I remember a while ago there was some debate about how HDV stacks up against 2/3" SD cameras. How do you suppose the Panasonic SDX900 would compare to the EX1? Would the 1/2" chips and HDCAM codec make them more comparable? I recently saw a documentary that was shot on the SDX900 and blown up to 35mm and it looked great. I'm still a little confused between the trade-off between larger chips and SD and smaller chips and HD. If this has been settled already, I apologize.

Thanks.

The SDX900 is definitely one bad ass camera. A lot of the footage for Jack Ass Two was shot with it and next to HVX200 footage in theatres it looked better even though it isn't HD.

I think the Sony would fare better as it has an image resolution that is noticeably (to the naked eye and to res. charts) better than the HVX200. I'd guess they are either equal in 35mm blow ups or the Sony is a bit better.

You'll just have to test it, guesses don't mean much till there is a real side by side.

The SDX900 is definitely one bad ass camera. A lot of the footage for Jack Ass Two was shot with it and next to HVX200 footage in theatres it looked better even though it isn't HD.


You could make the point that the HVX-200 is not HD either with its SD chips.

It boils down to when the upconversion takes place, at the sensor or in post.

Then the comparison is between 1/3" and 2/3" chips, and we all know the answer.

I have not worked with the cameras, but I think footage from more expensive 2/3" cameras has a way of looking more refined compared to smaller chip cameras even if the resolution might be lower.

A side by side would be nice to see.