DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD
by High Definator
on
Aug 14, 2007 at 4:32:45 pm
We have recently purchased a Panasonic HDX900 (DVCProHD) and are thoroughly impressed with this camera and so are our many happy clients.
A new client however wants us to shoot his next project on two XDCAMs HD and I was wondering if there is any comparative test / evaluation between the DVCPRO HD and XDCAM HD format?
I have shot with the XDCAM HD recently and was not impressed, from the way it handled high lights (blows out way faster than our HDX900) shadows (noisy) and color (pasty) to the plasticy finishing of the body and the inferior viewfinder and flip out screen.
The fact that Sony chose an interframe compression codec for which was designed for low bandwidth distribution (MPEG 2) for acquisition in order to squeeze a full HD signal down to a meager 35Mbps signal is disconcerting. And then they still have not managed to put out a 2/3" camera (though announced years ago) -- somone told me what SONY stands for -- Soon Only Not Yet
Links to any reviews, independent comparative tests or your own experience with these two formates are much appreciated!
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by Tip McPartland on Aug 14, 2007 at 10:25:17 pm
Both are BOTH good cameras, neither should be disparaged or demonized. Let me disclose that I own the F350 but have happily used both. My sense of things is...
HDX900 is better in low light -- bigger and lower rez CCDs equal much bigger photo-sites, and what noise you do get is eliminated by the good grain killing software built in. But the 33 minute tape loads suck and the hassles with recycling P2 cards in the field sucks too. Browse the fori, including this one, for bummed out shooters with P2 cards that aren't working, doesn't seem to happen with XDCAM discs.
XDCAM HD is actually significantly higher native rez, a REAL 1080 x 1440. Compression efficiency is actually very close, and I can live with 4:2:0 if the alternative is synthetic pixel-shifted 4:2:2. The Sony loads are well over an hour, the discs are modestly priced, and great for archiving. No need to dump data to another media in the field. I agree with you that the fold out screen is weak -- doesn't even seem as good as the one on my little HVR-V1. VF isn't TOO bad though. And the only complaints about the compression come from people who aren't using the camera.
Just shot a pilot mixing both cameras, specified the HDX-900 over my own F350 for some night stuff. And I've always loved Panasonic color since the first time I worked with a DVX-100, it's so rich looking.
But these Sonys look great too if you set them up right. Sonys XDCAMs are being used for series like Ice Road Truckers, On The Lot (SD?), a prime-time drama on CW and many others. The XDCAM HD F350 camera/format is approved by Discovery HD Theater who have some of the toughest standards in the business, so whatever negative subjective opinion an individual may have about the XDCAM HD picture, it doesn't carry the weight of their world-class evaluation process.
Make your client happy, relax and use that OTHER good camera. You never know, you might just come away liking it!
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by Tim Kolb on Aug 15, 2007 at 2:01:31 am
[Tip McPartland]"HDX900 is better in low light --...the hassles with recycling P2 cards in the field sucks too. Browse the fori, including this one, for bummed out shooters with P2 cards that aren't working, doesn't seem to happen with XDCAM discs."
The HDX900 is a camcorder with a VTR, full profile P2 cameras include the HPX500 and the SPX900/800.
I think that the industry is learning that resolution alone simply isn't the deciding factor. XDcam HD is not nearly as bad as its detractors would have you believe, but I've not been impressed with the images that Sony has presented from XDcam HD, and you have to assume that material is some of the better stuff.
As interesting as I find the show "Ice Road Truckers"...the imagery is the least of that show's selling points. The story is interesting and I would think that recording to disk held advantages in those temperatures.
You can certainly point to the pixel shifting in some of the lower end HD cameras and say that it's bad (I've composited HVX200 footage...it wasn't like working with D5HD or anything, but it was certainly useable), but highlight handling has become one of my most watched camera traits and Panasonic's cameras including the Varicam, the SDX900 and the HDX900 as well as the HVX200 (and I assume the other P2 variants as well) really do handle highlights well, and in my experience with Sony cameras (decades worth, including shooting F900 with a prime adapter) just haven't delivered the same aesthetic.
I have come to question most manufacturer-published comparisons, and have confronted a couple of manufacturers regarding simply incorrect information. I would try to rent the Sony camera you'd be most likely to use and compare it for your client. The biggest factor in image quality is still the person operating the camera. The only way to compare your HDX900 operated by you to a Sony XDcam-corder is for the Sony to be operated by you also.
...I'll pass on answering on the CML so I'm not redundant.
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by tmvc on Aug 15, 2007 at 10:19:41 am
i have just shot with both cameras and will be editing with footage from both. I would say the key deciding factor in image is your lens and choice of subject. I don't find the XDCam a loser in any respect and liked the format a lot. The HDX-900 clearly has bigger chips and better low light, but it really depends on what you're shooting, the shooting environment, and the lenses used.
