Now that the Sony XDCAM HD cameras & deck have been officially announced, should we consider having a new forum to discuss those items? Looks like some very nice gear, at fairly reasonable prices for what you get:

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/6450

I think they will sell like hotcakes

While Sony has seemed to lose some ground in the indie world they are a monster in the pro broadcast world. Much of the sales of Sony HDV cams were to ENG and pro broadcaster types. XDCAM has slowly got some following but this could vault it into the stratosphere, on paper the specs are terrific, variable frame rates, etc. etc. etc. If it can be easily incorporated into a simple workflow I think many people will bypass the XLH and the HVX for the XDCAM-HD solution. 120 minutes for $30 is a punch in the gut to P2.



ash =o)

It's also worth noting that the XDCAM HD records up to 35 Mbps, which is almost the same data rate as the HVX200 running in 720p/24 mode. It'll be interesting to see how MPEG2 HD looks at the maximum quality setting, coming from three 1/2" sensors.

Sony just own the Pro market in the UK. I was outside Parliament today and everyone has Sonys. Amony the 570s still the odd Beta SP dinosaur. I think XDCAM sales have been staggered as a lot of cameramen are making do until they find a suitable HD upgrade. That way their camera will probably have double the shelf life (and resale value). I don't think it is a good time to drop 20k+ on an SD camera.

I'm pretty sure Chris Hurd will eventually get around to replying with when their is enough posts about the cameras/decks/etc he'll make a spot for it because he won't open a new section that is empty. Totally makes sense.

So if we want a spot about XDCAM then we just need to start some threads, relavant ones at least.

Definetly thinking it won't be to long before their will be a section opened about it.

... or a whole new section of forums. Before deciding on the HVX (which I still don't have, and don't know when I will have), I looked at some of the lower cost 2/3" cams like the Sony DSR-450. But from what I can tell, even if I saved long enough to be able to afford the camera, there are the other cost associated with editing, storing and distributing when you step up to that level.

As for another section, I'd always be interested in seeing what's going on with 1/2" and 2/3" cameras. I can't afford one right now, but as prices on 1/3" cams like H1's and HVX's continue to go up, they are getting closer to entry level 1/2" & 2/3" cameras. And while researching my camera purchase I've run across threads such as <insert 1/3" cam here> VERSUS <insert 1/2" or 2/3" cam here>. So it seems there are people out there thinking "If I'm going to pay $X,XXX for this 1/3" camera, why not $XX,XXX for a 1/2" or 2/3" camera that can offer other advantages?"

It also seems that as the 1/3" cameras get more advanced that we may start seeing more DP's using a combination of 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" cameras. We've already seen that start to occur.

I'd welcome the opinions and advice from the folks who use that gear and many of us would have a common interest in other aspects of the industry such as lighting, sound, etc.

... or a whole new section of forums. Before deciding on the HVX (which I still don't have, and don't know when I will have), I looked at some of the lower cost 2/3" cams like the Sony DSR-450. But from what I can tell, even if I saved long enough to be able to afford the camera, there are the other cost associated with editing, storing and distributing when you step up to that level.

As for another section, I'd always be interested in seeing what's going on with 1/2" and 2/3" cameras. I can't afford one right now, but as prices on 1/3" cams like H1's and HVX's continue to go up, they are getting closer to entry level 1/2" & 2/3" cameras. And while researching my camera purchase I've run across threads such as <insert 1/3" cam here> VERSUS <insert 1/2" or 2/3" cam here>. So it seems there are people out there thinking "If I'm going to pay $X,XXX for this 1/3" camera, why not $XX,XXX for a 1/2" or 2/3" camera that can offer other advantages?"

It also seems that as the 1/3" cameras get more advanced that we may start seeing more DP's using a combination of 1/3", 1/2" and 2/3" cameras. We've already seen that start to occur.

I'd welcome the opinions and advice from the folks who use that gear and many of us would have a common interest in other aspects of the industry such as lighting, sound, etc.

Considering the F330 is going to retail at $16,800 it really isn't a huge leap from some of these other cameras. How much would a HVX with enough P2 cards to equal a single XDCAM disc cost?

