FORUMS: list search recent posts

Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500

COW Forums : Sony XDCAM - EX & Related

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
cow
Peter Dorr
Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 20, 2007 at 8:52:39 pm


I can buy both cameras without lens at around the same price point.
Initialy I prefered the Sony, but given some great enthousiasm on the panasonic I am strongly in doubt now.

I am rather neutral on the XDcam disks vs P2 cards system. Both will work for me on my Matrox Axio.
And I found that both have around the same set of features/specs on the things I consider to be inmportant for me except for 2 things.

Sony is 1/2" and Panasonic is 2/3"
Sony can do variable frame rate on 1080 while Panasonic can only do that in 720 mode

Any help to make me decide is really appreciated.
thnx
Peter

Peter Dorr


Return to posts index

john sharaf
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 20, 2007 at 9:04:21 pm

Pete,

In either case you must understand that you're buying a "compromised" camera vis-a-vis some of the other (more expensive) options. Of course both are non-linear which offers great advantage in importing quickly, but the Panasonic does use a better recording format, namely DVCPRO100 vs. MPEG2 in the Sony (100 Mb vs. 35/50). In addition you correctly note the distinction in the imager size which advantages the Panasonic again. Of course the 2/3" lenses will cost you more, but they're going to be better and will fit on subsequent cameras that you're likely to grow into.

The only drawback to the HVX500 is that I don't believe the imager is a full native HD resolution; it uses pixel-shifting (like it's little brother the HVX200) to accomplish it's sharpness and resolution, but what do you expect for the price?

So, ultimately the educated choice should be made by a good old fashioned "shoot-out" that takes the type of scene you'll be typically shooting and carries it throough your normal post workflow and judged on a high quality HD monitor (like an eCinema or 20" Sony CRT) by blind test. Anything short of this will leave you second guessing yourself forever!

JS


Return to posts index

cow
Jiri Vrozina
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 21, 2007 at 12:31:36 am

[john sharaf] "The only drawback to the HVX500 is that I don't believe the imager is a full native HD resolution; it uses pixel-shifting (like it's little brother the HVX200) to accomplish it's sharpness and resolution, but what do you expect for the price?"

So why do Panasonic make Pana 2000 and 3000 series cameras??



Return to posts index


Nate Weaver
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 21, 2007 at 4:12:57 am

[john sharaf] "The only drawback to the HVX500 is that I don't believe the imager is a full native HD resolution; it uses pixel-shifting (like it's little brother the HVX200) to accomplish it's sharpness and resolution, but what do you expect for the price?
"


For the price, I expected a CCD block with higher resolution than 960x540. Pixel shifting helps luma res, but it doesn't generate chroma res.

I've spent a few minutes with the camera and I was a little disappointed with the 1.5" 4x3 finder, and how all-in-all, it feels like an HVX-200 made big. Resolution is about the same as the HVX as well, but the low-light sensitivity and the latitude is much better of course.

As an owner of the 350, and going on the record as being bummed with the light requirements of my 350, I'd still much rather have the 350 than an HPX500. But that's just my 2 cents, and others milage will indeed vary.




New website, new work online:
http://www.nateweaver.net


Return to posts index

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 21, 2007 at 10:06:45 pm

[Nate Weaver] " Resolution is about the same as the HVX as well,"


Hi Nate, this is not a correct assumption. There is more resolution on the HPX500. There are an additional 100,000 pixels on a 2/3" CCD. And you are right about the better lowlight performance.

Best,

Jan


Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems



Return to posts index

jiri vrozina
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 22, 2007 at 12:55:51 am

So why do Panasonic make megapixel camera like 2000 and 3000 series??

[Jan Crittenden Livingston] "There is more resolution on the HPX500. There are an additional 100,000 pixels on a 2/3" CCD. And you are right about the better lowlight performance"
Last time i looked at f330 it had about 1,500 000 pixels.My understanding is:HPX500 is using an old SDX900 block which consists of about 600,000 pixels. And cameras with LESS pixels need LESS light.So where is this extra Panasonic resolution coming from??
Why do you think all serious camera produces are now making 1920x1080 chips? With new HD formats(jpeg2000,sony xdcam hd50,panasonic Intra) you need good resolution.
Why do you think Sony(and others) are using 1920 x 1080 sensors in their 1500 series studio cameras and HDCAMs??

HPX-500 and F330/50 is a great camera for todays television and corporate rates.




Return to posts index


Jan Crittenden Livingston
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 22, 2007 at 1:49:03 am

[jiri vrozina] "Last time i looked at f330 it had about 1,500 000 pixels.My understanding is:HPX500 is using an old SDX900 block which consists of about 600,000 pixels. ??"

Actually the old SDX block was 525,000 pixels and the best it could do was 30 frames per second. This is a new vision. It is ab;es to samp;le at 60 frames per second, something that the SDX could not do.


[jiri vrozina] "And cameras with LESS pixels need LESS light.So where is this extra Panasonic resolution coming from??"

More pixels, 625,000 vs 525,000.


[jiri vrozina] "Why do you think all serious camera produces are now making 1920x1080 chips? With new HD formats(jpeg2000,sony xdcam hd50,panasonic Intra) you need good resolution.
Why do you think Sony(and others) are using 1920 x 1080 sensors in their 1500 series studio cameras and HDCAMs??"


Oh please, we are talking about a $14,000 camera, that is the HPX500. Do you really expect it to have 1.1 million pixels? The trade off is that it is a 2/3" Imager. It really is about whether you have the budget. If you can do the 1.1, then the HPX2000 would fit in against the F350 price. But I find it odd that Pete can find the F350 at the HPX500 price. I wonder why?

Anyhow I hoe this helps,

Jan



Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems



Return to posts index

jiri vrozina
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 23, 2007 at 10:44:36 pm

[Jan Crittenden Livingston] "Actually the old SDX block was 525,000 pixels and the best it could do was 30 frames per second. This is a new vision. It is ab;es to samp;le at 60 frames per second, something that the SDX could not do."
Not in PAL.



[Jan Crittenden Livingston] "Oh please, we are talking about a $14,000 camera, that is the HPX500. Do you really expect it to have 1.1 million pixels? The trade off is that it is a 2/3" Imager. It really is about whether you have the budget. If you can do the 1.1, then the HPX2000 would fit in against the F350 price. But I find it odd that Pete can find the F350 at the HPX500 price. I wonder why?"

