I think you'll have to ask the producers rather than me. As Jeff says, the EX3 has been out ages and has more or less what the 350 has to offer (maybe a tiny bit less image quality, but on the other hand lighter, less battery hungry, more lens power, all good things for wildlife). Suggest to the guys at the NHU or Wild Horizons who are making the new Discovery mega series that they should have gone with EX3s (or 350s) and see what they say. I haven't asked them specifically but I can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't even considered, let alone a close call and they went for 2700s - they are not even discussed in the same sentences for blue chip natural history.
Steve

Jeff, are you aware of what is meant by "psf" - "progressive, segmented frame"? If not, look at Progressive segmented frame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . In essence, "This technique allows for a progressive picture to be processed through the same electronic circuitry that is used to store, process and route interlaced video."

So although the fundamental system used in the US for 1080 work is interlaced, it can (via psf) equally well carry progressive images, though not at any frame rates higher than the fundamental system rate. So 30p is OK, so is 24p with pull down, but not 60p.

It's exactly because of this that many broadcasters have gone with 1080 transmissions rather than 720. For subjects which need good motion rendition, there may not much to choose between 1080i and 720p, but when you think of drama, film etc - where 24/25fps motion is desired - 1080psf makes a lot more sense than 720p.
But then you lose any 720p ability, and the ability to do much in the way of slow motion at all. Full-raster chips are a good thing, but the ability to give a 720p downconvert should go along with them.
I see the 350 and EX3 as very different cameras - mainly down to form factor, chip size and the ability to take 2/3" lenses. The 350 is also far more suitable for use with professional accessories such as radiomics, and the stories I'm starting to hear are that it's likely to sell very well indeed. We'll see.

When those decisions were being made, the PMW350 wasn't even on the horizon, and I'd be the first to say that the 2700 was a more appropriate choice for the programmes you mention than EX3s (largely down to 2/3" lens versatility).

So leaving all that aside, then I'm interested to hear what YOU think the 2700 offers that the 350 doesn't? Codec yes, but I'd say that is pretty well balanced out by lower res chips, and the ability to add an external recorder to a 350 anyway. I've listed some ways in which the 350 is superior, what features would you point to that you think are superior in the 2700 rather than the 350?

If the choice of camera for those programmes was being made NOW (with the 350 in the frame), why now choose it over the 2700?

Quote "If the choice of camera for those programmes was being made NOW (with the 350 in the frame), why now choose it over the 2700?"
Couldn't really say for definite, but I know that it'd still be the choice. As I said, the 2 cameras would not even be discussed in the same sentence for blue chip nat hist. The EX3 not being 2/3" as I have said is actually a plus point for wildlife. Both the standard and wide lenses on the EX3 I've found very good, so that's not a problem, and stick an HJ40 on there and you've got even more reach than on a 2/3" camera. As to whether the HJ40 and HJ18x28 would suffer due to a smaller chip I don't know, maybe, and that could be a factor and would mean that the 350 is more suitable.
Even for those series already in production like Frozen Planet, if the 350 was so good it'd be worth trading in the 2700s for them as you'd get plenty of change. Can't really see it happening or even being considered though. The new big Africa series is in pre-production at the NHU now, due for completion in 2013 I think, guess what cameras they're going to buy/use? It's not the 350, and again I doubt whether it's even been considered.
Steve

David,

I think we've gone over these points before. I hope the OP has learned enough to make their own informed choice. No one camera can be right for every project. No question that the 350 offers a lot of flexibility at any price point, much less $20K with lens.

Yes, I'm very familiar with Psf, having shot with Sony cameras, both HD and SD in 24 and 30 fps for years. Problem is what can and does happen in post or distribution or broadcast where interlace artifacts are introduced for a myriad of reasons. With 720P broadcast, no need to worry about interlace artifacts, theoretically.

I will once again go over some reasons why I would go with a 2700 again:

P2 cards are proven since 2004 in the harshest production environments, the cards are very robust, have the fastest throughput and support multiple codecs, so are scalable for the future. Work flow is well supported by Panasonic and third party hardware and software manufacturers and known well. They offer their best codecs at lower price points, not protecting their high end models like Sony does, limiting the image quality of lower cost models such as the 350. They offer a five year warranty on many models.

Panasonic is known for great colorimetry, tonality, flesh tones. Sony cameras are known to come out of the box looking more videoish, harsher.

Varicam is a known name, synonymous with high end quality, frame rate flexibility and Film-Rec gammas. The P2 Varicams improve upon this reputation, and offer a look that many DP's consider to be the most filmic of 2/3" cameras. They can do frame rate ramping while recording.

CCD's are generally preferred over CMOS sensors because of skew and flash band artifacts in some cases with the latter.

Every high-end DIT I know, as well as colorist or online editor prefers 10-bit formats, which AVC-Intra provides. Most prefer I-Frame frame structure as well, and definitely 4:2:2 vs. 4:2:0. The 350 offers none of these things using the low end version of XDCAM HD.

All XDCAM codec versions are MPEG2 based vs. MPEG4 for Intra, considered a more efficient, modern codec.

Panasonic P2 cameras of the 2000 and 3000 series hold five cards for extended, uninterrupted recording time.

Three HD SDI outputs are found on the 2700 vs. only one for the 350. This requires looping or DA'ing for multiple monitors, necessary for higher end shoots.

Some camera operators don't like color viewfinders and/or LCD, LCOS viewfinders, no choice with the 350.

Bottom line, there is much to recommend both cameras, given similar pricing. For some, native 1080 sensors are required, even if CMOS artifacts could be evident from time to time, for others, CCD's and the most flexibility with off-speed frame rates is useful.

As a rental house, I already own an EX1 and am not convinced my clients would be willing to spend twice as much or more for a 350, even though I'm a big fan of 2/3" cameras. Indeed, many don't see the need for any 2/3" camera these days.

The OP asked for opinions and he got them, no one is right or wrong in their camera choice, both will provide lovely images in the right hands and often even in the wrong ones!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

XDCAM-EX 35mbps codec is exactly one of the reasons why I want this cam. Not everybody is handing over footage to a network for final editing and grading. XDCAM-EX video smart renders, and then goes straight onto Blu-ray writable media as is. I can hand over the finished product faster than AVC Intra can transcode, and yet there remains the viable option of the nanoflash, and inexpensive media. I can't remotely fathom how the low end glass is a crippling factor. It's inexpensive, purely optional, plus it's autofocus.

