Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by gary adcock on Oct 4, 2007 at 2:26:58 pm
that would be correct.
I was loaned a prototype of the EX at IBC, and was able to play with the unit for only a few days.
all I have to say at the moment ( I am still under NDA) is that a considerable amount of time and effort went into the design and development of the EX.
I only tested the 720p capture and workflow,
my 1080 test will be completed with a shipping unit.
It was noticeably sharper than the HVX200 in 720, and I do mean noticeable.
The 1/2 in sensor gave considerably better ( ie: less ) DOF than the 1/3 in sensor on the HVX.
The Xpress cards are just easier to use- no accessories needed for transferring data from the cards, and less of a "bump" when inserting a second card during capture,
1-60 fps available in 720, 1-30 in 1080, "native" capture modes in both 1080 and 720 so no 24/60i captures - TRUE 1080 24psf is captured direct to the card (as 24.0 or 23.98)
f900 gamma curve presets- virtually matching the high end unit
and I loved the rotating handle.
and did I say it was sharper?
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by Shane Ross on Oct 4, 2007 at 7:04:25 pm
[gary adcock]"and did I say it was sharper?"
Yes, you did. But it is STILL that GOP format with the 4:2:0 sampling...that is a big drawback for me. The chips are larger (thus the sharper image no doubt) but does this really compensate for the chroma sampling?
I just don't have enough (RE: ANY) Experience with XDCAM HD...nor footage to compare to (can you shoot side by side comparisons?)...so...
Hey...and can you clear up the pricing issue? How much will this camera be? I swore you told me $4000 US at IBC, but I am getting flack for saying that now.
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by gary adcock on Oct 4, 2007 at 8:42:17 pm
[Shane Ross]". But it is STILL that GOP format with the 4:2:0 sampling...that is a big drawback for me. The chips are larger (thus the sharper image no doubt) but does this really compensate for the chroma sampling?"
but when a 15 frame long GOP structure is captured as 24fps- all of the 24p material ends up being iframes, the Long GOP structure is not as nasty when you are forcing the iframes.
As for the Chroma sub sampling - I was shooting my normal fire footage and did not notice the reduction like I have with HDV content ( I only shot in 35 mbps mode) IT looked very close to f900 I was matching with. I did not have time to go in a tweak the color matrix ( and not something I can do on my HVX) to get a more panny like color like I am used to.
Now, would I KEY from it? over the HDSDI yes and I got consistent results. I did not try from the native content, as I did not have time. Those tests come later.
I can assure you it was eye opener for me.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by gary adcock on Oct 4, 2007 at 8:43:55 pm
[Shane Ross]"Hey...and can you clear up the pricing issue? How much will this camera be? I swore you told me $4000 US at IBC, but I am getting flack for saying that now. "
missed this
I was wrong about the price at IBC -
I am being told that the EX1 will be about the same price as the HVX.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by Tim Kolb on Oct 4, 2007 at 9:06:03 pm
[Shane Ross]"
Yes, you did. But it is STILL that GOP format with the 4:2:0 sampling...that is a big drawback for me. The chips are larger (thus the sharper image no doubt) but does this really compensate for the chroma sampling?
I just don't have enough (RE: ANY) Experience with XDCAM HD...nor footage to compare to (can you shoot side by side comparisons?)...so..."
Unfortunately, the bit I was trying to get across in that last article I wrote as well as my responses on the HVX forum had to do with exactly the situation we're referring to here. DVC ProHD is a better format than the HVX200 is a camera, and most of the MPEG formats are restricted to small cameras only so our benchmarks are artificially skewed. I doubt Panasonic would want anyone to DEFINE DVCProHD based on the performance of the HVX200 as it's the bottom of the product line...for HDV and XDcam, the camera units have not been particularly stunning, which means that the image quality based on the camera limitations is how the format ends up being defined.
I've keyed 1080 HDV several times and HVX 200 720p several times...I'd say they're close to equal as far as how much monkeying they require. The HVX is upsampling a lower res frame and HDV has less dense color difference sampling...neither one is ideal for compositing.
As I noted in my response to Jan on the HVX forum, many of the downsides of HDV, while they may exist, are simply inflated (sometimes to comical degree) by those who compete with it or don't actually use it.