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by jason levy on Aug 15, 2007 at 6:37:12 pm
I'm a bit confused about one thing concerning the HDX900. Panasonic says "Able to record in both the 720p and 1080i digital TV formats" but I've been told that the panasonic is a native 720 camera and it just scales up the image when the 1080 is required. Can anyone enlighten me?
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by Tim Kolb on Aug 15, 2007 at 10:32:19 pm
I would assume that it's a pixel-shifting scheme like the HVX200 uses...
It's worthy of note, but I would also have to say you need to see the pics from the camera for yourself before you pass judgement on it...
I've never shot a Panasonic in 1080i mode myself, so I have no comment on how good the "up-rez" is...but since each camera model varies in CCD/DSP, etc, I'd bet each separate model is different.
...Then of course you have the new line from Panasonic that does full 1080p...another story altogether I'm sure
...
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by High Definator on Aug 16, 2007 at 12:48:35 am
"Compression efficiency is actually very close, and I can live with 4:2:0 if the alternative is synthetic pixel-shifted 4:2:2"
Actually the compression on the XDCAM HD is CONSIDERABLY higher as the format only records a meager 35Mps. The problem with interframe compression which is a LOSSY video compression intended for low-bandwith delivery and storage (DVDs) and NOT acquisition (!) is that you are not recording every frame (like HDCAM, DVCPRO HD and D5 all do) but rather only record every 15th (!) frame.... the rest is interpolation data that first needs to be re-constructed upon ingestion into a NLE. MPEG-2 degrades quickly once you get into generations.
FYI: that 4:2:2 color space and Panasonic's superior DSP are the very reasons their color looks consistently superior compared to Sony => with 4:2:0 three quarters of the chrominance values have been deleted.
"The XDCAM HD F350 camera/format is approved by Discovery HD Theater who have some of the toughest standards in the business, so whatever negative subjective opinion an individual may have about the XDCAM HD picture, it doesn't carry the weight of their world-class evaluation process."
Actually much tougher standard than Discovery, and truly world renowned are the three big players: National Geographic, BBC and NHK! I have been shooting for NatGeo for quite some time now and their Tech Specs which are based on their own independent research specifically state that they require acquisition to be done on Panasonic's VariCam at 720p. The HDX900 is now accepted at NatGeo as it records in DVCPRO HD.
And finally, NHK the prestigious public broadcaster (aka the BBC of Japan) who was the first network in the world to use HD (analog) and who has been in bed with Sony for many many years, is now ALL about Panasonic: From D5 Recorders to HD cameras, their inhouse testing found that Sony's formats are inferior compared to Panasonic's. They too orderd large amounts of HDX900s:
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/NHK-Panasonic-DVCPRO-20060620/
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by High Definator on Aug 16, 2007 at 12:49:07 am
"Compression efficiency is actually very close, and I can live with 4:2:0 if the alternative is synthetic pixel-shifted 4:2:2"
Actually the compression on the XDCAM HD is CONSIDERABLY higher as the format only records a meager 35Mps. The problem with interframe compression which is a LOSSY video compression intended for low-bandwith delivery and storage (DVDs) and NOT acquisition (!) is that you are not recording every frame (like HDCAM, DVCPRO HD and D5 all do) but rather only record every 15th (!) frame.... the rest is interpolation data that first needs to be re-constructed upon ingestion into a NLE. MPEG-2 degrades quickly once you get into generations.
FYI: that 4:2:2 color space and Panasonic's superior DSP are the very reasons their color looks consistently superior compared to Sony => with 4:2:0 three quarters of the chrominance values have been deleted.
"The XDCAM HD F350 camera/format is approved by Discovery HD Theater who have some of the toughest standards in the business, so whatever negative subjective opinion an individual may have about the XDCAM HD picture, it doesn't carry the weight of their world-class evaluation process."
Actually much tougher standard than Discovery, and truly world renowned are the three big players: National Geographic, BBC and NHK! I have been shooting for NatGeo for quite some time now and their Tech Specs which are based on their own independent research specifically state that they require acquisition to be done on Panasonic's VariCam at 720p. The HDX900 is now accepted at NatGeo as it records in DVCPRO HD.
And finally, NHK the prestigious public broadcaster (aka the BBC of Japan) who was the first network in the world to use HD (analog) and who has been in bed with Sony for many many years, is now ALL about Panasonic: From D5 Recorders to HD cameras, their inhouse testing found that Sony's formats are inferior compared to Panasonic's. They too orderd large amounts of HDX900s:
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/NHK-Panasonic-DVCPRO-20060620/
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by jiri vrozina on Aug 15, 2007 at 9:36:40 pm
Hi,
i am the owner of Sony XDCAM hd.
I have tested Pana 2100,HDX900,HPX-502,Sony f-330.
If the picture quality is the main concern,Pana HDX900 is without question better camera.It also is better made.
