(Page 1 of 3 pages for this article 1 2 3 >)
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Preview: Sony PMW-350 2/3” 3-CMOS XDCAM EX Camcorder
Adam Wilt | 11/25
XDCAM EX bulks up and goes shoulder-mount… for a price.
Sony has announced the PMW-350, the first 2/3” camcorder in the EX series of solid-state memory-based MPEG2 camcorders. It’ll ship in January 2010. Sony kindly lent me a pre-production prototype for a week, and this preview is the result: not an all-out review, because the PMW-350 isn’t finished yet, but a good “first look” that’s probably 90% accurate regarding the final product.
Overview
The PMW-350 is a 3-CMOS, shoulder-mount camcorder recording 35 mbit/sec XDCAM EX files on SxS cards. It will ship in two configurations: the US$20,500 PMW-350L without a lens, and the $22,000 PMW-350K with a 16x auto/manual focus Fujinon lens. Both kits will include a new, 3.5” LCD viewfinder derived from the same LCD/EVF panel used on the EX1 and EX3, a shoulder strap, and a stereo microphone—but, as is usually the case with “real” professional cameras, no tripod adapter, no battery, and no AC supply. The “K” kit adds the VCL-816BYS lens, which offer the same sort of auto/manual focusing options as its brethren on the EX1 and EX3. To the best of my knowledge this is the first time autofocus has been available on a 2/3” ENG-style lens.
The PMW-350 side by side with a PMW-EX1.
The 350 includes all the flexibility of the smaller 1/2” EX cameras—1080i, 1080p, and 720p recording, with fully variable frame rates from 1-30fps in 1080 and 1-60fps in 720p, and both 60Hz and 50Hz operation—and adds SD recording (as does the PMW-EX1R, a revised version of the EX1 shipping in December 2009). Of course the 350 uses 2/3” sensors, and offers all sorts of possibilities that are taken for granted on bigger cams: interchangeable lenses, plug-in wireless mike receivers, four channels of audio (each with its own physical level control), multiple kinds of ENG and studio viewfinders, remote controls, V-mount batteries, camera-powered ENG lights, and so on.
The PMW-350 really bridges the gap between 1/2” or smaller handheld cameras and 2/3” pro camcorders; different aspects of it will feel strange or familiar depending on your background. Users of broadcast/professional shoulder-mount cams will find that the PMW-350 looks and handles much like any other 2/3” camcorder, but may be surprised by the CMOS sensors, the hierarchical menu tree in place of other cameras’ page-based menu systems, the autofocus capability, and the electronic back-focus adjustment. EX1/EX3 aficionados will be comfortable with performance and flexibility of the CMOS sensors and most of the tweaks available in the menus, but will notice that the menus have been rearranged to fit the mindset of big-camera users, and will be confronted with the bulk, weight, and controls of a shoulder-mount camcorder—and the entirely different ergonomics of such a beast. On the one hand, there’s no Steadyshot image stabilization; on the other, the sheer mass of the machine, nicely balanced on the shoulder, makes for more inherently stable images than Handycam users are used to.
Design, Controls, and Handling
The PMW-350 is a conventional shoulder-mount camcorder, with an overall design and layout very similar to those of Sony’s PDW- and HDW-series camcorders. Users of those camcorders could pick up a PMW-350 and start shooting with it without ever cracking open the ops manual.
In shooting configuration, with the 16x Fujinon lens, BP-GL65 battery, EVF, and SxS cards attached, the 350 tips the scales at 14 pounds. It’s 22 inches long (front of lens hood to back of battery), 10.5 inches tall, and 10 to 12 inches wide depending on the EVF’s lateral positioning.
Side view: the 350 is rather a bit larger than the EX1.
Compared to an EX1, it’s a substantial step up, but for a 2/3” camcorder it’s both compact and lightweight.
The 16x zoom lens, part of the PMW-350K package, combines features of traditional 2/3” ENG lenses and the lenses found on 1/2” EX camcorders.
Fujinon VCL-816BYS 2/3” autofocus lens.
A rubberized, squared-off lens hood sits at the front; it uses a conventional pop-off lens cap instead of the flip-open shutters found on the 1/2” cameras. 82mm filters can be threaded into the lens itself.
A ridged, rubberized focus ring sits in front of a focus scale engraved with both foot and meter markings. The focus scale is geared for an add-on remote focus control. Manual focus throw is about 90 degrees from end to end. As with the EX1 and EX3, full manual focus is engaged by snapping the focus ring back against the focusing scale; focusing is still done by internal servos, but their response is so quick that the lens feels just like a conventional manual-focus lens. Snap the focus ring forward, though, and the lens behaves like a small-camcorder lens, offering both manual focus-by-wire (with a macro range, but with no firm endstops) and full autofocus capability with manual momentary override. Cleverly, the focus ring reveals an orange line around its front when in full-manual mode, so you can see at a glance how the lens is set up.
The VCL-816BYS focus ring snapped backwards for full manual focus.
The VCL-816BYS focus ring snapped forwards for auto or manual focus.
