It's not that I think that only NHU cameras are any good, but that these guys are vastly experienced and working with budgets that most can only dream about and so if they choose one camera (ie HPX2700) over another (ie EX3) there must be a good reason for it.
And again, it's not just NHU, the series for Discovery is nothing to do with the Beeb and they've gone 2700s, same goes for the highly regarded RSPB Film Unit.
Steve

I think in a nutshell that's exactly the *MAIN* reason they went for 2700s. As I said before, camera choice at this level is not solely about codecs, not solely about absolute resolution, not solely about any one single factor. And the weighting of all the factors will depend on the main use to which any camera or system is to be put. So what's judged to be the best currently available model for wildlife may not be appropriate for other types of work.

Currently, varispeed filming realistically means 720 working. Is 1080p better than 720p with full raster chips? Undoubtably yes. Would it be worth giving up slomo etc options for the sake of resolution for a wildlife documentary? I doubt it.

David, "is 1080p better than 720p with full raster chips?" Not neccessarily, there are lots of 1080 cameras that won't be as good as 720 ones.
And as for slomo, the EX3 and PMW350 will do 720 1-60fps exactly the same as the Varicam, so it ain't just that.
Steve

I try to avoid putting "all else equal" into every post several times, but OK, point taken. :-)

I wouldn't expect varispeed capabilities to be the ONLY reason for choosing a wildlife camera, and 2/3" chips would also, I suspect, be high on the list. (Because of the high range of available lenses, including specialist kit, and especially so if you already have an existing 2/3" investment.) It's for reasons like that I wouldn't expect any non-2/3" camera to be chosen, including the EX3. Legacy issues may also apply - if your entire workflow is set up around P2, it's a big incentive to maintain the status quo, even if something else better comes along. A very different story if you're making the first moves from tape.

If the varispeed capability of the PMW350 matches that of the 2700, it may well be the way of the future for wildlife as well as other programming. (Ignoring anything else in the pipeline from Panasonic.) But the 350 isn't available until next month. At some point, planning has to happen on the basis of what's available at the time.

It is worth remembering that in the U.S., ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, and all Fox Networks are 720/60P. I've had to submit D5 and SR tapes in 720/60P to Fox.

When it comes to the original Varicam, there are many, many DP's who still call it the most filmic of all 2/3" video cameras. Many say 720P is kinder to talent. Most 720P was acquired in 720X960 via DVCPRO HD. 720P field acquisition has become better with AVC-Intra and XDCAM EX, 422 being full sample 720X1280.

At Varicamp recently in LA, a large internet company had their video department in attendance because they had recently bought three HPX3700's. They were more than a bit surprised when this six figure investment in cameras would not allow them to shoot 720 or any progressive frame rates over 30 fps(much as Alister didn't know about the 30 fps limit). Apparently they hadn't read the brochure before purchasing. On the last day of the training, they could be seen huddling with Panasonic management, presumably talking about trading in the 3700's for 2700's.

This talk of Panasonic discounting the 2700 due to it being 720P ignores the fact that the 3700 was also discounted the same percentage under the trade-in program. It is also unfair to say that Panasonic gives away cameras or support for high profile productions. Sony has been doing this for as long as I can remember. This is not what put the Varicam reputation on the map.

The Varicam name still holds a lot of cache in the US in higher-end production circles and the P2 Varicams offer a big step forward in most areas. However, the HPX3700 should not have been called a Varicam due to its lack of frame rate flexibility. The 2700 is the true successor to the original Varicam models.

I haven't heard whether or not the Sony 350 XDCAM EX or 700/800 XDCAM 422 cameras do frame ramping during recording, which the Varicam is known for?

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
Shooting Star Video

There's a significant number of stations in Europe that are also currently 720p/50 (though in a minority). It makes sense (at the moment) for one which is fundamentally all sport or similar live action, much less so when a mixture of programming (especially films and drama) are shown, since 1080i/25 also allows 1080p/25 transmission via psf. The EBU also recommend 720p/50 as the current preferred format for transmission.

