Sony introduces 1/2" HD XDCAM for $20K
 

PARK RIDGE, N.J., Jan. 18, 2006 - The next generation of Sony's XDCAM� Professional Disc� system - a line of high-definition optical camcorders and decks unveiled today - offers cinematographers, broadcasters and video professionals a complete toolkit of flexible, digital production options.

The Sony XDCAM HD family of optical products includes two camcorders and two decks. The same Professional Disc media used in the standard definition version of the XDCAM system is also compatible with the new HD version. Now, professional users can record up to two hours of high definition content on the versatile optical media, maintaining their workflow continuity by combining HD resolution with the same IT-based benefits made possible by XDCAM technology since its initial launch in 2004.

"The introduction of a high-definition version of our XDCAM system marks the continuing evolution of optical technology as users shift from standard definition production," said Alec Shapiro, senior vice president of Sony Electronics' Broadcast and Production Systems Division. "This new XDCAM line-up rounds out Sony's range of HD production tools, filling an important niche between Sony's entry-level and high-end formats."

With the introduction of the XDCAM HD system, Sony is extending its CineAlta� family of cinematic, broadcast and professional production systems by giving these new products the CineAlta brand.

The two XDCAM HD camcorders - models PDW-F330 and PDW-F350 - both offer the production features that professional users need, such as true 24P recording in SD or HD, interval recording, and slow shutter.

The PDW-F350 additionally offers true variable frame rate recording capabilities; also commonly known as "over-cranking" and "under-cranking" or "slow-motion/fast motion" functionality.

"This is a much-desired and often critical feature for cinematographers and directors of photography who need the flexibility of changing frame rates to create unique `looks' for their productions or to create special effects," said Robert Ott, vice president of optical and network systems for Sony. "For digital cinematographers, the ability to shoot at slower or faster frame rates than playback gives them the great motion effects often seen in film cinema."

The PDW-F350 enables variable frame rate recording at a range of frame rates from four frames per second (fps) to 60 fps in one frame increments. For example, when viewed at 24 fps, four fps yields motion six times faster than normal. In comparison, 60 fps yields motion at 40 percent normal speed. These effects can be played back in the camera or on a Sony optical deck, without the need for any additional special processing through a non-linear editing system or converter.

The PDW-F350 also enables true 24P, 25P and 30P image capture, without any additional conversion required.

The XDCAM HD products offer the flexibility of recording 1080i video in three data recording rates: 25 Mbps, plus 35 Mbps and 18 Mbps. The system records high-definition content to Sony's existing Professional Disc single-layer media using an HD MPEG-2 Long GOP video compression codec.

The camcorders use three half-inch CCD 1.5 megapixel imagers with a variety of lenses from major manufacturers available.

The PDW-F70 and PDW-F30 decks enable high-speed data transfer between compatible nonlinear devices. Both decks up-convert XDCAM standard definition content recorded in the DVCAM� format to 1080i high definition at output, and all XDCAM HD camcorders and decks can down-convert HD material to standard definition in anamorphic, letterboxed or 4:3 format.

"We are also continuing to develop our alliances with 30 leading manufacturers of compatible products to further strengthen the adoption of an optical workflow by a broader audience of customers," said Ott.

Based on blue-laser technology, the XDCAM system's Professional Disc media offers unique benefits in terms of split-second random access to footage in the field or during the post process, and multi-format flexibility and flexible record times (approximately 120 minutes or more of HD content at 18 Mbps or 85 minutes of SD DVCAM at 25 Mps).

The Sony Professional Disc media is re-usable up to 1,000 read/write cycles and up to 10,000 read/write cycles in ideal conditions, based on Sony's own testing. The greater number of repeat recordings possible with the XDCAM Professional Disc allows a production crew to re-use it more often than a videotape and without experiencing degradation after multiple uses of the media.

Additional features of the new XDCAM HD products include:

Expand function - takes a clip that has been initially tagged as a thumbnail and divides it into 12 even time intervals. Each interval also contains its own thumbnail for easy identification. This expand function can be applied up to three times, making it easier to search rapidly for scenes within a long clip, and also allows an operator to drill down into a clip and quickly locate the desired editing point.