Unlike the lenses on smaller EX camcorders, the VCL-816BYS’s focus scale is external, not revealed through small windows on the side of the lens, so it’s much easier to see where the focus is set. When the lens is in AF/MF mode (auto/manual servo focus), the focus scale turns freely between its endstops, but does not affect the focus of the lens. Until you learn to look for the orange “full MF” line on the lens, this can be a bit disconcerting. Fortunately the orange line is the same color as the scale’s foot engravings, so it’s readily apparent what the linkage is, and using the orange line to mentally “enable” the lens’s focus scale soon becomes second nature.
Aft of the focus scale, a ridged but not rubberized ring controls the zoom. It also has a 90 degree throw end to end, and it’s a fully mechanical system. As with other 2/3” lenses, a rotating switch on the underside of the handgrip engages or disengages the handgrip’s zoom motor.
A conventional, mechanical iris ring allows settings from f/1.9 down to fully closed. A slide switch on the handgrip chooses auto or manual iris, and a momentary auto-iris pushbutton lets you quickly set exposure.
The lens has left-side slide switches to enable macro focusing (which lets things get closer to the lens, at the expense of somewhat slower autofocus performance), and to choose whether the AF/MF mode of the lens allows continuous autofocus or simply lets you focus manually—in which case the PUSH AF button lets you momentarily autofocus in the same manner as on the lowliest Handycam!
The handgrip has a pushbutton on the back to start and stop recording, and a “return video” button on the top which can be assigned any of a variety of functions. On its underside, along with the lever to engage the power zoom, is an “F.f.” button to perform an automated back-focus adjustment, and a covered port for a standard, 2/3” Fujinon remote zoom controller.
Under the VCL-816BYS: note the “F.f.” back-focus button.
The lens mounts using a standard 2/3” bayonet mount, and any 2/3” lens with a compatible mount may be used.
The stock lens is compact for a 16x 2/3” zoom, so it makes the rest of the body seem large by comparison:
Left-side view of the PMW-350.
Operator controls on the 350 look and feel just like those on any other Sony 2/3” camcorder, give or take the odd assignable switch or two.
Left-side camera controls, with the menu switch panel opened.
A rotating knob selects one or none of three built-in ND filters. A COLOR TEMP button cycles through several preset electronic color-temperature settings by default, or it can be assigned a custom function, in which case its embedded LED will light when activated. Two assignable pushbuttons with embedded LEDS sit below it, and one assignable slide switch. On this prototype, there’s no indication when the slide switch is in its active state (its backing is equally orange in either the forward or backward position); I hope that when the 350 ships it will show some visible indication.
Two slide switches control what audio is sent to the monitor speaker and to the earphone or headset. Two dials control the monitor speaker’s audio volume and alarm volume.
A standard broadcast-cam switch panel holds three-position toggles for gain (high, medium, and low; all are programmable), output (bars, camera video, camera video with Dynamic Contrast Control), and white balance (preset, A, and B; by default B is auto-tracking white balance). The frontmost switch, which would normally be the STBY (standby) switch on a tape-based camcorder, is another assignable switch on the PMW-350.
Below that switch panel is a flip-down cover protecting a menu-access toggle and a second toggle for menu manipulation. These work in concert with a thumbwheel mounted on the leading edge of the panel, so you can traverse the menus with ease even while the camera is on your shoulder. The second toggle is still accessible with the cover closed and can be used to check button assignments, gain settings, and other status items. Beneath those switches is a blank panel which, in some other Sonys, would be occupied by a Memory Stick slot for backing up settings and setup files. As the 350 uses SxS cards for recording, it can also use them for settings files, so there’s no need for Memory Sticks here.
Below the menu switches, there’s a big power toggle switch in a recessed well, just like on other “real” cameras.
Moving towards the rear, there’s a big LCD displaying counter numbers, timecode, or user bits; media and battery levels; and four level meters for all four audio channels. White backlighting is available on a pushbutton.
The VTR—erm, recording—section, with LCD and covered controls.
Two flip-down panels protect sensitive controls, yet still allow audio level adjustment for those so inclined. For more detailed control, flip down the rearmost panel to gain access to more audio settings and to enable easier twiddling of the gain controls.
Audio and timecode controls with their cover flipped down.
Flipping down the other panel reveals pushbuttons for invoking thumbnail-display mode and for manipulating the menus (you can use either the front-panel toggles and thumbwheel or these pushbuttons as you see fit; the menu system is the same regardless of how you gain access to it).
Menu and thumbnail controls have their own flip-down cover.
Rear panel connectors: i.Link uses a full-size 6-pin port.
The back panel of the camera has a 3.5mm stereo headphone jack; two XLR analog audio inputs with slide switches for line or mike levels and phantom power; a four-pin XLR audio output, standard DC in and DC out jacks, an HD-SDI BNC, an 8-pin Sony remote-control port, and a full-size 6-pin i.Link port for DVCAM and HDV input and output (the camera must be in one of the HDV- or DVCAM- compatible recording modes for this jack to be active, of course). V-mount batteries snap on above these jacks.
Right-side view of PMW-350.
The right side of the camera is unusually empty; most of where you’d expect to find a tape or disc drive is a blank panel. The PMW-350 records on SxS cards, SATA-interface memory cards in the ExpressCard34 form factor. Two such cards lurk in slots behind a side-open door with a weather-sealing gasket around its perimeter.