So why do they then advocate 1920x1080 chips and codecs as preferred for acquisition? It may be quite a while before we see 1080p/50 transmission, though it's the ultimate goal, but in the meantime there are strong moves towards 1080p/50 ACQUISITION. Partly to get the infrastructure in place for when 1080p/50 transmission is feasible, partly for best quality archiving, but mainly because it seamlessly converts to either 720p/50 or 1080i/25. If that becomes the inter-broadcaster standard, no stations will feel disadvantaged by their chosen transmission standard

In the meantime, 1920x1080 chips are optimum for 1080p/25 production, and downconvert well to 720p. Whereas 720p upconversion can't make good resolution that was never there.
A good story! Shows a pretty fundamental lack of research on behalf of the buyers, but also begs the question why the 3700 has no 720p/60 recording mode? So take full advantage of the chip resolution when in 1080p or 1080i/30 mode, yet still offer 720p/60 and the varispeed capabilities of the 2700 when desired.

Well Panasonic fooled me too. I read all the talk of the 3700 being a Varicam so assumed it had the full range of Varicam features, especially as it is a much more expensive camera. I had assumed (incorrectly) that it would due 60P, albeit at 720P. I'm quite shocked that it doesn't. Certainly makes the NHU's choice a lot narrower.

No the 350 doesn't ramp while shooting.

Alister,

That's right, the Varicam name should imply variable frame rates up to 60 fps, this is why I thought it didn't make sense from a feature set or marketing strategy to call the 3700 a Varicam. I had been saying this for months. The Varicamp co-instructor said the same thing and felt that "HPX3700 RGB", due to its 4:4:4 dual link output ability, was a better name.

How many HD SDI outputs does the 350 have? Specs show only one, is that correct? I really like having three HD SDI outputs on the 2700 so I don't have to get into looping or DA's for monitoring.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
Shooting Star Video

Not true on NatGeo, they are still 720P.

Yes, Nat Geo is a Fox channel, all of which are 720P.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
Shooting Star Video

And presumably they're not inundated with viewers writing in to complain about their picture quality!
I think that may be the key, at a certain point something is just "good enough" meaning that if you increase the quality you can measure the difference and post specs and side by side comparisons but in it's final form there is no difference. It's very much the same with stills, the difference in image quality from a £300 consumer DSLR and a £5000 pro one is not really significant on the web, in magazines, in 10x8 prints. It's only when you do massive enlargements that it shows. Ditto with moving picture I guess, you'll notice some difference on the big screen - they did when turning Planet Earth into Earth for cinema release, the producers' first criticism of Varicam, that it didn't hold up so well as the 1080 cams. The biggest problem though AFAIK when making Earth was stabilising shots as the long lens work showed lots of wobble when maginified - hence from then on we've all been urged to get bigger tripods (Ronford Atlas, O'Connor 2060 etc.)!
Steve

Steve, the push is not just for 1080, but for 1080p at 50 or 60fps. Such a standard would make things easy because as David pointed out it can be downconverted very well to 720p/50/60 as well as 1080p/25/30 very easily.

Sony have already gone some way towards this with chips that support this. I believe SR can handle these framerates already, and most new TV's with HDMI can also display it already. Sanyo have already kickstarted it at a consumer level with their new Xacti cameras. All that is needed is for more professional cameras to start supporting it. Using LongGOP compression as per digital broadcasting the datarate does not need to be hugely higher than it is already either.

But also the other thing you missed is that although broadcasters might be showing 720p now, many of them want to be secure for the future. 1080p at higher framerates would mean that there wouldn't be the current spaghetti mess of which HD format to shoot in any more. Regarding the wildlife, with the rarity of many of the things being filmed it would certainly make sense to use a camera that would be capable of 1080p/50/60 as soon as possible.

