FORUMS: list search recent posts

PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.

COW Forums : Sony XDCAM - EX & Related

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Randy Burleson
PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 26, 2008 at 5:34:00 pm

Since this is a Sony forum I may not get totally unbiased feedback, but what the heck.. lets give it a shot.
I am currently shooting on DVCam. I want to upgrade to an HD Format.
I am trying to avoid the HDV thing and get a little better format.
I am considering the PDW-700 or the Panasonic HPX 2000 with the AVC Intra card option.
These are both great cameras.
My biggest questions are about workflow and cost of media and operation over the long haul. P2 is expensive but reuseable. XDHD DVDs are great but I have the cost of all of that media. Which brings up another question of Archiving.
I would have to back up the P2 media to LTO 4 data tape cartridges would also add up over time. I would think that the DVD's could be just stored on a shelf like tape for archiving.
P2 has no moving parts... no drive to break down or laser to fail and repair.
Also.. I would have to invest in an additional PDWHD-1500 deck for the XDCAM HD stuff. P2 would just need a card reader.


MPEG 4:2:2 vs DVCProHD AVC Intra ? hmmmm Torn.

Any "helpful" feedback?



Return to posts index

john sharaf
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 26, 2008 at 6:43:15 pm

Randy,

These are good questions, but the real difference between these two cameras is the recording format. The Panasonic AVC-I is really four times as good as that on the XDCAM. For this of course you are going to pay the premium of the more complicated archival process, but depending on your work, this may or may not be an issue.

Remember that right now the PDW700 is vaporware, and when it does street it will not have 24p or other features that will come later. Both P2 and XDCAM can be dealt with without conventional VTR's; there are inexpensive readers to connect with NLE's so there is savings here as well.

While the XDCAM discs can be re-recorded, that is unlikely as they serve as an excellent archive and of course the P2 cards will come down in price and increase in size to the point where someday they might even be archival master media as well.

If I had to buy today, I'd go with the 2000!

JMHO

JS





Return to posts index

Michael Palmer
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 26, 2008 at 7:14:53 pm

Woooww ..........I don't understand "The Panasonic AVC-I is really four times as good as that on the XDCAM." how you can make this statement John......... Please enlighten us.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer


Return to posts index


john sharaf
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 26, 2008 at 7:20:22 pm

AVC-I offers DVCPRO100 quality at 50 Mb or D5 quality at 100 Mb
XDCAM is limited to MPEG2 at 50 MB.

In a way it's four times as good.

The recording format of the PDW700 is really it's limiting characteristic. It's meant to be a news camera where quality is not the defining characteristic, the limited bandwidth itself is the reason it will become the HD news standard. I don't think that acceptance in other genres will be as enthusiastic.

JS



Return to posts index

Michael Palmer
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 26, 2008 at 8:06:47 pm

So what you are saying is that DCV pro HD is twice as good as XD Cam 50 Mbps, and that this new AVC-I is twice as good as DCV pro HD. I would assume this HPX-2000 now has full raster 1920x1080 CCD's and not the CCD's from the HPX-500 or do you know? The HPX-500 can only provide 1280x1080 with DVC pro HD.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer


Return to posts index

john sharaf
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 26, 2008 at 8:27:03 pm

Michael,

The 2000 is more like the Varicam, in that it has a 1280x720 native imager but with the AVC-I codec there is no horizontal down res and full 10 bit recording. You have to go to the next model up (3000) to get a 1920x1080 native imager, but I believe the benefits of the improved recording format outways the slight handicap of the internal 720 to 1080 transcode. For critical work however, you could accomplish the same end by using the HD-SDI outputs of the PDW700 and recording onto a P2 mobile. This is a workflow promoted by Panasonic to leverage continued use of the Varicam.

