Wow, these are the types of debate/discussion that get me glued to these forums when I should be working (well, I'm just watching this render progress, so technically, I am still working) ;-)


"We all know how to do something, and what we are best at is usually what we should stick to".

TOM,

Unfortunately, sometimes, some of us never get the opportunities to find out what we're best at...

Here is a review exerpt of a prototype 350 from Adam Wilt of ProVideoCoalition.com:
(Being a prototype means everything is subject to change.)

Pros

* Full-resolution sensors and full-resolution recording.
* 10.5 stops of dynamic range.
* Variable frame rates 1-30fps (1080p) and 1-60fps (720p).
* Progressive and interlaced recording, 60Hz and 50Hz formats.
* High-quality XDCAM EX 35Mbit/sec recording on SxS cards.
* Fully-professional shoulder-mount configuration with excellent, shoot-all-day-handheld ergonomics.
* Superb, huge, color EVF with real, variable peaking control.
* Interval, single-frame, and cache (pre-rec) recording.
* Autofocus-capable yet very affordable 16x lens.
* Works with wide-ranging ecosystem of 2/3” lenses, wireless receivers, tripod plates, remote controls, etc.
* BNC, full-size i.Link, full-size HDMI, and XLR connectors—no weird, proprietary plugs.
* Genlockable; remotely controllable; remotely paintable.
* No vertical smear.
* HyperGammas.
* Very tweakable image looks and operating characteristics.
* Lots of assignable buttons and switches.
* Some of the best EVF data displays around, including histogram, focal distance, and depth of field.

Cons

* A lot more expensive than the 1/2” EX1 and EX3.
* On-board recording is only 8-bit, 4:2:0 sampling; can show compression artifacts when stressed.
* SxS slots on right side of camera are away from the operator, and are more subject to unauthorized access by passers-by than card slots on the operator’s side of the camera.
* Stock lens has noticeable distortion up through 30mm.
* Rolling-shutter “jellocam” artifacts possible.
* DVCAM mode lacks any 24p option.
* No analog component or Y/C outputs.

Cautions

* Everything in this preview is subject to change.
* Prototype’s HyperGammas don’t appear to be working properly.
* Prototype’s knee suffers from EX-series saturation-induced blowout.
* DVCAM mode may not be standard.
* Prototype’s chromatic aberration correction not working, so it’s not possible to say how good the lens will look.

Adam is a great resource of knowledge on the net and I believe he is totally neutral in his review findings, no matter the manufacturer. He's also a nice guy.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

From another forum regarding projected 720P Varicam footage from DP Bruce Greene:

"Recently I had the experience of showing a small movie we shot with the 27H tape based varicam on a very large screen in a multiplex projected through Barco DLP 2k projector. The movie was still a work in progress, and so we played it on my MacBook Pro in quicktime and plugged into the projector as a mirrored computer monitor.

The film was shot in 720p, mostly using an AJA I/O HD box and recording to a HD in Apple ProRes HQ, though a bit was recorded to tape and a few scenes (mostly in cars) were shot with an HPX170. The camera was set to FilmRec mode and we used the lowest setting that could capture the needed dynamic range of the scene. This was usually Dynamic Level 200%, but higher when necessary. This meant that the uncorrected movie looks a little bit low in contrast and saturation so the Quicktime player was set to slightly increase contrast and saturation.

I was a little bit nervous that the 720p image on such a large screen might look a little soft, but it looked amazing! Going next door to glimpse a big Hollywood 35mm print revealed that the 720p digital projection looked as detailed as the 35mm print, and much cleaner and steadier of course. The Varicam projected had much more "life" than the dull 2k DI film print in the next theater (I'm talking about basic image quality, not the cinematography smile.gif )

The DVCproHD shots from the Varicam did not stand out from the full raster, 10 bit, ProRes recordings and I could not tell which were which at the screening, though I have noticed banding in graduated areas of the image from this format at other times.

I guess I'm making these points to say that, detail wise, 720p is darned close to 1080p. And when shooting a movie almost every frame has some amount of motion blur, making the difference insignificant to the eye, even on a very large theatrical screen. The low light advantage of the 720p chips, and the slow motion capability make these cameras a true rival to any of the 1080p cameras that I saw demonstrated in the ASC camera assessment series last month. And while I wasn't able to compare the 720p Varicam directly to the 4k camera named after a color, I would say that after seeing the ASC tests, the 720p Varicam is about equal to or more detailed than that camera on a 2k projection."

Jeff Regan
www.ssv.com

You have to take Bruce Greene's resolution comments with a degree of caution.

Fact: There is over twice as much picture information in 1080P over 720P (assuming the cameras are resolving everything they should be)
Fact: DVCProHD is only 960x720.
Fact: There is 3 times as much picture information in 1080P over DVCProHD.

