FS5's XDCAM update

[Noa Put]

My car has a turbo logo on the back, I would not expect my cardealer to put a regular engine inside and then a few months later tell me, if you want the turbo on your engine, this is what it will cost you extra. :)

It's the same as a camera that has a 4K logo on it, would you accept it if it only does HD and a few months later you would have to pay extra for 4k? That would piss me off, especially when I already paid over 6000 euro for a camera. This looks like a new Sony strategy to get extra money out of their buyers pockets.

[Cliff Totten]

Huh,.....I never looked at "XDCAM" as a "CODEC" really. I always associated the "XDCAM" logo with a professional Sony "camera" line. So when they switched CODECs, left MPEG 2 and moved to H.264, it still stayed 100% "XDCAM" in my mind.

So how does Sony market "XDCAM"? Is it a "CODEC" or is it their logo that represents their professional "CAMERA" line?

When Sony goes 6k or 8k, HEVC will be the new CODEC inside the "XDCAM" container of the future. As you know, H.264 profiles top out at 4K. So, I guess it's fair to say that "XDCAM" is not tied to one CODEC type because those CODEC's change and get replaced over time anyway???

Interesting.....

[Doug Jensen]

Originally Posted by Glen Vandermolen

HD Warrior makes a reference to the update here:
And this graphic, which I believe is from Sony:

Thanks Glen, I appreciate the time it took to find the sources. Looks legit to me.
I agree with others that this should have been on the camera from day one and now it should be a free upgrade -- with an apology that it took so long.

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Huh,.....I never looked at "XDCAM" as a "CODEC" really. I always associated the "XDCAM" logo with a professional Sony "camera" line. So when they switched CODECs, left MPEG 2 and moved to H.264, it still stayed 100% "XDCAM" in my mind.

So how does Sony market "XDCAM"? Is it a "CODEC" or is it their logo that represents their professional "CAMERA" line?

When Sony goes 6k or 8k, HEVC will be the new CODEC inside the "XDCAM" container of the future. As you know, H.264 profiles top out at 4K. So, I guess it's fair to say that "XDCAM" is not tied to one CODEC type because those CODEC's change and get replaced over time anyway???

Interesting.....

You might be right about Sony calling most any pro camera an XDCAM. Not sure.
XDCAM has always been an MPEG 2 codec. It comes in the broadcast friendly XDCAM HD 50mbps, 4:2;2, 8-bit variety and the lesser XDCAM EX 35Mbps, 4:2:0 8-bit codec. Interestingly, the 35mb type is usually not approved for broadcast use, yet I and other shooters have used it with success. Go figure.

XDCAM HD is used in the popular Sony PDW-F800 and 700, PMW-400, 300 and 200. Older cameras like the EX1, 1R and 3, PMW-350 and 320, along with the first generation HD laserdisc cams, use EX. (I've shot with all of the cameras listed, btw.)

Even though it's still very popular, it seems it's almost becoming a legacy codec. I think Sony is hoping XAVC completely takes over the broadcast world. XDCAM is usable with older editing systems, though, like FCP 6 and 7. I'm not sure they can handle XAVC.

So, XDCAM is still big in the broadcast world. I don't know how long that will last, years I expect, but until it dies out, I'd like to have it.

It's odd that an XDCAM labeled FS5 camera wouldn't come with the codec. Strange decision, Sony.

[Cliff Totten]

It is a little funny about the whole 35Mbp/s XDCAM EX is NOT good enough for broadcast and 50Mbp/s IS good enough for broadcast thing....

This is a bit of an industry joke really. People look at 50Mbp/s and it's 4:2:2 sampling and say, oh that's great! They also look at 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 and say, oh that's bad. "50" is a higher number than "35", right?

The funny part is that there is no 4:2:2 "broadcast" standard today. (Satellite, DVB, Cable, ATSC...it's all 4:2:0) So everything that is shot in 4:2:2 will just get bumped down to 4:2:0 for broadcast/delivery anyway!

Even funnier!,....because 50Mbp/s 4:2:2 sampling has TWICE the chroma resolution of 4:2:0 35Mbp/s, it has a HIGHER COMPRESSION RATIO than 35Mbp/s 4:2:0.

So XDCAM 50 is MORE compressed and has a chroma resolution that cant even be "broadcasted" anyway, yet 35 is LESS compressed and that is no good. lol

In the US, the ATSC "broadcast" standard that Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC (OTA) uses is 8 bit, 4:2:0 MPEG 2 at 19Mbp/s. and if they mux a second second or third stream into that, the quality just drops even lower.

