Sony XDCAM EX

Wow! A good camera from Sony.

This camera looks seriously awesome - I was thinking of buying an HVX or two, but I am holding off now for more details on RED Mini and this cam.

Is XDCAM 4:2:2 or 4:4:4? It would suck if this recorded in 4:2:0 or 4:1:1 or something... Pulling good keys is important for me (although I hear that you can do quite well with HDV...)

EDIT:
I see that the colour space has been discussed, and it's either 4:2:0 with the older XDCAM codec, or 4:2:2 if they use the new one, right?
 
they arent gonna usethe new one. ( though they should)

but XDcam looks pretty good. it still can exhibit compression artifacts, but MUCH milder than HDV does.

The only time HDV/XDcam can be trouble is if there like, a low light situation, lots of movemnet and flashbulbs.
 
Claw said:
Is XDCAM 4:2:2 or 4:4:4? It would suck if this recorded in 4:2:0 or 4:1:1 or something...
Click to expand...
It's 4:2:0.

I see that the colour space has been discussed, and it's either 4:2:0 with the older XDCAM codec, or 4:2:2 if they use the new one, right?
Click to expand...
The new one carries an MPEG422 label and a 50-megabit data rate. There was no indication that the little cam would use that codec, their presentations specifically said 18/25/35 megabit. Of course there's still a good 6 or 7 months before it comes out, so anything might happen between now and then.
 
The XDCAM EX camcorder will make the most sense in small production systems, where the shooter and editor is often the same person,” Ott said. “In this type of production environment, you can easily control the flash media as it cycles between shooting and feeding the NLE.”

The planned camcorder is based on MPEG-2 compression technology with three, ½-inch imagers. It will be switchable between 1080/60i and 720/60P, and be capable of recording 1080/50i/30P/25P/24P and 720/50P. The camera will also have slow and quick motion functionality.

http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_r...uction/content_create_edit/release/29851.html
 
harddrive said:
Chris - don't get too hung up on the numbers. The colour of the HVX may well be very pleasing, but I think it may well be due to factors other than colour space, and here we are making a comparison with a camera not yet shipping. I can't but see that certain aspects of that will be very positive (true manual lens, for starters) but let's compare actual pictures when the EX is available.

And "4:2:2", "4:2:0" never tell you the whole story in isolation. For 720, DVCProHD luminance resolution is 960x720, with the chrominance channels 480x720. That compares with a 4:2:0 system with lum res 1280x720, chrom res 640x360. In other words, the 4:2:0 system actually has better horizontal luminance AND chrominance resolution, at the expense of vertical chrom res!

Without defining what "4" refers to, colour space ratios can be very misleading. 4:2:0 certainly shouldn't be seen as a deal breaker.
Click to expand...

I'd take that to a professional colorist and see what he thinks of it.

You can do a lot more with HVX200 footage than you can with any of the current 4:2:0 cameras out there. I see no reason why that should change. 4:2:0 breaks a lot quicker than DVCProHD HVX200 4:2:2, at least in our tests on a DaVinci2k.

On paper, maybe you are correct but in the grade I very much disagree.

For me 4:2:0 is always going to be a deal breaker.

I like the look of the new 4:2:2 camera from Sony. Only thing is that the Red looks better.
 
I will most likely be sticking with the hvx. The sony will cost almost double what the hvx costs.

I know we don't exactly know all of the sony's tech specs yet, but this baby has a fixed lens. Not really all that ground breaking if you ask me. The express cards are cool, but my P2 workflow is flawless now and I'm just not ready to abandon it yet.

As for the xdcam is codec. If sony doesn't include their newest codec then in my eyes the picture will be inferior to the hvx.

This is of course all speculation by me. Sony's prosumer cams have let me down more than once in field, and as for the hvx it has never let me down. Not even once.
 
I have to say that if the sony is under 7k it will be the GREAT camera of the year. I can't understand why there is so much doubt. Obviously this workflow will be amazing it is P2 without the high cost and slow transfers. The sony 35MB codec has 40% less compression than all the other hdv cameras. It has a real manual lens and 1/2 inch imager. Do you understand that you will be able shoot with a lot less light which normally means less setup time. Do you understand that you will be able to get a that beautiful depth of field that you always wanted. If the image quality is close to the f350 with more dynamic range than the hvx and priced under 7k it is the IT camera.

HVX200(6k) + 35mm adapter package(2k) = 8k
Sony XDCAM EX =7-8k

I normally hate how sony does things but thumbs up with this one. :)
 
half inch chips arent going to eliminate the need for 35adapters.

though they will help with the light loss :)

i am excited for this machine. i really want it to be awesome. i will definitly get one if it reallly rocks hard.
 