Two SxS card slots in an over/under layout.
The vertical arrangement of the slots has the advantage over previous side-by-side layouts of separating the eject buttons for the two slots, making accidental ejection of the wrong card less likely. Status LEDs glow green during read access and red during recording; they have light-pipes in the door so they’re visible with the door closed, but on this prototype they didn’t line up as well as they should have and were rather dim with the door closed.
Sony touts this placement of the card slots for the ease with which an assistant can swap cards without disturbing the operator. That may be true, but the slots’ position on the “away side”, along with the SLOT SELECT button beneath them, make their access more problematic for the solo operator when compared to the same-side slots on the EX1 and EX3. It’s no worse than tape or disc placement on most other 2/3” cameras, of course.
BNCs and full-size HDMI connectors on lower right side.
Below the slots, more I/O connectors lurk: BNCs for genlock in, timecode in and out, and composite video out. There’s also a full-size HDMI connector! You don’t get component analog out, nor Y/C, but those are less of an issue in this future-oriented camera than in smaller, more consumer-friendly models. Furthermore, their absence means that there’s no need for Sony to clutter up the I/O with oddball proprietary D-shell connectors like those plaguing the EX1 and EX3 along with most other small HD camcorders: every I/O signal on this camera uses a commonly-available, industry-standard connector. Huzzah!
Looking along the top of the camera with the EVF and playback control cover flipped open.
On the top panel of the camera, just above the SxS slots, there’s a slot for a plug-in, two-channel wireless receiver. A stout and comfortable carry handle with a switch-selectable rear tally lamp sprouts up ahead of it and runs to the front. It has two more assignable pushbuttons beneath a slide-away protective cover; normally these provide zoom-in and zoom-out functions at a single presettable speed (assuming the lens support serial control from the camera), but they can be changed to any of about 35 different functions just like the other assignable switches and buttons. There’s a 1/4"x20 tapped accessory mount at the front.
Playback controls sit on the top left side, under a flip-open protective cover. These are the same pushbuttons used on shoulder-mount Sonys for well over a decade; the only difference in their operation on the 350 is the complete absence of transport noise and vibration: moving electrons through SxS cards is silent and smooth.
Full frontal view with stock EVF and Fujinon lens.
The front of the camera has sockets to plug in the supplied stereo mike and a 12-pin lens connector, as well as two viewfinder sockets. A flat, rectangular one is used only to connect the PMW-350’s LCD finder, while a more rounded one is used for other finders, both CRT and LCD and both monochrome and color, should the supplied viewfinder not satisfy you. Only one viewfinder socket may be used at a time. Down below, there’s a body-mounted REC START button, a shutter selection switch behind a safety cover, and a microphone level control protected from accidental operation by a sliding rubber barrier beneath it. This control, working in series with the left-rear gain pots, lets the solo operator adjust levels with ease.
The EVF itself has dials for brightness and contrast, as well as an proper variable peaking control—hooray! A MIRROR switch lets you reverse the image left-to-right, so you can use the image viewed directly, or reflected in the EVF’s mirror; as well as flipping it top-to-bottom should you decide to use a 35mm lens adapter with its accompanying image inversion. Other switches turn the superimposed data display and zebra display on and off, and let you set the front-mounted tally lamp to be off, low, or high.
The EVF uses the same 3.5” LCD panel as the EX1 and EX3, though it’s housed in an all-new housing. It still resolves about 500 TVl/ph horizontally and 400 or better vertically; it’s sharp enough to focus with.
The 3.5” EVF with most data display options turned on.
The EVF provides all the data displays that EX1 and EX3 users have come to expect, though they’re arranged somewhat differently (compare them to the EX3’s data display). The PMW-350 also offers the choice of color peaking (synthesized, “digital” peaking) as used on the EX1 and Sony’s HDV Handycams, normal peaking (“real” peaking as found on other, “real” cameras) controlled by the dial on the EVF, or both at the same time. As on the EX3, normal peaking is applied to the entire EVF signal, so data displays get a bit edgy—but that’s a small price to pay for the fine focus discrimination afforded by a proper peaking control. The image can be also blown up about 2x using an assignable switch (I used the RET VIDEO button on the lens handgrip) for easier focusing, whether the camera is rolling or not.
One great advantage of the PMW-350’s data display is that it includes the current focal distance (assuming the lens provides that information to the camera, which the stock lens does). The 350 includes the same depth-of-field scale that the EX1 and EX3 do, but if you’re zoomed wide at most apertures, it’s useless for seeing what the current focal distance is as most of the DoF display is filled in, since nearly everything is in focus. If you need to prefocus before zooming in, the DoF scale won’t help, and if the lens is in AF/MF mode, you can’t glance at the engraved focus scale because it’s not being used— but the 350’s direct distance readout tells you exactly what you need to know. If you’re a half-inch EX shooter who needs to prefocus while rolling, this feature alone may tempt you to buy a 350.
The EVF flips open in two directions, for rear or side viewing.