I'm sure you're right Simon that 1080 is the goal, but I think you missed my point re image quality - at some point good enough is good enough. I don't know anyone who's complained about the quality of Planet Earth for instance either on HD broadcast or BluRay. For TVs even upto 50" while there's no harm in having it 1080 there's probably no desperate need from a viewer perspective.
You raise an interesting point re 1080/50 or 60P. If a programme is transmitted at 50P that'll mean that for even half speed slomo in camera of course we'll need a 1080/120P camera. We'll all have to get Phantoms!
Steve

In principle you're absolutely right. But what's good enough on a 19" screen is not good enough on a 100" screen, given the same viewing distances!

OK, that's a bit flippant, but a lot of work was done a few years ago to try to discover exactly what "good enough" was. The conclusion was in favour of 720p - but unfortunately the research became out of date almost before it was published. Not through any fault of the researchers, but because screen technology and sizes improved way faster than anybody thought.

For UK homes, the average viewing distance is about 2.7m, and that's remained pretty constant for a long time. The research was assuming about 37" as the "norm" screen size for the foreseeable future, and at the time the best resolution on domestic screens was typically about 1350x768. That's nowhere near true anymore, as a trip to any High Street proves. I've got a 1920x1080 42" Panasonic, but 46" and even 50" are quite common now, and it's hard not to get 1920x1080. The same research indicated that 720p wasn't "good enough" for a very significant percentage of viewers for those screen sizes.

Hence the drive to 1920x1080. True, the full advantage may not be seen on all screens, but that's no argument for not trying as hard as is practical, certainly for top end production. Neither 720p nor 1080i are seen as totally satisfactory for transmission, but they are currently the best that's realistically practical. Transmission to home of 1080p may still be a way off, but that's no excuse for not producing as such unless there are overriding factors - and the importance of varispeed for wildlife filming is a good example of that at the moment.

Only for slow motion - the whole point of 720p in this context is it assumes 720p/25 as the viewing format, for overcranking to give slow motion. If you're transmitting 720p/50, such as the 2700 won't give slow motion.

Which is why what's really needed is a camera with 1920x1080 chips, able to give 1080p/25 recording for normal speed shooting, but be switchable to 720p/25 when overcranking is needed. Accept the resolution drop just for off-speed work. It's really not surprising that the people Jeff earlier referred to got caught out by assuming the 3700 did just that. Why the 720 mode was missed off it is totally beyond me.

That's true. Which is why we need 1080@120 :-)

The trouble with that is that it is a pain to do. The EX can do this, but I hate having to switch resolution modes. It means going into a menu, which takes time, and sometimes the event I want to capture goes by. So if I know I might need to do off speed shooting a fair bit I will just shoot 720p. That way I can just press a button on the side, dial in my framerate and press record. Or if my framerate is set I just press the button followed by record.

So it would be better to have a 1080/60 capable camera. There's nothing stopping the main recording being 25p while the offspeed is up to 60. Just as now you shoot 720/25 with 60fps overcrank instead of just using 720/60.

Though really I would argue that shooting at 25p so that slow motion can be seen is sort of a fake effect. 25p is such a slow framerate that surely a camera that shoots 120fps for slow mo and 50 or 60p as normal is far more desirable? Decent slow motion in 50 or 60p playback. Ultra slow motion for 25p shoots.

Well, we know there are large sensor RAW cameras that can shoot higher frame rates, although many producers don't know that the RED One shrinks the sensor size the higher the frame rate selected, losing resolution.

The HPX3700 consumes 38 watts, 10 watts more than the 2700 due to the full raster CCD's. The Sony SRW9000 consumes 57 watts in power save mode without any option cards. Hopefully this will go down once the large sensor CMOS option and SSD recording options appear in 2011 or so.

1080/60P with CCD's is expensive and power hungry, wasn't practical for Panasonic to do with the 3700. Certainly the P2 cards have the throughput to deal with bit rates in the 600Mbps range. Why they couldn't provide 720P at any frame rate for the 3700 or 3000, I don't understand.

I love the convenience and frame rate flexibility that shooting in 720P provides. With my 2700, I can choose two different frame rates on user buttons. I can ramp from any frame rate to any other within 1-60 fps while recording and back, if I want. Not to mention being able to record 160 minutes on a single 64Gb P2 card in 720/24PN vs. 80 minutes in 1080/24PN.

