Vieuw on XD cam

[xray]

Lets start with a view.

http://www.epatra.nl/uploadedfiles/producten/xdcam%20logo.JPG

http://www.epatra.nl/uploadedfiles/producten/overview_specs_1.gif

This is the PDW-F330 XD cam corder.

http://www.epatra.nl/uploadedfiles/producten/pdw-f3301.jpg

[Jarred Land]

yeah.. its creeping up there in price but i think it was worth having a section for it.

here is the F350, which adds over/under cranking.

http://news.sel.sony.com/digitalimages/images/2006/62/69/186269.jpg

[Joe_Digital]

Well, let's just start with the chart: XDCam recording specs...sample rate, bit rate, and compression. For this to work, one will have to record to an external device -VTR or otherwise. Keep in mind the PDW530 is a 2/3" CCD in SD mode, and it still sells for more money...the only problem is that Sony will not allow you to upconvert the 530 in their F70 VTR...silly, but I figure that has to do with wanting to move a lot of these puppies. Too bad though, because the PDW is 50MBits at a million pixels in SD.

Sony came to town a little over a month ago and did the dog and pony show. Yes, even on a 60" plasma, the footage looked good, but it was predominantly 60i footage. Not much discussion over the 24 frame, but they did chat up the variable frame -we all agree it's a great function, even if it adds several thousand to the camera. But we've also heard that anything over 30 frames resolves at half the resolution vertically. Not so good.

If someone is going to invest in this camera, recording externally (and therefore avoiding the specs above) will be the saving grace.

[xray]

Well, let's just start with the chart: XDCam recording specs...sample rate, bit rate, and compression. For this to work, one will have to record to an external device -VTR or otherwise. Keep in mind the PDW530 is a 2/3" CCD in SD mode, and it still sells for more money...the only problem is that Sony will not allow you to upconvert the 530 in their F70 VTR...silly, but I figure that has to do with wanting to move a lot of these puppies. Too bad though, because the PDW is 50MBits at a million pixels in SD.

If someone is going to invest in this camera, recording externally (and therefore avoiding the specs above) will be the saving grace.

You are recording on a disk it is a IT based tapeless system, during recording no VTR needed. We are talking about the PDW F350 a 3 chip 1/2 " HD camera not the 530, it is a different camera! XDcam creates real time low res SD proxys on the same disk together with the HD material, those proxys (Mpeg4) you can use for offline editing or webtransmission.
:love4:


http://www.epatra.nl/uploadedfiles/producten/overview_filebased_3.gif

[Joe_Digital]

i'm very much aware of the technology and the difference between the cameras. I've used the 530 a lot and was very impressed with it, so naturally I was curious about the 330/350 (and the abilities of the F70 VTR), but when the specs came out, I became dumbfounded by Sony and this so-called 'mid-range solution.'

What I was trying to say is that the PDW has been upconverted to HD by others and looks very good. That said, I have not seen the F330 or 350 footage in HD beside 530 footage upcoverted, but based on the heavy compression of the 330/350 versus the milder compression and 4:2:2 sampling of the 530, I would guess it would look extremely good. If the F70 had the ability to upconvert the 50 MBit signal (yet curiously it will upconvert the 25 MBit signal), then one could probably discover a better SD image being produced from the 530...

The problem with this camera recording to disk is the recording to disk, which is why I've suggested the best solution for anyone wanting to use the camera is to record the signal from the HD-SDI out, then you will avoid the terrible sampling and limiting bit rate -while taking advantage of the resolution the camera block is producing.

Personally I feel Sony has made a huge error. Calling the 330 or 350 a CineAlta camera is a joke. The F900 is 144MBits to tape at 2.2 Million pixels, but again Sony uses an 8 bit 3;3;1 compression ratio, and there again, the best solution is to record to an external deck if you really care about the image you're trying to capture. All that said, I believe this thread is about the camera's capabilities versus the price point...so I guess we have to take that into consideration.

