PMW350 does not ship with DV

GuyB

GuyB

Well-known member
According to the Sony web site:
http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/Show...rview&imageType=Main&category=XDCAMCamcorders

"and optional 25Mb/s Standard Definition DVCAM recording*.
...

*SD DVCAM Recording and Playback requires Optional Hardware Key, CBK-DV01"

What goes through the minds in Sony that ask buyers of such a great camera to pay extra for a bog standard DV codec? Hasn't the feedback from the EX1/3 been enough for them to realise it just needs to be there from the start? I could understand a small fee to enable a SD IMX recording mode, but DV?
 
sorry but that is very wrong, standard def is still very much the standard most clients demand, not HD.
 
GuyB said:
sorry but that is very wrong, standard def is still very much the standard most clients demand, not HD.
Click to expand...
I do see the need for ex1R to be implementing the dvcam mode. It wa definately one of the cons i was considering when i was deciding which camera to get a few months back. However clients here don't ask for certain formats they just want the program. And they are impressed if it looks good. HD makes it look good, really good
 
I know lots of corporate focused producers who currently shoot with the likes of DSR450s. They tell me over and over how there is little interest in HD. They have the budget to buy a camera like this 350, but are going to be somewhat insulted that they will have to pay for an upgrade to get SD. I bet the SD key will be up in the US$500+ mark....

I am really suprised that this camera only has a single composite analogue out. Not even Y/C and I can't see any audio out (other than a headphone output). I know a lot of producers who take live DVD burns of work to Sony DVD recorders like the MC5 just for the instant results they give the clients. Composite offers the worst quality from the camera and where are we going to source the audio from?

Why do they keep culling the little useful features from these new models?
 
I don't understand the controversy. Shoot the projects in HD and delivery them in SD. Like Sadude said, "HD makes it look good, really good." And he is correct. When I went to HD I couldn't believe how much better my images were.

Now I have the best of both worlds! I shoot in HD to future-proof and I deliver a drop-dead picture to my clients on SD.
 
Time is money, when the client only wants SD, why spend that extra time downconverting and rendering HD when the client isn't willing to pay for it. You're not going to get any better SD out of a 350 than you get from a DSR450 so why would you want to always shoot and process in HD when HD is of no importance? Its money out of your pocket.

A camera like the 350 should be able to work as an appropriate tool for professional production irrespective of shooting for SD or HD, I shouldn't have to compromise my workflow for the tool. If the tool is designed right it will fit existing and new workflows...

Seriously, I love shooting my own stuff in HD, I get what you're saying but it isn't that world yet. I freelance a lot and 95%+ of my freelance work I have to downconvert to SD before handing the footage over, they just don't want the hassel of dealing with the HD files & I can't charge for the time & money it takes to do the downconvert, thats time out of my life I don't get back.... In one regular job I have to take the composite out of the EX1, send it trhough a converter to get a DV 1394 stream so I can record it to DV tape in a consumer camera as a deck, so those tapes can go to the largest television network in out country for them to put together a show from the footage the next day. The network has NO interest in the HD files I can provide, they only want DV on tape.

I know guys still shooting weddings in 4:3 SD on DSR250s and making good money doing it, they rarely get asked for 16:9 and never get asked for HD. One bought a PMW330 but sold it as he never used it, his PDW510 took better SD images, but even that has now been sold and he is shooting on the DSR250 again and got all the money back in the bank for the other cameras..

I don't think expecting a professional level of SD production capabilities in modern cameras is too much to ask.

This is the reality of small business video production, at least in my country.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm torn between what I want to do in HD and what my clients want from me, They more often than not just don't marry up. It would be nice to have a camera with the latest in HD but backward compatibility while the rest of the world catches up.
 
I would rather see them offer a option to add the 8bit 4:2:2 50mb codec. Constraining an 18K USD camera to 4:2:0 35mb is ludicrous. Maybe we should start a petition to Sony to add 50mb option by shipping time.
 
GuyB said:
Time is money, when the client only wants SD, why spend that extra time downconverting and rendering HD when the client isn't willing to pay for it.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take any longer, so there is no lost time (money).

I drop the HD footage into an HD timeline. Edit. Mix. Grade. Render to proper DVD file and it's ready to go.

EDIT:
Just did a little test. It took 55 seconds to convert 1 minute of HD (1920x1080) to SD (720x480).
 
Last edited:
If SD recording is so dead then why did Sony incorporate SD recording into the new EX1R?

Plus why does the Nano Flash offer IMX 50 Codec recording, which I dare say gives far better results than any down-converted footage as it is a broadcast recognised and widely used codec.

I down-convert myself but it can be a mine field and if I am being picky there is some aliasing on movement.

SD is far from dead
 
I too shoot in HD, then drop the sequence into an SD timeline and print to tape to deliver - ir export SD and FTP the file for broadcast.

Today I am going to try out the EX1's 4:3 wireframe because the client wants the product to look similar to past projects (no letterboxing) - it will now with the only difference being better picture quality.
 
If that's the case, it sounds like you may have a workflow problem. I've never had any issue in down converting from HD to SD in the year I've been doing it.[/QUOTE]

Nope, no problems. I'm just very picky about picture quality. I'd love to see some of your stuff! Who knows, maybe my picture is even better than the one you are getting!

Shooting in HD and cutting out all that info by down-converting will never beat a dedicated digibeta cam.
 
If you are seeing aliasing in your HD=>SD conversion , it might be that your resizing algorithm is not interlace aware. You can't resize interlaced content in a simple manner. Fields have to be separated , resized , then re-interlaced.

Shooting in HD and cutting out all that info by down-converting will never beat a dedicated digibeta cam.
Click to expand...

I disagree. HD=>SD if done properly will be more crisp.
 
dazzdeadmeadow said:
No, I never shoot interlaced...hate it!
Click to expand...

In that case, progressive HD=>SD will almost always provide a better quality picture from the same camera than shooting SD, assuming you use a decent straight resizing algorithm (e.g lanczos). The only tricky parts to the workflow and downscaling algorithm are when you shoot interlaced

If you are shooting progressive, I don't understand why you are seeing aliasing, unless you have progressive content in interlaced stream (e.g. 24p in 60i container), and didn't do the pulldown removal correctly (or you're using a DSLR :) )
 
Hey its very very slight. To the untrained eye maybe not seen. But if you are right why don't they shoot in HD and downconvert for broadcast????

And if they do it is with fairly serious hardware!
 
dazzdeadmeadow said:
Hey its very very slight. To the untrained eye maybe not seen. But if you are right why don't they shoot in HD and downconvert for broadcast????

It's fairly obvious!
Click to expand...

Time constraints.

To do the proper interlaced resize, it takes even more time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top