Thanks Paul and Doug, very generous of you guys!

Of course you can't critically evaluate footage off Vimeo but seeing as what most end viewers see is highly compressed I think it has value.

To me, all three cameras match pretty closely. Doug's Lizard settings look nicest to my eye on most shots but Lizard 2 doesn't really work with the skin tone at the end. I think you could set any of the 3 cameras up so that the end audience would not be aware of any difference at all when shooting in this environment. Obviously there are further variables such as DoF, lenses and codec to consider.

The 350 and 700/800 would come into their own in more challenging situations and the 700/800 would have further advantages in terms of its global shutter. I may be able to run an interior side-by-side tomorrow under very different conditions, depends on timing as it is a paid shoot. I probably won't have much time to tweak camera settings either.

I'd love to see the Varicams (2700 and 3700) in the same test too, and maybe also an HDW790 as an industry workhorse and universally well-known comparison.
Steve

Thanks for doing the test guys and thanks for using the variety of settings, it was interesting to see the different looks.

There are some varying exposures, but I know how long these tests take, so that is not a criticism of you guys, but it makes making a judgement harder. All in all the camera performance appears remarkably similar. The EX1's noise appears to be causing a little more macro blocking in the vimeo clip and some of the reds look a little "EX".

I don't like Doug's Lizard settings (sorry Doug), too much sharpening with crushed blacks for me. Looks like you are making use of high contrast to boost apparent image sharpness. Lizard 2 seems to be causing moire and aliasing, especially on the truck sides, on some of the ropes and cables (Shot D, wire rope). Doug is this in the original material or is it a Vimeo thing? As I keep saying different looks will appeal to different people, this one's not for me.

In shot B the F800 standard appears to be crushing the blacks compared to the 350 standard, I see a lot more detail in the truck wheel arches with the 350.

In shot E I'm seeing aliasing from the standard F800 on the grill of the trailer chiller units (vimeo??) and I see no detail in the shadows under the trailers, while the 350 looks clean and you can clearly see the legs of the trailer. Are you sure this is F800 default? it looks to be crushing the blacks to me, adding extra contrast which may be triggering the aliasing.

My Natural setting certainly looks flat, but I think it could have been exposed a little lower, but I do like the way it retains detail well into the shadows of the truck wheel arches making it a good candidate for grading and post work, which is what I want. Adding in some more negative black Gamma would certainly make the blacks deeper, bringing the image closer to Toms best, but at the expense of grade ability. Doug - are you sure you had Black Gamma ON, it doesn't look like it. This looks more like my "to-be-graded" setting without Black Gamma.

If anything this test makes my dilemma worse! If anything I still prefer the 350 shots. The 350 seems to be retaining better shadow detail than the F800. I saw this behaviour when I used the pre-production 350 to shoot the airshow at Duxford. The aircraft showed much more detail against the bright sky and were less silhouetted compared to what we were used to seeing. Does the 350 have greater dynamic range? Whites and highlights appear similar but there looks to be more shadow detail, this suggest greater dynamic range.
What the test illustrates more than anything is how big a difference, different scene files make and given that the 350 and F800 have pretty much the same range of settings, if you choose either you should be able to roll your own look that you will be happy with.

Thanks for taking the time to do this Doug - Paul.

Doing that would be subjective.

A better way would be to set up each camera to match with scopes using a calibrated chart such as the DSC ChromaDuMonde. That way each camera would be replicating precise colours as accurately as possible and the real differences in performance can be seen.

I would also turn the detail circuits off completely in order to show the real detail and resolution being captured by the camera.

What struck me was how amazing the Panasonic 3700 looked out of the box. The default Sony setup really was very poor in comparison.

I agree Simon, setting up each camera using a ChromaDuMonde chart should level the playing field, but that takes a lot of time to do correctly.

Once again the camera that comes up smelling of roses is the EX1, amazing camera for the money.

Steve: If you can get a 2700 and/or 3700 I'd be glad to spend a day with you putting them and PDW/PMW's through their paces.

Thank you for doing those tests. I've only just now seen them, quickly...and not in HD, not sure if that matters but I will look at them again in HD.