JS





Return to posts index


Michael Palmer
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 26, 2008 at 8:46:32 pm

Here is what I found on the top of page three.
http://www.serv.com.ua/img/zstored/File/AVC_Intra_White_Paper_Ver_1_3.pdf

Table 1: Summary of the AVC-I features and Modes
Demands AVC-I Features
IT affinity / Tapeless International Standard / P2 file recording
Highly Efficient Compression MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 @ High10 / High 4:2:2 Profile standard
Editing / Operation Intra-Frame compression method (I-only compression)
Full Resolution HD mode 100Mb/s mode (1920 x 1080 / 4:2:2 @ 10bit)
ENG / Economy HD Mode 50Mb/s mode(1440 x 1080 / 4:2:0 @ 10bit)

The AVC-I 100 above is a full raster, but the HPX-2000 is the 1280x1080
And it looks like the AVC-I 50 take a page from the XD Cam with the 1440x1080 4:2:0

I'm still not sure what basis you find this AVC-I camera to be four times better at this point in time.
What would your workflow be with AVC-I files?

Good Luck
Michael Palmer


Return to posts index

john sharaf
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 26, 2008 at 11:43:25 pm

Michael,

I believe at this point your best workflow with AVC-I is ProRes 422 in FCP.

JS





Return to posts index

Chris Brown
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 29, 2008 at 4:58:00 pm

AVC on P2 cards works the same way. Just transfer the files and edit. Since it's an intraframe codec, you're good to go. No transcoding. FCP now supports AVC-Intra. You could always go to ProRes if you wanted to.

Videographer/Editor
Creative Director
Union Digital, Inc.
http://www.uniondigitalmedia.com


Return to posts index


Ron Shook
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 27, 2008 at 12:00:58 am

[john sharaf] "Panasonic AVC-I is really four times as good as that on the XDCAM."

With respect, the relative quality levels of the competing codecs are not even close to 4 times different. You have to look at these apples and oranges from several perspectives to come to any even speculative conclusions, and we'll have to wait for the real proof of the pudding when we can compare them directly. The fact that the Panasonic is intraframe and the Sony interframe makes a huge difference. The old rule of thumb when looking at MPEG2 compression is that interframe (long GOP) compression is approximately 2.5 times more efficient than intraframe compression (I-frame), just harder for the NLE to work with.

All compression schemes are conscious compromises. Since MPEG2 compression is perhaps a little more efficient in intraframe than the intraframe DCT compression used in DVCProHD, there is very little difference in quality between the 35 mbps XDCAM HD interframe codec and the 100 mbps DVCPRO HD intraframe codec, except where the respective companies decided to compromise. Panasonic went for 4:2:2 color space for improved color resolution and vibrancy and Sony went for 4:2:0 color space to improve the spacial resolution. These choices have been born out in the practical applications of shooters, who for the most part agree that XDCAM HD is sharper than DVCPRO HD but that DVCPRO HD images have a color vibrancy superior to XDCAM HD. This assumes that camera heads are equal which of course they never are, which is another reason that we have to look at things in the real world.

Now both Sony and Panasonic have new codecs, a 50 mbps, 4:2:2, interframe MPEG2 XDCAM HD codec for Sony and a variant of MPEG4, 50 and 100 mbps, AVC intraframe codec for Panasonic. The old rules of thumb don't directly apply anymore because the AVC codec, if we are to believe Panasonic (and let us do so for simplicity), is twice as efficient as DVCPRO HD. If the old competing codecs were roughtly equivalent in quality, then the new competing codecs will give the edge to Panasonic, because it is twice as efficient as the old, while the new Sony is approximately a 1.5 times improvement. But that means that the Panasonic codec is perhaps 30-50% better than the Sony, not 4 times better.

We will have to wait and see how this works out in the field, but my suspicion is that there will be little real difference in the quality, such that other things like work flow and the subjective response to the camcorders' imagery will be of greater importance than any mostly non visible differences in codec quality. Another thing to watch out for is the relative ease or difficulty of dealing with the respective codecs in the nle. We already know that long GOP XDCAM HD is harder to deal with, and we know that AVC-I takes more CPU horsepower to decode than MPEG2, but I at least haven't heard how much. It may be a wash or it may not?

Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit*


Return to posts index

Michael Palmer
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 27, 2008 at 12:12:33 am

Ok Randy my turn.
"I am currently shooting on DVCam. I want to upgrade to an HD Format."

How are you delivering now and what format do you think you will be delivering with HD ?

The new Sony 700 is the next level of XD Cam upping the bite rate to 50Mbps along with the color space to 4:2:2 with an all new full raster 3-ccd 2/3 imager, unlike the HPX-2000 that still most likely has ccd's from earlier units that are perceived as 720 native. These features between these two camera IMO make huge differences as to overall image quality. There will always be compression debates but I look to what the camera can produce without compression.

You are inquiring about two completely different record formats so given you understand the intangible solid state workflow I would say you should be looking at the Sony XD Cam EX series instead of the new 700 for a comparison. AVC-I is an up and coming codec that maybe the future for both companies, however the Sony camp still believes the MPEG-4 compression works best recording at lower bit rates and as the rates climb higher (as with what the HPX-2000 can record) they aren't as dominate as some people are lead to believe. There are affordable solutions to record beyond these factory compression limits that include 4:2:2 color and Intra frame recording, with the Convergent Design Flash XDR HD-SDI recorder.

I believe I have found an affordable solution for my next production series for Animal Planet. We are planning to use the Sony EX3 together with the XDR recorder using the 100Mbps I -frame setting. The EX3 was an amazing new CMOS sensor that IMO is way better than the HPX-500 that I shot with last season. Another time saving benefit from this new Flash XDR HD-SDI recorder is it will produce QuickTime .mov files right to the card helping us with our Final Cut workflow. Both P2 and XD Cam solid state recorded files must be converted into Quick Time files to be edited with Final Cut and we won't be spending any of that time converting. This market is ever changing and I would bet my affordable EX3 to XDR will provide near uncompressed quality without braking the bank.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer


Return to posts index

Peter Corbett
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 27, 2008 at 12:59:47 am

Hi Michael,

I too am very interested in the EX3, but have you been following the concerns of some users over on the DVX user forum. There's been some testing which appears to show significant image breakup (with the 35mbs codec)on moving images and panning across high-detailed areas like grass and trees. But when the camera is static or the subject is sharp in the screen, the images are amazing. I had a similar (but more severe) effect when shooting in Borneo last year. Following moving orang-utans across the trees looked dreadful in HDV. I only mention this because you shoot for Animal Planet.

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au


Return to posts index


john sharaf
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 27, 2008 at 1:16:55 am

I'm sorry, but this is why some formats are professional and others are prosumer. When the information is spread out over more than one frame it's a compromise in both motion reproduction and in editing. One has to really look at the whole system of photography, from mastering, editing, duplication and exhibition, yet changes in all these spheres are taking place so fast one cannot really master it all.

In the old days of film, things were simple and well understood. Now we have to think about compound compressions, sequential detail manipulation, matrixs added to matrixs, aspect ratios and framerates, not to mention putting our precious pictures on cell phones!

There are compromises at each turn, some predictable and others not even conceived of yet. That's why the least compression and futzing with the motion the better, save all that for the last step.

The newer schemes take some of the more modern problems and uses into mind, that's why I'd go with MPEG4/AVC-I over the old MPEG2 any day, but I'm not foolish enough to disregard the fact that ultimately it's the economics that drive the innovations not quality and those of us who aspire to maintain what we've had in the past are rarely listened to except in the rarefied air of mega features, where the innovators are tasked to create images that do not even exist in the real world.

JS



Return to posts index

Alister Chapman
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 27, 2008 at 6:45:15 am

You should also consider that currently P2 using a card technology (PCMCIA) that is now no longer supported by most PC manufacturers while XDCAM HD uses a re-useable robust disk.

Also I'm not sure how much I would believe reports of picture break up on a Sony camera form DVX user, a Panasonic biased forum!

I use both and EX1 and Sony F350 day in - day out and I can assure you the codec is very robust. It is VER Y different to HDV, not only does it have a higher bit rate but it also uses VBR encoding allowing the camera to dynamically allocate data where it is most needed.

