Vieuw on XD cam
- Thread starter xray
- Start date
yeah.. its creeping up there in price but i think it was worth having a section for it.
here is the F350, which adds over/under cranking.
here is the F350, which adds over/under cranking.
Last edited:
Joe_Digital
Well-known member
Well, let's just start with the chart: XDCam recording specs...sample rate, bit rate, and compression. For this to work, one will have to record to an external device -VTR or otherwise. Keep in mind the PDW530 is a 2/3" CCD in SD mode, and it still sells for more money...the only problem is that Sony will not allow you to upconvert the 530 in their F70 VTR...silly, but I figure that has to do with wanting to move a lot of these puppies. Too bad though, because the PDW is 50MBits at a million pixels in SD.
Sony came to town a little over a month ago and did the dog and pony show. Yes, even on a 60" plasma, the footage looked good, but it was predominantly 60i footage. Not much discussion over the 24 frame, but they did chat up the variable frame -we all agree it's a great function, even if it adds several thousand to the camera. But we've also heard that anything over 30 frames resolves at half the resolution vertically. Not so good.
If someone is going to invest in this camera, recording externally (and therefore avoiding the specs above) will be the saving grace.
Sony came to town a little over a month ago and did the dog and pony show. Yes, even on a 60" plasma, the footage looked good, but it was predominantly 60i footage. Not much discussion over the 24 frame, but they did chat up the variable frame -we all agree it's a great function, even if it adds several thousand to the camera. But we've also heard that anything over 30 frames resolves at half the resolution vertically. Not so good.
If someone is going to invest in this camera, recording externally (and therefore avoiding the specs above) will be the saving grace.
xray
Well-known member
Joe_Digital said:
You are recording on a disk it is a IT based tapeless system, during recording no VTR needed. We are talking about the PDW F350 a 3 chip 1/2 " HD camera not the 530, it is a different camera! XDcam creates real time low res SD proxys on the same disk together with the HD material, those proxys (Mpeg4) you can use for offline editing or webtransmission.
:love4:
Last edited:
Joe_Digital
Well-known member
i'm very much aware of the technology and the difference between the cameras. I've used the 530 a lot and was very impressed with it, so naturally I was curious about the 330/350 (and the abilities of the F70 VTR), but when the specs came out, I became dumbfounded by Sony and this so-called 'mid-range solution.'
What I was trying to say is that the PDW has been upconverted to HD by others and looks very good. That said, I have not seen the F330 or 350 footage in HD beside 530 footage upcoverted, but based on the heavy compression of the 330/350 versus the milder compression and 4:2:2 sampling of the 530, I would guess it would look extremely good. If the F70 had the ability to upconvert the 50 MBit signal (yet curiously it will upconvert the 25 MBit signal), then one could probably discover a better SD image being produced from the 530...
The problem with this camera recording to disk is the recording to disk, which is why I've suggested the best solution for anyone wanting to use the camera is to record the signal from the HD-SDI out, then you will avoid the terrible sampling and limiting bit rate -while taking advantage of the resolution the camera block is producing.
Personally I feel Sony has made a huge error. Calling the 330 or 350 a CineAlta camera is a joke. The F900 is 144MBits to tape at 2.2 Million pixels, but again Sony uses an 8 bit 3;3;1 compression ratio, and there again, the best solution is to record to an external deck if you really care about the image you're trying to capture. All that said, I believe this thread is about the camera's capabilities versus the price point...so I guess we have to take that into consideration.
What I was trying to say is that the PDW has been upconverted to HD by others and looks very good. That said, I have not seen the F330 or 350 footage in HD beside 530 footage upcoverted, but based on the heavy compression of the 330/350 versus the milder compression and 4:2:2 sampling of the 530, I would guess it would look extremely good. If the F70 had the ability to upconvert the 50 MBit signal (yet curiously it will upconvert the 25 MBit signal), then one could probably discover a better SD image being produced from the 530...
The problem with this camera recording to disk is the recording to disk, which is why I've suggested the best solution for anyone wanting to use the camera is to record the signal from the HD-SDI out, then you will avoid the terrible sampling and limiting bit rate -while taking advantage of the resolution the camera block is producing.
