Alister, it seems to me that you genuinely feel that the EX1 is a superior camera for high quality 1080 productions than the HPX2700 - is this really your position?
Steve

Dear Friends,

Our Flash XDR has been used for National Geographic productions.

The nanoFlash has also been tested, and it passed their tests. I know it will be used on an upcoming large project.

I am not in a position to elaborate much further, but if one wants to use a specific camera with a nanoFlash, for a National Geographic project, I would just go through regular channels and get their approval.

Where did I say that? There are many other 1080 cameras, HPX3700, PDW-700, PMW-350, all with full raster imagers producing true 1080 images. We've been over this a million time elsewhere.

So now that I am 1 week into our documentation project for Nat. Geo. TV, here is my acquisition method. I am shooting with our EX-3/Nanoflash combo. The files I am providing the Wash. DC office are MOV. long GOP@100Mbs. The producer was fine with this combination though she did say that their A camera is a PDW-F800. My experience is with this single project only and should not be considered SOP for the whole organization.

Best,

Dave

That's what I mean, you've been hinting at it a million times elsewhere. You said a few posts back "What's so weird about thinking that the 2700, a 720P camera would only get approval for 720P productions". This implies that you don't think it suitable for 1080 productions as it's not good enough, and yet I assume you think the EX cameras (particularly with a Nanoflash) are suitable, implying that the EX cameras are superior for high quality results.
I just wanted to know if this assumption was right. Don't take it the wrong way or antagonistic/argumentative, I genuinely just want to know your thoughts - do you feel the EX1/3 will give higher quality results on high end 1080 productions than the HPX2700?
Steve

No, I don't think the HPX2700 (or any other 720P camera) should be used as the primary camera on a 1080 production. It has a 720P front end, it is best suited IMHO to 720P productions or to supplement 1080 cameras for it's overcrank capabilities, but not primary camera. What's the point in producing in 1080 using a 720P front end? If you want to use the HPX2700 make the whole show 720P. For a 1080 production where a small compact camera is a priority or necessity over a full size camera I would use an EX1 with NanoFlash, otherwise I would use another true 1080 camera such as a PDW-700, HPX3700 or PMW-350 with a NanoFlash. It's a case of right tool for the job.

I'm curious as to what is the advantage of a PMW-350 with a Nano-flash as opposed to images recorded to it's own SxS cards?

Thanks

The Nanoflash will record 50 or 100mbts pictures that meet the requirements of many broadcasters. The BBC are not keen on SxS 35mbts pictures.

I'm now wondering what benefits this will confer our PDW-F350. Is the camera section 4:2:2?
thanks
K

Yes, the camera sections (and hence direct output to the HD-SDI connector) are 4:2:2 on all the EX series cameras. It's the 35Mb recording system on the SxS cards that's 4:2:0

Thanks Bruce & Dave,

We have a PDW-F350 and I was considering up-grading to a 2/3" PMW-350, I'm now wondering how just significant the upgrade will be if one was to compare the output from nanoFlash units on both cameras?

Kalunga

I hope I didn't give the wrong impression from the last post, having just noticed you were talking anbout the PDW-F350. (It also is 4:2:2 internally and via HD-SDI, but obviously records in 4:2:0 on the disc.)
The big advantages of the PMW 350 are the 2/3" chip for more selective depth of field (and 2/3" lenses), the chips and recording being 1920x1080 as opposed to 1440x1080, slot for wireless receiver, color VF, HDMI output, and significantly more sensitive chips (better low light performance), plus some other features.
Of course what you give up is recording to optical pro-disc, and CCD sensors (which are valuable if shooting around flash photography)
With either camera the Nano gives you additional recorded quality, and as someone who shoots green or blue screen on a regular basis, I wouldn't consider doing matte work without recording on the Nano.

late to the party, but...

I wonder how Nat Geo feels about the Canon XF line? The BBC sure likes them, giving them full acquisition approval. The Canons have a good codec, and the images from the 1/3" 3MOS 1920x1080 full-rez chips are supposed to be really sharp.
And what about the HPX370s? Is AVC-intra 100 with 1/3" CMOS good enough?