The difference in picture quality between 50mb XDCAM HD and 100Mb AVCIntra is so small that it will be workflow, archive and other factors that will make your decision. If you are considering a PDW-700 then you'll need to get your name down quick as there are a lot of people ordering them and there will be a wait.



Return to posts index

Chris Brown
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 29, 2008 at 5:03:33 pm

"You should also consider that currently P2 using a card technology (PCMCIA) that is now no longer supported by most PC manufacturers while XDCAM HD uses a re-useable robust disk. "

Please, that's a very short-sighted comment. Yes, this is true in laptops...but a lot of P2 users aren't using their laptops slots for data transfer.

That's why you can:
- hook up a hard disk directly to camera and dump data via Firewire or USB 2.0
- transfer via the camera to a PC - a la XDCAM
- use a P2 deck or drive - same as using a XDCAM VTR or drive

Both formats allow you to do the same thing, via same methods. Unless you bought the interal XDCAM drive for your PC, you're not inserting the media into the PC, you're using a Sony branded device to transfer the data into your NLE, just like P2.

Videographer/Editor
Creative Director
Union Digital, Inc.
http://www.uniondigitalmedia.com


Return to posts index


Alister Chapman
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 29, 2008 at 6:53:30 pm

Commenting on the fact that P2 is an out of date technology is not short sighted at all.

When P2 was launched it was pushing the available technology to the limit. The problem is that it is still using the same technology.

If you are shooting large amounts of footage on location with P2 and XDCAM EX you will often need to make backups and erase the cards so you can re-use them. With XDCAM HD you simply pop in a new $25 disc, with XDCAM EX you put the SxS card in you laptops express card slot and get an 8x real time transfer. With P2 you get a transfer speed not much faster than real time (thanks to the old tech PCMCIA interface) and unless you are using an older laptop have to tie up the camera to do it.

So the interface used is very relevant. It is short sighted to think it is not especially as it will get harder and harder to source laptops with PCMCIA slots.



Return to posts index

Chris Brown
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 29, 2008 at 8:02:15 pm

"...as it will get harder and harder to source laptops with PCMCIA slots."

You didn't read my post.

The fact is, like XDCAM, most P2 users are doing:

- direct to camera hard drive dumps of data - running at 25-30MB/sec speeds via Firewire
- transfering direct from camera, like XDCAM, via Firewire or USB 2.0
- using VTR's or drives, like XDCAM to transfer data.

NONE of these methods use a PCMCIA slot in a computer. ALL of the above methods are just as fast, and XDCAM is SHARING those methods.

P2 isn't about the PC card. XDCAM isn't completely "about" the blu-ray disc. It's about recording directly to a storage medium that is not tape, and moving that data fast to a NLE.

Just like Sony, Panasonic is pushing using their devices (VTR's, camera cable connections, and external drive devices) to move data, not Desktop/Laptop slots.

I don't care which brand I use. I know that both XDCAM and P2 give me a way to acquire without tape, and BOTH allow me to move that data quickly to an NLE.

Again, look above - you are not required to use a PCMCIA slot in a laptop.

Videographer/Editor
Creative Director
Union Digital, Inc.
http://www.uniondigitalmedia.com


Return to posts index

Alister Chapman
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 29, 2008 at 9:12:06 pm

Chris I agree that P2 doesn't force you to have to use a PCMCIA slot but with solid state media on a long location shoot if you don't have a PCMCIA slot you must either tie up the camera or have some additional hardware. The P2 and XDCAM workflows while both file based could not be more different.

XDCAM HD users simply pop a fresh disc into the camera when they need more storage. They then choose when and where to load the footage onto the edit suite. That may be the day of the shoot, 6 months, 6 years down the line. No need to tie up the camera just to clear off space on the recording media and certainly no need to ever have to do this on location. If working for a third party you just hand the discs over at the end of the shoot.