AVC Intra isn't going onto Blu-ray media the way it is, so it's workflow is built-in handicapped when time is money. I see lots of great live HDTV 1080 video from CBS, the NFL, the Masters, none of it is going to the edit booth, none of it is being received at 100 mbps 10 bit. It arrives at a mere 10-12 mbps, looks as good as anything broadcast on National Geographic (arguably better to me), and Blu-ray remains the premier display format for the end user.

We don't even know if CMOS per the PMW350 will have the previous artifacting problems. It certainly brings some documented benefits, lighter weight, lower power consumption, low noise and high sensitivity.

If the Panasonic colorimetry is so unique, you could question the need for AVC Intra since the out of the box look should be signature, and no one needs 100 mbps just to capture detail and artifact-free motion for anything but extreme circumstances.

XDCAM-EX speed is a 'quality' unto itself, as is the inherent suitability for Blu-ray. It is exactly one of the desired features for me that separates it from the 700 and 800 line which have the CCD, writable disk workflow, and higher bit rate preferred by many in broadcast.

Some good points Tom for sure, and certainly there are different needs for different uses.
AVC Intra is preferred because it gives extra resolution and is 10 bit.
Steve

Yes but then it goes out over broadcast at much lower bitrate and 8 bit. The advantage, if it was not used up front for grading, either evaporated or was not necessary. If the footage was going to be graded, than any high bitrate codec (i.e. nanoflash) can be pushed to achieve the Panasonic look, colorimetry in post.

In other words, XDCAM-EX codec is not mutually exclusive of higher performance codecs captured from the SDI via Nanoflash and the like, but the 2700 doesn't have a codec that ports straight to Blu-ray without time consuming downsampling.

Many people don't care a whit about Blu-ray, that is true. But I do.

Tom,

Just so you know, DVCPRO HD and AVC-Intra 100 record at only 40Mbps in 720/24PN. With Panasonic E series P2 cards and PCD35 P2 reader into a desktop with PCIe slot, the download times are amazingly fast due to the 1.2Gbps throughput on the cards.

Low-end glass would be a non-starter for high end 2/3" HD cameras in the rental business. I have DP clients who insist upon Fujinon HA series HD lenses, no XA or ZA, even though they are also very expensive lenses. To put an HA lens or any higher end glass on a 350 would not make too much sense, unless the rental rate went way up, which would be out of line with the specs of an 8-bit 4:2:0 codec.

Please don't equate delivery bit rates with acquisition, what we see off-air or cable or satellite in HD often falls apart quickly when the low bit rate codecs are stressed. No network would normally accept this as a source file to edit with. Blu Ray looks as good as it does because it is painstakingly compressed scene by scene at great expense by compressionists, most often using MPEG4 and VC-1 codecs vs. MPEG2.

Any camera can take advantage of having 4X the gray scale steps, 8-bit at 256 shades of gray vs. 1024 shades for 10-bit can pay dividends in post and most every non-live, non-news show has some grading and color correction done if there is editing.

Once I entered scene files for my EX1, like any Sony digital camera I've owned, I was very happy with the look. I do have some clients that actually want to shoot 1080/60i and I believe this is where the XDCAM EX codec really shows its weakness.

AVC-Intra is a lot easier to deal with now with Final Cut Studio 7, Adobe CS 4, Avid 4.5, etc, but I can't speak to the Blu Ray convenience--burning a Blu Ray is just a step that happens after the final edit, no bigger hurry than any other deliverable for my clients, normally.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

David,

What do you mean by this and "next generation" radio mics? The Panasonic 2000 and 3000 series camera have a slot for 2-channel digital radio mic. receivers such as Lectrosonics.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

I get this, but DVCPRO HD still has to transcode to mpeg-2 or AVC or VC-1 to go on Blu-ray. XDCAM-EX needs no transcoding, it's already mpeg-2.

Agreed, yet taking transcoding off the table for Blu-ray with DVCPRO HD is not an option. The argument I made for XDCAM-EX is for speed. My client gets the finished product delivered on Blu-ray faster. If speed is not important, nothing precludes using the Nanoflash for 4:2:2 with the PMW-350, if desired.

I would not argue the PMW-350 is ideal for broadcast, or for rentals. But if you do events, or electronic news gathering run 'n gun, you might ask where else besides the kit lens you go to find 2/3 inch auto focus?

Up front, 10 bit is an advantage in gray scale acquisition agreed, just as 1920x1080 is an advantage in resolution. But the profile adopted for Blu-ray is 8 bit 4:2:0, so in the end, the best efforts from grayscale A/D get truncated to 8, but the advantage over 720p from having twice the number of luminance samples with 1080p is always maintained.

We also don't know fully what the PMW-350 is truly capable of. We have seen some stunning video from Alister Chapman shot in tough light, and we already know that 1080 XDCAM with Nanoflash is accepted by all the broadcasters. It took a few years but in the DSLR world, most manufacturers eventually settled on CMOS. At some point for video, the problem of CMOS artifacting will be solved. Some observations already seem to point to the PMW-350 representing an improvement in that regard.

For CCD, it could be the beginning of the end, perhaps not. The PMW-350 could be the end of the beginning for CMOS.

Tom,

I agree with most everything you posted. It is worth considering that feature films on Blu Ray are mastered from 10-bit HDCAM SR and D-5 formats, so there is some usefulness for 10-bit, besides the obvious grading and color correction advantages. It doesn't make sense to dumb down acquisition and mastering formats because deliverables have lower specs.

The nanoFlash recorder disadvantages are external vs. internal recording ergonomics and complexity, 8-bit, need for very high bit rates compared to AVC-Intra 100 I-Frame due to MPEG2.

Varicam tape and P2 cameras are a proven product, delivering consistently for many years in the case of the former. We just don't know yet how the 350 will perform as far as CMOS, but we are already well aware of the XDCAM EX codec's limitations.

I have no doubt the 350 would be a phenomenal events camera, an area where its codec limitations won't be an issue. High-end production is still an open question, but for many 4:2:0 and 8-bit color depth would rule it out. Similarly, there are projects where a 720P native chip set of the 2700 could rule it out, however, this same chip set has been used successfully for many years for features, commercials, episodic, docs, etc.