Colours and overall feel of picture from Panasonic hdx900 is much better then from 1/2' XDCAMhd 4:2:0.Also i do not like Sony standard "piggy skin tones".We had matrix changed on our Sony cameras to pana matrix-it looks much better now.
Do not forget Sony XDCAM hd 330/350 is NOT Sony High End HD camera.It is Industrial HD camera on steroids.....so for the money it is not a bad buy...it is better then Pana HPX-500.
This might all change with upcoming XDCAM HD 4:2:2 in April.
XDCAM hd discs are cheap now (us$22) and format is editing friendly.
If the price for both cameras is similar and picture quality is major issue,I know which camera I would buy.
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by Peter Corbett on Aug 15, 2007 at 9:43:49 pm
I just directed a TVC for a multi-vitamin company and we had to decide between using my DVCPRO50 SDX900 standard def or the DOP's XDCAMHD F350. In the end we both decided to go with the SDX in 25P. Common agreements included gruntier, richer color, low-noise, better light sensitivity and (for me as an editor) the intra-frame compression. That said, I will be looking very closely at the new 4:2:2 2/3" XDCAM HD when (ha ha) it arrives.
Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
www.php.com.au
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by Steve Connor on Aug 16, 2007 at 10:06:06 pm
More Sony bashing and "Mpeg 2 is evil talk then!.
Firstly, Panasonic cameras look better on default settings than Sony cameras, I'm not sure why Sony do this but they do. However if you use a camera on it's default settings then you're doing something wrong.
Spend some time with the 350 and you can get it close to the Panasonic look and the resolution is certainly better than the SDX, which for some clients is important.
As for the codecs, XDCam HD works fine, we use DVCPro 100 a lot for edits and it's very easy to use but I have to say it's not a great multi-generational codec at all, it doesn't take much to start bringing noise into the footage.
As for BBC factual only using the SDX then that may be true in some cases but EVERY shoot that cameramen I know have been on with the BBC has required HDCam!
Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television
Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by jiri vrozina on Aug 16, 2007 at 10:29:16 pm
[Steve Connor]"As for BBC factual only using the SDX then that may be true in some cases but EVERY shoot that cameramen I know have been on with the BBC has required HDCam!"
I that is why England does not rule the world anymore..haha
..but seriously,check colours from Ikegami,Panasonic or Thomson,they are much better.
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by Steve Connor on Aug 17, 2007 at 10:07:42 am
I agree about the colours being better on other cameras, but a good camera setup on a Sony along with a proper grade can match the Panasonics look as well as bettering the resolution.
.... and England will always rule the world :)
Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television
Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by Tim Kolb on Aug 17, 2007 at 12:40:36 pm
[Steve Connor]"More Sony bashing and "Mpeg 2 is evil talk then!."
Oh, come on Steve...I use HDV myself as you know, and defend MPEG regularly. I have no more of an issue with XDcam than with HDV or any other acquisition codec with limitations...
The opinions I'm expressing have to do with the cameras and the images they make. And as much as I like the Sony "sturdiness" for their products overall, the XDcam HD units are a little plasticky for their pricepoint these days...
[Steve Connor]"Spend some time with the 350 and you can get it close to the Panasonic look and the resolution is certainly better than the SDX, which for some clients is important."
I assume you meant HDX here...HDX vs XDCHD, but yes the Sony sensor does have more native resolution, no question.
[Steve Connor]"As for the codecs, XDCam HD works fine, we use DVCPro 100 a lot for edits and it's very easy to use but I have to say it's not a great multi-generational codec at all, it doesn't take much to start bringing noise into the footage."
Well...my responses were based on image acquisition. I'm not sure i understand your comment as I wouldn't personally post in either codec, but certainly if you were to compare them in a post capacity, DVC ProHD would certainly have to be the winner on a Mac I would think, at least as far as runnability and it would certainly be better through multiple generations than MPEG would be...
Re: DVCPRO HD vs XDCAM HD by Tim Kolb on Aug 17, 2007 at 2:17:04 pm
[Steve Connor]"I wasn't actually referring to your posts Tim!"
Oh...
Well then...carry on. :-)
Seriously though, I do like the images these Panasonic cameras make from an aesthetic point of view. I'll go to the mat on the issue of XDcam HD compression being a legitimate production acquisition codec, but Sony cameras do have a different character to them.
I've used an F900 for some D-Cinema work and I liked it and I could make it do what I wanted it to do, so maybe I need to spend some quality time with an XDcamHD camcorder. I think Sony is trying to position it as a broadcast camera (and that makes sense BTW), so they tend to show ENG sorts of images done with the camera, whereas Panasonic has really pushed toward showing their cameras in the context of shooting narrative, and of course they have developed an aesthetic that has a very approachable quality to it, and that approach has proven successful for them.
...on the other hand, I suspect Panasonic has one heck of an uphill battle against Sony to outfit local TV news crews.
