Sony introduces 1/2" HD XDCAM for $20K

Walter Graff · January 19th, 2006, 12:49 PM

No, because other systems require your edit system to do al the dirty work of interpolating frames and that causes confusion. But with this format it's all done in camera so yo don't have to rely on your edit system and all those settings to figure it all out.

Bill Pryor · January 19th, 2006, 01:15 PM

http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/T...inutedrill.mp3

Ash Greyson · January 19th, 2006, 04:35 PM

I would argue that when you consider back-up the $16K camera probably is a better value than the HVX. We will see how the 24P performs but 60-120 minutes on a $30 disc really is a shot in the gut to P2. Having the disc in a cartridge probably also extends the life as well as protection... very interesting...

ash =o)

Simon Wyndham · January 19th, 2006, 04:43 PM

Well, I still have reservations about long GOP, but if someone was to give me one of these cameras I wouldn't complain. The variable framerate has got my attention.

Bill Pryor · January 19th, 2006, 05:18 PM

I believe they say you getr 45 minutes of HD on a disc at the 35mbs rate, is that right? That would be about 5 and a half P2 8 gig cards, wouldn't it? Roughly $10K compared to thirty bucks? To me the 1/2" chip camera with a real lens is a no-brainer--I'd take it. I don't know if that $16K pricetag includes the lens. I sorta doubt it.

My only experience with the long GOP is from a friend who has a Z1 and edits in FCP5. He says he just loads it and FCP does whatver it does and there are no editing or quality issues at all. It edits just like DV, he says. And so far all the footage I've seen doesn't have any of the problems people talk about. The only footage I've seen is from 2 cameras, and both shot by professional cameramen.

Simon Wyndham · January 19th, 2006, 05:22 PM

No, 60 mins at 35MB/s.

You are correct, the Two Minute Drill today said that the prices listed were without lenses. I still think its good though.

Bill Pryor · January 19th, 2006, 05:31 PM

Cool--60 minutes is even better. That makes a $30 disc about the same price as a 60 minute DVCAM tape.

I wonder what that new lens they show will cost. Generally 1/2" lenses are pretty reasonable, compared to 2/3" ones that I've bought in the past. Unless you want a really wide angle, I'd bet you can get a decent one for $5K.

What I'm going to be wondering now is, how would this 1/2" chip camera shooting XDCAM HD compare to my DSR500 shooting DVCAM. Does the higher resolution format make up for the smaller chip size? In other words, when it comes time to buy a new camera, is XDCAM HD a possibility for the same cost as another 2/3" chip SD camera? The only operational feature a guy would lose would be the better depth of field control of the bigger chips.

Douglas Call · January 19th, 2006, 05:39 PM

Just so you'll all know, you'll probably want to use HD glass to get the best out of this camera and that's going to cost you another $7,500. for the Fujinon HSs18X5.5BRD lens. Sorry I'm not sure if I got the price right it could be more?

Douglas Call · January 19th, 2006, 05:48 PM

Just so there won't be confusion between the capture rate on the XDCAM HD compared to the HDCAM F900 35Mb/s is 4:2:0 colorspace where as the F900 is 185Mb/s and is 4:2:2 colorspace.

The section below is from the F900 owners manual.

Advanced digital pre-filtering and dynamic bit-allocation for luminance and chrominance components (based on the statistical analysis of the picture content) are combined with a mild compression ratio of only 4.4 to 1 to give a total on-tape recorded data rate of a modest 185 Mb/s at 60i.

I don't pretend to know what this means. But its probably why it cost $100K.

Here is the link to the F900 owners manual.

http://www.oraclemagic.com/VideoFame/Images/HDWF900.pdf

David Heath · January 19th, 2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

The only operational feature a guy would lose would be the better depth of field control of the bigger chips.

That and sensitivity, but maybe a 2/3" version will follow?

P2 does have some advantages over XDCAM - lower power consumption and much faster download times into an edit system. Then again, having to frequently download from P2 on the run to free up space to keep shooting is an issue in itself, and an archive has to be consciously formed and kept.

