Sony marketing holds down quality innovation for us pro users?

S

Sebastiaan Tuerlings

Member
Statement for discussion:

'Sony brings us a new very nice concept as the Sony F3 with a build-in 35 Mbit/s codec to SxS media. This quality limitation to only 35 Mbit/s is marketing-technical, not technical. Maybe because Sony marketing wants to make this a strong format standard (as done with BetacamSP DVcam Digibeta XDcam). There is no TECHNICAL reason at this moment to don't give the users a choice for higher quality compression options'

I would appreciate you all write down your thoughts about this.
 
Last edited:
You have no idea what is or isn't possible at this price point, unless you are a certified camera engineer working at one of the major manufacturers.

Your choices are simple: either buy the product, or don't. If enough people don't buy it, they will re-evaluate their offering. If enough people buy it, there is no reason for them to re-evaluate it.
 
It is far from a bottleneck, and you calling it one assures me you've never shot with, graded, or done post work with such.
 
This quality limitation to only 35mbits is marketing-technical, not technical.
Click to expand...

Although Barry nailed it, let me say this: Even what you're saying was correct, it wouldn't bother me. Try manufacturing a product, sell & service worldwide, employ tens of thousands of people in your payroll, then come back and let's talk.
 
I would half way agree with the original statement if you take into account that each product fits into each marketing niche by design. Each has a different price point and features.

Of course the technology for a more robust codec and recording system is there. The Nano is based on the chips from the higher end Sony cams with some modifications.

Putting in features from a higher price point ruins sales at that price point, unless the entire lineup goes up at the same time. That's what I see happening right now. Why kill sales of the F35 or F23 until the line up is changing? That's what I see, the entire line up is moving up.

They recently released the NexCam for the consumer level. They announced but haven't released the NXCam for the prosumer level. The soon to be released F3 for the pro level, with an upgrade for the high end pro level.

I expect that they'll announce a couple more cameras above and below those. But, 90% of the time most people don't need (or want to pay for) those high end codecs. The EX1/3 codec and recording system is actually very robust. With SDHC card compatibility they are cheap. The best of both worlds.:shocked:

Its a corporate weighing of demand, marketing, engineering and design. Its very calculated and not aimed at one tiny marketing segment. They won't redesign a camera within a price point to suit you, if its not what you want they want you to chose a new price point.

Now that I think about it, that's pretty much what Barry said.
 
Last edited:
I read that they used the 35 mbits because the system is so noiseless it didn't need the the higher mbits as the standard internal recording.
 
Yes, it is a conspiracy by Sony to hold back technology. They don't want to compete. They don't want to satisfy their customers. They want to control the professional market by limiting quality. Yes, of course, that makes perfect sense. I don't know why I didn't see it before.
 
Paul F said:
Yes, it is a conspiracy by Sony to hold back technology. They don't want to compete. They don't want to satisfy their customers. They want to control the professional market by limiting quality. Yes, of course, that makes perfect sense. I don't know why I didn't see it before.
Click to expand...

ROTFL. That's what they say at Red.
 
The reason is not a technical limitation, it is a budget limitation. To include a higher end codec takes more computational power (I think it requires an additional encoding chip) and would push the price up. Many users would be using the HDSDI outputs to record, Sony didn't want to push the price up for them in order to add a feature they wouldn't need. The SXS 35Mbps can be considered a backup or even proxy recording with a burnt in LUT for those users. I'm sure many will use the 35Mbps as their primary recording method as it is very good.

Personally I'd love to see all the recording options from both the Nanoflash and AJA Ki Pro built into a camera. That is technically possible and will hopefully happen in the next few years but it will obviously increase the price. If I was Sony I would have offered an upgrade to the F3 to record 4:2:2 XDCAM HD for around £1,000. I asked them if this was a possibility and they said it wasn't planned.
 
from 1972 on I was in the music bizz and saw its development to where its now. I see many parallels to the video world today and predict cheaper and more powerful tools for the future with a similar decline in value for copyright. I dont think Sony is holding down quality innovation, they build good quality which lasts longer than the innovation cycles. They may be a tad bit slower in following trends and their prices are still higher but their experience and quality is at the top level. Just be patient: the tools will come, the revolution which shook the audio world and has seen its peak years ago, is still surging upwards. There will be cameras that all here @dvcuser dream of for lower prices in the next years, I am sure of that, and Sony will have to follow if they dont lead.
 
50 mbps or even 100 mbs, its irrelevant. Most people that are serious won't be using the 4:2:0 8bit Mpeg 2 codec when 10bit 4:2:2 (or even 4:4:4) is easily available via an external recorder.

The 35Mbps is seems to be a carry over from the EX models. So its a technical decision in that they didn't want to design the F3 from scratch, and that they assumed that users will likely default to external recorders that would be first, modular, portable, and upgradable, moreover it can be tailored to the workflow of different users.

