Sony XDCAM EX

Hopefully the XDcam 35mbps Bit rate can help counteract the macroblocking. the problem isnt really the variable resolution that Mpeg Based recording formats have. The XHA1 has a GORGEOUS sharp picture and it looks that way in the HDV footage.

The problem is its like an eggshell veneer. once you go alittle bit below the surface, like start bringing up underexposed footage, the Mpeg Codec wont bother compressng information in the very lowest parts of the IRE scale, in a attempt to be efficient it just kinda... mushes it together.
 
TimurCivan said:
Hopefully the XDcam 35mbps Bit rate can help counteract the macroblocking. the problem isnt really the variable resolution that Mpeg Based recording formats have. The XHA1 has a GORGEOUS sharp picture and it looks that way in the HDV footage.

The problem is its like an eggshell veneer. once you go alittle bit below the surface, like start bringing up underexposed footage, the Mpeg Codec wont bother compressng information in the very lowest parts of the IRE scale, in a attempt to be efficient it just kinda... mushes it together.
Click to expand...

That certainly seems to be the case with the Sony V1 form of HDV. Havent had that issue on the canon.
 
What I meant is that XH-A1 is still a good machine for the price. Of course the Sony XDCAM EX looks more effective in low-light but you going to spend the double amount of money.

Is like comparing an Audi TT to a Porsche 911...

What I feel a bit pricey right now is the Canon XL-H1. Maybe I am wrong but Canon now needs a better alternative on this price range.

Any news about the new Sony HDV?:

http://www.sonybiz.net/biz/view/ShowContent.action?site=biz_en_CH&contentId=1187079485470

Cheers :bath:
 
Last edited:
ncje said:
Sorry but thats totally subjective and merely an opinion.

Where the A1 isnt close to the HVX is shooting variable frames in 720 and inability to shoot to solid state at 100mbps.

As for the EX I simply cannot believe people will simply look at the GOP structure and write of the high res 1/2 ccds along with many of the other features. Unbelievable to me. We should be relishing the day, however many seem bogged down in a lot of myth and heresy in addition to wanting to pick apart anything.

In addition SPZ, I direct this one to you, Giovanni only stated he was happy with his A1 and its the quite competitor. Cant say I blame him. Its a great camera.

Oh shi*, I am sure I recently said I wouldnt get involved in this kind of discussion anymore. OK I missed a hurdle. Last one for me though.
Click to expand...

I've been somehow avoiding these forums since I promised a comparison of motion rendition between 25p post processed on a High end Telecine and prior to telecine. I've been with my hands full on this, which was just broadcasted internationally,

http://www.macau.grandprix.gov.mo/mgpc07/video.php?lang=en

(Sorry for the self promotion here- This was shot 80% with the HVX- every single shot untill the actual racing shots- which is from beta sp source)

Ncje, I know what Geovanni meant. However, there really IS a significant difference between the codecs and Picture quality.

The look you see on the linked video would not be possible on the A1- specially the skin tones and colourful imagery. You could get SIMILAR results, but not the same.

I'm obviously not saying a very talented Colorist and editor cannot come with fantastic looking A1 material- it surelly is possible- like a skillfull driver can beat a not so skilfull one with a better car- but if you are putting this same talent on both cameras, you would get better results with the HVX.

The A1 is still currently my HDV camera of choice, though. And its incredible value.

As for the EX... Seeing is believing. Sounds promissing- but, seriously, having an HVX, if I was to upgrade now, I would probably look more seriously to the HPX500- differente price range, for sure, but a camera for a different "championship", and still affordable. Or go for the "red ferrari :) "
 
SPZ sorry but I simply just diasagree with you. I cant change your mind and neither you mine.

Very nice shots in your clip.
 
SPZ said:
Ncje, I know what Geovanni meant. However, there really IS a significant difference between the codecs and Picture quality.

The look you see on the linked video would not be possible on the A1- specially the skin tones and colourful imagery. You could get SIMILAR results, but not the same.

I'm obviously not saying a very talented Colorist and editor cannot come with fantastic looking A1 material- it surelly is possible- like a skillfull driver can beat a not so skilfull one with a better car- but if you are putting this same talent on both cameras, you would get better results with the HVX.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with this either. One bit.

What are you basing your opinion of the A1's color rendition on? Your clips are nice, with deeply saturated colors, etc. But the A1 can do this too. I and people on these forums have seen it so many times, there's really no longer a question to most of us.
 
SPZ said:
The look you see on the linked video would not be possible on the A1- specially the skin tones and colourful imagery. You could get SIMILAR results, but not the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, because it is shot on two different cameras, which is naturally subtly different in term of color renditions. By that argument, I can introduce a look that the A1 can create but the HVX can't exactly replicate and claim that the A1 is better. You can tell me that you prefer the look of the HVX, which is your personal opinion that you're entitled to, but please don't make a blanket statement that the A1's look is inherently inferior.

SPZ said:
... but if you are putting this same talent on both cameras, you would get better results with the HVX.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what to say to this
 
The EX records with the Mpeg HD codec, that´s 35mb/s at the tops... while DvcPro HD is 100mb/s...

So... is it worth it?

