PMW-350 or EX1 with nanoflash

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

I'm still recovering from some health problems, and it's tough. Piotr and I need to get (together) with some sherpas to carry our stuff, or find some European Classical music masters and venus to collaborate on :)

Yeah - the two of us would make a great team, wouldn't we Tom :)

[Paul Cronin]

James glad I could help. Don't hesitate to ask more questions that is why the forum is here.

The team at Abel are the best I have dealt with in the industry you are in very good hands.

[Bob Grant]

I have the EX1 and as much as I love it given the choice between the EX1 and an EX1 in the 350 form factor with its viewfinder if I could not put the camera on a tripod the 350 would win. Given all the other things that the 350 has it's a no brainer for ENG style shooting.
No matter how you bend pieces of metal and join them together you cannot make the EX1 or the EX3 as easy to hoist onto the shoulder as a camera designed to go on the shoulder from the ground up. If going down the 350 path means only shooting in 4:2:0 at 35Mbps so be it. If the camera is a bear to handle and you miss a shot or you're too tired to be even bothered from a sore arm then the chroma resolution and lack of blocking or all the other stuff matters nought.

I do agree you need to carefully cost out the total price of the 350. You need to buy batteries and a charger and these are not cheap. You need to buy the VCT release plate and if you do decide to buy one of the very desirable diversity wireless systems that slot into it you will be adding a lot to the cost of the camera. Also I doubt you'll ever get the 350 on a plane as carry on, nor will you ever look like a tourist with it on your shoulder.

Just my two bobs worth but for the role being discussed here I feel the physical attributes of the camera are more important than the technical differences in image quality.

[Paul Cronin]

Bob you bring up some good points.

For ENG style shooing I love the 350. But there I times it will not work so I have to use my EX1. And as I posted above I would not buy either with out the Nano that is just my opinion.

As for carrying the 350 for long stints for me it is easy. I have no problem putting 40 lbs on my back and going for miles, do it all the time to get the shot. But that comes down to the person there health and fitness which I work hard on daily.

Carry on with the 350 is not a problem. I have now flow twice with mine and piece of cake. PortaBrace Carry on works perfect. I check the tripod and extra gear in the case and carryon the camera with everything needed to shoot..

[Alister Chapman]

The problem we have now is that there is a choice! Only a few years ago if you wanted true no compromise professional image quality you had to buy an expensive shoulder mount camera. Now with cameras like the EX1 you have a choice. The difference in picture quality between the EX1 and 350 is small enough that in most cases, in the end product it would be hard to tell which is which. The 350 is better, no doubt but it's not like the difference there used to be between a DV handycam and a full size DVCAM camcorder. So really it comes down to ergonomics (as has already been said). It is a case of choosing the right tool for the job. As an example when I go storm chasing a small handheld camera that can be grabbed quickly and used to shoot from inside a moving vehicle is essential, so for this an EX1 works best. But then for the tripod mount beauty shots of developing storms or interviews with people a full size camera is easier to use, so the 350 will be used for this. The Sony EX3 is a bit of a hybrid, not quite handheld, not quite shoulder mount, but it can be used for both, it doesn't excel at either but it's not a bad half-way-house. I'm lucky, I have both an EX1 and PMW-350 so I can pick and choose, but if I didn't have either I would have to consider the EX3 as a possible option.

[James W. Graham]

Also, there are times an image stabilization in the camera is very useful. Anathema to the pros, I am sure, but I run into occasions when I need it. For me thats a biggy.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

I wouldn't associate the usefulness of image stabilization with the operator being a pro or not, but with the camera form factor - it certainly is much more useful (if not essential)with hand-held EX1 than with the heavier and naturally balanced 350.

[Paul Cronin]

Piotr form factor helps with IS but you still need help with special Optical Stabilizers from Canon and Fujinon. These stabilizers are used more then most people know having researched both in great detail for the last 6 months. I will be testing both next week. Also Canon has just announced a new Optical Stabilized 2/3" lens that was used on the Tour de France last year while on the back of motor cycles with great success. I will be testing this lens in early April. Retail is $30K

Check it out:
Canon Europe - Canon HJ15ex8.5B

Alister hope your trip went well and you were able to get great footage. As for the difference in EX1 to 350 picture I would call it a big step. We did a interesting test for a client shooting side by side gyro stabilized EX1 and PMW-350. The image quality was bigger then I expected. And that was with the stock lens. We will do the same next week with a Canon HJ17x and Canon Optical Stabilizer on the end of the lens. Look forward to the findings with this setup on our gyro system. We are hoping for twice the focal length.