My screening room has me seated 10' from a 100" screen. I can tell the difference between 480P and 576P compared to 720P, but I cannot see the difference between 720P and 1080/60i. Indeed, on the high end projector forums, the projector enthusiasts, who are actually pretty critical in their viewing, can't tell the difference between 720P and 1080P projectors with 120" screens or smaller. I can tell looking at pixel structure in white titles, but not on normal live action at normal viewing distances.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
Shooting Star Video

Jeff, I know that BBC did viewings when Varicam first came out, on projectors and big monitors and looked at pictures from both Sony F900/750 and Varicam and many decided subjectively that the Varicam just looked better. Perhaps not due to sharpness alone, as has been said it has a very nice quality to the image apart from sharpness.
Simon, I actually don't find it too bad changing mode on the EX3, it was the PDW700 where it was a nightmare - 2 problems over the way it's done on the EX3, first you have to power down for the change to take effect, second you have to change the bloody dsc as they won't do 1080 and 720 on the same one!
1080/60 (let alone 1080/120) does seem to be a struggle for CCD cameras, and with CMOS you've always got skew issues, and if you're after slomo the chances are your subject is moving fast and hence likely to induce skew. It really does seem like a good solution is a pretty long way off - but you never know with the way technology advances. I've never seen skew when shooting with the Phantom HD, but perhaps it becomes less and less evident when shooting really high frame rates?
Steve

Depends what kind of CMOS sensor they use. Skew isn't necessarily something that happens on CMOS regardless. CMOS chips can be made with zero skew, but is expensive and difficult, and I believe also reduces the effective light gathering area due to more jiggery pokery having to be crammed onto it. Someone else other than I will know the specific reasons.

The Phantom may not be showing skew due to the sheer speed of it. At 500-140,000fps that sensor is going to have to be clearing at a phenomenal rate.

I think it's not actually CMOS as such it's whether it has a global or rolling shutter. Global shutters of course have no skew, but that's the bit that's expensive I believe.
Pretty sure the Phantom has a rolling shutter actually, as does the RED of course. There is another highspeed camera called the Weisscam which I believe has a global shutter.
Steve

All XDCAM HD cameras can now record multiple formats and frame rates on the same disc, so no need to change disc anymore.

Nat Geo specify delivery on HDCAM SR at 1920x1080.

I can clearly see the drop in resolution when channels switch from 1920x1080 to 720P on my 42" TV.

Alister,

That's odd because Nat Geo's commercial submission specs call for 720/59.94P on D-5 or SR, according to a document I have dated 9-1-08. I wonder why they would have two sets of HD standards for submissions?

At normal viewing distances I cannot see a difference between a well upconverted 720P image and a 1080/60i to 60P converted signal on a 42" 1080P LCD display.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
Shooting Star Video

A couple of notes. I spent a fair amount of time at Abel Cine in NY (Thanks Charlie and Andy) with the 350 they now have on the showroom floor. The packaged Fuji is a useable lens not spectacular. All my comments are based on this lens not any other. Also the camera settings have not been optimized so the colors were nice but not seductive. typical Sony out of the box look. On the showroom floor was a Panasonic 300 next to it and a 700 or 800 (can't remember which). In truth the 700 looked a little sweeter than the 350 but it did have a good piece of glass on it and had been set up where the 350 was just out of the box.. The differences between the 300 and 350 on the monitors was not night and day. Depth of field and sensitivity a nod to 350. Color and size went to the 300. The 350 body is lighter than the 700 but the same height and length. It is thinner than the 700.
Sony 350 was better on motion blur and roll from Cmos than 300. Not sure you could shoot any differently with it but Sony does have some advantage in that respect. Camera was very clean so you could see very little extra noise in the first few gain positions. This may turn out to be a godsend in the field but at the showroom it was not as important.
Viewfinder is pretty nice and seems sharp enough to tell focus while showing Color. Of course everything looks rough edgy with the peaking in the viewfinder compared to the actually pictures coming out of the monitor.
Playback controls were a little odd as you can get clip view and or use the play rewind controls like the disc and tape cameras on top. once you selected a clip you still hit play on the top controls. Also you had to hit stop to get back to camera it didn't go back to clip view at the end but stayed on the last frame still. May be software settable.
The lens is similar to the Fuji that comes with the 300. What I really noticed was the 16X ends up being only slightly wider than the one on the 300 17X but is definitely not as long as the 300 lens. Personally I don't like the Auto Manual switch on either lens as it goes forward and back instead of side to side but it is a minor complaint. Andy Shipsides was noticing the zoom was a little sticky at slow speeds and seemed to be difficult to feather starting and stopping. Not sure if this is intrinsic or not. The focus had no breathing which was nice if you want to do a rack.
Overall it is a much better package than the EX-3 if you have the dough and don't mind the bigger size (which is easier to use). Not sure how much of a premium people will pay for it in rental but it certainly would be a good choice for the run and gun doc news crowd as well as medium to high end industrial work.