CMOS may be the future imager for video cameras, primarily due to cost, but the amazing Sony F35 and Panavision Genesis proves that a single large sensor CCD is possible and quite impressive--albeit expensive and power hungry at present.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

I hate it when people claim that codec "A" is "the best codec" or codec "C" is the "the highest possible quality". Such claims for any codec are nonsense and misguided. All codecs other than uncompressed are compromises trying to balance quality with efficiency and speed of workflow. They all have pro's and con's. Sure you can have a favorite or preferred codec but that doesn't mean it's the "best" codec.

AVC-Intra is a terribly inefficient codec introduced as far as I can tell, as a stop gap to replace the aging DVCPPRO HD codec. As I see it Panasonic choose to use Mpeg4 because as usual they would not use the same codec, Mpeg2, as Sony, JVC, Canon etc. Then they realised that Mpeg4 (AVC) was so hard to edit natively that no one would want it for professional applications. So they took an efficient codec, Mpeg4 (which is a lot closer to Mpeg2 than most people realise), threw away the stuff that makes it work well (and thus hard to edit) and started a smear campaign on long Gop codecs to justify why they use an inefficient I frame codec. To claim AVC-I to be "vastly superior" or "the best codec" is nonsense. They have only just made it possible to edit native AVC-I in FCP while native XDCAM EX editing was possible from day one. If it really is the "best codec" then surely people would be editing with it and apple would not have had to introduce ProRes and Avid wouldn't recommend transcoding it to DNxHD etc.
I'm not saying that XDCAM EX is better, it's just the difference is not nearly as large as some like to claim or think. If you shoot progressive the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is negligible, the difference in interlace is I agree larger.

As I have already said the EBU found XDCAM HD at 50Mb/s and AVC-I to offer similar performance and it was noted that the 10 bits of AVC-I offered no noticeable advantage for acquisition. This isn't my view or opinion but that of a panel of experts drawn from broadcasters across Europe. 10 Bit will only bring an advantage when the appropriate amount of data is used to record the extra bits, there is no such thing as a free lunch. While this is a comparison of AVC-I and 50Mb/s XDCAM and not 35Mb/s EX it does demonstrate that 10 Bit isn't everything. Yes for post work I use 10 bit, but at 220Mb/s where I really can see a difference.

The quality of any video system starts at the front end, not the rear. The lens being the first quality limiter followed by the sensor. I'm sorry but I just can't understand why anyone would want to invest now in an old design 720P front end. It cannot ever be magically turned into a 1080P front end. Yes there are differences between CCD and CMOS, but again these are largely over exaggerated differences that in the real world are not visible. The exception would be filming lots of strobe lighting etc where CCD would be an advantage, but even then I would want 1080 CCD not 720. You don't have to shoot 1080 with a 1080 camera, but at least you have the choice.

CMOS is being used day in day out to produce very high quality images including high end drama. The Arri D21 is CMOS as is RED. Would I prefer CCD on the 350? No. The power, weight and cost advantages far outweigh the different way that flash and strobe lights are handled. Remember, tube cameras used to respond to strobe lights and skew in a similar fashion, yet when CCD cameras first came along it was the CCD's that were seen by some to be "wrong".

At the end of the day you can take a native 1080 camera and shoot 1080 or 720. You can add an external recorder to up the bit rate, or a DA to add additional outputs. But you can never make a 720 camera into a 1080 one.
In the UK one of the most profitable SD rental camera lines is the DSR570/DSR450 DVCAM range, these are often more profitable than Digibeta or HDCAM because they are used day-in day-out in vast numbers as work horse cameras. They may not be the "best" cameras in the world or use the "best" codec but they are reliable workhorse cameras that if used well produce picture just about indistinguishable from the more expensive Digibeta cameras. This is the slot the PMW-350 is designed to fill and I believe it will turn heads as the image quality is stunning. It might not have the "best" codec, but what it will do is deliver 1080 HD out of the box that rivals or even surpasses many of the cameras currently on the market and offer a comprehensive range of modes and functions that will make it suitable for a huge range of productions. I believe it will make an excellent workhorse camera. It is expandable via external recorders should you choose. There is also an internal expansion slot for future upgrades, so who knows what will come in the future.

Jeff, you can put a mono VF on the 350. It has 2 viewfinder connectors, one for the colour VF and one for a CRT viewfinder. Using a NanoFlash is fit and forget. It powers on with the camera, it goes into record with the camera. It's solid state, it is not a firestore.

Alister, didn't I read somewhere that the BW viewfinder you can put on the 350 is an SD one? Anyhow, presumably the colour one can be switched to bw so probably not a big deal.
Funnily enough been playing a bit with the EX3 over the Christmas period and I do have a small preference for having the VF in colour now! It's not the greatest VF though, compared to all the other small cams on the market it's amazing, but not great compared to the full size cams.
It'll be interesting to see just what impact the 350 makes in high end work, but for wildlife I really don't expect to need to do a BBC training course on it any day soon, but that's just my guess.
Steve

You can put any DXF viewfinder on the 350. The DXF-20W is designed for HD. it is the viewfinder used on the PDW-F355 etc and is specified as "over" 480 lines resolution which is actually very close to the 500 lines offered by the HDVF-20A Sony's high end HD CRT finder.

Having used cameras with the high end C35W colour finder and the PMW-350 I would say there is little to choose between them. The C35W has a better range of options and controls but there is only a small difference in image quality.

Yes it will be interesting to see whether the 350 can make inroads into natural history.

Alister,

The specs for AVC-Intra 100 speak for themselves.

In my world 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 is important, not as big a deal as 4:1:1 vs. 4:2:2, but still a difference. I own a DSR-450WS, had two at one point, had a DSR-500. Digi Beta is clearly superior due to its color space and bit depth--it's not a subtle difference.

If Sony thought XDCAM HD and XDCAM EX were so great, why the need to introduce XDCAM 422? Obviously the 4:2:2 color space was seen to be worthwhile, and required raising the data rate to 50Mbps.

What we know about high end studio quality mastering formats is that they are 10-bit, high bit rate, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4, full sample, I-Frame. AVC-Intra 100 is the acquisition format that most closely matches a studio format specs wise.