By focusing on the dual-HD SDI for recording the F3 also increases its shelf life. We should see third-parties competing to bring 4:4:4 and 60p dual HD-SDI 4:2:2 recorders down as the camera is released. These recorders will improve over time, and the same F3 can improve with it. And it'll be an investment beyond the F3 alone.

So instead of wasting resources to redsign the logic to support better internal recording that risks future obsolescence, they decided to keep internal recording merely as a method of backup and editing, and invest in a more modular approach. Sony already has a lot of plans for their recorders, besides 4:4:4, they plan on 3D as well using two F3s. Feasibly they could upgrade the F3 in the future to output raw over the dual-HD SDI as well in the fashion of Arri's T-link.
 
mmm said:
To include a higher end codec takes more computational power
Click to expand...

As a 15-year video maker and 5-year computer programmer, this sounds backward to me. First, remember that for some portion of the video flow through the camera, it is uncompressed. Off the chip, it is uncompressed. Then it gets compressed, then recorded.

To record at a lower bitrate requires more compression. In general it is harder to compress something to a hundredth of its size than a tenth its size. On the other hand, economy of scale in computer parts plays a huge part. So if you want to make a device that compresses to a common bitrate, like 24 mbps, instead of an unconventional but less compressed bitrate, like 200 mbps, you might pay less for the encoder.

Still, I find it hard to believe that Sony is doing much more than market segmentizing. Microsoft does this famously, with seven versions of Windows. This way, companies can charge more for differences that are relatively easy for them to swap out. That is to say, the more expensive products don't necessarily cost the companies that much more to make. But again, economies of scale eat into those profit margins. Suppose Sony makes a $1,000 DSLR and a $20,000 ENG camcorder. But if they sell 100 times as many DSLRs as ENG camcorders (likely), then the DSLR actually could have cost them more to develop but could still make them more money.

This is why, for example, PL lenses cost 100 times as much as SLR lenses. It doesn't mean that they are 100 times better. They may be only five times better. But there are so few people with PL mounts, they're going to sell a lot fewer of them, and so they need to charge more to make back all their development costs. Cooke sells $50,000 lenses. Sony sells $500 lenses. But Cooke doesn't make 100 times as much money as Sony's lens department.

So, on one hand, it's complicated, because of economies of scale. But, on the other hand, companies often profit from breaking up their product line and selling 10 different camera models instead of, say, three.
 
Last edited:
Well, then you'll just have to live with my unnecessary statement.

Ain't I just a different people with a different need? For my needs the AF100 is more appealing.

SxS and no overcrank in full resolution for twice the price? For my needs, no thanks.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Well, then you'll just have to live with my unnecessary statement.

Ain't I just a different people with a different need? For my needs the AF100 is more appealing.

SxS and no overcrank in full resolution for twice the price? For my needs, no thanks.
Click to expand...

Precisely :)

It's just your original statement made it sound more like you were stating that it is unappealing to the whole. 63db s/n ratio and 4:4:4 output, over 12 stops of DR, things only previously found on the alexa and other cameras well north of 70,000 dollars? yes please :)
 
combatentropy said:
As a 15-year video maker and 5-year computer programmer, this sounds backward to me.
Click to expand...

I was told by one of the guys from Convergent Designs that it requires 2 encoder chips to record in 4:2:2 compared to one for 4:2:0 with the Sony XDCAM codecs. These encoder chips are also used in the Nanoflash. Therefore the higher end codecs do required additional hardware to implement if what he said was correct. It isn't just a case of deliberately crippling the firmware.

However, I believe that even a single chip can record at data rates far beyond 35Mbps. It is this potential that the Nanoflash unlocks and Sony doesn't. Sony likes to stick to the fixed standards, i.e. 35Mbps and 50Mbps.

Steve, 50Mbps may not be relevant for you but it is totally relevant if your client sets it as their acquisition standard. In the UK, 50Mbps XDCAM HD is fast becoming the major "broadcast quality" HD codec, XDCAM HD seems to be becoming the new Digibeta and XDCAM EX the new DVCAM. If you were planning on using the F3 as a documentary camera, 50Mbps would be very useful. For high end drama, I agree, a 10 bit codec would be preferable but for high end shooting I would also choose a higher end camera with important features like a proper VF.
 
Precisely, and that was my point. By leaving it at 35Mbps and 4.2.0 they left out hardware and left out R&D making this a $13,300 price point that a broader market can afford. If you're shooting for the BBC or Discovery use a Nano, or in couple months a Ki Pro Mini and you're good to go for a couple of grand more.

Pietro and many others will compare the AF100, but if you want that 63db SNR with a full S35 chip, you aren't getting it anywhere else. So far the F3 footage I've seen has been "buttery smooth" yet vibrant.