Hey Alistair,
Good point on the disc info.

As far as delivery of a Master to Nat Geo that doesn't mean the spec for production precludes using something else as most are not shooting on HDCAM SR in the field. Of course over time I think production people will prefer the higher pixel number formats but the end viewer will not necessarily care.

As far as seeing a resolution drop between 720 and 1080 on your TV I think there are many possible explanations.
In my experience monitors tend to look better when receiving the signal they are meant to display compared to the transcoding done to display the other formats they might be receiving so a 1080 monitor has to scale a 720 signal so you may be seeing the difference caused by the monitor electronics or the cable box not necessarily what the signal would look like on a 42 inch 720 display. Fair side by side tests are hard to come by

I agree with Alister, the difference between 720 and 1080 is noticeable, I'm viewing on a 37" Plasma and I can see the resolution difference between many of the aerial shots on "Planet Earth" shot at 1080 and the 720 Varicam shots, I'm also not at all impressed with most of Nat Geo HD's output, If I switch to Rush HD which has much more 1080 material the difference is obvious, even my wife can spot it.

Steve,
While I agree with your observations about HD outputs and what looks better on your monitor I still think the argument as to why you are seeing what you are seeing is not as easy an answer as you think. Everything is being transcoded and recoded depending on the edit as well as transmission so what we end up seeing at home can be handicapped towards one side or the other. My set up at home evolved over a few days while I got the correct cables and I can tell you there was more of a difference in what the cable box was doing to the signal than almost any production issue. First off try looking at an SD signal box into an HD set. My old Sony Trinitron CRT looked better using that signal than the new HD sets. When I got the HD set top box the HD set blew away the old CRT I had. Still had some issues until I had the HDMI cable compared to the analog HD component cable. I also noticed that SD signals had improved once I was in HDMI Land on the same monitor. I did notice however that color saturation, brightness and contrast changed from looking at the SD signal to the HD signal of the same program leading me to the conclusion that there are differences in the signal path which I can only set up to completely correctly if I don't change the channel. Also watching different channels I see tremendous differences in how they approach detail. Again all of this doesn't preclude what you are saying but I attribute a bit more variance to the distribution end making absolute judgments tenuous at best. I do know that all this technical stuff has very little to do with actual content of the programs so my feeling is if you are noticing differences in a program from one shot to the next then there is a production consistency issue not only a 1080 vs 720 issue.

Daniel I've been an online editor for about 15 years and I've been on-lining HD for the last 5 years so I'm up to speed on how monitors and television vary by setup.

What I'm saying is it is possible to spot the difference during a single programme between 1080 and 720 material where there are no differences in setup

Whether the paying public can tell the difference most of the time that's another question.