My initial impression mirrors what Mike Marriage said, at least in SD I didn't see too much to be upset about with any of them or any cam. I do agree with Paul that the "Tom's Best Preset" is hard to use. It's also out of date, I've since gone back to a detail setting much closer to Alister's, also a different knee slope to tone down the highlights, upped the saturation a little bit, but it was still interesting to see.

I also agree with Simon that the more objective test is with ChromaDumonde DSC charts and scopes, although the result would likely be far less entertaining. Was glad to see Paul finally break into a smile at the end.

I agree with Doug about using properly setting the exposure separately for each cam, each shot.

But again, I'm more confused than ever about what the fuss was over. On first viewing, I honestly didn't see huge qualitative differences as much as I see differences in color, gamma, contrast and exposure. If the bogie was to match the exactly the gamma and contrast handling of the 800, we know that would not be exactly possible since it has adjustable gamma curves the others do not, and that Doug chose not to reveal what settings he used. That said, I believe it would possible to approximate it, using Simon's ChromaDumonde DSC chart and scope.

Bob Carver was once boasted to Stereophile magazine that he could duplicate the sound of any amplifier, including tube type amps with his magnetic field effect transistor amp design. They accepted his challenge, whereupon he used a single loudspeaker to amplify only the difference of the summed signals from both amps. He then adjusted a series of nulling pots until the sound from the single speaker fell silent. At that point, they were unable to distinguish the two amplifiers sound from each other when playing program material.

The initial impression I had of the Lizard 1 setting is of rich saturation, deep blacks, and controlled highlights. The impression I had of the EX350 using "Tom's Best" (sigh...) in the same situation is wide dynamic range. There is an cliche', "That's not a flaw, it's a feature!" Sometimes, the truth can be in the jest. Shooting high contrast scenes is something I have experience with, on snow, on water. And when you have a wide dynamic range to start with, there's a technique I've used for 35 years to really put the wow factor in those kinds of scenes, the polarizing filter. You might be surprised how those bright highlights can be turned into an advantage instead of a headache.

We were closer with the camera setting on this shoot then the past two. I still think it is very difficult to tell much of a difference there really is between the cameras with the low quality from Vimeo, but at least people can see what were have been doing.

Mike would be nice to here if you have some interesting results if you get the chance. Hard taking the time to do such a test on a paid shoot.

Steve I have been trying to find your email on my computer but can’t. Could you contact me? 2700, 3700, and HDW790 would be nice to see. Steve what is your primary camera? I know you shoot with a lot of different cameras but what is your primary?

Alister yes what you are seeing is a Vimeo problem. All of the footage has lost a huge amount of dynamic range and latitude with Vimeo nothing like the Panasonic corrected dual SDI monitor on the shoot. We did have Black Gamma On I am positive I checked. Also after the shoot I checked all the settings and Black Gamma was On with your Natural.

I do not agree that the 350 has the same dynamic range as the 800 it does not show this at all with our test. But again this is very hard to tell with a compressed Vimeo clip.

Simon I agree the 3700 always looks amazing to me. Would be nice to have my hands on one for a day. I might just rent to see how it performs. As for the DSC ChromaDuMonde chart testing that was not our objective for this test. And Doug was kind enough to agree to a real world field test to help me out.

Sorry Tom we were using the only current setting I have of yours. With our other test I adjusted both yours and Alister’s to find my happy spot but as I said I am not there. I used a modified Natural on all of my paid shoots with the 350 over the last three months. Each shoot has had a different setting to try and find the right one.

Appreciate all the input.

It would be nice to do that, but I don't have my 2700 any more (or my PDW700!). Would have been good if I had an overlap period where I owned both, but I traded the 700 for the 2700.
Steve

I've looked at these now in 720p, and it does change my observation somewhat. I'm honestly not liking the edge enhancement especially of the Lizard 2, or the Lizard 1 and even the 800 standard looks oversharpened to me, as does the EX1 to a lesser extent. If that is caused by Vimeo, it's not doing any favors. I took some screen grabs, but I don't think I'll post them. It's not my intent to pick apart the hard work spent compiling this. But you can see in the upper left corner, the background with the house in the scene where the blue car is in front of the trailer, that there is an enormous disparity in the depth of field between the scenes.

