"But it sounds as if you believe the PMW350 isn't 2/3"? It most definitely is, and in general shape, size etc in a porta brace will outwardly look very similar to a 500 or any similar 2/3" camera."

I can see how one might get confused--there's the Sony PDW-F350 1/2" XDCAM HD disc based camera and now the PMW-350 2/3" XDCAM EX camera. You can't accuse Sony of being very original! Kind of like Panasonic coming out with a couple of camera models that ended in a "900"--I think they did that on purpose to confuse those interested in a Sony F900!

One thing we all know is that there will never be another universally adopted format standard again in this file based codec world we live in. The good news is that we don't have to buy expensive decks anymore, unless we want to shoot HDCAM SR.

I know of a regional cable sports network who had bought a bunch of XDCAM 422 decks that were less than a year old. They were receiving discs from the other side of the country that were shot in 24P for a series and the almost brand new decks couldn't play them back. They had to ship a deck along with the discs just to get them to play out.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

This still looks apples to oranges to me. The 350 is 3k more in price than the 500 and will require an external recorded for 4:2:2? It also looks like it will require anton bauer conversion for my existing power? Where does it out perform the 500?

Where it will outperform the 500, no question whatever, is in resolution. It's got about 3 times the number of pixels on the chip. This is indisputable.
Steve

The 350 is also the fastest, quietest 2/3" camera I've seen due to the CMOS sensors. Very fast ISO rating, very high SN ratio.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

As far as 4:2:2 v 4:2:0 goes, then let's try an analogy.

If I offered you a quarter of my bank account or a half of my bank account, which would you choose? Easy - a half.

But let's say I had two accounts, imaginatively called "A" and "B". Now I offer you half of A, or a quarter of B, what then? The first thing you'd want to know is how much is in each - it's obviously better to have a quarter of $100,000 than a half of $10,000, isn't it?

And it's exactly the same here. The colour space numbers show how many chroma samples there are *AS A FRACTION OF THE NO OF LUMINANCE SAMPLES*. The PMW350 records many more luminance samples per frame than the HPX500, which greatly lessens the impact of the 4:2:0 v 4:2:2 factor on chroma resolution compared to what you'd first think. As well as meaning it's much sharper in luminance, which will have far more influence on what the overall picture looks like than chroma.

Still not convinced? I gave the figures in post 34 above:
It's actually even more complicated than that. 4:2:2 means recording the same no of chroma/luma samples vertically, so in this case implies being able to record 1080 chroma samples vertically. That is vastly more than the HPX500 can resolve. Pixel shifting only improves luminance resolution, not chrominance, so the best chroma resolution 960x540 chips can resolve vertically is 540. it's half of what the recording system can manage - so the 4:2:2 ability gains nothing over 4:2:0 at all here. It's like pouring one litre of water into a two litre bottle, you'll still only have one litre of water. (Whereas with the EX cameras you start off with the full 2 litres and pour into a one litre container. You end up with onlyone litre either way!)

As far as power goes, it has the industry standard V-lock mount for batteries. Adaptors are available to use other types such as Anton Bauer or PAG.

David,

I ran your color space vs. luma sample response by Adam Wilt. Here is his response:

"DVCPROHD will allow more extreme grading / color correction without artifacts becoming too prominent. I prefer the added detail from the EX1, even with 4:2:0 recording, for green screen work--but I shoot progressive. If shooting interlace, I'd probably go with the HPX500."

His response would seem to validate both 4:2:2 of DVCPRO HD and full raster detail of EX1, and presumably PMW-350.

There is no question that the human eye is much better with seeing luminance detail vs. chroma detail, most of us couldn't discern4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4, however, computers can tell.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Yes, and computers can not just tell, but when they manipulate the video (such as chromakey) the chroma resolution gets mapped into luminance detail - so then the human eye can tell. There is no debate that *IF ALL ELSE IS EQUAL*, it's better to have 4:2:2 recording than 4:2:0 - especially if you wish to do something like chromakey. I've made no secret that I'd prefer to see the 350 with the 422 50Mbs codec. (At least you can add a nanoFlash if neccessary.)

But here all else is not equal. DVCProHD and XDCAM EX don't record the same number of luminance pixels, and the chip resolutions of the two cameras are different.