Until the announcement of this camera there was a huge amount of some cameras having some good points, others different good points. Now many of the desirable features seem to have come together, including many of the good points of the P2 system, but without it's worst - not being able to give away your media straight out of camera.

Simon Wyndham · January 19th, 2006, 06:15 PM

P2 is quicker where SD is concerned. I don't think it will be the case where this sort of MPEG compression is concerned compared with DVCproHD however. I can't remember P2's transfer rates off hand. Anyone know?

Regarding sensitivity, that may be an issue. Then again it might not. The DSR390 is 2 stops more sensitive than the DSR450 for example. The demo that is cirrently going around from Sony shows the HD XDCAM in some pretty low light conditions and it is getting good footage. For effects shots and timelapse the HD XDCAM has a 3 second exposure! The current SD XDCAM has a long shutter, and I often use it for timelapse of traffic at night etc. A 3 sec exposure would be great, not to mention downright ridiculous for nightime landscapes! :)

David Heath · January 19th, 2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

P2 is quicker where SD is concerned. I don't think it will be the case where this sort of MPEG compression is concerned compared with DVCproHD however. I can't remember P2's transfer rates off hand. Anyone know?

Fair point. 25Mb SD on P2 downloads in about 4-5x real time, so I assume it's about 100-125Mb/s. Hence if DVCPRO HD at 100Mb/s was on the card, I'd expect downloads to be only slightly better than realtime. I believe DV on XDCAM only downloads at around real time (?), but 35Mb for HD shouldn't then affect that too much. P2 cards are nice in that they may be plugged direct into a laptop, so don't need a deck, but I'm not sure that begins to make up for non-consumable media.

This begs the question of how 35Mb MPEG2 compares to DVCPRO HD. I believe 3:1 has been given (very roughly) as the sort of saving MPEG2 can be expected to give for similar quality to an I-frame only system, so I'd expect them to be very similar.

My remark about sensitivity referred to this camera v a 2/3" equivalent, that and DOF are the two main differences I'd expect. For the same reasons I'd expect it to outperform a 1/3" chip camera.

Jipsi Kinnear · January 19th, 2006, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Graff

The terms salesman are using is "cine-sumer" and "cine-pro" for the different niches.

I think the salesman needs to take a marketing 101 refresher course or better yet stick with "2nd level underwater basketweaving". Cine-sumer, what a dumb handle/name.

Bill Pryor · January 19th, 2006, 08:02 PM

Yeah, that is one of the dumbest non-words out there. Worse, even, than "prosumer."

Simon Wyndham · January 19th, 2006, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Heath

Fair point. 25Mb SD on P2 downloads in about 4-5x real time, so I assume it's about 100-125Mb/s.

Hmm. P2 isn't quite as quick as I thought. A recent firmware upgrade to the current XDCAM cameras enables transfer of MXF files at 4-5 times realtime with 25MB/s footage. Are you sure those figures aren't for 50MB/s?

Quote:

I believe DV on XDCAM only downloads at around real time (?),

No, the official specs are 5x for DVCAM and 2.5x for IMX50. Although I have yet to actually time them. I may try it tomorrow if I have time as I have been wondering.

Quote:

they may be plugged direct into a laptop, so don't need a deck, but

But then who performs their main edits on a laptop?

Quote:

This begs the question of how 35Mb MPEG2 compares to DVCPRO HD. I believe 3:1 has been given (very roughly) as the sort of saving MPEG2 can be expected to give for similar quality to an I-frame only system, so I'd expect them to be very similar.

Interesting. Although I wouldn't know these tech specs myself. Maybe Graeme can tell us more if he's reading?

January 19th, 2006, 05:39 PM	#23
Douglas Call Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hollywood, FL Posts: 302	Fujinon 1/2" HD Glass $7,500. Just so you'll all know, you'll probably want to use HD glass to get the best out of this camera and that's going to cost you another $7,500. for the Fujinon HSs18X5.5BRD lens. Sorry I'm not sure if I got the price right it could be more?

