Where can I see more footage from XDCam HD 330/350? at DVinfo.net

Hayes Roberts · October 30th, 2006, 05:18 PM

Aside from the "General Links", and Sony DVD, ( "Itidarod ") are there any other projects or features that may be viewed? Our company is looking to move up from HD100. I want to close the deal-I think- or should I wait. RED, perhaps?

Bill Weaver · October 31st, 2006, 12:37 AM

Red is still vaporware in a sense.

Each time I use XDCam HD, it impresses me more and more, both in look and workflow and versatility.

Simon's recent article says it well.

Here's a recent screengrab

Nigel Cooper · October 31st, 2006, 07:39 AM

There are 4 screen grabs under another post in the Sony XDCAM forum called "Overview of XDCAM HD, workflow & F350 review". Scroll to bottom and click on images.

I'm going to be shooting a TV commercial later this week on F350 so will post a link to the footage of that if you like.

Bill, your above screen grab has been scaled down from 1920x1080 to a smaller size right?

Bill Weaver · October 31st, 2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Cooper

Bill, your above screen grab has been scaled down from 1920x1080 to a smaller size right?

I exported as a jpeg from FCP, and corrected aspect ratio in Photoshop....

Nigel Cooper · October 31st, 2006, 09:53 AM

Bill, I just dragged your version into Photoshop and it is 1440x850; weird.

Mine are 1920x1080 from the thread I mentioned above.

What I did in Final Cut Pro was go to Save/Save as Still image as a PSD file. Then open this file in Photoshop, which is 1440x1080 by default, then in Photoshop I re-scale to 1920x1080 to bring the proportions of the image back to what it should be.

Why your grab is 1440x850 is strange, bottom number should be 1080. NTSC/PAL difference shoudn't come into it with HD so that is not to blame. Something is happening in Photoshop for you that is making the 1080 go down to 850.

Greg Boston · October 31st, 2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Cooper

Bill, I just dragged your version into Photoshop and it is 1440x850; weird.

Mine are 1920x1080 from the thread I mentioned above.

What I did in Final Cut Pro was go to Save/Save as Still image as a PSD file. Then open this file in Photoshop, which is 1440x1080 by default, then in Photoshop I re-scale to 1920x1080 to bring the proportions of the image back to what it should be.

Why your grab is 1440x850 is strange, bottom number should be 1080. NTSC/PAL difference shoudn't come into it with HD so that is not to blame. Something is happening in Photoshop for you that is making the 1080 go down to 850.

Seems his re-scaling in PS created 16:9 by reducing the vertical res while leaving the horizontal alone.

Steve Connor · October 31st, 2006, 10:46 AM

I've put some here http://www.flyingmachines.tv/AircraftXDCamHD.mov.

Hayes Roberts · October 31st, 2006, 03:53 PM

Thanks gents, this will be a great help.

Greg Penetrante · November 2nd, 2006, 12:49 AM

Here's an XDCam HD screenshot from a show I recently shot. I've resized it down a bit...

http://ttf.sdsu.edu/pasacat06-3.jpg

best,
-Greg

Hayes Roberts · November 3rd, 2006, 09:21 AM

Bill, Nigel, Steve, Greg : Thanks! Look forward to seeing more material. Maybe Tim or Chris puts up a "XD clips"? This camera is going to be popular.

Hayes Roberts · November 3rd, 2006, 09:29 AM

Nigel, WOW! That was some review you put together. Fantastic! I noticed you have had much experience with the jvc hd100, as well. I know this is off topic, but how would you compare the two cameras, overall? Thanks.

Nigel Cooper · November 3rd, 2006, 11:18 AM

Briefly. I'm a fan of ProHD equipment (now I've fixed all Final Cut Pro editing issues anyway). I personally own a GY-HD111E JVC, but in January I'm selling off all my JVC gear and moving up to XDCAM HD (F350).

Comparison of XDCAM HD camcorders with JVC ProHD GY-HD111, there is no comparison at all. If you play them both back side-by-side on a regular 28" standard def television set you will see a difference, but you really need a HD television set to really see it.

I've since bought a Sony 46" 1920x1080 HD digital LCD TV (cost a packet) and on this screen you can really see it. XDCAM HD is head and shoulders above the JVC on this screen. The screen shows up all the flaws in the image quality of the JVC.

JVC is a great camera for the money, remember it is £10,000 cheaper than F350, and it shows. Sony is sharp, smooth and rich with incredible detail and colour. JVC in comparison is very artifacty, blocky and very pixilated and incredibly grainy in comparison and the colours of JVC are simply all over the place and are nowhere near close to the the real scene.

If you could compare image quality performance to the performance of a car the Sony is a M sports BMW Z4 and the JVC is a Ford Mondeo diesel.

I've been happy with JVC footage up until now, but it is only when you A/B switch between the two cameras that you really appreciate how brilliant XDCAM HD is for the money. XDCAM HD is a lot closer to HDCAMM than it is to Z1.

A friend of mine works full time for BBC (UK) Bristol and he said the Colourist (editing side) is really pleased with the range he was able to pull out of XDCAM HD. He said it is leagues above anything he can pull out of Z1 or DSR450/570.

Oh, the new Jack Osbourne Adrenaline Junky series is shot on F350 at 35Mbps.

Hayes Roberts · November 3rd, 2006, 05:36 PM

O.K. Excellent-Thanks Nigel. I think now the decision will be for me to go 330 or 350. Thanks for all the help.
Would really hope to see something "cinematic" from this camera soon. Maybe I will have to be the one to do it! XDcamHD makes a lot of sense, especially if one needs a tool NOW. As mentioned before, RED,etc., are still in development; this gear is available today.

