PXW-Z90 4K night ENG demo clip

[Paul Anderegg]

Meh...it's OK I guess...this was shot mostly at 18-27db gain. All optical zoom.

YouTube (Short URL)

[Kevin Lau]

Does the 23.976p limitations pose an issue for news applications, or are technical requirements much more relaxed now?

Also, is the MPEG-2 codec still a licensed option on the Z90 or built-in now?

[Doug Jensen]

The MPEG (XDCAM) codecs are a paid upgrade and probably always will be. But unless someone has a client who requires MPEG, there isn't really any reason to purchase the upgrade. The camera already has superior formats on-board.

[Kevin Lau]

I want to think it's more of a workflow consistency, than an actual technical "upgrade" - which I don't feel it is.
Similar to when they offered UDF on SxS mode to be consistent with the PDW models which were common at the time.

[Paul Anderegg]

I shot that in 4K 30p 100Mbps...and render time was somewhere in the area of 4 minutes per minute of footage to output to my 720p60 h264.

Doesn't the Z150 have free MPEG 420 and 422? For last generation broadcast purposes, MPEG2 35Mbps is fine for applications where 19Mbps OTA is the final result.

And don't forget DVCAM SD was an "upgrade" option on the PMW350.

Paul

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Kevin Lau

I want to think it's more of a workflow consistency, than an actual technical "upgrade" - which I don't feel it is.
Similar to when they offered UDF on SxS mode to be consistent with the PDW models which were common at the time.

Yes, workflow consistency and per client request are the two primary reasons for upgrading. My point is that it is not a technical upgrade and most people don't need it.

[Paul Anderegg]

For NEWS, when you have to ingest, then export, then FTP video in time for the top of the newscast, old XDCAM does it in 1/4 the time. XAVC-L takes forever to ingest and export in FCPX...XDCAM is like a breeze. My station edits and airs HDV 720p50 18Mbps files, so quality isn't a major concern, and I PP customize my cameras enough that no grading or NLE work is needed.

Paul

[John Mitchell]

Hi Paul -
First of all thanks for all the feedback on the Z90, particularly the low light stuff. I was surprised it wasn't a lot better than the X70 given the brand new back illuminated BSI sensor which is supposed to be faster.

For the kind of stuff you do have you considered something like the A7III coupled with the Sony FE PZ 28-135 F4G or even 24-105 F4 G lens. I know its not the ideal form factor but they've made a number of significant upgrades with that camera and there are plenty of rigs to make it usable.The lens is not quite as fast at the wide end but the camera is so much better in low light I think you'd actually get much better results. It also allows you to crop into APS-C to give you two different focal lengths but only in 1080P I think.

From all reports the A7III only lags behind the A7SII by a fraction in low light (which is a lot of what your shooting seems to entail), has an even better autofocus system than the Z90 (a lot more points coverin a lot more of the sensor), IBIS combined with an optically stabilised lens, dual card slots, larger battery and a bunch of other features that would seem to suit your shooting style.

Audio is obviously a sticking point but you don't seem to do a lot of sync sound and if you did there are solutions out there.

I only bring it up because I love the A7SII with the 28-135 lens and have used it quite a bit at live night time shoots - it is only the autofocus and battery life that makes that camera difficult. Oh plus the lack of ND's for daytime shoots.

[Paul Anderegg]

I own an A7SII with 28-135 G lens...have had it for a few years...played with it a few times, and stuck it in my closet, I really need to sell it on eBay! The lack of telephoto zoom capability (5x for ENG...MEH!) pretty much takes the camera out of the running for what i do...it was a nice thought, but just not feasible. I even put a little Small Rigs half cage on it with a tiny shotgun mic. See below for how the A7SII 28-135 combo looks once you start getting into the Clear Image and digital zoom. I also have a daytime test clip of the A7SII with my 21x Canon B4 mount ENG lens with extender...ROFL.

As for Z90 being better in low light...like the Z150, it is a bit cleaner, a smidge, but at 33db you are getting the same exposure values as the X70. The BSI stuff is really only doing AF data stuff for the most part.

YouTube (Short URL)

[John Mitchell]

Yeah I wondered if reach was the major problem.. still everything is a tradeoff. I guess there is the much less stellar 24 - 240PZ because even at F6.3 this camera is still going to beat the Z90 in lowlight (well I guess you would have to test that to be certain). and that lens is probably at least as good as the one on the Z90... still zoom by wire, maybe not fast enough.. that part not as good as the one on the Z90.

ENG low light is still a puzzle waiting to be solved...

[Paul Anderegg]

I actually had the 24-240 before I got the 28-135. I found the 24-240 to be unusable, especially being a non parfocal lens, made focusing almost impossible. I am also not a big fan of non power zoom or lenses that triple in length as you zoom. I returned that lens after one night of use.

I tossed around the idea of the 18-200PZ, but the zoom speed is something like 10 seconds for a 10x lens, and it goes down to f5.6 while in forced Super 35 mode, meaning you lose a lot of that A7SII full frame pixel goodness, most noticeable when you enter Clear Image.

Paul

[John Mitchell]

Yeah got you Paul... extension makes matte box unusable, no PZ - I think I was getting it confused with the 18-200PZ which as you pointed out is an APS-C lens..

Good news is I think Sony will be bringing out more video centric lenses for the FE mount. Plus a non parfocal zoom isn't as much of an issue if the autofocus compensates for it. Still I see your point, better off waiting for a better option.

It's just physics I guess - the bigger the sensor the bigger the equivalent lens.

[John Mitchell]

BTW your YT link is broken

[Paul Anderegg]

Link fixed.

And what we need is 2/3" sensors that get better at HD, and don't chase the megapixels. The PXW-X400 3MOS 1080p sensors are f12@2000 NTCS...when you swap in the 4K sensor package, that drops to f9@2000, or roughly 1993 sensitivity for a 2/3" camera. News will remain 720 and 1080 for at least the service length of the next 2-3 generations of brand new shoulder mount ENG cameras...let's see more s/n improvements and HDR improvements before pushing 4K tiny pixels onto $15,000 broadcast news cameras.

Paul

[Ricky Sharp]

Originally Posted by Paul Anderegg

Link fixed.

And what we need is 2/3" sensors that get better at HD, and don't chase the megapixels. The PXW-X400 3MOS 1080p sensors are f12@2000 NTCS...when you swap in the 4K sensor package, that drops to f9@2000, or roughly 1993 sensitivity for a 2/3" camera. News will remain 720 and 1080 for at least the service length of the next 2-3 generations of brand new shoulder mount ENG cameras...let's see more s/n improvements and HDR improvements before pushing 4K tiny pixels onto $15,000 broadcast news cameras.

Paul

If I could control the industry, I would have first beefed up the HD spec with larger color space and HDR (and then insist that all vendors use the same color space and HDR values).

That would theoretically increase data rates just two-fold.

Much later, when broadband, graphics cards, sensor tech, etc. can handle it, then increase the resolution four-fold.

But back to reality, the formal move to 4K is still about 5 years away for me. Since my budget only allows for a full HD data pipeline.