January 19th, 2006, 05:48 PM	#24
Douglas Call Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Hollywood, FL Posts: 302	Sony CineAlta HDWF900 185Mb/s Just so there won't be confusion between the capture rate on the XDCAM HD compared to the HDCAM F900 35Mb/s is 4:2:0 colorspace where as the F900 is 185Mb/s and is 4:2:2 colorspace. The section below is from the F900 owners manual. Advanced digital pre-filtering and dynamic bit-allocation for luminance and chrominance components (based on the statistical analysis of the picture content) are combined with a mild compression ratio of only 4.4 to 1 to give a total on-tape recorded data rate of a modest 185 Mb/s at 60i. I don't pretend to know what this means. But its probably why it cost $100K. Here is the link to the F900 owners manual. http://www.oraclemagic.com/VideoFame/Images/HDWF900.pdf

January 19th, 2006, 12:49 PM	#16
Walter Graff Hellgate Pictures, Inc. Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New York, NY Posts: 124	No, because other systems require your edit system to do al the dirty work of interpolating frames and that causes confusion. But with this format it's all done in camera so yo don't have to rely on your edit system and all those settings to figure it all out.

January 19th, 2006, 01:15 PM	#17
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	http://www.televisionbroadcast.com/T...inutedrill.mp3

January 19th, 2006, 04:35 PM	#18
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	I would argue that when you consider back-up the $16K camera probably is a better value than the HVX. We will see how the 24P performs but 60-120 minutes on a $30 disc really is a shot in the gut to P2. Having the disc in a cartridge probably also extends the life as well as protection... very interesting... ash =o)

January 19th, 2006, 04:43 PM	#19
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Well, I still have reservations about long GOP, but if someone was to give me one of these cameras I wouldn't complain. The variable framerate has got my attention.

January 19th, 2006, 05:18 PM	#20
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I believe they say you getr 45 minutes of HD on a disc at the 35mbs rate, is that right? That would be about 5 and a half P2 8 gig cards, wouldn't it? Roughly $10K compared to thirty bucks? To me the 1/2" chip camera with a real lens is a no-brainer--I'd take it. I don't know if that $16K pricetag includes the lens. I sorta doubt it. My only experience with the long GOP is from a friend who has a Z1 and edits in FCP5. He says he just loads it and FCP does whatver it does and there are no editing or quality issues at all. It edits just like DV, he says. And so far all the footage I've seen doesn't have any of the problems people talk about. The only footage I've seen is from 2 cameras, and both shot by professional cameramen.

January 19th, 2006, 05:22 PM	#21
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	No, 60 mins at 35MB/s. You are correct, the Two Minute Drill today said that the prices listed were without lenses. I still think its good though.

January 19th, 2006, 05:31 PM	#22
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Cool--60 minutes is even better. That makes a $30 disc about the same price as a 60 minute DVCAM tape. I wonder what that new lens they show will cost. Generally 1/2" lenses are pretty reasonable, compared to 2/3" ones that I've bought in the past. Unless you want a really wide angle, I'd bet you can get a decent one for $5K. What I'm going to be wondering now is, how would this 1/2" chip camera shooting XDCAM HD compare to my DSR500 shooting DVCAM. Does the higher resolution format make up for the smaller chip size? In other words, when it comes time to buy a new camera, is XDCAM HD a possibility for the same cost as another 2/3" chip SD camera? The only operational feature a guy would lose would be the better depth of field control of the bigger chips.

January 19th, 2006, 06:15 PM	#26
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	P2 is quicker where SD is concerned. I don't think it will be the case where this sort of MPEG compression is concerned compared with DVCproHD however. I can't remember P2's transfer rates off hand. Anyone know? Regarding sensitivity, that may be an issue. Then again it might not. The DSR390 is 2 stops more sensitive than the DSR450 for example. The demo that is cirrently going around from Sony shows the HD XDCAM in some pretty low light conditions and it is getting good footage. For effects shots and timelapse the HD XDCAM has a 3 second exposure! The current SD XDCAM has a long shutter, and I often use it for timelapse of traffic at night etc. A 3 sec exposure would be great, not to mention downright ridiculous for nightime landscapes! :)

January 19th, 2006, 08:02 PM	#29
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Yeah, that is one of the dumbest non-words out there. Worse, even, than "prosumer."