AVC-Intra 100 is the only codec found inside a 1/3" and 2/3" one-piece camera that is 4:2:2, full sample, 10-bit other than an SRW-9000 for $100K. It is a Native, progressive codec that doesn't record 24P and 30P over 720/60P or 1080/60i to be compatible with legacy tape formats. MPEG4 is much newer and more efficient than MPEG2.

My editor did grading and color correction tests with Intra 100 vs. DVCPRO HD and found the former capable of being pushed much further. Many editors prefer I-Frame structure.

When editing for deliverable formats like HDCAM SR or D-5, both of which are 10-bit, it makes sense to shoot in a 10-bit format to begin with. If shooting 8-bit, the information is gone at the front end.

Sony was the first camera manufacturer to deliver an AVC HD camcorder, so they have embraced AVC codecs due to their superior efficiency vs. MPEG2. This is the same reason AVC h.264 is used with Blu Ray so often.

Final Cut Pro 7, Adobe CS4, Edius 4.5 and Avid 4.5 make editing in AVC-Intra much easier, some natively.

Regarding CMOS artifacts, I have clients who won't rent my EX1 because of the image skew(jello cam) issues. This is a bigger concern to them than the flash band artifacts.

I agree that the lens is the first quality limiter, and that is why I would be very reticent about asking a DP client to accept a $1600 HD lens on a 2/3" camera.

Again, Varicam is a proven name that has been improved in the P2 versions. If a full raster camera is paramount, there is the 3700, albeit not as flexible in frame rates and no 720P, but I have no doubt a 2700 and 3700 are taken more seriously for network episodic work than an XDCAM EX camera would be, primarily due to the master quality AVC-Intra 100 codec. A Fox Network prime time show called "Dollhouse" was shot in 35mm the first season and switched to 3700's and 2700's for the second. The show looks very good.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

The specs for AVC-Intra speak for themselves but they don't yet speak to me. You asked a great question about why Sony felt the need to introduce XDCAM 422, but left without comment about why if AVC-Intra is the best codec, people would be editing with it and apple would not have had to introduce ProRes and Avid wouldn't recommend transcoding it to DNxHD etc. What it says to me is that the question was thrown up to mute a point that was made. The reasons in support of XDCAM-EX have been stated, speed in native editing and smart render to Blu-ray target.

Neither is the argument persuasive that AVC-Intra should be compelling because you would have to start with $100,000 to find similar codec features in the Sony line in the SRW-9000. This goes more to brand loyalty than logic.

Perhaps I would find those points compelling, if it could be justified why those extra 2 bits of grayscale are worth throwing away half of your luminance samples for 720p versus 1080p. People right here DO see that difference. I can't see the justification for 720p, nor can I find the answer by turning to the past and pointing to high end studio mastering formats, full sample 4:4:4 like HDCam SR when it appears we are trending away from that. There must be a reason. My guess would be that in the post tape world order, there is no longer room for inefficiency that wastes space on expensive storage media, for extremely minor benefits.

Although your two points are correct, it is not the reason h.264 was adopted by Blu-ray. In fact, Blu-ray was conceived from the beginning to accommodate a two hour recording in mpeg-2. The h.264 was only adopted later by the BR association in response to the competition from rival HD DVD and Microsoft, that a new optical format was not needed because of the recent advances in codec compression, to witness VC-1. If not for that competitive push, h.264 would likely not have been adopted by Blu-ray at all.

You know your customers best. I would only counter that I own and use the EX1 now, am aware of the potential skew issues, they would not stand in the way of repurchasing into the CMOS technology. The benefits of light weight, low power, low noise and high sensitivity (and low cost) justify the use of CMOS for me.

Your point is understandable, but no one is forced to buy this lens.

I'm looking for more than just reputation or brand name recognition. There are tangible benefits with CMOS. The PMW350 raises the bar in meaningful ways, reduced power consumption, lighter weight, lower cost 2/3 inch 1080p acquisition, lower cost storage per GB on a variety of solid state media types. It includes its own extremely fast and friendly editing codec that ports straight to Blu-ray with smart rendering, yet remains compatible with high bitrate 4:2:2 solid state capture solutions, i.e. Nanoflash.

And that 1/3" camera is not approved for use by Discovery or Nat Geo while the EX's are. XDCAM, HDV, MPEG2, H264 and many other codecs can be native progressive recording just the actual used frames, there is nothing special about the way AVC-I encodes progressive. PsF is the way the signal is output over HDSDi as originally there was no provision in the the HDSDi specs for 1080P. Panasonic do exactly the same using PsF for 1080P over HDSDi, the recording itself is true progressive. PsF is part of the ITU part 709 specifications for HD broadcast systems.

Well there are no surprises there. DVCPRO HD is no where near full frame and that causes all kinds of concatenation issues. This just proves my point that just because a codec uses "X" bit rate or 4:2:2 over 4:2:0 it doesn't automatically make it a better codec.

But ONLY if the data isn't compromised by not using a high enough bit rate to allow for the extra bits to be recorded without raising the compression ratio. As I keep saying this was a point raised by the EBU in their tests with AVC-I and XDCAM HD422.

Yes in consumer cameras and it's a swine to edit which normally means you end up having to transcode it. It is now creeping in to pro level cameras but even at it's maximum data rate of 24Mb/s the jury is still out as to whether it's any better than HDV. AVC or Mpeg4 was designed to excel at very low bit rates and high compression ratios, which is where it is at it's best. It's amazing how good a 4Mb/s 1080P clip can look. That's why it ended up in consumer cameras where people want to be able to record hours and hours on a single SD card or memory stick. At low bit rates/high compression ratios it is very efficient. But scale that up to 24Mb/s, AVC's maximum, where you would think it's going to kick HDV's butt and to be honest it's not really any better. Some scenes can look terrible where HDV would still look good. I have yet to see an AVC camera that produces superior images to a comparable HDV camera. At high bit rates/lower compression ratios AVC is no more efficient than MPEG2. If AVC really was so good then I'm sure that Canon and JVC would have adopted it in their pro level cameras, but they have not. Then you have to remember that AVC-I has almost non of the efficiency adding attributes of AVC. AVC (mepg4) was designed as a long GoP codec. It's the long GoP that make it so efficient, but AVC-I has no long GoP and thus the bulk of the efficiency has gone.

