Any PDW700 screnshots, frame grabs, footage?
 

Really interested in this camera, any of the above (screnshots, frame grabs, footage) can bee seen, posted anywhere??

Appreciate feedback, info. Owners please post some!

Cheers, Oleg.

Check the XDCam HD threads, I've just sent in a couple of bits.
Steve

Steve, thank you for pointing me in right direction,
still couldn't find a link to what I am looking for, could you
provide a direct link, thank you in advance..

Oleg, Here are a couple of links on the PDW700, including some screen shot comparisons with the F355

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdca...ens-tests.html

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdca...nsumption.html

Hope these help, if there are any specific questions I or anyone may be able to help with please ask.
Steve

Steve thank you again for your effort!

I found your brief review valuable, still couldn't find the link to screen shots, frame grabs, etc, : (
am I missing something in your post or for some reason the link is not seen?

Sorry Oleg, the screen grabs were in another thread, not specific to the 700.
Here it is http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdca...ass-again.html
Best wishes,
Steve

Steve, great, look forward to more grabs with possibly humans in the shot,
would appreciate it.

Cheers!

steve,

what is the main reason for 700 pictures better than 355? codecs, optics, sensor sizes ? or all of them ?

thanks.
alkım

Good question, as to me at least they seem to be more significantly better than the specs suggest (ie much more apparent reoslution even though it's just 1920 vs 1440). Maybe the 4:2:2 makes a big difference? I wouldn't have thought it'd be the codec as the compression ratio is about the same.
I also didn't think chip size was supposed to have that much to do with it, just that it had more light gathering, but maybe each pixel is bigger so has to be blown up less?
Certainly the difference is pretty noticeable.
Steve

I think it's mainly down to the CCDs. The chip block on the F3** family of cameras was clearly designed and built to a tight budget. Also the video processing is not as refined as on other more expensive cameras. For me the biggest issue is the way the pictures always look heavily processed even with the detail turned right down. The 700 on the other hand uses the excellent chip block from the highly regarded HDC 1500 studio camera. Larger chips helps as you can get lower noise and better sensitivity.
The F3** series cameras are good work horse cameras but HD technology is advancing rapidly and better sensors are being developed all the time.

Having just about paid for my 350 it's rather dull to find it's history - what about a Convergent Design XDR bolted on the back. Or an upgraded chip from Messrs. Sony.....

A Flash XDR on the back would obviously give you the advantage of lower compression (if you record at 100Mbps). Replacing an F350's CCD block would probably cost as much as a new camera. My F350 still holds it's own against much more expensive cameras on many shoots.

The PDW 700 is a stunning camera but the cost of ownership of a full 700 kit is a lot higher than an F3** kit, especially if you factor in a good lens. The question you have to ask yourself is will a 700 make me more money than an F3**. The answer will depend on your clients and the work you do.

Taken in isolation my F350 footage looks excellent. I have no problems selling my HD storm and weather footage as the F350 enables me to get high quality 1080P footage where before the only other cost effective option was HDV.

Anybody, has human faces shot with the camera? Appreciate feedback,
does it have something like cinegamma?

Oleg, it's got more menus than you can shake a stick at! You'll be able to make whatever look you want from it via the Paint menus, there a all sorts of gammas, plus user matrixes etc. etc.
Steve

Steve, thanks a lot,

can't wait to see some more footage, screenshots done with the camera!