Is the EX the official HVX200 killer?

[Craig Seeman]

I was comparing with a hypothetical shoulder mount equivalent to the EX1. That beast would likely be in the same price range (and market IMHO) of an HPX500.

Yes there would be the question of resolution as chip size and resolution are not one in the same.

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

That's a different comparison than the EX1 market niche, but it would be interesting to see how the HPX500 compares in terms of perceivable resolution. According to a post I found here from Jan Livingston the HPX500 has a native resolution of ~620,000 pixels, compared to over 2 million pixels in the EX1. Of course resolution isn't everything, but starting with 3X resolution at the sensor just might make a difference.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Of course resolution isn't everything, but starting with 3X resolution at the sensor just might make a difference.

Since the definition of HD is very high resolution -- that's got to be the minimum requirement. Especially now with FullHD on BD and HD DVD. And, for those going to 35mm film.

When it comes to ALL other aspects of the image -- over the years most pro vendors meet folks needs or they wouldn't stay in business. I don't think there is any data that proves 2/3-in chips deliver video with less noise than Sony's new 1/2-in XMOR CMOS chips.

IMHO, Sony simply is far ahead in sensor design and can deliver chips that offer both FullHD rez. + very low noise + super sensitivity + zero vertical smear. The question is will they sell them to Canon and/or JVC.

[Mark Kenfield]

I'd love to see Canon or JVC join the solid-state arena with something similar to the EX using 1/2" sensors, a proper lens, and recording to UDMA compact flash cards in something like the 50Mbps 4:2:2 AVC-I codec that Steve mentioned earlier (35Mbps 4:2:0 already looks great, so having the extra chroma samples in there will simply add even more appeal).

That would be an awfully nice camera... however whilst I'm dreaming I'll just throw out there my thoughts for Red's mini camera: i.e. something akin to a digital Aaton A-Minima - shooting 2K Redcode RAW to compact flash cards, through s16mm or 35mm still glass.

*sigh*

[Alex Raskin]

Mark, I understand that Sony has slated another version of EX1-class camera to be released early in 2008, with 2/3 " sensors.

What most people want codec-wise is Sony providing *on-camera* Cineform recording as an option.

Users of EX1, the 2/3" big bother of it I just mentioned, and heck! even V1U would benefit from that immensely.

[Wesley Alfvin]

Alex,

Where did you here about this 2/3 inch EX camera? That's exciting!

Wes

[Alex Raskin]

Wesley,

I read about it online, but the official release is here:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...m_family.shtml

Quote from it:
Sony will round out the XDCAM family with high-end additions that include two premium products: The PDW-700 camcorder and the PDW-HD1500 deck. They will offer striking quality HD recording at a data rate of up to 50 Mb/s using the MPEG HD422 compression technology. The PDW-700 is equipped with three 2/3-inch type CCDs - a newly developed “Power HAD™ FX” progressive CCD with 1920 x 1080 effective pixels,

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Alex Raskin

Wesley,

I read about it online, but the official release is here:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...m_family.shtml.

This was announced at NAB. It's an CineAlta HDCAM class camcorder. Not an EX1 class unit.

[Steven Thomas]

Thanks...
I knew that was to good to be true.
That camera is like $30,000.00

[Brian Luce]

Originally Posted by Alex Raskin

Mark, I understand that Sony has slated another version of EX1-class camera to be released early in 2008, with 2/3 " sensors.

What most people want codec-wise is Sony providing *on-camera* Cineform recording as an option.

But wouldn't that require hefty storage? Cineform files are big.

[Alex Raskin]

Brian, im my experience, Cineform file size is about 2x the mpeg2.

Problem with mpeg2 is that it's really bad. All fast pans (or fast moving objects in the frame) produce blockiness and tearing of the image.

That, and the fact that mpeg2 is 4:2:0 color space vs. Cineform's 4:2:2.

I was hoping that EX1's 35Mps-encoded mpeg2 is better, but Adam Wilt reported basically the same issues.