In the pictures with Paul at the last, you can really see edge enhancement outlines around the blue cap (hugely so on Lizard 2), but still on Lizard 1, even the 800 standard, and the EX1. And black outlines around the collar of the white jacket. Is that Vimeo? I don't know. To me, edge enhancement artifacts are the scourge of video, and the reason why I tend more conservative. I like sharp pictures. One reason we shoot 2/3 inch, is because we want some parts of the image to blur gracefully to highlight the subject. This happens well in the case of the scene of Paul. But when everything is in razor sharp focus front to back (blue car in front of trailer), that look I can get from 1/3 inch. And one of the problems with excessive edge enhancement, is that it will sharpen up those areas outside the circle of confusion equally. So when you look at the background of those pictures with the blue car, is excessive sharpening being applied in background areas that should be soft? Or were the shots stopped down more? Vimeo was not responsible for all of it.

Again, thanks for the work and the time spent doing these tests.

A few points here:

1. We do use filters on our paid shoots but not on this test. We are trying to test not impress.
2. I will use a polarizer but only at close to 90 degrees to the sun anything else does not work well.
3. 1/2 ND, Grad ND, and ND along with Polarizer are normally in Doug's Matte box and my kit all the time but off for the test.
4. DOF had nothing at all to do with the test. We are not trying to make video we can use only video so we can evaluate camera settings. Neither of us would ever use any of this footage for anything but this test.
5. We set all the shots at f/8 to f/5.6 so we felt we were in the sweet spots not caring about DOF.
6. Tricks for dynamic range well we all have them and we all know how to deal with them but again not part of this test. If you want to see nice footage just look at Doug's clips on Vimeo. His stuff kicks butt.
7. By the way the 800 and 700 have +19 difference in detail settings. The 700 is set sharper due to the different market. (This is straight from Sony)
8. We still stand by our eyes the 800 is the clear winner when viewed on a proper monitor might be hard to see crushed on vimeo. But glad it has stirred interest and we did this knowing in advance the 800 was better and happy we proved it. Also knowing the 350 cannot be better then the 800 in our eye's.

Back to agreeing to disagree.

Thanks guys for your input.

Any chance of some frame grabs as the vimeo clip makes it appear that the 350 has greater dynamic range. The 350 in the vimeo clips is retaining much more shadow detail while highlights seem similar and as both are encoded the same I would expect any crushing or distortion to be the same for both cameras. The shot with the blue car and trailers would be interesting to see as frame grabs.

I'm going to take a look at both the 350 and 700 tomorrow using a simple black to white grad on a computer monitor. This will give good reliable insight into the relative dynamic ranges.

800 on the left, 350 on the right.

Paul, in regards to point #4. above, are you saying the softness in the corner is not dof? I have never seen f5.6 this soft. Something is wrong.

Edit:

Actually it should be softer because it's 720p not 1080p. I still think the image on the left is oversharpened, at least for my taste.

It's just processing
 

Same split image as before, 800 on the left, 350 on the right. This time the 350 image was photoshopped to match the contrast, brightness, hue, and sharpness of the 800 image.

Tom there are multiple thing going on here.

1. The 350 was about 5-6 feet left of the 800 so what is framed in the top left is different subject. You can see the 350 has the tree and 800 does not.
2. Exposure is not exactly the same but both are within our f/8 - f/5.6 range that we discussed.
3. Vimo does not handle any of the clips well on the edges.
4. You can’t take a heavily compressed still pulled from a vimeo clip, put it in photoshop and have it mean anything to us.

Again 800 wins in OUR eyes! No problem that you disagree but you won’t change our minds.

I tried my usual grey scale latitude test on the 350 and 700 this morning, but my computer monitor does not have enough contrast to highlight any difference between the two. Both have more latitude than my EX1. The test did show up some more interesting behavior in the detail and aperture circuits with the 350, but I'll discuss that over in the Picture Profile thread.

The vimeo clip is all I had to go by, Paul. I have no doubt the 800 is better, I've said that. But the difference I see is just its unique processing, ergo sharpening.

Further Samples
 

I had a few minutes today, a nice sunny day, to grab some further frame test shots and these I believe are quite telling, and perhaps give a good idea of the differences between the PMW-350 and PDW-700.