They all edit XDCAM natively.

Then don't use it. The 350 has a standard B4 mount so just use whatever lens you feel is appropriate. You can by the camera without the lens if you wish.

Well my friend and officemate Don Lenzer got over to see the camera at Abel today and followed up with a report. It certainly puts on hold his plans for the 2700 although to be fair he was leaning against the trade in before this. He isn't rushing to buy the 350 but is holding off on the 2700.

Tom, Alister,

I think a big reason Sony tried to stay with MPEG2(and needed 50Gb dual layer discs because of that) is due to not wanting to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for VC-1 or fees to use MPEG4 h.264, ultimately they did so because of pressure from the studios who didn't want to have multiple encoding schemes to deal with when HD DVD was alive and because of the extra content needed for special features--even 50Gb wasn't adequate with MPEG2. They had to do this with consumer cameras due to that market wanting long record times.

It wouldn't surprise me if Canon and JVC don't want to pay for licensing new codecs either.

I agree that if 10-bit is of huge importance, it is conceivable that full raster 1080 is also important and that is why Panasonic offers the HPX300, 3000 and 3700. 2 extra bits translates to 4X more shades of gray, not inconsequential.

The 300 had terrible CMOS skewing in 1080/24P, not sure if this has been improved with new firmware. EX1 and EX3 global shutter issues are well known, now we just need to hear how the 350 performs. I Sony to keep improving CMOS technology and the 350 may already show benefits.

I think we are dealing with two different strata of production requirements, the clients that seek the Varicam look and functionality would not consider 4:2:0 low bit rate XDCAM EX. It's really that simple. Nor would they consider a $1600 lens. Nor would they want to take a chance with rolling shutter artifacts.

So while you may not care about proven CCD and Varicam history, many producers do.

Could this change? Of course. We've already seen the RED One make a big impact on film style production and video DSLR's are being used in places we would have never expected.

This doesn't change the fact that high end productions seek 10-bit, 4:4:4 or at least 4:2:2 at high bit rates, just as they are more likely to seek full raster sensors going forward. Whether tape or solid state doesn't make any difference--even if SR and D-5 went away, similar or better specs would be expected with whatever media.

This is why Panasonic is developing AVC Ultra at 200Mbps with 4:4:4, 1080/60P, 12-bit recording with 3D capability as well. This would use the same P2 card media currently in use.

I would be happy to see the 350 get some traction in my market and I would offer it in my rental inventory if I could get at least twice as much day rate than for my EX1, using the stock lens. I have no doubt that many people will be happy with the 350 and it should do exactly what they want, but to dismiss the HPX2700 Varicam due to native 720P CCD's or AVC-Intra 100 due to it requiring transcoding for some NLE's or is "inefficient"(even though a much newer codec than the long in the tooth MPEG2 variants) is not valid.

I think we've all made a good case for either camera, and they both deserve consideration.
Ultimately, the types of projects being shot daily with the cameras and formats is what is most telling. So far, Varicam has seen continuous usage for many years on all types of high end projects. EX1 and EX3 are doing projects that one wouldn't expect to see them on, such as a B-Camera for "Trauma" or "Public Enemy". I would be concerned right now if I owned an F900R or 700/800 because of the 350.

Of course, I'm concerned by all palmcorders, RED One and video DSLR's, not to mention Flip HD at this point! It seems 2/3" cameras just aren't sexy anymore.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

As an amateur I have followed this thread with interest. My hobby since retirement is video, a little excessive according to my wife!! My camera inventory is an FX1 a SR11 and XR500 very consumer compared to this discussion. However for all the issues raised here the programs have to get to the viewer somehow, mainly cable or satellite and by the time they are displayed on my 42"1080P Panasonic plasma or my 40" 240HZ Sony LCD the best have a job being better than the output from my XR500!! Most are a lot worse, closer to the output from my old DV cameras!!! The Bluray disc I have made of theatre shows with these cameras are at least as good as most of the Bluray commercial discs I have and better than most of them. I can clearly see the difference in programs on my displays. The best at the moment are on Equator or Oasis group of HD channels here on Rogers cable though as expected large variation in quality.
Consumers now have access to AVCHD cameras at low cost that deliver clean, sharp video without judder etc. makes the professional products look not so good a lot of the time.
As a technical person I appreciate the issues being raised however the final delivery is what counts and how many stages of degradation takes place before the final viewer gets to see the production. Most of what i do has little processing, edited with Edius and straight to Bluray. When I watch cable the signal has been degraded many times from its pristine original whatever camera took the shots. Hence the difficulty competing with a $1000 consumer camera ( which may be shooting at more than twice the bit rate of the delivered cable channel).
With this in mind the system that can take the abuse the best is likely the winner!!!! What is the best input to the distribution encoders that results in the best viewer experience?
Ron Evans

I'm pretty sure you'll find the 2000 and 3000 series cameras have a Unislot mount, and support single channel only, as well as not making use of some of the more advanced features of the new digital radio mics. I think you'll find they'll accept the new digital receivers, but only be able to access one of the channels within the camera. You really need a new generation camera to make full use of the capabilities, and the 350 is designed with the slot to do that.
AVC-HD *CAN* offer superior efficiency to MPEG2, but it doesn't necessarily follow - all coders are not equal. It's also important to define "superior efficiency". If you mean "same quality at lower bitrate", then yes, if you mean "easier editing", then no - it's much more of a pain to edit than MPEG2. Which I suspect strongly is why Sony have stuck with MPEG2 in their pro range, to keep easy native editing albeit at the expense of greater bitrate.

It's also important to distinguish between Blu-Ray production and cameras. With the former, the coding can take place in non real time, likely 2-pass, and use powerful computers. With a camcorder, the coding has to take place in real time and computing power is limited by many constraints. So whereas H264 on a Blu-Ray may achieve the 2x efficiency figure, it's unlikely that a real time coder will in any consumer priced camera. (It most certainly gets nowhere near in the HMC150.)

Real time AVC coders are improving all the time, and that's likely why Sony have left it until now to use the codec in other than low end consumer cameras. At highest bitrate, my experiences have been that overall in the HMC150 it's only comparable at best to HDV (and far more difficult to edit.) New generation coders may change all that, and I'll be interested to see how the NXCAM range turns out.