[Simon Wyndham]

The mbps rating is misleading. Tests so far seem to indicate that it is much better than a normal HDV camera, and the electronics reinforce this even more. The Cinealta badge is silver on the XDCAM HD, not gold.

Now, when you are recording 24p on the XDCAM HD, apparently it does not place it in an interlaced stream as per usual. According to Sony it only records the frames needed to the disc in progressive mode. This would make the datarate go even further.

There will be a 2/3" version of XDCAM HD.

You won't get an F900 quality for this price, and I'm amazed people constantly seem to expect this.

[xray]

I was not clear in my original post that this info is based on the HD version. I´ll try to light it up a litlle. There is a difference between XDCAM and XDCAM-HD, the Sony PDW 530 is a XDCAM camcorder. The PDW-F350 is a XDCAM-HD camcorder. :eek:

The main difference is :

XDCAM = IMX 30/40/50 mbit I-frame based compression, 4:2:2 (every frame has its own unique compression, easy to edit like DV, open standard)

XDCAM HD = long GOP 18/25/35 Mb/s 1440 X 1080 8-bit MPEG-2 4:2:0 (in short: only I frames are used for compression the others are in between, not so easy to edit)


Both systems record on the same 23 GB blue laser disks, both systems use uncompressed 4 channel 48 kHz audio at 16-bit. Both share the ´good old´ DVCAM mode like we now it.

[Joe_Digital]

Yes, and if you try to sell a film shot on this camera to HDNet for example you won't be able to do the sale because of what it will look like technically. Now, regardless of what you say about a guy like Cuban, or Voom HD, or Discovery HD, they are quite stringent in their technical standards. Unfortunately, they don't consider the quality of the content over the techical specs, which is too bad...

Long GOP -yeah, hmmm. It may manipulate better -but think about it. You can record 45 minutes of SD 50 Mbit 4:2:2, or you canrecord 60 minutes of "HD-XD". I'm guessing that means they are throwing out a lot of information. Will it be for the better? Until we see side by side, it will be hard to say. And once someone finally does it, what are we going to say? Well, anything over a million pixels is technically HD?

Remember Sony is the same company that says the HDCam codec is great, when it reality it is not. It's old technology, but it changed filmmaking. SR in a one piece F900 body should be out by now, but it isn't. Instead we have something bigger with Genesis and we can only rent the puppy. All I want is for a guy like Jannard to be successful in his rollout because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Sony gear, and while the equipment is rock solid reliable, it has been incredibly expensive, and as Panasonic ahs proven, it doesn't have to be.

[Simon Wyndham]

Well, Sony isn't going to go on record and say that their own codec is no good now are they?

Stop getting hung up on numbers. Look at the camera when it comes out. Ive seen it first hand and it produces a really good clean picture. It won't beat an F900, but it certainly is a lot better than any of the 1/3" cameras out there.

[Joe_Digital]

I'm not getting hung up on numbers. I've seen this footage first hand too and ahve shot extensively with the 530. I'm not sure the point of this thread was to argue whether or not the image is better than 1/3 cameras. I would say that is a given.

The point is Sony has the technology and ability to put a better camera on the market that can be cheaper but superior in picture quality than the F900 but chooses not to. They could definitely improve on this camera without much effort -but they have decided to wait to release it a year from now...why? Why not increase the data write speed on the disk and improve the bit rate now? If you can put 100 Mbit at 6:7:1 ratio on a 4GB P2 card, then why not provide better picture quality instead of introducing artifacts? Granted in the SDI and HD-SDI world that images aren't so bad if you don't manipulate the footage too much, but if you're putting real care into the work you do and want to future proof, well the only way to go is still with the far more expensive cameras -i.e. F900, Varicam, D-20, Genesis, etc. to avoid the picture quality/resolution issues. it comes down to how much money does one wish to invest in a technology that is not bad, but will be replaced in less than a year? From a business POV it doesn't make sense -at least mine anyway- Sony's may be different. Perhaps it is moot given that there are a select number of people here who make their livings making films and only want to invest so much into the picture capture device of their choice. If it is about quality and ROI, this may not be the best camera. it's definitely an alternative. But if I am doing features and dramas in the low budget world, I want to know I have something with enough pixel integrity to last...after all, spending a million plus on a film is still a lot of money. The question is: to remain in the digital world, what is the most affordable?