I really have to question the viewing method if little difference is being seen between a 1920 x 1080 image and a 960 x 720 image. If this is truly the case then why do people in the UK see such a big difference between SD (720 x 576) and 720P which very often is only 960 x 720?

It also appears that he is comparing the 27H DVCproHD footage against "1080P" from the 27H and HPX170. If that's the case then I wouldn't expect to see much difference as the camera front ends are only 720P in the first place, so there would be very little difference anyway. Just because you are recording a 1080P signal it doesn't mean it's a 1080P image. Playing out a quicktime movie from a laptop is hardly going to produce the best possible image.

I watched a natural history show last night with a mix of 1080P aerials and 720P ground based shots. The difference was quite noticeable, especially on subtle textures.

I always have to sigh when I see projection mentioned as a defense that unless the image is magnified on a 105 - 144 inch screen size you can't possibly observe the same detail they are observing therefore don't even try, never mind the resolution lost to the optical lens itself. It's more than easy to spot the difference between 720p and 1080p on a good, native flat panel display such as Pioneer Elite, or Kuro, or Sony Bravia XBR, or any of the good panels that have good scaling, deinterlacing or native 24/25p, just by sitting a little closer.

Last week I spent an afternoon at a projector manufacturer for a demo of their newest flagship DLP projector. I spent a long time talking to their main R&D engineer in the U.S. I asked him how apparent the difference in 720 vs. 1080 sources were to him at normal viewing distances. The screen in the demo room is 160" diagonal. He admitted he couldn't see the difference. I asked him about LCD flat panel displays, same thing--non-issue at normal viewing distances. Then he got into how being too close to a large screen would mean that peripheral vision would be needed and that our peripheral vision isn't as good at discerning resolution.

I setup an LCD flat panel display for my father-in-law yesterday. There was a 480P 16:9 image on the screen and three people were saying how great it looked. I'm pretty sure that they would have a very hard time telling me the difference between 720 and 1080, even when close to the screen. Most people don't watch TV from 4' away, just DP's, DIT's, colorists and editors!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

So Jeff are you saying then that there is no advantage to shooting anything with a higher resolution than 720P as no one can tell the difference between 720P and anything with a higher resolution, even when projected onto a 160" screen, a screen size that could be found in some smaller cinema theaters? Because if you can't see the resolution gain from 720P to 1080P then surely you won't see the difference of higher resolutions.

Are you implying that Panavision, Red, Arri, Sony, Panasonic, Ikegami etc, etc are all wasting their time producing cameras with higher resolution than 720P and that NHK's research into UltraHD etc is a waste of time? Are you seriously convinced that home TV screen sizes are not going to continue to get bigger. Do you honestly think movie producers are wasting their money shooting at 4K. Come on Jeff, there is a difference and it's perfectly visible at normal viewing distances. In the UK and Europe the typical viewing distance is 2.7m (8ft) and with the human eye able to resolve 1/60th of a degree of an arc it only needs around a 42" screen for the difference between 720P and 1080P to be quite apparent. A 42" screen is not considered large any more and screen sizes are going up and up, while room sizes if anything are getting smaller.

What about web delivery. What's the resolution of the computer screen your looking at now? Would you be happy with a 1280x720 screen or can you see the difference between that and higher resolutions? I know that when I play back 720P and 1080P clips, full screen on my laptop or PC I can see quite a difference and web delivery of video is going to become a bigger and bigger part of our industry. 1650x1050 and 1920x1080 are common sizes for computer displays and most people sit only 2 or 3 ft from their computers. Even YouTube have gone 1080P!

Alister,

All else being equal, then, yes, the more pixels the merrier. However, like 4:4:4 and 10-bit-14-bit codecs, the differences aren't always apparent to the human eye, just to the computers in post that are doing the compositing, scaling, encoding, decoding, transcoding.

I think too many are caught up in pixel counting. We all know that RED One doesn't actually provide 4K resolution in the best of circumstances, and when doing high speed frame rates, loses resolution due to the sensor size getting smaller.

Regarding the ability to see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 42" full raster display at 8', not in my experience.

YouTube proves that it takes more than 1080P resolution to provide a high quality image. Too many places for image degradation in the multiple steps of compression. 1080P is no magic bullet and top end 720P cameras like the Varicam have proven this for years.

Due to full sample codecs like XDCAM EX, XDCAM 422, AVC-Intra 100, ProRes 422, 720P looks better than ever.

