This camera seems to do a serious beat down on the HVX200, from pricing through chip size through everything. Is that the consensus?

it is mine. As I sold my HVX to get the EX1. But hey, some people love the HVX and it does have that SD flexibility. It is still a superb camera.

But there are loads of threads discussing the pros and cons.

Well, it depends on who you ask.
The HVX200 has proven itself well in making some pro looking stuff.

The EX1 just out of the gate offers a better lens with 1/2" sensors.
The HVX200 is known for using DVCPRO HD 4:2:2 codec.
Some don't like that the Sony is using CMOS sensors. (Red uses CMOS)

The bottom lines is things just keep getting better.
I believe Sony has tossed us one heck of a camera.

I've heard nothing but good things about the EX1 lens and XDCAM 35 mb codec. It's the first camera sub $20K to offer 1920x1080 native sensors.

hv20 has native 1080p as well i believe (1920x1440 cmos which crops to 1920x1080 for video recording), but then again thats a different market.

The HV20 is 1440x1080.
The output is 1440x1080 since 1920x1080 is not an HDV supported format.

It's also WAYYYY more user friendly than the HVX. The menus are so much better, the buttons are nice and the screen is like having laser eye correction compared to the HVX.

hv20 has native 1080p as well i believe (1920x1440 cmos which crops to 1920x1080 for video recording), but then again thats a different market.


I thought the Panasonic Cameras (including the 500) used pixel shifting and electron hocus-pocus on a chip that was 540 pixels...

Andrew, he's refering to the Canon HV20

How's the focus assist on the EX?

The HV20 is 1440x1080.
The output is 1440x1080 since 1920x1080 is not an HDV supported format.

I believe the CMOS sensor on the Canon HV20 is a 1/2.7" 2.96 megapixel native 1920x1080 sensor, the output is HDV2 at 1440x1080.

To be fair, the HVX200 is a 3 years old design and technology evolves pretty quickly. I'm sure the Panny response will make it more interesting for those in the market.

To be fair, the HVX200 is a 3 years old design and technology evolves pretty quickly. I'm sure the Panny response will make it more interesting for those in the market.

Agreed. It will be interesting what Panny will offer as the EX1 competition.
Heck, even if they kept the DVCPRO-100 HD codec, but improved the lens, 1/2" sensors, better signal processing, 4:2:2.
Now this would sell !

Here in europe the HVX is nearly as expensive as the PMW due to the strange pricing politics by Panasonic. They try to charge 50 - 70% more for the cam here then in USA. Additional the EU Version does no 24p, only 25p and the slow motion is also limited to 50p. For just a few EUR more with the Sony PMW I get much better resolution, sensivity and DOF, full manual Fujinon HD Glass, comparable or even better cine - features, SDI and better priced, future proof recording media. I guess the HVX sales here will collapse or the prices will drop dramatically.
In US the HVX might remain an alternative to the PMW as the Price is noticeable lower.

The Canon HV20 is 1920x1080 from the HDMI port...

its 1440x1080 from the firewire port...



And to stay on topic... its obvious Sony was going after the HVX200

Sony did their homework and came up with a pretty nice camera...

Good point. I did not realize they wanted so much for the HVX200 overseas.

Agreed. It will be interesting what Panny will offer as the EX1 competition.
Heck, even if they kept the DVCPRO-100 HD codec, but improved the lens, 1/2" sensors, better signal processing, 4:2:2.
Now this would sell !

you can wait or buy it already .. ;)
But a official announcement of RED concerning the red mini / red pocket cam would be cool. They might rollout a 2/3 compact System.
Panasonic will release a successor, but again 1/3 sensors and not full HD, I am shure.

I thought about waiting for the RED mini specs, but honestly the EX1 is the best thing going in this price range. Also, If the mini specs are not even known now, we're talking over two years before you see the first camera.

I also bet it will be close to 10K.

I am afraight you are right ..
And maybe the small RED will be manual only without any auto features. I guess taking the PMW is a good investment, It´s a political move from Sony to save market shares and to react to the success of the HVX. The cam seems much too good to be a budget sony .. ;)

1920x1080 has been around for a little while in prosumer stuff, the Canon HV20 as well as the Sony V1U both have 1920x1080 CMOS sensors, which is why they do 24P easily. They just record 1440x1080 to tape, but if you record out of the HDMi port you get uncompressed 4:2:2 1920x1080. But these are 1/3" or 1/4" sensors, not 1/2" like the EX.

