A NEW EX1 first look at DVinfo.net

Craig Seeman · November 17th, 2007, 09:14 PM

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...ny-PVW-EX1.jsp

Jason Bodnar · November 17th, 2007, 09:39 PM

Good stuff....I can not wait for them to show up!

Jonas Nystrom · November 18th, 2007, 04:26 AM

Do you know anything about the pricing on the camera?

Daniel Weber · November 18th, 2007, 08:00 AM

US prices are:

EX1 $6700 street price
16Gig card $900
8 Gig card $500

Some are finding them for less, but these prices are a good benchmark.

Daniel Weber

Thomas Smet · November 18th, 2007, 01:23 PM

Awesome review. The only thing I didn't like was that at one point he said the quality was the same as a 300 series XDCAMHD but then later on he said the resolution is much better then the 300 series XDCAMHD.

Which one is it? Is it better or the same?

Calvin Dean · November 18th, 2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Awesome review. The only thing I didn't like was that at one point he said the quality was the same as a 300 series XDCAMHD but then later on he said the resolution is much better then the 300 series XDCAMHD.

Which one is it? Is it better or the same?

If I'm not mistaken, he said it looked the same on side-by-side monitors. Looking the same and being the same may be two different things.

Alessandro Zumstein · November 18th, 2007, 01:44 PM

Maybe he mean the quality of colors or other ""characters"" of picture are the same of the 300 series xdcam hd but the resolution is much better. Maybe for him, is resolution not always synonymous of quality.
For exemple, the Panasonic AG-HVX200 have lower resolution, when comparde to the Canon XH-A1. But colors, and other characters, are better (in the HVX200). This i mean

Sorry for my English, he is not perfect :-)

Alessandro Zumstein

Kyle Self · November 18th, 2007, 01:45 PM

Geeeez, you did notice that the EX has chips that are 1920 x 1080 where the 300 series cams before have chips that are 1440 x 1080 hence the comment on the resolution being better.

He also said there was a marginal difference between the pictures of the EX and the 350. The images were comparable which jives with things said by other people who have used both.

So which one is it? It's both.

K

Jonas Nystrom · November 18th, 2007, 01:49 PM

5.8mm @ the "widest" on a 1/2 chip - what will it end up in 35mm equalent? How much impact does the 1/2 chip have on the DoF compared to 1/3 chip?

Thomas Smet · November 18th, 2007, 01:59 PM

I think it has more to do with the fact that it starts to get very hard to tell the difference between 1440x1080 and 1920x1080 on a monitor. Sure the Ex1 has more pixels but in the end it doesn't do all that much to make it look any better. So in the real world they both have the same type of look with the EX1 maybe just looking like it was a little bit more in focus.

Jonas Nystrom · November 18th, 2007, 02:10 PM

35mm equalant: 31,4-439mm.

Is there any frame grabs to evaluate DoF?

Eric Pascarelli · November 18th, 2007, 07:14 PM

By my calculation, you'll get about one stop lower DoF on a 1/2" chip than on a 1/3" chip, for a given field of view.

That means that after compensating on the zoom for the different chip size, so that the image on the two cameras is identical, a 1/3" camera at f/4 will have the same DoF as a 1/2" camera at f/5.6.

Approximately.

Serena Steuart · November 18th, 2007, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Pascarelli

By my calculation, you'll get about one stop lower DoF on a 1/2" chip than on a 1/3" chip, for a given field of view.

That means that after compensating on the zoom for the different chip size, so that the image on the two cameras is identical, a 1/3" camera at f/4 will have the same DoF as a 1/2" camera at f/5.6.

Approximately.

That's assuming the same diameter of the circle of confusion, which is reasonable if the images are viewed at same size and same distance.

Eric Pascarelli · November 19th, 2007, 01:07 AM

It actually assumes that the CoC's are proportional in terms of actual size (in inches) on the chip, but the same diameter (in pixels) on the viewing screen.

In other words, it assumes that the visual tolerance for blurriness as it appears on the viewing screen, the defining factor of DoF, is held constant between the two formats.

I only say this because the CoC tolerance used in DoF calculations is generally measured in (fractional) inches or millimeters on the chip and that tolerance grows proportionally with chip size, assuming a constant resolution.

CoC diameter is the size of the "circle" created by a theoretical point of light falling on an imager out of focus. As focus gets blurrier the circle increases in size. CoC tolerance is the largest possible diameter of that circle that is still considered to be "in focus."

Serena Steuart · November 19th, 2007, 01:45 AM

Yes. But it's the circle on the screen that is the crucial issue, rather than on the sensor. DOF is determined by viewing conditions because the issue is whether or not a circle on the screen is perceived as a point. The larger the viewing angle the more critical the judgment. So Cc for 35mm got smaller as screens got larger, which wasn't related to film or lens resolutions. Obviously you can relate this back to the Cc on the sensor (the basis of DOF calculations) once you define the degree of magnification involved.