I don't agree with Adam that I'd prefer the HPX500 over a PMW350 in interlace for the following logic. The advantages of 4:2:2 over 4:2:0 are certainly more pronounced in interlace mode than progressive (*all else equal*!), but the chips of the HPX500 mean that the camera can't really exploit it in the way that a camera with full R,G,B 1080 chip resolution vertically could. The limiting factor will not be the way the chroma is recorded, but the way the chips initially resolve it.

If we assume that the chromakey background is blue, the maximum resolution of blue that an HPX500 can resolve is 540 lines vertically. Pixel shifting is of no help - this is the whole point, that pixel shifting only improves LUMINANCE resolution. The chrominance resolution can't get any better than 540 lines. In the case of the PMW350, the chip produces a lot more chroma res - but the sub-sampling knocks it down to 540.

So similar chrominance resolution in both cases - but for the PMW350 the luminance resolution is far higher than the 500, which will make a big real world difference.

The above all applies to the vertical direction. Horizontally, there's no comparison - all the figures are well in the favour of the PMW350.

But forget all the theory. After seeing the BSC trials, and split screens of the HVX201 against the EX3 under controlled real world conditions, there is just no doubt that 1920x1080 chips recorded full raster, substantially outperform 960x540 chips recorded to a sub-sampled format like DVCProHD. I'd expect to see a comparable difference with an HPX500 and a PMW350.

David,

I agree with your points, especially as they pertain to luminance samples being recorded. Adam has always told me that XDCAM EX really shows it limitations in interlace mode and he avoids using EX1's in interlace.

I also agree that the HVX200/200A/HPX170/500 are interchangeable in regards to luma and chroma samples, ditto EX1/3/PMW350.

When you say the Sony full sample cameras outperform the Panasonic pixel shifted cameras, clearly that's true with luminance, but Adam believes that even a pixel-shifted, 3/4 sampled DVCPRO HD is superior in terms of more extreme grading and color correction. And, of course, my contention regarding AVC-Intra 100, being a 10-bit, full sample, 4:2:2 codec, is above and beyond XDCAM EX and DVCPRO HD, and certainly at least as good as XDCAM 422 by virtue of having 4X the shades of gray as any 8-bit format.

I think we're back to any prospective buyer needing to do real world tests, from shooting through work flow. My editors don't like XDCAM EX, one just corrects me by saying, "you mean HDV", but there are some people who don't think the pixel shifted cameras are adequate in resolving power. This is why Panasonic offers the HPX300, 3000 and 3700, and for many(me), the HDX900, HPX2000, 2700 resolve enough detail.

And of course, up until recently, there were NO full raster one-piece cameras as far as on-board codecs. The F900 and original Varicam seemed to please most people, despite not having full raster chips or codecs.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

But numbers aside, again. I still think it's not completely right or fair to compare a EX1/3 to a Hvx200/hpx171, or a PMW350 to the Hpx500.

HPX170, around 4100$ vs. EX1, around 6200$

PMW350 w/lens around 19000$ or PMW350 wo/lens around 17000$

Hpx500, around 9900$
Hpx500 kits available for around 18000$ w/ lens, P2 cards and tripod plate.

Ofcourse there might be rebates available for all cameras, or kits...i got my Hpx500 kit for about 18k last spring, HD lens, batteries, P2 cards, tripod plate and a backpack.

The 350 will be a lot better in the resolution department, and I'm aware of the 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2 being relative. The 500 will deliver a bit softer image, but with 100mbit codec and a better "out the box" color. That the 350 will be sharper for the extra cost isn't surprising...

QUOTE "... The 500 will deliver a bit softer image, but with 100mbit codec and a better "out the box" color. That the 350 will be sharper for the extra cost isn't surprising..."

But extreme sharpness isn't always becoming nor desirable, if it were, filter manufacturers would not be producing softening filters and portrait and other still photographers would not be purchasing them. Sure, it's nice to have the option but if it doesn't fulfill your needs in regards to the type of work that you do and you prefer the Panasonic Mojo to that of what I assume is the alternative (Sony), then the choice is obvious.

I understand that there are those whose primary concern appears to be the acceptibility of their content by the BBC but there is an entire population—imagine that—of videographers on the other side of the continent for whom the BBC's requirements or those of NatGeo have no bearing. With the U.S. economy in the dumpster, it appears that many of the local newsies and network subsidiaries are doing their own recording with cameras that would not meet the requirements of the purists nor the followers of the BBC white papers. So, as always, content is king and being on scene with whatever you have available to document the action seems to carry the greatest level of importance. On the other hand, if your bent is to film a feature length production, then you probably would not be using any of the cameras mentioned in this topic's various posts and my diatribe becomes less valid.