Anyway the EX looks great, I can't wait to get my hands on one. I definitly think it's going to put a hit in Panasonic's wallet, especially if 3rd parties start making cards for it, that right there would drive the price of cards down and pretty much even out the pricing difference between the Sony and Panasonic.

I just shot with the EX1 this weekend. Oh my... the ergo's alone are very nice (LCD viewfinder setup, lens feel, rotating handle, etc.). IMO, much better than the HVX. And as mentioned earlier, the menu's, button access, viewfinder sharpness.. all so nice to work with.

The EX1 presents a useful alternative to the HVX200 which will have a definite appeal to some but probably not sway those who like the "look" of footage from the Panny camera. If Panasonic wants to strike back they'll need a bigger, better sensor and a more affordable recording solution, perhaps using the AVC-intra codec at a bit rate of up to 50 Mbps. But one good thing about the EX1 which Panasonic will have a hard time touching is that the EX1 footage can play as is on most computers and Blu-ray devices: that's a big practical benefit. The EX1 defines a new niche with no real competition at the moment.

Whichever camera manufacturer wants to "strike back" should introduce a Cineform codec as a on-camera recording option.

Cineform provides free player, so the footage *will* play on any PC that is suitable for mpeg2 playback, I believe.

Pana's DVCPRO HD is Mac-only codec with lower resolution than Cineform. Sony's mpeg2 35Mps still uses 4:2:0 color space and introduces blocky artifacts on fast motion, even at this bitrate - if I read Adam Wilt's review correctly.

Cineform is 4:2:2 1920x1080, with 2x the size of mpeg2 but NO artifacts; and it is now cross-platform.

Cineform lets me edit everything in real time. It is also a wonderful codec for the large-screen *playback*.

I don't relate to Cineform except as a very satisfied customer, and I feel like Cineform has become a new standard. Probably thousands more prosumer equipment users feel the same.

Then why not introduce it as on-camera recording codec choice?

I would honestly forfeit any other format and settle on Cineform only if given a choice. It's just practical.

Do I look like "The End Is Near... Get Cineform!" guy? :)

Whichever camera manufacturer wants to "strike back" should introduce a Cineform codec as a on-camera recording option.



You got the right !
This is my dream.
This is why I'm interested in Cineform's plans for a portable HDMI recorder.
I really want a portable SDI recorder, but if they accomodate power for an HDLINK, I will be able to use the HDMI version.

Steven, you see, if Sony EX1 had Cineform recording to the SxS card on-camera, you would not need any external recorders.

I know, that's my dream, but not a reality. The Cineform HDMI recorder is supposed to be a reality.
Although, wouldn't it be nice if someone (Sony) designed a cam that would allow you to flash different capture codecs and Cineform was one of them!

If Panasonic wants to strike back they'll need a bigger, better sensor, and a more affordable recording solution, perhaps using the AVC-intra codec at a bit rate of up to 50 Mbps.
Assuming by "bigger" you mean higher resolution -- this is NOT simple to do since:

1) Panasonic claims the virture of using "lower" rez. chips is their larger element size. Increasing CCD resolution without increasing chip size will counter their argument.

2) Panasonic uses the same resolution chips on their much more expensive camcorders. To increase the "HVX300's" resolution to meet or match the EX1 would result in their newer more expensive camcorders offering lower resolution.

3) Increasing chip size to 1/2-in would be an admission that Sony's already gone the right way. Same issue with the use of CMOS.

If 50Mbps AVC-I can be added to ALL P2 camcorders -- this, along with the much larger P2 capacities would help Panasonic a lot. But:

Considering the additional chroma samples in AVC-I -- its 50Mbps can NOT be compared to 50Mbps MPEG-2 4:2:0. AVC-I is more like 35Mbps MPEG-2 4:2:0.