The supplied eyepiece provides ample magnification, even better (if memory serves me correctly) than the eyepiece on the EX3. Viewing the image on the PMW-350 is more like sitting in the cinema than peering down a dark tunnel at a small and distant picture. The rear of the EVF can be flipped up or removed altogether for viewing the image from a distance behind the camera, and the mirror box can also be opened up or removed altogether to allow viewing from the side. The one drawback of this flexibility is that it makes it easy for dust and dirt to settle on the mirror and the face of the LCD; the prototype’s EVF had some distracting dirt on the mirror that resisted removal by blower and lens brush, and I didn’t want to risk scratching the mirror by applying stronger measures.
You can, of course, rotate the EVF up or down 90 degrees for overhead or low-mode work. The EVF slides side-to-side, and its mount moves back and forth a couple of inches, so it’s easy to get it set to your desired position.
The camera sits on your shoulder with a contoured, adjustable shoulder pad. Flipping a lever recessed into the underside of the pad frees it up to be slid back and forth a couple of inches. I found that with the lightweight BP-GL65 battery in the back and the stock lens up front, I was happiest with the shoulder pad fully forward, putting the camera as far back as possible on my shoulder. The PMW-350 was a slightly front-heavy in this setup, but not so much as to be problematic; the heavier BP-GL95 battery would probably balance it out better, and a hefty RED Brick battery definitely tipped the balance to the rear.
Next: Formats, Functions, and Features.
(Page 1 of 3 pages for this article 1 2 3 >)
You must be registered to comment. This is an effort to reduce spam. Please REGISTER HERE.
Any chance to check how the rolling shutter behaves with flashes from nearby photographers? The flash bands would be a bit of an issue.
Posted by Stephan on 11/26 at 07:20 AM
The 350’s CMOS rolling shutter performs just like the rolling shutter in other EX-series camera, so you’ll get flash bands with the 350. Sony says that the new version of Clip Browser software that will ship with the 350 includes a flash compensation function, but AFAIK there will be no in-camera compensation as on the Panasonic HPX300.
Posted by Adam Wilt on 11/26 at 09:58 AM
Wow, thanks for this preliminary impression!
However, I was half in the bag until I read the part about still shooting 8bit 4:2:0 color space.
I’ve been ready and waiting to make the jump from prosumer to full-on pro with a 2/3” shoulder mount. But I’m having a real hard time trying to get past the negative of not having 10bit 4:2:2, like the HPX300 has, for example.
In my personal opinion 10bit is as much a pro feature differentiation as anything else - if not more so. I understand that you get 10bit out on the HD-SDI but that means an external recording device etc which jumps the up cost.
So, the HPX300 is shoulder-mount for that perception of professionalism, has 10bit, has internal rolling shutter compensation, DRS, scopes and is about half the cost?
I can get two for the price of this!
Posted by wsmith on 11/26 at 12:33 PM
Just to muddy the waters further: I shot a feature last year on the 8-bit, 4:2:0 PMW-EX1, and it looks flippin’ gorgeous. True, it can’t be pushed around in post nearly as much as 10-bit material, but 8-bit isn’t the end of the world.
Set against the HPX300 (which I am eager to get my hot, sweaty hands on for a proper test), the 350 has 2/3” sensors for shallower depth of field (the HPX300 is a 1/3” camera); fully variable frame rates in both 720p and 1080p modes; and hypergammas, which I can’t say enough good things about.
But yes: it’s between 2x and 3x the cost of an HPX300; it’s bigger and heavier; the HPX300’s AVC-Intra format allows finer-edged keying and heavier manipulation in post.
They are very different beasts and depending on what you are looking for, either one is a clear winner compared to the other, even including the cost differential. It’ll be interesting to see how they fare side-by-side in the marketplace—for that matter, I’m curious about how the PMW-350 will do against the EX1/EX3, which offer essentially the same image quality and functionality (albeit in rather different, 1/2” packages) at a fraction of the cost. In this sort of apples-to-apples marketplace battle, we’ll really see how much of a premium 2/3” sensors and shoulder-mounted ergonomics are worth, eh?
Posted by Adam Wilt on 11/26 at 12:53 PM
I agree fully with everything you’re saying, Art. Now that Thanksgiving is over.
Is it just me or are you also surprised that Sony didn’t make this a 10bit camera? How can it ever really be considered a pro camera by professionals? Do you have a guess about how much that would have increased the price to?
Meanwhile where is Canon with a rejoinder to Sony and Panasonics latest moves? I’m told by some industry retail seers not to expect that Canon will ever introduce a shoulder mount pro cam because that’s not their market.
Still, a prosumer offering with a large single imager ala their DSLRs, along with their optics , and hopefully 10bit would be welcome now - if only in an annoucement.
I just don’t think I’m going to feel comfortable making any purchasing decisions on a couple of pro cameras until I see what Canon has up its sleeve.
Posted by wsmith on 11/27 at 10:44 AM
sorry for the non sequitur re Thanksgiving there. Was intending to say that now that it’s over I’m going to read all the stuff about Hypergamma you were talking about.
Still can’t make up for 8bit tho.
Posted by wsmith on 11/27 at 10:48 AM
Is it just me or are you also surprised that Sony didn’t make this a 10bit camera?
I’m not surprised at all. For most of the type of work that will be done with cameras such as this 10-bit is not needed.