I don't know if we're doing everybody justice if we put an XDCAM board under "Affordable HD Acquisition." Is it time for "Professional HD Acquisition," or would that be a slam to the professionals who are working with less expensive gear? See, this is what keeps me awake at night.

Another option is to group the XDCAM and P2 boards under a general MXF file format category. Seems like all the higher-end tapeless gear is leaning toward MXF.

For categories, how about.....

"1/3" HD (and smaller)"
and
"1/2" HD (and larger)"


or


"Small HD"
and
"Big HD"


or my suggestion....


Just keep ALL HD under...

"General HD / HDV"

like you have it now. I think this is a wonderful place for XDCAM cameras or anything that is considered High Definition.

- ShannonRawls.com

Speaking of half-inch, or third-inch... I'm going to campaign for abolishing those antiquated terms. Talk about some useless nomenclature. What the industry refers to as a "third-inch" CCD is in reality quite a bit smaller than a third of an inch, and besides, isn't even supposed to be measured in inches. The factory that makes them doesn't measure them in fractions of an inch, so why should we. See my notes about CCD nomenclature at http://www.dvinfo.net/canonoptura/articles/lineage.php#opccd

Maybe we need a 7mm CCD forum. Actually we're probably better off calling it small sensor, medium sensor and large. Or super-size, or biggie, or whatever.

I think the method of dividing up the groups might just turn into a hot topic.

Dividing up via MXF and, i dunno - hdv, sounds fairly good. It allows for expandibility but what happens if say a camera came out that didn't use MXF or HDV. It might very well get lost.

But I think Shannon has a point. Lets keep HD under HD. HDV, P2, XDCAM - they are all HD so that works. But This is all under the heading of Affordable High Def. So how about a price point barrier. So long as its camera only price, sub 10k go under afforable, and then you just start a group called something like higher end.

Chris, I think your currently methodology works - If theirs enough topics then you need to look at this, if not then what their currently is works. XDCAM might stay in the realm of broadcast and not to many people will have it or talk about it here. This is just going to be a wait and see game I think.

Love to see if their is much difference between the 330 and 350 when they are avaiable. To bad both don't have HD-SDI :(

Thanks for your input, Keith... much appreciated...

what happens if say a camera came out that didn't use MXF or HDV.New category then. That's what!

It really does seem to me that so far that it's shaping up to be HDV tape-based cameras on the one hand, and then a higher-end MXF-based tapeless group on the other hand (these being Panasonic P2 flash memory and Sony XDCAM optical disc).

Another option is to group the XDCAM and P2 boards under a general MXF file format category. Seems like all the higher-end tapeless gear is leaning toward MXF.

tapeless HD acquisition doesn't sound too insulting.

Considering the F330 is going to retail at $16,800 it really isn't a huge leap from some of these other cameras. How much would a HVX with enough P2 cards to equal a single XDCAM disc cost? You're right John, and a more affordable direct storage solution would be a REAL plus. But my next question would be - Do I need the Sony $15,000 deck to play it back and get it into an editing solution with? Or can you firewire it directly into FCP directly from the camera like you could with the HVX eliminating the need for another piece of equipment? Equipment that will become obsolete when something like, say, the ZDCAM is introduced by Sony in 2009 (or whatever).

...If it can be easily incorporated into a simple workflow I think many people will bypass the XLH and the HVX for the XDCAM-HD solution. 120 minutes for $30 is a punch in the gut to P2Sure is. I would consider holding off on purchasing an HVX if I can find out that the possibilities look good for an affordable Mac-based total workflow solution. Two glitches, it's not scheduled for release until June and it's not "scheduled" for release until June.

Considering the F330 is going to retail at $16,800 it really isn't a huge leap from some of these other cameras. How much would a HVX with enough P2 cards to equal a single XDCAM disc cost?

Don't forget, you get a lens with the other cameras. The retail prices that Sony is quoting don't include a lens. So the F330 is going to cost about double that price when you add in lens and batteries, etc.

