I felt I did address the question: HPX-255. ........

I enjoy the advantages of the 1/2" chips on the EX1R but would look elsewhere for 422-50MB. The HPX-255 is $1000 less expensive which pays for 64GB of P2 with change enough for a second battery.
But that is only enough for a hours continuous shooting. Three hours is a far more realistic figure if you want to avoid downloading in the field, which wipes out any price advantage the HPX250 may have in body only cost.
The PMW-200 doesn't come with memory and at B&H, SXS is the same price as P2.
Whilst SxS and P2 may be similar in cost per GB, the bitrate difference means that per minute the figures stack up strongly in favour of XDCAM and SxS. For a given recording time, you need half the number of GB for SxS as the 250 does for P2. So for two hours that would be one SxS 64GB card ($650) versus two P2 64GB (2x$730=$1460). Hence my previous figures - with memory for three hours recording, the HPX250 is MORE expensive than the PMW200.

And for that extra cost you only get 1/3" chips and a servo lens. Sorry Les, I disagree with you, I'll maintain the PMW200 is currently the clear winner.
Don't know where you got that information but the HPX-255 is manual focus, zoom and iris.
You can switch to manual control, but there is no direct coupling between the focus/iris rings and the mechanism - it's via servos. Hence a far less precise feel, a slight variable lag, and (worst of all) no end stops. It's fundamentally the same as they use in the AVCCAM model, and similar to what Sony use in NXCAM. It's what I'd expect in cameras in that price range, not what I'd expect for cameras in the range above.

Have you ever tried one? It may be usable - but nowhere near the standard of a pro, manual lens, and that includes the lenses of the EX, PMW200 and XF305.

422-50MB on an HPX-255 is the same amount of footage as 422-50MB on a PMW-200. You are right tho, on the HPX-255, you can record twice the data rate whenever you want without an external recorder as you need on a PMW-200 but can't power off the camera battery.

It isn't about picking a chipset spec winner as you are known to do here. Video production is much more than IQ minutia and pixel peeping. As the old adage goes, audio is half the video. Then there's story telling, lighting and script. Your talking about a fraction of a fraction in the end..... then there's Alister's statement about people can't tell the difference between 420 and 422 without peeping.

422-50MB on an HPX-255 is the same amount of footage as 422-50MB on a PMW-200.
Errr, the HPX255 doesn't record 422-50MB! It's a Panasonic camera, and hence records AVC-Intra - most certainly NOT XDCAM 422 50Mbs!!

Yes, it can record in a 50Mbs mode (AVC-Intra 50) - but then it's 4:2:0, luminance subsampled, and most definately not considered as fully broadcast approved. To get that tag, it needs to be in the AVC-Intra 100 mode - hence 100Mbs. Hence twice the number of GB for the same run time.

I'll be the first to agree that story telling, lighting and script may be more significant that absolute technical factors, but it's an irrelevant argument. Production factors and technical quality are separate matters. You seem to be implying they are mutually exclusive? Surely that's not true? High technical quality doesn't preclude high production values, and vice versa. What's wrong with best possible story telling etc together with best possible technical quality?

These cameras all produce great images. The differences are small thus a fraction of a fraction of the whole. 422-100 built-in of the Panasonic sounds interesting. Don't care about memory costs. That's a fraction too.

then there's Alister's statement about people can't tell the difference between 420 and 422 without peeping.

The difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is much greater when shooting interlaced than progressive. Even with progressive, the difference is definitely noticeable for chroma key.

Current HD broadcast standards are like insisting on low salt, low fat, fully organic home cooked dinners and then eating fast food for lunch. Strict requirements on dinner only give the cook difficulty in preparing the meals while lunch has already spoiled the diet. What is the point of 4:2:2 versus 4:2:0, 1920x1080 versus 1440x1080 and 50 mbps versus 35 mbps when actual HD broadcast is typically less than 10 mbps mpeg4?

While the PMW-200 likely improves on the EX1R in many ways, it is also likely that main purpose of the camera is to increase Sony's profit. If the PMW-200 sells for x% more and can be manufactured for y% less, then replacing the EX1R with the PMW-200 has many benefits. A new camera is much better than raising the price of the existing EX1R by x+y%.

What is the point of 4:2:2 versus 4:2:0, 1920x1080 versus 1440x1080 and 50 mbps versus 35 mbps when actual HD broadcast is typically less than 10 mbps mpeg4?

