Answer this: If new broadcast deliverable standards demand Super35, what about MFT?

[Jack Zhang]

Interesting, so SNR ratio trumps sensor size here.

This was the EX1 replacement I was looking for, but I kind of fell into the trap of bigger sensor always = better.

The Variable ND on this is extremely exciting. But one must hope they've improved the menu speed from the FS7.

I would assume they went SxS because you can use both SxS and XQD in that case, something the FS7 doesn't allow.

But... in high contrast areas, the CA is identical to the PMW-200... They literally reused the same lens and didn't say that a new lens with better optics needed to be made... We're waiting on a PXW-Z390 with a removable lens mount to see if Fujinon or Canon will make better 1/2'' glass for this amazing image/recording backend.

[Kevin Lau]

Originally Posted by Christopher Young

EBU and NTSC have never had objection to sensor size. It's always been performance and codec bit rate based.

The new Sony PXW-Z280 with its 3 x 1/2" UHD chips will most likely make the list. In 50/60pp it claims a 63dB signal to noise ratio. This SNR is way above anything most of the S35 and M4/3 single sensors can deliver. It can record UHD 50/60p 422 10-bit up to 500/600 Mbps. Bare in mind also that with 3 x sensors each sensor is a full 3840 x 2160 in all channels, R,G & B. So no Debayer algorithm required. Resolution should be very good. With an f1.6 lens that is parfocal 17 x and constant aperture with end stop focus ring I think they will sell a few.

On paper this spec is well within the requirements for Netflix and many other broadcasters. With 12G out you can SDI it into an Atomos for full UHD 50/60p ProRes and that will meet most requirements world wide.

Chris Young

These models have my attention, and answers a lot of my comments about Sony's implementation of 4K/QFHD in their portable camcorder products so far. Like everything, technology matures with time, but on the other hand you'll be waiting forever if you just want the next best thing. The lack of live SDI output capable of bitrates to support uncompressed 4K, and/or the major loss of functionality while operating in QFHD mode on their existing products was a bad compromise in my opinion. Although no one owns the actual production model Z280 yet, it seems like they have made efforts to address those compromises. For me, I can only hope they trickle these technology developments into the 1/2" and 2/3" shoulder-mount product line to compliment the Z450, which really only holds a title of being "first" but to me is not quite a matured product yet (especially with its $30,000 price tag, body-only). I'm still personally of the belief that portable, long zoom applications still lie in these smaller sensors so I absolutely don't buy into the hype of the massive sensor race. These models Sony is releasing now is showing that they are taking a bunch of those "firsts" and further developing upon them. I also predict the 12G-SDI will surpass any implementations of quad-link 3G-SDI, much like 3G-SDI has pretty much eclipsed dual-link HD-SDI today.

I had cited the Corus technical standards posted on their website earlier in this thread and they require a minimum sensor size for their UHD classification on work that they're commissioning/funding. (Which is also the title of this thread, a discussion of organizations that spec s35mm minimum.) As a result for example the PXW-Z450 is considered "only" a mid-tier HD camera by their spec. I don't write nor agree with that specification, but that's what they have published. Sure, there was a time especially in the SD era where sensor size directly correlated to sensitivity, noise/SNR, and similar technical figures - but recent developments in technology like the models we are seeing landing this week are meeting or exceeding those larger sensor specifications. I like where this is going.

[Kevin Lau]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

I would assume they went SxS because you can use both SxS and XQD in that case, something the FS7 doesn't allow.

I'm guessing they are positioning this into the PMW-200 and 300 markets which already use SxS as their media, so it could be as close as possible a drop-in replacement along with offering the same or more I/O connectors, generally same form factor and layout, and codec support. I don't think this Z280 is really in competition with any of the FS- models at all.

I bought into SxS because it's really just ExpressCard/34 at its core. It describes a physical form factor and a widely implemented cross-vendor electrical interface for PCI Express without falling into the hole of obscure proprietary interfaces (remember xD picture cards?) The world is leaving ATA-based storage interfaces and going to PCI express, even the Compact Flash association is ditching CFast (which is SATA) and putting their main development efforts behind what is basically the next generation of XQD, in a medium with exactly the same form factor as XQD: it's CFExpress. Finally, I can pop the thing into my laptop's ExpressCard slot without needing external readers, the adaptor is merely a passive electrical pinout and physical adaptor. It will be interesting to see if they eventually merge branding or if Sony will maintain the XQD lineage separately even after CFX goes mainstream. XQD is PCIe x1 whereas CFX proposes to expand that out to x8 lane width.
The latest XQD G cards inside a QDA-EX1 adaptor blow the doors off my SxS-PRO cards in terms of sheer transfer speed and at a much lower dollar-per-gigabyte while still being compatible with older models like my PMW-350 which electrically access the card using the USB 2.0 interface pins of the EC/34 connector.

