F350 First serious shoot.

Greg Boston · August 7th, 2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

The new XDCAM HD's are not hugely sensitive. They aren't terrible, but it is one of the cameras weaknesses. With the losw shutter enabled you can get incredible low light performance out of it, but at the expense of framerate. It depends on how low light you are talking about?

You have to remember Simon that most folks on this forum would be stepping 'up' to 1/2 sensors from 1/3 and should get some performance gain. Compared to the 2/3 PDW-510, I can see why you are unimpressed with the PDW-F350.

-gb-

Simon Wyndham · August 7th, 2006, 02:58 PM

Thats very true Greg. I'm not too critical of the 350's sensitivity. Its just something to take into consideration just in case some hope it will be totaly clean. As I mentioned in my Showreel mag reviews of the two cameras, the gain is not unsuable. In fact it is perfectly viable for use. Just not as clean as others. Don't forget that many who are buying the new XDCAM HD are actually coming back down from 2/3" cameras, so that is where my thinking comes from as you rightly mentioned.

But yeah, if you are moving up from 1/3" CCD's the XDCAM HD will be a revelation. Especially in terms of dynamic range. In Cinegamma 2 it even beats my 510.

Nate Weaver · August 7th, 2006, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

But yeah, if you are moving up from 1/3" CCD's the XDCAM HD will be a revelation. Especially in terms of dynamic range. In Cinegamma 2 it even beats my 510.

Agreed. It's all in your persepctive!

Brett Sherman · August 7th, 2006, 08:23 PM

I can see where going from an 1/3" HD chip to a 1/2" HD chip would be an improvement in sensitivity. However, going from SD 1/3" (which I'm used to) to HD 1/2" might be a drop in sensitivity. Because the CCDs are more dense with HD that leaves less light per pixel. Whether the size increase overcomes that I don't know. What I do know is that I don't like the current breed of HDV cameras for two main reasons, they require a lot more light and they don't have wide enough angles (for the ones with built in lenses).

Simon Wyndham · August 8th, 2006, 02:24 AM

Not entirely. It depends on the CCD type too. FIT, IT etc. There are also methods such as on chip lenses, which places a micro lens above each each photo sensor on the CCD. Combined with a HAD sensor vertical smear is reduced drastically, and light sensitivity is increased well above that of CCDs without these methods. So while the idea that the CCD's are more crammed with elements is okay, it isn't the whole, ahem, picture. ;-)

So it isn't just a case of an upgrade to a 1/2" CCD, but it is also an upgrade to all these sorts of technology that makes the leap much greater. There is also all the other higher quality electronics that come with it.

August 7th, 2006, 08:23 PM	#34
Brett Sherman Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Mount Rainier, MD Posts: 428	Low Light Performance I can see where going from an 1/3" HD chip to a 1/2" HD chip would be an improvement in sensitivity. However, going from SD 1/3" (which I'm used to) to HD 1/2" might be a drop in sensitivity. Because the CCDs are more dense with HD that leaves less light per pixel. Whether the size increase overcomes that I don't know. What I do know is that I don't like the current breed of HDV cameras for two main reasons, they require a lot more light and they don't have wide enough angles (for the ones with built in lenses).

August 7th, 2006, 02:58 PM	#32
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Thats very true Greg. I'm not too critical of the 350's sensitivity. Its just something to take into consideration just in case some hope it will be totaly clean. As I mentioned in my Showreel mag reviews of the two cameras, the gain is not unsuable. In fact it is perfectly viable for use. Just not as clean as others. Don't forget that many who are buying the new XDCAM HD are actually coming back down from 2/3" cameras, so that is where my thinking comes from as you rightly mentioned. But yeah, if you are moving up from 1/3" CCD's the XDCAM HD will be a revelation. Especially in terms of dynamic range. In Cinegamma 2 it even beats my 510.

August 8th, 2006, 02:24 AM	#35
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Not entirely. It depends on the CCD type too. FIT, IT etc. There are also methods such as on chip lenses, which places a micro lens above each each photo sensor on the CCD. Combined with a HAD sensor vertical smear is reduced drastically, and light sensitivity is increased well above that of CCDs without these methods. So while the idea that the CCD's are more crammed with elements is okay, it isn't the whole, ahem, picture. ;-) So it isn't just a case of an upgrade to a 1/2" CCD, but it is also an upgrade to all these sorts of technology that makes the leap much greater. There is also all the other higher quality electronics that come with it.