The (4:3) half inch chip has a surface area of 30.72 mm2. The 1"/3 chip has a surface area of 17.28 mm2 - or roughly 50% less. The EX1's 5.8 to 81.2 mm f/1.9 lens sure will make a dof difference, I can assure you. The Z1's full tele of 54 mm at a smaller f/2.8 aperture is feeble in comparison.

tom.

Given that the EX1 will have up to 518K chroma samples per frame, it will be interesting to see how people feel about grading footage from it once they actually get a chance to do so.

In any case, if the EX1 is better in low light and can record longer per memory card than the HVX200, it will likely become more popular for event videography. Whether it's worth switching from one to the other is something to wait and see as discussed in previous posts.

"But if low light isn't an issue and you do a lot of grading, DVCPro HD is vastly superior to the codec than you're going to get with the EX1."

On the outset, this statement is correct, however there is ALOT that can be done in an 8bit 4:2:0 world.
Consider Vegas 32bit float rendering as a starter.
Then consider the same render or even the source itself, to be a transcode from Cineform or Sony YUV at 4:2:2.
The differences will be barely noticable to DVCproHD.
Considering the Luma sampling of the EX is sourced at 1920x1080 native pixel res (as opposed to 960x540 on the HVX), dropping this down to 720p or even 1440x1080, increases the colour sampling range anyway.

DVCproHD is an incredible format, no doubt, but its not the bees knees.
In addition, if codecs are an issue, the fundamental difference between the 2 units is SDI. HVX does not have this.
And with the coming of the bolt on SDI capture to CF adapter, it will be the definitive option for running and gunning uncompressed footage.
I do not doubt that we will see the EX used in motion pictures as stunt cams, steadicams, crash cams or even B Roll.
Its cheap, looks incredible as is, (uncompressed is even better) and extremely flexible in regard to output options.

I agree, but that's all lensing and not chip size. 1/2" is still 8mm DOF, and it's just not going to be perceptively that different than than 1/3" in general shooting. In the wide range the 1.6 of the HVX isn't going to look any different than the 1.9 of the EX. If you spend the bulk of your time doing close field or telephoto work then you might make the decision based upon DOF.

Not sure what you mean when you say '8 mm dof', EJ. Super-8 film? Each frame has a projected area of 21.3 mm2, so it sits happily between the 1"/3 and 1"/2 chips. And you're right, down the wide end everything's in focus in all three formats generally.

tom.

I saw a noticeable difference in DOF when I went from a camera with 1/4" chips to 1/3", so I would think there would be a similar difference going to 1/2". Also, going from 540 lines of resolution on the HVX200 to ~1000 lines on the EX1 will probably be noticeable as well.

There are plenty of people who are perfectly happy with grading HDV and don't see any problems so I have no doubt there will be people who will think it's great.

But even in a low noise situation, I don't think a 35Mbs 4:2:0 codec is going to have anywhere near the grading latitude as a 100Mbs 4:2:2 codec.

But I would be completely thrilled to find out my guess is completely wrong.

I concur.

Exactly when is the Sony going to be available for some objective side by sides?

I doubt the codec itself will be as significant as how well the EX1 works in its progressive recording mode, assuming you do your editing in a robust color space. And as far as the HVX200 is concerned, aren't a lot of people running that at 40-50 Mbps with 720p resolution?

In any case, good observation that people are successfully grading HDV footage, so the EX1 should at least be better than that.

For grading the codec is everything. Even if you transcode to ProRes422HQ, once the codec has chucked the data, it's gone and it's not coming back. Limited chroma and compression artifacts are where you hit the wall with grading, not your working color space.

I said happy, not necessarily successful. For me HDV falls apart so quickly that it's useless for any serious grading. I know plenty of people are happy with it, just not me. XDCAM EX and the better low light/low noise performance will definitely be better than HDV though.

No doubt, which is a shame given that DVCPRO HD is one of the HVXs best features.

Looks like the Convergent XDR uses MPEG2 compression rather than AVC-intra, but with an I-frame recording option at 160 Mbps data rate. Attach one of those to an EX1 and you could have full-raster 1080p I-frame data using memory cards which would cost about $27.50 per minute of recording capacity, which isn't bad for what you get.

Yes, I'm really looking forward to seeing this combination. I wish the XDR would support 10 bit, although I believe it definately will be a step up from the XDCAM EX1 codec.

Whooops. Too much Panny on the mind. It's not only I-frame, but a Sony codec chip-set. Makes you wonder why they couldn't have used their own module in the EX1. (Probably the same reason why the HPX500 didn't get AVC-Intra)

Just got a Sony EX1 today, I'm putting it to the test along side my HVX,
I'll post my results soon.