Suddenly, you're miles away from the price of the HVX with P2 cards and the H1.

Just food for thought.

-gb-

Don't forget, you get a lens with the other cameras. The retail prices that Sony is quoting don't include a lens. So the F330 is going to cost about double that price when you add in lens and batteries, etc.Suddenly, you're miles away from the price of the HVX with P2 cards and the H1.Just food for thought. Heeeeeyyyyy HVX, welcome back to my house. Come on in and sit in MY chair. Can I offer you something to drink?

By the end of the summer I would suspect you could get a full set up, lens and all for $20K or less. Remember, your backups ARE your disks, in P2 or HDD world professional RELIABLE back-up gets very very expensive. We should start a new section next year for tapeless workflow horror stories... I already have heard many and have one of my own.



ash =o)

Looks like there's going to be quite a bit happening this year. I'm looking forward to seeing how everything continues to unfold (while costs decline) and our equipment options get better and better with the XDCAM HD as well as others.

Yes, if I could buy the F330 with lens for $15K, I'd pick it up over the HVX200.

I have a feeling things are going to get real interesting over the next couple years.

Steve

It really does seem to me that so far that it's shaping up to be HDV tape-based cameras on the one hand, and then a higher-end MXF-based tapeless group on the other hand (these being Panasonic P2 flash memory and Sony XDCAM optical disc).

But isn't XDCAM HD just elementary-stream MPEG2? Seems to me things are pretty well organized now and don't need to be further splintered into sub-categories based on recording formats or the type of media used. I could see a case for having some sort of price cut-off, but then what happens as prices fall over time? Perhaps for now we could say that $10K is the price limit for most of us here and have a separate "high end" category for XDCAM HD, Red, and whatever else catches people's interest.

Perhaps for now we could say that $10K is the price limit for most of us here and have a separate "high end" category for XDCAM HD, Red, and whatever else catches people's interest.That's what I was thinking - like a $10k+ or $15k+ section.

Perhaps we should just break it down to under $10K, and over $10K. Eventually we might (hopefully) attract the audience for a $50K and higher area, but right now I see just one delineation of any significance, and that's the $10K price point.

Although I wonder how we would properly categorize the forthcoming JVC camera, the one that's HDV in the 2/3rd-inch size. It'll be well over $10K, more like the $20K range, but it's still HDV. That's why I feel somewhat prompted to keep things organized by format rather than price.

I don't think these new XDCam HD cameras are designed to compete directly with the HVX the relationship is more like the DVX100 and the DSR 570, different markets.

Perhaps you could just replace the Z1/FX1 section with a Sony HDV section which would include the new cameras?

We should start a new section next year for tapeless workflow horror stories... I already have heard many and have one of my own.

Way to make me feel bad ;)

Anyway, why not try and support tapeless workflows rather than horror stories. I think most people like tapeless but theirs definetly some real and valid fears with it. We can all learn from peoples horror stories of tapeless - things like the file table wasn't written or the drive crashed.

XDCAM is tapeless but I suspect its going to be fairly robust and reliable, yet it still presents the same workflow issues when reusing the discs. So I think that the direct to disk section is good, but its putting more emphasize on the capture. A section on the workflow and reliability and backup issues could be a nice benefit.

Panasonics whitepaper about smart backup is a great start and I guess this stuff could be discussed under NLE groups but I'd rather see another group that helped people through this. I plan on sharing my designs for tapeless workflow, data safety, backup and more when they are... well, you know, I get to that point.

Maybe I'm totally off the mark with people needing some workflow help with tapeless solutions. Maybe everyone but me figured it out :)

That's why I feel somewhat prompted to keep things organized by format rather than price.
But Chris...the format is "High Definition". That's why what you have now is excellent. You should just add newer "HD" cameras right here where we are.

I don't think it should be categorized by "CODEC" or "MEDIUM" because then things get squirrely. Like it is elsewhere on the web......totally confusing.

The way you have it now is sweet!

- ShannonRawls.com

We should start a new section next year for tapeless workflow horror stories... I already have heard many and have one of my own.

