Moving to XDCAM HD

[Derek Heeps]

Having shot various formats down the years , both at work and at home , I was latterly using HDV ( both Sony and JVC ) at home , and XDCAM at work .

I recently noticed how affordable some of the XDCAM kit was becoming on the used market , so just picked up a PDW-F350 , and a PDW-F70 for bargain prices . I'm already familiar with both since we have had the same units at work since new - when they were far from cheap .

I got the deck through the post yesterday , and other than the exchg batt ! warning , which isn't a big deal - I have the service manual and have ordered a battery for it - until then I can't save system settings , but it already works in FAM mode and discs appear nicely on the desktop of my Mac ; then I use Edit Ready to convert MXF to ProRes for ingesting into FCP7 .

I'm going down to London next week and will collect the camcorder then ; alas I couldn't afford to buy the lens as well , but for now I bought a throwaway Canon 1/2" lens until I can get a lens adaptor for my 'good' Canon 2/3" lens which I will then use with it .

I'll report back once I get it and get set up , but looking forward to having a 'proper' camera again .

[Andrew Smith]

You're going to love the upgrade to XDCAM for home use. To save yourself converting to ProRes, you can download (for free) a copy of Davinci Resolve and edit direct with the files from the camera.

Andrew

[Derek Heeps]

Yes , the camera is great for my purposes - I shoot a fair bit of motorsport and both real and miniature railway stuff ; also do odd jobs when they come my way but don't go looking .

I'm very familiar with XDCAM , having used it at work , where we paid £28K for the same camera about 15 years ago .

The camera i collected works great , although I had a mishap the other day when I tripped over a cable in my living room and landed on top of the camera , knocking the LCD screen out of place . The screen still works , but the backlight is now dead . The camera viewfinder is still fine and recordings are OK ; I also have a separate LCD monitor I can use n the meantime . I've had the LCD panel out of the side of the camera ; no obvious fault , so I guess I'll be looking for a replacement part ....

My own stupid fault , so I can't complain .

[Gary Nattrass]

As you say this older kit can be had for bargain prices and it still shoots full HD so is still perfect for most jobs.

I personally still use my trusty Panasonic HPX-371 P2 cameras and picked up a second one for £1500 and a Fujinon TH13 wide angle lens for just £200.

Also use Edit Ready too and the cards and USB adaptors are also cheap as chips these days.

[Derek Heeps]

I just did my first biggish job with the camera , which was recording a three day conference ( well just parts of it as requested by the organisers ) still , I now have 14 discs , mostly with close to an hour of material , always recorded in a single clip .

What I am finding is that , whenever I put a new disc in , the filename is C0001 . This is a nuisance since , when ingesting , I end up with lots of files with the same name , which I have to subsequently change .

Is there a setting in the camera somewhere , that I can alter so that the filenames continue in a sequence , even after I've swapped discs ? I had a cursory look in the user manual , but there was no obvious answer .

It was never a problem in the past , when I was always recording short clips and often one disc was enough for a given job .

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

As you say this older kit can be had for bargain prices and it still shoots full HD so is still perfect for most jobs.

Sorry, the F350 is not full HD. The best resolution the camera can do is 1440x1080.

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Derek Heeps

Is there a setting in the camera somewhere , that I can alter so that the filenames continue in a sequence , even after I've swapped discs ? I had a cursory look in the user manual , but there was no obvious answer

It's been a long time since I looked at the menus of the F350, but I think you want to go to Operation Page 5: CLIP TITLE.

[Derek Heeps]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Sorry, the F350 is not full HD. The best resolution the camera can do is 1440x1080.

The sensors , as with HDV , use wide pixels at 1440x1920 , but this is extrapolated out to 1920x1080 , and this is the specification in the Sony manual .

[Doug Jensen]

So, what's your point?

As I said a couple of years ago . . . "the F350 is not full HD. The best resolution the camera can do is 1440x1080."

Like it or not, that is just a fact and not subject to your opinion. Stretching 1440 out to 1920 does not make it full HD.

[Christopher Young]

Originally Posted by Derek Heeps

The sensors , as with HDV , use wide pixels at 1440x1920 , but this is extrapolated out to 1920x1080 , and this is the specification in the Sony manual .

You are correct. 1440 is full HD. BUT with horizontal rectangular TV pixels, not square pixels, which come from the computing world. The PAR of those pixels is 1.333 recurring. Multiply 1.333 recurring by 1440 and you end up with 1920. 1440 is exactly the same width image as 1920. How all this evolved came about in the transition from SD widescreen to HD with the existing TV technology of rectangular pixels, 720 SD widescreen uses a rectangular 1.333 PAR of 720 pixels. SMPTE decided the move to HD required a doubling of the image width for HD. 720 x 2 = 1440. So exactly the same image width in both cases, 1440 and 1920.

