Differences between the F350 and the F355 at DVinfo.net

Peter Newsom · April 19th, 2007, 06:07 AM

I am in the process of choosing between a demo model F350, or waiting for the F355. Aside from the longer recording time available with the dual layered disk drive of the F355, what are the significant differences?

The price difference between the two would be about $10K. Is there enough of a difference to justify the higher cost of the 355? My current main gig(news) doesn't need the extended recording time, as I can generally shoot a full piece on a single disk.

Vincent Rozenberg · April 19th, 2007, 05:44 PM

I've asked a Dutch rep. here at NAB.

Big differences:

-50 GB disc
-No viewfinder included
-SD SDI out, beside the HD SDI
-Interval recording in DVCAM mode
-Cache recording in DVCAM mode

Tip McPartland · April 19th, 2007, 08:13 PM

... or don't wait at all. Just my opinion.

Personally, for me being able to record 2 hours at 35 Mb/sec without a reload will seldom matter. It takes so few seconds to swap a cartridge, and you could format them in advance to save the brief wait for formatting.

The SD SDI out, I don't care about, you've got HD SDI. Were it only SD now, and they were adding HD SDI, that would be something. This and the other changes add up to a bad David Letterman gag -- Is It Something or is it Nothing?

Interval and cache recording in DVCAM mode... what are they thinking, just shoot HD, you're future-proofed and downconvert later, you can do it while you digitize.

No viewfinder? So they're going to make you pay extra for a better viewfinder, but the 2" (with peaking on) allows successful shooting and what will they charge extra for the new VF? And pile that on top of the $10,000 extra. Or buy the 350, sell the viewfinder to someone with a 330, and take your $10,000+ and buy one of those incredible aftermarket VFs that Band Pro sells.

Unless I hear about something that translates into better picture quality, I'll hang on to my 350, thank you.

And I'm a guy who sold his JVC HD100 at the first hint of new models, but the differences between the HD100 and the HD200/250 were substantive, such as an upgrade from 30P to 60P with a superior MPEG encoder, HD SDI out instead of analog component, TC and sync in and out, and so forth.

The one possible reason to buy the 355 is if you plan on mastering back a two hour show to your camera...

But with the new dual layer drive for <$3000, you can master two hours to that AND have more versatility such as using it for your own OR client ingest. And you can have a hell of fling with the $7,000 you've saved.

Tip

Peter Newsom · April 20th, 2007, 06:27 AM

Thanks guys, I was afraid that perhaps I had missed something. The 2/3's model is another consideration, but the image quality of the F350 seems to be plenty good enough for what I am doing these days. Am I correct in understanding that the 2/3's camera doesn't do 24p?

Peter

Greg Boston · April 20th, 2007, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Newsom

Am I correct in understanding that the 2/3's camera doesn't do 24p?

The first one will not do it. The next model will. These cameras are what Sony calls 'phase 3' of the XDCAM product line.

-gb-

Klaas van Urk · April 21st, 2007, 01:46 PM

I agree with Tip. The problem that hurts me most at this moment is not camera quality, its how to show HD video to the public. We shoot incredible video, we edit in high def...
But then the client shows to public on a lo def beamer, lo res HD-ready screen or they ask for a DVD. Aaarch... that hurts! We are in the quest for the holy grail e.g. superior quality, but the world doesn't seem ready yet for our products. This will get better in the years to come. But please, let it be sooner!

Here in the Netherlands there are no HD broadcasters at this moment. For years to come my PDW-F330 will be ahead of its time.

Peter Newsom · April 21st, 2007, 03:12 PM

I know what you mean, I'm feeding in SD as well, but I love the picture quality even in SD! However, the HD capability will start to count sooner than later. This fall the network that I shoot for will begin to broadcast in HD.

Greg Boston · April 22nd, 2007, 10:22 AM

Klaas and Peter, you guys are doing the right thing. Having your stuff in HD master right now, will make it more valuable later on when HD is the norm. 10 years from now, when someone needs a shot and you have it in HD vs. everyone else's SD, guess whose footage they will buy.

-gb-

Morton Molyneux · April 22nd, 2007, 11:41 AM

Right it makes no sense to use an HD camera and shoot in SD. However some of your clients might be able to use HD right now. Last month I bought an Apple TV. Although Apple intended it as a means of playing movies & TV shows etc. on a WS HD TV you can easily transfer HD projects to it for playback. It has component and HDMI out put and can handle 1280X720 24 fps or 960X540 30 fps in H.264
I transferred my demo reel, plus several other projects to it so I could easily show clients in the office rather than to always have several DVD’s on hand. One client saw it and ordered an Apple TV for their business and asked me to re-edit his promo video. It was shot in HD but delivered in SD last year so it will be easy to update to a HD version. They will use it in there office and at 10 or so trade shows they attend each year. Now I have a second client wanting to do the same thing. It’s a lot less than having to buy a BlueRay burner and player to show HD.

cheers

Morton

April 19th, 2007, 06:07 AM	#1
Peter Newsom Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 182	Differences between the F350 and the F355 I am in the process of choosing between a demo model F350, or waiting for the F355. Aside from the longer recording time available with the dual layered disk drive of the F355, what are the significant differences? The price difference between the two would be about $10K. Is there enough of a difference to justify the higher cost of the 355? My current main gig(news) doesn't need the extended recording time, as I can generally shoot a full piece on a single disk.