The simple answer to the question is probably "the cleanest"!

But that can mean a lot of things - low noise original, fewest compression artifacts, and amount of aliasing in the original signal to name just three.

The compression issue may be the most interesting here. Simple logic would have you believe that the higher the original bitrate the better, yes? Because the production process involves multiple decompression/recompression, you need to start off with something that will survive that as well as possible?

I'm hearing stories from people who are interested in cameras for short turn around events (sports, news etc) that XDCAM 35Mbs may be the best option for them, in that although the initial compression may be higher than AVC-Intra 100 or XDCAM 422, the bitrate is low enough to be edited natively and linked back in real time in native form. The savings on transcoding steps more than compensate for any higher compression.

In general, it depends on what you're going to do with the footage. If it's going to need a lot of grading or extensive post work, then 4:2:2 and other factors have far more significance than if the pictures are likely to be broadcast as shot - as is most likely the case for sports, news etc.

In more general terms, what you see at home will also depend on the transmission codec, bitrate, and (most importantly) the actual coders used. In the UK, the BBC HD channel has recently reduced it's bitrate from 16 Mbs to about 9.7Mbs, with little discernible difference. (At least to me, though there's some disagreement about it.) The claim is that the original H264 coders were "little better than MPEG2", the bitrate reduction has gone hand in hand with new and (much) better coders.

Don seemed pretty happy with the 350 today. He commented on the weight and size being very nice.

We now have four 350s in our rental department, as well as four plus 2700s. I really enjoy reading these debates because they echo the discussions we have with our clients everyday. I think when making a camera decision it comes down to a couple of key questions. Is the camera high quality? Will my client accept this camera and what it delivers? Will it work for most of my applications? How much can I charge for it? Oh.. and what about the workflow?

I work with many different freelancers and they each have pretty defined opinions about what is best. Usually what is best is what is making them the most money. They have clients that demand a certain format or have a list of acceptable cameras. The HPX2700 has been selling well and working in our rental department so it obviously meets a number of needs. I believe the 350 will also do very well in our rental department, especially because the rental price will be lower than most 2/3" cameras.

They are both high quality cameras. I say look at your client base and get the one that will meet their needs the most.

David,

The 2700 and 3700 have Unislot mounts, they are dual channel and the newest Lectrosonics digital dual channel receivers work with the cameras.

AVC-HD was designed as a low bit rate codec first and foremost and it is up to CPU's and coders to catch up to the processing complexity. When it comes to "easier editing", it's hard to beat DVCPRO HD, especially in Native frame rates. XDCAM EX is more processor intensive, as is any Long GOP frame structure codec. So if efficiency is based upon low processing requirements, my choice is DVCPRO HD with 4:2:2 and I-Frame. Of course any modern dual core higher-end computer should have no trouble with XDCAM EX or AVC-Intra 100.

Andy,

It would be great if you could give us some of your insight regarding codecs or sensors or what you think is hype vs. valuable, but I know you have to walk a fine line being in sales.

I too have these conversations with clients daily. Many times a producer asks me what camera they should use for a particular project. I always defer to their DP and also recommend they speak to their editor. Reality is, any of these cameras and formats can get the job done.

Having owned most every BVP and BVW series Sony camera since 1985, I know they make a great product that is reliable and robust. I'm newer to Panasonic, but am very impressed with the support I receive from them. You can't go wrong with either one, IMO.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

You bring up a good point about obsolescence. I buy a car knowing it's a depreciating asset, not expecting to make money on it. In a different sense I am making money on it, because it makes possible the transportation to and from work that pays the bills.

But I don't have to look at each camera purchase and make the judgment about whether it's a specific bread winner or loser. In the rental business, you do and you've been very clear what your expectation for return on that investment would be, i.e. a rental rate twice what the EX3 brings.

But because I'm not in the business of rentals, I would have no fear whatsoever about owning an F900R, or 700/800. In fact I would love to have one. The choice for PMW350 owes to its up-to-date features and benefits, and price point that makes it reasonable for me to jump into the 2/3 inch class.

These cams all remain usable and desirable, but from the viewpoint of business of rentals, and the concern that consumer choice can be fickle, turn on a dime, and be suddenly no longer desirable because a new flavor of the month appears, I understand you have to be conservative about what is worthy of being added to the inventory list.

Maybe subject for another discussion, is the point you raised about whether 2/3 inch just aren't sexy anymore? To me they still are. I own the 5DMkII DSLR and lenses. The image quality does not satisfy me for 1080p video due to aliasing and CMOS artifacts. I once saw a comparison somewhere, it was the Red One and I believe a Sony F23, not totally sure about the latter, but one of the high end Sony 2/3 inch devices. I understand you achieve whatever look you need from the RAW in post, but I still thought the image from the 2/3 inch cam was more highly detailed, and certainly presented an opportunity for achieving a desirable look 'in-cam'. That really counts with me. Speed is time, and time is money. The convenience of having a wealth of image adjustment controls in-cam is very important to me. Perhaps 2/3 inch isn't sexy anymore, the market is increasingly segmented, with pressure from below with great performing 1/2 inch EX cams, from above with the Red, and from the side with video DSLRs, a wealth of riches, but certain to complicate rental decisions.

Tom,

All good points. My observations are that most young film makers haven't used 2/3" cameras, don't know about proper ergonomics/form factor, don't have a clue about what the menu items in the camera offer as far as image control.

We know that 2/3" cameras are used in the thousands daily around the world to shoot just about every kind of project imaginable. They are good in low light, reliable, convenient, have good latitude, shallower depth of field than palmcorders, less noise, and allow for baked-in image control at a level that the little cameras or raw cameras don't have.

I see people judging cameras via super compressed internet clips, where the things like aliasing on the edges of video DSLR cameras isn't apparent. My 2700 is good for 11-stops of latitude in Film-Rec 600%, a palmcorder or video DSLR just isn't going to achieve that.

2/3" ENG style HD cameras are the best for hand held, the lenses have great focal length range with smooth servos, viewfinders are usually good, monitoring capability is usually superior, with proven, robust recording formats and more recording capacity.

