Steve is correct there should be no reason why the 700 and F800 should look different. The differences seen in Doug and Paul's tests are down to camera setups and exposure differences. It is actually good illustration of how a few simple tweeks or even different exposure can greatly change the "look" of a camera.

When I compared the 3700 and PDW-700 side by side, I did prefer the out of the box look of the 3700. But the primary difference is in the way the matrix is set up, the Pana's handle reds and greens differently to the Sony's. While I preferred the out of the box Pana look, I did feel IMHO that the Sony look was more accurate and true to life. I decided that for me a half way house between the two would be nice. So I created some new Matrix settings for the 700 and 350 that achieves that.

In short, any of the latest 2/3" cameras can produce great images and be set up so that very few professionals, let alone audience could tell them apart.

The choice should really come down to what workflow and features you require.

I agree with you a 3700 with 720 option. I get the feeling they may pull out a quality argument, backed up by people like Alan Roberts at the Beeb, which is that for the optimum 720 picture you need a 720 chip and that converting from a 1080 chip like the Sonys do is sub-optimal. How much truth there is in this I don't know,........
I think that argument would be more of an excuse. I suspect the main issue with the downconversion is filtering out the finest detail BEFORE the downscaling - otherwise it just becomes aliases. But that's no different to the situation in the optical domain when using 1280x720 chips - there you need good optical low-pass filtering to avoid the aliasing. My hunch would be it's easier to do it via electronics than optics, especially straight from the chips, but unquestionably some downconvertors are better than others.

And if they use that quality argument, then why does the 2700 have 720 and 1080 outputs, the latter an upconvert from the 1280x720 chips?

I'm waiting to see what NAB brings. It's time for a 1080 Varicam, and Panasonic seriously need to update the lower part of their range. Sony (IMO) should build the 50Mbs codec into the 350, and who knows what Canon are going to do.
We've seen comparisons between the 350 and 700 from Alister that are roughly equivalent, and of the 350 and 800 from Doug and Paul that are hugely disparative.
Is this not a case (within one manufacturer) of how a "look" can differ widely according to the way the camera is set up? That Alister specifically tried to match his cameras to a common look, which wasn't the case with Doug and Paul?

Which is why I feel it's so hard to define any "look" to any camera. It's 10% down to science and the hardware, 90% down to setup.

[EDIT - I see I've been beaten to it. Yes Mike, couldn't agree more - "The choice should really come down to what workflow and features you require. ]

I disagree, no way it's only 10% down to the hardware. If I had to put a figure on it out thin air I'd go 80% hardware 20% setup. The setup can only work with what's there to begin with.
As for the 2700 having a 1080 up-convert, it's a good point, why is it there?
Steve

I've a series coming out on BBC2 in the summer on wildlife in Wales, which I shot with a Sony 750, PDW700 and Varicam 2700, it'll be interesting to see how they mix and compare. Not sure if it'll go out on the HD channel, presumably on SD it won't tell us much.
Steve

Doing that would be subjective.

A better way would be to set up each camera to match with scopes using a calibrated chart such as the DSC ChromaDuMonde. That way each camera would be replicating precise colours as accurately as possible and the real differences in performance can be seen.



I also agree with Simon that the more objective test is with ChromaDumonde DSC charts and scopes, although the result would likely be far less entertaining.

Thank you.

Better to have some tests than no tests. However, "making cameras look their best" even with calibrated monitors to me doesn't mean much. ASC DP or not, the eye is subjective. And image reproduction varies between even the best monitors. They are not standardized. Test instruments are.

Unless you're using a good chart, a scope and I would add a meter, and in a controlled environment, the entertainment value of such test results is always greater than the value of the conclusions. But I still like to see them.

You can download PDW-700 and F800 scene files from the Sony website. They include a scene file that was created to give accurate color reproduction, set up using a Choma-du-monde chart.
http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowContent.action?contentId=1237475652984&parentFlexibleHub=1166605189820

Thanks for the link. The UK site always seems to have better goodies than the US site.

Hi Peter,

Couple of questions. What lens were you using with the 2700 and also the delivery to SD for H.264 transmission Master.

I was asked to delivery to H.264 the other day and was confused with this format. Can you shed some light on the compression settings. I did some comparisons with prores and found H.264 came out looking softer than prores, maybe my compression settings were wrong.

Thanks

Hi Simon,

I've only switched to Final Cut after years of Premiere, so I'm still finding my way. I export a ProRes 422 HD master (recompress all frames option), then import this file into Windows Procoder for transcoding to QuickTime H264. I choose "lossless" in the compression settings. A 30sec commercial comes in around 23meg in size. I used to send 15mbs MPEG2 to Dubsat. I'm not really what is the "best" setting.

Peter

I am about to buy my first hd cam,and i need some advice before i make my move.
I am a freelance and i do many kind of works,for industrial video's and spot for company and work for tv. I have to decide between Panasonic AG-HPX500E or Sony PMW-350K.
I'd like to buy pmw350 but the only thing am worred about is the cmos rolling shutter thing.
Wil it be a limition (a defect).I will be able to do any kind of work with that cam,(I know it's impossible to have a perfect cam that is good for every kind of work)...but i can afford one only.
thanks, everybody.
great forum
Samer

I always ask the question, if CMOS gives such a high specification for such little cost and no downside then why does any manufacturer still make CCD cameras?
Consider that the PMW350 is about 1/3 the price of a PDW800 (with a standard lens) and yet in terms of specification they are virtually identical (1920x1080, 2/3", over-undercranking 1-60fps). Panasonic HPX300 1920x1080 vs HPX2700 1280x720 and yet the 300 is a fraction of the cost.
There are drawbacks to CMOS, it's a compromise measure to lower costs and bring new customers to the market. For a lot of people it's not an issue - whether it is for you is hard to say.
Steve

Samer I suggest you start a new thread so more people can see and be part of your question.