April 19th, 2007, 08:13 PM	#3
Tip McPartland Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Crestline, California Posts: 351	Not enough difference, wait for 2/3" and 4:2:2 ... or don't wait at all. Just my opinion. Personally, for me being able to record 2 hours at 35 Mb/sec without a reload will seldom matter. It takes so few seconds to swap a cartridge, and you could format them in advance to save the brief wait for formatting. The SD SDI out, I don't care about, you've got HD SDI. Were it only SD now, and they were adding HD SDI, that would be something. This and the other changes add up to a bad David Letterman gag -- Is It Something or is it Nothing? Interval and cache recording in DVCAM mode... what are they thinking, just shoot HD, you're future-proofed and downconvert later, you can do it while you digitize. No viewfinder? So they're going to make you pay extra for a better viewfinder, but the 2" (with peaking on) allows successful shooting and what will they charge extra for the new VF? And pile that on top of the $10,000 extra. Or buy the 350, sell the viewfinder to someone with a 330, and take your $10,000+ and buy one of those incredible aftermarket VFs that Band Pro sells. Unless I hear about something that translates into better picture quality, I'll hang on to my 350, thank you. And I'm a guy who sold his JVC HD100 at the first hint of new models, but the differences between the HD100 and the HD200/250 were substantive, such as an upgrade from 30P to 60P with a superior MPEG encoder, HD SDI out instead of analog component, TC and sync in and out, and so forth. The one possible reason to buy the 355 is if you plan on mastering back a two hour show to your camera... But with the new dual layer drive for <$3000, you can master two hours to that AND have more versatility such as using it for your own OR client ingest. And you can have a hell of fling with the $7,000 you've saved. Tip

April 19th, 2007, 05:44 PM	#2
Vincent Rozenberg Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Posts: 475	I've asked a Dutch rep. here at NAB. Big differences: -50 GB disc -No viewfinder included -SD SDI out, beside the HD SDI -Interval recording in DVCAM mode -Cache recording in DVCAM mode

April 20th, 2007, 06:27 AM	#4
Peter Newsom Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 182	Thanks guys, I was afraid that perhaps I had missed something. The 2/3's model is another consideration, but the image quality of the F350 seems to be plenty good enough for what I am doing these days. Am I correct in understanding that the 2/3's camera doesn't do 24p? Peter

April 21st, 2007, 01:46 PM	#6
Klaas van Urk Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Hoek, the Netherlands Posts: 67	I agree with Tip. The problem that hurts me most at this moment is not camera quality, its how to show HD video to the public. We shoot incredible video, we edit in high def... But then the client shows to public on a lo def beamer, lo res HD-ready screen or they ask for a DVD. Aaarch... that hurts! We are in the quest for the holy grail e.g. superior quality, but the world doesn't seem ready yet for our products. This will get better in the years to come. But please, let it be sooner! Here in the Netherlands there are no HD broadcasters at this moment. For years to come my PDW-F330 will be ahead of its time.

April 21st, 2007, 03:12 PM	#7
Peter Newsom Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 182	I know what you mean, I'm feeding in SD as well, but I love the picture quality even in SD! However, the HD capability will start to count sooner than later. This fall the network that I shoot for will begin to broadcast in HD.

April 22nd, 2007, 10:22 AM	#8
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	Klaas and Peter, you guys are doing the right thing. Having your stuff in HD master right now, will make it more valuable later on when HD is the norm. 10 years from now, when someone needs a shot and you have it in HD vs. everyone else's SD, guess whose footage they will buy. -gb-

April 22nd, 2007, 11:41 AM	#9
Morton Molyneux Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada Posts: 98	Right it makes no sense to use an HD camera and shoot in SD. However some of your clients might be able to use HD right now. Last month I bought an Apple TV. Although Apple intended it as a means of playing movies & TV shows etc. on a WS HD TV you can easily transfer HD projects to it for playback. It has component and HDMI out put and can handle 1280X720 24 fps or 960X540 30 fps in H.264 I transferred my demo reel, plus several other projects to it so I could easily show clients in the office rather than to always have several DVD’s on hand. One client saw it and ordered an Apple TV for their business and asked me to re-edit his promo video. It was shot in HD but delivered in SD last year so it will be easy to update to a HD version. They will use it in there office and at 10 or so trade shows they attend each year. Now I have a second client wanting to do the same thing. It’s a lot less than having to buy a BlueRay burner and player to show HD. cheers Morton