[James W. Graham]

Paul, on your website you mentioned you bought a Red and then sold it. I'm curious as to why, and your thoughts on the camera.

[Paul Cronin]

James the Red One is a great camera for shooting digital 35mm but that does not fit my business. 2/3" HD broadcast gear is what my client base requires.

If you need 35mm then the Red is worth the look. But the cost is high compared to 2/3" HD broadcast gear and postproduction is expensive and cumbersome.

I was also very disappointed in the 120fps slow motion and did not know when I purchased the camera that this mode only used ½ of the sensor. My mistake.

I think Red is doing great things pushing the industry along with Canon HDSLR. I own a Canon 7d for time laps. But for me they do not fit my daily business at this time, but I always keep an open mind.

I say to people who ask me this question who really want to know is, “You need to rent.” Call Abel Cine Tech rent the Red One, HDSLR, PDW-800, PMW-350, EX1, EX3, and see what works for you and what will help you achieve your creative business goals. That is really the only way to know! Everything else no matter how good the advice is just guessing for the buyer.

Now with the EX1 and your DOF adapter you have already shot footage you are happy with so you have done your homework.

I hope this helps.

[Tom Roper]

After 4 surgeries and 8 weeks of chemo/radiation, my first post-cancer (tonsil/neck) Cat-Scan result came back fine today. Now I'm stricken with the fear I may actually survive it for a while and even get back to good health! How depressing! ;)

Actually I am very happy!

But here's the crux question regarding the Nanoflash and subject topic:

Assuming I do not want to do color corrections or grading of the PMW350 footage, am I worse off accepting the artifacts from 1200 mbps (pre-compression) capture to 35 mbps EX 4:2:0 codec ported to Blu-ray disk from SXS without further transcoding?

or

Why would Nanoflash 100 mbps 4:2:2 transcoded to 35mbps 4:2:0 Blu-ray be any better that just going straight EX 35mbps 4:2:0 to Blu-ray, since the latter was internally sourced before compression from 1200 mbps 4:2:2 and doesn't require transcoding, while the former was only sourced from 100 mbps 4:2:2 and does require transcoding?

Yes, side by side of course the Nanoflash 100 mbps 4:2:2 looks better than EX 35 mbps 4:2:0! But when I transcode the Nano to Blu-ray 35mbps, will I not just be adding back into the Blu-ray encode all the motion artifacts I just took out with the Nano?

[James W. Graham]

Paul, it all helps. You're also the first person i;ve met who has anything dispariging to say about the Red.

I too have a D7 and it's awsome but cant see recording an entire feature on it, although I recently read of a movie about to be recorded entirely on D7's.

I may be getting off topic here in this thread, but the ARRIFLEX D-21 is my dream camera. I'm not even sure they sell them, possibly they are only available for rent. Anyway, the specs impress me more than the Red.

Oh god it's happened again... get me yapping about cameras and you can't shut me up :-)

[Steve Phillipps]

Originally Posted by Olof Ekbergh

The advantage of the 350 is superior lenses,

That's only true if you spend a lot of money. The lens on the EX1/3 is very good, and almost certainly better than many of the "budget" HD lenses out there (ie less than about £10k).
Steve

[Paul Cronin]

James not cutting down the Red it just does not work for me. Arriflex D-21 wow you have expensive taste.

Tom I think you would be better off burning a Blu-Ray from the Nano files then the files off the 350. I tried both with the EX1 and the nano files produced a cleaner/richer Blu-Ray.

Tom glad you are on the mend stay strong and remember "it gets better every day"! I will be out in your area late spring if a jobs comes together. If so we should hook up with our 350's and go to the ranch looking for some wild life if you are interested?

[Olof Ekbergh]

Originally Posted by Steve Phillipps

That's only true if you spend a lot of money. The lens on the EX1/3 is very good, and almost certainly better than many of the "budget" HD lenses out there (ie less than about £10k).
Steve

You only quoted part of my sentence. I listed other advantages as well.

And I listed advantages of the EX1 as well.

To be more specific about lenses. The fact that you have a 2/3 lens mount and 2/3 chip means you can rent or buy top of the line lenses with stabilization or extremely wide. You can't do this with an EX1. It may not matter to most shooters but there are times when it really matters.

Not everyone will buy the 350 with the stock lens, it is up to you.

The EX3 can also use 2/3 glass but with a multiplier factor so they will not be as wide.

Just another few cents worth.