I personally dislike extremely sharp images, there is no romance or mystery to a razor sharp, sterile, clean image. I interviewed a well known director last week who just finished his latest feature with the RED One. He told me that this is the main fault he finds in all of the modern digital cinema cameras like the Genesis, Viper, RED One. The image is too clean and sterile. He told me, "why would I want to a shoot a beautiful woman's face in close up with a digital camera, it looks terrible". He wants to go back to shooting S35.

I think that this is the reason that some of us are fine with abbreviated raster cameras, they have a softer, more impressionistic quality that many of us find more appealing than the antiseptic look of some of the full raster cameras.

Dan

Dan you raise a good point, but I think that has to be held in context.

For cinema style productions there is an acceptable range.

If you are shooting a football game for FOX, then there is no range, it needs to be sharp as a tack to meet with industry standards.

The application can dictate how important detail level can be to the overall success of the project.

Along the lines of what David is saying, I would rather have the detail and be able to turn it down than only have the lowered minimum. Because with video cameras, edge fringing starts to appear when you search for more detail than the camera can give...and that look is not accepted in any circles.

The HPX-500 does make a very pleasing image, it is just a bit soft in 1080p in my experience. If you shoot in 720p it is great, given you black balance before every shoot to reduce the noise in the shadow areas.

Tim,

You mentioned FOX and sharp images for sports. It's worth noting that all Fox networks are 720/60P. David and Alister Chapman, in another thread, HPX2700 vs. PMW-350, chose the latter because of the 720P native CCD's in the 2700. There are those who think only 4K cameras are worth considering and of course, those who think only 35mm Cine cameras are worth using. Of course, DP's and directors often put diffusion filters in front of these tack sharp cameras/Cine prime lenses.

It's obviously an aesthetic choice. I find 720P native cameras to be kinder to talent than full raster 1080 cameras. For broadcast, I definitely prefer 720/60P over 1080/60i from a temporal resolution standpoint and not having interlace artifacts. 720P native cameras are the sweet spot for me.

Also, per Adam Wilt, 1080/60i is problematic with low bit rate, 4:2:0 Long GOP codecs, such as XDCAM EX. This is why US broadcast networks broadcasting in 1080/60i shoot shows like 60 Minutes with XDCAM 422 rather than XDCAM EX.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Jeff, While my sympathies lie with most of your points you should know that 60 minutes uses XDCAM EX and XDCAM Disc and just about anything else they can find at points. A close friend of mine is an editor there and we are always talking about a mish mash of formats for the pieces he is working on. Yes they prefer XDCAM Disc for the main cameras but are often using the XDCAM EX smaller units as well. There is some workflow which gets the EX footage to disc which has been discussed elsewhere on the site. Plus they like to shoot 30P not 60i. When they went HD they originally wanted to go 24P but they went with Sony before the XDCAM 700 was capable of it so they settled for 30P. 2/3 inch was more important to them than frame rate at the time.

Jeff,

I think you are taking my post a bit too literally. I was referencing FOX sports or any type live broadcast where detail and sharpness are preferred over softness.

If you show up with a "percieved" soft camera, it would not be looked upon as favorably compared to a cine type shoot.

Some of the images from NFL games are incredibly tack sharp with detail. That is the look they are going for. That's all I was stating.

Daniel,

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know 60 minutes used EX1/EX3. I figured they'd use regular XDCAM disc at times. It certainly makes sense they would shoot progressive vs. interlace.

Tim,

I understand, your point was that sports would put an emphasis on live looking, sharp HD vs. Cine, where that's not such a priority. My point was that 720/60p certainly falls under the live, sharp HD category, not just 1080/60i, for broadcast.

In regards to NFL Films, I prefer their 16mm footage over video footage, the 16mm gave it a grittier, bigger than life look.

There is a documentary feature called, "It Might Get Loud" about three guitar players. The location footage was shot on Super 16, the studio footage on Sony F23's. The difference between them is jarring. The Super 16 was warm and organic(and grainy), the HDCAM SR was cold and clinical. I much preferred the Super 16 look, especially in a documentary context. Panasonic cameras look more like the Super 16 footage--albeit not as grainy.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

I agree that 720p60 is a sweet spot. I tend to shoot a lot with this framerate.

Many times, 1080p leaves a lot of pixels on the table when most common delivery methods are used especially if you are not shooting in 24p.