Freeze mix - enables a videographer to switch seamlessly between pre-recorded material and live footage by showing these images on the LCD screen or viewfinder. This function also helps adjust the camera's position to set the same framing for the next shot.

Slow shutter -allows a maximum of 64 frames to be accumulated. In low light levels this produces clear and noiseless video, and provides a "fantasy" video effect with a ghost image.

Since 2004, the standard definition version of the XDCAM system has been adopted by news organizations, videographers and for television production, especially in the reality TV genre. Corporations, educational and government facilities, houses of worship and major sports teams have also implemented Sony's optical technology.

The following XDCAM HD products are planned to be available in March 2006, with suggested list pricing of:

PDW-F350 camcorder: $25,800

PDW-F330 camcorder: $16,800

PDW-F70 deck: $15,990

The PDW-F30 deck is planned to be available in June, with a suggested list price of $9,500. The PFD-23 Professional Disc media is available for approximately $30 per disc, with a capacity of 23.3 GB per disc.

Source: Sony News & Information

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan.../pdwf350.shtml

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan.../pdwf330.shtml

I'm not really educated about the cinealta line. Could someone tell me the hirarchy of cameras? What makes an F950 better than this(if it is)?

Whats really interesting about this new HD XDCAM camera is that not only can it do variable framerates, but they can be adjusted in 1fps increments.

Very nice and great pricing - just remains to be seen what the quality of 35mbs HDV looks like

All framerates on one camera as well, no regional differences.

HD SDI out too!

Interesting......I never really thought of that. In essence, this is just another HDV camera, no?

The HDV format must be better then some people think it is. There's a big secret that they are slowly letting out. Because if Sony is willing to put the HDV format on a $26k thousand dollar camera and stamp it with their famous "CINEALTA" label and then give it SELECTABLE frame rates 4p-60p, then they must be on a mission with this HDV stuff. Then ofcourse you have other major brands like Canon right there besides them and then ofcourse JVC (who started it all) is right there with them with their hd100 and their forthcoming $20k dollar HDV camera too.......

Things are going to get interesting for HDV.

- ShannonRawls.com

No, not quite HDV. It uses the same type of compression, but as well as constant bitrates the HD XDCAM can record variable bitrates in realtime.

Also, the audio in the HD XDCAM video is uncompressed.

"What makes an F950 better than this(if it is)?"

What is better a Toyota Land Cruiser or a Lexus LS? And that is the answer, neither. There are many needs and many price categories. HDV is a consumer format. XDCAM the bigger brother is an open architecture broadcast pro format. HDCAM is brodcast/film. None is better just different for different crowds. In fact part of the marketing of the XDCAM format is to first make a1/2" version and then a 2/3' version meaning more cameras and more niches to fill. The terms salesman are using is "cine-sumer" and "cine-pro" for the different niches.

Yep. I can see the HD XDCAM being popular with event shooters that want a shoulder mount like the JVC5100 style series, but with high def 16:9. At $16k with a lens, the lower HD XDCAM looks pretty good value.

I think people are misusing the term uncompressed. 16 bit, 48K audio is compressed audio. Yes, XDCams audio is less compressed than HDV, it is still compressed.

Chris Bell

Thats a bit pedantic. You're talking about quantisation.

"I think people are misusing the term uncompressed. 16 bit, 48K audio is compressed audio. Yes, XDCams audio is less compressed than HDV, it is still compressed. "

They also use that term "uncompressed" for 4:2:2 but folks get the idea. How about this way, the audio specs are perfectly acceptable for use in broadcast and professional scenarios.

Walter,

While I agree that they are different products marketed toward different users, I completely disagree that there is no difference in quality! There's a reason the F900 & F950 costs as much as it does. It IS better. Superior in many ways. The F950 in particular coupled with HDCAM SR recording is significantly better than what the current XDCAM system is offering.

I do like the specs of the new XDCAM cameras. And I think they are a quantum leap forward for the low end arena. But they aren't going to put the higher end guys out of business.

