And the TDK, Fuji, and Maxell discs are much cheaper and made to exactly the same standards as the Sony ones. In fact the TDK ones are probably even more robust than the Sony ones due to the Durabis coating.

No, based on minimal digital gain boost, it wil lbe between 1.8 to 2.8 stops less sensitiev than the PD/VX based on pixel count vs imager size

dont forget, larger sensors inherantly retain a cleaner image with gain used, so 12+ to 18 + should still be rather clean and definately useable compared toa 1.3rd imager

theres also the fact that sony have improved their noise reduction significantly

so a match WOULD definately be possible, but it would be based on different settings and configurations

Thanks for the info. That does ease the pain somewhat.

Even so, coming from a SD DV world, I'm still coming to grips with the idea of archival media that's ten times as expensive as DV tape.

I still think an e-SATA port would be a nice addition to this cam. Why hasn't anyone done this yet? It seems like such an obvious solution to storage problems.

How so? Hard drives are down to under 25 cents/GB and XDCAM HD footage is roughly 16 GB/hour at full quality, so that's $4 per hour of source material compared to at least that much for a good DV tape. If you make redundant copies on separate hard drives for security that's $8/hour, which still isn't bad.

So do you reckon that one can use a +12db in HD and get a decent acceptable picture? In SD a +12db is the limit for event videos for an acceptable picture.

Another point is that one should not talk about lux levels but rather sensitivity when one is considering minimum illumination. The F-330 is rated as f/9 at 2000lux whilst the DSR-300 series were rated as f/11 at 2000 lux. At the same time the F-330 is rated as minimum lux of 0.13 whilst the DSR-300 was rated as 0.5lux.

Unless Sony put in some real sensitivity in the EX, it would not be suitable for event videos where filming in very low light levels ids the norm.

Brian

It is the same for all high def cameras (bar the HPX-500 which is very good in low light due to the low res CCD's).

There are people doing event videography with Z1's quite happily, and that camera is rated at f7. In fact f9 would be a big step forward for a camera with the EX style form factor.

Things will probably get better with time. With HD cameras we are at the same stage we were with SD cameras a number of years ago. But with the technology available to the public this is as good as it gets.

Z1
 

I shoot weddings with my Z1 and love it. I rarely use a light. I tell my clients that I can shoot the night "as it was" and there will be a slight "grain" in the picture or I can use a light.

I show them a sample of no light 1.6 shutter at 15 and 30 and 18db gain.

99% say looks great do that!!!

If the reception was dark it was dark and not lit like a set. That is the way it was. Slow shutter makes dancers look better than they are anyway and that always helps.

That having been said I personally would like a slightly cleander image but the consensus is that for the most part what the Z1 can do is fine for the clients I deal with. MId to High end couples.

Mike

Well it kind of is two different markets you are talking about here. For HDV you can still use tapes just as cheap as DV. XDCAMHD with the EX is more on the pro side and it would be compared more to DVCAM tapes which are also $28.00 +. I'm so used to shooting with large DVCAM tapes that the cost of shooting XDCAM HD or XDCAM HD EX and then backing up doesn't really phase me. I can see how the extra cost may concern some people used to just DV but really it is a whole new level of quality and market reach we are talking about.

In fact with the EX cost of backup is the least of my concerns. My only concern is the time and effort it will take to transfer the media and create the backup. Sure transferring to hard drive should be pretty quick and it will fit lots of video but I don't exactly want to have a shelf of 100 hard drives sitting around. I'm also a little concerned about the shelf life of a hard drive. Backing up to optical media makes a lot more sense for long term storage but that will be a slow and tedious process.

The XDCAM EX will have the largest sensor of any HD camera under $10K, which should make it useful for event work unless Sony botches the design. Many event videographers are getting by for now using HD cameras with 1/3" sensors, and of those who have been holding out the EX is generating a lot of interest based on the specs.

By the way, I regularly run my FX1s with gain up to 18db and don't find the results to be objectionable, although there is a fine grain which is noticeable in the resulting images. Few event video customers would pay more for using better cameras, and the EX is at the outer edge of the normal price range for event cameras.

I would say hard drives are the way to go these days for backing up large amounts of video data, since they're cheaper and faster than blue-laser media for this purpose and can be accessed directly to edit the stored files. The questionable reliability of hard drives is an issue, but one answer to this would be to copy your source footage to a mirrored two-drive array to get an instant backup. The chances of both drives failing while sitting on a shelf are slim, and if you really have something critical then make another backup to a tape drive or optical media. Two 500GB hard drives cost about $200 now and would hold duplicate copies of roughly 30 hours of XDCAM HD footage, at a cost of ~$7 per hour of source video. Seems tolerable to me, for those willing to make the effort to do that.

Actually I think it should be compared to HDCAM tapes, not DVCAM. And the cost for HDCAM tape is currently right around a dollar per minute.

Optical Back UP
 

The first thought that came to mind on the back up plan with optical was some kind of system similar to how we export via compressor.

Have a utility that manages burning BR disks at night while we sleep for example.

Mike

Actually I like to think of HDCAM as more like Digi-beta, DVCPRO50 or Betacam SP/SX which are the highest standards and XDCAM HD as DVCAM and finally HDV as DV. XDCAM HD is not at the highest level for standards and is in the mid range like DVCAM. XDCAM HD50 is getting closer to the high level. I'm pretty sure I even read SONY thinking of XDCAMHD35 as only the mid range while HDCAM and maybe XDCAMHD50 are the high range.

XDCAM HD like DVCAM is pretty much like the lower end format it is compared to. XDCAMHD in terms of just the format itself isn't that much different then HDV because they are both based on the same level and profile of mpeg2. The enocder itself, optics and the option to use a slightly higher bitrate do help push it beyond HDV but in the end it is just a different way of doing mpeg2 compression.

Given that DVCam and DV are the same format, same compression, same chroma sampling, et cetera ... I just don't follow your little equivalence chart?

GB

But DVCAM is exactly the same as DV other than the process for recording the signal to tape, whereas XDCAM HD is in fact a higher quality recording format than HDV. Also note that the maximum bit rate of XDCAM HD is only slightly less than one of the more popular recording modes for DVCProHD, with greater spatial resolution and (arguably) a more efficient codec - so it's not easy to draw clear quality distinctions between formats in this context.

The important thing will be to see what kind of images the EX camera produces once it's shipping. If Sony gets things right it should easily be the highest overall quality HD camera for under $10K, and if you want something better than that you'll have to spend a lot more money.