As I also said, I like DVC ProHD...but HDV, and moreso XDcam, are far from unusable. Maybe this new camera as well as the new XDcam (plus higher bitrates) Compact Flash recorder coming from Convergent Design may change some minds...
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by jiri vrozina on Oct 4, 2007 at 10:10:08 pm
I will have EX-1 for half day test on 16-10-2007.
It will be 100% working unit which is available 2nd week of November for sale in Sydney.
Price in Australia is AUS$9,450 including 2 x 8Gig cards.
I will run some tests against F330.
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by Don Greening on Oct 5, 2007 at 6:04:02 pm
Gary, are you able to say, without violating your NDA what the low light capabilities are like with the new CMOS senors? More to the point, did you carry out any low light tests that you can divulge? Is there a comparison at all to the PD170 that I always reach for in low light situations?
As you might have guessed, the low light capability of the EX is rather high on an event shooter's list.
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by gary adcock on Oct 6, 2007 at 12:23:06 pm
[Don Greening]"what the low light capabilities are like with the new CMOS senors? More to the point, did you carry out any low light tests that you can divulge?"
Actually don, I am not a low light guy, and in my limited testing I did not try the camera in low light, however reports from other testers to me stated that the camera was about 1 stop faster than the 350 model.
< "Is there a comparison at all to the PD170 that I always reach for in low light situations? "
I do not have that info and since I have not shot with any SD cameras in 8-9 years I am the wrong guy to ask about how an HD camera compare to an SD unit of any type.
Since your PD170 is what a 5 year old design, my guess it would be far superior.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by Don Greening on Oct 6, 2007 at 6:26:08 pm
Gary,
Thanks for your feedback. I did a bit of math this morning and came to the conclusion that, going by pixel count alone, the EX will be approx. 4 times less sensitive in low light than a PD170. The thing to remember here is that I'm not taking into consideration 5 or 6 years of chip technology improvements that have most likely made today's pixels more efficient.
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by Tim Kolb on Oct 7, 2007 at 12:29:07 am
[Don Greening]"Thanks for your feedback. I did a bit of math this morning and came to the conclusion that, going by pixel count alone, the EX will be approx. 4 times less sensitive in low light than a PD170. The thing to remember here is that I'm not taking into consideration 5 or 6 years of chip technology improvements that have most likely made today's pixels more efficient."
...and perhaps the fact that the PVW-EX1 has 1/2" sensors vs the PD170's 1/3"?
...of course the calculation in just the light sensitive area would be complicated by the fact that the pixel "fill factor" of a CMOS is less than a CCD because each pixel has its own processing circuitry that takes up more space on the wafer than the simple charge-routing traces on a CCD...
Sony specs state that the minimum illumination for the PD170 is 1 lux at F1.6 with +18dB gain and the EX is 0.14 lux at F1.9 with +18 gain and the highest frame accumulation mode (64) turned on. There is no spec for minimum with frame accumulation or gain turned off...which unfortunately renders both specs useless.
In a nutshell, I think they're difficult to compare and I think what difference there is will most likely defy any effort to calculate it as they are using two different sensor systems at two different sizes at two vastly different pixel densities with glass that probably isn't comparable (relatively) either...
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by Don Greening on Oct 7, 2007 at 2:21:09 am
[Tim Kolb]"...and perhaps the fact that the PVW-EX1 has 1/2" sensors vs the PD170's 1/3"?"
I took that into consideration when I did the math. The PD170 has an effective pixel count of 340,000 on its 1/3" sensor. If the sensor was increased to 1/2" then the number of (effective) pixels jumps to roughly 510,000 pixels. The EX is advertised at having an effective pixel area of 1920x1080 on each of its 1/2' sensors. This works out to 2,073,600 some odd pixels. Going by the math, there are roughly 4 times as many effective pixels on the EX chip as there would be on the PD170 chip IF the PD170 had come with 1/2" sensors like the EX does.
Tim, as your post states further, there are a huge number of other variables that can't be taken into account because of the lack of information and comparison tests. I'm sure the EX's low light capability will not be nearly as bad as the numbers suggest. I was just going by pixel count alone, because (obviously) more pixels on the same size chip means less light sensitivity but a sharper image in good lighting. I see a huge difference in image quality all the time between my XL2 and my PD170 because of the rather large difference in the pixel counts, both cameras having the same size sensors.