Yes, green screen argument work aside,......35 with it's lower compression ratio "should" be perfectly fine for "boradcast".

Funny! CT ;-)

[Doug Jensen]

Well, you're welcome to think there is no significant difference or benefit to shooting 50Mbps 4:2:2 vs. 35Mbps 4:2:0 if you choose to, but I know you're dead wrong. It really makes no difference to me how dumbed down the delivery format becomes at the other end of the pipeline. What I care about is that there are definite benefits to shooting and editing HD422. If you can't see them or it doesn't make any difference to you, that is fine, but I'm not buying what you're selling because I've done the head-to-head testing myself -- and many years of working with both formats has shown me things that I cannot ignore. Only a fool would argue that shooting with a better format than the bare minimum standard for delivery is a waste of resources. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Cliff Totten]

Oh c'mon Doug, lighten up!

I'm not "selling" anything! I'm only saying that 50Mbp/s 4:2:2 is a higher compression ratio than 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 EX. I'm not saying 35 is better than 50, I'm just saying it's an amusing and cute fact. That's all.

I have happily used them both for years and years. And yes, I still find it ironic that cameras that record with specs that are much higher than "broadcast" standards are not good enough for actual "broadcasting".

I'm not being ultra, super, duper, deathly serious here,...I'm just saying it's funny.

I dunno, on second thought, maybe you are right Doug. Maybe this is NOT a joking matter whatsoever. There might be somebody reading what I wrote and just started recording 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 EX for his news station tonight thinking that I gave him the "OK" to do so!!!!

Let me think about that,..................Nah,....I dont think so..... ;-)

CT

[Mark Watson]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Oh c'mon Doug, lighten up!

I'm not "selling" anything! I'm only saying that 50Mbp/s 4:2:2 is a higher compression ratio than 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 EX. I'm not saying 35 is better than 50, I'm just saying it's an amusing and cute fact. That's all.

I have happily used them both for years and years. And yes, I still find it ironic that cameras that record with specs that are much higher than "broadcast" standards are not good enough for actual "broadcasting".

I'm not being ultra, super, duper, deathly serious here,...I'm just saying it's funny.

I dunno, on second thought, maybe you are right Doug. Maybe this is NOT a joking matter whatsoever. There might be somebody reading what I wrote and just started recording 35Mbp/s 4:2:0 EX for his news station tonight thinking that I gave him the "OK" to do so!!!!

Let me think about that,..................Nah,....I dont think so..... ;-)

CT

WARNING: SERIOUS POST AHEAD....

Oh, c'mon Cliff, don't jump out of the ring now.

I can see the value of using a well-established standard such as XDCAM. Whether my cameras can do it or not hasn't any effect on me, but for anybody playing in the broadcast pipeline, it could be a big deal.

For example: there could be some costly equipment exclusively for editing, storing, previewing and cataloging XDCAM footage. Think about all the broadcast stations that have complete suites of this equipment, not just the cameras and it makes lots of business sense to milk as much life from that gear as possible. Also, the people handling the footage, all that experience and expertise required to make things run smoothly. Why throw all that away and make massive changes just because a higher spec codec is available? With a huge population of footage contributors, freelance, etc., they are all supposed to run out and get new cameras whenever the broadcasters decide to go with the latest and greatest? New codecs, higher specs, are coming out too frequently to try to keep up. Maybe the XDCAM workflow takes some time to learn how to handle efficiently, maybe the XDCAM footage has some unique metadata embedded that the newer, higher spec codecs lack and the whole broadcast industry doesn't want to lose all that. I don't know, don't use this codec myself and don't contribute any footage for broadcast, but when someone "in the know" tells me there's value in it, I find it easy enough to accept that.


Mark

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

In the US, the ATSC "broadcast" standard that Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC (OTA) uses is 8 bit, 4:2:0 MPEG 2 at 19Mbp/s. and if they mux a second second or third stream into that, the quality just drops even lower.

I don't think what goes out that matters but what goes in does, eventhough I don't deliver for broadcast I can guess the delivered footage takes quite some beating before it is being served to the public, probably the XDCAM codec is robust enough that it just works to secure a stable and fast workflow for now and the coming years. But Like I said, I"m guessing as I don't have any experience but I"ll take Doug's word over yours as like usual your numbers don't say it all but his experience does.