I haven't heard 'many' like you have, but I have heard ONE. Where on a reality show (or was it a las vegas fight preview coming up, i forget), they were using the big P2 camera. You know, the one that has 4 slots in it? Well, apparently the P2 cards somehow crashed and dumped a bunch of footage that was priceless and couldn't be re-created. The producer was furious and never wanted to be the 'test monkey' for tapeless acquisition in the first place, but did so because he was coerced(sp?) or was given a financial incentive or something. Anyhow, after that disaster, he went back to DIGIBETA (something he was used to) and finished the show with those type cameras.

This was the early days of P2 and I'm sure the kinks are worked out. The P2 for the HVX seems solid and reliable. But it's still kinda scarry when you're dealing with such important stuff, like movies, documentaries & reality shows. We already know the perils of tape aquisition, so having a form discussing dropouts and broken tape is worthless. But since tapless capture is new to us all, it would be cool to hear stories about problems with P2 & XDCAM from those who dare to try it first so we can learn how to avoid certain situations and do proper preventive maintenance.

- ShannonRawls.com

Way to make me feel bad ;)

XDCAM is tapeless but I suspect its going to be fairly robust and reliable, yet it still presents the same workflow issues when reusing the discs. )

XDCAM is VERY robust and rock-solid, I've probably worked with at least 100 cams in the past year at various broadcast houses, and have yet to experience or hear any horror stories. If it's in ENG use, it's getting the crap kicked out of it in many situations. And it works.

At Sundance Media, we use tapeless systems religiously, often using tape backup, but haven't needed the backup for at least two years that I know of. *most* of the horror stories that I know regarding tapeless relate to really cheap tapeless systems.

BTW, my vote is for Tapeless HD Recording/Acquisition or some form thereof.

I wonder how we would properly categorize the forthcoming JVC camera, the one that's HDV in the 2/3rd-inch size. It'll be well over $10K, more like the $20K range, but it's still HDV. That's why I feel somewhat prompted to keep things organized by format rather than price.

This is why categorizing by recording format or media doesn't work, because it's not what determines who's interested in the camera. I expect the $15-20K HD cameras to offer a better level of image quality than any of the current sub-$10K cameras, and if that's true it would be confusing to lump XDCAM HD with the HVX200 or JVC "super HDV" with a Sony HC1. So either just have all the HD cameras together in one big group, or let's admit that price is the significant dividing line.

XDCAM is tapeless but I suspect its going to be fairly robust and reliable, yet it still presents the same workflow issues when reusing the discs.

That's assuming you reuse the discs, but at $30 or so per hour of recording time you could afford to store them for several weeks before making the decision to reuse one. Compare that to P2 memory at $200 per minute of recording or DTE drives at ~$5-10 per minute, and that's a whole different ballgame in terms of designing your workflow. Sounds like we could use a resolution-neutral forum just to discuss tapeless workflow options.

The XDCAM HD captures 4:2:0 colorspace at 35Mb/s and the HVX200 captures 4:2:2 colorspace at 100Mb/s. Which one do you think will have the highest quality video? The difference between XDCAM 1/2" chip and the HVX 200 1/3" chip probably won't make up the quality difference of the sub $6k HVX200. I don't know but I'm guessing.

The XDCAM HD captures 4:2:0 colorspace at 35Mb/s and the HVX200 captures 4:2:2 colorspace at 100Mb/s. Which one do you think will have the highest quality video? The difference between XDCAM 1/2" chip and the HVX 200 1/3" chip probably won't make up the quality difference of the sub $6k HVX200. I don't know but I'm guessing.

The Sony uses more efficient compression though. I would think the codecs would be evenly matched but the Sony camera head should be superior. The Sony also has the option of using high quality glass.

Sounds like we could use a resolution-neutral forum just to discuss tapeless workflow options.Maybe that's the suggestion I was looking for... a category called Tapeless HD Acquisition, covering P2, XDCAM and whatever else comes down the pike.

And I must agree about not re-using discs... why would anyone want to re-use a disc, unless it's just scratch material that you're re-recording over.