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by Tim Kolb on Oct 7, 2007 at 4:52:03 am
[Don Greening]"was just going by pixel count alone, because (obviously) more pixels on the same size chip means less light sensitivity but a sharper image in good lighting. I see a huge difference in image quality all the time between my XL2 and my PD170 because of the rather large difference in the pixel counts, both cameras having the same size sensors."
True enough...that is why most HD cameras are not as light sensitive as their SD counterparts. The tradeoff for adding light sensitivity with more resolution seems most often to be noise.
Overall, it makes little difference to those of us who light anyway, but i suppose to event video production folks, it can be the difference between getting a shot and not.
I would guess that low-end glass on an HD camera probably presents more limitations than low-end glass on an SD camera as well...
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by gary adcock on Oct 8, 2007 at 11:57:01 am
[Don Greening]"I did a bit of math this morning and came to the conclusion that, going by pixel count alone, the EX will be approx. 4 times less sensitive in low light than a PD170."
don
without the sensor pixel count on the EX ( a number sony has not yet released) how can this be accurate?
If your base your numbers on the CCD sensitivity when the EX uses a CMOS chip set that will not offer correct information.
AS I said before I did not test it, but was told it was one stop faster than the 350, but again I did not test that, so all of this is speculation.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by Don Greening on Oct 8, 2007 at 7:49:19 pm
[gary adcock]"without the sensor pixel count on the EX ( a number sony has not yet released) how can this be accurate?"
Sony's own .pdf doc on the EX says that the effective pixel area is 1920 (H) x 1080 (V).
It was just a math exercise to give me a rough idea of what the low light capablity might be just going by pixel count alone. I'm sure the EX performance will be much better than 4 times less sensitive than a PD170. This is what I posted earlier to show how I reached my conclusion:
"The EX is advertised at having an effective pixel area of 1920x1080 on each of its 1/2' sensors. This works out to 2,073,600 some odd pixels. Going by the math, there are roughly 4 times as many effective pixels on the EX chip as there would be on the PD170 chip IF the PD170 had come with 1/2" sensors like the EX does."
If the PD170 HAD COME with 1/2" sensors the pixel count would have been roughly 510,000. The effective pixel count on a REAL 1/3" PD170 sensor is 340,000.
To intentionally oversimplfy the theory, pixels that are 4 times smaller could be 4 times less sensitive to light. This won't be the case with the EX I'm sure, because of the vast improvement in sensor technology since the PD170 was first conceived. Then there's the difference in CCD vs. Sony's new Exmor CMOS technology, which they've poured a ton of money into over the past 2 or so years.
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by gary adcock on Oct 9, 2007 at 1:15:30 am
[Don Greening]"Then there's the difference in CCD vs. Sony's new Exmor CMOS technology, which they've poured a ton of money into over the past 2 or so years"
correct which is what the EX-1 uses...
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by jiri vrozina on Oct 9, 2007 at 8:33:58 pm
[gary adcock]"what do you mean jiri
the EX1 uses the most advanced Eximor CMOS chip set that Sony ships."
Gary,
why will Sony use an old 1/2' CCD block for their new
F355 and F335 XDCAM HD cameras if they have this new 1/2' CMOS
on the "shelf"?
1/2' CMOS chip is 1920x1080,it is at least stop faster then the chip on F350....and perhaps it is cheaper to make.
I will have a chance to test production EX1 camera next Tuesday and I will test it against my f330.Let you know.
jiri
Re: Gary Adcock and his XDCAM EX? by gary adcock on Oct 10, 2007 at 12:25:28 pm
[jiri vrozina]"why will Sony use an old 1/2' CCD block for their new
F355 and F335 XDCAM HD cameras if they have this new 1/2' CMOS
on the "shelf"? "
Jiri
my reasoning would be that the Eximor chip set finished its development after the the 300 series XDcams were designed and shipping as production models. Remember that those cameras started in the design phase over 6 years ago.
The Eximor chip design is less than 3 years old.
gary adcock
Studio37
HD & Film Consultation
Post and Production Workflows