I´ve used an HVX200E as a second camera of a Super16mm shortfilm, and it was perfect... I wonder if I can do this with the EX...
 
Well the EX and the XDcam codec record the IMage part at 35mbps. the audio is uncompressed at 4channels and that makes the total something like 50mbps. I think.... I HOPE HOPE HOPE.... it doesnt compress audio too. HOPE.

the images should be fine for basic event coverage, and narritive stuff thats not composite intensive and CC intensive. though im sure it will look ok even if you go that route. XDcam isnt too bad. PLus you can go SDI out and record a low compression 4:2:2 Video signal thats 1920x1080. that will be pretty awesome.
 
The EX records two uncompressed 16 bit 48 kHz channels of audio, so that adds roughly 3 Mbs to the video datastream--about 38 Mbs total. I think we'll have to wait for a real comparo because the spec-fighting is sort of pointless. I think it's clear that the EX is going to have it's strengths against the HVX, but it'll depend on what you shoot and how you handle post.
 
for my eyes the A1 has higher resolution except on the circles where i see some strange interference pattern



Dxmetal said:
561-scharf-scharf.jpg


A test (http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Sony-XDCAM-PMW-EX1---Vorserienmodell.html) done in Germany between the A1 and EX. Seems like you can see more lines(more resolutions on the EX). You can babble fish that site if needed since its in german.

Kevin Shaw also did a line resolution/price comparison between these cams.

Canon XH-A1: 800 lines, $3250 after rebate

Z1U: 540 lines, $4400 after rebate

HD110U: 700 lines, $4400 with lens

HVX200: 540 lines, $5200 with colorista, anton bauer
EZ battery and barry's book

EX1: 1000 lines, $6500 with 2 free 8 gig memory cards
Click to expand...
 
Well... it´s everything on the DP and how everything is planned... right?

For example, here in Argentina in the last BAFICI (Buenos Aires International Independent Festival) a movie called "El Desierto Negro" (The black desert) won the best photography... and it was made with a Z1

I´m not trying to say that cameras don´t matter... the EX it´s going to offer a few goodies and surely it´s going to behave more than OK if you know how to do your job...

I was just waiting for something else than Mpeg with 35mb of bandwith... 1/2 CMOS sound great... but the Mpeg 2 and the 35mb (being hdv 25mb) it´s disappointing...

I know it´s soon to say this, but I was expecting a bit more...

Amilcar.-
 
jade8472 said:
Yes, because it is shot on two different cameras, which is naturally subtly different in term of color renditions. By that argument, I can introduce a look that the A1 can create but the HVX can't exactly replicate and claim that the A1 is better. You can tell me that you prefer the look of the HVX, which is your personal opinion that you're entitled to, but please don't make a blanket statement that the A1's look is inherently inferior.



I don't even know what to say to this
Click to expand...

4:2:2 vs 4:2:0. Which one as more color information? You may not "see" immediately this difference, but in grading it surelly is noticeable. You may not believe what I'm saying, but I've been working with 4:2:0 for years, and what you guys at NTSC, used to 4:1:1, don't notice is how the compression for broadcast messes with the colors. Digital broadcast might somehow avoid this problem, but when you go airborne, there's compression. Its no surprise why professional broadcast codecs are mostly (notice the mostly- I know XDCAM is 4:2:0- but also notice how Sony is going to introduce a 4:2:2 version of the codec) 4:2:2 for a reason.

Its not a subjective opinion here. 4:2:2 is superior, color wise, to 4:2:0. And Intraframe is superior to Interframe. HDV is and was conceived as a consumer, or prosumer format. Its done to fit on Mini-DV bandwith. DVCPRO HD is done for professional use. These are facts. And I'm not falling on the marketing propaganda or technical numbers here. The results I see are apparent.

Getting the Michael Schumaker of Camera operators/DP's to operate the HDV A1 camera abnd hiring the equivalent of the Ferrari team in Post Production can produce very "Faster" results compared to getting Scott Speed driving an HVX with the Red Bull team in post production. But if you put "Schumaker" with the HVX and you'll see him setting faster lap times than when he was on the A1. Strange analogy, I know.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You think the A1 is on par to the HVX. To each its own.

The EX sounds good on paper. I want to see real life results. The German comparison (the one that put the HVX vs the EX), sincerely didn't got me excited to change my HVX for it. Telling there was "settings problems" is somehow "strange."
 
TimurCivan said:
Well the EX and the XDcam codec record the IMage part at 35mbps. the audio is uncompressed at 4channels and that makes the total something like 50mbps. I think.... I HOPE HOPE HOPE.... it doesnt compress audio too. HOPE.

the images should be fine for basic event coverage, and narritive stuff thats not composite intensive and CC intensive. though im sure it will look ok even if you go that route. XDcam isnt too bad. PLus you can go SDI out and record a low compression 4:2:2 Video signal thats 1920x1080. that will be pretty awesome.
Click to expand...

Sorry didn´t say anything before about the SDI out recording... yes, I agree... that´s a very good thing it has...

But still, recording with the SDI will not make it expensive? It would be good to discuss the cheaper options out there...
 
Plus SDI recording wont' work at off-speed shooting from what I was told at IBC. Kinda a bummer for narative work.

- Mikko
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top