But, what about the claimed 2X greater efficiency of AVC-I? While AVC-I "may" be 2X more efficient than I-frame only MPEG-2 -- is it really 2X more efficient than long GOP MPEG-2? I suspect it is not. Which means 35Mbps long GOP 4:2:0 MPEG-2 and 50Mbps I-frame 4:2:2 AVC-I provide just about the same bit-rate compression. (Of course, AVC-I offers 4:2:2.)

Does anyone know what the AVC-I upgrade consists of? A second, or a different, codec chip? Or, just firmware?

Assuming by "bigger" you mean higher resolution -- this is NOT simple to do...

Exactly. As things stand now it doesn't seem likely Panasonic will increase the resolution of their sensors to full HD quality, so they probably won't challenge Sony in that regard. What are the chances of Canon coming up with a 1/2 inch sensor in a camera priced to compete with the EX1?

I hear where you're coming from on this one. The HPX500 did not offer the higher rez sensors. But, I really believe the EX1 is about to change manufactures current upcoming plans. If this camera turns out as good as the specs state, there are going to be a lot of us buying this cam.

I've already heard there are quite a few ditching their other cams for the EX1.
I would not be surprised if next year we see a shoulder mount version of this cam from Sony.
On the other hand, there is one - it's called the F350. :)

My own hunch is that Sony will replace the F330. The EX1 seems much more capable feature to feature compared to the F330 and a shoulder mount version would probably fall into the F330 price point.

What may happen is that such camera will record to both disc and card or they'll drop the disc and the card based camera will be a bit less expensive.

I do suspect that they'll be an newer version of the 350/350 that will record to both disc and card also.

Keep in mind though that the Panasonic HPX500 uses 2/3" CCD sensors at about $14,000 so at that price point the F330 equivalent replacement might not be the clearest choice.

I know the HPX500 is 2/3" and is very clean. I was only refering to its resolution. Sensitivity and noise is only one aspect, although a very important one!

Keep in mind though that the Panasonic HPX500 uses 2/3" CCD sensors at about $14,000 so at that price point the F330 equivalent replacement might not be the clearest choice.

That's a different comparison than the EX1 market niche, but it would be interesting to see how the HPX500 compares in terms of perceivable resolution. According to a post I found here from Jan Livingston the HPX500 has a native resolution of ~620,000 pixels, compared to over 2 million pixels in the EX1. Of course resolution isn't everything, but starting with 3X resolution at the sensor just might make a difference.

I was comparing with a hypothetical shoulder mount equivalent to the EX1. That beast would likely be in the same price range (and market IMHO) of an HPX500.

Yes there would be the question of resolution as chip size and resolution are not one in the same.

That's a different comparison than the EX1 market niche, but it would be interesting to see how the HPX500 compares in terms of perceivable resolution. According to a post I found here from Jan Livingston the HPX500 has a native resolution of ~620,000 pixels, compared to over 2 million pixels in the EX1. Of course resolution isn't everything, but starting with 3X resolution at the sensor just might make a difference.

Of course resolution isn't everything, but starting with 3X resolution at the sensor just might make a difference.
Since the definition of HD is very high resolution -- that's got to be the minimum requirement. Especially now with FullHD on BD and HD DVD. And, for those going to 35mm film.

When it comes to ALL other aspects of the image -- over the years most pro vendors meet folks needs or they wouldn't stay in business. I don't think there is any data that proves 2/3-in chips deliver video with less noise than Sony's new 1/2-in XMOR CMOS chips.

IMHO, Sony simply is far ahead in sensor design and can deliver chips that offer both FullHD rez. + very low noise + super sensitivity + zero vertical smear. The question is will they sell them to Canon and/or JVC.

I'd love to see Canon or JVC join the solid-state arena with something similar to the EX using 1/2" sensors, a proper lens, and recording to UDMA compact flash cards in something like the 50Mbps 4:2:2 AVC-I codec that Steve mentioned earlier (35Mbps 4:2:0 already looks great, so having the extra chroma samples in there will simply add even more appeal).

That would be an awfully nice camera... however whilst I'm dreaming I'll just throw out there my thoughts for Red's mini camera: i.e. something akin to a digital Aaton A-Minima - shooting 2K Redcode RAW to compact flash cards, through s16mm or 35mm still glass.