Sorry, forgetting cost per unit time of XDCAM discs. I'm out in uncompressed thinking all the time so I slip up a little when I look at other things like this.

I think Tapeless HD Acquisition would be a good category to put several groups in. 2 Camera's so far and possibly move the direct to disk recording solutions to it. Editcam and Infinity could eventually be added to.

The XDCAM HD captures 4:2:0 colorspace at 35Mb/s and the HVX200 captures 4:2:2 colorspace at 100Mb/s. Which one do you think will have the highest quality video? The difference between XDCAM 1/2" chip and the HVX 200 1/3" chip probably won't make up the quality difference of the sub $6k HVX200. I don't know but I'm guessing.

It will be interesting to see this comparison made when both cameras are shipping. I'm guessing that the size of the XDCAM sensors will offer some distinct advantages over any of the small-chip cameras, but this may not matter to those who like the look the HVX200 delivers. Also note that the HVX200 in 720p/24 mode records barely more data per second than XDCAM at maximum quality, so there again it will be interesting to these two compared.

I stream video on a regular basis since 1999 and I can tell you categorically that if you watch a video clip at 112Kb/s (ISDN) rate it sort of looks ok if you used Cleaner XL or some other good utility. Now if you take 100Mb/s / 30Mb/s = 2.86 times the capture rate, multiply 112 * 2.86 = 320Kb/s its a huge difference also I think your underestimating frame accurate 4:2:2 colorspace. Think of it this way would you rather have a car with 30HP or 100HP? If you like economy you want 30HP if you want ??? you get 100HP car.

That being said I have used both the Sony VX2100 and PD170 and think they are excellent cameras. I believe the new XDCAM HD is also an excellent camera, I think the 1/2" heads will give it better depth of field and allow it to use 1/2" Fujinon HD glass.

You really need to understand that a approx. 3 times higher capture rate on the HVX200 is a significant factor, but it looks like its being underated or ignored. I can't wait to see the live tests of these cameras once they get in the hands of the pros on real client shoots!

Think of it this way would you rather have a car with 30HP or 100HP? If you like economy you want 30HP if you want ??? you get 100HP car.

I don't think that is the same though. The Sony's MPEG2 compression is far more efficient that DVCPROHD. It is more like saying "do you want a car that uses 100ml of fuel per mile or 30ml/km." Both cars may produce the same level of performance, you would have to test them to see which was best or you.

The actual data rate isn't important (well, lower bitrates are easier to store), it is how good the codec looks.

I don't think that is the same though. The Sony's MPEG2 compression is far more efficient that DVCPROHD. It is more like saying "do you want a car that uses 100ml of fuel per mile or 30ml/km." Both cars may produce the same level of performance, you would have to test them to see which was best or you.

The actual data rate isn't important (well, lower bitrates are easier to store), it is how good the codec looks.

Exactly. If you had a 30HP motor that can deliver 100HP performance, you'd rather have that, wouldn't you?
At the end of the day, there will always be the folks that look at math, and that makes decisions for them. Then there are those that look at the picture, and for them, the perception of the picture regardless of what its math properties are is more important. Codecs and compression schemes regardless of what they are, improve every day, while math is just...."math."

I don't think that is the same though. The Sony's MPEG2 compression is far more efficient that DVCPROHD. It is more like saying "do you want a car that uses 100ml of fuel per mile or 30ml/km." Both cars may produce the same level of performance, ............
I'll agree Mike. A more appropiate analogy may be two engines each producing 100hp, one a diesel and the other a gas turbine, same power output, but very different power/weight ratios. Neither is 'better' than the other, but one may be far more appropiate for a given vehicle than the other, for many reasons other than power output. The efficiency of the turbine is likely to come at a price, whether it's worth it or not has to be decided on a case by case basis. The "cost" in codec terms is more likely to translate to matters such as editing ease than image quality, assuming a high enough bitrate. What can't be concluded is that because a diesel engine weighs 1000kg it will be more powerful than a gas turbine "because that only weighs 300kg".

