NV-MX350A Specifications (PAL)

[Frank Granovski]

Specifications

Power Source: DC 7.9/7.2 V
Power Consumption: Recording
4.7 W (When using Viewfinder)
5.6 W (When using LCD Monitor)
Recording Format: Mini DV (Consumer-use Digital Video
SD Format)
Tape Used: 6.35 mm digital video tape
Recording/Playback Time: SP: 80 min.; LP: 120 min. (with
DVM80)
Video
Recording System: Digital Component
Television System: CCIR: 625 lines, 50 fields PAL colour
signal
Audio
Recording System: PCM Digital Recording
16 bit (48 kHz/2ch),
12 bit (32 kHz/4ch)
Image Sensor: 1/4-inch 3CCD Image Sensor
(Effective Pixels: 360 K k 3,
Total: 570 K k 3)
Lens: Auto Iris, F1.6, Focal Length;
3.55-42.6 mm,
Macro (Full Range AF)
Filter Diameter: 43 mm
Zoom: 12:1 Power Zoom
Monitor: 3.5-inch LCD
Viewfinder: Colour Electronic Viewfinder
Microphone: Stereo
Speaker: 1 round speaker ? 20 mm
Standard Illumination: 1,400 lx
Minimum Required
Illumination: 8 lx (Low Light Mode)
Video Output Level: 1.0 Vp-p, 75 ohm
S-Video Output Level: Y Output: 1.0 Vp-p, 75 ohm
C Output: 0.3 Vp-p, 75 ohm
Audio Output Level (Line): 316 mV, 600 ohm
Video Input Level: 1.0 Vp-p, 75 ohm
S-Video Input Level: Y Input: 1.0 Vp-p, 75 ohm
C Input: 0.3 Vp-p, 75 ohm
Audio Input Level (Line): 316 mV, 10 kohm or more
Mic Input: Mic sensitivity -50 dB (0 dB = 1 V/Pa,
1 kHz)
(Stereo mini jack)
Digital Still Picture: Digital Still Picture Output, Control
Signal Input/Output
(Transfer rate: max. 115 kbps)
USB/Mini-SystemE: Card reader/writer function,
USB 1.1 compliant (max. 12 Mbps)
No copyright protection support/
Mini-System editing terminal
Digital Interface: DV Input/Output Terminal (IEEE1394,
4-pin)
Dimensions: Approx. 72 (W)k 94 (H)k 219 (D) mm
Weight: Approx. 720 g (without Battery and DV
cassette)
Approx. 780 g (with VSB0419 and
DVM60)
Operating Temperature: 0 oCj40 oC
Operating Humidity: 10%j80%
Card Memory Functions
Recording Media: MultiMediaCard, SD Memory Card
Image Compression: JPEG
Video Compression: MPEG4
Still Image Size: Mega-Pixel Recording;
1568k1152 (1.81 million pixels)
VGA Recording; 640k480
Sound Compression: G.726
AC Adaptor Information for your safety
Power Source: AC 100-240 V, 50/60 Hz
Power Consumption: 35 W
DC Output: DC 7.9 V, 9 W (Movie Camera
Operation)
DC 8.4 V, 2.4 A (Battery Charging)
Dimensions: 76 (W)k 52 (H)k 101 (D) mm
Weight: Approx. 230 g
Weight and dimensions are approximate values.

[Frank Granovski]

The MX350's playback resolution (via wave-form monitor) is 500 horizontal lines - same as the MX300/0. More info to follow.

[Frank Granovski]

Ray Jolivet's take on the MX350:
--------------------------------------------------

After many months I finally got my new NV-MX350A camera. It boiled down to either old stock MX300 or new MX350. Here is a long winded report on my findings to date.

I decided on the MX350 because

1) new model presumably means spares will be around longer
2) improved image stabilizer (an to a lesser extent larger LCD)
3) the price diff of $A300 less for MX300 was not enough to offset buying the new model

Good points

1) 3.5 inch 200k pixel polycrystalline LCD (MX300 has 2.5 inch)
2) better image stabilizer (the MX300 was pretty bad so this brings it up to Sony levels)
3) image enhancement for sharpness sand saturation (MX300 did not have but MX3000 did). Sharpness on any digital camera is better described as "artificial image manipulation to imitate sharpness factor" as all it does is make the pixels more contrasty next to lines ie for white lines there is a row of dark pixels and vice versa.

Bad points

1) my camera has some sort of bug where a portion of the image (Lower right) has less resolution. We'll see how far I get with Pana getting that fixed!
2) viewfinder has 113k pixels instead of MX300 180k. The finder is pretty useless for anything but rough composition. Forget accurate manual focus using viewfinder however the LCD is not too bad.
3) no rubber lens light shield. I am going to see if I can get a MX300 rubber shield as this would protect the lens from bumps which it will no doubt get as it is right at the end of the camera.

Other differences are mainly for stills fans and gadget freaks

1) super dupa "mega" optical stabilizer for stills. I guess this is for pic after parties
2) ultra small pop up flash with some adjustments. Good for up to a few meters if you but this came for stills (which you shouldn't)
3) supposedly better battery consumption but my 5 hour battery lasts about an hour so I am not sure
4) USB port on the camera for download of stills. The MX300 used a separate USB reader
5) you can use your 4 grand MX350 to record sound onto the card in case your $200 reorder breaks down!