Why....?? Well it is quite simple Jan...it is not $14,000.Do not forget to spend another US4,000 on memory-that is if one can buy one.
And then you need CERTIFIED lens,HD lens...that is another $$$$.
And then you spend another $2,500 on 2' VF.
Last time i enquired about HPX2,000 it was US28,000 + VF + P2....US$33,000..



Return to posts index

Steve Wargo
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 21, 2007 at 4:35:08 pm

An associate of mine walked into my office practically in tears last week and said that one of his P2 cards won't show up in his reader or his computer slot. This error was going to cost him his pay for the day and most likely his client. He'll be lucky if he doesn'y have to pay for a reshoot. Now, I know that sooner or later we'll hear of the Blu-Ray gone bad too even though Sony says it won't happen. (I guess they've never owned expensive electronics gear)

Or, you could buy a RED camera. They're getting close.

Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut Pro systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck


Return to posts index


Ray Palmer
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 21, 2007 at 7:46:39 pm

[Steve Wargo] "An associate of mine walked into my office practically in tears last week and said that one of his P2 cards won't show up in his reader or his computer slot"

What a bummer!
Who did this happen to and which camera was he using?
If you don't want to post his name, maybe just his initials.

Ray Palmer, Engineer
Salt River Project
Phoenix, AZ
602-236-8224 office
There are three types of people in this world, those that can count and those that can't.


Return to posts index

Steve Wargo
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 22, 2007 at 5:27:17 am

I sent the info to your Blackberry. But, you already knew that, didn't you?


Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut Pro systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck


Return to posts index

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 21, 2007 at 10:04:04 pm

[Steve Wargo] "An associate of mine walked into my office practically in tears last week and said that one of his P2 cards won't show up in his reader or his computer slot. This error was going to cost him his pay for the day and most likely his client. He'll be lucky if he doesn'y have to pay for a reshoot."

Steve you should have your friend contact me off line. I would bet we can get the data off that card or at least help him get the card to mount. We will try the last effort first. crittendenj at us.panasonic.com

Best,

Jan

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems



Return to posts index


Steve Wargo
I just called him
on Jul 22, 2007 at 5:25:02 am

Jan,
I just called him and sent him an e-mail link to this thread. I also CCd you on that e-mail.

Thanks for joining us on the Sony CineAlta HD forum. We appreciate your support.

Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut Pro systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck


Return to posts index

jiri vrozina
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 22, 2007 at 1:01:10 am

bad,bad luck.
Had problems twice with SP tapes long time ago.
Steve,this can happen to any camera and any format.
In 5 years from now we will not discuss the tape anymore.


Return to posts index

Steve Wargo
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 22, 2007 at 5:22:11 am

Technology is moving at an amazing clip. But, (and I know I'm going to catch hell for this) I think that the business is starting to get too cheap. By this, I mean that it used to cost a lot of money to produce quality programming. The HVX200 mentioned above is higher quality than our $30,000 Sony 507 BetaCams of 20 years ago when a good edit system cost between $50K and $350K. Today, we pay $30K for the equivelant of the $350K system of yesterday. This is actually bad for business but very good for the noobies. When I needed the second 36Gigs of SCSI for my D-Vision, I had to take out a loan for $5000 - for 36 gigs!!!!. Now you get 500 gigs for $200. How can these companies survive?

The jobs are going to the cheapest bidder and a lot of it looks like crap because companies are compromising quality for a lower price. There were people who made a good living as freelence producers. They're going away at an alarming rate.

People are always asking why they can't get deluxe options on small cameras like the 200. Here it is: "You get what you pay for" and "You don't get what you don't pay for". Panasonic's line of HD cameras is somewhat almost free in my book and yet, there are some crybabies who want it all for free. Well, if Panasonic, Sony and everyone else starts cutting prices to get everyone's cheap ass business, where will they be in the next five years. Ten years ago, we would not dream of shooting a professional job on anything less that a 2/3" chip and now, 1/4" chips??? Those F-900s and Varicam's cost a lot of money because there is a LOT of money tied up in R&D, materials and support. And the support that goes behind those products is enormous. The majors have repair centers on both coasts. Before something can be designed, built and ready to go out the door, it's blown away by something new. And where do all of the parts come from? Jim Jennard is finding this out as we speak. He can't even get his first product out the door. Companies quit making circuit boards and electronics if it's easier to make money in another industry. No profit = no product.

IMHO, as far as tape vs drives vs cards or whatever we'll have going in five years, you need to be able to maintain the original footage and the data that goes with it. As I see it, for P2, shoot on cards and back up to large optical discs, like Blu-Ray. The 50 gig discs are out or almost out and it will 200 gigs in a short time. When P2 made it's appearance at NAB a few years ago, (Yes, P2 existed long before the HVX200) I told Jim McGowan, the Panny rep, "This is the answer to news cameras." And I still hold that to be true. I also said to him "When the cards get larger and cheaper, you probably won't be able to make enough cameras to fill the demand." I believe I was correct in that respect also. Competition is good. Low prices hurt the entire industry.

My first DV camera was an EZ-1. Ever heard of it?

SO, I guess that's my response to the capture storage comment.




Steve Wargo
Tempe, Arizona
It's a dry heat!

Sony HDCAM F-900 & HDW-2000/1 deck
5 Final Cut Pro systems
Sony HVR-M25 HDV deck


Return to posts index


Steve Connor
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 22, 2007 at 8:52:59 am

Getting back to the original question.....

I can only speak about the 350, but I can say this is a fantastic camera for the money. It has been 100% reliable and it's resolution is pretty close to a 750, in fact we use them with 750's all the time and they cut together very well. One thing Sony is doing is upgrading the camera via firmware on a regular basis, which is very unlike Sony!

Variable frame rates in 1080 are fantastic as is the pre-record cache which really helps in event filming.

Tapeless workflow is great, I prefer XDCam because it takes the archiving workflow out of the equation.

The camera is also fully approved for 100% production for Discovery HD and NatGeo, I'm not sure if the same can be said for the 500, perhaps Jan will know more about this.

The 350 also has a fantastic little brother coming out shortly in the shape of the XDCam EX.

Just a personal opinion of course!

Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.


