Abel can be a huge help here.

You say you have what you need so most of my list could be left out correct? I also could be missing things but I think they would be small. Filters, Matte Box, Remote Focus, camera light.

You could also just buy camera, batteries, and SxS cards but you would be limited.

Make sure you have a great tripod! The picture is so sharp even cut down in details settings that the slightest movement in a under-rated tripod will show. Which means 45lbs load rated head is the very minimum and the sticks should be rated at 1.5x the head. And a tripod bag

Batteries with chargers will be around $1600 I have two 130w/h batteries and am buying a third since I run the Nano and some times a light off the same power. We did a night shoot and luckly there was a charger near by.

Camera travel bag $400

6 – 16GB SxS cards. Cheap cards are not worth it in my opinion. Not asking to be bashed here just giving my opinion. $3,175

Nano $2995

Cards Sandisk Extreme 32GB, ten cards $2,400 (Don’t skimp have the card rated at full Nano since it will only get faster) and by enough so a client can take cards if they like. I have had this happen twice with clients and had to shoot the next day.

Waterproof cover $400

Tripod plate $250 if you go cheap Sony $800 if you go Rondford- Baker. I have both Sony for close up on/off tripod and Ronford- Baker when you use long glass. Huge difference in stiffness

Zoom start/stop remote $200

Other items I think are needed but you could go with out.
Wide or long HD 2/3” glass est $15 used $20K new
Sony U1 Optical Drive $3K
Sony Optical Disk to get started backing up long term and send to high end clients who request this format: $5K (This amount comes back on what you sell but not for archived disk)

Hi James,

Ever considered the EX-3 with a nanoflash? This would give you the best of both worlds for making doco’s IMO.

My current rig is;

PMW-EX3 (with VGadgets reinforced tripod plate)
Protech ST-7 Full Shoulder Mount, Endura 10 Battery, A-MWR Bracket, nanoFLASH
J-Rod Twin Mic Mount 416 Shotgun mic with deadcat and 2 off G2 Wireless Receivers

The above is a good cheap broadcast solution on a budget and can be got for less than the cost of a 350! Due to budget constraints I would only opt for the 350 if you really need to work in low light!

That said if you can afford the 350 plus accessories then go for it. The only draw back is the big form factor for certain run gun tasks!

Paul, I looked at the Ex3 but nixed it in favour of the EX1R, the rationale being that basically they are the same cam (from what I've read of the specs). From what I understand the ex1r does a full image flip, whereas the ex3 only flips vertically, but not horizontally. Ergo, if you pan left the view finder displays a pan right, and that would be highly annoying for those many occassions that I'll be using a dof adapter (I like the G5).

Also, since reading that the ex1 has been confered silver status by Discovery, I find myself further pushed in the EX1R direction. Basically a hell of a cam for the price. An EXR1 with Nano and I believe I can do most of what I have in mind.

If my information is incorrect please let me know. I appreciate everybody chiming in to help me make this decision. It's invaluable.

Your quite right about the lack of flip in the EX3.

I pay careful attention to marketing claims of flipped image. Is it really a flipped image? Canon screwed me once (only once?) when I bough an xl-h1 and was swayed by their highly touted claimed of flipped image... only to discover that when i took delivery of it, it would only flip the image (I swear I'm not making this up) if their lense *wasnt* attached. Unbelievable.

This was two years ago, before any of the dof majors started making relays. I dont know what canon was thinking.

James sounds like you are doing the proper research. Have you looked at the Vortex Media EX1r video?
Vortex Media: VIDEO & PHOTO Tools and Training (http://www.vortexmedia.com/EX1R/index.html)

Not sure if Doug discusses the flip or not but this portion of the video about the EX1r upgrade is free to view at that link. The rest of the EX1 video is worth the money if you buy the camera. it will have you up and running quickly with great accurate info.

I do not know if the flip works properly or not.

I have been very happy with my EX1 it has surprised me when ever it was broadcast on TV how clean the picture looks. With the DOF and primes and your experience using this setup you will be dialed.

I pay careful attention to marketing claims of flipped image. Is it really a flipped image?

Yes it is! you

Paul, you're right, the new video covers all the new aspects of the ex1r, and the information I was looking for is confirmed: that the cam flips the image on both axis. Wow. That's serious money saved by not having to purchase flip modules.

Thanks for that buddy!

Alistair, your site, XDCAM-USER.com (http://www.xdcam-user.com/), and Pauls site are both the first two urls on my video hotlist in favourites. I'm impressed with how thoroughly you each detail your reviews. Even giving Philip Bloom a run for the money :-)

Sad to learn that the ex1r only overcranks up to 720x1280... but this is the only negative I can find about this cam.

Canon and Panasonic may as well just shut down, I cant see anybody eclipsing this cam in this and the next couple of classes.

Now I'll see if there is a dof forum here and see what you guys think of the G5 :-)

James always glad to help. Nice to be mentioned in the same sentence as Alister and Phil, both have been a huge help to me over the years.

We all would be glad to have 1080p 60p but for the price we have to be happy with clean 720p 60p.

30 years ago i studied television production in college. I recall using bulky, very heavy Ikegamis that used lead oxide pickup tubes, a forerunner to ccd's. Anyway, it blows me away that it took a crew and some unwileldy and expensive equipment to yield the results we are enjoying today for under then thousand dollars worth of equipment.