Personally I feel Sony has made a huge error. Calling the 330 or 350 a CineAlta camera is a joke. The F900 is 144MBits to tape at 2.2 Million pixels, but again Sony uses an 8 bit 3;3;1 compression ratio, and there again, the best solution is to record to an external deck if you really care about the image you're trying to capture. All that said, I believe this thread is about the camera's capabilities versus the price point...so I guess we have to take that into consideration.
Simon Wyndham
Well-known member
The mbps rating is misleading. Tests so far seem to indicate that it is much better than a normal HDV camera, and the electronics reinforce this even more. The Cinealta badge is silver on the XDCAM HD, not gold.
Now, when you are recording 24p on the XDCAM HD, apparently it does not place it in an interlaced stream as per usual. According to Sony it only records the frames needed to the disc in progressive mode. This would make the datarate go even further.
There will be a 2/3" version of XDCAM HD.
You won't get an F900 quality for this price, and I'm amazed people constantly seem to expect this.
Now, when you are recording 24p on the XDCAM HD, apparently it does not place it in an interlaced stream as per usual. According to Sony it only records the frames needed to the disc in progressive mode. This would make the datarate go even further.
There will be a 2/3" version of XDCAM HD.
You won't get an F900 quality for this price, and I'm amazed people constantly seem to expect this.
xray
Well-known member
Difference XDCAM and XDCAM-HD
Difference XDCAM and XDCAM-HD
I was not clear in my original post that this info is based on the HD version. I´ll try to light it up a litlle. There is a difference between XDCAM and XDCAM-HD, the Sony PDW 530 is a XDCAM camcorder. The PDW-F350 is a XDCAM-HD camcorder.
The main difference is :
XDCAM = IMX 30/40/50 mbit I-frame based compression, 4:2:2 (every frame has its own unique compression, easy to edit like DV, open standard)
XDCAM HD = long GOP 18/25/35 Mb/s 1440 X 1080 8-bit MPEG-2 4:2:0 (in short: only I frames are used for compression the others are in between, not so easy to edit)
Both systems record on the same 23 GB blue laser disks, both systems use uncompressed 4 channel 48 kHz audio at 16-bit. Both share the ´good old´ DVCAM mode like we now it.
Difference XDCAM and XDCAM-HD
I was not clear in my original post that this info is based on the HD version. I´ll try to light it up a litlle. There is a difference between XDCAM and XDCAM-HD, the Sony PDW 530 is a XDCAM camcorder. The PDW-F350 is a XDCAM-HD camcorder.
The main difference is :
XDCAM = IMX 30/40/50 mbit I-frame based compression, 4:2:2 (every frame has its own unique compression, easy to edit like DV, open standard)
XDCAM HD = long GOP 18/25/35 Mb/s 1440 X 1080 8-bit MPEG-2 4:2:0 (in short: only I frames are used for compression the others are in between, not so easy to edit)
Both systems record on the same 23 GB blue laser disks, both systems use uncompressed 4 channel 48 kHz audio at 16-bit. Both share the ´good old´ DVCAM mode like we now it.
Joe_Digital
Well-known member
Yes, and if you try to sell a film shot on this camera to HDNet for example you won't be able to do the sale because of what it will look like technically. Now, regardless of what you say about a guy like Cuban, or Voom HD, or Discovery HD, they are quite stringent in their technical standards. Unfortunately, they don't consider the quality of the content over the techical specs, which is too bad...
Long GOP -yeah, hmmm. It may manipulate better -but think about it. You can record 45 minutes of SD 50 Mbit 4:2:2, or you canrecord 60 minutes of "HD-XD". I'm guessing that means they are throwing out a lot of information. Will it be for the better? Until we see side by side, it will be hard to say. And once someone finally does it, what are we going to say? Well, anything over a million pixels is technically HD?
Remember Sony is the same company that says the HDCam codec is great, when it reality it is not. It's old technology, but it changed filmmaking. SR in a one piece F900 body should be out by now, but it isn't. Instead we have something bigger with Genesis and we can only rent the puppy. All I want is for a guy like Jannard to be successful in his rollout because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Sony gear, and while the equipment is rock solid reliable, it has been incredibly expensive, and as Panasonic ahs proven, it doesn't have to be.
Long GOP -yeah, hmmm. It may manipulate better -but think about it. You can record 45 minutes of SD 50 Mbit 4:2:2, or you canrecord 60 minutes of "HD-XD". I'm guessing that means they are throwing out a lot of information. Will it be for the better? Until we see side by side, it will be hard to say. And once someone finally does it, what are we going to say? Well, anything over a million pixels is technically HD?