Return to posts index

Nate Weaver
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 23, 2007 at 4:22:44 am

Steve,

If you rely on your ability to invest in expensive gear to place-hold your position in the market, you're going to have a bad next decade. In the end, it is you or your company's talents that drive your fortunes.

Look no farther than to the audio recording business for what is to come for video. A once expensive landscape of esoteric recording studios has become thousands and thousands of home studios. That business has changed drastically.

It is up to you and I to figure out where we fit as cameramen, or producers, or technicians when everybody can afford a camera and everybody has the means to edit. To pine for expensive prices to keep out the riff-raff will only end in tears.

[Steve Wargo] "The jobs are going to the cheapest bidder and a lot of it looks like crap because companies are compromising quality for a lower price. "

I think you're oversimplifying. Chances are, to characterize your customers as just wanting "the cheapest bidder" is probably to underestimate them. You say yourself, that an HVX can make a better picture than a Beta rig of 20 years ago. If the HVX now gets the job, then what does that say?

New website, new work online:
http://www.nateweaver.net


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 23, 2007 at 7:57:52 am

Everyone though Desktop Publishing would kill the print and design industry but when I last checked it still appeared to be there.

Just because chisels are cheap doesn't mean anyone can become a sculptor.



Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television

Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.


Return to posts index


jiri vrozina
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 23, 2007 at 10:47:50 pm

This is the best post i have ever read on this forum.
jiri vrozina/australia


Return to posts index

rafalaos
XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 24, 2007 at 1:05:54 pm

Very interesting thread yes. XDCam and DVCProHD are the options that I'm considering too. I read what ever I can about those two formats to see if there is any tip that make me decide for one or the other. But I've got a simple question. How can the two systems give a similar quality when one run a signal of 100Mbs and the other one only 35Mbs? From a theoreticall point of view DVCProHD should allow much better quality. Or not? Any idea?
Rafael


Return to posts index

jiri vrozina
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 24, 2007 at 5:50:52 pm

[rafalaos] "How can the two systems give a similar quality when one run a signal of 100Mbs and the other one only 35Mbs? From a theoreticall point of view DVCProHD should allow much better quality."

With XDCAM hd mpeg2 codec 35Mbs is more like 80Mbs in DVCPRO hd.
DVCPRO hd format is a bit better then XDCAM hd 35Mbs.....that is,if one has megapixel block in front of it.
This will change with the introduction of XDCAM hd 50 in September.

To get the perfect formula for HD,one needs good HD glass,1920x1080 block,good digital processing and 4:2:2 HD recorder like DVCPRO hd,XDCAM hd 50,HDCAM(sr) or ??
We do not live in perfect world so to save money we take short cuts.





Return to posts index

rafalaos
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 25, 2007 at 10:19:43 am

jiri
Thanks for the info.
Rafael


Return to posts index

Simon Wyndham
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 26, 2007 at 10:13:53 pm

DVCpro isn't actually 100Mbps. The datarate at most framerates is far, far less. Panasonic also include the audio in that datarate too. Something that I don't think Sony do with the 35Mbps specification. I'll have to do some checking on this.

I used a 500 recently, and I agree fully with Nate. It feels like a big HVX200. The menu adjustments bare this out. If you want to match the 500 to another camera forget it. It doesn't have any colour matrix adjustment at all, and the vast majority of its menu settings such as detail, gamma etc only go from -7 to +7, much like a prosumer camera like the HVX200. Knee can only be configured as low, medium, and high.

Basically the 350 is 1000 times more adjustable, and that's without going into the service menus which bring about even more adjustments.

Variable framerate is good on both cameras. Although the 350 is adjustable in single frame increments while the 500 only has set framerates.

The 350 has a 64frame accumulation mode which is great for extreme low light timelapse shots etc.

Low light on the 350 is not as good as the 500. This is an area in which the 500 excels. When I first tested the 350 I didn't like the noise characteristics. But I have one here now and have found it not to be anywhere near as bad as I remembered it. I shoved it up to +9db, and while there is noise, it isn't terrible

The 1.5" viewfinder on the 500 sucks. But on the plus side the 500 has a great focus assist graph function that shows you the edge frequencies. Panasonic came up trumps with that feature.

On the minus side, while the 500 does come with the 1.5" viewfinder, it doesn't come with a microphone.

Clip playback on the 500 is fiddly. With XDCAM I am used to be able to instantly playback clips, and if I am shoulder mounting I can quickly delete a clip if it was a flub. You can't do this on the 500. You have to open a flap and put the camera into a separate playback mode in order to perform operations on the clips.

Both are great cameras. But to be honest I do not believe that they are comparable. They exist in different price brackets for a reason. The XDCAM is simply far more user friendly in operation and far less limiting in setup abilities. The 500 doesn't even have an adjustable shoulder pad. And because the body on the 500 is so light due to the P2 recording, it becomes very front heavy. You need some heavy batteries to offset it, and the lack of shoulder adjustment compounds this.



Return to posts index

jiri vrozina
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 12:03:03 am


[Simon Wyndham] "Variable framerate is good on both cameras. Although the 350 is adjustable in single frame increments while the 500 only has set framerates."
with f350 you will lose resolution

[Simon Wyndham] "On the minus side, while the 500 does come with the 1.5" viewfinder, it doesn't come with a microphone."
F330 comes with 1.5' vf

[Simon Wyndham] "It doesn't have any colour matrix adjustment at all, and the vast majority of its menu settings such as detail, gamma etc only go from -7 to +7, much like a prosumer camera like the HVX200. Knee can only be configured as low, medium, and high"
I do like Panasonic colour more then Sony,especially skin tones.

One big plus with 1/2 Sony cameras is: HD lenses are cheaper
http://www.globalmediapro.com/av/index.cgi



Return to posts index

Simon Wyndham
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 8:44:33 am

"with f350 you will lose resolution"

Only above the base framerate. For framerates under the base rate (undrecranking) it is at full resolution. To be honest you'd be hard pressed to spot the loss of resolution in overcranking framerates.

"F330 comes with 1.5' vf"

The original poster of this topic wants a 350, which comes with the 2" viewfinder.

"I do like Panasonic colour more then Sony,especially skin tones."

Panasonic colours are very nice yes. But the 350 can be tweaked to whatever you want it to be.

"One big plus with 1/2 Sony cameras is: HD lenses are cheaper"

They are around the same in reality. Look at the price of the wide angle top end 1/2" lenses.