Posted by Simon Wyndham on 11/27 at 05:39 PM
A $20K shoulder-cam without 4:2:2 @ 50 Mbit/s? Ok, shallower DOF than on the EX and the “size matters” form factor. For 3x the price? Seriously?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/27 at 05:59 PM
Burn-E, this stays pretty much in line with the product hierarchy as before. If the 350 had 4:2:2 and 50Mbit/sec recording, why would anyone purchase a PDW-700? Already the 350 is slightly more sensitive than the 700, and the 350’s slow motion functionality is higher resolution than the PDW-800’s, so apart from CCD’s they would cannibalise their own market.
You can record higher bitrate pictures with the 350 using a NanoFlash. $20k for this camera is reasonable.
Posted by Simon Wyndham on 11/28 at 04:07 AM
Thanks for this comprehensive review Adam. One advantage you left off was weight. After years of lugging around the BVW550 and DSR500 we own (not to mention the BVP 350 and UMatic portapack remember those!), my back is acheing for lighter cameras. Unfortunately the CMOS sensor and on-board processing are a big worry for me. I provide imaging support in a laboratory and sometimes use our cameras for imaging instrumentation where we take measurements off the picture. The CMOS shear, onboard processing and weird “mustache” distortion make measurement problematical.
I guess we will have to cough up the extra dough for a PDW-F800. Unfortunately 3x cost, more weight and more power consumption means the suffering will continue for people like me.
The really intersting question in my mind is how the news people will accept this system. Will the CMOS shear be too much for them?
I would be interested in their opinions.
Jim
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/28 at 04:45 AM
Hi Simon,
Maybe this camera really targeted to users who don’t need 10bit or care about it. But there is the 10bit HPX300 now so I think shooters are bound to consider 10bit very, very carefully.
But I can really only point to myself and my own experience. I started shooting with the advent of DV, then moved through HVD and now shoot with AVCHD. Buying 2 cams a time I’m now on my fourth set and have owned Canon, Sony and Panasonic.
I don’t pretend to understand the masterminds at Sony and who they’re targeting with this cam bit I would think I’m part some market that they are targeting - maybe not with this cam but some other future offering. I’m looking to increase my capabilities and I’m willing to spend up to 20-25k each on a couple of cameras if that’s what it takes to make me more pro in terms of what 10bit can do for me.
I’d be more than satisfied with external recording to get 10bit if this camera is better than the HPX300. But is it?
With the help of sites like this and various print publishers I’ve always strived to understand what I need to be more professional and open up more opportunities with my gear.
Now I’d like to do high-level greenscreen work, more high-level compositing, etc etc. My observation is that these things really do call for 10bit.
I feel like I’ve eaten from some ‘forbidden tree of knowledge’ about 10bit and now that Panasonic delivers that seeming promise.
All of the attention I’ve paid on this subject hasn’t been lost on me. The messsage I’ve gotten loud and clear from this site and others is that 10bit is pro. With the advent of the HPX300 I think that’s becoming crystal clear that I can have it. Unless I misunderstand Panasonic’s message and who they’re aiming at with that camera.
I understand that we can record 10bit externally on this cam and that’s good. Now I wish to know how this camera and an external recorder will perform against the XPX300 in terms of picture quality.
Does 2/3” chips win over the HPX300’s 1/3” chips?
Which one does better with greenscreen work?
Which one comes away with the best pictures and in the widest range of conditions?
CODECs like AVC-I, or long GOP AVCHD don’t really factor in too much for me personally. I’ll just transcode to Cineform intermediate and get on with the work. I’m confident that I can devise a workflow around whatever camera I choose.
If I am to go for this camera, x2, I’ll need this site to conduct the ‘mother of all shootouts’ between it and the HPX300.
A big hats off to Adam Wilt for his objective analyses and professional insights!
I’m indebted to Art, this site and the more experienced pros around here for helping. It’s no small amount of money to me and I’ll agonize until I understand everything there is to consider about these two cameras and exactly how they’ll suit my work future intentions.
I hope Art can give us the ultimate technical cage-match between these cameras on the merits of their respective picture quality.
Thanks!
Posted by wsmith on 11/28 at 12:14 PM
I’m not really sure what 10-bit footage would gain you with keying. Certainly going to 4:4:4 colour space would give you a huge advantage in keying, but 10-bit colour wouldn’t really give any advantage. Further more, any 10-bit recording system is only going to be as good as the system feeding it.
Abilities such as the sensitivity and noise levels are more important to me than 10-bit recording. I feel that in reality the marketing of 10-bit with regard to cameras has become a bit of a marketing buzz word, much like megapixels on DSLR’s, that doesn’t actually address the real technical ins and outs.
In identical perfect systems 10-bit would be better than 8-bit. But camcorders from different manufacturers are not all equal. They have advantages and disadvantages that affect the final picture outcome.
So taking the HOX300 as the example, Panasonic give you on one hand (the 10-bit recording) but take away with the other (1/3” chips). Same with Sony. You get given 2/3” chips with one hand, but 8-bit recording on the other. See where I’m coming from? No single camera is ‘better’ than the other. The only determining factor is what works best for the work that you do.
Posted by Simon Wyndham on 11/28 at 12:34 PM
Simon,
Let’s suppose we can safely forget about 4:4:4 for now given that 4:2:2 is really quite satisfactory for keying. I think it’s safe to say that if the other aspects like lighting are handled properly.