For me the EX1 with a Nano mounted to a wing triggered by time code has been completely painless. You forget that its there. Turn it on and you operate the camera normally, with the bonus of a back up of the files in case there is a hiccup.

EDIT: I think the Hoodman Loupe with EX1 kit on the LCD really will take care of the VF issue for shoulder/hand held just as it does for the EX1.

@Pietro, SxS cards aren't necessary. The F3 can use SDHC cards too. I think 60p overcrank is the only thing the AF100 does that the F3 doesn't do. If you need that, go for it. Others want the DR and SNR.
 
Last edited:
mmm said:
I was told by one of the guys from Convergent Designs that it requires 2 encoder chips to record in 4:2:2 compared to one for 4:2:0 with the Sony XDCAM codecs. These encoder chips are also used in the Nanoflash. Therefore the higher end codecs do required additional hardware to implement if what he said was correct. It isn't just a case of deliberately crippling the firmware.

However, I believe that even a single chip can record at data rates far beyond 35Mbps. It is this potential that the Nanoflash unlocks and Sony doesn't. Sony likes to stick to the fixed standards, i.e. 35Mbps and 50Mbps.

Steve, 50Mbps may not be relevant for you but it is totally relevant if your client sets it as their acquisition standard. In the UK, 50Mbps XDCAM HD is fast becoming the major "broadcast quality" HD codec, XDCAM HD seems to be becoming the new Digibeta and XDCAM EX the new DVCAM. If you were planning on using the F3 as a documentary camera, 50Mbps would be very useful. For high end drama, I agree, a 10 bit codec would be preferable but for high end shooting I would also choose a higher end camera with important features like a proper VF.
Click to expand...

My understanding was in the UK, the minimum specifications to be considered 'broadcast quality' by the BBC and others requires 50Mbps 4:2:2 MPEG2. In which case, bumping up the 8-bit 4:2:0 of the EX/F3 to 50 Mbps still isn't going to cut it. Either way, the small investment for the Nanoflash or KiPro is going to be necessary.

Same goes for the NXCAM, much like the AF100, it'll probably be limited to 24Mbps AVCHD. Meaning either way, you're going to need Nanoflash or KiPro to meet those minimum broadcast specifications.

As you've confirmed with the Sony rep in the other thread, since the NXCAM is going to have an identical sensor to the F3, and estimated to be comparatively affordable $6k/€6k, in many cases its probably the better investment depending on your needs.

The F3 will offer 4:4:4, S log, dual HD-SDI 3D link, servo-zooms, and 4:2:2 60P. The NXCAM will likely have its 60p limited to AVCHD, since a single HD-SDI won't have the bandwidth to handle 10bit 4:2:2 video (that is unless the NXCAM doesn't get 3G SDI).

I think the line drawn in the sand between the NXCAM and the F3 is really that Sony sees the F3 as a long-term evolving device that is going to get persistent and modular capabilities. And what the camera offers is very compelling. But more importantly, if the consumer decides on investing in the 4:4:4 Slog recorder, or even a Cinedeck or KiPro mini, the other upgrades, those are investments that can be carried over to a future "F4" or any other camera.

And I'll echo your concerns of a franken-rig, I'm wondering if there isn't a more elegant solution then the EX formfactor. The NXCAM seems to be a body style that is better suited for modular additions.
 
Steve Castle said:
My understanding was in the UK, the minimum specifications to be considered 'broadcast quality' by the BBC and others requires 50Mbps 4:2:2 MPEG2. In which case, bumping up the 8-bit 4:2:0 of the EX/F3 to 50 Mbps still isn't going to cut it. Either way, the small investment for the Nanoflash or KiPro is going to be necessary.
Click to expand...

Steve, when I've been referring to 50Mbps recording in this thread, I have been referring to the XDCAM HD codec which is CBR, 50Mbps, 8 bit, 4:2:2 (which I believe requires 2 encoding chips). So to be clear, I think Sony should have planned on offering an option to record 50Mbps 4:2:2 XDCAM HD to the onboard SXS cards for the reasons we have both given, i.e. it makes life much easier for broadcast shooters, for whom XDCAM HD is "good enough."

Sony have their 35Mps 8bit 4:2:0 VBR MPEG2 codec which they call XDCAM EX and their 50Mbps 8bit 4:2:2 CBR MPEG2 codec which they call XDCAM HD. I think my abbreviating this to "50Mbps" led you to think I meant a new 4:2:0 50Mbps codec. I don't think adding such a codec would be a good idea.

This option would neither cost nor hinder ANY other user. It would only allow Sony to take some of the customers who will now buy a Nanoflash or Ki Pro (etc) in order to meet broadcast specs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top