There are 4 grabs with standard settings (2 standard gamma, 2 Hypergamma 4), same lens on both cameras, both cameras set to 5600k white. Looking very closely at the pictures what I see is practically identical dynamic range. The white van in the distance is blown out on the PDW-700 standard gamma shot, but this is I think just slight differences in the knee, on the Hypergamma shots it appears about the same for both cameras.

What is interesting is the slightly better chroma clarity from the PDW-700, if you look at the distant red cars and the yellow bushes there is more clarity to the PD-700, but then this is to be expected as the 700 is 4:2:2 against the 350's 4:2:0.

So I chose to do one further test this time with both cameras recording on to a NanoFlash at 100Mb/s. These grabs are quite revealing as the chroma resolution is now much more evenly matched. If anything now I prefer the 350 as the specular highlights on the distant red car (behind green box) look better from the 350

So my conclusion is that the recordings from the camera are superior from the PDW-700, no surprise there, but add a NanoFlash and the difference between the cameras is tiny. You just have to be happy with CMOS over CCD.

Stop Press: Just as i was about to post this I noticed on the NanoFlash grabs that the 350 appears to be holding on to highlights better than the 700. Look at the white house doors on the distant houses and the white vans. I can see details of the door frames in the 350 shots that are lost on the 700.

Thanks Alister for the grabs,

Both theses cameras look close in image quality but I still prefer the 700 over the EX, I'm a fan of the CCD. The 700 chroma wins of course but considering the cost between them the EX is so close.

Cheers

The build quality of the 700 is nice, it's like a tank compared to the 350 which doesn't quite have that same high end feel to the switches, but then the 350 is a lot lighter. The differences between the 350 and 700 in the grabs is mainly white balance, but the slight color differences should be easy enough to match via the matrix. I like the 350's picture as they seem warmer. At the same time there is still a little too much yellow/green in both for my liking.

I'm looking at a 2700 v the PMW350 right now Steve. What made you jump to the Varicam. I should add we just used the Varicam in Paris and it has a completely differerent look to the Sonys. It works beautifully with skin tones in particular. I love the functionality, price and value of the 350, but to me the skin tones look a little flat like DVCAM does. I just not sure at the moment which way to jump.

Peter

Were both cameras using the same lens Alistair? The 700 has horrible Chromatic Aberation. Look at the chimneys left of screen. The fine detail in the trees is also not resolving as sharp as the 350.

If the 350 is using the stock optimised lens, I'd like to see it tested with a generic HD lens like your 700 has. If I get a 350 I would be using my HJ21x7.5, not the stock one.

Peter

Peter,

I tested the HJ17x with my 350 and the CA was very bad. I then tested the HA18x and ZA17x by Fujinon and found a huge difference. I purchased the ZA17x since we could not tell the difference with the HA.

I think Alister said it was the same lens on both cameras.

check you pm

Peter, 2 things made me swap the PDW700 for the HPX2700. Main one was that slomo was difficult to do in the 700 and a breeze of course in the Varicam, also had a feeling that the transcoding in the 700 to get the slomo was degrading quality a bit. The other reason is that the 2700 is what a lot of the high end nature docs are being shot on.
I agree that there is something just really nice looking about the Varicam pictures, and I'm sure that if you sat down an audience of 100 people from layman to experts, and showed them the same 10 minute film shot on a Varicam and a PDW800 you'd have a lot of them saying that they thought the Varicam nicer - just a guess though of course.
Steve

Wow, same lens. Then the 350 wins in that area...

yes same lens on both cameras.

Yes I am actually. Please advise.

The kit lens is exceptional value for money. It is as sharp as many far more expensive HD lenses and due to the 350's CA correction, CA is minimal. There is some barrel distortion, but this is not excessive, it's similar to an EX lens in that respect. The zoom control is not quite as precise as a $10k lens. It is also prone to flare but good matte box or longer hood will help.

You can use the 350 with the kit lens and get very good results. There are better lenses that will give incremental improvements in image quality, but whether anyone would know or realize in the finished production is debatable. It's only when you do careful side by side comparisons that the differences show up. The 16x8 zoom range is limited compared to most high end HD lenses and 8mm at the wide end is OK for general use but not particularly wide. Clearly if you need to do wider or longer shots then the kit lens may not be for you, but perhaps for those jobs you could rent the appropriate lens. The decision will depend on your budget, do you spend the money on a better lens or do you spend it on a good tripod, monitor or other equipment, all just as important. Of course you can always start off with the kit lens and upgrade later. I think it's a good starter lens for those migrating from SD to HD, it is almost certainly better than trying to use an SD lens (assuming your shooting HD), but in the long term you may want to get a better lens.