I wasn’t aware that there was such a thing as an 8bit camera that provides 4:2:2 color for internal acquisition. I thought that you require 10bit if you want 4:2:2 in a digital camera. Am I incorrect there?
I do understand that any 10bit recording system (external device) is only as good as the system feeding it. That’s why I’m paying attention this camera at all. It’s HDMI out is apparently 10bit, like the EX1, EX3 and the newly announced Sony NXCAM. Were it not for that fact, I’d have dismissed this camera as a potential candidate for me.
I’m a longtime habitue of these sites. Nowhere have I gotten the impression that 10bit capability is being used hyperbolically or as a new buzzword - as was indeed the case with ‘megapixels”.
I think your final observations are worth addressing to the utmost. One mfg give this takes that away. I’m willing to reconsider my extreme desire for 10bit but only after exhaustive comparative analysis of these 2 cams.
I think it’s a bit oversimplified to say that “No single camera is ‘better’ than the other. The only determining factor is what works best for the work that you do.”
I want to see some info on what the experts say about 8bit, 2/3” chips versus 10bit 1/3” chips in objective terms that are completely separate from a particular camera’s ergonomics or lense quality or roling shutter compensation, or DRS etc.
I do undestand that people like me need to understand what we wish to accomplish and make our camera decisions predicated on that basis.
Maybe it’s only in my mind but despite the price difference, Sony and Panasonic seem to be competing for the potential user of these new camaras.
After all, here I am looking at both cams and I’m in the position to spend 2-3 times the cost of the HPX300 if the Sony is actually ‘better’ (x2 cameras).
But maybe they have two completely different user markets they are targeting. Does anyone really understand what those two different markets are?
Posted by wsmith on 11/28 at 01:42 PM
You are correct in that you were incorrect. You don’t need 10-bit to have 4:2:2. Sony’s PDW-700 for instance records 8-bit colour, but at 4:2:2 resolution. It is also worth noting that when the EBU did all their torture tests to determine a minimum recommended spec for HD broadcast they found both the XDCAM 4:2:2 50Mbit/sec codec and Panasonics AVCIntra at 100Mbits/sec to perform equally through the broadcast chain.
But again, with regards to colour space, if you are recording in progressive scan the differences between 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 are not as great as you might imagine. Interlaced is a different matter though.
From my info I don’t believe that Sony have nailed down the price of the 350. It is also worth noting the included lens in one of the packages. Considering how expensive 2/3” lenses are, this is something that should be considered when weighing up the value for money of the camera too.
As far as the market goes, Sony sees the 350 as a direct high def replacement for the DSR-500/450 cameras. It is what a lot of people have been crying out for. There simply hasn’t been a full 1920x1080 camcorder with 2/3” chips at this price range before. Remember the HPX500 had low res chips and in reality was only good as a 720p camera.
From my own personal perspective I would not go for the Panasonic 300 for a few reasons. The first is the small chips. I shoot a lot of sit down interviews and head shots so I need to be able to get shallow depth of field even in smaller rooms. This is not possible with the 1/3” chips on the Panasonic.
Then there is the sensitivity. In 50i modes the Sony 350 is rated at f13. That’s pretty damn sensitive. Far, far better in low light than the Panasonic, and in fact even better than the PDW-700. Panasonic seems cagey about S/N ratios in their 300 specs sheet, but I can pretty much guarantee that the 350 will suffer much less from noise than the 300, especially if you find yourself in a situation where you need to use the dreaded gain switch.
Power draw. The Panasonic, despite having much smaller chips, draws 18w of power. The 350 on the other hand, even though it has much larger chips actually draws less power at 15w maximum.
The weight of the two cameras is about the same. The Panasonic is 3.6kg and the 350 is 3.5kg (without lens and battery). Both much lighter than previous shoulder mount cameras.
The Sony has four totally independent channels of audio with manual control of all of them. There are 2 XLR’s on the back and one stereo 5 pin XLR at the front. This gives a lot more versatility for many situations.
All that said, I believe that the cameras are aimed at slightly different markets. You pays yer money, you takes yer choice.
Posted by Simon Wyndham on 11/29 at 05:04 AM
Simon, thanks for your insights.
I’m beginning to feel that this cam, with it’s ability to record 10bit externally, is superior to the HPX300.
I also shoot a fair number of interviews, for a well-known performing arts video label’s bonus tracks. In all the time I’ve done that I’ve never used shallow depth of field. I don’t really see this used on TV interviews much, if at all. If I were to do one outside I might wish I had it. Everything I do is well lighted. I don’t fancy ever doing indie film shooting but who knows on that.
Even so, having those capabilities and 10bit external recording seems compelling.
I wish Canon would get with it and show us something new.
Posted by wsmith on 11/29 at 10:27 AM
10 bits means that you have 1024 gradations for luma (minus foot room and head room), while in the 8-bit system you have 256 gradations. Seems like a lot, but in fact you barely can have 50:1 contrast ratio with all gamma tricks without having banding. With 8-bit system you have to shoot precise and have less options for grading. With 10 bits you have more freedom for error. Why do you think pro still shooters use raw? Because it allows to get data back from an image which otherwise would be ruined if recorded into 8-bit JPEG. 10-bit video is nothing like 14- or 16-bit raw still photo, but it is a step forward. Obviously, greater recording latitude must be supported by greater sensor latitude.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/29 at 09:09 PM
Adam, Very nice and thorough as always!
