PMW 350 Video Overview & Test Footage!!! at DVinfo.net

Trell Mitchell · January 24th, 2010, 07:34 PM

Worth viewing!!! ... Video clip is 20 Minutes.
Video Clip provided by Philip Johnston of Preston Media....Glasgow, Scotland, UK

Test Footage provided by Corkscrew Media... Alberta, Canada
Total Run Time: 1 minute & 25 seconds

Enjoy!

Joakim Sandstrom · January 25th, 2010, 11:02 AM

Some more footage here
YouTube - Banff Selects Jan 2010
YouTube - SONY XDCAM EX PMW-350 + Glidecam4000Pro with X-10
YouTube - PMW-350
YouTube - Test Footage of Sony PMW-350 on the .video show, with Jesse Miller

After checking this footage, including those 50i airshow shots from Mr.Chapman, shot with the nano, as well as comparing the cameras at a recent sony event, I have to say I don't understand all the hype and praise of ex350. There is budget look to all this footage. In my option the PDW-700 images just has a much better quality and feel, I guess it is CMOS vs CCD, perhaps also the prism block and such things are better. I'd love to try out the EX350 with digiprimes at some point when it becomes available here. But I don't see how this camera could do the job of a 700/f800 as people are suggesting.

Alister Chapman · January 25th, 2010, 11:49 AM

You'll have to take my word for it but 350 and PDW-700 footage is pretty much indistinguishable in most cases. I have one of each and I didn't want the 350 to be as good as it is as I have already invested in a PDW-700, but it's extremely good. It needs a little dialing in with the scene files as it's way to sharp out of the box, but once you get it set up there is absolutely nothing budget about the images. You can't use Vimeo or YouTube to make judgements about picture quality.

I'll get some short clips straight from the camera and see if Chris will host them for a while. Won't be before Friday though do to other commitments.

Joakim Sandstrom · January 25th, 2010, 01:17 PM

It would be great to see some native progressive footage.

I think you can judge footage in crappy web quality, to some degree. If there was quality to begin with, you can tell.

I've yet to see this color definition coming off those 350 cmoses

Alister Chapman · January 25th, 2010, 01:53 PM

The first clip is seriously graded. That's not native out-of-the-box footage. The second set of clips were shot in superb lighting conditions. Take a look at my Goodwood clip if you want well saturated colours and that was with an EX3.

Goodwood Revival By Alister Chapman On ExposureRoom

There are far too many variables in all these clips to make any kind of accurate comparison. Lighting, type of shot, clip size, compression ratio, codec all come into play.

Joakim Sandstrom · January 25th, 2010, 02:55 PM

I think we just disagree.

This is not about the grading, I can see beyond that of course.

There is something about that 700/800/HDC-1500 chipset, a feel to the image, that is just not there at all with the EX cameras, hence my initial post.

EDIT:
By the way I don't think that Melbourne clip is much graded if at all

Steve Phillipps · January 25th, 2010, 02:57 PM

You are right of course Alister, BUT, I have to say that Melbourne clip does look amazing Joakim!
Steve

David Hart · January 27th, 2010, 04:52 PM

...So, which has the better picture?

Steve Phillipps · January 27th, 2010, 05:43 PM

Not wanting to start an argument with Alister. But. When the EX1/3 first came out his tests made him say that they were very close. The when the 350 came out he thought it was quite a bit better than the EX3 and about the same as the 700/800.
Sorry if I've mis-quoted you Alister, but that's how I remember it, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Steve

Steve Phillipps · January 27th, 2010, 05:53 PM

In self defence, I've dug out a quote "The pictures from the EX3 are remarkable close to the pictures from the PDW-700" from this post http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdc...sony-f350.html
And then this quote "The PMW-350 is fair bit better than the EX3" from this post http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-...-pmw350-3.html
By extension then the PMW350 is a fair bit better than the 700/800.
I'm not having a go, I promise, just be interested to get a clarification of your opinion. I haven't seen the 350 so I don't have an opinion and do value yours.
Steve

Joakim Sandstrom · January 27th, 2010, 08:14 PM

All CMOS cameras seem to have a somehow muted color palette. I think there is a distinct difference in image-feel between a CCD and a CMOS camera. Even the F350 has something robust in its image that is lacking in the EX cameras. And the EX IR problem does not help.

