Sony PMW-200 Brings HD 4:2:2 Workflow to XDCAM Camcorder Line

[Vincent Oliver]

Originally Posted by Eric Olson

What is the point of 4:2:2 versus 4:2:0, 1920x1080 versus 1440x1080 and 50 mbps versus 35 mbps when actual HD broadcast is typically less than 10 mbps mpeg4?

.

I think it is called future proofing, who knows what technology is around the corner - 4k broadcasting maybe?

[Jack Zhang]

NHK is already doing experimental UHDV (8K60P) broadcasts from London.

[Alister Chapman]

Most of the production companies that I deal with find the difference in low and poor light performance between the XF305 and EX1 more than just a slight or insignificant difference. So much so that some still choose to use an EX1 with a NanoFlash because it can deliver useable images where the 305 cannot. That difference is almost entirely down to pixel size. Bigger sensors make a considerable difference. That's why EBY R118 specifies the half inch minimum, unless the camera can be proven through additional tests to be acceptable. It's also why for Tier 1 the minimum is 2/3". I think we have all seen how really big pixels as in the super 35mm sized sensors can produce some incredible looking images. Sensor and pixel size matters.

4K mainstream broadcasting is still some years away, NHK are not planning on broadcasting 4K until 2020 and the working life of a camera these days is rarely more than 2 or 3 years. When HD was introduced most countries were also switching from uncompressed analog to compressed digital broadcasting. This freed up the bandwidth necessary for HD transmission. To go to 4K broadcasts will need a even more bandwidth or new compression schemes. We still haven't really taken full advantage of HD, often it's so compressed that it's little better than SD and only a small percentage of channels broadcast in HD. There are advantages to be had by shooting 4K such as future proofing material and the ability to crop into the frame, but often the workflow becomes slower as processing and storage requirements become onerous.

[Buba Kastorski]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Sensor and pixel size matters.

always

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

There are advantages to be had by shooting 4K such as future proofing material and the ability to crop into the frame, but often the workflow becomes slower as processing and storage requirements become onerous.

you'll be surprised, but 4K material is editable on i7 laptop, and i am not talking about Sager, not the best solution, but i did couple on site edits with my over the counter Vaio, and today storage media prices are very affordable; in my case i don't even worry about future proofing, but the picture is so good, it'd just amazes me every time i look at the footage after the shot,
as for pmw 200 - if Sony would make new, 2/3" 240 fps capable camera, i would be the first in line to get one, but as it is, to me it's just an EX with a few upgrades, buying today of course there is no question which one to get, but i don't see enough reasons to upgrade from EX1r, at least for me

[Alister Chapman]

What format was the 4K material?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Eric Olson

What is the point of 4:2:2 versus 4:2:0, 1920x1080 versus 1440x1080 and 50 mbps versus 35 mbps when actual HD broadcast is typically less than 10 mbps mpeg4?

In a word, the point is concatenation.

The dictionary lists the meaning as "To connect or link in a series or chain".

In this context it refers to the problems associated with repeated compressing and decompressing video streams, and the way errors can build up along the broadcast chain, which may involve many stages. Something like 10Mbs H264 can indeed cause problems, but for very good economic reasons it's highly desirable to keep broadcast bitrates low. Even more importantly, for terrestial transmission the spectrum is limited.

It can be (just) enough - but a lot depends on the source the final encoder is fed with. If pristine, the results should be acceptable at home. If artifacts or especially aliasing exist from further up the chain, they are likely to get magnified by the final (and lowest bitrate) encoder.

That's why it's not enough to look at images and make a simple "looks good enough to me" judgement, not in the broadcast world, anyway. The pictures may look OK in themselves - but have characteristics which may upset broadcast encoders.

In the context of this thread, that's why XDCAM 422 50Mbs is important.

The difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is much greater when shooting interlaced than progressive. Even with progressive, the difference is definitely noticeable for chroma key.

Very true. And for broadcast work that these cameras are likely to do (news, sport, reality etc) they are more likely to be used in 1080i/25 mode than 1080p/25. The latter may be preferred for drama etc - but that's far more likely to be done with at least 2/3" cameras.

[Daniel Larson]

How much better does the lens zoom in and out compared to the EX1R? I understand the zoom servo has been improved on the PMW-200. My EX1R does not do particularly well and sticks at least once when I'm wide and slowly zooming in. Faster zooms don't stick. Zooming out it does better but can still stick on occasion.
Thanks to everyone for all the helpful information.
Dan

[Mark Andersson]

This camera appears to be taking too much of a beating.