Shall we return to the subject of affordability and what kind of camera you get for that? would that be more appropriate?

[Simon Wyndham]

The point is Sony has the technology and ability to put a better camera on the market that can be cheaper but superior in picture quality than the F900 but chooses not to.

No, I think you are wrong. The XDCAM writing needs overhead, and Sony have already said that a 2/3" version of HD XDCAM is on the way. This is precisely the camera specification that you are talking about. There is a lot Sony are doing or have planned for various cameras, trust me.

[SoBeTV]

Sony have already said that a 2/3" version of HD XDCAM is on the way.

Where has SONY ever said this in print? and its not that "dealer's upgrade memo" that was unsanctioned by Sony.

[Emanuel]

The point is Sony has the technology and ability to put a better camera on the market that can be cheaper but superior in picture quality than the F900 but chooses not to. They could definitely improve on this camera without much effort -but they have decided to wait to release it a year from now...why? Why not increase the data write speed on the disk and improve the bit rate now? If you can put 100 Mbit at 6:7:1 ratio on a 4GB P2 card, then why not provide better picture quality instead of introducing artifacts? Granted in the SDI and HD-SDI world that images aren't so bad if you don't manipulate the footage too much, but if you're putting real care into the work you do and want to future proof, well the only way to go is still with the far more expensive cameras -i.e. F900, Varicam, D-20, Genesis, etc. to avoid the picture quality/resolution issues. it comes down to how much money does one wish to invest in a technology that is not bad, but will be replaced in less than a year? From a business POV it doesn't make sense -at least mine anyway- Sony's may be different. Perhaps it is moot given that there are a select number of people here who make their livings making films and only want to invest so much into the picture capture device of their choice. If it is about quality and ROI, this may not be the best camera. it's definitely an alternative. But if I am doing features and dramas in the low budget world, I want to know I have something with enough pixel integrity to last...after all, spending a million plus on a film is still a lot of money. The question is: to remain in the digital world, what is the most affordable?

Shall we return to the subject of affordability and what kind of camera you get for that? would that be more appropriate?Excellent post. I'm with you. That's the point. Unfortunately, these great brands -- the major ones, they have a different POV than ourselves. So much different than our interest. Of course, the cost of the gear it's merely the market target price that they're thinking it's possible to get with it following our product's revenue (because of that Panavision or Dalsa rents not sells) plus the balance with the competition's offers. That's why it's dangerous from a strictly indie POV to follow their offers. At least, without to think what will be the most suitable solution to our pocket/work.

[Simon Wyndham]

The 2/3" version is mentioned in the XDCAM official FAQ. It has also been mentioned to a number of other people.

It isn't in Sony's interest to release an F900 equivilent at such a low price level. Just as Panasonic won't release a Varicam beater for the same price as an SPX800.

The XDCAM HD was not designed for indy moviemaking. It was designed mainly for the industrial and low budget ENG market. They used this form of compression because they wanted to maintain compatibility with existing NLE's, and also reduce the processing overhead of NLE's that will accept the 35mbps footage. It is a step up from HDV. Just as the 2/3" XDCAM HD will be a step up from the 1/2" XDCAM, thus creating a full compliment of high def cameras at all price ranges.

Why not a 2/3" XDCAM HD with higher bitrate now? Because it will require a dual laser head, and possibly a newly designed disc to handle more information that Sony have not perfected yet.