Things that seem the same. I have not compared cameras but am basing this on some guesswork and reports and images on the web

1) The lens and resolution appear the same. I get about I get about 520 vert by 430 horiz for video (taken from image grab from DV NLE suite) and about 650 vert and 750 horiz for stills in the highest resolution. These images taken with full auto. I take this to mean that the lens is as good as or better than the theoretical definition for DV so it is not the limiting factor.
2) the Lens magnification (12X) and speed (F1.6) and filter size (43m) appear the same.
3) the cam is similar weight but has a different form factor more elongated than MX300
4) adjustable sound volume. I am not that impressed with the sound but can't compare to MX300.
5) pretty ordinary low light capability (although the gain can go up to +18db with associated increase in picture noise. I understand that this is 6db higher than MX300). This is a feature of 3CCD cams. Perhaps the new Sony "950" will excel here is it is supposed to use the same HAD CCDs as the VX2000 which can "see in the dark" compared to the MX300 / 350.
6) similar zoom button and controls although there are some differences. They are fine and I adapted quickly from using two Sony cams over the past ten years.
7) same ^%$^@ cassette access from under the camera which means taking cam off tripod to change. I guess the cam is not aimed at users that use tripods often so this may not be a big problem.

My conclusion

The MX350 has more bells and whistles than the MX350 but these are mainly aimed at marketing and for stills. No obvious improvement over MX300 for the basic camera other than the larger LCD and adjustable "sharpness" and saturation. The larger LCD is a necessity as the viewfinder is pretty useless. There may well be other "downsides" not mentioned in the marketing blurb where Pana cut costs on the new model. Of course there may be advantages but I have yet to find them. The camera is ideal for the enthusiast that wants to adjust everything. It will give good results but in my opinion is not up to the tried and tested tough VX2000 for semi pro event work (but it is not meant to be).

Overall I am happy with the camera based on my decision to purchase the new model. Lets see if pana can fix the problems. I'll update with more news in due course. I am happy to email sample resolution pics - give me a shout at:

joli_ray@hotmail.com
Ray Jolivet

[Andre De Clercq]

I liked this camera too, but didn't buy after testing. I agree with the evaluation report. Unfortunately line twitter and line crawl when the camera or the object moves slowly up and down, and "edge business" in general has not been evaluated/compaired. These artifacts are the result of the vertical edge enhancement/manipulation part (black under and above each white and vice versa). It has been known for a long time that this vertical enhancement part is (alsmost)as good and desirable as the horizontal one for progressively scanned images, photo's , and/or small interlaced displays or when vieuwing images from a long distance. Not acceptable for modern (large) TV screens or projection. The vertical enhancement can only be turned down (sharpness adjust) together with the horizontal enhancement/softening. If one wants to get rid of the disturbing vertical enhancement, the horizontal resolution gets lost because of the (simultaniously adjusted) negative horizontal enhancement (softening). On an image where sharp horizontal or almost horizontal structures are present, the artifacts are there and disturbing the image. On a waveform monitor the twitter (in frame mode) and the crawl( in field mode can easely be verified.

[Frank Granovski]

Dre,

go to:

www.dvfreak.com/pana_mx5.html

and click on the MX500 Powerpoint slides. Panasonic seems to have fixed this in this new model.

[Andre De Clercq]

Frank, I cannot connect to this site. If this problem is being solved I will reconsidder buying the MX350. Light sensitivity (and I didn't mention this up to now) is nothing special.. somewhat less performant than the Sony TRV 950 and much behind the Canon XM2. Of course VX2000 is way in front but too big for me on vacation.

[Frank Granovski]

The Power Point slides are of the MX500, and not the MX350.

You couldn't connect to www.dvfreak.com ? When you click on the Power Point slides, it takes some time for it to come up. On my friend's high speed phone connection, it took about a minute.

[Andre De Clercq]

Frank,
I found the Powerpoint slides but I don't see issues relating to that vertical enhancement problem(at least a problem for me)

[Frank Granovski]

Look at the slide:

High Quality "Wide-Screen Mode"

It compares wide screen resolutions with the MX300 and MX500.

Also look at this slide:

"High Picture Quality Processing Innovation"

[Andre De Clercq]

Frank,
Thanks for your reply but I don't see anything new or what could change the pixel manipulation for vertical enhancement. The "wide sreen mode" slide tells us that the mx 500 has extra pixels so that the v res lines can be 576 vs 432 for the MX300. The "high pix Quality processing" is just the long known story behind the pixel shift advantage and the frame averaging techniques known for noise reduction (at the expense of some motion blurr)

[Frank Granovski]

Okay. I see you are not impressed. I thought the fact that vertical resolution is increased is a good thing.

[Andre De Clercq]

Vertical resolution (and horizontal too) can indeed increase using the pixelshift concept and that's a good thing, but not the problem...The "fat" vertical enhancement is my problem.

[Frank Granovski]

I realize this cam uses pixel shift, but the video effective CCD pixels are also almost doubled from the MX300 and MX350. You don't think this "fat vertical enhancement" has something to do---because---it's Wide Screen?

[Andre De Clercq]

I don't think so. That kind of image manipulation (edge enhancement) is done on the image data (or maybe on the RAW level) which doesn't relate to the formats.

[Frank Granovski]

Thanks. I just go by the numbers. I don't really know how to read this particular chart. I come from a photography background, with a little film, and not a broadcast background like Terrence. Terrence? Will you explain this?