A solid state media user (until such time as the media cost comes way down) must dump the material from the card to another storage media much more frequently, often on location during a shoot. This either ties up the camera, a deck OR a computer with the appropriate slot. If you client needs the rushes at the end of the shoot in most cases some kind of dump will need to be done. If your laptop has the correct slot you can dump the footage while you continue to shoot saving everyone time.

Now you may shoot in a manner that means you never fill all your cards so for you this may not be an issue, but many many users will find themselves in situations where they will need to perform dumps/backups in the field. I can assure you it is far easier and quicker to bung a memory card into a slot on a laptop while bouncing down a dirt road in a 4x4, rolling around in a boat at sea or while killing time on a long haul flight than it is to have to get out the camera and it's batteries and faf around with cables. Additionally the Express card PCI bus permit speeds around 800mb/s or 100MB/sec so transfers are 3 to 4 times faster than P2 will ever be.

If you have ever tried an SxS transfer you will know it is 4 times faster that P2. Just imagine popping a single 16Gb SxS cardwith 50 mins of footage into a MacBook pro and 8 minutes later your editing. P2 will never be able to do that and there is no way it can be upgraded to do that. Memory devices are getting faster and faster but P2 is stuck with an interface that was at it's limit 4 years ago.

XDCAM HD users don't ever have to worry about this, they just buy more discs.



Return to posts index

Chris Brown
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 29, 2008 at 9:25:38 pm

On XDCAM shoots, I've done exactly as you specified. It's a great workflow.

I still disagree on P2. On P2 shoots, we have at least 4 16GB cards on site. That allows us to have a PA use a AG-HPG10 to preview shots with the client on a monitor, and immediately transfer that card to an external hard drive, which we then create a backup of. The shoot never slows down, the client gets instant shot checks and feedback, and at the end of the shoot day, the client leaves with a hard drive of all footage, and we have a backup as well. Goes to the NLE, and they are off and editing.

Just as efficient, and the shoot never stops.

On an XDCAM shoot, we also have a deck for video village, and the client can check shots there as well. At the end of the day, we hand them the disc, and we're done. However, we usually dump the data on shoot to a hard drive as well, so there is another copy.

Both workflows are great, I just think that you're short-sighting P2. Just as good and valuable, and we've had great success with both, and amazing pictures from both.

Then again, we're still archaic. We still do a third of our shoots on the F900. HDCAM is still a great format, and the F900 is one of our favorite cameras. Tape is still part of our workflow for a while.

Now the Red...we just did a Blimpie spot on the Red. Talk about gorgeous pictures on that one...

Videographer/Editor
Creative Director
Union Digital, Inc.
http://www.uniondigitalmedia.com


Return to posts index

Alister Chapman
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 30, 2008 at 7:18:56 am

Chris, I'm happy that P2 works for you on your shoots when you have a PA and extra gear to Data Wrangle for you. But there will be many others working in different sectors often as one-man-bands that won't have a PA or video village to call upon.

Consider a wildlife cameraman sitting alone in a hide running for many hours trying to catch that one vital moment. Someone covering a conference shooting for 8 hours a day almost non-stop on a low budget corporate shoot, a cameraman covering a road trip crossing countries or continents with little or no outside support, a cameraman covering a wedding or other day long event. In these situations speed and ease of backup is crucially important.

By your own admission you tell us that you have to use extra specialized equipment and another person to manage your data. I'm not sure that everone would regard the need to have extra equipment and a person on set to manage data as efficient! With XDCAM HD you don't need that extra person, as I keep saying an you acknowledge you just pop in a fresh disc. If you were shooting with an XDCAM EX you would have a $500 generic laptop with a $50 software application. Slip the card in the express card slot, the card gets copied, and the backup is verified all at 8x realtime completely automatically.

So while P2 may well perfectly suite you particular style of shooting it will not suite everyone, that is not being short sighted, just comments born out of my personal experience with a broad range of formats and work flows.



Return to posts index

Ron Shook
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 30, 2008 at 5:12:10 pm

Alister,

[Alister Chapman] "Additionally the Express card PCI bus permit speeds around 800mb/s or 100MB/sec so transfers are 3 to 4 times faster than P2 will ever be."