FX1
Z1
PDW-330 XDCAM HD
PDW-350 XDCAM HD
PDW-??? 2/3" XDCAM HD
HDW-730S
HDW-750
F900
F950

Sony have no plans to make their whole line up tapeless AFAIK.

[Rocketeer]

FX1
Z1
PDW-330 XDCAM HD
PDW-350 XDCAM HD
PDW-??? 2/3" XDCAM HD
HDW-730S
HDW-750
F900
F950

Sony have no plans to make their whole line up tapeless AFAIK.

The biggest gap in that line up is between Z1 and the PDW-330. If Sony continues the same development route with HDV as they did with DVCAM, on the horizon should be HDV DSR250 and HDV DSR450's. A HDV 450 would then give you an option between tape or 35mb to disc on the 330. But they could also limit the tape camera to a 1/2" mount.

The above theory is based on the release of the new large tape format capable HDV decks and speculation on my part.

[SoBeTV]

The 2/3" version is mentioned in the XDCAM official FAQ. .
Please tell me where in the XDCAM FAQ that it states that a 2/3" HD XDCam is in development for the production line.

"Q: Why do XDCAM HD camcorders have 1/2-inch type CCDs instead of
2/3-inch?
A: The XDCAM HD system was designed to meet the urgent requests from
customers for affordable, professional HD production with interchangeable
lenses. The choice of 1/2-inch type image sensors enables Sony to deliver
three distinct classes of professional HD production: Sony HDV™ 1080i
camcorders use 1/3-inch, XDCAM HD camcorders use 1/2-inch and
HDCAM® camcorders use 2/3-inch type sensors."
By HDCAM they are only referring to the current tape based line. Which they later state in the FAQ will not be eliminated.

Q: Can the HDCAM format be recorded on Professional Disc media?
A: No. With today's technology, it is not possible due to the transfer rate. The
HDCAM format is a 140 Mbps stream, while the XDCAM cameras utilize a
single laser recording at 72 Mbps.
Q: Do you plan to discontinue the HDCAM™ line?
A: Absolutely not. With 2/3-inch type image sensors and 140 Mbps recording,
HDCAM products offer compelling advantages for high-end sports, episodic
television and feature films. It's a whole different class.

A 2/3" HD XDCAM is probably nothing more than a future concept idea for Sony right now. Price point and high power consumption would make a 2/3" XD HDCAM impractical with today's technology. A Blu-Ray drive that could write 100+mbs would theoretically consume even more power.

For those who say that a 2/3" HD XDCam is "right around the corner" or "on the horizion", I think you will be sadly disappointed in 2006-07.

[Zig_Zigman]

Everyone knows Sony's game. They try to get you on the crappy bandwagon by promsing the 2/3 version soon. Bwahaa I laff at zer foolishness ;-)

[myfriendimage]

I would take XDCAM over P2 any day of the week.

[Jarred Land]

it works over firewire, just like the other cams.. you do not need a deck to ingest.

[Danilo Del Tufo]

Thanks Jarred! You're always kind and helpful! :) :) :)
I'd like to know also your precious word of advice about my interrogatives...what do you think?

[Danilo Del Tufo]

My message about Xdcam and Hvx200 was deleted...mmm what's happen? Any reason? I've lost a lot time (40 minutes) to write in english that is not my native language...it was so elucidative about problems that film makers community has...I've did my best efforts to translate my italian thoughts and doubts in a clear english. C'mon guys...anyone has moved my message to Hvx200 forum? Right?
Jarred have at least you read my message? Someguy of your fellow (?) moderators has deleted it! Can you refind it? For me it's very hard rewrite it considering I'm not skilled in english language, I had search a lot of words on dictionary to express correctly my thoughts.

Sincerely,

your italian friend Danilo :)

Thanks for your help :)

[xray]

I think I stated that somewhere on page 1, XDCAM HD uses blue laser disks not Blu-Ray, it is almost the same technology but Blu-Ray is consumer oriented. (Panasonic is advising you to backup P2 with it so it has its own merites)

[Simon Wyndham]

Almost the same yes. But not quite. The XDCAM file system is very robust, and it has a faster read/write speed. The discs are possibly constructed slightly differently as well.