And on a related subject, the whole argment that Sony or any other manufacturer handicaps cameras for fear of losing sales on the higher end cameras is ridiculous. The guys who can afford the high end gear and have the means to work at that level are always going to. Having shot with the F900, F900/3, F950, and 27F, I would never consider shooting a project with a lower end camera without good reason. Different projects require different gear and different methods. But if given the choice based solely on image quality capability between the F950 and an XDCAM, I would choose the F950.

None of this is ta say that the XDCAM options aren't excellent. But yes, the F950 is superior.

"While I agree that they are different products marketed toward different users, I completely disagree that there is no difference in quality!"

I never said there was not a difference, only that they market different products for different needs. A Toyota is not a Lexus, just a different car for a different crowd.


"And on a related subject, the whole argment that Sony or any other manufacturer handicaps cameras for fear of losing sales on the higher end cameras is ridiculous."

And I hope you do not think I said that as I never did. That is usually said by guys who own a DV camera, don't really work in the business, but think they are going to take over the industry.

"I never said there was not a difference, only that they market different products for different needs. A Toyota is not a Lexus, just a different car for a different crowd."

Agreed. But your original statement was to which was "better". I understand what you pointing out. And I agree that both are tools that meet different requirements. But when it comes to image quality, there is a definite difference. In that arena, the F950 is "better.

"And I hope you do not think I said that as I never did."

Indeed. And I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was merely commenting on an argument that is often made when people get into a feature debate on various model cameras.

My apologies if my comments steered in the wrong direction...

I guess I miss the benefit of being able to vary framerate by 1. I can see upping the framerate to produce a smoother slo mo, but why vary it by just one frame? Wouldn't that cause issues when working with your NLE?

No, because other systems require your edit system to do al the dirty work of interpolating frames and that causes confusion. But with this format it's all done in camera so yo don't have to rely on your edit system and all those settings to figure it all out.

I would argue that when you consider back-up the $16K camera probably is a better value than the HVX. We will see how the 24P performs but 60-120 minutes on a $30 disc really is a shot in the gut to P2. Having the disc in a cartridge probably also extends the life as well as protection... very interesting...



ash =o)

Well, I still have reservations about long GOP, but if someone was to give me one of these cameras I wouldn't complain. The variable framerate has got my attention.

I believe they say you getr 45 minutes of HD on a disc at the 35mbs rate, is that right? That would be about 5 and a half P2 8 gig cards, wouldn't it? Roughly $10K compared to thirty bucks? To me the 1/2" chip camera with a real lens is a no-brainer--I'd take it. I don't know if that $16K pricetag includes the lens. I sorta doubt it.

My only experience with the long GOP is from a friend who has a Z1 and edits in FCP5. He says he just loads it and FCP does whatver it does and there are no editing or quality issues at all. It edits just like DV, he says. And so far all the footage I've seen doesn't have any of the problems people talk about. The only footage I've seen is from 2 cameras, and both shot by professional cameramen.

No, 60 mins at 35MB/s.

You are correct, the Two Minute Drill today said that the prices listed were without lenses. I still think its good though.

Cool--60 minutes is even better. That makes a $30 disc about the same price as a 60 minute DVCAM tape.

I wonder what that new lens they show will cost. Generally 1/2" lenses are pretty reasonable, compared to 2/3" ones that I've bought in the past. Unless you want a really wide angle, I'd bet you can get a decent one for $5K.

What I'm going to be wondering now is, how would this 1/2" chip camera shooting XDCAM HD compare to my DSR500 shooting DVCAM. Does the higher resolution format make up for the smaller chip size? In other words, when it comes time to buy a new camera, is XDCAM HD a possibility for the same cost as another 2/3" chip SD camera? The only operational feature a guy would lose would be the better depth of field control of the bigger chips.

Fujinon 1/2" HD Glass $7,500.
 

Just so you'll all know, you'll probably want to use HD glass to get the best out of this camera and that's going to cost you another $7,500. for the Fujinon HSs18X5.5BRD lens. Sorry I'm not sure if I got the price right it could be more?