Based on Adam Wilt's review, the 350 pre-release unit he saw had issues. He does not believe its CMOS artifacts are any better than with the EX1 and EX3, saw the codec as a weakness, questioned its value vs. an EX1 for 3X less $$. You and I agree that a 2/3" front end is worth the price premium, I'm not sure I want to risk CMOS sensors for all of the varied projects my clients would be shooting and I don't see 8-bit, 4:2:0 codecs as having a place in modern high end acquisition. You don't believe 720P native sensors belong in modern high end acquisition. We can agree to disagree.

I've never, ever had a client complain that my HDX900 didn't provide enough resolution. Indeed, they are normally thrilled with the images. I don't expect expect to hear complaints about my HPX2700 that provides full sample 720P or upconverted 1080P recording.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

It isn't pixel counting, its the irrefutable fact that a like for like 1080P image contains substantially more detail than a 720P image. If 720P really was perfection why on earth would so many broadcasters be wasting bandwidth by transmitting 1080?

I guess we will have to disagree. I strongly believe that 720P is a format that will over the next 5 to 8 years, largely disappear. TV's and monitors will continue to get larger with 50" becoming common place. At this size with normal viewing distances the difference between 720P and 1080P is almost as large as the difference between SD and 720P.

And don't forget that Adam uses and likes his EX1, he's "in love with the images it captures", He also thinks the 350 produces a better image than the EX1. He also thinks the 350 is "very competitively priced". It's very easy to take extracts from a review out of context to make it sound like pretty much anything you want. And as we know the codec is easily bypassed.

Sony 350 lens
 

Hi Alister this is my first time on DV.INFO, but ive got a burning question i hope you can advise me on. I have owned my own video production company now for nearly 25 years and for just about all that time i have used true shoulder mount cameras. Last year i sold my DSR135 DOCKABLE DVCAM Camera also my PD170 and baught an EX1 and an EX3.The picture quality from both the EX1 and EX3 are fantastic,but i couldnt quite get used to the shape of the EX3.To try to get it to be more of a shoulder mount camera i added a V LOCK battery plate with two IDX batteries clipped together for the rear of the camera and for the front i put on a FUJINON XS17x5.5BRMHD LENS,that made the EX3 90% a good shoulder mount camera (picture quality absolutely fantastic).I now want to purchase a PMW350 I think this camera will be perfect for me.My question is how will the stock lens lens on the PMW350 compare (picture quality wise) with the picture quality i now get from my EX3 with my new lens,will it be better or not as good.My long term plans are to purchase a decent lens for the 350 but i will have to wait for that for a few months.Thanks Wilf.

Alister,
Your argument while logical doesn't prove that humans can or cannot see the difference between 720P or 1080P when shown side by side using optimal technology for each. As a matter of influence we know that people think bigger or more is better so they may persuade themselves that they can see a difference that double blind tests won't show.
We know there is more information in 1080 but it doesn't mean humans on average can resolve the difference in the viewing situations they are in. There is a reason NTSC lasted for such a long time as a standard because the specs were based on human reactions to the signals not just what the equipment could produce. Humans have not evolved substantially since then but the electronic capabilities have. If you are correct why stop at 1080HD for distribution. At what point do you think you would not see an advantage with more pixels? Double? Triple? Quadruple?
As to whether you are correct about the disappearance of 720P I think you are on more solid ground from a market perspective. People hear the higher number and think they need it and the market responds. Apparently the higher number of frames in a 720 60P signal doesn't impress them as much as 1080P at 30. Channels pick their specs based on a combination of inputs and many don't want to be perceived as lower quality so lean towards 1080 as the higher quality spec. Some channels like Discovery would say they wouldn't accept programs which used a lower quality compression/recording because they were worried about quality problems which would show up in the future while not apparent now. Regardless we will probably settle on 1080 over 720 on the off chance that the lower number is not good enough.

Alister,

Just because there are more pixels doesn't mean the difference is obvious to the eye, as Daniel stated. I previously posted an excerpt from a professional display reviewer who absolutely does not back up your assertions about there being an obvious difference in resolution at normal viewing distances. By the way, 720/60P requires more bandwidth (45khz) than 1080/60i(33.75khz). One offers better spatial resolution, the other better temporal resolution. At any given time, 1080/60i is 540 lines vertical vs. 720.

If 720P were to disappear, and this would be news to ABC, Fox, and ESPN, it would be more to do with marketing than image quality. A full raster 1080 display in a 24" or 32" LCD display is silly, ditto a 240Hz refresh rate, but the marketeers position these as being necessary for their video displays.

Regarding Adam's 350 review, I just listed his pros and cons, I didn't take anything out of context. I think readers should go to ProVideo Coalition.com: Pro Cameras, Video Editing, Motion Graphics and read the review themselves. Your obvious pro-Sony bias would make me skeptical of any review you have written, however.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

No Jeff you only listed con's from Adams review making it sound as though he didn't like the camera which is not the case at all.