David I agree with Ailster the kit lens is very nice.

check my ad in the DVinfo classified my 350 with kit lens, 2 - 16GB SxS Pro cards, and 3 year transferable Sony warranty is for sale.

Just a slight diversion, Steve, you mentioned that you sold the 2700?

Thanks Alister for your always valuable input. I expected exactly what you posted. Have you decided on which camera you are keeping?
Best wishes

Yes, why are you looking to buy one?
Main problem is it's so popular in the high end wildlife field that no-one was wanting to use mine as they all have their own! It was my third camera in 12 months, I don't have any camera at the moment.
Steve

It's interesting you mention the Varicam and wildlife connection Steve. I've shot lots of AV installation stuff for zoos in Africa and Indonesia. it's an area of work I really love. I notice that Thierry Humeau is using the 350 in Africa, albeit with some highlight issues. It all comes down to the 1080 v 720 thing to some respects.

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
Powerhouse Productions

All I can say is that the Varicam was the staple of "Planet Earth" and the new HPX2700s are the staple of most high end wildlife units in the UK. The team making the mega-blockbuster new Planet Earth rival for Discovery have just bought 5 2700s, while the Beeb are gearing up for a massive new Africa series with it too. "Life" which I did only a tiny bit on but know the production well was all Varicam (excpet slomo on Photron and Phantom).
If it's good enough for them...
Well-respected RSPB Film Unit also just bought a 2700 having tested it vs the PDW700.
Steve

In TVB Europe recently there was a report from a tech seminar, including statements from the technical head of BBC HD. (See http://tvbeurope.com/pdfs/TVBE_downl...nuary_2010.pdf page 10.)
Which implies to me that the 2700 is seen more as "best currently available" rather than ideal. It also suggests that whilst it may be best choice for programmes such as "Life" NOW, it may not be in the near future.
I assume that decision was taken before the PMW350 was released? A 2700 vs 350 test by them may have given a different decision. OK - the 350 will still have to be do variable frame rate at 720p, but for all on-speed shooting can be used at 1080p/25, at full 1920x1080 resolution.

David, obviously there would be a preference for a 1080 slomo Varicam rather than 720, but I don't think they'd use the 2700 if it really wasn't good enough.
The RSPB did buy the 2700 before the 350 was out but it wouldn't have changed their decision, trust me. The EX3 was around and for wildlife, as I've said before, it's massively superior to the 350 for reasons of weight and lens power, and image quality between the 2 is apparently very close.
A company I work for a lot has a Sony 750 and an EX3 but even when slomo would be advantageous they don't get me to use the EX3, they just don't think it's good enough, they call the 750 the "proper camera" and just use the EX3 when ultra portability or other special needs arise.
If the 350 makes big inroads into blue chip BBC NHU productions I'll eat my words, but I just don't see it.
Steve

Steve I agree with most of what you are saying. Though I have to disagree when you say the 350 is close in picture to the EX3. I think the 350 is a nice step up and the 2/3" sensor has many advantages.

Also I am surprised they would choose the 2700 over the 700 but that could be due to the 700 not having proper over/under cranking. The optical disk is a fantastic recording media.

Well the 2/3" chip has advantages and drawbacks - better light gathering but less magnification so it's a trade-off.
From what I've heard the EX3 was reviewed as being very close to the PDW700 and the 350 is too, so it follows that they are all fairly similar - ie similar enough for it not to be a massive deal.
To be honest, I think one of the reasons the RSPB chose the 2700 over the 700 and many other is that they looked at the pictures on a big HD monitor and thought the 2700 just looked better. No scientific instruments involved, it just looked better.
Steve

Just checked my emails from Mark at the RSPB, he confirms that they "preferred the look of the Varicam" over the 700.
They also just bought an EX3 as a B camera to the 2700!
Steve

"Life" probably tells a better story at lower resolutions. The enhanced color palette of the Varicam is appealing, but not explicitly faithful. I think if you shot in low light, the 2700 would get killed.