Cris Daniels · January 28th, 2010, 12:05 AM

Compared to what? All CCD cameras? A far too generalized and inaccurate statement. Most of the best digital stills cameras are CMOS, with the exception of Phase One, which would be considered the Sony F35 of digital stills at this point.

Those PDW-700 shots were obviously finessed, and some shot with filtration, it appears that at least one was shot with a colored grad.

Who knows if the 700 was painted by a guru and if the 350 was straight out of the box.

Of course I would take a 700 an day, but it does not appear to offer near the value of the 350 at this point. Shoot the same exact footage and have both cameras painted to something like a DSC Chroma DuMonde, and shoot the 350 into a Nanoflash with a Schneider 750 or Tiffen T1IR filter. I'm not sure I would see enough difference to make me think the 700 is worth THAT much more than the PMW-350.

Joakim Sandstrom · January 28th, 2010, 09:32 AM

The best digital stills cameras are still CCD
Hasselblad.com
Sinar Photography AG

Steve Phillipps · January 28th, 2010, 09:36 AM

Really? All the top Canons and Nikons use CMOS. As does the Phantom HD.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a CMOS fan due to skewing on moving targets.
Steve

Joakim Sandstrom · January 28th, 2010, 10:27 AM

Nikon and Canon are not the best stills cameras. Thats semi-pro. What I don't understand is that the CCD vs CMOS discussion is always about skew/wobble etc and never about the distinctly different look and feel they produce. One technical reason may be that a CMOS pixel has a much lower fill-rate (albeit counter-acted with micro lenses ) than a CCD which has an almost full grid of pixels. Backlit cmoses may change that. Maybe it's a taste thing and my eyes are more sensitive than others, or it's silly to argue about this, but I think the difference is very clear. For example the RED look is a CMOS look ( and the ex camera looks very similar ) then F23 has the SONY 3-CCD look which I think just feels much more new and 2010.

January 24th, 2010, 07:34 PM	#1
Trell Mitchell Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 37	PMW 350 Video Overview & Test Footage!!! Worth viewing!!! ... Video clip is 20 Minutes. Video Clip provided by Philip Johnston of Preston Media....Glasgow, Scotland, UK Sony XDCAM PMW-350K Overview UPDATED on Vimeo Test Footage provided by Corkscrew Media... Alberta, Canada Total Run Time: 1 minute & 25 seconds Sony PMW-350 Test Footage on Vimeo Enjoy!

January 25th, 2010, 11:49 AM	#3
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	You'll have to take my word for it but 350 and PDW-700 footage is pretty much indistinguishable in most cases. I have one of each and I didn't want the 350 to be as good as it is as I have already invested in a PDW-700, but it's extremely good. It needs a little dialing in with the scene files as it's way to sharp out of the box, but once you get it set up there is absolutely nothing budget about the images. You can't use Vimeo or YouTube to make judgements about picture quality. I'll get some short clips straight from the camera and see if Chris will host them for a while. Won't be before Friday though do to other commitments. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

January 25th, 2010, 01:17 PM	#4
Joakim Sandstrom New Boot Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Sweden Posts: 20	It would be great to see some native progressive footage. I think you can judge footage in crappy web quality, to some degree. If there was quality to begin with, you can tell. I've yet to see this color definition coming off those 350 cmoses XDCam pdw-700 Around Melbourne Demo on Vimeo Sony PDW-F800 Test Footage Part 1 on Vimeo

January 25th, 2010, 01:53 PM	#5
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	The first clip is seriously graded. That's not native out-of-the-box footage. The second set of clips were shot in superb lighting conditions. Take a look at my Goodwood clip if you want well saturated colours and that was with an EX3. Goodwood Revival By Alister Chapman On ExposureRoom There are far too many variables in all these clips to make any kind of accurate comparison. Lighting, type of shot, clip size, compression ratio, codec all come into play. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

January 25th, 2010, 02:55 PM	#6
Joakim Sandstrom New Boot Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Sweden Posts: 20	I think we just disagree. This is not about the grading, I can see beyond that of course. There is something about that 700/800/HDC-1500 chipset, a feel to the image, that is just not there at all with the EX cameras, hence my initial post. EDIT: By the way I don't think that Melbourne clip is much graded if at all Last edited by Joakim Sandstrom; January 25th, 2010 at 04:03 PM.