Return to posts index

jiri vrozina
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 8:53:05 am

[Simon Wyndham] "Panasonic colours are very nice yes. But the 350 can be tweaked to whatever you want it to be."
Would you mind to mail me your best file(s).
avro@bigpond.net.au





Return to posts index

Simon Wyndham
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 9:02:02 am

I don't currently own a 350 (I currently own a 510), so I can't send you any files (although the Sony US site has downloadable files, calibrated to the DSC Labs ChromaDuMonde chart)
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcamSceneFiles...





Return to posts index

Nigel Cooper
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 10:00:02 am

Peter, you are being fed some wrong information here.

Why oh why do people insist that the DVCPRO100 codec is better than the MPEG2 codec; this is total rubish. For your information John, DVCPRO100 DOES NOT record at 100Mbps, it is closer to 48Mbps, read up and learn. Besides, XDCAM HDs35Mbps is more like 100Mbps due to the fact that the MPEG codec is sooooooooo much more efficient.

I think Sony know exactly what they are doing with codecs. The only reason Panny aren't using MPEG is because they can't get it to work as well as Sony can so they are sticking with their tried-and-tested method. But believe me, it is NOT better and anyone who says it is, is seriously miss-informed.

As for the 'distinction in imager size which advantages the Panasonic' absolute rubbish. The resolution is what you need to be looking at, Sony's 1440x1080 vs Panasonic's 960x540 (basically standard def chips with pixel-shift in 3 directions to force a fake HD image).

Panasonic admit this themselves, see here:

http://www.hpx500.eu/technical_advanced_progressive.php?lang=en

2/3rd lenses won't cost you any more really, Canon just brought out a new range that are only a tiny fraction more than half inch so no argument there either.

How is a 2/3rd lens better than a 1/2" lens exactly Pete? a 2/3rd lens on a half inch camera will be worse in quality than a 1/2" lens on a half inch camera. It is possible that a


Return to posts index

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 10:45:00 am

[Nigel Cooper] "Why oh why do people insist that the DVCPRO100 codec is better than the MPEG2 codec; this is total rubish. For your information John, DVCPRO100 DOES NOT record at 100Mbps, it is closer to 48Mbps, read up and learn. Besides, XDCAM HDs35Mbps is more like 100Mbps due to the fact that the MPEG codec is sooooooooo much more efficient."

I believe you have the numbers wrong here Nigel, but that aside, the reason that many feel the DVCPRO HD codec is better is bacause the frames are recorded independently and thus are not dependent on the next frame. For real information, instead of hearsay leading to what the real data rates are, you should read up on it at SMPTE, it is under SMPTE 314. Efficiency is not always the best thing unless you are in the delivery mode, efficiency can indeed bring about aberrations or shall we say artifacts that are not very desirable when you have a lot of detail and a lot of motion.


[Nigel Cooper] "I think Sony know exactly what they are doing with codecs. The only reason Panny aren't using MPEG is because they can't get it to work as well as Sony can so they are sticking with their tried-and-tested method. But believe me, it is NOT better and anyone who says it is, is seriously miss-informed."

Nigel, frankly you need to go back and test this one again. And the reason Panaosnic is not in the MPEG domain in the production end is because we fell it is better placed in distribution. We do not feel the place for compromise in in the production end of things, which is why we have always tried to deliver an I-frame codec to the production industry. This is what DVCPRO HD is, DVCPRO50 and the new AVC-Intra. The fact that you put out there and say it as if it has rational weight behind it that we can't get it to work as well as Sony, is ridiculous. We probably have shipped more DVDs and Blu-ray than most other manufacturers out there. We happen to believe long GOP MPEG has its place.

[Nigel Cooper] "As for the 'distinction in imager size which advantages the Panasonic' absolute rubbish. The resolution is what you need to be looking at, Sony's 1440x1080 vs Panasonic's 960x540 (basically standard def chips with pixel-shift in 3 directions to force a fake HD image)."

Frankly you need another lesson here. You didn't seem to understand what that reference page was saying. And the CCD count on the HPX is not 520,00 as your numbers would indicate, but rather a 620,000 count. Resolution is not everything if it causes the algorithm to reflect blockies when there is a lot of motion and a lot of detail, like what we were showin at NAB, a small babbling brook scene. The imager size on the 500 does offer a dynamic range that is much nicer and the low light is also better. Does the 350 have more resolution, sure, but it records to long GOP. Being 1/2" causes certain compromises in the dynamic range and the the lowlight sensitivit, so if you are shooting that scene with that 1/2" imager and it happens to be one of those real edgy scenes with dramatic lighting you will have to work a lot harder with the lighting kit to make it happen on the 1/2" over the 2/3".

And what would be that 3rd direction? It is a spatial offset that gains resolution by picking up the areas that are between the pixels of the green CCD in the Horizontal and Vertical Domains. This added resolution is combined with that green channel for the addition of lumininace resolution. CCDs ar analog devices, the image that comes off of them is an analog signal. That is then captured by the camera at a 1080 X1920P image capture, it is handled this way throught the camera processing and then put out to the DVCPROHD algorithm. Am I saying that you get the same as the 1440X1080 Sony, no, but I am saying that it does make for a very pleasing picture and numbers do not tell the entire story. And it can indeed be very competitive.

[Nigel Cooper] "2/3rd lenses won't cost you any more really, Canon just brought out a new range that are only a tiny fraction more than half inch so no argument there either."

Frankly the last I looked, unless you are really looking at the bargain basement lenses that no one should be using, the 1/2 vs 23 lenses are virtually the same price. The difference here is that there is compensation characteristics in the Panasonic camera that will work to resolve the Chroma Aberrations that are apparent in the less expensive lenses.

>How is a 2/3rd lens better than a 1/2" lens exactly Pete? a 2/3rd lens on a half inch camera will be worse in quality than a 1/2" lens on a half inch camera. It is possible that a


Return to posts index

Nigel Cooper
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 11:41:59 am

Jan, have you ever filmed and complete a production of any kind with ANY camera, or do you spend your life reading tec specs?

Fact is, MPEG Long GoP has one uncompressed frame to relate to, DVCPROHD compresses EVERY frame in a similar way to how JPEG works with photos. Swings and roundabouts.

I'm not going to be drawn into a stupid technical argument with you, I'm sure you have every Panny white paper committed to memory and can quote me all sorts of technical crap that just doesn't concern me in the least.