Steve,
Merry Xmas. I don't disagree that it is possible to spot the difference between 1080 and 720 material in the same program at home but the certainty as to why and what you are seeing is much harder to determine as it is not like you actually know the process that was used to put the image on your home set unlike say looking at it when you are doing the online.
Again since the specs are different it is almost impossible to use side by side comparisons of the same material in both 1080 and 720 handled optimally in both and then displayed optimally in both. As you know if you online material in 1080 then any 720 material has to be converted to 1080 at some point. Same goes for 1080 converted to 720. It is also almost impossible to match the set up of cameras so they have the same visual characteristics unless they have been matched side by side which would seem unlikely if setting them up to record 720 and 1080.
What I will say is if you see differences when you do the online they may still be visible by the time it reaches somebodies home TV.
Have a nice Holiday

Spatially, there are twice as many pixels per frame in 1080 as there are in 720. Theoretically that should be visible and apparent. If that advantage cannot be observed, it owes to degradation from the down processing of the 1080 rather than some inate ability of 720 to upscale into something that looks better than it is. So the choice given, is whether to target to the lowest common denominator with 720, or to the peak potential of the HD formats with 1080. I choose the latter.

As to whether in practice it's possible to recognize all of the transmission/conversion factors at play when a signal is broadcast, it appears to me that 720p football broadcasts on ABC/ESPN always appear inferior detail-wise to 1080i images broadcast by CBS or NFL network. There must be something to this, because I have never been able to make the judgement that 720p looked better. That includes viewing on 50 inch plasma monitors both 720p native and 1080p native panels. I have both. I believe 1080i downscales to 720p at least as well as 720p displays natively on my 720p panel. On the 1080p panel, 720p loses decisively.

Wish this had been the case before I sold my PDW700! Why can't they just make the products with all these features before they release them?
I must admit that I can see a "resolution drop" in Planet Earth Bluray going from aerials to Varicam stuff, but saying that you can see it when going from the aerials to the Emperor penguins - and that was shot on 35mm, so what does that say? The other difference I see between the 1080 and 720 is that the 720 looks smoother, more gentle and more subtle - maybe even less "video-like" than the biting sharp aerials, got to be a good thing. Is there such a thing as "too sharp" - perhaps.
Steve

The team developing these firmware upgrades are pretty small and they are under a lot of pressure so they don't often put everything in from the start so they can make release deadlines while keeping it reliable. What Sony usually do is design the cameras with a lot of features in mind and built in with the capability for later when the firmwares have been tested. Sometimes though I think that they discover that they can do something that they didn't think they previously could.

When XDCAM was first released it didn't have half the features we now take for granted. It took over a year before the Standard def cameras were given the ability to delete clips in the middle of a disc for example. The cache record wasn't present until a couple of firmware revisions after release. Although I have to admit that many of these features were listed as coming along so I was aware that my camera would get them eventually.

The ability to mix formats has been long overdue. I've never been sure why it hasn't been able to do it from the start given that were are talking about a file based recording system.

Fair enough I suppose.
I remember there was a firmware update when I still had the 700 that allowed "mixed formats" all on one disc and I thought that was problem solved, but it turned out to be just the ability to mix xdcam 422 and 420 etc. rather than allowing both 1080 and 720 on the same disc. Is it the case then that now you can mix 1080 and 720?
Steve

I continue to maintain that at normal viewing distances, the resolution difference is not easily discernible on live action content.

A couple of takes on 720/60P vs. 1080/60i, first from ZD Net:

"We still believe that when you’re dealing with TVs 50 inches and smaller, the added resolution has only a very minor impact on picture quality. On a regular basis in our HDTV reviews, we put 720p (or 768p) sets next to 1080p sets, then feed them both the same source material, whether it’s 1080i or 1080p, from the highest-quality Blu-ray and HD DVD players. We typically watch both sets for a while, with eyes darting back and forth between the two, looking for differences in the most-detailed sections, such as hair, textures of fabric, and grassy plains. Bottom line: It’s almost always very difficult to see any difference–especially from farther than 8 feet away on a 50-inch TV…."