January 25th, 2010, 11:02 AM	#2
Joakim Sandstrom New Boot Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Sweden Posts: 20	Some more footage here YouTube - Banff Selects Jan 2010 YouTube - SONY XDCAM EX PMW-350 + Glidecam4000Pro with X-10 YouTube - PMW-350 YouTube - Test Footage of Sony PMW-350 on the .video show, with Jesse Miller After checking this footage, including those 50i airshow shots from Mr.Chapman, shot with the nano, as well as comparing the cameras at a recent sony event, I have to say I don't understand all the hype and praise of ex350. There is budget look to all this footage. In my option the PDW-700 images just has a much better quality and feel, I guess it is CMOS vs CCD, perhaps also the prism block and such things are better. I'd love to try out the EX350 with digiprimes at some point when it becomes available here. But I don't see how this camera could do the job of a 700/f800 as people are suggesting.

January 25th, 2010, 02:57 PM	#7
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	You are right of course Alister, BUT, I have to say that Melbourne clip does look amazing Joakim! Steve

January 27th, 2010, 04:52 PM	#8
David Hart Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Bristol UK Posts: 29	350 0r 700/800 ...So, which has the better picture? __________________ www.iceboxvideo.co.uk

January 27th, 2010, 05:43 PM	#9
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Not wanting to start an argument with Alister. But. When the EX1/3 first came out his tests made him say that they were very close. The when the 350 came out he thought it was quite a bit better than the EX3 and about the same as the 700/800. Sorry if I've mis-quoted you Alister, but that's how I remember it, please correct me if I'm wrong. Steve

January 27th, 2010, 05:53 PM	#10
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	In self defence, I've dug out a quote "The pictures from the EX3 are remarkable close to the pictures from the PDW-700" from this post http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdc...sony-f350.html And then this quote "The PMW-350 is fair bit better than the EX3" from this post http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-...-pmw350-3.html By extension then the PMW350 is a fair bit better than the 700/800. I'm not having a go, I promise, just be interested to get a clarification of your opinion. I haven't seen the 350 so I don't have an opinion and do value yours. Steve

January 27th, 2010, 08:14 PM	#11
Joakim Sandstrom New Boot Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Sweden Posts: 20	All CMOS cameras seem to have a somehow muted color palette. I think there is a distinct difference in image-feel between a CCD and a CMOS camera. Even the F350 has something robust in its image that is lacking in the EX cameras. And the EX IR problem does not help. Last edited by Joakim Sandstrom; January 27th, 2010 at 09:37 PM.

January 28th, 2010, 12:05 AM	#12
Cris Daniels Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 56	Compared to what? All CCD cameras? A far too generalized and inaccurate statement. Most of the best digital stills cameras are CMOS, with the exception of Phase One, which would be considered the Sony F35 of digital stills at this point. Those PDW-700 shots were obviously finessed, and some shot with filtration, it appears that at least one was shot with a colored grad. Who knows if the 700 was painted by a guru and if the 350 was straight out of the box. Of course I would take a 700 an day, but it does not appear to offer near the value of the 350 at this point. Shoot the same exact footage and have both cameras painted to something like a DSC Chroma DuMonde, and shoot the 350 into a Nanoflash with a Schneider 750 or Tiffen T1IR filter. I'm not sure I would see enough difference to make me think the 700 is worth THAT much more than the PMW-350.

January 28th, 2010, 09:32 AM	#13
Joakim Sandstrom New Boot Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Sweden Posts: 20	The best digital stills cameras are still CCD Hasselblad.com Sinar Photography AG

January 28th, 2010, 09:36 AM	#14
Steve Phillipps Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wales Posts: 2,130	Really? All the top Canons and Nikons use CMOS. As does the Phantom HD. Don't get me wrong I'm not a CMOS fan due to skewing on moving targets. Steve

January 28th, 2010, 10:27 AM	#15
Joakim Sandstrom New Boot Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Sweden Posts: 20	Nikon and Canon are not the best stills cameras. Thats semi-pro. What I don't understand is that the CCD vs CMOS discussion is always about skew/wobble etc and never about the distinctly different look and feel they produce. One technical reason may be that a CMOS pixel has a much lower fill-rate (albeit counter-acted with micro lenses ) than a CCD which has an almost full grid of pixels. Backlit cmoses may change that. Maybe it's a taste thing and my eyes are more sensitive than others, or it's silly to argue about this, but I think the difference is very clear. For example the RED look is a CMOS look ( and the ex camera looks very similar ) then F23 has the SONY 3-CCD look which I think just feels much more new and 2010.