I even picked up info about the EX1 and EX3’s that explains things I’ve seen in footage that I’ve not been able to explain.
After reading this, I’d REALLY like Panny to send you a HPX300 to check out.
Anthony Burokas
http://IEBA.com
Posted by IEBA on 11/29 at 09:55 PM
I shoot for various Producers and Production companies for their projects and it usually is a segment for A roll or B roll. I bought a Z7 which does tape and CF cards thinking that since the footage i shoot is sent to them this was the best of both worlds. However, I’m getting requests for HD (not HDV) so that means upgrading. Your opinions will be appreciated. Between the EX3, PMW350 and HVX300, which camera would best overall to meet the majority of my clients needs? Are any of those formats lining up to be the more desired one?
Any thoughts here???
Posted by bobkat on 12/13 at 06:31 PM
Hi bobkat,
That’s the big question being pondered here. For me the EX3 is not in the running with the other two so I don’t address it (but good for B cam of PMW350). You need to ask yourself:
Is material I shoot going to be subject to heavy post? PMW350 can shoot 10bit externally; Panasonic’s 10bit internally.
Am I ever going to be shooting in really low light? Or is everything I shoot well lighted which make the Panasonic good enough?
Will I use the built-in scopes or the DRS (Dynamic Range Stretch on the Panasonic?
Do I need easy depth-of-field control? Apparently even the 1/3” chip Panasonic has “great depth-of-field” control.” But I cannot vouch for that personally.
Panasonic is the only one to deal with “flash banding” and has released compensation software to remove it. (slight bug with CMOS…)
Oh and panasonic costs a lot less. I suppose if I were running and gunning news or indie filmaking where I need that sensitivity then Sony wins.
My latest question was workflow related: If sony expects the EX3 to be used as a B cam, will we be able to transfer settings from the 350 to the EX3? Apparently not as things stand now. This is a big problem. They changed the menu of the 350 to emulate their pro camera menu system so now you’d be dealing with two different menu systems and no settings transfer if the EX3 is B cam. Got to fix that.
I was more hot for the Sony but now I’m leaning toward Panasonic for the moment. I think it’ll make me happy and cost a lot less. I wanna see some material in post. I’m a sucker for quality though so Sony has to bring it on!
See my comments above also if interested.
Posted by wsmith on 12/13 at 10:31 PM
Given enough bandwidth 10 bit is without doubt better for grading and manipulation, but with these highly compressed formats the advantage is much more questionable. You need to record 30% more data to get the same quality from 10 bit over 8 bit. AVC-I and Mpeg2 are different codecs so you can’t assume too much from just the numbers. My experience is that in many cases what I can do with an image in post production tends to be limited more by noise and compression artifacts than the bit depth of the source material. If I take the 10 bit HDSDI output from my EX (or PDW-700) and record it using a NanoFlash at 100Mb/s 4:2:2 Mpeg 2 and also record using 10 bit ProRes HQ I find that I can grade both by equal amounts before I get banding. From what I can tell the banding is stemming from imager noise and macro blocking rather than a limitation caused by 8 bit. If I then grade the 35b/s footage I do reach the limit of what I can do sooner which reenforces my view that this is a limit imposed not by the bit depth but by noise and compression artifacts.
Posted by Alister Chapman on 01/19 at 12:17 PM
Alister,
I think it’s commonly accepted that banding is caused by low bit rate acquistion which in turn results in low I/O precision in post (unless transcoded up)
Compression just tends to aggravate the appearance even more.
Posted by wsmith on 01/19 at 12:46 PM
Low bit rate or low bit depth?
Perhaps banding was the wrong description, blockiness is a better description of what I see in my tests and it’s clearly related to compression artifacts and noise. Now perhaps there is a tiny difference between 10bit and 8bit, but the high compression ratios being used are negating the bulk of any advantage 10 bit may give. To really take advantage of 10 bit IMHO you need to go to much lower compression ratios or better still uncompressed.
This was born out by the EBU codec test as Simon said earlier.
Posted by Alister Chapman on 01/19 at 12:59 PM
Alister,
I see. Blockiness is attributable to compression.
Most of us agree re the benefits of working in uncompressed. I wouldn’t want to hastily deprecate the benefits of a 10bit workflow - all other things being equal of course.
Best,
Posted by wsmith on 01/19 at 01:40 PM
As you say, all other things being equal. Which they are not. All the common current acquisition codecs are compromises where the manufacturer has to balance bit rate, bit depth, luma and chroma sampling, processing requirements and marketing hype 
Posted by Alister Chapman on 01/19 at 01:49 PM
Alister, True but if you are capturing uncompressed - even after shooting on location - you wouldn’t have to worry about that stuff.
Personally, I wouldn’t be considering this camera at all if I couldn’t externally record a 10bit uncompressed signal by SDI or HDMI.