To clarify, I don't prefer sterile sharp in any sort just that on the Sony you get 1080p and it will be a lot sharper than a 500. I own a Hpx500 myself and it works just fine, a tad soft in 1080p, but for broadcast at least so far all HD i have done is 720p.

Also I got kind of a shock when I asked a local dealer what's the retail on a PMW350 was...list price w/ lens is around 30k and without is around 23k with today's NOK/USD exchange rate. Realistically we probably look at 25K w/ lens....! Seems like I live in the wrong country for buying gear...

I can't comment directly on the dollar pricing (and all the figures vary according to dealer etc as you say) but I gave the UK£ pricing earlier on.

And according to your figures above, the all-in prices of PMW350 and HPX500 only vary by about $1,000 - about 5% - I'd say that shows that they are pretty comparable. It's about as fair a comparison as you'll ever get. (And I'll accept that there may be roughly a 5% premium for the PMW350 - it's not a lot. It will also vary widely depending how much memory you need, for example - I doubt the $9,900 price for the 500 includes any P2 cards?)

As far as HPX170 v EX1, what does the prices you quote include? I suspect not a lot of memory, and by the time you include a working amount for each camera (at least 2 hours?) I suspect the difference will not be as much.
I have to go back to the BSC trials, and can only strongly, strongly recommend that you try to see a copy of the Blu-Ray that now exists from them. In a previous post I said that "It wasn't just being sharper, it was being EFFORTLESSLY sharper, more natural..... and I can't do better than restate that. The HVX200 picture wasn't just less detailed, it showed the effects of artificial detail enhancement noticeably, whereas the EX3 picture had not only the resolution but also the "smoothness" - the "non-electronic" look - that I suspect is what you actually like. The far higher native resolution of the EX allows the electronic enhancement to be turned down with the picture still looking sharp. The HVX200 doesn't allow that - it turns into a contest of "do I want more because it's too soft, or do I want less because it's too edgy?" From specs I'd expected the EX to outperform the HVX200 - I hadn't expected the difference to be so big. And we haven't even mentioned the noise yet......

For anybody in the UK, there's a whole day devoted to this coming up next Friday, see Public BAFTA Event - The BAFTA site which also gives registration details. I'll be extremely interested to hear what anybody else thinks who does manage to go along - please don't just take my word for any of this. The tests were mostly concerning top end cameras, and done to the highest standards.

I actually feel that all this will become academic come NAB. I can't believe there won't be a new Panasonic model in this price range out to compete with the EX, and I'm pretty sure it's likely to have 1920x1080 chips. (And likely a better than DVCProHD codec.) If there isn't, the position of the HVX200 is just going to look more and more tenuous.

"I actually feel that all this will become academic come NAB. I can't believe there won't be a new Panasonic model in this price range out to compete with the EX, and I'm pretty sure it's likely to have 1920x1080 chips. (And likely a better than DVCProHD codec.) If there isn't, the position of the HVX200 is just going to look more and more tenuous."

David,

I think Panasonic would point to the HPX300, even though it's 1/3" vs. 1/2" CMOS sensors.
Full raster, 10-bit, 4:2:2, I-Frame, ENG form factor, detachable lens, built-in waveform, viewfinder and LCD display.

I have been able to reduce detail on my EX1 and get natural looking images, although the fleshtones and overall colorimetry doesn't look like my Panasonic cameras. But, it's clean and fast compared to my HPX170, and even a bit cleaner than my 2700.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Hi David:

I don't need to look to the BBC tests. I owned the HVX200 for two years, replaced it with a 170 and regularly shoot with the EX1 as I have a client who owns three of them and they have me shoot with the EX1 whenever I shoot for them. Have not tried the EX1r but I would imagine the picture doesn't look very different?

It definitely comes down to personal preference but to my eye, when I shoot with the EX1 at 1080 24p, the image is so clean and razor sharp that it looks like 1080 60i almost, even though it is progressive, it has that Discovery HD sterile kind of look that doesn't appeal to me personally. Even after tweaking every setting possible, the Sony colors and gamma curve just cannot reproduce images that look as organic and exciting to me as the Panasonic images from the entire line of cameras, from the 170, up to the 3000.