Sony CineAlta HDWF900 185Mb/s
 

Just so there won't be confusion between the capture rate on the XDCAM HD compared to the HDCAM F900 35Mb/s is 4:2:0 colorspace where as the F900 is 185Mb/s and is 4:2:2 colorspace.

The section below is from the F900 owners manual.

Advanced digital pre-filtering and dynamic bit-allocation for luminance and chrominance components (based on the statistical analysis of the picture content) are combined with a mild compression ratio of only 4.4 to 1 to give a total on-tape recorded data rate of a modest 185 Mb/s at 60i.

I don't pretend to know what this means. But its probably why it cost $100K.

Here is the link to the F900 owners manual.

http://www.oraclemagic.com/VideoFame/Images/HDWF900.pdf

That and sensitivity, but maybe a 2/3" version will follow?

P2 does have some advantages over XDCAM - lower power consumption and much faster download times into an edit system. Then again, having to frequently download from P2 on the run to free up space to keep shooting is an issue in itself, and an archive has to be consciously formed and kept.

Until the announcement of this camera there was a huge amount of some cameras having some good points, others different good points. Now many of the desirable features seem to have come together, including many of the good points of the P2 system, but without it's worst - not being able to give away your media straight out of camera.

P2 is quicker where SD is concerned. I don't think it will be the case where this sort of MPEG compression is concerned compared with DVCproHD however. I can't remember P2's transfer rates off hand. Anyone know?

Regarding sensitivity, that may be an issue. Then again it might not. The DSR390 is 2 stops more sensitive than the DSR450 for example. The demo that is cirrently going around from Sony shows the HD XDCAM in some pretty low light conditions and it is getting good footage. For effects shots and timelapse the HD XDCAM has a 3 second exposure! The current SD XDCAM has a long shutter, and I often use it for timelapse of traffic at night etc. A 3 sec exposure would be great, not to mention downright ridiculous for nightime landscapes! :)

Fair point. 25Mb SD on P2 downloads in about 4-5x real time, so I assume it's about 100-125Mb/s. Hence if DVCPRO HD at 100Mb/s was on the card, I'd expect downloads to be only slightly better than realtime. I believe DV on XDCAM only downloads at around real time (?), but 35Mb for HD shouldn't then affect that too much. P2 cards are nice in that they may be plugged direct into a laptop, so don't need a deck, but I'm not sure that begins to make up for non-consumable media.

This begs the question of how 35Mb MPEG2 compares to DVCPRO HD. I believe 3:1 has been given (very roughly) as the sort of saving MPEG2 can be expected to give for similar quality to an I-frame only system, so I'd expect them to be very similar.

My remark about sensitivity referred to this camera v a 2/3" equivalent, that and DOF are the two main differences I'd expect. For the same reasons I'd expect it to outperform a 1/3" chip camera.

I think the salesman needs to take a marketing 101 refresher course or better yet stick with "2nd level underwater basketweaving". Cine-sumer, what a dumb handle/name.

Yeah, that is one of the dumbest non-words out there. Worse, even, than "prosumer."

Hmm. P2 isn't quite as quick as I thought. A recent firmware upgrade to the current XDCAM cameras enables transfer of MXF files at 4-5 times realtime with 25MB/s footage. Are you sure those figures aren't for 50MB/s?

No, the official specs are 5x for DVCAM and 2.5x for IMX50. Although I have yet to actually time them. I may try it tomorrow if I have time as I have been wondering.

But then who performs their main edits on a laptop?

Interesting. Although I wouldn't know these tech specs myself. Maybe Graeme can tell us more if he's reading?

Just found it out. The XDCAM cameras only have one laser pickup device, and so manage a maximum transfer speed of 72Mbps so they can transfer DV25 footage at just over 2x speed. An XDCAM deck however has two laser pickups, and can manage 144Mbps enabling just over 5x speed transfer. But the recent firmware update increased the data transfer in the cameras to around 80Mbps, or around 3x realtime speed for file transfer.

