F-350/355 vs. HPX500 low light performance
 

Has anyone here compared the quality of low light footage from a Sony F350/355 XDCAM HD versus low light footage from Panasonic HPX 500 ?

Unfortunately it's a no-contest winner: The F350/55 are much better/cleaner in low light. However in SD mode the HPX500 is the clear winner. The main reason is that just like the HVX200, the 500 is using spatial-offset to achieve HD resolution (remember, it's not a native HD chipset) and that electronic interpolation creates more noise than a native HD chipset.

The HPX2000 and 3000 would be a closer comparison in noise - but yet not the same since the chip sizes are different.

The not-yet-released PDW700 would be a direct competitor to the 2000 and 3000 cams from Panny, but it will be sometime - as in late this year - before anyone can make head-to-head comparo's on that.

low light
 

During our recent 355 demo, we adjusted the Low Noise feature between 2 different settings, and that seemed to clear things up considerably when gained up.

Hi James,

can you give further infos on your experience with the Low Noise feature?
How does it affect overall resolution and did you try it with settings of +12dB too?

Thanks

ULI

The low noise mode has 3 settings, Off, 1 and 2.

In mode 1 there is a tiny reduction in dynamic range and a very slight reduction in sensitivity (half a stop ish). The reduction in noise although only small is apparent at all gain settings especially in dark areas, however I would probably only use setting 1 if I was using gain above 0db or if I was shooting scenes with large areas of low key.

Setting 2 offers a large amount of noise reduction but at the cost of a not insignificant reduction in dynamic range and around a stop reduction in sensitivity. IMHO this mode would be best reserved for when shooting with more than 9db of gain. The few times I have played with the noise reduction it appears that at 9db with setting 2 you get a similar amount of grain as you would have with NR off and 3db of gain. At +18db it gives a comparable noise level to 9db with no NR. I don't see the loss of dynamic range as a problem as if you are having to use high gain settings then it is unlikely that your scene will be high contrast.

I have believe this firmware will become available to all owners some time in the near future.

When I was messing around with the settings, I did like filter 1 better as well. Then again when shooting news or sports at night, the added grain is to be expected from the viewers so any reduction will suffice. The F355 was a sweet camera overall!

On another note, Panasonic is coming in next week to try to talk us out of our upcoming purchase. Good Luck to them!

Beneath the cam itself the Prof.Disk was one of the main reasons to go for the Sony (F330). I also had a HPX500 here for 2 days and liked to shoot a ballett show with both cams to compare how they perform.

After having 4 16gig cards from the Pana dealer I decided against the hpx: I simply needed MUCH MORE Memory for such a show - and didnt want to make a "copy night" to reuse the cards the next day since I found that on a good PC (PCMCIA Slot) it took about realtime (DVCPRO HD) to copy the P2 cards off.

My 2c:

HPX PROS:
- great codec(s)
- 2/3"
- good sensivity due to pixel shift
- dvcpro hd out via firewire
- 4ch audio with manual / automatic gain each

HPX CONS:
- bulky and heavy (heavier than the sony... and no mechanical rec...)
- expensive memory cards = no "long time recorder" for concerts etc.
- no different hd codecs (no "HQ", "LP" or less memory consuming hd codecs)
- very power hungry

PDW-F PROS:
- great codec quality vs memory (35mbits mpgHD VBR)
- Pro Disc: Cheap, reliable (see dishwasher test in this forum)
- Pro Disc: Easy & fast transfer of files
- Proxy Editing : even on the SLOWEST Computers...
- different HD qualities (for longer recordings or HDV compability)
- stereo mic build in
- Firewire DVCAM realtime conversion (behaves like a dvcam camcorder)
- Cache recording up to 12s
- thumbnail viewing / instant replay
- very detailed menu / pain / cam settings

PDW-F CONS:
- 1/2" (though I can live with it fine)
- F9 @2000
- noise in black/dark pic portions (especially low key rec)
- 4ch audio: 2 Ch man/auto , 2 ch auto
- no HD stream out via firewire (File transfers only)

In the end , the sony was the much better concept to me.

I own a pdw-f330 with the 23GB drive.

ULI

Uli,

What about editing XDCAM HD footage vs. DVCPRO HD footage?
I will try both HPX500 and F350 in a couple of weeks, and the dealer says that it is MUCH faster to edit DVCPRO I-Frame footage with FCP on a Mac Pro, versus editing XDCAM HD with the LongGop coded, that needs to render all the time.

I am editing on a Sony Vegas8 System - xdcam hd is implemented very well into Vegas. Its just a bit slower (or taking more CPU %) than HDV.

Importing dvcpro hd into Vegas is only possible by workaround with RAYLIGHT, which works fine.

Better ask a FCP User... To be honest, I cant imagine that decoding XDCAM HD is a big problem...

Anyone?

ULI

Your dealer is talking rubbish.

Simon,

Maybe. I look forward to try both systems in a few weeks.

You don't need to render XDCAM material in order to edit it in FCP. I doubt in reality there will be much difference between editing IVC-I and XDCAM with FCP.

Have Panasonic released the FCP IVC codec plugin yet?

Chiming In
 

Since the talk here is delving into editing systems, I have to chime in and share.

Initially after purchasing an F350, I was unhappy with the options available on Windows to edit Sony XDCam HD .MXF files.

However, after much research, I discovered that Avid Liquid Chrome Xe is a pretty terrific system for editing XDCam HD. I have anHP xw8400 workstation tweaked to Avid's certified standards and though I had a rough start at first (incompatible graphics card), now everything is working very nicely.

On the windows side, I think it's tough to beat. I'm editing a feature with 55 hours worth of material and I must give Avid credit. I'm pretty happy with it. Only trouble is that the system drops frames once you add too many real time effects, but it's a minor complaint.

I don't know why there isn't more information out there about the Liquid Chrome Xe option. For the money, it's pretty sweet. I've only been using it for a couple months, but I've already given it a serious workout and my complaints are minor. The Liquid interface is also very intuitive IMHO.

This post is mostly for those who are looking (like I was) for a reasonable alternative to Final Cut Pro. You can check the Avid web site for approved configurations.

Also, some of you may recall that I had sound troubles and time code troubles a couple weeks back. Liquid turned out to be the best solution to solve these problems.

Cheers,
Mike