I know what I see on a decent HD monitor; that is pretty much the only thing that counts; period.

EVERY I-Frame is compressed. Both Intraframe, Interframe and Long GoP are all compressed, they just do it differently; personally I don't care about the scientifics unless I can see it in the picture and with pixel-shifting I can most definitely see it on a HD monitor; soft, soft, soft.

AVC-Intra can't hold up to being compressed/de-compressed 3 times in post. I know people who have done it and it can't handle being shredded like XDCAM's MPEG can.

"you will have to work a lot harder with the lighting kit to make it happen on the 1/2" over the 2/3"."

So the above quote would mean a HVX200 is pretty much useless for independent low budget filmmakers then?

"It is a spatial offset that gains resolution by picking up the areas that are between the pixels of the green CCD in the Horizontal and Vertical Domains. This added resolution is combined with that green channel for the addition of lumininace resolution. CCDs ar analog devices, the image that comes off of them is an analog signal. That is then captured by the camera at a 1080 X1920P image capture, it is handled this way throught the camera processing and then put out to the DVCPROHD algorithm."

Hmmm, nice and technical again. Doesn't mean jack to me Jan, I'm concerned with what the picture 'Looks' like on a HD monitor and don't really go by manufactures inaccurate quotes and technical babble; not even Sony's.

"In general I would bet on the $10,000 lens over the $5,000 any day, same make or different maker. Just been my experience that the more expensive the glass the better."

Just goes to prove that you have never completed a production. This is rubbish, the Fujinon XS17x5.5BRM is virtually indistinguishable against Canon half-inchers costing twice the price. I've compared all Canon and all Fujinon half-inchers for XDCAM HD.

Anyway, just to Clarify. I must reiterate that I frankly don't care about brands or what it says on the side of the camcorder. Over the past 24 months I've owned HVX200, 2 x JVC GY-HD111's, 2 x Sony Z1's, Sony DSR570. I've hired Digibeta and used XDCAM HD in abundance.

I basically use whatever an individual job calls for. There is not one camera that can do it all.

Corporate video calls for Canon XLH1 or Z1, Weddings call for DSR450, Doco's could call for Varicam, TV commercials HDCAM SR, feature films a 35mm film Panavision...

I owned the cheap HVX200 consumer camera for just 1 month before ditching it for reasons of image quality and expensive and destructive P2 workflow. I found the JVC GY-HD111 sharper (with the better lens of course) for my personal needs at the time.

I looked long and hard at Panny tape-based cameras before going for XDCAM HD. PDW-F350 suits most of my personal needs at this moment in time. This camera covers a wide spectrum from corporate, informercials, weddings, TV work and much more. And it is relatively cheap too with a workflow that, just works perfectly.

The bane of Panny products is still the dated, obsolete and expensive P2 workflow that simply won't be around come 2009. Even Panasonic Japan know darn well that they will be announcing the replacement for P2 at NAB 2009.

Old serial/slow/unreliable P2 technology simply can't survive in today's world. How Panasonic call it the 'IT' workflow is a joke and ironic considering the IT industry has left PC-Card technology behind and moved onto the faster, more reliable, cheaper, more future proof ExpressCard technology.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Panasonic the only company on the planet that use PC-Card technology now?

And I see the CinePorter got canned due to lack of interest. Personally I think it is because they know they would probably only sell a few hundred.

And aren't Panasonic the only company on the planet making P2 cards?

There is a good reason Kodak, Lexar, Sandis, Fuji etc etc won't EVER make P2 cards. Because they won't sell many, just one to each end user. They won't spend millions of dollars setting up production lines just to sell a few hundred thousand dollars worth of P2 cards. If P2 cards stick around that long anyway.

Panasonic committed to P2 for just 6 years, 4 of them are up, just 2 to go.

Bye Bye P2, you're days are numbered and anyone who thinks otherwise, well check back in 2009 and I'll accept your apologies.

Convince yourself all you like Jan and enjoy the pay whilst it is there.


Return to posts index

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 12:53:23 pm

[Nigel Cooper] "Jan, have you ever filmed and complete a production of any kind with ANY camera, or do you spend your life reading tec specs?."

As a matter of fact I ahave been the producer on a number of projects, and I have worked with a number of filmmakers over the years. I have been in this business for well over 35 years. I am not dissing you. I am only challenging what you put out there as fact, and there are issues with what you are putting out there.

[Nigel Cooper] "Fact is, MPEG Long GoP has one uncompressed frame to relate to, DVCPROHD compresses EVERY frame in a similar way to how JPEG works with photos. Swings and roundabouts."

That one frame takes about 1/3 of the bit budget, leaving the other 14 frames to divide up the remainder. It is the other 14 frames that are dependent on the previous frame that is the problem. That is the difference in Long GOP Mpeg and DVCPRO HD. Only the changes are recorded from frame to frame in MPEG. If there are more changes that what the algorithm can muster, it falls down. This means that the bit budget cannot handle all of the changes. When working with an I-frame codec,this is not an issue.

[Nigel Cooper] "I'm not going to be drawn into a stupid technical argument with you, I'm sure you have every Panny white paper committed to memory and can quote me all sorts of technical crap that just doesn't concern me in the least. ."

Oh, please. I only pointed out the silliness of your claim that Panasonic didn't do MPEG because we couldn't do it as well as Sony, That was the dumb technical argument.

[Nigel Cooper] "EVERY I-Frame is compressed. Both Intraframe, Interframe and Long GoP are all compressed, they just do it differently; personally I don't care about the scientifics unless I can see it in the picture and with pixel-shifting I can most definitely see it on a HD monitor; soft, soft, soft. ."

Frankly I could show you how the Long GOP can affect your picture, we did that demo at NAB this past year. Your perception of the HPX500 can be influenced by a number of things. It can depend on the glass being used and the monitor in question. But I did not say that the HPX500 had the same resolution as the 1/2" Sony. I think I was pretty careful in saying just the opposite. My point was that resolution specs do not tell the entire story.

[Nigel Cooper] "AVC-Intra can't hold up to being compressed/de-compressed 3 times in post. I know people who have done it and it can't handle being shredded like XDCAM's MPEG can. ."


Really, and how would that be true when the AVC-Intra card has not even been released? Perhaps you are thinking of AVCHD? Different algorithm.

