|
Too bad they're not hosted on DV Info Net.
|
im not getting above 11kb/s :(
|
Just think, if they lived here, you'd have 'em by now.
;-) |
Ivan:
Thank you for the link. So far I have downloaded the xf300 autofocus test. I think this af speed is acceptable for me. Sharpness also OK. |
Very interesting. Dwlded the flash test for XF-300 and there are 3 tests (3 flashes) in the footage only at the first one you get the artifact of the rolling shutter (one line at the bottom) in the other two there is now artifact, in fact the flash is very even in the entire frame. If you watch the video at normal speed you don't even notice it, the flash occures only within 2 frames. Another useful info would have been the value of the shutter. Downloading the EX1R flash test ( I expect it to be as good).
|
Quote:
|
1 Attachment(s)
I played with the XF-305 at a local dealer for a little while yesterday. I was able to grab a few raw recordings on CF but nothing all that interesting other than decent examples of how the camera handled mixed light on the showroom floor. Screen grab is attached from one clip. (near full telephoto, 0 db, F 2.6, 1080 24p, 50 mbs)
Let me just say that I'm impressed overall with the camera. Very professional and extremely well-built. More commentary later. |
What tools are you using to watch these on a Mac? The EX1's MP4s threw an error in the QT player and XF files are MXF.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The clips are hosted on an italian site which was found quite accidentally by Google. I would like they be hosted on DvInfo.net. But sorry I have no rights on them. |
Quote:
Just my two cents I also found this Canon XF300 test and I am very impressed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uMZ486Iq5s |
upload clips to dvinfo?
Hi Barlow,
Thanks for that screen grab. The pic looks really sharp at those settings! Any chance you can upload raw MXF files that you captured? Best, |
XF300 vs EX1 Snapshots
2 Attachment(s)
Here is a few snapshots I took of the vertical pan clips using the VLC player for those that don't want to wait forever to download a clip. The XF300 looks incredible compared against the EX1. I fully understand why the BBC has approved the XF300 for broadcast if these results are anything to go by. Colours are rich, skin tones realistic, and there is clearly more detail in the XF300.
I'm not sure what the test setup was like, looking at the clips the EX1 looks like it was shot in a darker tungsten setup while the XF300 seem to be in a bright daylight environment? Can tthe difference between the two cameras be that far apart? Quote:
|
Nicholas,
I have no info about the lighting conditions during the tests. The site has several other tests of camcoders from different manufacturers. I chose XF300 & EX1R because of their belonging to the same price range. |
There definitely seems to be something odd going on here. Why are the pics so different? Lighting totally different, even the background colour has changed which must mean the settings on the cameras are totally different.
The Canon looks miles sharper than the Sony for sure, but I'd say the Sony image looks nicer in overall terms, less plastic/video looking. But, there's definitely something not right, there's no way the Canon should look that much sharper is there? Steve |
Quote:
|
Seems like too big a difference to be just the lens to me though. The EX1 lens is actually pretty good. On the head shot there is just no detail in the hairs on the EX1 shot at all.
Steve |
Yeah, I have to agree with Steve. It's too weird for my taste. And I've
changed my mind about wanting to host these files. I'll have nothing to do with it at all. This just reaffirms the need for our own controlled side-by-side testing here at DV Info Net. I have plenty of bandwidth available for that. |
Quote:
|
Hi Barlow,
Yeah, that'd be great! And sounds like that Chris has plenty of room for the files :) Best, |
Hey Barlow -- thanks and please shoot me an email, chris at dvinfo dot net.
I've had a couple of other offers from folks with native MXF clips to share as well, so y'all can look for the download links soon. |
Quote:
Ditto, my cynic light was blaring full on the moment I saw the EX footage was a different perspective and exposure. I seem to recall a review of the XL1 you did on your back patio where you used a tractor by the back fence to illustrate you point. And to think, it was just something you "Threw Together" for the XL1 Watchdog. Haha And, as I recall, gathering good information was the genesis for the Watchdog now DVINFO site. |
Thanks Les -- yes the Info in DV Info Net stands for Information
with a capital i, and I believe anything less than real information is worse than useless. That's why I won't allow links to these nonsense "camera rumors" sites and other online junk. We'll work on getting an EX and an XF side by side. |
Quote:
There's a lot I wish I had to time to go over about the camera, but I think comparing it to the EX1 is probably the matchup that makes the most sense. In fact, the XF seems extremely EX-like, with maybe better overall refinements, but with one obvious tradeoff too. (1/3" vs 1/2") |
I think Alister Chapman is hoping to do some tests in a more organised way to demonstrate the real difference (or not) between the 2 cameras.
|
I would just like to thank Ivan for the links.
Maybe the lynchmob could relax a little considering how much useful information these clips give. |
Hi Chris,
Just wanted to make sure you received my email a few days ago. I have footage I shot with a loaner XF305 camera. I'd like to help out if I can. Thanks, Mike |
Hi Mike, you've got mail! Thanks,
|
these were taken by: cowpunk52
Quote:
|
4 Attachment(s)
To throw into the mix for comparison, here are some Canon XL H1S/Nanoflash footage still extractions (shot 24F at 50mb 4:2:2, 0db). Sharpness at 0.
|
interesting. difficult to compare given such different samples - but one thing that I notice right off the bat in the frame grabs is that the XF camera has much less noise than the XL H1S/Nanoflash. It looks like the XF300 at +6db is better than the XL H1S at 0db.
edit - I also see some aliasing in the blonde girl's hair in the XL H1S/Nanoflash grab. I don't notice any in either of the XF300 grabs, but they may not be the best frames to test for that kind of artifact. Alan Roberts does mention in his test report, though, that the XF camera showed no aliasing artifacts at all. |
Quote:
A wide shot (1080 24p), a CU (1080 24p), and just for grins, an overcrank and undercrank shot. Not terribly exciting showroom footage but does show the quality in a less than ideal setting. |
Thanks for shooting and uploading those clips Barlow!
Can't wait to download them and check 'em out on Adobe CS5. Best, |
No prob Jeff, glad to contribute even boring clips. ;-)
Let us know how the mxf files perform in CS5. I'm wondering if they're just as easy to edit as HDV files in terms of RT performance. |
EX1 and XF305 Side by side, same time, same shot raw clips are on my blog, hopefully Chris will pick them up and host them here later.
XDCAM-USER.com Alister’s Blog |
That looks more like it Alister. Much more even as you'd expect.
Steve |
Not much in it. Stock XF305 a little sharper but more fine grain and noise while stock EX1 has less noise but not quite so much fine detail. You can tweak the sharpness up a bit on the EX which increases noise a little or increase noise reduction on 305 which softens the picture a little. The EX is a stop more sensitive, but you can push the gain harder on the 305 by using the noise reduction, so it's swings and roundabouts. I don't like the way the lens operates on the 305, you can have control via zoom rocker or zoom ring but not both together. If your a Canon person, go with the Canon. If your a Sony person stay Sony. There's no reason to jump ship.
|
Thanks for the review Alister. I was surprised to see the EX1 win over the Canon for ergonomics. Compared to my xha1 i found the EX1 awkward, though i've not tried the new model. Also it's interesting to see an overhead shot of the 2 cameras side by side, and note that the Canon is significantly larger.
I'd probably lean towards the xf300 myself, but it looks like there's little to choose between them. |
Nicely done Alister.
According to Alan Roberts, diffraction does not affect resolution on the XFs until you go beyond f8; I would normally work on f5.6 for a third inch sensor. WFM is only available on the LCD BTW Nick. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:51 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network