Remember Sony is the same company that says the HDCam codec is great, when it reality it is not. It's old technology, but it changed filmmaking. SR in a one piece F900 body should be out by now, but it isn't. Instead we have something bigger with Genesis and we can only rent the puppy. All I want is for a guy like Jannard to be successful in his rollout because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Sony gear, and while the equipment is rock solid reliable, it has been incredibly expensive, and as Panasonic ahs proven, it doesn't have to be.
Simon Wyndham
Well-known member
Well, Sony isn't going to go on record and say that their own codec is no good now are they?
Stop getting hung up on numbers. Look at the camera when it comes out. Ive seen it first hand and it produces a really good clean picture. It won't beat an F900, but it certainly is a lot better than any of the 1/3" cameras out there.
Stop getting hung up on numbers. Look at the camera when it comes out. Ive seen it first hand and it produces a really good clean picture. It won't beat an F900, but it certainly is a lot better than any of the 1/3" cameras out there.
Joe_Digital
Well-known member
I'm not getting hung up on numbers. I've seen this footage first hand too and ahve shot extensively with the 530. I'm not sure the point of this thread was to argue whether or not the image is better than 1/3 cameras. I would say that is a given.
The point is Sony has the technology and ability to put a better camera on the market that can be cheaper but superior in picture quality than the F900 but chooses not to. They could definitely improve on this camera without much effort -but they have decided to wait to release it a year from now...why? Why not increase the data write speed on the disk and improve the bit rate now? If you can put 100 Mbit at 6:7:1 ratio on a 4GB P2 card, then why not provide better picture quality instead of introducing artifacts? Granted in the SDI and HD-SDI world that images aren't so bad if you don't manipulate the footage too much, but if you're putting real care into the work you do and want to future proof, well the only way to go is still with the far more expensive cameras -i.e. F900, Varicam, D-20, Genesis, etc. to avoid the picture quality/resolution issues. it comes down to how much money does one wish to invest in a technology that is not bad, but will be replaced in less than a year? From a business POV it doesn't make sense -at least mine anyway- Sony's may be different. Perhaps it is moot given that there are a select number of people here who make their livings making films and only want to invest so much into the picture capture device of their choice. If it is about quality and ROI, this may not be the best camera. it's definitely an alternative. But if I am doing features and dramas in the low budget world, I want to know I have something with enough pixel integrity to last...after all, spending a million plus on a film is still a lot of money. The question is: to remain in the digital world, what is the most affordable?
Shall we return to the subject of affordability and what kind of camera you get for that? would that be more appropriate?
The point is Sony has the technology and ability to put a better camera on the market that can be cheaper but superior in picture quality than the F900 but chooses not to. They could definitely improve on this camera without much effort -but they have decided to wait to release it a year from now...why? Why not increase the data write speed on the disk and improve the bit rate now? If you can put 100 Mbit at 6:7:1 ratio on a 4GB P2 card, then why not provide better picture quality instead of introducing artifacts? Granted in the SDI and HD-SDI world that images aren't so bad if you don't manipulate the footage too much, but if you're putting real care into the work you do and want to future proof, well the only way to go is still with the far more expensive cameras -i.e. F900, Varicam, D-20, Genesis, etc. to avoid the picture quality/resolution issues. it comes down to how much money does one wish to invest in a technology that is not bad, but will be replaced in less than a year? From a business POV it doesn't make sense -at least mine anyway- Sony's may be different. Perhaps it is moot given that there are a select number of people here who make their livings making films and only want to invest so much into the picture capture device of their choice. If it is about quality and ROI, this may not be the best camera. it's definitely an alternative. But if I am doing features and dramas in the low budget world, I want to know I have something with enough pixel integrity to last...after all, spending a million plus on a film is still a lot of money. The question is: to remain in the digital world, what is the most affordable?
Shall we return to the subject of affordability and what kind of camera you get for that? would that be more appropriate?