October 30th, 2006, 05:18 PM	#1
Hayes Roberts Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Naples FLA Posts: 89	Where can we see more footage from XDCam HD 330/350? Aside from the "General Links", and Sony DVD, ( "Itidarod ") are there any other projects or features that may be viewed? Our company is looking to move up from HD100. I want to close the deal-I think- or should I wait. RED, perhaps? Last edited by Hayes Roberts; October 30th, 2006 at 08:58 PM.

October 31st, 2006, 12:37 AM	#2
Bill Weaver Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Victoria,BC Posts: 124	Red is still vaporware in a sense. Each time I use XDCam HD, it impresses me more and more, both in look and workflow and versatility. Simon's recent article says it well. Here's a recent screengrab Attached Thumbnails __________________ Bill Weaver Across Borders Media / Media that Matters

November 2nd, 2006, 12:49 AM	#9
Greg Penetrante Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 70	More footage Here's an XDCam HD screenshot from a show I recently shot. I've resized it down a bit... http://ttf.sdsu.edu/pasacat06-3.jpg best, -Greg

October 31st, 2006, 07:39 AM	#3
Nigel Cooper Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cambridgeshire, UK Posts: 112	There are 4 screen grabs under another post in the Sony XDCAM forum called "Overview of XDCAM HD, workflow & F350 review". Scroll to bottom and click on images. I'm going to be shooting a TV commercial later this week on F350 so will post a link to the footage of that if you like. Bill, your above screen grab has been scaled down from 1920x1080 to a smaller size right?

October 31st, 2006, 09:53 AM	#5
Nigel Cooper Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cambridgeshire, UK Posts: 112	Bill, I just dragged your version into Photoshop and it is 1440x850; weird. Mine are 1920x1080 from the thread I mentioned above. What I did in Final Cut Pro was go to Save/Save as Still image as a PSD file. Then open this file in Photoshop, which is 1440x1080 by default, then in Photoshop I re-scale to 1920x1080 to bring the proportions of the image back to what it should be. Why your grab is 1440x850 is strange, bottom number should be 1080. NTSC/PAL difference shoudn't come into it with HD so that is not to blame. Something is happening in Photoshop for you that is making the 1080 go down to 850.

October 31st, 2006, 10:46 AM	#7
Steve Connor Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK Posts: 383	I've put some here http://www.flyingmachines.tv/AircraftXDCamHD.mov.

October 31st, 2006, 03:53 PM	#8
Hayes Roberts Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Naples FLA Posts: 89	Thanks gents, this will be a great help.

November 3rd, 2006, 09:21 AM	#10
Hayes Roberts Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Naples FLA Posts: 89	Bill, Nigel, Steve, Greg : Thanks! Look forward to seeing more material. Maybe Tim or Chris puts up a "XD clips"? This camera is going to be popular.

November 3rd, 2006, 09:29 AM	#11
Hayes Roberts Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Naples FLA Posts: 89	Nigel, WOW! That was some review you put together. Fantastic! I noticed you have had much experience with the jvc hd100, as well. I know this is off topic, but how would you compare the two cameras, overall? Thanks.

November 3rd, 2006, 11:18 AM	#12
Nigel Cooper Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Cambridgeshire, UK Posts: 112	Briefly. I'm a fan of ProHD equipment (now I've fixed all Final Cut Pro editing issues anyway). I personally own a GY-HD111E JVC, but in January I'm selling off all my JVC gear and moving up to XDCAM HD (F350). Comparison of XDCAM HD camcorders with JVC ProHD GY-HD111, there is no comparison at all. If you play them both back side-by-side on a regular 28" standard def television set you will see a difference, but you really need a HD television set to really see it. I've since bought a Sony 46" 1920x1080 HD digital LCD TV (cost a packet) and on this screen you can really see it. XDCAM HD is head and shoulders above the JVC on this screen. The screen shows up all the flaws in the image quality of the JVC. JVC is a great camera for the money, remember it is £10,000 cheaper than F350, and it shows. Sony is sharp, smooth and rich with incredible detail and colour. JVC in comparison is very artifacty, blocky and very pixilated and incredibly grainy in comparison and the colours of JVC are simply all over the place and are nowhere near close to the the real scene. If you could compare image quality performance to the performance of a car the Sony is a M sports BMW Z4 and the JVC is a Ford Mondeo diesel. I've been happy with JVC footage up until now, but it is only when you A/B switch between the two cameras that you really appreciate how brilliant XDCAM HD is for the money. XDCAM HD is a lot closer to HDCAMM than it is to Z1. A friend of mine works full time for BBC (UK) Bristol and he said the Colourist (editing side) is really pleased with the range he was able to pull out of XDCAM HD. He said it is leagues above anything he can pull out of Z1 or DSR450/570. Oh, the new Jack Osbourne Adrenaline Junky series is shot on F350 at 35Mbps.

November 3rd, 2006, 05:36 PM	#13
Hayes Roberts Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Naples FLA Posts: 89	O.K. Excellent-Thanks Nigel. I think now the decision will be for me to go 330 or 350. Thanks for all the help. Would really hope to see something "cinematic" from this camera soon. Maybe I will have to be the one to do it! XDcamHD makes a lot of sense, especially if one needs a tool NOW. As mentioned before, RED,etc., are still in development; this gear is available today.