Going back to 2/3" XDCAM HD. It is well known that it is on its way very soon, possibly with dual lasers and multilayer discs.

[Emanuel]

It was designed mainly for the industrial and low budget ENG market.Unfortunately, I'm afraid so...

The XDCAM HD was not designed for indy moviemaking.So...why were they@Sundance presenting the product?!...it doesn't make sense!

[videopal]

Hi and I'm Wayne Kurtz from West Hollywood as I am trying to decide between these two cameras?

Thanks for your ideas as I have read here that the motion blurrring on the HVR-ZIu in the 24 fps mode is a problem...Wayne Kurtz-Media International in West Hollywood at waynecalifornia@yahoo.com and (323) 365-5433.

[myfriendimage]

Hi and I'm Wayne Kurtz from West Hollywood as I am trying to decide between these two cameras?

Thanks for your ideas as I have read here that the motion blurrring on the HVR-ZIu in the 24 fps mode is a problem...Wayne Kurtz-Media International in West Hollywood at waynecalifornia@yahoo.com and (323) 365-5433.

I would post this in the FX1/Z1U forum.

[xray]

FAQ XDCAM HD (pdf) :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) English. Answers to many questions.

http://www.epatra.nl/uploadedfiles/bronnen/download.php?file=XDCAM_FAQs.pdf

[Haakon]

The XDCAM HD was not designed for indy moviemaking. So...why were they@Sundance presenting the product?!...it doesn't make sense!
Amen.

The point is Sony has the technology and ability to put a better camera on the market that can be cheaper but superior in picture quality than the F900 but chooses not to. They could definitely improve on this camera without much effort -but they have decided to wait to release it a year from now...why? Why not increase the data write speed on the disk and improve the bit rate now?
Well the answer is completely financial - why make a superior camera for $20,000 when they can sell the one they're currently making for $80,000? Of course a cheaper price would mean more interest and that would translate into more sales, but apparently their minds can't process that much information.

The exact same thing is happening at Panasonic with the AJ-HPC2000. No 24p, no variable framerates. It's not like this is some space-age technology that requires a "dual laser" or a "special disc that hasn't been developed yet" (those Sony chirps are complete BS as it is...) - no, these are things the HVX ALREADY does - and all for $6,000! Why not give us a solution that takes everything the HVX offers and put it in a 2/3" chip package? It's obvious that's what every person on this planet wants! The answer, as always, goes back to the almighty dollar - it would completely canibalize their Varicam sales. And with Sony playing this silly game as well, no one has to cave in because no one is offering better technology at a lower price point. In essence, they help protect each other by keeping their "top tier" equipment limited in functionality extremely expensive.

This holding out by the major manufacturers is insulting to the customer. I wonder if they're even paying attention to what Mr. Jannard & Co. are putting together...

[Simon Wyndham]

why make a superior camera for $20,000 when they can sell the one they're currently making for $80,000?

How would they make the current XDCAM system record an equivilent or better than HDCAM quality while retaining compatibility with existing XDCAM recording mediums? They are releasing a 2/3" HD XDCAM in the near future. That will complete the HD lineup. A camera for all price ranges.

The exact same thing is happening at Panasonic with the AJ-HPC2000. No 24p

I thought it did have 24p, but at 720 resolution?

no, these are things the HVX ALREADY does - and all for $6,000!

No, it records to MiniDV for that price. If you want all the other features you need the P2 cards etc. The HVX also makes a lot of compromises to do what it does. Very clever design solutions. But not ideal.

What all of this boils down to is the lower end of the market being jealous that they can't have a Varicam in their home. If you make decent money with your equipment then the purchase of the higher end cameras is not really an issue. Added to that many pros rent. Not beause of price, but because it allows them to use the ideal camera for any given job, and the latest equipment all the time.