Simon Wyndham
Well-known member
No, I think you are wrong. The XDCAM writing needs overhead, and Sony have already said that a 2/3" version of HD XDCAM is on the way. This is precisely the camera specification that you are talking about. There is a lot Sony are doing or have planned for various cameras, trust me.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Excellent post. I'm with you. That's the point. Unfortunately, these great brands -- the major ones, they have a different POV than ourselves. So much different than our interest. Of course, the cost of the gear it's merely the market target price that they're thinking it's possible to get with it following our product's revenue (because of that Panavision or Dalsa rents not sells) plus the balance with the competition's offers. That's why it's dangerous from a strictly indie POV to follow their offers. At least, without to think what will be the most suitable solution to our pocket/work.Joe_Digital said:
Last edited:
Simon Wyndham
Well-known member
The 2/3" version is mentioned in the XDCAM official FAQ. It has also been mentioned to a number of other people.
It isn't in Sony's interest to release an F900 equivilent at such a low price level. Just as Panasonic won't release a Varicam beater for the same price as an SPX800.
The XDCAM HD was not designed for indy moviemaking. It was designed mainly for the industrial and low budget ENG market. They used this form of compression because they wanted to maintain compatibility with existing NLE's, and also reduce the processing overhead of NLE's that will accept the 35mbps footage. It is a step up from HDV. Just as the 2/3" XDCAM HD will be a step up from the 1/2" XDCAM, thus creating a full compliment of high def cameras at all price ranges.
Why not a 2/3" XDCAM HD with higher bitrate now? Because it will require a dual laser head, and possibly a newly designed disc to handle more information that Sony have not perfected yet.
FX1
Z1
PDW-330 XDCAM HD
PDW-350 XDCAM HD
PDW-??? 2/3" XDCAM HD
HDW-730S
HDW-750
F900
F950
Sony have no plans to make their whole line up tapeless AFAIK.
It isn't in Sony's interest to release an F900 equivilent at such a low price level. Just as Panasonic won't release a Varicam beater for the same price as an SPX800.
The XDCAM HD was not designed for indy moviemaking. It was designed mainly for the industrial and low budget ENG market. They used this form of compression because they wanted to maintain compatibility with existing NLE's, and also reduce the processing overhead of NLE's that will accept the 35mbps footage. It is a step up from HDV. Just as the 2/3" XDCAM HD will be a step up from the 1/2" XDCAM, thus creating a full compliment of high def cameras at all price ranges.
Why not a 2/3" XDCAM HD with higher bitrate now? Because it will require a dual laser head, and possibly a newly designed disc to handle more information that Sony have not perfected yet.
FX1
Z1
PDW-330 XDCAM HD
PDW-350 XDCAM HD
PDW-??? 2/3" XDCAM HD
HDW-730S
HDW-750
F900
F950
Sony have no plans to make their whole line up tapeless AFAIK.
Simon Wyndham said:
The biggest gap in that line up is between Z1 and the PDW-330. If Sony continues the same development route with HDV as they did with DVCAM, on the horizon should be HDV DSR250 and HDV DSR450's. A HDV 450 would then give you an option between tape or 35mb to disc on the 330. But they could also limit the tape camera to a 1/2" mount.
The above theory is based on the release of the new large tape format capable HDV decks and speculation on my part.
Please tell me where in the XDCAM FAQ that it states that a 2/3" HD XDCam is in development for the production line.Simon Wyndham said:
By HDCAM they are only referring to the current tape based line. Which they later state in the FAQ will not be eliminated.Sony XDCAM FAQ said:
Sony XDCAM FAQ said:
A 2/3" HD XDCAM is probably nothing more than a future concept idea for Sony right now. Price point and high power consumption would make a 2/3" XD HDCAM impractical with today's technology. A Blu-Ray drive that could write 100+mbs would theoretically consume even more power.
For those who say that a 2/3" HD XDCam is "right around the corner" or "on the horizion", I think you will be sadly disappointed in 2006-07.
Last edited:
Zig_Zigman
Well-known member
Everyone knows Sony's game. They try to get you on the crappy bandwagon by promsing the 2/3 version soon. Bwahaa I laff at zer foolishness ;-)
myfriendimage
Carbonite Member
I would take XDCAM over P2 any day of the week.
it works over firewire, just like the other cams.. you do not need a deck to ingest.
Danilo Del Tufo
Well-known member
Thanks Jarred! You're always kind and helpful! 
I'd like to know also your precious word of advice about my interrogatives...what do you think?
I'd like to know also your precious word of advice about my interrogatives...what do you think?