Just a technical point as I don't want to get in the middle of defending one or the other. The Express card slot isn't that tremendously faster than a PCMCIA slot. The biggest determinant of speed of offload is the fact that XDCAM HD is a 35mbps codec whereas DVCPro HD is a 100mbps codec, ergo, the XDCAM codec, all other things being equal will offload almost 3 times as fast. It's more like 4 times as fast because of the somewhat increased speed of the Express card slot.

Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit*


Return to posts index

Alister Chapman
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 30, 2008 at 5:47:09 pm

That's not at all correct. The PCIe Express card interface is nearly 5 times faster than PCMCIA.

The SxS cards use the PCIe portion of the express card interface. The Express card slot has two distinct interfaces, one is in effect USB 2 and offers upto 800Mbps while the PCIe interface offers serial transfer that in theory can go up to 2.5Gbps. SxS cards use the 2.5Gbps interface, so there is plenty of scope for speed improvements. The most the old parallel PCMCIA can achieve is around 640Mbps. Certainly the fact that XDCAM files are smaller than P2 files helps the overall through put. But as I keep saying P2 can go no faster, while SxS has plenty of un touched headroom.





Return to posts index

Ron Shook
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 30, 2008 at 6:11:04 pm

Alister,

[Alister Chapman] "That's not at all correct."

I stand corrected. In Theory. (g) What users are experiencing in practical usage is largely a difference in offload speed attributable to the different sizes of the files. It may not be the same tomorrow, but it is today. The speed of the cards themselves is also a levening factor. P2 being raided allows it to get the most out of the PCMCIA slot.

Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit*


Return to posts index

Michael Palmer
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 27, 2008 at 3:10:36 pm

"over on the DVX user forum. There's been some testing which appears to show significant image breakup (with the 35mbs codec)on moving images and panning across high-detailed areas like grass and trees."

Peter,

Can you provide the link so I can consider the source?

I have been working with my EX1 nearly 7 months now and I understand the limits of my gear, I understand the rolling shutter, and I understand Long GOP. You have mentioned the 35Mbps codec, and I believe this is the limit of any XD Cam cameras at this point in time. I'm speaking of going beyond these factory limits using a secondary record unit that allows you to control the compression. I'm sure John and Ron and you will agree that the most important part of any camera happens at the front end with the lens and the sensors making the primary image, it is the back end that seems to create issues for many people. There is no mystery to marketing, Sony didn't put the 24p feature on the 700 because they forgot, just like Panasonic used the same CCD's from the 500 in the 2000. These concerns about the 35Mbps codec will end with the Convergent Design Flash XDR HD-SDI recorder. If Sony or Panasonic made washers and dryers there wouldn't be much to introduce vary often. I believe I have found an affordable creative solution to produce high quality HD video until these guys decide to settle in on some standards. Its a big game figuring out how to use what they do give us and its up to us to make the most with it,..............................one big marketing game.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer


Return to posts index

Peter Corbett
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 27, 2008 at 9:57:13 pm

Hi Michael,

Actually the the thread is right here;

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/142/858581

I have to pull you up on one thing you said. "Panasonic used the same CCD's from the 500 in the 2000." The CCD in the HPX2000 is definitely not even closely related to the 500 CCD. The 500's CCD is derived from the 500K+ SDX900 SD sensor, whilst the sensor in the 2000 is a 1.2 megapixel CCD derived from the HDX900/Varicam HD camcorder family. One benefit of the 2000 is can record in full 10-bit 4:2:2 with the $3K add-in AVC-Intra board.

All said, I'm still intrigued by the EX3.

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au


Return to posts index

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 27, 2008 at 10:53:42 pm

[Peter Corbett] "The 500's CCD is derived from the 500K+ SDX900 SD sensor,"

Normally I do not like to jump in on another manufacturer's forum but in this case I need to make a small correction. The CCD used in the 500 is not the SDX CCD, if it were the camera would only have 520,000 pixels to work with and would not be able to do 60P. The 500 starts with a 620,000 pixel progressive imager, applies a spatial offset giving it an effective 1.1 million pixel image performance.