Who was talking about 60P???? where did that suddenly come from? Not me. Your description of 1080i only having a resolution of 540 lines is incorrect anyway because the two fields are offset by one line, the resolution is actually around 800 lines due to line averaging to prevent twitter. You still have twice the horizontal resolution. At least get the facts correct.

I am pro Sony, I stated as much in my first reply to this thread and I don't ever pretend that I am not. I'm no more pro Sony than you are pro 2700. I expect my reviews are biased, because I genuinely believe Sony are currently producing some of the best cameras available.

I don't think we will stop at 1080P, heck 2K and 4K is already available... oh hang on us humans can't see a difference in anything greater than 720P apparently so why bother with those either?

I'm not going to bother with this thread any longer. It's pointless talking to the "720P is the best well ever need" brigade. Go ahead, limit your audience, your potential customers, you post flexibility. At least if you start with 1080 you can always go down to 720P. Start with 720P, stuck with 720P. Nuff Said.

For the life of me, I can't find this review, just the NXCAM. Perhaps you have to be a subscriber?

Wilf: There is an excellent, unbiased review of the camera and lens on the Abel website or take a look in the EX section of the XDCAM forum.

That's a very interesting statement!
I think the reasons why this is quite obviously not the case are the same sort of reasons why the image from a 12mp digital compact will not be on the same planet as those from my equally 12mp Nikon D3 SLR.
As has been said over and over, there's much more to it than pixel counts.
I'm not trying to be smart, but I really can't remember, when Planet Earth was released, any comments about the pictures lacking in resolution. All I remember are comments about how amazing the pictures looked on a big HD screen - largely comments from technical and industry people.
I still feel that there is a level where a certain resolution, assuming all else is excellent, is good enough for even large home TV screens. Just my opinion though.
Incidentally I shot some EX3 stuff over Christmas and put up on a 42" screen via HDSDI it looked decent but subjectively nowhere near as clear, beautiful or even sharp as the Varicam. Subjective though as I say.
Steve

Google it. There are countless posts, far too numerous to even bother with, about the lack of reference quality to this series, from years ago.

What do you mean Tom? Lots of people saying it didn't look very good?
Steve

You can look at the numbers and the theory all you want, my wife and my mother, who have NO technical knowledge whatsoever, can see the difference between 720 and 1080 on broadcasts on our 42" LCD screen.

If you've invested in a 720 only camera you will argue it's merits, if you've invested in 1080 you'll do the same, just the nature of boards like this, it very rarely gets the OP the answer they are looking for

I still follow this thread with interest. Jeff Pro Panasonic and Alister Pro Sony. I can assure you I can tell the difference even with my 68 year old eyes between 720 and 1080 on either my 42" Panasonic plasma or my 40" Sony 240hz LCD, both viewed at about 8 feet (and I understand that both are 1080 displays and thus have to rescale the image. But that is a fact of life and both these displays are top of the line, others will be worse). I may be a little obsessive about video quality but the difference is very evident. Since there is so much rescaling involved most of the time if the whole chain isn't the same format there will be a difference evident. By the way both are acceptable to me when used correctly and can produce beautiful images with 720p60 being better for fast movement( probably a scaling/deinterlacing issue too more obvious on the plasma not visible on the 240hz Sony as it interpolates to a higher frame rate anyway). If there was 1080p60 it would be the one for me!!!
The bigger problems are the miss match between screen resolution, refresh rates and deinterlacing capabilities. The poor shooting of slow frame rates on a lot of programs. Panning, shooting in 24p or 30p for instance is used frequently and poorly. Bad recompression for distribution even on Bluray.
Studio news etc in 1080 or 720 is beautiful only to switch to a program with unknown source or recompression!!!
As I have said in a previous post, most home users with new AVCHD cams are likely to produce a better image directly connected to their new displays than they are going to see from cable on almost any channel whatever it was shot on!!! Sad.
Jeff, on the issue of refresh rates at least 72hz( only available on some plasma displays) is needed to show 24p correctly( emulating a 3 blade projector shutter) 120hz is able to emulate a 5 blade projector shutter. 240 is a little overkill but likely used to make the deinterlacing easier over a larger number of fields( I like the smoother motion).

Ron Evans

Here you go Tom:

ProVideo Coalition.com: Camera Log by Adam Wilt | Founder | Pro Cameras, HDV Camera, HD Camera, Sony, Panasonic, JVC, RED, Video Camera Reviews

By the way, much of Planet Earth was shot with Sony F900's in 1080P.