So the choice is: unusable mpeg2 footage vs. 2x larger but great quality Cineform files.

Since I choose the latter, I have to lug around a custom-built PC that captures uncompressed HD out of Sony V1U (in my case), and encodes it in Cineform on-the-fly.

Instead of the big and heavy PC, I'd really like to have a Cineform recording option on-camera.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Alex Raskin

Wesley,

I read about it online, but the official release is here:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan...m_family.shtml

Quote from it:
Sony will round out the XDCAM family with high-end additions that include two premium products: The PDW-700 camcorder and the PDW-HD1500 deck. .......

Not only is it a much higher end camera (as Steve says) but my understanding is that it records to optical disc, not SxS cards. Though it's interesting that in the link above the media isn't specified any more. Maybe it will have grown a couple of SxS slots by launch!?

[Joe Lawry]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Does anyone know what the AVC-I upgrade consists of? A second, or a different, codec chip? Or, just firmware?

Currently, to upgrade your HPX2000 (the only camera that is currently upgradeable) You have to have a new PC board installed into the camera. The HPX3000 comes with this PC board.

Currently being the word here, said PC board is to large to fit inside a hand held camera, or so i have read. However.. this of course will change over time.

I was at a panasonic conference last night where they showed the HPX3000.

I was told by the reps that AVC-I in 50 mbps is comparable to DVCPROHD at 100 mbps, and the 100 mbps flavor of AVC-I is comparably close to D5/HDCAM SR quality. AVC-I is also a full raster 1920 codec, the same as the new EX codec and HDCAM SR.

[Adam Reuter]

Sony really did do their homework when designing/implementing the Ex 1. They took everything I hate about the HVX200 and made it better.

- Much better resolution.
- Much cleaner picture
- Much better in low light
- Better depth of field
- Much better LCD screen
- Better lens design
- Better recording times per GB


The HVX200's main advantage is the better compression with the DVCPro HD codec however when your HD footage isn't true HD does that really matter? A full 1920x1080 image versus the squeezed 1280x960 (I hope I'm getting my numbers right) 1080i footage is a deal breaker for me. 4:2:2 color or not the HVX200 has a soft picture and the DVCPro HD format suffers because of it.

And after all if the XDCam HD format is good enough for the Discovery Channel than it's good enough for more. The footage posted so far looks gorgeous and once the vignetting issues are worked out (reminds me of the JVC split screen problem) then I'll definitely be looking at purchasing this camera.

I'm currently shooting a documentary with the HVX200 and from now on will only be shooting interviews. I'm holding off until next year to possibly get my hands on this camera for wide shots of different places.

I am a huge fan of Panasonic cameras, especially with their gorgeous color matrix/gamma but I think they are quaking in their boots with this release. They are going to have to release the next HVX with a 1/2" chip and AVC-Intra with a clean image or they may have some problems. No more excuses for the noisy picture...at least if they want to offer the new HVX at the old one's current price tag. The EX 1 really is a workhorse! We really should be comparing this camera to the HPX500.

[Kevin Shaw]

I just had my first run with an EX1 tonight and found it to be a much more pleasant experience than trying to use the HVX200. With the latter I had a terrible time getting recorded clips to play in Windows, but with the EX1 that worked on the first try no problem. File transfer speed was also quite good: we clocked it at about 10:1 (ten minutes of footage per minute) on my Dell Latitude laptop with a 5400 RPM hard drive. Kudos to Sony for developing a file-based video workflow which works smoothly - the clip browser software could be better, but it's functional.

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Alex Raskin

So the choice is: unusable mpeg2 footage vs. 2x larger but great quality Cineform files.

Since I choose the latter, I have to lug around a custom-built PC that captures uncompressed HD out of Sony V1U (in my case), and encodes it in Cineform on-the-fly.

Instead of the big and heavy PC, I'd really like to have a Cineform recording option on-camera.

I would hardly call 35mbit EX1 footage unusable. There will be a lot of people who will make a lot of money from EX1 footage.