.

I think it is called future proofing, who knows what technology is around the corner - 4k broadcasting maybe?

NHK is already doing experimental UHDV (8K60P) broadcasts from London.

Most of the production companies that I deal with find the difference in low and poor light performance between the XF305 and EX1 more than just a slight or insignificant difference. So much so that some still choose to use an EX1 with a NanoFlash because it can deliver useable images where the 305 cannot. That difference is almost entirely down to pixel size. Bigger sensors make a considerable difference. That's why EBY R118 specifies the half inch minimum, unless the camera can be proven through additional tests to be acceptable. It's also why for Tier 1 the minimum is 2/3". I think we have all seen how really big pixels as in the super 35mm sized sensors can produce some incredible looking images. Sensor and pixel size matters.

4K mainstream broadcasting is still some years away, NHK are not planning on broadcasting 4K until 2020 and the working life of a camera these days is rarely more than 2 or 3 years. When HD was introduced most countries were also switching from uncompressed analog to compressed digital broadcasting. This freed up the bandwidth necessary for HD transmission. To go to 4K broadcasts will need a even more bandwidth or new compression schemes. We still haven't really taken full advantage of HD, often it's so compressed that it's little better than SD and only a small percentage of channels broadcast in HD. There are advantages to be had by shooting 4K such as future proofing material and the ability to crop into the frame, but often the workflow becomes slower as processing and storage requirements become onerous.

Sensor and pixel size matters.

always

There are advantages to be had by shooting 4K such as future proofing material and the ability to crop into the frame, but often the workflow becomes slower as processing and storage requirements become onerous.
you'll be surprised, but 4K material is editable on i7 laptop, and i am not talking about Sager, not the best solution, but i did couple on site edits with my over the counter Vaio, and today storage media prices are very affordable; in my case i don't even worry about future proofing, but the picture is so good, it'd just amazes me every time i look at the footage after the shot,
as for pmw 200 - if Sony would make new, 2/3" 240 fps capable camera, i would be the first in line to get one, but as it is, to me it's just an EX with a few upgrades, buying today of course there is no question which one to get, but i don't see enough reasons to upgrade from EX1r, at least for me

What format was the 4K material?

What is the point of 4:2:2 versus 4:2:0, 1920x1080 versus 1440x1080 and 50 mbps versus 35 mbps when actual HD broadcast is typically less than 10 mbps mpeg4?
In a word, the point is concatenation.

The dictionary lists the meaning as "To connect or link in a series or chain".

In this context it refers to the problems associated with repeated compressing and decompressing video streams, and the way errors can build up along the broadcast chain, which may involve many stages. Something like 10Mbs H264 can indeed cause problems, but for very good economic reasons it's highly desirable to keep broadcast bitrates low. Even more importantly, for terrestial transmission the spectrum is limited.

It can be (just) enough - but a lot depends on the source the final encoder is fed with. If pristine, the results should be acceptable at home. If artifacts or especially aliasing exist from further up the chain, they are likely to get magnified by the final (and lowest bitrate) encoder.

That's why it's not enough to look at images and make a simple "looks good enough to me" judgement, not in the broadcast world, anyway. The pictures may look OK in themselves - but have characteristics which may upset broadcast encoders.

In the context of this thread, that's why XDCAM 422 50Mbs is important.
The difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is much greater when shooting interlaced than progressive. Even with progressive, the difference is definitely noticeable for chroma key.
Very true. And for broadcast work that these cameras are likely to do (news, sport, reality etc) they are more likely to be used in 1080i/25 mode than 1080p/25. The latter may be preferred for drama etc - but that's far more likely to be done with at least 2/3" cameras.

How much better does the lens zoom in and out compared to the EX1R? I understand the zoom servo has been improved on the PMW-200. My EX1R does not do particularly well and sticks at least once when I'm wide and slowly zooming in. Faster zooms don't stick. Zooming out it does better but can still stick on occasion.
Thanks to everyone for all the helpful information.
Dan

This camera appears to be taking too much of a beating.

I would take 50Mbps 422 over a rotating hand grip anytime, and if Alistair says its balanced and comfortable then its true. The top flip out LCD is not as convienient as the bottom one on the EX1's but I got used to it with my Z5 and even though it was annoying with radio mic/video light, after a while I got used to it. But as now i will be knowing I'm getting an even better image than my EX1R and not having that horrible pasty face look, all the 200's minute flaws will fade away.

