Sony XDCAM EX

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...

I tend to disagree when you are doing a comparative with the HVX because essentially (keeping in mind here the EX is untested and I am only going by tech specs) whilst you are capturing more resolution to begin with and laying that out over 4:2:0 compared to the HVX capturing a lower res and using a different approach by stretching the captured 4:2:2 to cover the same resolution your ending up at virtually the same point, but one goes route A and one route B and a fair analogy would be something like - Route a is 20km but is a straight road so takes 20mins to travel whilst route B is 15 KM with lots of bends so also takes 20mins to travel. You could argue that the windy road is more interesting because of the bends another would argue the straight road is better because its more fuel efficient. And Id say fair enough, do whatever takes your fancy.

On specs alone Id go as far as to say: They deliver the exact same thing, though the EX is better equiped with the 1/2" chip and SDI out. By rights if your shooting green screen from the EX via SDI at true 4:2:2 and then factor in the chips it SHOULD have it all over the HVX.
 
Sony's info on their lcd...

"High Definition LCD
When shooting HD footage, standard LCD screens can be very deceiving; what looked perfect amidst a full-day video shoot can sometimes prove very soft or out of focus back in post-production. This is a direct result of a simple fact: common LCDs usually can't resolve images in the same way they are being recorded and you end up cleaning up the mess. The PMW-EX1 comes equipped with 1-MegaPixel LCD screen, eliminating this oft-pesky phenomenon. Record with confidence, knowing that what you see is what you will get."

1 mp res vs HVX at 210000 pixels? The thought of running an adapter without an additional lcd is very attractive. With a little fiddling I can nail focus on my HVX with Brevis using the HVX's lcd (focus assist + focus on eyes or letters), but this would add incredible convenience, esp in run and gun scenarios. Time and testing will tell...
 
ncje said:
...............one goes route A and one route B and a fair analogy would be something like - Route a is 20km but is a straight road so takes 20mins to travel whilst route B is 15 KM with lots of bends so also takes 20mins to travel.
Click to expand...
An EXCELLENT analogy!!

Whilst 4:2:2 may well be preferable to 4:2:0 in principle, vertical pixel shift means the HVX cannot deliver all that 4:2:2 recording is capable of preserving, and yes indeed, the EX cannot preserve all it's front end is capable of giving. Which is exactly what ncje is saying.

Hence, for comparing which is best - HVX or EX - the whole 4:2:2/4:2:0 thing is less important than other matters. It's also worth stressing that whether you're dealing with progressive or interlace makes a big difference - 4:2:2 is much more preferable in interlace systems than progressive.

As far as real life goes, all I know is that I pointed an EX into a dark corner at an exhibition and fundamentally got a pretty clean picture. Doing the same thing with an HVX200 on the next stand and the results were VERY different, to the extent that I'd say they would be unusable. Not very scientific, it's true, but it just leads me to feel that all this concern about colour space, GOP structure etc is out of place. Who cares how well the compression system copes in post if the picture is unusable in the first place!!!

(And before someone else says it, there are a ton of occasions where just using more light to overcome the problem is simply not possible.)
killamill said:
.......... here in Argentina in the last BAFICI ..... a movie .....won the best photography... and it was made with a Z1 ...
Click to expand...
In overall terms the ability of DP (to say nothing of script, acting) will be more significant than choice of camera. But all too often this point comes up as though the only two choices are good talent with a poorer camera or a poor DP etc with a better camera. In practice, what you should be wanting is a good DP, script, actors etc with the best camera.
 
Hmmm, shutter only goes as slow as 1/33 it seems. By no means a deal breaker, but it's nice to have options.
 
StMad said:
Sony's info on their lcd...
Click to expand...
Yet another blatant lie from Sony's marketing department. I mean, last time I did the math, I found that 640 x 480 does not equal one million pixels.

Better than the HVX's LCD? Unquestionably. A million pixels? A laughable lie. 307,000 pixels is more like it.
 
Sorry Steve, but the EX1's LCD resolution is 640x480. Says so right in the back of their brochure.

The 1920x480 is the same exaggeration used by cheapo LCD manufacturers to make it sound like it's more than it is; they count the red, green, and blue separately. So they inflate the actual resolution by 3.

It's a 4x3 panel with 640x480 resolution. Again, just look in the back of the brochure under the specifications and you'll see that they at least printed it accurately there.
 
Barry_Green said:
The 1920x480 is the same exaggeration used by cheapo LCD manufacturers to make it sound like it's more than it is; they count the red, green, and blue separately. So they inflate the actual resolution by 3.
Click to expand...

Even Marshall uses this exaggeration to make people think they're getting "real HD" resolution on a very small screen. I agree, it's blatant marketing bs but the truth is that 640 x 480 on a 3.5" screen is pretty good...certainly much more than has been previously offered on a camcorder LCD in this class.
 
Thanks Baryy.
Live and learn...
Why must manufactures create such bull...

It reminds my of the days when manufacture's would claim their amp could output 100 watts. We're they lying, NO. But, that 100watts was damn near a square wave sitting at the rail supply. LOL
 
I have no doubt it's the best screen to be offered on a camcorder yet. I just take exception with the blatant monkey crap they spew, that's all.
 
Barry_Green said:
I have no doubt it's the best screen to be offered on a camcorder yet. I just take exception with the blatant monkey crap they spew, that's all.
Click to expand...


