XDCAM HD various topics

Alister Chapman · September 13th, 2006, 10:42 AM

Front pot works for me too.

Thierry Humeau · September 17th, 2006, 06:53 PM

I have a PDW-510 and PDW-F350 and I found the viewfinder picture of the F350 to be quite soft and grainy compare to the PDW-510. Both cameras have the same viewfinder, only the cable differs. It makes it a bit hard to work on the F350 as you are always wondering if you are in focus or not. This is not a good thing when working with HD...

I played with the peaking adjustment a bit but that does not help much. I checked an other F350 and found its viewfinder quite soft too. I think the problem actually lies in the quality of the downconverted signal sent to the viewfinder on the F350. I hope there is room for improvement in the firmware for this.

Anyone had a chance to compare both cameras?

Thierry.

Alister Chapman · September 18th, 2006, 12:58 AM

I've found my F350 VF to be one of the better viewfinders I've had. Maybe Simon will comment on this as he has used the 510 as well.

Simon Wyndham · September 18th, 2006, 03:37 AM

I have to confess that I didn't really have too much trouble with the 350 I had. I didn't find it to be too different in use to the 510.

Although having said that I think that with the high def cameras they could do with better, higher res viewfinders.

Max Kaiser · September 26th, 2006, 03:38 PM

Hi there. We were looking for a good basic UV/lens protector to screw on the top of our Fuji HD lens. Does anyone have any recommendations? In the past we've just used Tiffen stuff, but maybe not for this quality lens.

Thanks,
Max

Greg Boston · September 26th, 2006, 03:42 PM

Just make sure you have a slim line filter on there.

-gb-

Brett Sherman · October 5th, 2006, 07:55 AM

Can anyone provide me with some short clips to compare shooting slow motion with the 350 versus the 330? I guess H.264 would be ideal. Basically, I'd like to have short identical clips, one shot in 60p with the 350 and another shot in 60i. Then I'd do some processing in After Effects to compare the two slowed down 50%.

This is my thinking. Almost all overcranked footage will be shot at 60p (we actually want higher than 60). So, being able to do single frame increments isn't a huge advantage. Since the overcranked footage is half vertical res anyways, you wouldn't loose much resolution by shooting in 60i. You would have to deal with interlaced jitter, especially in cases where there are fine horizontal lines in the image. However, I'm not convinced that it's $8000 worth of quality for that one application. Undercranking isn't hard to do in post since you are essentially throwing out frames, you just have to get the speed right.

Dan Brazda · October 12th, 2006, 02:40 PM

Hearing good things about these:

http://www.tvlogic.co.kr/eng/product...d/ml_index.php

Any opinions from those who have seen them?

September 13th, 2006, 10:42 AM	#46
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	Front pot works for me too. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

September 17th, 2006, 06:53 PM	#47
Thierry Humeau Telecam Films Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Washington DC Posts: 723	F350 viewfinder soft I have a PDW-510 and PDW-F350 and I found the viewfinder picture of the F350 to be quite soft and grainy compare to the PDW-510. Both cameras have the same viewfinder, only the cable differs. It makes it a bit hard to work on the F350 as you are always wondering if you are in focus or not. This is not a good thing when working with HD... I played with the peaking adjustment a bit but that does not help much. I checked an other F350 and found its viewfinder quite soft too. I think the problem actually lies in the quality of the downconverted signal sent to the viewfinder on the F350. I hope there is room for improvement in the firmware for this. Anyone had a chance to compare both cameras? Thierry. __________________ Thierry Humeau, DoP Télécam Films www.telecamfilms.com

September 18th, 2006, 12:58 AM	#48
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	I've found my F350 VF to be one of the better viewfinders I've had. Maybe Simon will comment on this as he has used the 510 as well. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

September 26th, 2006, 03:38 PM	#50
Max Kaiser Regular Crew Join Date: May 2005 Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 66	Lens Protection Hi there. We were looking for a good basic UV/lens protector to screw on the top of our Fuji HD lens. Does anyone have any recommendations? In the past we've just used Tiffen stuff, but maybe not for this quality lens. Thanks, Max __________________ ---------------- Max Kaiser Director, Hand Crank Films http://www.handcrankfilms.com

October 5th, 2006, 07:55 AM	#52
Brett Sherman Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Mount Rainier, MD Posts: 428	Motion Tests in After Effects Can anyone provide me with some short clips to compare shooting slow motion with the 350 versus the 330? I guess H.264 would be ideal. Basically, I'd like to have short identical clips, one shot in 60p with the 350 and another shot in 60i. Then I'd do some processing in After Effects to compare the two slowed down 50%. This is my thinking. Almost all overcranked footage will be shot at 60p (we actually want higher than 60). So, being able to do single frame increments isn't a huge advantage. Since the overcranked footage is half vertical res anyways, you wouldn't loose much resolution by shooting in 60i. You would have to deal with interlaced jitter, especially in cases where there are fine horizontal lines in the image. However, I'm not convinced that it's $8000 worth of quality for that one application. Undercranking isn't hard to do in post since you are essentially throwing out frames, you just have to get the speed right.

September 18th, 2006, 03:37 AM	#49
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	I have to confess that I didn't really have too much trouble with the 350 I had. I didn't find it to be too different in use to the 510. Although having said that I think that with the high def cameras they could do with better, higher res viewfinders.

September 26th, 2006, 03:42 PM	#51
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	Just make sure you have a slim line filter on there. -gb-

October 12th, 2006, 02:40 PM	#53
Dan Brazda Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Richmond, VA Posts: 165	Anyone Used These Monitors? Hearing good things about these: http://www.tvlogic.co.kr/eng/product...d/ml_index.php Any opinions from those who have seen them?