Alistair did you check the IRE range for faces with the 200? Do you still need to underexpose to 60ish IRE or does it now handle faces at 70IRE without any murky skin tone?

The Nano gives you 4:2:2 50MB and higher without the downgrade doesn't it? Albeit it's an extra box but it can at least be powered by the camera battery.

They could have done a lot more but I would be thrilled with just an EX1R with the addition of:
1. new modern sensor comparable to a cropped FS100 sensor.
2. timecode/genlock


They added the gunlock but I can't seem to find out much about the sensor. PLEASE tell me that 4+ years later they aren't re-using the same old noisy low resolution sensor that is getting destroyed by GH2s etc?

It can be (just) enough - but a lot depends on the source the final encoder is fed with. If pristine, the results should be acceptable at home. If artifacts or especially aliasing exist from further up the chain, they are likely to get magnified by the final (and lowest bitrate) encoder

It is an interesting topic what picture characteristics most affect low bitrate broadcast and delivery. From my subjective experience noise, grain, motion and resolution upset things the most. The preference for larger sensor size is not just a desire to exclude the little guys, but an attempt to reduce the noise at the source. However, just as it's possible to create low noise images from small sensor cameras, it's also possible to create noisy images from large sensor cameras. While minimum camera requirements can increase quality, the more noticeable effect of such requirements is to create marketing opportunities for expensive gear. What the industry really needs is widely available software that can perform a detailed analysis of a particular video master to determine whether it has suitable characteristics for delivery over current satellite, cable, terrestrial broadcast and fibre optic networks.

They could have done a lot more but I would be thrilled with just an EX1R with the addition of:
1. new modern sensor comparable to a cropped FS100 sensor..... PLEASE tell me that 4+ years later they aren't re-using the same old noisy low resolution sensor that is getting destroyed by GH2s etc?

They are using the same sensors as the EX1, but with new signal processing. There are very good reasons for this:

If you took an FS100 sensor and cropped just the middle 1/2" the resolution would fall short of what is needed for SD, let alone HD.

Pixel size is the primary thing that determines the signal to noise ratio of the camera. Cameras like the FS100 and GH2 have big sensors with big pixels, that's why they have low noise. That's why 1/3" cameras don't do as well as half inch and half inch doesn't do as well as 2/3" and so on. It's down to the laws of physics. Over the last few years any noise and sensitivity improvements in sensors have been tiny, what we have seen with the large sensor cameras is simply the function of bigger pixels on a bigger sensor. Modern sensors like the ones in the EX have QE's approaching 70% where 70% of the photons of light falling on the sensor are converted to electrons. If you want a bigger output (and thus better ratio of signal to noise) then you use bigger pixels so that you capture more photons and as a result get more electrons. To do that without sacrificing resolution you need a bigger surface area and thus a bigger sensor.

To expect a significant improvement in sensitivity and noise performance when the sensor size and layout is not changing is not realistic as there have not been any changes to the laws of physics or core sensor technologies.

What format was the 4K material?
r3d, 4K, 7:1, Vegas Pro, but of course MXFs from EX are much faster to edit on the same machine:)

They are using the same sensors as the EX1, but with new signal processing. ...To expect a significant improvement in sensitivity and noise performance when the sensor size and layout is not changing is not realistic as there have not been any changes to the laws of physics or core sensor technologies.

Does the new signal processing on the EX1 sensors address the issues of more noise at higher data rates discussed here? That would be an improvement over a Nano correct?
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/convergent-design-nanoflash/479723-noise-comparison-35-4-2-0-vs-180-4-2-2-a-16.html#post1557890

The improvement when Sony used the newer "R" sensors on the consumer cameras was really significant. I have an older SR11 newer XR500 then CX700 which is now similar to the present family CJ760/NX30 etc and a NX5U. The NX5U and SR11 are clearly closer in noise level etc but the CX700 is very much better than all the others. I understand that a similar improvement may not be true for a 1/2" chip but I am certain there would be an improvement. I keep waiting for a new replacement for the NX5U with better sensors and 60P recording, I am happy with the rest of its features. Sometimes shoot multicam with all these and an EX3 and the CX700 easily matches or exceeds the EX3 for noise as an example for low light stage shows when gain is needed.