Best,

Jan

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, HPX500, HVX200, DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems



Return to posts index

Michael Palmer
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 28, 2008 at 1:12:25 am

Yes I was incorrect about the 500 CCD's being used inside the 2000. I spoke to a Panasonic tech here in LA at the service center today and he filled me in on the pixel shifting focus pocus. In the white papers I linked above the spec for the AVC-I indicates the 100 Mbps is 1920x1080 but the 2000 doesn't make this natively like the 3000 or even the EX series. I was also told by the Panasonic tech today that the 2000 CCD's are still 720 native and I would assume more pixel shifting or as the Panasonic people say, "it applies a spatial offset giving it an effective Blank Blank million pixel image performance". I wonder does this mean applying a spatial offset stretches the image out to what would be needed from CCD's to do this natively? Anyway, sorry for the misinformation.




Good Luck
Michael Palmer


Return to posts index

Peter Corbett
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jun 28, 2008 at 1:24:49 am

No worries. I got it wrong too about the 500K CCD. I think the 2000 records in full 10-bit AVC-Intra (with the option board) albeit at 720P.

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au


Return to posts index

Tom Miller
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jul 7, 2008 at 2:45:45 pm

Two more cents on this topic: We are intrigued by XDCAM over P2 because XDCAM seems to be the latest greatest technology that best emulates our current tape-based workflow on location. On 85% of our shoots we hand tapes over to our client, rather than post them ourselves. I like XD because they are just like tapes - we buy them (or they bring them), we fill them with great footage, and the happy client leaves with them to post. This is the reality of the freelance crew workflow. There's no downloading, or Lacie drives to deal with, or lending out P2 cards. We have both Sony and Panasonic HD cameras, and are very happy with them - so this is a neutral comment - but we are likely placing our bets on XDCAM with our next purchase.

Tom Miller
Big Pictures, Denver
(303) 670-0625

http://www.BigPicturesMedia.com

"Award-Winning Camera Crews and Production Services in the Rocky Mountain West"


Return to posts index

Chris Brown
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jul 7, 2008 at 6:11:20 pm

For us it usually comes down to our DP's choice, and what camera they like for whatever look they want. That's why we're pretty much format agnostic. In a given year it's usually an even percentage between HDCAM, P2, XDCAM and Varicam/DVCPRO HD related shoots and edits. We still touch some SDX-900/DVCPRO50 related material as well. We try to make sure we've mastered each format's workflow as best as possible. We had our first Red shoot for a national spot a month ago, and that was a great learning experience. Now we have to see how much Red will become part of our shoots.

Videographer/Editor
Creative Director
Union Digital, Inc.
http://www.uniondigitalmedia.com


Return to posts index

John McClary
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jul 8, 2008 at 5:06:30 pm

I attended a Sony and Avid workflow seminar a few weeks ago and got hands-on with the 700, EX3 and EX1 there.

The biggest quality upgrade for the 700 is the processing IMHO. The difference between 12-bit processing and 14-bit processing plus the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:0 (at 50meg) is why this camera is going to be huge.

Also, the EX3 with the framerate/format knob on the side of the camera and the ability to be controlled by CCU (plus interchangable lenses) are big upgrades from the EX1.

John McClary

"The future you can afford"


Return to posts index

Chris Brown
Re: PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.
on Jul 8, 2008 at 6:42:33 pm

When I saw the 700 and the EX3 at NAB, I was excited. I haven't been extremely excited by a Sony camera in a while. I take that back, XDCAM HD really excited me...I just want those cameras to have a 2/3 inch chipset. The F35 is awesome also.

Back to subject...I think Sony has a potential hit with the 700...but it needs everything else we want in it first, if the PDW-530 features were in the 700, with the 4:2:2 color space and the 50mbps data rate...oh I'd love that so much.

Videographer/Editor
Creative Director
Union Digital, Inc.
http://www.uniondigitalmedia.com


Return to posts index

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