First look at Sony XDCAM HD

[Graeme Nattress]

It is a shame, but 60i still gives good slowmo, 50% with the right tools.

Graeme

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

I wish I knew. We're both going of what Sony have told us, but we're not speaking directly to the Japanese engineers. From their FAQ: "Recording time is over 60 minutes at 35 Mbps". You've got to leave room for thumbnails and proxies too though on the disc space calculations.

Graeme

Yes, that extra 9GB+ is enough for another 18Mbps stream of proxies. What resolution are the proxies that might give us an idea? In any case it doesn't matter, well find out eventually, but it looks good.

[Wayne Morellini]

I seriously think some manufacturer should bring this quality to a sub $5K camera. They seriously don't sell enough PRO gear compared to what such a prosumer camera could sell. I would finally be happy enough with DV with such a grade of variable compression.

Here's hoping the Z1/FX1 replacement will have it on a hard drive, or a JVC. The 1/3rd inch chips on the prosumer version would still give them the market segmentation like what they enjoyed between the pro DV cams and the prosumer DV cams.

[Jerry Matese]

Sony claims the disc subsystem has a maximum transfer rate of 72 Mbs, double the average 35 Mbs high quality MPEG mode. I wonder how high it acually goes and how it compares to DVC Pro 100. I'm also wondering if the HD-SDI output is uncompressed 4:2:2 for studio work directly connected to an NLE? This would be helpful when pulling chroma keys.

[Graeme Nattress]

The 35mbps rate should be, extrapolating what we see with HDV, as good as HDCAM - no reason why it shouldn't be. The SDI output would be uncompressed.

Graeme

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

The 35mbps rate should be, extrapolating what we see with HDV, as good as HDCAM - no reason why it shouldn't be.

You really think it is that good?

I saw some footage on a decent monitor at Videoforum and it looked pretty good, but I would be very interested to see a HDCAM XDCAMHD side-by-side.

Do you think 35Mbps is Sony's replacement for HDCAM? I'd have thought they would go a little higher, 50Mbps 4:2:2 or so.

Originally Posted by Graeme Nattress

The 35mbps rate should be, extrapolating what we see with HDV, as good as HDCAM - no reason why it shouldn't be.

I'm sorry but I don't understand why should be? Isn't it 140 Megabits to HDCAM?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

Do you think 35Mbps is Sony's replacement for HDCAM? I'd have thought they would go a little higher, 50Mbps 4:2:2 or so.

But quality isn't a function of the datarate. It's a function of how good the compression scheme is.

[Graeme Nattress]

Well, HDCAM is 3:1:1 which is ever-so-slightly better than 4:2:0, but so much better you'd easily notice. 35mb/s MPEG2 is not totally transparent, but should reduce to a very low level the artifacts we see with HDV at 25mb/s. Given MPEG2's inherent efficiency advantages over the simple codec used for HDCAM, it should look pretty darn good.

It will be hard to compare exactly to HDCAM as that's usually coming off a superior camera, with bigger sensors etc. though.

I think you'd have to get into heavy analysis or post production effects to throw up a difference, but in my experience, both DVCproHD and HDCAM are too compressed to do too much with in post - I'd expect XDCAM HD to be very similar in that regard. Think of it as a news ENG HD Camera, not a digital cinema camera and you'll be fine.

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

But quality isn't a function of the datarate. It's a function of how good the compression scheme is.

Or more likely a factor of

quality = (data rate) * (efficiency of codec) / (the nature of what you're shooting and how the codec reacts to it)

All other things like chip size, lens, and image processing remaining constant.

Graeme

[Jerry Matese]

In a FAQ document Sony clearly states XDCAM is not a replacement for HDCAM rather a responce to the need for a price/quality point between HDCAM and HDV. That is why they went with 1/2 inch optics/sensors and dropped the IMX 50 for SD on the current XDCAM HD offerings, which by the way are consinerably less expensive than their SD cousins. I personally feel however, the XDCAM platform will evolve to a higher level over time because of its flexible file based system, proven chasis and a promising future of higher capasities and transfer rates.

A twin head XD camcorder (they already have a twin head XD deck) would have a read/write speed of 144 Mbs which could accomodate some very attractive compressions schemes including the current HDCAM, although there are most certainly some more efficient codecs out there right now that would be a better choice. Combine 2/3 inch optics/senors with a slick new codec running at 100-150 Mbs and HDCAM will be going the way of Betacam SX.

It seems Sony is commited to this technology and I am very interested in the future of this product line.

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...XDCAM_FAQs.pdf

[Michael Devlin]

There were several Sony folks at the Snader Visual Solutions Expo (1-2 Feb, 2006) including a marketing person for XDCAM HD. There was a PDW-F350 there to play with. This is my impression of what they told me (I may have misinterpretted some of what they said).

1. Codec: My impression is that the 2/3" XDCAM HD announced for availability in June 2007 will have a double density disc with dual heads. That will give about the same recording time with about a 2x increase in data rate. This was a somewhat vague discussion, but my guess is that the final data rate will be somewhere in the 50-100Mbs range. With the improved codec that should give quality equivalent to HDCAM. I have less confidence in the specifics here than the other things they told me.

2. HDSDI output: As discussed elsewhere, the PDW-F350 HDSDI output is not really full 4:2:2. It is 4:2:0 interpolated to 4:2:2. I have been assured that the 2/3" XDCAM (one of the models anyway) will have a full 4:2:2 HDSDI. I hope this is true since it is critical for green screen and such.

3. Viewfinder: The PDW-F350 is not compatible with Sony's HD viewfinders such as the HDVF-C30W. Again, I have been assured that the 2/3" XDCAM HD will be compatible with the HDVF-C30W or equivalent.

4. Workflow: The workflow will be the same or equivalent (or better!) than the 1/2" XDCAM HD. This is great news, since the workflow is the best feature of this camera (along with the general ruggedness and good ergonomics for professional use). That means anyone currently using the XDCAM product, or anyone adopting the 1/2" XDCAM HD products, will have a great path forward. I have high confidence that Sony will deliver some cool products in this family over the next few years.

[Jerry Matese]

Michael, thanks for the feedback. It's going to be interesting where they price the new XDCAM HD offerings. I for one need a real 4:2:2 HD solution and can't get what I need from the current HDV offerings, but can't afford or justify a ~100k solution for the types of projects I currently produce. I'll take it uncompressed via HD-SDI for my studio chroma-key work, and will gladly settle for compressed out on-location for use in basic editing. Hopefully the technology and demand will make a 25k or so option a reality.

[Scott Aston]

Doesn't the HVX give a real 4:2:2 offering and doesn't the Canon H1 give a 4:2:2 HD-SDI offering?

[Jerry Matese]

Yes, but not with 2/3 inch sensors and optics. The difference is quite dramatic, sort of like the difference between a point and shoot APS still camera and a SLR with a large aperature and 35mm image area.