I offer Letus Ultimate 35mm depth of field adapters for all my cameras if clients want a shallow depth of field while still retaining the convenience and reliability of 2/3" cameras.
With a video DSLR like the 5D, you get shallow depth of field whether wanted or not, lousy audio, monitoring, codec, record capacity, ergonomics and CMOS artifacts.

One of my rental house competitors has a few 5D's and he tells me he hopes the fad passes quickly. He also tells me his RED One packages are the most unreliable gear he owns.

I am conservative, I don't want calls from the set or edit suite. I don't want to have to send a backup camera with every rental. I've been in this business for 28 years now and don't want to fall into the same holes over and over again--my clients need to be able to trust any piece of gear I offer for rental. If I lose that, I have nothing.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

From another thread on this forum by Gary Natress in answer to whether AVC-Intra is as hard to edit with as AVCHD:

"No it isnt AVC intra is a superb codec and far better for editing than AVCHD, I am using AVC intra 100 a lot and it goes into final cut pro as re-wrapped native AVC to pro res files.

It is a dream to work with and the lower bit rate AVC intra 50 is even easier, the files also go into FCP at 3X real time for AVC intra 100 on my mac machines.

I also use AVCHD from a canon HF11 and find that it is better to transcode to pro res LT than re-wrap and try to use AVCHD for editing.

Hope this helps, I have the HPX301 and the picture quality of AVC intra is superb."

Heard from a DP today who sold an HPX3000 and is considering an HPX2700 now for 720P and overcranking, plus better sensitivity. He has been using AVC-Intra since the 3000 was introduced in 2007 and is very happy with its quality and work flow.

I've been using Intra for a year with sub-rented P2 Mobile, HPX3000 and now my HPX2700, working with several post houses who are editing my client's projects with no problems.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

I agree Jeff the AVC intra 100 from my 301 is superb quality and a joy to edit and work with to delivery, I also have a canon HF11 and as you say transcoding to pro res LT is the best option.

Once that process is done it is also very easy to work with, I am considering a 2700 in the new year and with our two 301's it will give us pretty much everything we need for broadcast and on-line shooting. The big advantage is that everything will be in AVC intra 100 and we are also using the 301's as B cameras all the time.

I have looked at the new 350 but it just doesnt make sense for me as I have decided on P2 as my format and having all three cameras shooting the same codec is a good location workflow for edit in FCP.

I'm curious as to which broadcasters are accepting 301 material?

301's are being used as B-cameras to our current hire 2700 all the time and we have had no complaints so far from any of our broadcast clients.

Sorry cant name them as that would breach our contracts but everything is being shot AVC intra 100 on all cameras so the only real difference is the 1/3" cmos vs 2/3" CCD.

To be honest on some of the live music content we have done it is really difficult to tell which camera is which.

I have also just done a feature film on a 301 and the client was very happy with the results and it met the budget that they had.
We also provided a hire 301 for a commercial that is going on air in the new year : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhVxHNRdz4

I have always done everything with our 301's under the guidance of Alan Roberts report and whilst the BBC do not have it on their list the 2700 is there and we work in a similar fashion to how SD prods have always used Z1's etc for a certain percentage of content, the big advantage is that as said everything is in AVC intra 100 so workflow to edit in FCP and archiving from P2 to hard drive is a smooth process.

Gary,

I was quoting you, I don't have a Canon HF11, although I've used AVC HD for in-car cameras and it was a pain to transcode. I'm sorry I misspelled your name. Glad Intra and P2 workflow is working well for you.

Alister,

In the U.S. there are many shows shot with HPX300's, "Players", a Spike TV national cable show, several local broadcast channels for news and local commercials. I don't know of any national broadcast network shows, however.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Wow Gary, you or your production company has worked on broadcast programmes producing material that is there for everyone to watch and enjoy yet your not allowed to say which ones and on which channels. That sucks. I've never come across any contracts like that before. Sure for confidential material or corporate communications but never for broadcast.

When will your feature film be released and what's it called? I'll keep an eye out for it, will be interesting to see a 301 on a big screen.

I have no problems naming broadcasters and programmes that I work for as a freelancer and that is not a problem as they are on my C.V that is in the public domain, but when it is my own facilities company I dont like to breach confidentiality, its something I actually put into my own contract as it also protects their rights and prevents me from showing or discussing any of their material out of context. You can see a list of my clients on my web site and I have worked for most of the big guys over my 30 years in the industry. Sky is on there but as you may know a lot of the sky channels are run under the blanket of larger companies such as virgin and what used to be flextech.

That way my liability insurance is also lower and there is less risk of me being sued for misrepresentaion, some of the bigger players could wipe me out so I make sure I dont discuss my clients on forums unless they have allowed me too.

I have worked for Disney at AMS Neve and Teddington studios and saw the might of their legal department in action when their company practices were discussed openly. I also witnessed how one client of Teddington after Pearson's had sold it to a private company took them to the cleaners for all sorts of things.

There are some great people to work for but these days of fragmentation it is wise to be prepared and my years of running my own dubbing facility in london 10 years ago have taught me a lot about corporate matters.

The feature is due for its edit in Spain next month so it should be in post for dubbing Feb and ready for release in the spring / summer, it has a working title of "The last straw" but this will not be its final release name, the production guys like to keep things a bit mysterious as its a horror film.

Sorry Jeff I though the words seemed familiar, I must read things more carefully.

AVC intra is better for edit in FCP than AVCHD but once that has been transcoded to pro res LT it all works together fine, not that I use the HF11 as a B-cam though it tends to be for behind the scenes videos and my holidays.

Just to add to what I already have said we as media people really have to think long and hard about all this new marketing from sony and panasonic as it maybe that they push 2/3" chip cmos cameras at 35mbs without checking if this is Ok for the dinosaur UK market.

Remember that sony are selling product and the UK broadcast market is now very very small so long term acceptance of cameras such as the 301 with a codec that is already acepted may be the business approach rather than the cameraman shallow dof luvvie aspect!.

It all comes down to £SD and the 350 may be a great camera for 2/3" camera luvvies but my 30 years experience says that cost is king and most of the broadcast prouducers I work with wouldn't know a 1/3" to 2/3" chip camera anyway. Sad, but its the way TV had gone, like it or lump it!!!