Quality wise I'd expect these two codecs to perform very comparably, and any differences to probably be masked by the differences due to 1/2" v 1/3" chips etc. But the camera with the higher quality chips is more expensive.

May I ask what article you used to base your opinions about the efficiency of the new XDCAM HD 35Mb/s mpeg-2 codec? Is there an article that has specifically tested this new codec? If so did it test it against other mpeg codecs or many different codecs include DVCPRO etc?

I'm not trying to be argumentative I'm actually trying to see how you got the factual information about the new codec? If it clearly has proven to be almost as efficient as the DVCPRO HD etc codecs Than I would reconsider the Sony XDCAM HD.

Although the now brings up the Long GOP issue. Apparently you only get to register precisely the current image every 15 frames in Long GOP. The DVCPRO HD codec allows each frame to stand entirely by itself without requiring addtional cues from marker frame further down stream.

Well...then you're trying to categorize us shooters when you talk money spent on gear.

I, for one, DO own a Sony Z1U HDV camera, and spent about $4,500 for it.

On the other hand, I spent $24,000 on a D35WS head, with DVCam and BetacamSP dockable backends, plus 2 lenses. Sounds like a lot of money, but I actually got a really great deal...

I'm sure there are other shooters on here who are in the same spending bracket.

I would have no complaints buying an XDCAM, but quite frankly, i'd rather buy a 2/3" IMX/DVCAM XDCAM shooting in SD with a 2/3" HD lens than a 1/2" XDCAM HD camera with a 1/2" HD lens that's not quite as good.

24p MPEG IMX shot in 50 mb/sec through an HD lens onto a 2/3" sensor will look good upconverted to 720p. Have you seen upconverts of SDX900 footage? It looks very nice.

Douglas,
almost anything will be more efficient than the DVCProHD codec, best way to think of DVCProHD is as just 4 DV codecs running in parrallel. Yes, as it doesn't use intraframe compression it is going to be easier to edit but then again the issues raised by having to handle intraframe compression in post were solved long ago by the use of intermediate codecs.
What is a real challenge for intraframe compression schemes is noise. As DCPRoHD doesn't use intraframe compression it is going to handle noise very well, probably a good thing too on the HVX100 but it's almost inevitable that your footage is going to go through intraframe compression, be it DVB broadcast or mpeg-2 for DVD.
Just take a look at the Dixie Chicks DVD shot on the DVX100, I bought that DVD to try to convince the boss to switch from PD150s to DVX100s but instead it showed why we shouldn't, just checkout the noise in the blacks.
And please don't anyone tell me it looks more 'filmic', film doesn't have noise that gets frozen when the encoder runs out of bandwidth.
The other thing with noise is it only gets worse in post, that's why I'm a big fan of larger CCDs, if nothing else the lower noise levels means you can push the footage around more in post. Just last week I did some post work on typical DV footage from a 1/3" 3 CCD camera. It had already been CC'd and the noise in the interior shots was just woeful despite a fair amount of light being used.

May I ask what article you used to base your opinions about the efficiency of the new XDCAM HD 35Mb/s mpeg-2 codec? Is there an article that has specifically tested this new codec?
My own comments were based not on one specific article, nor the XDCAM 35Mb implementation specifically, rather on what's been published about MPEG2 at varying datarates in general. My understanding is that a lot depends on the coder itself (newer implementations obviously tending to be generally better than older), and the picture content. Codec A may outperform B on scene X, but be inferior on scene Y - hence 'comparable' quality tends to be talked of rather than 'equivalent'.

All that said, you may be interested in reading this paper from IBC 18 months ago - http://www.broadcastpapers.com/ibc2004/IBC04tandtvHDDEL-print.htm . In particular, note the figures for MPEG2 bitrates given in Table 1 - 12-20Mbs for transmission to home, 25-40Mbs for broadcast contribution circuits, and 30-50Mbs for live e-cinema. Going on those figures, 35Mbs for HD is considered within the industry to be high for a broadcast contribution circuit, and even within the range for live e-cinema! (In other words, pretty good. :) ) There are so many variables that defining it as better or worse than such as DVCPRO HD is virtually impossible, and likely to vary scene by scene anyway.