The mind boggles to think of what the next 30 years will bring. Despite missing must have's such as zebra, peaking, etc, I'm amazed by what I can create with my 7D. I literally shot a commcercial the other day just using a 7D and Zoom H4N audio recorder. That was a heady experience.

I want them allll, all the toys, send them to me :-)

Assuming I do not want to do color corrections or grading of the PMW350 footage, am I worse off accepting the artifacts from 1200 mbps (pre-compression) capture to 35 mbps EX 4:2:0 codec ported to Blu-ray disk from SXS without further transcoding?

or

Why would Nanoflash 100 mbps 4:2:2 transcoded to 35mbps 4:2:0 Blu-ray be any better that just going straight EX 35mbps 4:2:0 to Blu-ray, since the latter was internally sourced before compression from 1200 mbps 4:2:2 and doesn't require transcoding, while the former was only sourced from 100 mbps 4:2:2 and does require transcoding?

Yes, side by side of course the Nanoflash 100 mbps 4:2:2 looks better than EX 35 mbps 4:2:0! But when I transcode the Nano to Blu-ray 35mbps, will I not just be adding back into the Blu-ray encode all the motion artifacts I just took out with the Nano?

I'll answer my own question here, it appears that when I transcode the 100 mbps 4:2:2 Nanoflash file to a Blu-ray supported mpeg-2, 35 mbps 4:2:0, I am adding right back in the some of the same motion artifacts I took out with the 100 mbps stream, as compared to the "native" XDCAM-EX 35 mbps 4:2:0 HQ file.

In other words, the native file written to the the SXS card is basically as good as the file that got transcoded from the Nanoflash to be Blu-ray compliant 35 mbps 4:2:0. This goes against what a few of you have observed, therefore I am not sure you were comparing to the "Native" file from the SXS card. I use "Native" in the strictest sense, that the only processing to the SXS file is the stripping away of the mp4 or mxf file headers to reveal the mpeg-2 long gop 35 mbps HQ 4:2:0 stream, or in other words, a 1:1 file copy.

There's no comparison whatsoever to the 100 mbps Nanoflash file, but you can't port that onto to Blu-ray, the bit rate is too high for the format.

What does seem to help, is a two pass re-encode. And there is a substantial improvement for 1080/60i interlaced files, not as much for 1080/p progressive files. Of course if the footage is to be handed off for color correction or grading or broadcast distribution, little doubt the Nanoflash files are far superior.

Interesting discovery Tom. I will have to try this test myself when time permits.

Tom,

Your observations is something I was keeping in mind when I first made my decision to purchase the nanoFlash. Even though BD is indeed limited to 40 Mbps 4:2:0, and so are most NLEs we're using (for instance, the highest mxf quality output from Vegas is 4:2:2 50 Mbps, while MPG2 is 4:2:0 of up to 80 Mbps)...

Printing to film and other special uses aside, for us video mortals it's still great to start with 4:2:2 of 100 Mbps or above. Heavy grading, keying etc. is just one reason. Frankly, I don't expect BD to remain the ultimate delivery format for a long future - sooner or later, we'll be given some greater bandwidth one.

In the meantime, even if I'm to use some computer-based players as my "delivery" means, I'm OK with it. I'd therefore expect NLEs to be able to output MPG2 flavours in 4:2:2 and at 100 Mbps at least - this has a higher priority with me than any optical media being more capable than the current BD is (though the two are mutually dependent, of course).

I agree with that. And while I sound like an advocate for native smart rendering, I like my Nanoflash very much, do not feel like a wasted expense at all. It's benefits are wide, whereas smart rendering of native files has more limited application, event, corporate, eng etc.

I also feel smart rendering is not very well understood, that while some NLE's like Vegas can do it, Blu-ray doesn't recognize mxf until that header is stripped away, and the only way some people are doing that is by the usual method of rendering the output to mpeg-2, throwing away all the benefits in that one step, perhaps unknowingly.

Did you know that Vegas will smart render to 100 mbps from the Nanoflash 100 mbps 4:2:2 with no recompression? It will report the output as 50 mbps because Nanoflash changed the file header, but the output is 100 mbps 4:2:2 when smart rendered from the 50 mbps 4:2:2 XDCAM 422 template. You may have to check an option box in the preferences to enable smart rendering. So in other words, you can join Nanoflash clips virtually losslessly, and Vegas will only render a few frames around the transistion points while copying the rest.

As for the future of Blu-ray, it is true I am committed to it because we don't have a better distribution format. I personally feel it will go obsolete about the same time as regular DVD, and not really outlive it. Blu-ray may never achieve mainstream acceptance, but done properly looks stunningly good, so it's clear to me that if it can't look great at 40 mbps h.264 AVC, the problem lies not within the constraints of the format. I don't believe there will be a big push for another high bandwidth mainstream format for a long time, rather the i-pod generation seems more interested in personal sized portability, whereas home theater and perhaps HDTV seem the domain of an aging populace. (Like me, a fossil!) Just my $0.02

Just an addendum...

We already really do have potentially good alternative to Blu-ray from the burgeoning growth of low cost, high speed USB flash drives. The problem for J6P lies in learning about the myriad of codecs, software players and fast processors required. You can hand it to him on the flash, and expect the question, "How do I play it, or it won't play for me, or it's all jumpy." Computer monitors while closing the gap, as a group generally don't have the cinemotion playback features of HDTV monitors, while the latter are expanding in versatility with flash and network ports which is good. The power demands of some high end PCs are getting out of hand, what with 850-1000 watt power supplys and fans, this is not very green unless we are also using it to heat the room.