As for CMOS vs CCD Steve is right there is a big difference. But for some people this might not be a problem.

Until a couple of years ago CMOS sensors were definitely the underdog, they tended to be very noisy due to electrical noise generated the on chip by the readout circuits and A/D converters. In addition they lacked sensitivity due to the electronics on the face of the chip leaving less room for the light sensitive parts. Today, on chip noise reduction has made it possible to produce CMOS sensors with very low noise and micro lenses and better design has mitigated most of the sensitivity problems.

In terms of a static image there is very little difference between a CMOS sensor and a CCD sensor. Dynamic range is remarkably similar (both types of sensor use essentially the same light gathering methods), in some respects CMOS has the edge as they are less prone to overload issues.

CCD's are very expensive to manufacture as the way they are read out requires near lossless transfer of minute charges through a thousand or more (for HD) memory cells. The first pixel to be read passes down through over 1000 memory cells, if it was to loose 5% of it's charge in each cell, the signal would be seriously reduced by the time it left the chip. The last pixel to be read out only passes through one memory cell, so it would be less degraded, this variation could ruin an image making it uneven. Although there is more electronics on a CMOS sensor, as each pixel is read directly a small amount of loss in the transfer is acceptable as each pixel would have a similar amount of loss. So the chips are easier to make as although the design is more complex, it is less demanding and most semiconductor plants can make CMOS sensors while CCD needs much more specialised production methods.

Yes, CMOS sensors are more prone to motion artifacts as the sensor is scanned from top to bottom, one pixel at a time (A CCD is read in it's entirety just about instantaneously). This means that as you pan, at the start of the pan the top of the sensor is being read and as the pan progresses the scan moves down the chip. This can make things appear to lean over and it's known as skew. The severity of the skew is dependent on the readout speed of the chip. Stills cameras and mobile phone cameras suffer from terrible skew as they typically have very slow readout speeds, the sensors used in an EX have a much higher readout speed and in most real world situations skew is not an issue. However there may be some circumstances where skew can cause problems but my experience is that these are few and far between.

The other issue is Flash Banding. Again this is caused by the CMOS scan system. As a flash gun or strobe light is of very short duration compared to the CMOS scan it can appear that only part of the frame is illuminated by the flash of light. You can reduce the impact of Flash Banding by shooting at the slowest possible shutter speed (for example shooting 25P or 24P with no shutter) but it is impossible to completely eliminate. When I shoot lightning and thunderstorms I often use a 2 frame shutter, shooting this way I get very few partial bolts of lightning, maybe 1 in 50. If you shoot interlace then you can use the Flash Band removal tool in Sony's Clip Browser software to eliminate flash gun problems.

CMOS sensors are becoming much more common in high end cameras. Arri's new Alexa film replacement camera uses a CMOS sensor rated at 800asa with 13 stops of latitude. Red uses CMOS as does SI2K. Slumdog Millionaire (SI2K) was the first electronically shot film to get an Oscar for cinematography, so certainly CMOS has come a long way in recent years.

CMOS is here to stay, it will almost certainly make bigger and bigger inroads at higher levels. Read speeds will increase and skew etc will become less of an issue. IMHO skew is not an issue to loose sleep over with the EX's anyway. I shoot all sorts from hurricanes and tornadoes to fast jets and race cars. I have yet to come across a shot spoilt by skew, generally motion blur tends to mask any skew long before it gets noticeable. If you shoot press conferences or red carpet events where flash guns will be going off, then you may prefer a CCD camera as this is harder to deal with, but the EXs are such good value for the money and bring many other advantages such as lower power and less weight that you have to look at the bigger picture and ask what you expect from your budget.

Quote: "the EXs are such good value for the money and bring many other advantages such as lower power and less weight that you have to look at the bigger picture and ask what you expect from your budget"

I think that's spot on. The EX cams and PMW350 as well as HPX300, and even the RED to a large extent, are budget options. Those with more budget will by choice still mostly use Varicams, HDCam and film - that's my experience anyway.
Steve

Afte weeks of procrastination I finally chose a new HD camera..... a Varicam HDC27H H-series Varicam. I guess it's sort of one step foward, two steps back, but I was concerned about the CMOS a bit, and wasn't sure about spending over US$22K at the moment. So I've got a mint-condition low-mileage Varicam H for little more than the price of an EX1. I do plan to buy a EX1R as a B-camera as I use them on commercials with DOF adaptors and they look very nice.

Peter

Interesting choice Peter.
Presumably when you say a little more than the price of an EX1 you mean without a lens? Also what about a tape deck - or do your clients have them? That's the one main downside with tape I think, it's difficult to get the shots into the edit suite.
Steve

Hi Steve,

I've already got a HJ21x7.5B Canon HD lens, Vocas MB-450, Sachtlet 18P, etc etc: the body is all I needed. I may just run it direct into the FCP/AJA board until I get either a used 1200 or 1400 VTR, or more likely a NanoFlash or Ki Pro. I really do like the Panasonic mojo, and for the natural history/wildlife work I do from time to time, the tape-based Varicam can be an advantage. Commercials in Australia are broadcast and uprezzed from SD, and I've found 720 25P 50P to be more than suitable for SD/HD production quality.