*sigh*

Mark, I understand that Sony has slated another version of EX1-class camera to be released early in 2008, with 2/3 " sensors.

What most people want codec-wise is Sony providing *on-camera* Cineform recording as an option.

Users of EX1, the 2/3" big bother of it I just mentioned, and heck! even V1U would benefit from that immensely.

Alex,

Where did you here about this 2/3 inch EX camera? That's exciting!

Wes

Wesley,

I read about it online, but the official release is here:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcam_family.shtml

Quote from it:
Sony will round out the XDCAM family with high-end additions that include two premium products: The PDW-700 camcorder and the PDW-HD1500 deck. They will offer striking quality HD recording at a data rate of up to 50 Mb/s using the MPEG HD422 compression technology. The PDW-700 is equipped with three 2/3-inch type CCDs - a newly developed “Power HAD™ FX” progressive CCD with 1920 x 1080 effective pixels,

Wesley,

I read about it online, but the official release is here:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcam_family.shtml.

This was announced at NAB. It's an CineAlta HDCAM class camcorder. Not an EX1 class unit.

Thanks...
I knew that was to good to be true.
That camera is like $30,000.00

Mark, I understand that Sony has slated another version of EX1-class camera to be released early in 2008, with 2/3 " sensors.

What most people want codec-wise is Sony providing *on-camera* Cineform recording as an option.




But wouldn't that require hefty storage? Cineform files are big.

Brian, im my experience, Cineform file size is about 2x the mpeg2.

Problem with mpeg2 is that it's really bad. All fast pans (or fast moving objects in the frame) produce blockiness and tearing of the image.

That, and the fact that mpeg2 is 4:2:0 color space vs. Cineform's 4:2:2.

I was hoping that EX1's 35Mps-encoded mpeg2 is better, but Adam Wilt reported basically the same issues.

So the choice is: unusable mpeg2 footage vs. 2x larger but great quality Cineform files.

Since I choose the latter, I have to lug around a custom-built PC that captures uncompressed HD out of Sony V1U (in my case), and encodes it in Cineform on-the-fly.

Instead of the big and heavy PC, I'd really like to have a Cineform recording option on-camera.

Wesley,

I read about it online, but the official release is here:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcam_family.shtml

Quote from it:
Sony will round out the XDCAM family with high-end additions that include two premium products: The PDW-700 camcorder and the PDW-HD1500 deck. .......
Not only is it a much higher end camera (as Steve says) but my understanding is that it records to optical disc, not SxS cards. Though it's interesting that in the link above the media isn't specified any more. Maybe it will have grown a couple of SxS slots by launch!?

Does anyone know what the AVC-I upgrade consists of? A second, or a different, codec chip? Or, just firmware?

Currently, to upgrade your HPX2000 (the only camera that is currently upgradeable) You have to have a new PC board installed into the camera. The HPX3000 comes with this PC board.

Currently being the word here, said PC board is to large to fit inside a hand held camera, or so i have read. However.. this of course will change over time.

I was at a panasonic conference last night where they showed the HPX3000.

I was told by the reps that AVC-I in 50 mbps is comparable to DVCPROHD at 100 mbps, and the 100 mbps flavor of AVC-I is comparably close to D5/HDCAM SR quality. AVC-I is also a full raster 1920 codec, the same as the new EX codec and HDCAM SR.

Sony really did do their homework when designing/implementing the Ex 1. They took everything I hate about the HVX200 and made it better.

- Much better resolution.
- Much cleaner picture
- Much better in low light
- Better depth of field
- Much better LCD screen
- Better lens design
- Better recording times per GB


The HVX200's main advantage is the better compression with the DVCPro HD codec however when your HD footage isn't true HD does that really matter? A full 1920x1080 image versus the squeezed 1280x960 (I hope I'm getting my numbers right) 1080i footage is a deal breaker for me. 4:2:2 color or not the HVX200 has a soft picture and the DVCPro HD format suffers because of it.

And after all if the XDCam HD format is good enough for the Discovery Channel than it's good enough for more. The footage posted so far looks gorgeous and once the vignetting issues are worked out (reminds me of the JVC split screen problem) then I'll definitely be looking at purchasing this camera.