Panasonic has been playing catch up only recently adding PCIe electrical interfaces to P2 (calling it ExpressP2), which was based off PCMCIA/CardBus/32-bit PCI 33MHz which also had its convenience advantage back when CardBus slots were prevalent on laptops.

Meanwhile Blackmagic is still putting out products (like the Pocket Cinema 4K they also announced at NAB '18) with CFast... to access solid state media. That's like opting to go for a SATA-2 SSD today instead of NVM Express (which is electrically PCIe). (That said they offer other interfaces too.)

[Christopher Young]

Originally Posted by Jack Zhang

I would assume they went SxS because you can use both SxS and XQD in that case, something the FS7 doesn't allow.

Sony are covering many bases here. SxS slots for all those legacy EX users out there followed by SxS to XQD adapters for those of us who also have XQD cards and finally SxS to SDXC adapters which with Sony's latest high speed SDXC cards may work pretty well.

Sony's Mead adapters.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/978782-REG/sony_mead_sd02_sdhc_sdxc_card_adaptor.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801

Far cheaper and much more preferable is their SxS to XQD adapter.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/840666-REG/Sony_QDA_EX1_SC1_XQD_ExpressCard_Adapter.html/BI/2855/KBID/3801

They may upgrade their PMW-300 with a PXW-Z300 which will then give you interchangeable lens capability. Could be very interesting. The Fuji 13 x 3.3 wide was a stunner on the EX3 and PMW-300.

Chris Young

[Cary Knoop]

GH5s EBU assessment:

Tier 1, arguably tier 2.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/04/...bu-assessment/

[Christopher Young]

Yes reading the report says it all from a European broadcast POV. The final conclusion to be drawn from the report being:

"The camera achieves HD Tier 1because the sensor size, while smaller than the preferred 1” size, is greater than the minimum - acceptable ⅔” size. The wording of R.118 is not completely consistent on this because testing is required whatever the sensor size, but the camera passes the tests anyway.

The camera cannot achieve Tier 1 or 2 for UHD broadcast or cinema because the sensor resolution is inadequate. However, the performance at UHD is probably adequate for use in productions provided it is not the prime camera."

[Ian Thomas]

Where does this put camera's like the fz2000?

[Cliff Totten]

Questions:

What actual "goal" do these EBU or other standards trying to accomplish? Whatever that is,...do they actually ACHEIVE it?

Since nobody can actually DELIVER content anywhere near these requirements, than why have these specifications in the first place?

Broadcasters can only deliver 19mbps MPEG2 over the air. Satellite is H.264, all 4:2:0 8bit at WAY lower specifications and bitrates.

Do these "standards" actually acheive anything in the real world. Or, is it all just an ironic joke?

Cameras are ALL so good today that its almost IMPOSSIBLE to watch a show, commercial or movie and know what it was shot with just by looking at the finished product. Nobody can do this, not even the best trained eye! Seriously, who can say "Yup,..that was RED,...that was a GH5,...that is ARRI,...that is the A7s and THAT is an FS7"

These current "standards" are snooty, snobby, often silly and becomming outdated.

Zakuto's camera challange results proved this!!

[Jack Zhang]

A7sIII is slowly being proven in the rumor mill to have 4K 60p, but no word on 8bit or 10bit.

Also, no word whether that 60p has a crop factor.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Christopher Young

Yes reading the report says it all from a European broadcast POV. The final conclusion to be drawn from the report being:

"The camera achieves HD Tier 1because the sensor size, while smaller than the preferred 1” size, is greater than the minimum - acceptable ⅔” size. The wording of R.118 is not completely consistent on this because testing is required whatever the sensor size, but the camera passes the tests anyway.

The camera cannot achieve Tier 1 or 2 for UHD broadcast or cinema because the sensor resolution is inadequate. However, the performance at UHD is probably adequate for use in productions provided it is not the prime camera."

However he made incorrect assumptions about the sensor so his comments about smaller than 1" for the sensor are not correct. The GH5S sensor is bigger than the image circle so diagonal is always at the maximum. He missed this key difference between the GH5 and the GH5S. Bigger sensor less pixels. He thought that the 16x9 was a crop into the 4:3 dimensions but it isn't. Panasonic only quotes 4:3 info in their spec. Not too helpful for them in this case as 4:3 for both GH5 and GH5S are the same but not 16x9 or DCI 4K which they do not quote !!!. The 16x9 and DCI 4K too goes out to the full image circle so has more pixels than he calculated. As he says the camera passes the tests anyway.

[Cliff Totten]

He did get a couple of simple facts about the GH5-S wrong.

As far as 4k goes, at 10bit, 4:2:2, 400mbp/s, I'll put the GH5-S up against ANY other 4k camera on planet Earth and ask people to try and notice any significant difference. For the vast majority of human beings....it aint going to happen!