Alister:

720/60P is the only U.S. broadcast standard for 720P. 1080/60i, prior to being deinterlaced for a 1080P fixed pixel display, only shows 540 vertical lines at a given moment in time. Yes, the fields have to be put together for a progressive display, and as you say, filtered to avoid interline twitter, therefore vertical resolution is 800 lines at best after deinterlacing. Many 1080P displays do a poor job of deinterlacing and scaling, thus softening 1080i broadcast material and adding artifacts and softening to 720P sources.

Please look at my post with Adam's review excerpt--both pros and cons are listed.
My point was never that 720P is all we will ever need, just that there are more to images than the number of pixels. As far as objective reviews, I'll put Adam's reviews up against a dealer who makes money selling a camera(no matter the brand) or a forum that is pro XDCAM, anytime. I know Adam, he is brand agnostic. Yes, there is no doubt that Sony makes great cameras, I'm just not all in the bag for CMOS yet, and hamstringing a 2/3" camera with XDCAM EX.

Steve and Ron:

I own six cameras currently, three Sony SD(DSR-450WS, BVP-550, BVP-550WS) and three HD, Panasonic HPX170, HPX2700, Sony EX1. If I thought 1080 native sensors were the most important aspect of image quality(which the EX1 has), I would not have bought a 2700. I like both Panasonic and Sony cameras. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the HDX900(a 720P native CCD camera that records in 720P and 1080P, like the 2700) is king, although the EX1 and EX3 have done well as has the RED One.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

But scientific tests have shown exactly what people can and what they cannot see, and whilst there is some variation between individuals, the generally accepted figure for the human eye is about 1 minute of arc. Do the maths, and the implication is that for the generally accepted viewing distance of 2.7m, 720p is "good enough" for screen sizes up to about 40", but for bigger, you need higher resolution.

Obviously, you don't get an effect where 720p looks brilliant on a 39" screen, awful on a 42" screen - but it does put some science behind the reasons why 1080 is seen as the resolution to be aimed for. Hopefully it also gives an answer to the other question - "At what point do you think you would not see an advantage with more pixels? Double? Triple? Quadruple?"

For normal viewing there does seem little point indeed in going beyond 1080 for TV as we know it. But for medical, military, industrial applications there may be very good reasons for higher resolution systems.

Jeff - I can't comment on your individual examples, but I'm realising more and more that what is frequently happening is a comparison between 720p/50 and 1080i/25 as sources and a conclusion "oh, 1080 doesn't give me that big an advantage". The comparison should be between 720p and 1080p to make it like for like. (When the difference should be obvious.) 1080 doesn't necessarily mean 1080i, and 1080p can be transmitted on current networks via psf, as previously discusssed - as long as the frame rate is no higher than 25fps. To say nothing of Blu-Ray delivery.

Transmission systems are one thing, imaging chips another. The higher the native resolution, the less electronic detail processing is needed. More native resolution can mean a more natural sharpness than lower res chips that need higher levels of sharpening to look good. That's not to say 720 imaging chips will therefore be bad - rather that 1080 chips can only look better.

As far as the two cameras are concerned, the 2700 lacks fully approved chip resolutions, the 350 a fully approved codec. I don't want to have to choose between them - neither situation is ideal - but the huge difference to me is that I can add an external recorder to the 350 to make it fully approved. I can't do anything comparable to the 2700.

Incidentally, I have no vested interests or connections with either manufacturer. I'm just looking to eventually replace my ageing DSR500 when necessary, and couldn't care less in principle whether I have to buy from Sony or Panasonic. The way things are at the moment, I see the PMW350 as easily the better choice over the 2700 at the moment, but who knows what Panasonic may have in the wings?

Lot's of people saying all kinds of things. I bought the set a few years back when it was on HD DVD. I Haven't watched the whole series. I found it enjoyable.

David, it is god to put some science to this and what you say makes sense. Can't agree that the 350 is the better choice, and nor do the big players in blue chip natural history at the moment, and I'd not be comfortable thinking I know better than they all do, but maybe you are, that's fine.
Steve, you're right about owners and investers in certain equipment biasing views and it annoys me too, and I like to think that I've never done it, I just call it as I've seen it, and not owning any cameras at the moment (sold the Varicam as so many wildlife producers were buying them that none were going to hire mine!) I'm definitely impartial.
Steve

Steve: Your only impartial as long as it's on the BBC NHU's list, that's hardly un-biased. You've shouted long and hard through this discussion about how good the cameras chosen by the NHU are, and that cameras not on the NHU's list can't be any good othewise they would be using them. That's hardly impartial or un-biased.