This from Wikipedia:

"When broadcast at 60[1] frames per second, 720p features the highest temporal (motion) resolution possible under the ATSC standard. Progressive scanning reduces the need to prevent flicker by filtering out fine details, so sharpness is much closer to 1080i than the number of scan lines would suggest.[2][3]"

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
Shooting Star Video

But it's not just 720p/60 v 1080i/30. What about 720p/24 v 1080psf/24? (Both of which are how "film-look" material is carried over 720p/60 or 1080i/30 networks, respectively.) Then it becomes a very different argument, with 1080psf/24 most definately superior to 720p/24. And since the Varicam really needs a final 24/25 fps output to have any slow motion capability, I'd argue this is where we should be looking at for the comparison.

Equally, 1080p/60 is being looked forward to as the next big step, apart from 3D TV, and that's unarguably better than 720p/60. There's a place for 720 at the moment, due to technical restrictions, but it gives little scope to take advantage of future technology.

I can't claim to have been around at the time, but in the late 50s, early 60s there was debate about what should happen with colour in the UK. There was a quite a lobby in favour of NTSC on 405 lines, the arguments being that it wouldn't mean as big an upheaval in legacy equipment and could be implemented sooner. The proponents also crucially (and reasonably accurately) argued that the technology of the day meant the viewer wouldn't see such a vast difference at home - that 405 NTSC was "good enough". The counter argument was that technology was likely to improve, and it was necessary for the underlying system to be good enough to be able to take advantage of new technology. Fortunately (IMO) that won the day, and 625 line TV was established as standard.

It's a similar argument now. If you're going to go through all the upheaval of a format and system change, it makes sense for the improvement not to be incremental, but allow scope for future improvement. 1080 offers that far more than 720.

David,

Agreed, 1080P should be the goal, if not 2K or 4K resolution. Having said that, too many of us get caught up in pixel counting, aka RED One @4K. I'd rather shoot with an F35 at 1080P for television due to the better latitude, sensitivity, lower noise, in-camera painting.

I had a line doubled NTSC image in the early '90's on an industrial Sony CRT projector, shot test footage for Faroudja Labs in 35mm and video when line doublers were being developed.

I had off-air HD in '99 via a $2000 ATSC digital receiver and a 1080P DLP projector in 2006, when they became available. I expected to see a big difference between 720P and 1080i. Never happened. I often shoot resolution charts and the same live action scenes in 1080/24P and 720/24P with my EX1, playback via HD SDI and can't see a big difference in the live action on the projector. Yes, resolution charts can show some detail difference.

Since owning an HDX900 and HPX2700, I believe 720P is a great format for most of my client's needs. Nobody has ever complained about the resolution of these cameras when shooting in 720P or 1080P. AVC-Intra 100 is full sample in 720P, so that's a step up over DVCPRO HD. I love being able to push a button for overcranking on one of the 2700's user buttons anytime. In fact, I have the VFR button set to 48 fps, and a second user button on 60 fps.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video
Shooting Star Video

Not sure that's what I said Steve, I actually said I could spot the difference between the 720 and 1080 material. I'd be surprised if the 35mm material was telecined to 720, however I do stand to be corrected on that.

You're right in one respect though, badly set up cameras with too much detail in 1080 don't make great pictures once they get down the transmission path.

We actually shoot a lot of 720 50 material for online projects and it can look very good. However when correctly set up, a good 1080 picture does have the edge over 720 for me.

But it's a goal that's available now! At least if we are talking about 24/25 fps frame rates. That was the point of the previous post. Arguing the merits of 720p v 1080i is one matter, 720p v 1080p quite another. And both 720p/25 and 1080p/25 are easily achievable now, not as a future goal, and with 1080p/25 easily superior.

The question originally asked was HPX2700 or PMW350, and it may be time to address that directly once again. Technically, the main differences between the two are that the 2700 can record with a "fully approved" codec (AVC-Intra 100), whilst the 350 has "fully approved" chips (1920x1080). The obvious question to ask then is which makes the most difference?

I don't think there's any simple answer to that - any more than being asked "which would you least mind losing, an arm or a leg?" But the possibility of being able to add an external recorder to the PMW350 changes everything.