Broadcasters are still 99% 1080. They are broadcasting MPEG 2 at 19mbp/s or satelite h.264 commonly at 10-15mbp/s. Cable affiliates compress them down again to 10 or 8Mbp/s very often. Web delivery is sometimes 4k with VP9 or H.265 at 15 or 20Mbp/s at best. Blu-ray is maxed out at 40mbp/s

I would love this man to do a detailed report on the delivery quality of 99% of the content they have. Carefully analyze Comcast, DirecTV, SKY or Dish or YouTube or even BBC IP streams. He will quickly discover that its all "garbage" and completely incapable of maintaining ANY of his or EBU's snobby standards!

Honestly, with these snooty, high specs,..a HUGE portion of their quality requirements never EVER get to viewers eyes!...not even in Blu-ray.

When delivery quality reaches 50% of what a GH5-S can capture, only then will I start to say these requirements are justified.

Until then, these strict standards are just silly.

[Christopher Young]

Oh if it were only that simple Cliff. Again I put forward the reasons these standards exist. For many networks it's mostly for commercial reasons these days. As you say programming is bad enough now imagine what it would be like if technical standards were even lower lower?

I remember some years ago one of the commissioning editor at the Beeb commenting along the lines of when you get around 180 program submissions a month you have to have a common standard to throw at external producers and not deviate from that otherwise it would be mayhem if you allowed one production to use such and such kit and didn't allow another to use the same. With big broadcasters there is always a certain amount of political bureaucratic oversight that you have to work under. The standards are also used as a technical filtering tool on on all external submissions. In the first instance it narrows down the program ideas and submissions that the commissioning editors have to look at if the submissions don't meet the appropriate tech standards. If the submissions meet the tech standards then the commissioning editors look at and evaluate the artistic, educational, entertainment and cultural values and aspects of the program submission.

The commissioning editors who approve the programs don't and won't get involved with the tech side of the productions. They just need to be told by tech QA that yes this submission meets the BBC / EBU requirements. One of the reasons for that is that the Beeb on-sell many productions. Such as their flagship natural history productions. The BBC are involved with many co-productions and need to assure those future program buyers that yes this program meets EBU R118 3335. In other words it is the big picture they look at and one of the prime considerations is commercial on-sell viability. It's like the old "Nobody got fired for buying an IBM." axiom. Network buyers feel safe if they know that the programs they buy meet the required standards. They may get fired for buying a crappy program but they won't get fired because the program didn't pass technical muster. :))

Chris Young

[Cliff Totten]

But what is the the actual "goal" of these standards?.....

To provide the best possible viewing experience for the end user? I believe that the "distribution" systems DESTROY the vast majority of these high standards that the EBU is touting. It simply fails in my opinion actually "reach" ANYBODY. (With the only exception of the companies Avid editor watching the 4k master in his editing suite)

Let me put it in audio terms. If I set audio recording standards at 192khz at 24bit depth,...if all my listeners were hearing my recordings on an AM radio? The truth is that audio recorded at 16bit, 48khz will be not be perceived with any difference on that AM radio.

These EBU standards are based on good technical specs,...yes. But it seems that no thought was given as to how this quality could even make it to the viewer. The "theory" goes: "If we set extremely high standards,...somehow, someway this effort would be magically visible and appreciated in somebody's home...even though it with be ultra-highly compressed" I cant believe that for one second. Not when we are watching that video on the equivalent of a "AM radio" (OTA, cable, satellite, IP stream...etc)

The GH5-S 4k is superb. It's technically beautiful in just about every way you can analyze it. The sensor is fantastic, the 4k, 10bit 4:2:2, 400Mbp/s is solid as a rock.

If the "EBU" says it's image quality is not good enough for UHD production because it wont meet broadcast quality standards?...lol....99.999% of all the homes can only see a small fraction of what the GH5-S can capture anyway.

EBU,...worry less about your camera deliverables and worry MORE about how content is actually SEEN by the end user. THIS is the TRUE weak link in the quality chain,...NOT the cameras you capture with!

"Distribution" and delivery is DESTROYING all your precious, well built "standards". EBU, you need to focus on the entire chain from end to end and base a "balanced" standard that takes the ENTIRE viewing process from beginning to end into consideration.

I'll say it again. I'll put the GH5-S up against ANY 4k camera on planet Earth. 99% of people cannot tell the difference,..either in the Avid room OR especially the home or mobile devise where it ends up.

OK,...I'll get off my soap box now! lol ;-)

[Ron Evans]

I expect the specs try and set a benchmark so that with all the potential downstream encoding or standards conversion there is still a good image to view.

As I mentioned in my previous post the biggest flaw in the report is the misunderstanding of how the sensor is arranged in the image circle. This led him to underestimate the number of pixels assigned to UHD and DCI and his final conclusions in my mind are incorrect. I do not think we can dispute the actual test results though which does show its not a bad camera !!!

I have both a GH5 and GH5S and they are both great. Field of view differences are very clearly different when viewing different aspect ratios on the GH5S.