As for Jim Jannard, you may have seen that on DVinfo he stated quite specifically that RED would not be a cheap camera. It would be cheapER, but not cheap, and certainly not below $20k. I fact I think it will be more like $30k. But does that include lenses? Recording device? Mic? Cost of any recording media, solid state or whatever it uses. We just don't know. I think that you will find that the total cost needed to build a RED system will be far more than you might like to think. There also is not a real camera to look at the moment.

At $20k there is Infinity, and XDCAM HD. Both very capable cameras, and no doubt the HPC2000 is as well. Variable framerates are not easy to impliment. The HVX still has to go to 720p to do this, and the XDCAM HD halves the resolution at framerates above 50p (Europe) and 60p (NTSC countries).

But regardless, I have mentioned this on other forums, what the companies do makes business sense. It wouldn't make any business sense at all to have one camera model at a cheap price that does everything.

As a video production company, would you think it would make sense to offer all your services, from a 1 day basic corporate shoot, all the way up to a 4 week 35mm feature film + post for a total cost of $1000? Of course not. But that is pretty much what you seem to be expecting the electronics manufacturers to be doing the equivilent of.

Businesses exist to make money. That is what they do. They exist to make money and to charge for their products the price that the market will pay. You might not like that, but thats how the world goes around. Businesses do not exist to be charities. There also a lot of other factors involved that you would be better off going to a marketing or business school to find out about.

If you want the expensive equipment, work for it.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Variable framerates are not easy to impliment . . . and the XDCAM HD halves the resolution at framerates above 50p (Europe) and 60p (NTSC countries).Simon: Could you clarify please?

[Simon Wyndham]

Yes. From 1-25fps (50hz countries) or 4-30fps (NTSC countries) the camera is at full progressive scan 1080 resolution. But at framerates above 25fps or 30fps it goes down to 540. However I was told that there is some interpolation that goes on so that when the footage is played back it is very hard to tell that this is the case.

I have been playing around with the 330 today. So far, very nice.

[Haakon]

I thought it did have 24p, but at 720 resolution?
This is the last update Jan has given us on the product (from 3/21):

At this time the camera is switchable between 1080i and 720P, 60i/60P. It does not look like there is 24P or variable frame rates on its product plan at this time.

To date, there is still no 2/3" HD camera at ANY price (not even announced!) that offers 24p on P2 cards. In my opinion, that's a glaring hole in their P2 system.

No, [the HVX] records to MiniDV for that price.
I really hate this argument. First of all, you can pick up the camera for $5,500 from nearly every reputable dealer in the country and a 4GB P2 card will only set you back ~$650. So yes, you can do everything the HVX is capable of for right around six grand (which is what I said). But even if you want to argue that you need a handful of P2 cards to realistically do what you want to do - let's say you "splurge" and spend $8,000 for your particular needs - that's way less than either the XDCAM HD or new AJ-HPC2000 offerings cost. Yet - surprise! - the HVX is the only one that has all the features.

Wat all of this boils down to is the lower end of the market being jealous that they can't have a Varicam in their home. If you make decent money with your equipment then the purchase of the higher end cameras is not really an issue. Added to that many pros rent. Not beause of price, but because it allows them to use the ideal camera for any given job, and the latest equipment all the time.
I rent all the time, and I've shot Varicam plenty. The issue is not about the pricing structures (which, yes, I do believe are grossly overinflated), but moreso the fact that they aren't even releasing new cameras (specifically tapeless ones) with feature sets that all of us want. If the HPC2000 had 24p, I wouldn't have any problems. But of course it doesn't. So we wait some more...

