PMW 350 Video Overview & Test Footage!!! at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds
Sony PMW-300, PXW-X200, PXW-X180 (back to EX3 & EX1) recording to SxS flash memory.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 24th, 2010, 07:34 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 37
PMW 350 Video Overview & Test Footage!!!

Worth viewing!!! ... Video clip is 20 Minutes.
Video Clip provided by Philip Johnston of Preston Media....Glasgow, Scotland, UK

Test Footage provided by Corkscrew Media... Alberta, Canada
Total Run Time: 1 minute & 25 seconds
Enjoy!
Trell Mitchell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2010, 11:02 AM   #2
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 20
Some more footage here
YouTube - Banff Selects Jan 2010
YouTube - SONY XDCAM EX PMW-350 + Glidecam4000Pro with X-10
YouTube - PMW-350
YouTube - Test Footage of Sony PMW-350 on the .video show, with Jesse Miller

After checking this footage, including those 50i airshow shots from Mr.Chapman, shot with the nano, as well as comparing the cameras at a recent sony event, I have to say I don't understand all the hype and praise of ex350. There is budget look to all this footage. In my option the PDW-700 images just has a much better quality and feel, I guess it is CMOS vs CCD, perhaps also the prism block and such things are better. I'd love to try out the EX350 with digiprimes at some point when it becomes available here. But I don't see how this camera could do the job of a 700/f800 as people are suggesting.
Joakim Sandstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2010, 11:49 AM   #3
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 4,957
You'll have to take my word for it but 350 and PDW-700 footage is pretty much indistinguishable in most cases. I have one of each and I didn't want the 350 to be as good as it is as I have already invested in a PDW-700, but it's extremely good. It needs a little dialing in with the scene files as it's way to sharp out of the box, but once you get it set up there is absolutely nothing budget about the images. You can't use Vimeo or YouTube to make judgements about picture quality.

I'll get some short clips straight from the camera and see if Chris will host them for a while. Won't be before Friday though do to other commitments.
__________________
Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com
Alister Chapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2010, 01:17 PM   #4
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 20
It would be great to see some native progressive footage.

I think you can judge footage in crappy web quality, to some degree. If there was quality to begin with, you can tell.

I've yet to see this color definition coming off those 350 cmoses

Joakim Sandstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2010, 01:53 PM   #5
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 4,957
The first clip is seriously graded. That's not native out-of-the-box footage. The second set of clips were shot in superb lighting conditions. Take a look at my Goodwood clip if you want well saturated colours and that was with an EX3.

Goodwood Revival By Alister Chapman On ExposureRoom

There are far too many variables in all these clips to make any kind of accurate comparison. Lighting, type of shot, clip size, compression ratio, codec all come into play.
__________________
Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com
Alister Chapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2010, 02:55 PM   #6
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 20
I think we just disagree.

This is not about the grading, I can see beyond that of course.

There is something about that 700/800/HDC-1500 chipset, a feel to the image, that is just not there at all with the EX cameras, hence my initial post.

EDIT:
By the way I don't think that Melbourne clip is much graded if at all

Last edited by Joakim Sandstrom; January 25th, 2010 at 04:03 PM.
Joakim Sandstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2010, 02:57 PM   #7
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
You are right of course Alister, BUT, I have to say that Melbourne clip does look amazing Joakim!
Steve
Steve Phillipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2010, 04:52 PM   #8
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 29
350 0r 700/800

...So, which has the better picture?
__________________
www.iceboxvideo.co.uk
David Hart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2010, 05:43 PM   #9
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
Not wanting to start an argument with Alister. But. When the EX1/3 first came out his tests made him say that they were very close. The when the 350 came out he thought it was quite a bit better than the EX3 and about the same as the 700/800.
Sorry if I've mis-quoted you Alister, but that's how I remember it, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Steve
Steve Phillipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2010, 05:53 PM   #10
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
In self defence, I've dug out a quote "The pictures from the EX3 are remarkable close to the pictures from the PDW-700" from this post http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdc...sony-f350.html
And then this quote "The PMW-350 is fair bit better than the EX3" from this post HPX2700 or PMW350?
By extension then the PMW350 is a fair bit better than the 700/800.
I'm not having a go, I promise, just be interested to get a clarification of your opinion. I haven't seen the 350 so I don't have an opinion and do value yours.
Steve
Steve Phillipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27th, 2010, 08:14 PM   #11
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 20
All CMOS cameras seem to have a somehow muted color palette. I think there is a distinct difference in image-feel between a CCD and a CMOS camera. Even the F350 has something robust in its image that is lacking in the EX cameras. And the EX IR problem does not help.

Last edited by Joakim Sandstrom; January 27th, 2010 at 09:37 PM.
Joakim Sandstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2010, 12:05 AM   #12
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 56
Compared to what? All CCD cameras? A far too generalized and inaccurate statement. Most of the best digital stills cameras are CMOS, with the exception of Phase One, which would be considered the Sony F35 of digital stills at this point.

Those PDW-700 shots were obviously finessed, and some shot with filtration, it appears that at least one was shot with a colored grad.

Who knows if the 700 was painted by a guru and if the 350 was straight out of the box.

Of course I would take a 700 an day, but it does not appear to offer near the value of the 350 at this point. Shoot the same exact footage and have both cameras painted to something like a DSC Chroma DuMonde, and shoot the 350 into a Nanoflash with a Schneider 750 or Tiffen T1IR filter. I'm not sure I would see enough difference to make me think the 700 is worth THAT much more than the PMW-350.
Cris Daniels is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2010, 09:32 AM   #13
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 20
The best digital stills cameras are still CCD
Hasselblad.com
Sinar Photography AG
Joakim Sandstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2010, 09:36 AM   #14
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
Really? All the top Canons and Nikons use CMOS. As does the Phantom HD.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a CMOS fan due to skewing on moving targets.
Steve
Steve Phillipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28th, 2010, 10:27 AM   #15
New Boot
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 20
Nikon and Canon are not the best stills cameras. Thats semi-pro. What I don't understand is that the CCD vs CMOS discussion is always about skew/wobble etc and never about the distinctly different look and feel they produce. One technical reason may be that a CMOS pixel has a much lower fill-rate (albeit counter-acted with micro lenses ) than a CCD which has an almost full grid of pixels. Backlit cmoses may change that. Maybe it's a taste thing and my eyes are more sensitive than others, or it's silly to argue about this, but I think the difference is very clear. For example the RED look is a CMOS look ( and the ex camera looks very similar ) then F23 has the SONY 3-CCD look which I think just feels much more new and 2010.
Joakim Sandstrom is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:23 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network