A lot of people think that the 1440 of the HDCam format (Which George Lucas used in filming Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones) and the PDW XDCam formats are upsampled to 1920. This is incorrect. 1440 format is already the same width and depth of a 1920 image scan. 1440 pixels were cross-sampled, not upsampled. There is no new image data added as in an up conversion. The rectangular 1440 rectangular pixels get cross-sampled to output 1920 square pixels. SMPTE decided that as most everything in imaging was heading into the digital domain for editing and compositing that it would make sense for camera manufactures to move to 1920 square pixel sensors and that's the way the industry went.

In the final analysis in tests we did between the1440 XDCam 35-mbit 420 PDW-F350 files and the 1920 XDCam 50-mbit 422 PDW-700 files show very little difference in the real world when edited for TV news for example. The compression ratio for 35-mbit 420 codec is 21:1 and for 50-mbit 422 codec is 20:1. So not a massive difference. And with the bulk of OTA TV transmissions still being 420 we saw and could only measure a nit-picking difference.

Chris Young

[Doug Jensen]

With all due respect, you guys are delusional. 1440x1080 isn't Full HD. 1080x1920 is Full HD. 1440x1080 means it has non square pixels so the video is resized when displayed. It has a lower resolution than Full HD.

You must capture 1920x1080 pixels in-camera for a video signal to qualify as FULL HD. That's not subject your opinion. You can't use anamorphic trickery or up-rez a lower resolution signal and then call it something it isn't. This the same reason I can't take 1920x1080 and blow it up to 3840x2160 and call it 4K. And I also can't take 1280x720 and blow it up to 1920x1080 and call it full HD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
"1080p (1920 × 1080 progressively displayed pixels; also known as Full HD or FHD, and BT.709) is a set of HDTV high-definition video modes characterized by 1,920 pixels displayed across the screen horizontally and 1,080 pixels down the screen vertically;[1] "

Clearly, 1440 does not meet the definition of Full HD. You're entitled to fool yourself into thinking that 1440x1080 is equal to, or even superior to 1920x1080, if you want to. But you can't call it "Full HD", because it is not.

Seriously, why am I wasting time on this?

[Derek Heeps]

The video isn’t resized , the 1440 wide pixels are the same size as 1920 square pixels .

The resulting output is captured as 1920x1080

[Doug Jensen]

You're wrong and I think you know it. But I'm not going to waste more time on this, so say whatever you want because it makes no difference to me what you think. At least the record has been set straight for anyone else who might read this thread.

[Christopher Young]

Originally Posted by Derek Heeps

The video isn’t resized , the 1440 wide pixels are the same size as 1920 square pixels .

The resulting output is captured as 1920x1080

Correct, Derek.

Like Doug, I'll have one last say on the matter. Everybody should do their own research based on published standards. Not on "blanety-blank said such and such on social media or the web. Therefore, it must be true". Let's not all fall into the hole a lot of political discussion has fallen into. Not fact checked.

"Full HD" is a retroactive distinction name used in marketing. Later referred to as Full HD. First used by Sony with its "Full On, Full HD". It was a marketing slogan used by Sony to promote the importance of 1080 high definition. The SMPTE and ATSC definitions of HD are everything that's 720p or 1080i/p. Nowhere in the engineering definitions of HD TV within SMPTE, ATSC or the EBU is the term "Full HD" used, as it is misleading.

At best, what Full HD meant was that the HD format went up to the full definition of HD TV which includes 1080. Many referred to 1080i as Full HD. With it's 540 line vertical resolution is worse than 1280 x 720p's vertical resolution of 720 lines.

There's some history to all of this. HD was originally envisioned as 1080p only. But that was too advanced at the time. So 720p and 1080i instead became the HD standard, with 1080p to be lumped into the same standard whenever it was ready and had gained more development and support. In TV engineering terms used by SMPTE, ATSC and the EBU HD is the collective term for 720p, and 1080i/p resolutions.

To state that 1440 is not HD is incorrect. If you want the short answer, take a look at the attached screen grab.

If you want a longer definition and want to dig in on the matter there are plenty of technical standards relating to 1440 being one of the HD standards, HD relating to mandated HD resolutions going all the way up to 1080 where the marking slogan of "Full HD" is often used by manufacturers. Just three of these set in stone technical references can be found at the following links, including from the ATSC and SMPTE. But hey, do your own research. Don't take my word for it. Maybe start with a Google search on: "Who launched the term "Full HD""

https://mswdtv.com/wp-content/upload...uide-FINAL.pdf

https://f.hubspotusercontent00.net/h...Handout-V2.pdf

https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_tr...49v140100p.pdf

https://www.provideocoalition.com/wh...d-quite-empty/

It's interesting to think that if we are watching any of the following TV service providers on our lovely "Full HD" TV, there is every chance it is upscaled from 720p or 1080i. Regardless, by definition, it's still HD, though.

https://hd-report.com/hd-channels/

Chris Young

[Doug Jensen]

Chris, you can't change the facts with one of your famous long-winded posts that goes on and on and on about things that have little to do with the subject at hand.