Operationally, the main feature the 2700 has in it's favour is varispeed ramping, which may be of prime importance for such as wildlife filming. In pretty well every other way, it's outdone by the PMW350 - far lower power consumption, lighter, compatible with next gen radio mics, cheaper media, ability to dub in camera (including to consumer media) etc etc.

I can only conclude that for most users that means the PMW350 is the better camera. That becomes especially true if the Panasonic offer cutting the price of the 2700 does indeed end in a few days time, and it becomes vastly dearer than the 350. If that does happen, I can't see many more 2700s getting sold.....

Quote "Operationally, the main feature the 2700 has in it's favour is varispeed ramping, which may be of prime importance for such as wildlife filming."

You're pretty deluded if you believe that David. And to answer your question, no ramping is not very important in wildlife filming. I, and I'm sure others, toyed with it briefly when we first got it but it's not a great use or interest. So with that in mind then obviously all these hugely experienced film-makers, cameramen and prodcuers have made the wrong choice then - they should have checked DvInfo first I guess.
Steve

All right - maybe that should have been better worded ""Operationally, the main feature the 2700 has in it's favour compared to the PMW350 is varispeed ramping..........", but since the whole thread is about comparing those two cameras, I thought that was taken as read. Yes, of course other operational features are obviously far more important than varispeed abilities (such as taking 2/3" lenses) - but what others can you think of that the PMW350 DOESN'T offer?

I've listed quite a few above in the PMW350s favour, and might also add better sensitivity, but I'm curious to know what makes you think the 2700 would be the better choice NOW? What you think it offers that the 350 doesn't? (Bearing in mind the 350 was only announced a month or so back, so peoples past choices couldn't have taken it into account.)

David,

In the U.S. 1080/60i is what is available for broadcast reception. The goal should be 1080/60P, but of course it requires a whole lot more bandwidth.

Regarding media for a 350 vs. 2700, 32Gb SxS cards cost between $750 and $845, 32Gb P2 cards between $595 and $650. The 32Gb E series card has a throughput of 1.2Gbps vs. 800Mbps for SxS. While XDCAM EX will allow for longer record times than DVCPRO HD or AVC-Intra 100, the 2700 also has AVC-Intra 50 as a longer record time option--160 minutes in 720/24PN, still at 10-bit, albeit 4:2:0. A 64Gb P2 card would have double that record capacity.

The XDCAM EX codec isn't on the same level as AVC-Intra 100, so an external recorder is necessary, with the smallest on-board options limited to 8-bit, the other options are too large for hand held operation. Intra allows for in-board 10-bit I-Frame recording--there is no better memory card internal recorder available in a one-piece 2/3" camera.

If native full raster 1080 is required, I would rather buy a used HPX3000 for $20K with the advantage of no CMOS artifacts, Panasonic colorimetry, Film-Rec gammas, DRS, five card record capacity, three HD-SDI outputs, and of course, a much better codec.

I don't think the 350 is going to sell well because an EX3 does much the same for less than half the money. The 2X + cost of a 350 won't translate into twice the day rate of an EX3, I'm guessing. I can rent my 2700 for twice the rate of a 350, most likely.

Again, the XDCAM EX codec is a crippling factor for those likely to be interested in a 2/3" camera, ditto the low end glass for many(although that's easy to change for more $$). The lack of HD SDI outputs would be bothersome, the ergonomic problem of not being able to put your left hand over the zoom servo due to the large viewfinder being in the way is a problem if needing servo zooms and not using a remote zoom control.

The Varicam frame rate ramping is useful for commercials, music videos and other specialized applications. The Varicam name is known for high end production around the world, the 350 is Sony's lowest cost 2/3" camera for a reason--codec and CMOS limitations.

I think the 59db SN of the 350 is fantastic, ditto the sensitivity, frame rate and gamma options, low power consumption, weight, but I don't like the codec or external recorder concept(did that with HDX900/FireStore), don't want CMOS artifact potential. I agree that a 2700 at $40K again is a non-starter, but at $20K for a few more days, I'd make the same choice again.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video