Most people will be biased to one brand, camera or another based on past experience. The same with cars and most things. You buy one, from one brand and it works well for you. The next time you make a purchasing decision you are likely to consider that brand more favorably based on past experience. Maybe not consciously, but if you know that brand "A" works for you while brand "B" is less well known to you, you are likely to favor brand "A" as you have some experience there. That's human nature. That's where I am and it's no different to the vast majority of consumers or camera users and probably most camera owners. Everything I have written in my reviews has later been backed up by other reviewers and I always make a point to try not to compare cameras or products from different brands but simply look at a products strengths and weaknesses.

In any discussion or debate in a forum you will always have people that are biased. That's a perfectly normal situation and it's only through all the different views and opinions that follow that people learn about the equipment being discussed

I don't think that there is a 'better' camera. From a spec point of view I would never invest in a 720p only camera now. But by the same token if I had a client who could pay off a 2700 a few times over very quickly then it would be worth considering.

However Steve has brought up another point that is becoming all too prevalent now. Clients that have their own gear and don't want to use your own, and therefore want a cut in rate. So you have invested in a camera that you can only use on some jobs, but doesn't get paid off as quickly because clients want you to use their gear instead at a reduced day rate.

This creates a real problem because there is sometimes not enough clients wanting the cameramans own gear to warrant owning an expensive camcorder, while there are sometimes not enough clients with their own gear to warrant not bothering to own any camcorder.

So in this regard a more inexpensive camcorder like the 350 that can have external recording devices (perhaps even supplied by the client) attached to record high datarate HD will be the way forward.

While we at the head of the tapeless revolution understand that it is all data and files now, and therefore the camera should be irrelevant, unfortunately clients themselves often have their own brand preferences that can't be swayed.

I've never bought into the idea of people rejecting Sony's due to the colour or sharpness settings because all of these can be adjusted to whatever look is desired.

That is spot on Alister and a good summary of the current UK industry, all I would add is that the commercial sector is now making programming to suit ratings and advertisers rather than on its content merit.

We have never had a better time for affordable technology that in the hands of the right people can produce content that can inform educate and entertain, sadly the management and creative sector of the industry is full of media graduates that think out of focus and wobbly cam material is a shooting style and top level management that are chasing their shareholders and bonuses.

That's absolute nonsense! I've not said that I think the cameras chosen by the NHU are good, only that they have chosen them and so they must feel with their vast experience and high standards that they are the best for the job. Who am I to contradict them? And who are you to either?
I have no bias towards the NHU, but I do respect their output and the experience of many of their staff. I have no bias towards any of the camera manufacturers, and use lots of different gear - I just call it as I see it. Others have very close relationships with certain manufacturers and always seem to come down on their side of the fence, but not me.
Look back at my posts and you'll see I've said many many good things about the EX1 and 3, plus the PDW355 and 700 that I've owned, also very much like the dinosaur-like HDW750 I use a lot.
I have no agenda, just trying to be helpful with comments based on my experience of lots of different gear on many different HD broadcast projects, and I'm a wildlife cameraman so one of my main employers and points of reference is the NHU. Sorry if I'm out of line.
Steve

Steve - it's not a question of "I know better than they do" at all. Any such choice that any person or body takes will only be valid for one period in time. So the people you are referring to no doubt thought (with validity) that 16mm film made most sense in the 70s/80s - that doesn't mean it is now. The decisions you are referring to were taken over the last couple of years before the PMW350 was even announced. They may well have been the right decisions at the time - but I do not see how decisions made before the announcement of one of the cameras are at all relevant to a current 2700 v 350 discussion.

That aside, any decision on a purchase or recommendation may have to take account of existing legacy issues, fitting in with what equipment, workflows and systems already exist. Nobody in their right minds is likely to think 59.94Hz frame rates and drop frame timecode are a good thing in their own right - but they exist for legacy reasons, owing their origins to issues that haven't existed for decades.

That may also apply here. Legacy compatibility may well have been an important reason for the choice of such as the NHU. But for anybody (such as myself) now thinking of switching from SD to HD, from tape to tapeless, etc and with few legacy issues to consider, the reasons for the NHU decision have little relevance. That's completely different to saying they were wrong.

Taken in isolation, I maintain that the 350 is a better choice than the 2700 in most respects bar one - the codec - and that seems to be the only really significant "con" that Adam also identified. (It also needs to be kept in perspective. He also lists under "pros" "High-quality XDCAM EX 35Mbit/sec recording on SxS cards" ! :-) )

And, as has been said so many times before, you can always use the 350 with a nanoFlash.

I've argued hard with Alister in another thread that I'd much prefer to see the 350 with the 50Mbs codec as an option. But given the choice between it and a 2700 (and with no legacy issues) then at the moment it's definitely the one I'd go for.