[Jan Crittenden Livingston] ""you will have to work a lot harder with the lighting kit to make it happen on the 1/2" over the 2/3"."

[Nigel Cooper] "So the above quote would mean a HVX200 is pretty much useless for independent low budget filmmakers then? ."

No, it actually means the same thing, the folks that work with any of the 1/3" cameras, not just the HVX, do have to work at getting more light in front of the camera. This is a known scenario.


[Nigel Cooper] "Hmmm, nice and technical again. Doesn't mean jack to me Jan, I'm concerned with what the picture 'Looks' like on a HD monitor and don't really go by manufactures inaccurate quotes and technical babble; not even Sony's. ."

Well if you are interested in how it looks then you should look at it, because from what you are saying, it seems to me that you really have not looked at it.

[Nigel Cooper] "Just goes to prove that you have never completed a production. This is rubbish, the Fujinon XS17x5.5BRM is virtually indistinguishable against Canon half-inchers costing twice the price. I've compared all Canon and all Fujinon half-inchers for XDCAM HD. ."

This does not prove anything of the sort, it does say something about where you are coming from however. If you think that the cheap $5000 lens looks as good as the $20,000 lens, well there you go. I happen not to agree. I can see a difference in the $5000 lens versus the $10,000. In fact I can see the difference between the $8000 Fujinon 2/3" vs the $10,000 Canon 2/3".


[Nigel Cooper] "I owned the cheap HVX200 consumer camera for just 1 month before ditching it for reasons of image quality and expensive and destructive P2 workflow. ."

Perhaps you had destructive workflow issues because you were unfamiliar with working the workflow. But I can assure you that with a project as big as the Iditarod, with over 140 hours of P2 workflow capture and editing, we didn't lose a clip or a card. And that is only the very tippy-top of the iceberg of work that has been done on P2 and it is indeed a very reliable workflow.

[Nigel Cooper] "I looked long and hard at Panny tape-based cameras before going for XDCAM HD. PDW-F350 suits most of my personal needs at this moment in time. This camera covers a wide spectrum from corporate, informercials, weddings, TV work and much more. And it is relatively cheap too with a workflow that, just works perfectly. ."

Actually in reality the XDCAM HD workflow on a minute to minute basis is more expensive than tape. I am not saying it doesn't work for you, I am just saying that in comparison to a tape workflow, it is very similar and it costs more than tape.

[Nigel Cooper] "The bane of Panny products is still the dated, obsolete and expensive P2 workflow that simply won't be around come 2009. Even Panasonic Japan know darn well that they will be announcing the replacement for P2 at NAB 2009. ."


Here you have the right to your opinion, but the reality that it is not true. I was in product discussions yesterday with Panasonic Japan where indeed we were planning P2 cameras and products that would deliver in 2009.

[Nigel Cooper] "Old serial/slow/unreliable P2 technology simply can't survive in today's world. How Panasonic call it the 'IT' workflow is a joke and ironic considering the IT industry has left PC-Card technology behind and moved onto the faster, more reliable, cheaper, more future proof ExpressCard technology. ."


This is hilarious. The PCMCIA slot is still on the PC laptops and the brand new computer 2 weeks ago still has a PCMCIA slot. But the argument here is moot. Show me the PC that has the XDCAM Disk built in? You point to the Express card camera, which basically reinforces what we have said all along, solid state is the way to go, no moving parts. And in fact we are not the only ones that call it an IT workflow, even Microsoft in their NAB presentation 2 years ago called it an IT workflow. It is IT because it is a file based system that can be managed just like Microsoft word documents and that can happen the minute that I have the card read by the computer. It can edit directly off of the card, and the files can be managed by meta-data, yes; it is indeed an IT workflow.

[Nigel Cooper] "Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Panasonic the only company on the planet that use PC-Card technology now? ."

Not really. The Duel-Systems adapter brings the PCMCIA card slot technology to those computers that no longer have a PCMCIA slot. And you can order certain computer with it. There is no need for further development whichis what the PCMCIA commeittee stated. It is not a dead technology, it is totally viable. I have a number of PCMCIA slot devices that rely on it, including my Flash card reader.

[Nigel Cooper] "And I see the CinePorter got canned due to lack of interest. Personally I think it is because they know they would probably only sell a few hundred. ."

While I would leave it to the Spec-Comm folks to say why they abandoned the project, my gut level says that that with the 16GB and the 32GB card being delivered this year and the 64GB card next year, your assessment might be right. Why rely on spinning disk technology when solid state is so much more of a sure thing?

[Nigel Cooper] "And aren't Panasonic the only company on the planet making P2 cards? . "

And isn't Sony the only company making XDCAM HD disks? This is a silly argument. Right now I know that there are two other companies that are trying to make them, but it isn't all that easy, it is more than flash memory.

[Nigel Cooper] "There is a good reason Kodak, Lexar, Sandis, Fuji etc etc won't EVER make P2 cards. Because they won't sell many, just one to each end user. They won't spend millions of dollars setting up production lines just to sell a few hundred thousand dollars worth of P2 cards. If P2 cards stick around that long anyway. ."


Well unlike the Disk technologies or even tape, you don't need thousands of cards, each camera only needs a handful, so there really wouldn't need to be a lot of manufacturers making cards.

[Nigel Cooper] "Panasonic committed to P2 for just 6 years, 4 of them are up, just 2 to go. Bye Bye P2, you're days are numbered and anyone who thinks otherwise, well check back in 2009 and I'll accept your apologies. ."


This is silly. You act as though you have some special secret knowledge and there is no truth to what you say. You too can offer your apology in a couple of years because what you will see is that the P2 will continue to grow in size and there will be more cameras and devices that will capitalize on it.

Best regards,

Jan



Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems



Return to posts index

Simon Wyndham
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 1:27:36 pm

For the record I thought the 500 was a nice camera. Just those niggles that I mentioned in my other posts put me off it.

At this price range there will always be compromises. At this level (the 500 and 350) there isn't really a 'better' camera. Just differences.

My main issues with the 500 are the way that it needs to go into a different mode for clip manipulation. Jan, you should consider adding a quick clip delete function and a way of skipping through the clips without having to go into this different mode. I'd also implore you to add a colour matrix adjustment. There are cameras costing much less that have this function, and on this type of camera I know I'm not the only one that thinks it is essential.