Agreed...that's weak. Their approach can feel like that of a second hand car salesman. When I read a press release or product info from Sony, I'm half expecting to see multiple exclamation marks to emphasise a point!!!!! :) . Unfortunately they're not the only ones who operate in this manner.

So...comparing lcds, we've got

HVX (3.5") 16:9 - 157000 (approx) eff pixels

EX1 (3.5") 16:9 - 307000 eff pixels

A1 (2.8") 16:9 - 208000 eff pixels

If I'm off, let me know.

Given how many things the Sony has going for it, I'm sure a lot of people will be holding their breath waiting to hear more about the cam's rolling shutter artifacts.
 
Barry_Green said:
The 1920x480 is the same exaggeration ........ to make it sound like it's more than it is; they count the red, green, and blue separately. So they inflate the actual resolution by 3.
Click to expand...
But isn't this the normal way of describing counts in single plane devices? Exactly as Bayer sensors in cameras have always been described in terms of the total number of pixels - R,G, and B all summed together? So a 6 megapixel camera I'd expect to have approx 3 million G pixels, and 1.5 million each R and B.
 
ncje said:
I tend to disagree when you are doing a comparative with the HVX because essentially (keeping in mind here the EX is untested and I am only going by tech specs) whilst you are capturing more resolution to begin with and laying that out over 4:2:0 compared to the HVX capturing a lower res and using a different approach by stretching the captured 4:2:2 to cover the same resolution your ending up at virtually the same point, but one goes route A and one route B and a fair analogy would be something like - Route a is 20km but is a straight road so takes 20mins to travel whilst route B is 15 KM with lots of bends so also takes 20mins to travel. You could argue that the windy road is more interesting because of the bends another would argue the straight road is better because its more fuel efficient. And Id say fair enough, do whatever takes your fancy.

On specs alone Id go as far as to say: They deliver the exact same thing, though the EX is better equiped with the 1/2" chip and SDI out. By rights if your shooting green screen from the EX via SDI at true 4:2:2 and then factor in the chips it SHOULD have it all over the HVX.
Click to expand...

im not comparing it to anyhting. im just saying, i like the EX's features and i hope it doesnt compress audio.
 
We liked it too. We broke down today and ordered two at $6500.
At that price, what the heck. We'll get plenty of use out of these for at least two years. If the camera head turns out be great, I'll also buy the XDR Flash drive when it's available. Although, it's a hefty tag at $5K. If this combo works as well as it reads on paper, the camera combo may last 3 to 4 years.
 
Stevet said:
We liked it too. We broke down today and ordered two at $6500.
At that price, what the heck. We'll get plenty of use out of these for at least two years. If the camera head turns out be great, I'll also buy the XDR Flash drive when it's available. Although, it's a hefty tag at $5K. If this combo works as well as it reads on paper, the camera combo may last 3 to 4 years.
Click to expand...

That combo is in theory what sets this camera appart and makes me think of getting it to go with my HVX. Then again, that would be about 12k total. 14k with a 35mm adapter and a set of still camera lenses. HPX500 is 19.5k with lens...And its 2/3 CCD's- to shoot high end TVCs or feature/short, one can rent Digiprimes for certain shots, and use the CAC bundled lens for others...

XDCAM EX is 1920x1080 true HD chips... Theoretically, captured to the Flash XDR module would bring amazing picture... But would it beat an HPX with a Digiprime?

This would be a comparison I would like to see: XDCAM EX with stock lens/ a 35mm Adaptor recorded to XDCAM EX codec/ HD-SDI vs an HPX with bundled lens/ digiprime, recorded to DVCPRO HD/ HD-SDI.

One factor I also take into account is all the support gear I own for bellow 10lb cameras- steadicam, Tripod, etc. Upgrading to the HPX would mean I would need support gear upgrades. The EX can work with my current HVX200 gear...

One more question: Anyone know if the on board LCD flips?

EDIT- Kaku Ito, a very reliable person over at DVinfo is telling we might hear something from Panasonic in the upcoming Interbee show in Japan. I would also keep my eyes opened for this... Ex can wait.
 
Last edited:
Dont forget the light efficency of a Digiprime/hpx combo. The EX is faster, but not that fast.....
 
True the HPX would excel with its 2/3 CCDs.
But the EX "may" look sharper based on its rez.
The HPX is using pixel shift like the HVX200.
 
Last edited:
We simply don't know how the cameras will compare untill they are all relased and cab ne tested side by side in a controlled environment. The last big "shoot out" compared the mid-range cameras in this field almost 2 years ago now. maybe it's timefor a Camera shootout Part 2?

We know how the HVX, Z1, HD100, and XL-H1 compare with the Varicam and High end CineAltas.. But there are certainly a lot of new players in the field that have not been compared:
RED, the HPX500, the 2000, the EX1, the V1 even, the A1/G1 ... there are many new models to be compared.

It's been said many times before, and I'll say it again...
You can piss and moan all day long about specs and numbers, but without testing the cameras side by side, in both a controlled environment, and out in real world shooting situations, there is no way to know what is "better" for what purpose.

- Mikko
 
Last edited:
But I fully agree that a practical "shoot-out" would be more use than poring over specs. In the meantime, whilst I couldn't put numbers to it, I'm convinced from the evidence of my own eyes that the EX is WAY more sensitive than the HVX, whilst probably being sharper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top