TimurCivan said:
half inch chips arent going to eliminate the need for 35adapters.

though they will help with the light loss :)

i am excited for this machine. i really want it to be awesome. i will definitly get one if it reallly rocks hard.
Click to expand...

It might eliminate the NEED for them. I do agree it isn't 2/3 chip but it should work for most situations. I wonder if there are any charts around here that show the differences in DOF between 1/3,1/2,2/3 chip, and film dof.
 
the difference between a half inch and a third inch isnt much.... the back ground will go soft a TOUCH faster but thats it. on the wide end of the lens its going to be forver DOF again.
 
Anybody remember the old Canon L2 Hi8 Cameras? They had 1/2 inch sensors. To my recollection the Shallow DOF capabilities were quite good with that camera.
 
Simon Wyndham said:
If the chip is anything like the one in the current XD HD line, the photosensitive area will go much further to the edges of the chip. The sensors in the current cameras actually have a larger pickup area than most 1/2" chips.
Click to expand...

Does that translate to a noticeable increase in depth of field?
 
You can play with DOF numbers at the panavision.co.nz website's dof calculator to see for yourself what the difference would be.
 
booth said:
You can do a lot more with HVX200 footage than you can with any of the current 4:2:0 cameras out there. I see no reason why that should change. 4:2:0 breaks a lot quicker than DVCProHD HVX200 4:2:2, at least in our tests on a DaVinci2k............

For me 4:2:0 is always going to be a deal breaker.
Click to expand...
But......... can you be sure that the problem is 4:2:0? I won't dispute your tests, but to draw the conclusion you do ("For me 4:2:0 is always going to be a deal breaker") you really need to keep all other variables constant - same compression, same bitrate, same resolution etc. If you don't, how can you be sure that it is the 4:2:0 that is causing the problem, and not some other parameter?

And are we talking about interlaced footage or progressive? For interlace I'll agree that 4:2:2 may have things to commend it over 4:2:0, but in progressive I find it conceivable that redistributing the samples to give extra luminance resolution MAY give better results overall. All else kept equal.
I like the look of the new 4:2:2 camera from Sony. Only thing is that the Red looks better.
Click to expand...
Spec wise I agree, and I like the idea of wavelet compression over MPEG2, or DVCProHD for that matter.
 
harddrive said:
you really need to keep all other variables constant - same compression, same bitrate, same resolution etc. If you don't, how can you be sure that it is the 4:2:0 that is causing the problem, and not some other parameter?
Click to expand...

Because if they made a 100mbps XDcam format camera, we probably would be using that. that kind of bandwidth would be a miracle on Mpeg encoding.

Look at the footage next time you get a chance. There is the standard DV like pixel blcoked Reds and blues in HDV.

The hvx200/Hpx500/Varicam etc. also pixelate the saturated colors, but the blockiness is 2x as fine. IT still pixelates, but its a finer pixelation. and that REALLY does make a difference regardless of what paper stats say.
 
Geez guys a simple trip to Wikipedia confirms that
4:2:0

This scheme is found in:
  • All versions of MPEG, including MPEG-2 implementations such as DVD
AND

There are three variants of 4:2:0 schemes, having different horizontal and vertical siting.
  • In MPEG-2, Cb and Cr are cosited horizontally.
  • In JPEG/JFIF, H.261, and MPEG-1, Cb and Cr are sited interstitially, halfway between alternate luma samples.
  • In 4:2:0 DV, Cb and Cr alternate line by line.
he MPEG-2 standard allows for an alternate interlaced sampling scheme where 4:2:0 is applied to each field (not both fields at once). This solves the problem of motion artifacts.
Original. *This image shows a single field. The moving text has some motion blur applied to it.

4:2:0 progressive sampling applied to moving interlaced material. Note that the chroma leads and trails the moving text. *This image shows a single field.

4:2:0 interlaced sampling applied to moving interlaced material. *This image shows a single field.
In the 4:2:0 interlaced scheme however, vertical resolution of the chroma is roughly halved since the chroma samples effectively describe an area 2 samples wide by 4 samples tall instead of 2X2. As well, the spatial displacement between both fields can result in the appearance of comb-like chroma artifacts.

Original still image.

4:2:0 progressive sampling applied to a still image. Both fields are shown.

4:2:0 interlaced sampling applied to a still image. Both fields are shown.
If the interlaced material is to be de-interlaced, the comb-like chroma artifacts (from 4:2:0 interlaced sampling) can be removed by blurring the chroma vertically.[3][4]
 
I'm interested in this camera but I couldn't find anywhere on the exact release date. Any chance this camea will be released before the end of this year...like Christmas?
 
Thanks! By the way, I've read that the lens of the XDCam Ex is manual. So then I wonder if the lens is also interchangeble. Anyone know?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top