As another question does the PMW-200 have an IR filter to stop black clothes looking brown a problem with the EX1/3 .

Ron Evans

...I'll be the first to agree that story telling, lighting and script may be more significant that absolute technical factors, but it's an irrelevant argument. Production factors and technical quality are separate matters. You seem to be implying they are mutually exclusive? Surely that's not true? High technical quality doesn't preclude high production values, and vice versa. What's wrong with best possible story telling etc together with best possible technical quality?

Technical alone isn't enough. Anyone knows ergonomics affects the quality of a shot.

In the case of the rotating handle, it enables shots not possible with standard handgrips... e.g. getting the shot or not. Ergonomics affect how fast you can get a shot versus miss it altogether... better ergonomics can make a shot better and bad ergonomics make a shot worse. The XF305 zoom is a stellar example. It's a technically superior zoom to the EX1 and longer to boot. Yet the ergonomics require flipping a switch to enable the servos versus manual.

Ergonomics in this class of camera are important. They'll make that technically beautiful image better or not or not even exist because you couldn't get the shot. Getting shots you couldn't get otherwise and making shots better are why some of us care about ergonomics and why some of us care about having to fuss with shoe extensions, LCDs you can't close to save battery, peri-scoping shotgun mounts that aren't removable, absent shot transition automation, switches on zoom rockers etc because they affect quality too.

I hear complaining about sore wrists yet nothing about the arm, shoulder and neck strains of day to day camera ops with steadi-cams and the other designs. The wrist issue is handled with exercise like any other profession requiring physical prowess. IMHO the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.

I've said this before, the EX1R ergonomics had a powerful advantage over competitors that contributed to its competitiveness against HD422 cameras. I feel the PMW-200 changes deliver less advantage. Pity.

With it's fiscal woes, I don't know if Sony even has the wherewithal to build a follow-on to the EX3 but if they do, I hope any PMW-300 reflects a better appreciation of ergonomics.

Today I noticed B&H has their price up, as opposed to the previous suggested retail price that they had listed. Their price is $6299, same as the previous normal price for the EX1R, so that is good news.

While minimum camera requirements can increase quality, the more noticeable effect of such requirements is to create marketing opportunities for expensive gear. What the industry really needs is widely available software that can perform a detailed analysis of a particular video master to determine whether it has suitable characteristics for delivery over current satellite, cable, terrestrial broadcast and fibre optic networks.
That's very good thinking, but the problem I'd foresee is that of just too many variables, coupled with the problem of noone wanting to do a lot of filming and editing ...... only for the computer to say no! You need to know where you stand BEFORE production starts, even before cameras etc are purchased or hired.

Hence the idea of recommending minimum standards. From a codec point of view, it means that if you get a camera with XDCAM 422 or AVC-Intra 100, you'll meet the recommended criteria, end of story. It's POSSIBLE that something lower may be good enough, but this takes away the uncertainty.

Of course, it won't guarantee good story, lighting, editing etc - but at least you have taken away the technical variable! :-)
PLEASE tell me that 4+ years later they aren't re-using the same old noisy low resolution sensor that is getting destroyed by GH2s etc?
That really isn't true. Except at the higher end, (F3, C300 and higher) none of the large sensor cameras has as good resolution as a 3 chip camera with 1920x1080 sensors, and that's true of the GH2 as well. I believe it measures in at about 700lpph, but also has considerable luminance aliasing. (Better than many DSLRs, better even than the AF100 which has the same chip, but not up to the standard in resolving terms of a 3 x 1920x1080 chip camera.)

Alister said "Cameras like the FS100 and GH2 have big sensors with big pixels, that's why they have low noise." I agree with all the basic sentiments in principle here, but it's wrong to include the GH2 here. It has a big sensor, but with a high photosite count - it is, after all, first and foremost a quality stills camera. That means firstly that the indvidual photosite size is still small, and secondly that not all the photosites can be read at video framerates. The evidence is that it only reads 1 in 4, whch is why it's noise/sensitivity is not what the sensor size might lead you to hope for. It roughly works out about the same as an EX.

The up side is a 3 stop differnce in depth of field characteristics.

Alister said "Cameras like the FS100 and GH2 have big sensors with big pixels, that's why they have low noise." I agree with all the basic sentiments in principle here, but it's wrong to include the GH2 here. It has a big sensor, but with a high photosite count - it is, after all, first and foremost a quality stills camera. That means firstly that the indvidual photosite size is still small, and secondly that not all the photosites can be read at video framerates.