As for Jim Jannard, you may have seen that on DVinfo he stated quite specifically that RED would not be a cheap camera. It would be cheapER, but not cheap, and certainly not below $20k. I fact I think it will be more like $30k. But does that include lenses? Recording device? Mic? Cost of any recording media, solid state or whatever it uses. We just don't know. I think that you will find that the total cost needed to build a RED system will be far more than you might like to think. There also is not a real camera to look at the moment.
Quite the contrary, he's made numerous posts saying that if he didn't think the camera was attainable by folks on these kinds of forums, he wouldn't waste his time posting here. He's also mentioned repeatedly that the system will be modular, so there isn't one singular price that covers it all; there will be several solutions available. Regardless, RED pricing is pure speculation until NAB so it's pointless to argue about it.

Touching on the fact that there's no RED cam to look at, at the moment, guess what? There's no Varicam II or 2/3" XDCAM HD to look at at the moment either. If RED can put together a package for rent which includes a 35mm-sized sensor, resolution coming out my ears, full variable framerate functionality, the option to use just about any lens I want, any recording medium I want... well, what's my motivation for sticking with the Sony or the Panasonic which are extremely limited in comparison? You're right, we don't know the feature set or the price points for RED yet, but they've guaranteed us that info at NAB which is less than a month away. Is Sony going to release their 2/3" XDCAM HD specs and pricing at NAB... especially considering that their 1/3" lineup JUST came out? I highly doubt it.

As a video production company, would you think it would make sense to offer all your services, from a 1 day basic corporate shoot, all the way up to a 4 week 35mm feature film + post for a total cost of $1000? Of course not. But that is pretty much what you seem to be expecting the electronics manufacturers to be doing the equivilent of.
Your analogy implies that I would charge the same amount for the labor, resources, and time it would take to do a "one-day basic corporate shoot" as I would for a "four week 35mm feature film with post." Obviously that's ridiculous. But whereas there are huge, real costs that separate those two situations, that isn't the case with these new camera offerings. What's the difference between the 330 and the 350 XDCAM models? Besides the SDI out, the only difference is the variable framerate functionality. That's a software enhancement. It's doesn't set them back any more from a raw cost standpoint to implement. This is not the same as the difference between a camera with a MiniDV tape drive and one with a DVCPRO HD deck that literally demands more money due to the physical costs involved in providing it. They are charging more for the variable framerates simply because they can. And yes, of course that's good business sense if they can get people to spring for it. However, they could very well offer the 350 at the 330's price point and be more competitive with their feature set if they wanted to.

Like Panasonic has done by eliminating 24p from the AJ-HPC2000, they have chosen against offering higher end features to protect their upper line. And that's not entirely surprising, considering both of these companies have been marketing their products this way for years. The problem is, they aren't offering ANY tapeless solutions right now that offer all of the features - high priced or not. Most of us thought the AJ-HPC200 would take care of that, but were wrong. It is my impression that companies like RED and ColorSpace, Inc. are also frustrated with being offered cameras that only do half of what they're capable of doing, and are being proactive about making a change.

[Ralph Oshiro]

This is the last update Jan has given us on the product (from 3/21):

At this time the [HPC2000] camera is switchable between 1080i and 720P, 60i/60P. It does not look like there is 24P or variable frame rates on its product plan at this time.

To date, there is still no 2/3" HD camera at ANY price (not even announced!) that offers 24p on P2 cards. In my opinion, that's a glaring hole in their P2 system.Is that true about the HPC2000? Jan was talking about the HPC2000? I missed that post. If the HPC2000 press release states that it does "720P," that doesn't mean it can do 24P? I thought for sure that the HPC2000 was Panasonic's 2/3" 24P P2 solution.

[Haakon]

I thought for sure that the HPC2000 was Panasonic's 2/3" 24P P2 solution.
I think we all did.

Here's a link to the post Jan made at creative cow:

http://forums.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/new_read_post.cgi?forumid=193&postid=858467

She mentions that it won't cannibalize the Varicam - but with no 24p support or variable framerate functionality, that should be completely obvious.