Shoulder pad adjustment is also something that needs to be added. It might even need a bit more than is usual because of the light weight of the body.

The P2 thing I could care less about, mainly because anything that can be said about the differences between the workflow systems has already been said.



Return to posts index

Ben Kupfer
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 29, 2007 at 5:08:30 pm

I was going to respond to this thread in general, but Nigel, your previous response sums up my feelings better than I could have written.

I too owned the HVX200 and couldn't get past the P2 workflow and the prosumer feel of the camera.

I now own a Sony 350 and have been, on the most part, satisfied. It's not a 900 or a Varicam, but for the price it just can't be beat (IMHO). I've worked in this business for 25 years now starting with film, moving to Betacam and others inbetween, and ending up with XDCAM HD. To date I've shot docus in very low light conditions, long form corporate video and entertainment based programming with my 350. Probably over 100 hours so far...

While my workflow in FCP isn't perfect, I've never had a problem with the discs and the images are truly astounding. Call me a believer.

That being said, the bottom line for any camera purchase should be a thorough test. Buy the camera that looks best and works best for you within your budget. If I were in a larger market or had clients needing a higher end finish, I would be looking at other cameras.

Regards,
Ben Kupfer


Return to posts index

Alex Geroulaitis
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 17, 2009 at 1:56:15 am

[Nigel Cooper] "The bane of Panny products is still the dated, obsolete and expensive P2 workflow that simply won't be around come 2009"

P2 still seems to be around...

But still, what is the exact bitrate of DVCPRO HD 720p24 recorded on HPX500 camera, inclusive of audio and metadata?

Thanks.

Best,
Alex,
DV411


Return to posts index

Peter Dorr
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 12:27:54 pm

wow, that's a pretty strong story..
It does raise some very good points to me though.
Thanks a lot, this really helped me.
Peter

Peter Dorr


Return to posts index

Nigel Cooper
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 27, 2007 at 1:32:54 pm

" Only the changes are recorded from frame to frame in MPEG."

And the problem is? it works with meta-data and keeps a record of what is the same and what isn't. I've never witnessed (and don't know anyone who has) an issue with there being more changes than the algorithm can muster.

"When working with an I-frame codec,this is not an issue."

Ah, but it is an issue, and it can be even worse. As I've mentioned, every single frame is shredded with DVCPROHD I-Frame, which is like a still JPEG photo. So the effects can be worse here, don't be under any illusion Jan, I've seen it on many occasions. I still shoot on I-Frame camcorders.

"Oh, please. I only pointed out the silliness of your claim that Panasonic didn't do MPEG because we couldn't do it as well as Sony, That was the dumb technical argument."

Not dumb. Check with Panny Japan, they have played around with MPEG2 in the past; to no avail.

"My point was that resolution specs do not tell the entire story."

I agree.

"$5000 lens versus the $10,000. In fact I can see the difference between the $8000 Fujinon 2/3" vs the $10,000 Canon 2/3"."

I'm talking about two specific lenses and I've seen them as I was going to buy one over the other; fact.

"Perhaps you had destructive workflow issues because you were unfamiliar with working the workflow. But I can assure you that with a project as big as the Iditarod, with over 140 hours of P2 workflow capture and editing, we didn't lose a clip or a card. And that is only the very tippy-top of the iceberg of work that has been done on P2 and it is indeed a very reliable workflow."

I totally understand the workflow, shoot P2, dump to laptop or P2 store, edit, then archive to domestic Blu-Ray DVDs or DLT? what a joke.

As for Iditarod, is that all you've got, Sony did Iditarod on XDCAM HD the year before. If P2 is so tough, why did Panny UK refuse to let me do some of my special tests on it, when Sony were happy for me to test XDCAM HD discs by freezing them in water in the freezer, then thawing them out in the microwave and putting them through a dishwasher; oh, all clips were fine by the way. Panasonic UK refused my offer to test P2 cards to the same degree and said there were not designed to take such punishment. Well you could quite easily drop a P2 card in the snow, or in a river, or a hot volcanic fountain on a shoot; surely?

"Actually in reality the XDCAM HD workflow on a minute to minute basis is more expensive than tape. I am not saying it doesn't work for you, I am just saying that in comparison to a tape workflow, it is very similar and it costs more than tape."

Rubish, unless you are comparing to mini-dv tape. Comparing to Digibeta it is slightly less, and much less than HDCAM.

How does P2 fair up to the tape pricing these days?

Oh, and please don't tell me you can re-use a P2 card thousands of times. XDCAM Discs cost $15 and can be re-used 10,000 times and played back over a million times.

"Here you have the right to your opinion, but the reality that it is not true. I was in product discussions yesterday with Panasonic Japan where indeed we were planning P2 cameras and products that would deliver in 2009."

If this is the case, Panny are going down. As for the rest of my IT/P2 ramblings; all true. The IT industry does NOT support PC-Cards anymore, they are tooo slow and twitchy, this is why everyone (except Panny) have moved on.

"The PCMCIA slot is still on the PC laptops and the brand new computer 2 weeks ago still has a PCMCIA slot."

Yeah, what brand, some cheap Chinese copy/unknown as they don't know any better.

Check out MacBook Pros and Vaio's, Dells etc. Not a PC Card slot in sight. Unless it is old stock. Check out the DVinfo forums, HVX200 guys buying up 2 year old MacBook's like no tomorrow as they have PC Card slots on them.

"Show me the PC that has the XDCAM Disk built in?"

Don't have to because I can record 65 minutes of glorious HD 1080x1440 footage onto a disc. I don't have to dump, I simply put in another CHEAP disc and continue recording. P2 users need it as they can't afford to buy 15 x 16GB cards to stick in their pocket.

"Microsoft in their NAB presentation 2 years ago called it an IT workflow."

Ha, Microsoft eh, says it all. Biggest is not the best.

When Sony's EX series come out over the next 2 years I just hope they have superb error correction built in like the current XDCAM HD does; or they will also suffer like Panasonic have.

"It can edit directly off of the card, and the files can be managed by meta-data, yes; it is indeed an IT workflow."

So is XDCAM HD.

"The Duel-Systems adapter brings the PCMCIA card slot technology to those computers that no longer have a PCMCIA slot."

Ah, a dodgy workaround fix, just until P2 dies in a few years time.

"There is no need for further development whichis what the PCMCIA commeittee stated. It is not a dead technology, it is totally viable."

