Sony XDCAM EX

Stevet said:
Or, does it matter what the "true" definition is for HD.

I believe HD has to do with rez. Colorspace has always been a different thing.
Even in the days of SD. Remember those day.. LOL, just kidding..
old SD DV was 4:1:1.

I believe most attach 1920x1080P to "True" HD. That's the best our at home devices offer.

Barry could "shed some light" on this subject.
Click to expand...

There isn't such a definition though. HD, as defined by the ATSC, means 709 color space and either 1920x1080x60i or 1280x720x60p recording. That's what HD is.

Various methods of recording HD have been devised, obviously; HDV and AVC-HD and HDCAM and DVCPRO-HD and XDCAM-HD and XDCAM-EX and HDCAM-SR and ProRes and DNxHD and CanopusHQ and CineForm and others.

Professional broadcast formats have typically been 4:2:2, although there have been exceptions; HDCAM is 3:1:1, for example, and dual-link HDCAM-SR is 4:4:4.

Broadcast HD (i.e., after it's captured and edited and then turned into a broadcast stream) can be an MPEG-2 transport stream at 19 megabits and 4:2:0.

So the definition's all over the board. I mean, what's SD? VHS? Or Digital Betacam? Or any of the multitude of formats in-between? Same thing applies to HD. We all know what it is supposed to be (1920x1080 uncompressed 4:4:4 glory) but that doesn't happen in the real world, so every recording format makes compromises.
 
joelnet said:
If that's representative of what this Sony does for real vs. the HVX then I'd be really bummed if I bought an HVX last week.
Click to expand...
And yet, what happens when the images are in motion? What happens if rolling shutter artifacts come into play? How about we wait a week and let some users get their hands on the units and find out how they actually perform? If the rolling shutter screws with your footage, maybe the HVX guy who bought last week wouldn't be bummed at all perhaps?

All I know is anyone who can look at those two pictures and argue the HVX might be better needs glasses or a new monitor.
Click to expand...
If all you want to do is shoot still-life images, then hey, I'm with you on that. But I despise the rolling shutter, I think it's the worst thing to happen to video since... well, since long-GOP, and if (IF IF IF) the EX1 is haunted by rolling shutter issues then I'd have no qualms saying that any of the 1/3" CCD camcorders would be better.

So how about we find out whether it's actually affected or not (well, I mean, we know it uses a rolling shutter and we know it's affected, but to what degree?) Is it an issue, or a problem, or a non-issue? We don't know that yet. We all knew the still-cam performance was going to exceed the HVX... as I said before, it had better: the thing has 4x as many pixels, sensors with twice the surface area, and a 30% higher price tag. If it *didn't* significantly outperform the HVX they should be embarrassed.

But stills are one thing. Real actual performance is something totally different. It may be that the EX1 holds the edge there, but it'd be nice to KNOW that for sure, wouldn't it? And "better" means a lot of things, doesn't it? To drag this up again, if you accidentally eject a card from an EX1 you run the risk of destroying all the footage on that card -- so, so what if your footage was a little sharper and clearer, if all 45 minutes of it gets destroyed due to a simple mistake? The term "better" means a lot of things, and right now there's way too much that's unknown for that word to be used yet.

And REAL 1080P is the format of tomorrow. If you want to deliver Blue Ray then you won't be shooting an HVX.
Click to expand...
Okay, first of all let's just keep this real -- of course I would want to shoot on an HVX. Why wouldn't I? Tens of thousands of them are being used in the best production companies and broadcasters around the world -- to say "you won't be shooting on an HVX" is just preposterous. Maybe YOU won't be shooting on one, for whatever reason, but a blanket statement like that is just silly.

(And besides, deliver blu-ray to who? The 1/4 of 1% of households in the world who have a blu-ray player?)

Oh - to answer your question I'd personally say a camera that natively captures 720P or 1080P is HD.
Click to expand...
And what do you mean "natively captures"? Because by "native capture" that rules out XDCAM-HD, 1080 HDV, DVCPRO-HD and HDCAM -- even though the best HD networks accept three of those formats for unrestricted capture, editing and mastering. That whole "native" thing is a squirrelly thing to pin down.

Put another way -- there's never been a camcorder yet that records 1920x1080 from 1920x1080 sensors. The HPX3000 was the first, and this EX1 is the second -- but there are some of us who don't consider long-GOP capture to be "native" anyway, so -- draw the line however/wherever you like.

But the fact of the matter is: an HDV camcorder shot much of an Oscar-winning documentary, the standard-def DVX has racked up back-to-back Oscar nominations in the best-doc category in spite of being "only" SD, thousands of HVXs are in use by hundreds of broadcasters around the world, and CNN apparently bought a hundred EX1s. So don't sweat the numbers, look at what the tool actually does and what it costs and make your decision based on things like that.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Put another way -- there's never been a camcorder yet that records 1920x1080 from 1920x1080 sensors. The HPX3000 was the first, and this EX1 is the second
Click to expand...

Wow ! despite the obvious differences (2/3" sensor size, AVC intra, 5 p2 slots ..etc), We are getting the same full 1920x1080 resolution recording capability on the $6459 XDCAM EX as the $48,000 HPX3000 camera ! Kudos to Sony on this one, I bet a lot of their F3xx series customers will be upset.

Just solely based on the Japanese grab, with its full resolution, better detail, latitude and ASA 800 light sensitivity, using this baby with the latest 35mm adapter like the letus extreme will for sure yield wonderful pictures. :grin:
 
wow it does make a pretty picture though. I wanna see high detial, moving, heavily CC'd or composited footage.

thats the test.

An i hope The rolling shutter thing is not there. I shoot lots of music videos and live concerts. That would KILL me if the strobes all went "half" frame.....
 
Dang it ! so this means I cannot go do a
"disco"music video in Saturn ??