I'm currently shooting a documentary with the HVX200 and from now on will only be shooting interviews. I'm holding off until next year to possibly get my hands on this camera for wide shots of different places.

I am a huge fan of Panasonic cameras, especially with their gorgeous color matrix/gamma but I think they are quaking in their boots with this release. They are going to have to release the next HVX with a 1/2" chip and AVC-Intra with a clean image or they may have some problems. No more excuses for the noisy picture...at least if they want to offer the new HVX at the old one's current price tag. The EX 1 really is a workhorse! We really should be comparing this camera to the HPX500.

I just had my first run with an EX1 tonight and found it to be a much more pleasant experience than trying to use the HVX200. With the latter I had a terrible time getting recorded clips to play in Windows, but with the EX1 that worked on the first try no problem. File transfer speed was also quite good: we clocked it at about 10:1 (ten minutes of footage per minute) on my Dell Latitude laptop with a 5400 RPM hard drive. Kudos to Sony for developing a file-based video workflow which works smoothly - the clip browser software could be better, but it's functional.

So the choice is: unusable mpeg2 footage vs. 2x larger but great quality Cineform files.

Since I choose the latter, I have to lug around a custom-built PC that captures uncompressed HD out of Sony V1U (in my case), and encodes it in Cineform on-the-fly.

Instead of the big and heavy PC, I'd really like to have a Cineform recording option on-camera.

I would hardly call 35mbit EX1 footage unusable. There will be a lot of people who will make a lot of money from EX1 footage.

Thomas, I don't have EX1.

I have V1U which is lower bitrate mpeg2 compression.

Fast pans or fast movement in-frame almost always produces very bad blockiness and image tears, which is unusable. Otherwise the camera is great, so I wish Sony used the fantastic Cineform codec instead of mpeg2 to record the video.

EX1, according to renowned reviewer Adam Wilt, also produces fast movement artifacts. This shatters my hopes that higher-bitrate 35Mps mpeg2 compression of EX1 would be radically better than V1U's.

Cineform however delivers every the time. I just don't see why not put it on-camera instead of mpeg2.

We've all read his review....
He clearly states his saw a problem with "radically jumpy, earthquake-like shakycam work." Not under useable footage was there an issue. He also never stated that if he was using the 35mb codec.

Using 35mb, I've tried the "shake the camera to death" and all I saw was motion blur, no macroblocking whatsoever.

Also, Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition.

Also, Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition.

According to this article they did approve the F350 for 100% acquisition:

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=144

I'm not saying they approved the EX1 (its lens capabilities may be the limiting factor) but they at least found that the XDCam format holds up well for satellite broadcast. Perhaps Discovery HD has different specs in the states?

Let me clarify what I wrote:
If it was not up to their standards, "Discovery HD would of NEVER approved the XDCAM 35mb for 100% acquisition"

at 35mbps/720p i definitely could not see any macroblocking. i didn't run enough wild, wavy footage at 1080p, but in the few seconds i had, i didn't see any in that mode either.

i had it aimed at a waterfall with dense contrasty, colored bushes in the background and waved it around. a similar test with the hv20 broke up the codec very consistently (i can't remember if i did that with the xh series cameras). xdcam at 35mbps is really very good.


the worst problem i have with this camera is the rolling shutter distortion, which makes the intentionally handheld-look footage hard to get without jelly-like warping. it also causes noticeable warping on changes of direction in tripod pans. as an aside, i also don't like the motion blur. the panasonics have a smoother, smudged look that i prefer.

i'm surprised there aren't more complaints about the rolling shutter because it's visible on most quick global motion, even without freezing the picture. forget lamposts bending or flashes crossing frames (lol), try panning left then right: at the point where the motion changes direction, the warping reverses and makes the distortion obvious in the moving footage.

to be fair, i saw an instance of distortion like that in the original red "crossing the line" movie at nab. a biplane aerial shot went up then down: squish. nobody else had pointed that out. maybe i'm just sensitive to it. motion blur to me looks natural because you can get that if you just move your eyes around, but--my brain at least--doesn't squish and unsquish the image when i move my eyes around.

the camera looks utterly fantastic though on static shots.