One question I have about this camera is does the SDI or HDMI output a 10bit signal even if the recording was originally acquired as an 8bit signal to memory card. (The camera’s internal acqusition bit rate is only 8bit)
Posted by wsmith on 01/19 at 02:44 PM
The SDI output is 10 bit.
Posted by Alister Chapman on 01/19 at 02:59 PM
I did see that in the review. We have more or less come to expect that any reasonably good camera will output a live signal externally, even if only 8bit.
Inasmuch as this camera outputs a live 10bit signal externally, I wonder if will also output a 10bit signal even if the signal was originally recorded internally to a card as 8bit.
Posted by wsmith on 01/19 at 03:16 PM
All very interesting, but what are all these personal projects that require 10-bit uncompressed? Not wanting to sound pompous, but surely if you were the camera op or DP shooting on a production that required 10-bit uncompressed you’d be arranging hire from somewhere and it wouldn’t be your money you’d have to worry about.
The 350 is a DSR-500 replacement for the HD age. It fulfils that job as a primary. The fact you can attach a NanoFlash is the icing on the cake. Yet everybody seems, to me at least, overly concerned with all this 10-bit business.
If a production team came to me as a DP to find the best tool for the job for 10 bit, or to be perfectly honest more likely much higher, then depending on the budget I certainly wouldn’t be looking at an ENG style camera
If the BBC came knocking on my door for a docu that required 10-bit, then more than likely they’d be hiring in their own kit anyway.
Why does everyone worry about this stuff so much?
Posted by Simon Wyndham on 01/19 at 05:12 PM
All true. Unless you are trying to avoid banding…
I only speak for myself but 10bit is on my list of must-haves in deciding on new cameras.
This one may be an ENG style cam but I don’t mind that at all. And I know 10bit uncompressed is only going to make life easier on intensive compositing, color correcting, greenscreen work, and, of course, banding.
Accept for Panasonic’s HPX300 capturing 10bit internally, this cam seems to have lot’s going for it in my opionion. I still want to see what Cannon has up its sleeve too. They are taking their time coming to the tapeless party and I just hope they offer something with 10bit internal acquisition too. Their DSLRs are all 8bit which is fine for Canon’s stated target market: photojournalists.
Posted by wsmith on 01/19 at 06:55 PM
I’m not saying 10 bit is bad, but it is only one element of the complex chain that makes up a camera system. That system needs to perform as a whole, much like a car. Stick a $20k powerful engine in a $1K chassis and it will go fast, but only in a straight line. Put a $1k engine in a $20k chassis and it won’t go fast, but it will corner well. The best all round performer would be the $10K engine with the $10k chassis. Not the fastest, not the ultimate in handling, but good all round performance (unless your a drag racer).
The camera chain starts at the front with the lens and optics, any limitations here will restrict the rest of the system, the best codec in the world can’t make a bad lens look good. Next comes the sensor, then the image processing, then the codec, then the recording medium. In a perfect world these will all be in balance with the appropriate elements at each stage. If anything the codec and media are the least significant elements as with most cameras these are the easiest to bypass and replace with an external recorder. So if your going to spend the money IMHO it’s the front end that counts, not the rear.
While Canon may well bring out a new camera, it’s unlikely to have a 2/3” sensor. The HPX300, while highly regarded by many , has a 1/3” sensor system which for many ENG users is a non-starter due to diffraction limiting and lack of lens choice. At the moment the PMW-350 is pretty unique in offering industry standard form factor, full 1920x1080 HD and a very capable codec at a price thats significantly lower than any other HD camera with the industry standard 2/3” lens mount.
As for 10 bit v’s 8 bit, well at the kind of compression ratios were looking at here my tests have indicated to me that blockiness due to compression artifacts or camera noise tends to be a much bigger issue than banding in the majority of shots. Banding tends to only show up on flat surfaces and other large expanses of even brightess while artifacts and noise are in every single shot. For me a clean, noise and artifact free image is my first priority.
Posted by Alister Chapman on 01/20 at 10:36 AM
Regarding optional 2/3” lenses for the PMW 350. What about legacy glass from the DSR 570 cameras? Will our 2/3” Fujinon (A17x7.8 BERM-M28) being used on the DSR 570 work with the 350? This might help us decide in our purchase. Thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/08 at 10:04 AM
Well your lens of the 570 will certainly fit and it will produce a picture. The 17x7.8 is a nice SD lens and for SD it would be very good. I would guess that if you keep it between f4 and f8 it would be OK for HD, perhaps a tiny bit soft in the corners. More open than F4 and it will go soft and the 2x extender will be softer still. Until you try it on an HD camera it’s difficult to know how it will perform. There is huge variation from lens to lens and any knocks or bumps over the years may have put the collimation out. Try before you buy I say.
Posted by Alister Chapman on 03/08 at 10:13 AM
Hi Adam and other posters here re this cam.
I just got off the phone with Sony Operational support for this and other pro cams. My questions was:
“Why does Sony seem to promote the EX1R and EX3 as good B-cams for use with the PMW350 when the menus are so different that one cannot use a memory card to establish any common user-profile settings whatsoever?”
The support technician agreed and said it wasn’t the first time this question had been asked and that he’d send it over to the product management masterminds.
Posted by wsmith on 05/19 at 09:26 AM
|