I DP'd a film shot with my 170 in November that premiered at the IMAX theater in Copenhagen so I was able to see the footage, shot at 1080 24pA, projected from a 4k data projector onto a gigantic, curved IMAX screen. Since the film wasn't shot in IMAX, of course all of the vertical lines were curved but I was surprised at how film-like, clean and clear the images looked. The audience response to the images was great as well. Full raster resolution and razor sharpness are not everything, they are almost insignificant as far as I am concerned when compared to how the camera image strikes the viewer. I have seen plenty of great looking images from the Sonys, they are good cameras, but the flavor is just not as appealing to a lot of viewers.

To me, the Sony cameras look like digital video and the Panasonic cameras, with some tweaking, remind me very much of the footage I used to shoot with my S16 cameras back in the 90s. Just comes down to which look you prefer. The Sony images remind me of the images from the RED One, too clean, too sterile, very little "soul". Guess I am just a film guy at heart so a video camera that makes more film-like images appeals to me more than images that look exactly like real life.

Dan

Dan,

I agree with you. Plus, if one wants the Panasonic mojo AND the full raster sharpness, the 300 and 3000/3700 would offer both.

When I saw the movie "It Might Get Loud" for the first time, I thought the first few shots were shot with a Panasonic camera because of the colorimetry. It was the different quality of the film grain that made me realize it was film.

The original color balance of the F23 studio shots were balanced warmer, as can be seen in deleted scenes on the Blu Ray, but the decision was made to go for a neutral balance instead for the final release. This made the transition from S16 to F23 more jarring--the difference was startling. I can't help but think that if they had shot with Panasonic cameras in the studio the look would have been closer to the S16 location footage.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

What a great thread!

Again, I'm simply amazed at the thoughtful and thought provoking posts this has generated. I've been agonizing over this decision for literally weeks, have talked to dozens of people from all over the world.

I was set to wait for NAB and roll the bones there to see which camera manufacturer was the most interested in making me a deal.

Then earlier this week an opportunity arose that I could not turn down. So, after a couple more days of agonizing over the decision and talking to some trusted people in my circle, I've purchased a B-stock HPX 2000. I've been able to "crow-bar" that camera and a nice HD lens in my CapX budget.

After the conversations that I've had and this thread, my decision to move away from the 500 became very easy and I feel confidant that I can work a full raster camera to a more broad based market. It will oen up some markets to me that would have been closed with the 500.

Best to all. I very much appreciate everyone who took the time to post here. Please know that I read everything, understood most everything and it was incredibly helpful in my decision.

You don't seem to have followed the links I gave. Look at what I previously posted, and you'll see the tests have absolutely nothing to do with the UK's public service broadcaster (the BBC), everything to do with the BSC - the British Society of Cinematographers.

Pinewood Studios (where the tests were performed) is one of the main feature film studios in the UK, and the tests were primarily intended to see how top budget digital cinema cameras compared with 35mm film. 16mm film of different speeds and makes formed a big part, the EX3 and HVX200 only a small bit. The top film guys in the UK were at the heart of the tests.

I certainly can't speak for everybody, but I think the big majority would prefer to keep 35mm film or the top digital cameras over the EX or the HVX200. That said, the overwhelming impression I got was that if it had to come to one of them, the EX was the easy winner.

As a colleague said to me today, it's easy to make a good thing worse, far more difficult to make a bad thing better. You can always make a sharp, clean picture soft and noisy, you can't do the opposite.

Sorry David, I thought I had heard that the BSC tests were done for or in cooperation with the BBC, I will check out the link.

Dan

Congratulations Mike!

The HPX2000 is a great camera, you should have a good run with that piece of gear. Did you get one with the AVC I board?

Enjoy,

Dan

Good work Mike! I think I'll take a bit of credit for your decision! Did you buy from that dealer I told you about? Which lens?

FYI, HPX2000 is a full raster 720X1280 camera, but not a full raster 1080X1920 native camera. AVC-Intra will, however, if you have the board, give you full sample horizontal recording and 10-bit color depth, unlike DVCPRO HD, which is 3/4 sub-sampled horizontally and 8-bit.

The 2000 is the best deal going in a 2/3" camera if bought used or B-stock for under $18k, especially with the Intra board, as I've stated previously. I'm sure you will love the camera!

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video

Thanks Dan. Yes, Jeff...you definately played a role in the decision. It was a great, great deal on a great piece of gear. Yes, AVC-I board and Fuji XA series glass that I hope to upgrade later in the year. I might even find a lens upgrade deal at NAB.
Finding 64 gb cards for $900 and I'm very happy and excited for the markets this will open for me that didn't otherwise exist.