They said the same thing about floppy discs when CD drives came out.

"Why rely on spinning disk technology when solid state is so much more of a sure thing?"

Is it, I've never heard of a corrupt clip on XD, EVER. Nor have I heard of my XD disc being wiped whilst dumping it to an in-the-field device like a P2 store, then locking up and losing everything. This is quite common with P2 store according to the regular forums.

"And isn't Sony the only company making XDCAM HD disks?"

No not actually, Sony, TDK, Maxell and Fuji all make XDCAM HD discs, why? because they are selling millions of the things and making a killing on them. Because they are cheap, people use them like tape, shoot to disc, edit, stick disc on shelf; end of story.

This will never happen with P2. As for Sony's new SxS cards, not only will Sandis make them, but so will Fuji, Sandisk and many others. Cheap, Cheap, Cheap and even Cheaper.

Buy the time 64GB P2 cards come out, there will be 128GB SxS cards for $79.

With P2 you are heading into the dark ages I'm afraid.

"Right now I know that there are two other companies that are trying to make them, but it isn't all that easy, it is more than flash memory"

Wrong, seed above, Fuji, TDK, Maxell, check there web sites for XDCAM HD discs, they have been making them for a year already and they are WAYYYYYYY cheaper to make than flash memory. It is based on Blu-Ray technology, which these companies already have in place. Keep digging Jan, you'll reach Australia soon.

"Well unlike the Disk technologies or even tape, you don't need thousands of cards, each camera only needs a handful, so there really wouldn't need to be a lot of manufacturers making cards."

When Sony's first EX series camera comes out in November/December, I'd bet my bottom dollar that by the middle of next year there are at least 3 manufactures making SxS cards. In fact I guarantee it. In fact there are already 2 companies making them.

"You act as though you have some special secret knowledge"

I do ;)


Return to posts index

jiri vrozina
Re: XDCam/DVCProHD Bit rate
on Jul 28, 2007 at 5:46:43 am

[Nigel Cooper] "Peter, you are being fed some wrong information here.

Why oh why do people insist that the DVCPRO100 codec is better than the MPEG2 codec; this is total rubish. For your information John, DVCPRO100 DOES NOT record at 100Mbps, it is closer to 48Mbps, read up and learn. Besides, XDCAM HDs35Mbps is more like 100Mbps due to the fact that the MPEG codec is sooooooooo much more efficient"


Because it is better when 4:2:0 compressed 35Mbps.Just better.

[Nigel Cooper] "2/3rd lenses won't cost you any more really, Canon just brought out a new range that are only a tiny fraction more than half inch so no argument there either."
Where do you get extra wide lens under US$10,000 like Fujinon 3.3x13??

two things to mention here:
HVX-202 is the best small camera on the market and at last Sony woke up and is comming on the market with EX.
Secondly if somebody is shooting SD,they will get better results with decent SD cameras like Pana900 or later versions of Digi Beta Cameras.I do not like much Downconverted image from HD to SD(especially skin tones) from average HD camcorders.





Return to posts index

Peter Dorr
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 27, 2007 at 12:21:36 pm

Guys,

Thanks for all your responses. I guess the final take-out for me of this thread is....you can't really get it wrong. I think both cameras are doing a pretty good job given their pricing.
To answer one question about the pricing which I forgot to mention. The Sony is an ex-demo with only 40 hours usage so I can get it with a huge discount. That's why it matches the Panasonic pricing. Sorry for not being clear on that.

I am still not sure which one to buy, so indeed it is going to be a "shoot out" eventualy.
Thnx again to everybody for your help, it's much appreciated.

Peter

Peter Dorr


Return to posts index

rafalaos
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Jul 28, 2007 at 3:32:48 am

Peter,
With such a panorama I think is time to wait.
Rafael


Return to posts index

Timothy Sorel
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Aug 5, 2007 at 9:27:58 pm

The one aspect of the Sony HD Cam that I did not care for was how the camera 'stuttered' in 24 frame mode. Some DP's refer to this as "mosquito". I too am shopping for an HD solution. It seems the workflow for the P2 is dump the card through a laptop onto a firewire drive, later tranferring the files to RAID and than perhaps safety archive on a backup RAID or firewire drive.

The Sony system requires a PDW-F30 or a PDWV1 player to transfer the files to NLE. I'm I correct on this? The $9,500 list for the player is pause for concern. When I first heard about this system a couple years back I naively thought I could transfer the files in an inexpensive disk reader of some sort.



Return to posts index

Yves Chauvel
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Aug 7, 2007 at 12:58:32 pm

Tim,

You just don't need any extra player. Simply plug your F330 or F350 on FAM mode to your NLE with a firewire cable, and you're done. Faster than real time. As simple as that!
The Sony XDCAM transfert plug-in is required (free) for FCP.

Yves Chauvel


Return to posts index

Timothy Sorel
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Aug 7, 2007 at 1:56:51 pm

Yves,

I agree that using the camera as a source deck is possible. Since the Sony is mechnical with it's optic drive, wouldn't this put added hours (wear and tare) on the camera?



Return to posts index

Nigel Cooper
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Aug 7, 2007 at 10:06:33 pm

Timothy

It won't put any extra wear and tear on the camera. It's only a laser, no big deal. Besides, the price of replacing the laser is a fraction compared to replacing heads in a Digibeta camera.

It cost about


Return to posts index

Wayne Carey
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Aug 14, 2007 at 7:42:36 pm

I concur with Nigel. We've been using XDCAM HD for more than a year and standard the year before that. Awesome workflow!

As for the Panasonic HPX500, I just found out today that the CCD imagers for this camera aren't HD. They are SD imagers that are using software algorithms to upconvert to HD. And everybody is knocking the XDCAM HD 1/2" chips... (which are HD imagers)

_______________________________

Wayne Carey
Schazam Productions
http://www.schazamproductions.com
http://blogs.creativecow.net/waynecarey


Return to posts index

joachim hoge
Re: Sony XDcam PDW-F350 or Panasonic HPX500
on Aug 30, 2007 at 6:09:46 pm

I went to company here in Norway to get offers on the 330 and the 350.
When I asked about delivery times for the 350 he had to call Sony.
The rep said I would have to wait for the 355. It would come early October and be 10% CHEAPER than the 350.
Great news I must say


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]