I believe P2 can achieve around 640Kb/s, however most HDD systems can't, so you'll only achieve around 1-2x realtime for DVCPROHD @100Mbit/s. There is room for expansion there though as HDD get faster and it also means Pany can use higher rate codecs - maybe the next Varicam will have a 200 or 300Mbit/s data rate recording to P2..?

Even if P2 is faster, you have to factor in the time lost in archiving EVERYTHING. That will be a pain in the arse at the moment.

Positive, though I emphasise they are approximate figures. What I obviously don't know is what was the limiting factor - the laptop itself or the P2 card. Mikes last post seems to make clear it's the laptop, and I've no reason to disagree.
Is your later post based on your own practical tests, or quoted figures, Simon?

Once you've seen your own HD footage played on a good HDTV, you'll understand all the comments about how SD is a doomed format. There may be a few situations where a bigger-ship SD camera running in widescreen mode could still be useful, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend ditching your DSR500, but chances are you wouldn't use it much once you have an HD camera.

Note that the luma resolution of SD video is barely 1/3 megapixel, while 1080i/p HD is over 2 megapixels. This is such a large jump in image quality it's a wonder more people aren't tripping over themselves to get into HD, but of course it makes sense to invest wisely in new equipment.

Only to a degree. As well as this PAL widescreen SD is actually a fair bit bigger in size than NTSC SD widescreen. THis is one reason I sometimes think that I don't have the same amazement level at HD that many people in NTSC countries do. Dunno if the other guys from the UK here feel the same way?

There is more horizontal info in 720P, but the more important figure is the vertical one. If you look at an NTSC SD widescreen picture and put it inside a PAL SD widescreen picture there is a similar proportional difference between them as there is between PAL SD widescreen and 720P.

Its all technics again though. The reality is that the actual quality of the colour your camera produces is more important than any resolution. I've just been setting up my camera today. Most often (well all the time actually) I shoot a very wide dynamic range setting for adjustment in post afterwards. However I have a job coming up where the client wants the video to have a 'look', but they aren't paying a heck of a lot comparitively. So there's no time for post grading. So I've been getting the black ped set up for nice rich blacks, and boosting the colour saturation somewhat along with a few other things.

All very nice on the waveform, so I took the camera out for a bit of 'real world' testing. Very rich picture (although the cut down dynamic range due to the blacker blacks is annoying compared to what I'm used to) and I doubt I would gain anything much at all from HD.

My main interest in XDCAM HD isn't so much the HD factor, but the variable framerate one and very long exposure times.

Only on the very high end cameras. Certainly not on the HDV cameras. Although I think you'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference without taking the time to capture and zoom up the picture in Photoshop.

Errr... again... once a Porche is the same price as a Ford Festiva then and only then is the Festiva in trouble. Things ARE slowly headed in that direction but the reports of SD's death have been greatly exaggerated. =o)



ash =o)

Simon,

Your sentiments mirror those of a fellow I spoke with from Germany at NAB last year. He said HD is a 'tougher sell' to the Europeans because PAL to HD isn't the quantum leap that NTSC to HD is.

But yeah, over here in the states it is like night and day.

-gb-

I remember the first time I saw live European TV, back in the late '80s, and it was like the difference between NTSC and HD today. Life would have been a lot simpler for us to convert to PAL. But that wouldn't have sold as many $4,000 TV sets.

With the introduction of the Sanyo HD video camera for $799, it's only a matter of time now before clients start giving us puzzled looks if we tell them we're not shooting in HD. When I show people footage from a $3000 Sony FX1 on my HDTV they all comment on how good it looks, and things can only get better as more low-cost HD cameras come to market. But the big problem for SD video, at least in the U.S., is that there's no good way to display 4x3 SD on a widescreen HDTV -- and that's what most of our current video cameras are designed to record. It doesn't make much sense to keep shooting in SD when you get so many more options for shooting in HD for basically the same price, but we may be another year or two away from having that become critical.

SD doesn't have to be 4:3. Most professional cameras have been available with 16:9 chips for over 5 years now, and on a lower level the XL2 is 16:9, and so are all the new HDV cameras that also shoot SD in 16:9.