Sony PMW400 shoulder mounted XDCam

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Move onto Outside Broadcast and studio cameras being powered down the cable and power consumption becomes far less important, and hence likewise the need to move onto CMOS.

When I was at CBC-Radio Canada (the Canadian national public broadcaster), we used Camplex units for our OB news trucks (French had satellite and English had microwave in Winnipeg when I was there) that sent bi-directional video, 2 ch audio, duplex comms and 12v up to I BELIEVE 70 watts over RG-6 coax so I could power just about everything as long as I didn't use my "sungun".

If memory serves, the BetaSX cams used about 18w in standby, 27w with the transport engaged and we never rolled tape in-camera during live hits. The ODD time I HAD to use the sungun, I'd throw a BPL-90 on and disconnect the 4 pin XLR from the Camplex so I wouldn't trip the breaker at the truck.

Of course, our big OB stuff was either multicore or triax.

EDIT: Actually, the 9 series BetaSX used 31 watts transport engaged.

[Alister Chapman]

Back lit sensors only bring an advantage when the pixel size is smaller than those on most 1/3 and 1/2" HD sensors. Pixels are not going to suddenly get more sensitive. Decent modern sensors already achieve QE's of over 70%, that's to say that 70% of the photons of light that hit the sensor get turned into electrons. It would take a completely new sensor material to improve sensor sensitivity, and even then at best the most we would see would be a 20% - 30% sensitivity increase which is only 1/3 of a stop. That's just the laws of physics at play.Sensor and pixel size is everything!
There are likely to be further very small improvements in noise performance and noise reduction and these may help but noise reduction almost always comes at the expense of some other image artefacts.

CCD's biggest problem is the cost. A CCD sensor has to read out the signal by passing it down through a series of memory registers or pixels. The problem with this is that in a 1920 x 1080 CCD sensor the readout form pixels at the top line of the sensor have to pass down through 1079 of these pixels or memory registers. If there is even the smallest imperfection with one of the registers then it will effect the entire vertical column, get two of three registers in a column with even the minutest bit of signal loss and the signal form every pixel above those registers will be degraded and the quality loss is cumulative. As a result of this need for perfect quality registers the base silicon used has to be of the very best quality and the reject rate for finished sensors is very high. This makes CCD's significantly harder and more expensive to make than a CMOS sensor. CMOS sensors can directly access each pixel, so they don't have this issue. Heat and power are other factors, but in a large bodied shoulder mount camera the heat can be dissipated reasonably easily.

[Simon Denny]

I shoot a lot of broadcast and its all 2/3 inch or even 1/3 inch. Love my PWM 500 and about to hit the road again shooting in some of the hardest part of our country, extreme heat, dust and loads of fishing. The 400 looks good.

[Paul Cronin]

With you all the way mate, PMW 500 is the best camera i have ever owned.

Hope you are well?

[Simon Denny]

Here is a small promo that I shot and edited for an new show I'm putting together. Shot on the PMW 500 and no grading done at all, probably should have but looks great on my Flanders as is. Call me crazy but CCD's has a feel and look that I love.

Postcards From the bush - YouTube

[Paul Cronin]

Nice Simon,

I enjoy your work. With you all the way I have never owned a CMOS that could compare to the PMW500 CCD, not even close. But I am sure there will be people who will put up specs and tell me I am wrong, fine they have their opinion. But if I could trade my C300 and all my 10 Canon L glass for my 500 and Fujinon I would do it in a second.

I WILL come visit in the near future. Have Fun with Fall in the air in OZ.

[Simon Denny]

Thanks for the kind words mate. When you get here we should catchup?

[Justin Molush]

Originally Posted by Shaun Roemich

And frankly, if you think you are going to find operators that can do tight follow on a ball receiver with a S35 sized sensor at full telephoto, you're kidding yourself.

Horses for courses.

2/3" is alive and well.

I read that an imagined my frustration at pulling focus on a running back at full speed coming toward me while running end zone cam in the evenings when shooting borderline wide open.

/shudder

[Paul Cronin]

You will be one of the fist to know Simon when I head to OZ.

[Gabor Heeres]

My pre-order for this camera is already open for some time. With an expected launchdate of august 2013 I would have loved it if Sony would have brought this PMW-400 to the European market before the IBC but it seems the're just not gonna make that. Though, B&H shows the PMW-400K in stock. Is there already someone with first experiences? Curious...

[Phil Goetz]

This camera does NOT have a waveform. Correct? I see it has a histogram.

[Paul Cronin]

Now this has been a quite thread for a while. I am interested in PMW-400 owners and their experience with the camera?

Also I read, but can't find it anywhere now, that you can buy PMW-400 with a 14x lens and have OS. Is this true?

[Pavel Sedlak]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

...Re 500 vs 400. I always liked the image quality from the 350, there is something more organic about the 350 pictures that I prefer over the PMW-500. That's a personal choice and not everyone will agree. In terms of sensitivity, noise and dynamic range the 350 and 500 are very close and I suspect the 400 will be no different.

Interesting... I know the noise level of the PMW350 (CMOS) and PDW700 (CCD) and I personaly prefer the PDW700 quality. But I'm not an operator of these cameras so I don't know which setup was used. I also don't know the quality of PMW500.