Yes, my mistake. The EX1 and GH2 pixels are roughly the same size, about 3.6 microns. F3 and FS100 are around 10 microns, almost 3x the size.

PMW 200 has better EVF compare to EX1 or F3 ?

It's the same EVF. The LCD is new and improved.

Alistar, wondering if you checked the AWB on the PMW200?

The EX's were appalling, and at certain times a good AWB comes in handy.

The discussion between Panasonic executives and the broadcast folks is hysterical. But how can the 1/3" chip based HPX370 outperform the EX3 in low light and noise? The EX3 has 1/2" chips.

Hi

Perhaps a little of topic, but will it be possible to edit files from PMW200 in Premiere Pro CS5.5 directly or does it have to be some kind of plugin installed? Or must PPro be upgraded to CS6 to work together with the new codec? As I remember, the Canon XF300 MXF files needed one or two upgrades of Premiere before it worked OK.


Regards,

/Bo

It's the same EVF. The LCD is new and improved.

Thank you Alister. By the way I read Mr Bloom's review he said EVF is pretty good so I am not sure what's that mean.

Frankly, I don't know why so many people moan about the EX1R EVF. It's the same resolution as the Canon C300 EVF and very similar. I find that if I use peaking or the expand function I can focus perfectly accurately with it and once calibrated expose with it. Is it perfect, hell no, It's a small EVF on a small camcorder, but it's not as bad as many make out in my opinion.

I believe it works fine with CS5.5 as it is the same codec as the PMW-500 and other optical disc cameras and these have been supported for some time via the built in media browser. It's certainly directly supported in CS6, that's what I used to edit the review.

"But how can the 1/3" chip based HPX370 outperform the EX3 in low light and noise? The EX3 has 1/2" chips."

This question has been raised and I would like the answer to it also.

Image processing and noise reduction can mask and mitigate many sensor issues. The HPX370 uses a lot of noise reduction to reduce image noise. Most of the time this is very effective and can clean up the image, but there are almost always trade offs when you start doing heavy noise reduction. The most commonly seen issues are smear and posterization. This can be seen during pans and fast motion as a blurriness to the image and the reproduction of skin tones and subtle textures can take on a plastic, smooth look. It can also manifest itself as a "glazed" look to the image or blockiness and floating pixels and blobs within the image.

Camera sensitivity on it's own is meaningless because a camera manufacturer can simply choose to increase or decrease the gain of the cameras circuits to achieve whatever level of sensitivity that they choose. What really counts is how much noise does the sensor produce with no amplification, because this affects the amount of noise reduction that will be applied.

The EX cameras and PMW-200 use noise reduction as well, as does the Canon XF series. The problem is that the more noise you wish/need to remove/reduce the harder the processing has to work and the greater the artefacts become. At 0db with most of these cameras the noise reduction process goes largely un-noticed, but as you start increasing gain you also multiply noise levels, so the noise reduction circuits have to work harder.

For example: lets say that at 0db Camera A has 2 units of noise, Camera B has 3 units of noise. Only one unit difference so barely noticeable. When you go to +6db gain (6db is double) then now camera A has 4 units of noise compared to B which now has 6. So to give an image that looks similar to camera A the noise reduction circuits in B must work much harder and there will be more artefacts. Go to +18db and the difference is even greater with A now having 16 units of noise while B has 24.

A lot of the standard static camera tests like resolution and dynamic range tell you little about noise reduction and the artefacts that it can produce. Skin tone reproduction and pans can be very revealing however. One of the things I noticed in the PMW-200 is an improvement in skin tone and subtle texture reproduction which I believe is a result of improved image processing.

I can't stress enough that when assessing the image quality of a camera you need to always look at the complete image. It is wrong to focus on any one single factor without considering how that may affect other aspects of the image. Just because you can point a camera at a chart and note that the aperture may be stopped down by half a stop more than another camera does not really tell you anything useful unless you also look at the noise levels and also look at the artefacts that may or may not be present due to noise reduction.

Thank you Mr. Chapman

It is wrong to focus on any one single factor without considering how that may affect other aspects of the image.