The rolling shutter with all the disco strobes..... WHAT ? white flecks ? but isnt it called noise? WHAT? also don't forget all the deadly cosmic ray?

Man... do Sony ever do anything RIGHT at all ?? sigh .. :p
 
Dxmetal said:
Wow ! despite the obvious differences (2/3" sensor size, AVC intra, 5 p2 slots ..etc), We are getting the same full 1920x1080 resolution recording capability on the $6459 XDCAM EX as the $48,000 HPX3000 camera ! Kudos to Sony on this one, I bet a lot of their F3xx series customers will be upset.

Just solely based on the Japanese grab, with its full resolution, better detail, latitude and ASA 800 light sensitivity, using this baby with the latest 35mm adapter like the letus extreme will for sure yield wonderful pictures. :grin:
Click to expand...

I sure hope it does. But .......... theres far more to a 2/3 inch camera. So while your getting a great camera no F3xx series camera owners will be crying, or even close to it. Ive used the f350 a lot in the past and its image quality is many more things than what this cam "could" be. I am sure there are many Fxxx xdcam owners out there saying hmmmm, thats a great quality B cam if I need it.
 
Exactly, I am running, not walking to me hopefully soon to be boss to get him to grab one of these cameras for a small B cam next to our F350's, but I would choose them over the EX for many many reasons. The EX would win in some of our run and gun situations where lugging a f350 around might be cumbersome.
 
Well yea. not being able to accurately cover a stobe light is a big deal. Imagine how weird "red Carpet" events, Concerts, parties, weddings.... etc would look if everytime a stobe went off only a piece of the frame was exposed.

ITs not a "rare" occurance. I mean , it has strange color effects under flouros, and could be an issue shooting a CRT screen, ( which i do alot when i shoot interviews for Scienceentral news. they have reasearchers demonstrate things on computer screens all the time) These are realworld circumstances. Now like anything it can be worked around, but its like, O h jeez, another thing to keep in my already crowded head.....

I will probably still buy the camera.... But im just wanna be prepared for its limitations.
 
myCharlie said:
Okay, so I'm a little bit confused. What's the definition of a "true" HD resolution? Does it matter if the color space is 4:2:0 and the pixel resolution is 1920x1080 or the color space has to be 4:4:4 also to be considered as "true" HD?
Click to expand...
"True HD" or "Full HD" has been used by manufacturers for a while to denote a display screen with pixel dimensions of 1920x1080x3. I don't know if it's the same in the US, but the EU has had a badging system for sets for a while - "HD ready", and to get that they have to meet certain criteria.

They have recently added a second (but also official) part to that, such that if a set is described as "HD ready 1080p" it HAS to not only meet the HD ready criteria, but also have a "true HD" screen and be capable of handling 1080 progressive material.

4:4:4 means "as much colour information as luminance", 4:2:0 means half colour resolution in both directions. (Taking advantage of the way the eye works.) Hence, a high resolution 4:2:0 image can likely be overall better than a lower absolute resolution one that is 4:4:4 - all else equal.
 
Stevet said:
Created this bitmap from the bitmap 1080 30P samples of just the wine bottle alone and some of the curtains in the background. The HVX200 is on the left, the EX1 is on the right.

This is from the comparison mentioned earlier.
http://www.genkosha.co.jp/vs/sp/200712/

HVX200_EX1_Bottle.bmp
Click to expand...



Oh. My. Word.

If the footage comes out anywhere near that still, I won't wait until next April to get one, I'll go out next week!:shocked:

Need to see some footage comparisons ASAP.
 
Hi guys

We had a good chunk of time with the Sony EX as well. I did a little write-up on our impressions here:

http://redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4521

It looks to be a great camera paired with the Redrock M2.

Couple of things I want to mention/clarify (hopefully not too redundant with other points made here)

First, I think the 'native HD' conversation for the EX relates to the fact that previous HDV cameras shoot 1440x1080, and the use a pixel aspect ratio of 1.33 to get to the 1920. The EX has a true 1920x1080 pixels, so it results in a sharper image than say the Sony Z1 or other 1.33 par cameras.

Second, I'm surprised this isn't discussed more but the 800 ASA rating is pretty impressive to see in person. That, combined with a very low noise in their DB gain (in my experience: we watched 12db of gain pumped into the image in a dark room through a panny 1080i projector and didn't see appreciable noise gain) make it a good light performer. Always a consideration for 35mm adapters.

Finally, the rolling shutter and long GOP definitely set the stage for the debate - I do believe that the progressive 24p makes the long GOP less of an issue than for interlaced (see post mentioned above for details).

I do agree with Barry Green that a lot of this needs to be sussed out in the field in real-world experiences (not just Adam Wilt's labs) in terms of what it really means for practical shooting and great imagery.

Cheers

Brian
 
Thanks Brian.

Since there has been discussion between the HVX200 and EX1, I thought it would only be fair to show the "still" frame comparsion against all 4 cams in the article.

HVX_Z1_G1_EX1.bmp
 
bvalente said:
Hi guys

We had a good chunk of time with the Sony EX as well. I did a little write-up on our impressions here:

http://redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4521

It looks to be a great camera paired with the Redrock M2.
Click to expand...

I'm easily confused. I have read a lot of posts and it seems to state that the EX1 uses a 1/2" CMOS but according to your post in the link above, it states this:

"Three ½” (that’s, right, one-half inch) CCDs make this camera a remarkable performer on this basis alone."

So is this camera, Sony XDCAM EX1, use CCD or CMOS?

And yes, many thanks to those who shed some light on the "true" HD definition.
 
Wow the G1 really sticks it to the EX. ITs like 99% of the way there..... The hvx looks like the detial is on +7... Eww.

The EX's Image is beautiful. i love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top