David, I'm on your side wanting 50 Mb/s internally on the 350, it would be very nice, 100 Mb/s would be better still. I just don't think we'll ever get it. : (

I'm sorry if I have offended or upset anyone in the course of this interesting and at times passionate debate. I do respect the views of all that have contributed, even if I don't agree with them.

Well said.

Switching gears, I was able to read the entire PMW350K review by Adam Wilt. I found it very postive, and very supportive of what Alister has been saying, so I think the criticism toward Alister who stated in his first post in this topic that he is a Sony fan, has nothing in it to cloud the objectivity of his own review, which is insightful.

Adam did express concern about PMW350 knee saturation, but it seems to have gone ignored that hypergammas (which don't use it) were not working on the prototype, and may not even be an issue for production cams. The kit lens also was well regarded, even though chromatic aberration correction circuit was not working on the prototype. There have been a lot of non-specific criticisms of this lens, (that you don't have to purchase) mostly owing to the fact that it's too cheap to be any good, therefore perhaps Sony could molify some people by raising the price of it to a level they feel would eliminate the cheapness concerns.

Which brings up the overall criticism of the camera package which is the price and the codec. Adam could not have known back in November when he reviewed the PMW350K that Sony would reduce the kit price by $3,100. That's a significant drop, the cam + lens now lists for $18,900. Auto focus for the first time in 2/3 inch...hmmm, that's a bargain as I see it. That just paid for the Nanoflash, so there's the 4:2:2 codec with more bit rates and options than AVC-Intra or DVCProHD, and low cost compact flash media to boot.

Lightweight, full raster, low noise, high sensitivity, low power and affordable. I think the critics are right, pass on this camera now. The animals won't like having their picture taken with the kind of detail and beauty this cam is going to make affordable.

Alister "I'm sorry if I have offended or upset anyone in the course of this interesting and at times passionate debate. I do respect the views of all that have contributed, even if I don't agree with them."
Appreciate that, me too, I'm only trying to be helpful and am genuinely reporting my findings with no agenda. Also I think it might be of interest/use to some people to know what's going on in the NHU and other blue chip wildlife houses with which I have some involvement and which might not otherwise be public knowledge.
As a brief summary, I actually don't think there is any camera for moving images that I would consider a really good choice for wildlife, all of them have issues. If cash is no object I'd choose the SRW9000 at present, needing an SR recorder/player with it though as it's a tape camera, so moving the price even higher and beyond most people an common sense. At semi-sensible budgets I'd choose the Varicam, or possibly the PDW800 as when I had a PDW355 very briefly I was quite impressed with the half-vertical-rez overcranking and the 800 works in the same way but with a much better image to begin with. I'm still far from convinced about the EX3 even though I'd love to like it as it has so many big advantages for wildlife (small and light, 1 tiny 200g battery will last as long a 7kg of Varicam batteries, extra telephoto reach, cheap, good lens included, excellent wide lens option at a tiny price). Likewise the RED has a long long way to go for wildlife to for me.
Steve

Steve, have you looked into the new digital Arri's that are due out this year? Around $40k, but they look really nice.

Thanks Simon, which one do you mean, is it along the lines of the D21? do you have a link?
Steve

David,

In the U.S. the ATSC digital broadcast specs for 1080 allow for 1080/60i or 1080/60P according to a broadcast engineer friend of mine. There is no 1080/24Psf being broadcast or cablecast, according to him. Nor is there 1080/60P except for some DirecTV satellite PPV movies. Everything else is 60 fields interlace, 3:2 cadence from film source or 23.98 frame video.

I asked him if he or any engineer he knows can tell the difference between 1080/60i and 720/60P and he said, "yes, of course, the motion is much better with 720/60P". He said the resolution difference was imperceptible. He did say that when up close to a full raster display he can see diagonal lines that are smoother with 1080 vs. 720.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Jeff you are only referring to US TV broadcast, what about the rest of the world? This is a global market after all. I believe that there are more 50Hz countries than 60 Hz and in these regions 25PsF is the norm for movies and common for most high end drama and documentaries. What about BluRay, web delivery (which is almost always true P) etc.

Producers making programmes for Discovery are some of my biggest clients. I deliver 1080P material to them most months. It may be broadcast within a 60i stream, but it's still progressive.

Anecdotal references from people that claim they cannot see the difference with "average" screen sizes at "average" distances are just individual opinions. The irrefutable fact remains that 1080i or 1080P has significantly more horizontal resolution than 720P. 1080P also has higher significantly higher vertical resolution. These are facts. It is also a fact that the temporal motion in 1080i60 and 720p30 is the same, the refresh rate is after all the same, the problem is that progressive displays often have a hard time dealing with interlace.

David's and my comments on the resolution of the human eye and theoretical viewing distances and screen sizes are also based on well proven, sound optical science, not opinions or hearsay.