But I would expect it to be comparable, and far more so than the 35v100Mbs figures would initially lead to believe. And the chip size differences of the cameras to be more significant quality wise than the codec differences.

You really need to understand that a approx. 3 times higher capture rate on the HVX200 is a significant factor, but it looks like its being underated or ignored. I can't wait to see the live tests of these cameras once they get in the hands of the pros on real client shoots!

Like I said before, note that the maximum recording bit rate for XDCAM HD is similar to the bit rate for the mode many people will use on the HVX200, which is 720p/24 at 40 Mbps. At that point the larger, higher resolution sensor and (hopefully) better glass on the XDCAM should offer image characteristics you can't get from any of the smaller cameras, but we won't know that until we see sample footage side-by-side of the same scenes. Should be an interesting year...

The other thing with noise is it only gets worse in post, that's why I'm a big fan of larger CCDs, if nothing else the lower noise levels means you can push the footage around more in post. Just last week I did some post work on typical DV footage from a 1/3" 3 CCD camera. It had already been CC'd and the noise in the interior shots was just woeful despite a fair amount of light being used.

I'm starting to feel different about XDCAM HD codec. I agree with you 100% on bigger chips. Ever since I started shooting on 2/3" chips I never looked back. Though I do get assignments frequently to shoot promotional clips (not broadcast) of club dancing, boutique make-over’s and fashion clips with the PD170 which I really like.

One question that pops up with the release of the F350 is how they handle over and under-cranking capability. If they have a marker every 6 or 15 frames for the GOP how do they handle over-cranking at 5 fps or time-lapse recording (one frame every 5 minutes etc)?

I'm definitely going to stay positive and open on the XDCAM HD F330 & F350. Actually the only other camera I've been considering for HD production is the Infinity HD camera, because it has 2/3" chips and includes the 2/3" HD Lens in the price. The only thing is that if you want to records using a 4:2:2 color-space you have to use some weird codec called JPG2000 HD @ 110Mb/s. The good new is this camera with lens will come in under $35K! Although the F330 with good HD glass will come in under $25K. If I were going for the F350 I think you get much better value on the Infinity, since you know your going to have to add at least $14K to the $26K of the F350 for your HD glass.

All that said, you may be interested in reading this paper from IBC 18 months ago - http://www.broadcastpapers.com/ibc2004/IBC04tandtvHDDEL-print.htm . In particular, note the figures for MPEG2 bitrates given in Table 1 - 12-20Mbs for transmission to home, 25-40Mbs for broadcast contribution circuits, and 30-50Mbs for live e-cinema. Going on those figures, 35Mbs for HD is considered within the industry to be high for a broadcast contribution circuit, and even within the range for live e-cinema! (In other words, pretty good.
I did read that article it's very interesting, by any chance have you ever heard of a codec called JPEG 2000? Check out the little blurb below.

JPEG 2000 compression is also frame accurate—making it
ideal for post-production editing or compositing work. It syncs
with audio and metadata better than other schemes. It also
provides 4:2:2, 10 bit image quality, which combined with its
other features make it ideal for HD. This is one reason why
acceptance is growing for this format. Recently, the Digital
Cinema Initiatives Committee selected JPEG 2000 as the
standard for digital motion picture content and delivery.

end blurb.

If Avid and FCP support JPEG2000 then Infinity will be a real success.

If Avid and FCP support JPEG2000 then Infinity will be a real success.

you can bet J2K is going to be VERY successful. It's a brilliant technology that blows most anything else in its class away. I'm certain we'll soon see support for this in most every application, because there isn't a lot to implementing it.

you can bet J2K is going to be VERY successful. It's a brilliant technology that blows most anything else in its class away. I'm certain we'll soon see support for this in most every application, because there isn't a lot to implementing it.

Wow that sounds like a good recommendation. Well I guess I'll be buying a new J2K enabled camera at NAB 2006 event this year. I wonder why more pro-camcorder manufacturers aren't using or implementing this codec.