The UK broadcast market is probably larger today than it has ever been. There are more channels, on air for longer than there has ever been before. Those channels all require content. There is more content being produced now than in the past. But the industry is totally bloated with media students and TV wanna-be's that don't actually know the first thing about TV, but are prepared to work just about for free in the hope of stardom. This is making it possible for accountants to push down budgets as the crew costs can be much lower than they used to be.

Call me a Luvvie if you wish, but it's nothing to do with shallow DoF and more to do with diffraction limiting, thermal noise and lens design. I don't want to be limited to a usable aperture range of only 4 to 5 stops, noise that increases noticeably when the camera warms up and wide lenses that are soft because producing a HD wide lens with a high enough MTF for 1/3" sensors is prohibitively expensive. There are very good reasons why the BBC, Sky, Discovery etc are all against the use of 1/3" sensors, not just from Panasonic but all manufacturers, Sony included.

Yes TV is largely driven by budget, but the cost of the hardware is normally only a small percentage of any production budget. That equipment is cheaper now than it has ever been. My first BetaSP camcorder and lens cost nearly £50k and that was 20 years ago. My rates have only gone up by a small percentage over the past 10 years, but I am more profitable now than I was 10 years ago because my cameras, edit systems and associated hardware cost a quarter of what it used to cost, is more reliable and cheaper to insure. It is a sad day when the attitude of those making programmes stops being one of trying to deliver the best quality to one of lets make it as cheap as possible. This attitude only helps accelerate the downward quality spiral. It is still possible to make high quality programmes in these days of cost conscious budgets. Perhaps if camera operators tried to educate producers and production companies as to why one camera or system is more appropriate than another as opposed to simply giving in and doing it as cheap as possible we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. This is why I believe the BBC and Sky are right to enforce the 1/2", 50Mb/s rule for HD. If they don't take a stand and draw a line in the sand, where will it end? Yes there should be dispensations on a production by production basis for shoots where it is physically impossible, dangerous or impractical to use larger cameras. If we, the people that shoot the material don't take a stand and strive for the best possible image quality then our profession will continue to decline to the point where a "cameraman" is simply a person that points a home video camera on full auto in the vague direction of the subject matter. What brings in my income and keeps my clients coming back is the quality of my work. If you work purely on price, eventually you will be out of business as there will always be someone else or another production company willing to undercut you.

I totally agree with you Alister but sadly these days decisions are made purely on cost not on the quality of content for most broadcasters, I dont actually think there is much being made and it is very sad that we have followed the american model of TV and have zillions of channels with pretty much nothing new on air.

The UK broadcast market is bigger but the amount of new content has shrunk and the influence on manufacturers is a lot less than in the USA and other broadcast markets, that is why panasonic and sony are making lower cost cameras that they can sell more of to new media producers, the 301 and 350 will be accepted in time much as the Z1/V1/Z7 is now the bench mark for a lot of news operations.

Less is more as they say but with advertising now driving the industry and the attitude that a Z1 is an HD camera we luvvies are fighting a losing battle.

My freelance rates as a dubbing mixer have not changed for 10 years but I cant even get any work doing that so now have ventured into shooting and editing.

It may be that due to other personal circumstances that I pack this media lark in this year as I am sick of all the petty arguments about formats and the lack of any real creativity in the industry.

I started at ITV Tyne Tees TV 30 years ago tommorow as a 19 year old trainee and it is a real shame that we now have so many opportunities to create new interesting content but it just isn't happening.

This is all a little off-topic so skip on if you wish!!

The industry in the UK is in a sorry state. Governed largely by not what you know but who you know. There are some good commissioning opportunities to be had, but only if you pitch it to the right person at the right time. I recently met with many of the BBC's commissioning editors and one thing surprised me. While the BBC do have a good (??) online commissioning portal that allows anyone to send in an idea, you can actually save yourself a ton of time and effort by emailing most of the commissioners directly. All over the BBC web site it says not to do this, but speak to the right people and they will say, "yes do send me a brief one paragraph outline and I'll let you know whether it's worth taking further". But what struck me about this was that they were discussing this with other known production companies, so this is not the level and open playing field that it is supposed to be. An example of this is a pitch that I put in via the e-commission portal where I got the standard, "nice idea but...." and the exact same pitch sent directly to the comissioning editor via another production company that has a current strand running on prime time TV. This time it looks like we will be making the programme. What's worse is that as there is now a second production company involved, the budget is now higher, money that perhaps could have gone to make a better programme or into other programmes. One thing that often leads to the loss of a commissioning opportunity is that you have to think not just one year ahead but two. Budgets for 2010 have already been spent, so your best chance of a commission will be for a programme that will be competed in late 2011.
The bulk of UK TV programming is made by around a dozen, huge, production factories producing set formats to fixed recipes in large quantities. Much of what they produce is good, some is not, but there is a steady downward creep in quality across the board, both technical and creative with silly little annoyances like dirty lenses and bad focus becoming more and more common, there is no excuse for this as it cost no more to shoot in focus than out of focus. Once upon a time programmes used to be rejected for such things.
Perhaps the industries saviour will in the end will be the internet. More and more people spend their evenings in front of computers than ever before. With very little in the way of advertising and sponsorship regulation, broadcasters and advertisers are using the internet to boost production budgets with cross-platform formats. Product placement and sponsorship of programmes (something the US has always had) will also help as for example companies such as a DiY chain would be able to see direct benefits by having a sponsored program, using their products on TV as well as a website where viewers can watch the show and find out more information and buy their products which then in turn pays for the programme. Hopefully these types fully sponsored, cross platform programmes will then free up funds for the high end drama or documentaries that would not survive on the internet alone. As broadband improves and with computers already using high resolution screens, ultimately web based HD will be the norm.

One thing I have no doubt about, is if your projects gets commissioned Alister, they will be top quality.

Interesting these observations and perspective, Jeff, Alister and Gary. Seems like the newest concepts are from people with no videocam knowledge trying to do it all, or the opposite, the experienced camera operator DP imparts his will at the detriment of creative spontaneity. I guess the best productions are when you can put the two together. I know my own ideas usually are not good enough, but I can get the technical merits correct for something no one wants to watch, I guess...(sigh). I'm glad I have a regular job. We all know how to do something, and what we are best at is usually what we should stick to.