Even if some people struggle to see a difference, for whatever reason, there are plenty of others that can, perhaps they choose to sit closer than the "average" viewing distance, perhaps they have a larger than "average" screen, perhaps they choose to watch on a computer screen just a few inches away.

So who should we cater for? Should we just make programmes that Mr Average viewing an "average" screen from the "average" viewing distance thinks is OK or should we strive to produce the best that we can? Should we not bother to produce programmes for those that can see the difference or should we just let them suffer ;-). Should we be producing material that is acceptable to some broadcasters in some region, or all broadcasters?

Even if this is just marketing hype (which I don't believe it is), should we not be producing 1920x1080 programmes to make the end customers feel good about their 1920x1080 equipment investment. After all these people are not just the customers of the TV manufacturers, but they are our customers too, at the end of the day these are people that help keep us employed.

If we took the view of simply producing programmes for Mr Average and ignored everyone else we would probably still have 405 line or NTSC TV. I'm quite sure that 10 years ago Mr Average thought that SD TV was just fine, I know my wife did. I also remember many, many people claiming that there was little difference between SD and HD in the early days. Thankfully though there were enough people that wanted something better. These were not Mr Average but people striving to improve the quality of their viewing experience. It's only by catering for the "few" and pushing technology forwards that things get improved. If we all took the view that "average" is as good as we need we would get no-where. We would all be driving "average" cars. Lets face it if you drive normally an "average" car well get you to your destination just as quickly as a luxury car, yet strangely many people like to buy luxury cars.

1080P is a logical forwards progression from 720P. Even if the difference is small, even if Mr Average can't see a difference at "average" viewing distances there are many good reasons for shooting at the highest resolution you can. Even if your end product will be 720P by shooting at 1080P you can crop and zoom in post with no discernible quality loss. You could use this to remove an errant boom mic or simply to compensate for a lens that's not quite long enough. It's excellent for green screen where any small keying issues disappear when squashed down to 720P. You can also composite a green screen scene at 1080 and then do a pan-and-scan within the scene while still retaining 720P resolution.

I'm afraid I have yet to hear a truly valid reason in resolution terms at least, for shooting 720P over 1080P. In an ideal world we would have 1080P60 or P50. Were not there yet, but I'm sure that will come. Buy a 720P camera and that's it. Buy a 1080P camera and in most cases you can choose to shoot 1080P or 720P.

One thing I don't think many people realise is that an EX recording overcrank at 720P60 records at 70Mb/s. Yes it's 4:2:0 but in progressive the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is tiny (yes I would prefer 4:2:2). Also consider this: I think we all agree that an EX at 1920 x 1080 35Mb/s produces a good image. What about an EX at 1280 x 720 35Mb/s? Same bit rate but now only recording less than half as much data. My opinion is that at 720P the EX pictures are about as good as it gets for a 720P camera.

Everything is about to change... | ARRI Digital

I think that these may be the dark horse of this year that might take a few by surprise.

I've wondered about this a few times, about whether the compressor just records at a lower bitrate rather than keeping the same as it would for 1080. After all a lot of the time the EX records well under the 35Mb/s specified top rate.

But I agree, we should always strive to produce the best possible.

For info if any people are not familiar with what cameras are currently approved for HD at the BBC there is a list on-line: BBC - Commissioning - Producing High-Definition TV

Of course there are exceptions and I know of one definite programme that was all shot on an EX-1 Liz Smiths cruise prog was done this way by an independent and I spoke to the director and got the in-story of the shoot more reading here:http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthrea...ight=liz+smith

As previously mentioned I am using a 2700 as main camera for broadcast and have now been told that it is OK to use the 301's as b-cameras.

Well I am not a broadcast engineer and I can very clearly see the difference between 720p and 1080p footage on a full resolution display WHEN the footage was shot with a full raster 1080 camera.

I shoot with a guy that runs a Panasonic at 1080p/23.976 and his footage is clearly not up to the 1080p resolution of the Sony, it looks more like 720p in terms of detail. Thats because his camera is using pixel shifting to achieve 1080 resolution. And it doesn't substitute for a true 1080 full raster images. So yes, his 1080p really isn't any better than his 720p. But he can only speak for himself, even on a lowly Sony EX1, the difference between 720p and 1080p is striking even on a smallish 37" LCD TV.

So I don't doubt some people are seeing little difference between 720p and 1080p resolutions.

The difference in quality is so big that I almost cringe kicking down to 720p to overcrank, I already know that in post I will see the resolution drop when I intercut that footage into my native 1080p files.

That's my experience too. I'd almost rather produce the whole show at 720P than intercut 1080P and 720P, the difference is not insignificant.