As linked in the article above, I have tested XDCAM EX against AVCHD, and am now certain that 21mbps of AVCHD is actually superior to XDCAM EX. If Sony has implemented AVCHD well in this new camera, it should be every bit a match for XDCAM EX, but with file sizes a good 30% smaller.

Agreed. I would like to add that there is an exception to that which occurs when you scale the f-number with sensor size. Normally, of course, f-number is kept the same across various sensor sizes, and that allows larger sensors to have more control over DOF, better low light performance, etc. But it's also possible to scale the f-number with sensor size, so that lenses for larger sensors have slower f-numbers. That causes the DOF and low light performance to be equal with smaller sensors, so there is no advantage in those areas, but it allows the lens weight to remain about the same, rather than getting exponentially heavier.

For example, compare the 300mm f/2 lens on Nikon FX (FF35), which has the same angle of view as 200mm f/2 on Nikon APS-C (~S35):

• Nikon 200mm f/2 - 6.4 pounds
• Nikon 300mm f/2 - 16.6 pounds
• Nikon 300mm f/2.8 - 6.3 pounds

Then consider that you only need 300mm f/3 to get the same DOF, diffraction, and light gathering power as the 200mm f/2 on ASP-C. The 300 f/2.8 has the same weight!

Here's another example, again with Nikon (because their crop factor of 1.5X just happens to align very closely with their lens selection):

• Nikon 400mm f/2.8 on DX (similar to S35) - 10.2 pounds
• Nikon 600mm f/4 on FF35 - 11.2 pounds

Here we see it is 10% heavier, but not significantly. (The difference may be due in part to the fact that the 600mm only needs to be f/4.2, not f/4.0, to get the same DOF, light, diffraction, etc.)

The reason why I'm comparing these expensive superteles is because they have similar optical performance (almost diffraction limited at full aperture). When you compare other focal lengths, it is very hard to find a lens in one format (e.g. APS-C) that has the same design (just scaled up) for another format (e.g. FF).

It's true, of course, that larger-format lenses *tend* to be heavier, but that's because they tend to have the same f-number. But they don't need to have the same f-number in order to get the same results:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...eeper-dof.html

Yes Barry, I read that and it certainly sounds very promising (NXCAM 1/3 inch versus XDCAM EX full-raster 1/2 inch advantage excluded). I commend you on your scientific approach to that and all the other stuff by you that I've read recently on here and elsewhere. I think (and I'm very sure I'm not alone) that my conception that AVCHD was not ready for the prime time is now very definitely outdated - certainly both Panasonic, and now Sony, certainly think AVCHD is now ready anyway!

OK Canon, the ball's definitely in your court now - what you got cooking in the Pro Camcorder area for announcement and release Spring 2010????

What makes 1/3 inch disappointing is that Sony's own Cybershot DSC-HX1 has a larger sensor combined with a 20x zoom - and at a substantially lower price point.

DSC-HX1 | Cyber-shot® Digital Camera HX1 | Sony | Sony Style USA

Sorry Bill, I just can't accept that as a valid comparison... it's not a professional video
camera; it's a still photo cam with a video mode, not at all the same thing by a long shot.

I see no reason for disappointment. Not only is the lens quality, camera features, and economies of scale entirely different, but 3-chip cameras have to have enormous backfocus. That forces the optical design to be much more expensive for the same level of quality. If you want to have that feature for that price, you have to accept the other things that go along with it.

That is true, but not with FCP, as it will not edit AVCHD. So actually after transcoding the footage between the quality loss and large storage (even ProRes is 0.8GB/min) I would hardly call it advantage.

robert-

u make a good point.

so if different cameras are used for specific reasons, do we start treating our nle edit systems the same way?

sure i use fcp, but if apple refuses to adapt to avchd then should i be looking to vegas when i use a camera system like nxcam?

ymmv

be well

rob

Actually I have a broader perspective with respect to editing AVCHD. It isn't a "friendly" editing format in any NLE. It's very processor intensive even if your NLE supports it. It's better to convert AVCHD footage into an intermediate codec such as Cineform (also available on a MAC), which is much easier to work with.

If you are proficient with FCP, an issue like this shouldn't be a reason to switch to another NLE - it's a pain to change your working environment.

But... surely that's FCP's problem, yes? AVCHD has been on the market for years now. What are they waiting for?

"But... surely that's FCP's problem, yes? AVCHD has been on the market for years now. What are they waiting for?"
It's not just NLE, it's also machines themselves. And AVCHD doesn't offer substantially better quality then XDCAM at the moment (yes I did read your article, but the frame grabs did not convinced me, they looked equally blurry both in AVCHD and XDCAM). Don't forget that now people tend to think a bit more sober and they are not going to dump a whole lot of money into new computers, specially that AVCHD is not even recognized as a "broadcast standard", while XDCAM is (that leaves for now AVCHD in event/corporate category). The era of running out and getting a new gadgets is over is not going to come back for a long time. For small (like me) or big it's all about bottom line.

I agree. Use the tools that work. I don't expect to do everything with one piece of software. Even on the PC which I use, I have Edius as my main editor but also use Vegas and Premiere too as well as several others. For authoring I mainly use DVDLab Pro2 for SD but DVD Architect for Bluray ( I have Encore but rarely use). As far as hardware is concerned, use what the software needs.
I don't use a hammer for all the woodworking I do either so why limit oneself to one compute platform!!!
As input, most of my projects are 4 camera edits with two Sony FX1's and two AVCHD cameras, a Sony SR11 and XR500. Even at the 16Mbps AVCHD these two have higher resolution than the FX1 that is noticable as well as better colour. One reason I did not upgrade to the FX1000 and was waiting to see if Sony would bring out a competitor to the Panasonic HMC150.
Ron Evans

So guys will my PC with Intel Quad core 2.40GHz CPU can handle this AVCHD codec? Because I have now the Z5 and I want to buy a second camera so this new NXCAM might be the one.

Stelios

Depends on your editing software and your graphics card. If using Premiere Pro CS4.2, with an nVidia graphics card, you should get close to realtime playback, if not full realtime playback. If using EDIUS Neo 2 with the AVCHD Booster, you should get full realtime, even perhaps multiple streams of realtime.

If using Vegas, don't expect realtime playback.

If using Avid, you'll have to transcode away from AVCHD into something else.

With Vegas transcoded to Neoscene (I am assuming Cineform's Neoscene can be used to convert) you can have a real time playback, depending on your processor, playback quality settings, and amount of filtering and/or color correction.