Melamine in the animal feed makes the protein content appear higher; electronic image processing and noise reduction makes the video sensor appear more sensitive. In the first case, the protein content is not higher and the food becomes poisonous; in the second case the sensor is not more sensitive and the video may contain unexpected artifacts. The problem in both cases is that optimizing a product to maximize an incomplete set of test results without other constraints always reduces the final product quality.

I certainly would not disagree with all that has been stated about the negative effects of noise reduction. However, I would simply like to add this one slight "twist".

I recently did a very un-scientific test between my EX1r and my CX760. (sister to the NXCAM, NX30)
This test was just a very simple "noise only" test at different gain values.

EX1r at 0bd
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4564537/ex1%20vs%20cx760/EX1r%20-%200db.jpg

CX760 at 0db
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4564537/ex1%20vs%20cx760/CX760_0db.jpg

As you all know, the EX1r has an excellent configuration of 3 full raster 1/2 inch sensors.
For those that might not know, the CX760 is HEAVILY disadvantaged with its tiny, single, Bayer pattern sensor that is slightly larger than 1/3rd inch. To make the situation even harder on the CX760, its a heavily over sampled sensor that has 6 million pixels on it. (Ouch!...VERY tiny photosites)

At 0db, the competition between the two is literally a joke. I was going to end the test right there but I decided to go further anyway. I started adding higher and higher gain and something shocking started to happen. The little, lowly, crippled CX760 started to catch up. By the time I got to +18db the distance between the two became ALLOT closer.

EX1r at +9db
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4564537/ex1%20vs%20cx760/EX1r_9db.jpg

CX760 at +18db
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4564537/ex1%20vs%20cx760/CX760_18db.jpg

Now,..allow me to say this. I am NOT saying these cameras are equal. They are not. The EX1r is far superior,...as it should be. It simply has the sensor configuration that DRASTICALLY outguns the little CX760. I KNOW the EX1r is great and I fully understand "why" it looks great. Everything is as it should be.

What shocks me is: "why does such a crippled little, 6 megapixel, Bayer pattern sensor,...look that good?" What is inside that darn thing?

It's like a watching a race between a world class Olympic runner against a one legged man on crutches. Yes, the world class runner wins, but the fact that the man on crutches is not "that" far behind him is quite extraordinary! (can anybody explain this?)

Yes, this "test" is not a true lab one. Yes, it has no motion to challenge the CX760 noise reduction. I do understand that there are allot of factors that this test does not take into account....agreed. (It's just a quick real world test)

I think we can all agree that the CX760 output is something that is amazing, given is heavy sensor configuration disadvantages.

In looking at the new PMW200. I hope that Sony is applying its newest, BEST and most current silicon technology combined with its latest and BEST post processing technology.

I think a simple PMW 200 option that lets the user pick between "low", "med" and "high" noise reduction options would be fantastic. (Lets the shooter decide)

I don't know the answers as to why but I just seem to see a strange imbalance between sensors that do, in fact, perform great and ones that are not "supposed" perform as well as they should based on the numbers.

I shoot theatre with my NX5U, SR11, XR500 and CX700 and occasionally an EX3. The EX3 is used for closeups, NX5U mid and the small Sony's as fixed unattended cameras with AE shift at max negative. When the stage goes to full black the CX700 still has acceptable video noise at 21db for a full black screen and responds quickly to lights up again too. Very impressive. For really dark scenes where the EX3 has to go to 9db and the NX5U at 12db the CX700 has less visible noise than either of these cameras. The SR11 and NX5U are close in vintage so noise levels are similar. XR500 was the introduction of the backilluminated sensor and has noticeable better performance. The CX700 is only marginally better than the XR500. Looking at still images is good but not a true test of how visible noise is on a moving image. With gain the EX3 and the NX5U show the sensor artifacts in pan motion not present on the CX700. I keep wanting a NX5U replacement with sensors that are as good as my CX700 and 1920x1080 60P the rest of the camera is great !!!
My comments are for noise levels with large areas of black or dark colour where noise is very evident. Clearly both the NX5U and EX3 produce better overall output but when it gets really dark I would choose the little CX700 for least noisy picture as to the non-techie a clean picture is a better picture !!!

