The reason why XDCAMHD at 25mbits looks better then HDV at 25mbits is because XDCAMHD has much better encoder chips which cost a lot of money. I don't even want to talk about quality because that is the huge unknown right now. The EX could end up looking like garbage for all we know. I'm sure it will not look that bad but we have no way of knowing until it gets here.

Not just encoder chips, but the larger imagers. You're putting more latitude and lower inherent noise levels offered by larger sensors into the encoder. That allows the encoder to spend its bits on things that matter, rather than encoding noise. The XDCAM EX will offer this same capability and then some.

Much like the way a DSR570 can get such a nice picture on DVCAM even though it is the same compression and chroma subsampling as mini-DV.

As has been stated, specs alone can't be used to judge overall picture quality. There's a lot of magic behind the scenes with the advanced knowledge of MPEG2 compression going into these cameras.

-gb-

My comparison of XDCAMHD and HDV is pretty much like the comparison of DVCAM to DV. Yes they are pretty much the same but one is usually used on much better equipment so it tends to be in a higher market level.

Okay, that makes sense enough. Getting back to the issue of recording cost, the EX won't have a set cost in the sense of any tape-based format where you keep the tapes, so the cost will just be whatever you spend to archive the footage. With today's hard drive prices you could make archives of EX footage that way for about $3 per hour of video, or $6/hour with a duplicate backup. That's comparable to the cost of miniDV tape from a camera targeted at a higher level market, so that's quite reasonable.

As far as physical storage requirements are concerned, three 500 GB hard drives would hold over 90 hours of XDCAM HD footage - how much space would 90 hours of DVCAM or HDCAM tapes occupy?

Given that the VX2100 is all but identical to the PD170, but that one is DV and the other DVCam, I'm not sure it gains any argumentative clarity to imply that one is 'usually better' than the other. If the comparison is between bits of hardware -- and the most usual test, price, is somehow lacking -- then leave out all mention of formats, me thinks.

Cheers,
GB

I'd be interested to know who would rather record 25Mb/s over 35Mb/s...

I guess wedding and event videographers. But I presume most people would want to use 35Mb/s even at the expense of storage capacity.

And as for 18Mb/s... I wonder if that rate EVER gets used on the F330/350?

I'd be interested to know who would rather record 25Mb/s over 35Mb/s...

I guess wedding and event videographers. But I presume most people would want to use 35Mb/s even at the expense of storage capacity.

And as for 18Mb/s... I wonder if that rate EVER gets used on the F330/350?

The original inclusion of 25mb CBR was to allow a semblance of compatibility with HDV from an NLE point of view. Although the audio is 4 channel uncompressed, unlike that of HDV. Most NLEs were already supporting HDV by the time of the camera's release last year.

The 18mb I learned, was for compatibility in ENG work. The newer digital satellite and microwave channel bandwidths are 18mbs. This way, the footage could be shot and fed without the need for a datarate down conversion which would be an additional MPEG compression cycle. It also gets you more recording time per disc.

-gb-

I'd be interested to know who would rather record 25Mb/s over 35Mb/s...

I guess wedding and event videographers. But I presume most people would want to use 35Mb/s even at the expense of storage capacity.

And as for 18Mb/s... I wonder if that rate EVER gets used on the F330/350?

It all depends on the type of event that is being shot. A long seminar type event where the camera is locked down and there is very little movement will look just as good with 18mbits/s as it would with 35mbits/s. In this case it would be an almost total waste to use the 35mbit mode because the video wouldn't look any better but you would have to keep changing disks all the time and you would run the risk of missing out on a minute or two of the event while you switched disks. With the EX this isn't really a problem since it has two card slots. You could keep swapping cards and downloading them without ever missing anything.

It pretty much comes down to longer recording times for those who need longer non stop recording times.

Great topic guys.