November 17th, 2007, 09:14 PM	#1
Craig Seeman Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Posts: 3,841	A NEW EX1 first look http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/n...ny-PVW-EX1.jsp

November 18th, 2007, 04:26 AM	#3
Jonas Nystrom Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Göteborg, Sweden Posts: 306	Do you know anything about the pricing on the camera? __________________ Jonas Nyström, DoP :: HOT SHOT® SWEDEN :: www.hotshot.nu :: RED #1567, RED 18-50mm T3 :: XL A1, Letus Extreme :: XL H1, 20X & 6X lens (for sale) :: www.vimeo.com/nystrom

November 18th, 2007, 01:44 PM	#7
Alessandro Zumstein Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Switzerland Posts: 68	Best quality and best resolution Maybe he mean the quality of colors or other ""characters"" of picture are the same of the 300 series xdcam hd but the resolution is much better. Maybe for him, is resolution not always synonymous of quality. For exemple, the Panasonic AG-HVX200 have lower resolution, when comparde to the Canon XH-A1. But colors, and other characters, are better (in the HVX200). This i mean Sorry for my English, he is not perfect :-) Alessandro Zumstein

November 18th, 2007, 01:49 PM	#9
Jonas Nystrom Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Göteborg, Sweden Posts: 306	Wide and DoF 5.8mm @ the "widest" on a 1/2 chip - what will it end up in 35mm equalent? How much impact does the 1/2 chip have on the DoF compared to 1/3 chip? __________________ Jonas Nyström, DoP :: HOT SHOT® SWEDEN :: www.hotshot.nu :: RED #1567, RED 18-50mm T3 :: XL A1, Letus Extreme :: XL H1, 20X & 6X lens (for sale) :: www.vimeo.com/nystrom

November 18th, 2007, 02:10 PM	#11
Jonas Nystrom Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Göteborg, Sweden Posts: 306	35mm equalant: 31,4-439mm. Is there any frame grabs to evaluate DoF? __________________ Jonas Nyström, DoP :: HOT SHOT® SWEDEN :: www.hotshot.nu :: RED #1567, RED 18-50mm T3 :: XL A1, Letus Extreme :: XL H1, 20X & 6X lens (for sale) :: www.vimeo.com/nystrom

November 17th, 2007, 09:39 PM	#2
Jason Bodnar Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Seattle WA Posts: 376	Good stuff....I can not wait for them to show up!

November 18th, 2007, 08:00 AM	#4
Daniel Weber Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 696	US prices are: EX1 $6700 street price 16Gig card $900 8 Gig card $500 Some are finding them for less, but these prices are a good benchmark. Daniel Weber

November 18th, 2007, 01:23 PM	#5
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Awesome review. The only thing I didn't like was that at one point he said the quality was the same as a 300 series XDCAMHD but then later on he said the resolution is much better then the 300 series XDCAMHD. Which one is it? Is it better or the same?

November 18th, 2007, 01:45 PM	#8
Kyle Self Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 59	Geeeez, you did notice that the EX has chips that are 1920 x 1080 where the 300 series cams before have chips that are 1440 x 1080 hence the comment on the resolution being better. He also said there was a marginal difference between the pictures of the EX and the 350. The images were comparable which jives with things said by other people who have used both. So which one is it? It's both. K

November 18th, 2007, 01:59 PM	#10
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I think it has more to do with the fact that it starts to get very hard to tell the difference between 1440x1080 and 1920x1080 on a monitor. Sure the Ex1 has more pixels but in the end it doesn't do all that much to make it look any better. So in the real world they both have the same type of look with the EX1 maybe just looking like it was a little bit more in focus.

November 18th, 2007, 07:14 PM	#12
Eric Pascarelli Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 498	By my calculation, you'll get about one stop lower DoF on a 1/2" chip than on a 1/3" chip, for a given field of view. That means that after compensating on the zoom for the different chip size, so that the image on the two cameras is identical, a 1/3" camera at f/4 will have the same DoF as a 1/2" camera at f/5.6. Approximately.

November 19th, 2007, 01:07 AM	#14
Eric Pascarelli Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 498	It actually assumes that the CoC's are proportional in terms of actual size (in inches) on the chip, but the same diameter (in pixels) on the viewing screen. In other words, it assumes that the visual tolerance for blurriness as it appears on the viewing screen, the defining factor of DoF, is held constant between the two formats. I only say this because the CoC tolerance used in DoF calculations is generally measured in (fractional) inches or millimeters on the chip and that tolerance grows proportionally with chip size, assuming a constant resolution. CoC diameter is the size of the "circle" created by a theoretical point of light falling on an imager out of focus. As focus gets blurrier the circle increases in size. CoC tolerance is the largest possible diameter of that circle that is still considered to be "in focus."

November 19th, 2007, 01:45 AM	#15
Serena Steuart Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Studio Alnitak, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 640 Images: 3	Yes. But it's the circle on the screen that is the crucial issue, rather than on the sensor. DOF is determined by viewing conditions because the issue is whether or not a circle on the screen is perceived as a point. The larger the viewing angle the more critical the judgment. So Cc for 35mm got smaller as screens got larger, which wasn't related to film or lens resolutions. Obviously you can relate this back to the Cc on the sensor (the basis of DOF calculations) once you define the degree of magnification involved.