[Samer Aslan]

I want that xcdam hd422 option for my FS5.It would be a great add to this cam. The idea that i can use this camera for broadcast is exciting,and yes,the majority of my clients are asking this codec and i'm talking about tv networks. it would be nice if it's a free option but for me it's ok also to pay for this upgrade,worth every penny!
Doug,did you have any chance to check from Sony resources if this is a real option!? or we are talking about something that we hope to get!
I saw it's already available for the X70 but no word about the FS5 on Sony sites!
I really hope to get it asap

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

I don't think what goes out that matters but what goes in does, eventhough I don't deliver for broadcast I can guess the delivered footage takes quite some beating before it is being served to the public, probably the XDCAM codec is robust enough that it just works to secure a stable and fast workflow for now and the coming years. But Like I said, I"m guessing as I don't have any experience but I"ll take Doug's word over yours as like usual your numbers don't say it all but his experience does.

Noa, what in the world are you talking about? I'm not saying "don't use 50/ 4:2:2" and I'm not saying "35/ 4:2:0 is better" I'm not even saying a damn thing that collides with what Doug is saying!

"My" numbers? No, those are Sony's and ATSC's and MEPG's numbers. Neither Doug nor I invented them and they don't belong to us. You have always eluded in the past that I quote too many "numbers" in my posts. Are you of the belief that "numbers" or facts and figures are meaningless to these discussions?

The only industry heresy that I have spoken is my comment that XDCAM EX "should" be OK for broadcast. GASP!! "What did he just say?...how dare he say that?...horrible!!"

By the way, the reality is, we have ALL seen kabillions of hours of EX1's and EX3''s make our local evening news all around the world. YES!...XDCAM 35 4:2:0 has actually been "broadcast". There are countless EX1/3 in TV station trucks and journalists in the field right now as I type this.

So guys,...weather or not you agree with my statement that XDCAM EX (35Mbp/s 4:2:0) "should" be good enough for "broadcast"....hate this or not, you cannot argue that it WAS and still IS being used for broadcast today. With Doug's experience, I'm 100% sure he is fully aware of this. OK Noa?.....I am not contradicting Doug's experience.

Lastly, let me say this: Sony agrees with me. The company I work for has a "bronz", "silver" and "gold" standard for deliverable's. Sony actively lobbied for us to accept XDCAM EX into those standards. Sony also actively lobbied against the Euro standard to allow XDCAM EX.

And just to make any "35 Mbp/s 4:2:0 is not good enough for broadcast" trumpeter's head explode.....Discovery Channel's "Deadliest Catch" was shot ALLOT with HDV cameras!...BOOM! Yes,...HDV in "broadcast"!!! That's 25Mbp/s 4:2:0, non-square pixel 1440x1080i. Can you believe that? (Sorry Noa for dropping so many "numbers")

Bottom line = XDCAM 35 and EX1/3 cameras ARE being used for broadcast right now...and here some are criticizing me because I say that it "should" be OK? LMAO!

Wow! CT ;-)

[Noa Put]

You only had me confused as you first didn't know what xdcam stands for and questioned if there was market left that demands MPEG 2 but then apparently you know all about broadcast standards. So if I misunderstood you then I apologize.

[Cliff Totten]

I'm a die hard Sony guy and XDCAM - MPEG 2 camera's (50 and 35) have been the bane of my existence for years and years (This is my part time job but I work full time for a global media company) And now XDCAM - H.264 cameras are what I use today. In the future, I'm sure I'll use XDCAM - HEVC 8K cameras. I just sold my very last MPEG 2 camera last week. My beloved EX1r. I stopped using it two years ago but just never had the heart to sell it because of all the memories we had together. I'm all 4k now and I just couldn't justify letting that thing live in my safe any longer.

The "XDCAM" logo stays but the CODEC changes to whatever MPEG CODEC is hot for that time.

In my opinion, it's not accurate to call "XDCAM" the actual CODEC. The "CODEC" (A/V Coding & DeCoding math) is 100% MPEG h.262 or h.264 and eventually someday (probably) h.265.

To me "XDCAM" represents it's pro camera line. But whatever, only Sony can tell you what "XDCAM" means to them. ;-)

[Noa Put]

only Sony can tell you what "XDCAM" means to them.

That's simple to find out if you read this: https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/...temFAQs_09.pdf

[Cliff Totten]

Yup, I read that a long time ago. It's an old document now. XDCAM products have come a long way since then. Which reminds me, with my EX1r sold, I no longer own a Sony CINEALTA camera any longer :- (

So the "XDCAM" logo represents a "camera" product and a "workflow" together.

CT