I would take 50Mbps 422 over a rotating hand grip anytime, and if Alistair says its balanced and comfortable then its true. The top flip out LCD is not as convienient as the bottom one on the EX1's but I got used to it with my Z5 and even though it was annoying with radio mic/video light, after a while I got used to it. But as now i will be knowing I'm getting an even better image than my EX1R and not having that horrible pasty face look, all the 200's minute flaws will fade away.

Alistair did you check the IRE range for faces with the 200? Do you still need to underexpose to 60ish IRE or does it now handle faces at 70IRE without any murky skin tone?

[Les Wilson]

The Nano gives you 4:2:2 50MB and higher without the downgrade doesn't it? Albeit it's an extra box but it can at least be powered by the camera battery.

[Chris Lawes]

They could have done a lot more but I would be thrilled with just an EX1R with the addition of:
1. new modern sensor comparable to a cropped FS100 sensor.
2. timecode/genlock


They added the gunlock but I can't seem to find out much about the sensor. PLEASE tell me that 4+ years later they aren't re-using the same old noisy low resolution sensor that is getting destroyed by GH2s etc?

[Eric Olson]

Originally Posted by David Heath

It can be (just) enough - but a lot depends on the source the final encoder is fed with. If pristine, the results should be acceptable at home. If artifacts or especially aliasing exist from further up the chain, they are likely to get magnified by the final (and lowest bitrate) encoder

It is an interesting topic what picture characteristics most affect low bitrate broadcast and delivery. From my subjective experience noise, grain, motion and resolution upset things the most. The preference for larger sensor size is not just a desire to exclude the little guys, but an attempt to reduce the noise at the source. However, just as it's possible to create low noise images from small sensor cameras, it's also possible to create noisy images from large sensor cameras. While minimum camera requirements can increase quality, the more noticeable effect of such requirements is to create marketing opportunities for expensive gear. What the industry really needs is widely available software that can perform a detailed analysis of a particular video master to determine whether it has suitable characteristics for delivery over current satellite, cable, terrestrial broadcast and fibre optic networks.

[Alister Chapman]

Originally Posted by Chris Lawes

They could have done a lot more but I would be thrilled with just an EX1R with the addition of:
1. new modern sensor comparable to a cropped FS100 sensor..... PLEASE tell me that 4+ years later they aren't re-using the same old noisy low resolution sensor that is getting destroyed by GH2s etc?

They are using the same sensors as the EX1, but with new signal processing. There are very good reasons for this:

If you took an FS100 sensor and cropped just the middle 1/2" the resolution would fall short of what is needed for SD, let alone HD.

Pixel size is the primary thing that determines the signal to noise ratio of the camera. Cameras like the FS100 and GH2 have big sensors with big pixels, that's why they have low noise. That's why 1/3" cameras don't do as well as half inch and half inch doesn't do as well as 2/3" and so on. It's down to the laws of physics. Over the last few years any noise and sensitivity improvements in sensors have been tiny, what we have seen with the large sensor cameras is simply the function of bigger pixels on a bigger sensor. Modern sensors like the ones in the EX have QE's approaching 70% where 70% of the photons of light falling on the sensor are converted to electrons. If you want a bigger output (and thus better ratio of signal to noise) then you use bigger pixels so that you capture more photons and as a result get more electrons. To do that without sacrificing resolution you need a bigger surface area and thus a bigger sensor.

To expect a significant improvement in sensitivity and noise performance when the sensor size and layout is not changing is not realistic as there have not been any changes to the laws of physics or core sensor technologies.

[Buba Kastorski]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

What format was the 4K material?

r3d, 4K, 7:1, Vegas Pro, but of course MXFs from EX are much faster to edit on the same machine:)

[Les Wilson]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

They are using the same sensors as the EX1, but with new signal processing. ...To expect a significant improvement in sensitivity and noise performance when the sensor size and layout is not changing is not realistic as there have not been any changes to the laws of physics or core sensor technologies.

Does the new signal processing on the EX1 sensors address the issues of more noise at higher data rates discussed here? That would be an improvement over a Nano correct?
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/converge...ml#post1557890

[Ron Evans]

The improvement when Sony used the newer "R" sensors on the consumer cameras was really significant. I have an older SR11 newer XR500 then CX700 which is now similar to the present family CJ760/NX30 etc and a NX5U. The NX5U and SR11 are clearly closer in noise level etc but the CX700 is very much better than all the others. I understand that a similar improvement may not be true for a 1/2" chip but I am certain there would be an improvement. I keep waiting for a new replacement for the NX5U with better sensors and 60P recording, I am happy with the rest of its features. Sometimes shoot multicam with all these and an EX3 and the CX700 easily matches or exceeds the EX3 for noise as an example for low light stage shows when gain is needed.

As another question does the PMW-200 have an IR filter to stop black clothes looking brown a problem with the EX1/3 .

Ron Evans