Ron Evans

This whole discussion about chip size and noise is highly significant. I like the use of the terms "raw sensitivity" or "native sensitivity" of the chip, as the final appearance of the output signal does indeed depend highly on applied processing. It may be possible to make a signal look superficially quieter - but it will indeed be at the expense of other factors.
The discussion between Panasonic executives and the broadcast folks is hysterical. But how can the 1/3" chip based HPX370 outperform the EX3 in low light and noise? The EX3 has 1/2" chips.
The simple answer is that the HPX370 most definately does not outperform the EX3. Panasonic describe the use of a technique called "3d noise reduction" which is understood to mean operating in height and width of the image AND with relation to time. More simply, comparing frame by frame, and assuming some differences to be down to noise and hence able to be averaged out.

That is obviously going to be less satisfactory when there is movement in the image, and it wasn't long before the problems were seen in reality - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/481778-hpx371-noise-issue.html . The image looks fairly noise free on static scenes - but "noise ghosts" can be seen on moving images.

Panasonic issued a "fix" - which got rid of the noise ghosts...... but allowed the overall noise level up again. At the end of the day 1/2" chips will inevitably have a significant advantage over 1/3", and that's before we even think about depth of field and diffraction issues...... And that's why a camera with 1/2" chips and a fully approved codec at this price point is such a big deal.

Plastic with an inner metal frame that can be seen through the cooling vents.

These cooling vents are worrying me, I have had major issues with massive amounts of dirt and dust on the inside of my cameras due to the conditions I film in so to have a opened vent would only make this worse?

Is this a camera I should avoid or is there some sort of clear sealed plastic cover I would be able to purchase?

The standard rain and dust covers avoid most of the dirt but its the tiny dust particles that still get through on them

These cooling vents are worrying me, I have had major issues with massive amounts of dirt and dust on the inside of my cameras due to the conditions I film in so to have a opened vent would only make this worse?

Three weeks ago Sony let me try a pre-production sample of the PMW-200 for a couple of days and I also noticed the large amount of cooling vents on the camera. In my feedback to Sony that was one of my remarks, but in reply Sony could confirm that the amount and size of vents will be much smaller on the production model soon to be shown.

These cooling vents are worrying me, I have had major issues with massive amounts of dirt and dust on the inside of my cameras due to the conditions I film in so to have a opened vent would only make this worse?

Is this a camera I should avoid ........
I haven't seen the camera in the flesh, but conceivably all there may be inside the vents are cooling fins? In which case the inners of the camera can still be fully sealed and completely isolated from any dirt/dust that gets in? Just a thought........

I haven't seen the camera in the flesh, but conceivably all there may be inside the vents are cooling fins? In which case the inners of the camera can still be fully sealed and completely isolated from any dirt/dust that gets in? Just a thought........

I am really hoping so, its just seeing them makes me worried if its the right camera to filming outdoors in dirty/dusty conditions.

Isn't the usual formula to pipe the heat away from the chips with a peltier device and then cool the hot side of the peltier? I can't believe that they would have any type of airflow going where the sensor is exposed.

What better way to test the PMW-200 that to shoot some surfing video? Hurricane Leslie created larger than normal waves off the shores of Rhode Island the first week of September, resulting in some great surfing for this area. This video was shot near Point Judith Lighthouse in Narragansett.

Sony PMW-200 camcorder
XDCAM HD422 50Mbps /24P
720P @ 60fps
Century Optics 1.6 teleconverter
Edited in FCP7

A longer 12 minute version for the surfers will be posted in a couple of days.

Surfing at Point Judith, Rhode Island on Vimeo


VortexMedia.com/

Thank you Doug for posting this !!! Looks very good and I like the idea to use the teleconverter for this.

What a strange mixture of colours Doug, it looks like they are surfing on mud in some shots, whilst others are looking more appealing.

It is a strange mixture of colors to me also. In parts it was very pinkish. Is this straight out of the camera or were some scenes graded?

You are correct, the colors were strange. I threw some Magic Bullet looks on the first upload just for the hell of but, but I agree it looked odd.

I have replaced the original with a new version that is straight out of the camera with no grading. So, the differences between shots are now due to being shot on two different days. The first day was overcast and quite dark, the next day was bright sun in late afternoon. I mixed up the order of the shots so it goes back and forth between the two.

The footage from the PMW-200 looks pretty damn good to me - The Sony PMW-200 10 minute challenge on Vimeo

He mentions an aliasing problem, I wonder if this will be an issue. Is there much aliasing on the EX1 / EX1R?

Yes, Philip's video is very good, but you do not give the whole picture with your posting. Philip has graded the colours, so it is not a good example for anyone to judge the camera by, although still a good video.