[Simon Wyndham]

NBC, the F330 can't compete with the 530/510 in low light. The difference is night and day (almost literally!) The 330 is rated at f9.

[Simon Wyndham]

Quite the contrary, he's made numerous posts saying that if he didn't think the camera was attainable by folks on these kinds of forums, he wouldn't waste his time posting here.

There are people on these forums and on DVinfo that own high end equipment. :)

Nothing official price wise has been released about Red. We don't even know accurate specs on the whole camera. At the moment it is vapourware.

[David Jimerson]

My message about Xdcam and Hvx200 was deleted...mmm what's happen? Any reason?


Was it a message in this thread? Mods can see deleted posts, and I don't see one from you.

[Barry_Green]

At the moment it is vapourware.
No, it isn't.

It's a yet-to-be-announced product.

"Vaporware" is something that's been announced and never manages to come out. Like Trinity's Play system, that was vaporware for YEARS.

Red hasn't missed one date, one announcement, one shipment. It's a "coming soon" product. That doesn't qualify it as "vapor" at all.

[Alex Leith]

No, it isn't.

It's a yet-to-be-announced product.

"Vaporware" is something that's been announced and never manages to come out. Like Trinity's Play system, that was vaporware for YEARS.

Red hasn't missed one date, one announcement, one shipment. It's a "coming soon" product. That doesn't qualify it as "vapor" at all.

True, but the fact of the matter is it is not available yet and we don't have a particularly clear timeframe of when it will be available.

And regarding the price, I also remember reading the interview that Simon was referring to where the implied price point was closer to $30k than anything that is currently covered in this forum.

[Haakon]

There are people on these forums and on DVinfo that own high end equipment. :)

Nothing official price wise has been released about Red.
Well, now we know the price. :) And thank god Jim Jannard has the balls to show the world that "high end equipment" doesn't have to equal "completely prohibitive cost."

Of course, you're absolutely free to make whatever purchases you like, but if the choice I have to make is between a 1/2" $17,000 XDCAM and a 4K $17,000 RED... erm, in my opinion, there really isn't a choice.

[Simon Wyndham]

I like the look of RED, and I'm 90% certain I'll buy one and make my next feature using it.

Although premember that the $17k price tag doesn't include a lens or recording device. However it is still an amazing price. Lets hope it really does live up to the hype.

[Haakon]

The $17K price tag of the "lower" XDCAM HD doesn't include a lens either, though, does it?

[SergejIvanovits]

It's ~ 25-30.000 ,- with 2 lenses. My only problem with the RED is that it is overdesigned if the final design going to be the same as the picture on the startpage. Otherwise everything looks very good. 2k, 4k.. everything.

[Emanuel]

The $17K price tag of the "lower" XDCAM HD doesn't include a lens either, though, does it?Häak, for $17k it's the L (without lens) version.

The PDW-F330K (with the Canon's stock AF lens) it's $20,000 - $22,000.

[Haakon]

Häak, for $17k it's the L (without lens) version.

The PDW-F330K (with the Canon's stock AF lens) it's $20,000 - $22,000.
That's pretty much what I thought. So for near the same price, you can get a Red with a lens and at least one kind of storage magazine. Of course, the XDCAM is out now and Red isn't... but in a year all of these other cameras are going to be completely obsoleted. I don't think it's a very good time to be investing in the current sub-20K HD cams.

[Emanuel]

That's pretty much what I thought. So for near the same price, you can get a Red with a lens and at least one kind of storage magazine. Of course, the XDCAM is out now and Red isn't... but in a year all of these other cameras are going to be completely obsoleted. I don't think it's a very good time to be investing in the current sub-20K HD cams.Yup -- wise words!

[xray]

I'm not sure how strong your humor is... but a long F350 XDCAM HD review can be found here: http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=144

and this is the image that belongs to it...:huh:
http://www.dvuser.co.uk/images/img/sony-hd-hdv/xdcam-workflow/xdcam-punch.jpg