PDW-700 vs HPX 2000 -Workflow, cost of operation over time.

[John Sharaf]

I’m sorry, but this is why some formats are professional and others are prosumer. When the information is spread out over more than one frame it’s a compromise in both motion reproduction and in editing. One has to really look at the whole system of photography, from mastering, editing, duplication and exhibition, yet changes in all these spheres are taking place so fast one cannot really master it all.

In the old days of film, things were simple and well understood. Now we have to think about compound compressions, sequential detail manipulation, matrixs added to matrixs, aspect ratios and framerates, not to mention putting our precious pictures on cell phones!

There are compromises at each turn, some predictable and others not even conceived of yet. That’s why the least compression and futzing with the motion the better, save all that for the last step.

The newer schemes take some of the more modern problems and uses into mind, that’s why I’d go with MPEG4/AVC-I over the old MPEG2 any day, but I’m not foolish enough to disregard the fact that ultimately it’s the economics that drive the innovations not quality and those of us who aspire to maintain what we’ve had in the past are rarely listened to except in the rarefied air of mega features, where the innovators are tasked to create images that do not even exist in the real world.

JS

[Alister Chapman]

You should also consider that currently P2 using a card technology (PCMCIA) that is now no longer supported by most PC manufacturers while XDCAM HD uses a re-useable robust disk.

Also I’m not sure how much I would believe reports of picture break up on a Sony camera form DVX user, a Panasonic biased forum!

I use both and EX1 and Sony F350 day in – day out and I can assure you the codec is very robust. It is VER Y different to HDV, not only does it have a higher bit rate but it also uses VBR encoding allowing the camera to dynamically allocate data where it is most needed.

The difference in picture quality between 50mb XDCAM HD and 100Mb AVCIntra is so small that it will be workflow, archive and other factors that will make your decision. If you are considering a PDW-700 then you’ll need to get your name down quick as there are a lot of people ordering them and there will be a wait.

[Michael Palmer]

“over on the DVX user forum. There’s been some testing which appears to show significant image breakup (with the 35mbs codec)on moving images and panning across high-detailed areas like grass and trees.”

Peter,

Can you provide the link so I can consider the source?

I have been working with my EX1 nearly 7 months now and I understand the limits of my gear, I understand the rolling shutter, and I understand Long GOP. You have mentioned the 35Mbps codec, and I believe this is the limit of any XD Cam cameras at this point in time. I’m speaking of going beyond these factory limits using a secondary record unit that allows you to control the compression. I’m sure John and Ron and you will agree that the most important part of any camera happens at the front end with the lens and the sensors making the primary image, it is the back end that seems to create issues for many people. There is no mystery to marketing, Sony didn’t put the 24p feature on the 700 because they forgot, just like Panasonic used the same CCD’s from the 500 in the 2000. These concerns about the 35Mbps codec will end with the Convergent Design Flash XDR HD-SDI recorder. If Sony or Panasonic made washers and dryers there wouldn’t be much to introduce vary often. I believe I have found an affordable creative solution to produce high quality HD video until these guys decide to settle in on some standards. Its a big game figuring out how to use what they do give us and its up to us to make the most with it,…………………………one big marketing game.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer

[Peter Corbett]

Hi Michael,

Actually the the thread is right here;

https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/142/858581

I have to pull you up on one thing you said. “Panasonic used the same CCD’s from the 500 in the 2000.” The CCD in the HPX2000 is definitely not even closely related to the 500 CCD. The 500’s CCD is derived from the 500K+ SDX900 SD sensor, whilst the sensor in the 2000 is a 1.2 megapixel CCD derived from the HDX900/Varicam HD camcorder family. One benefit of the 2000 is can record in full 10-bit 4:2:2 with the $3K add-in AVC-Intra board.

All said, I’m still intrigued by the EX3.

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au

[Jan Crittenden livingston]

[Peter Corbett] “The 500’s CCD is derived from the 500K+ SDX900 SD sensor,”

Normally I do not like to jump in on another manufacturer’s forum but in this case I need to make a small correction. The CCD used in the 500 is not the SDX CCD, if it were the camera would only have 520,000 pixels to work with and would not be able to do 60P. The 500 starts with a 620,000 pixel progressive imager, applies a spatial offset giving it an effective 1.1 million pixel image performance.

Best,

Jan

Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, HPX500, HVX200, DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems

[Michael Palmer]

Yes I was incorrect about the 500 CCD’s being used inside the 2000. I spoke to a Panasonic tech here in LA at the service center today and he filled me in on the pixel shifting focus pocus. In the white papers I linked above the spec for the AVC-I indicates the 100 Mbps is 1920×1080 but the 2000 doesn’t make this natively like the 3000 or even the EX series. I was also told by the Panasonic tech today that the 2000 CCD’s are still 720 native and I would assume more pixel shifting or as the Panasonic people say, “it applies a spatial offset giving it an effective Blank Blank million pixel image performance”. I wonder does this mean applying a spatial offset stretches the image out to what would be needed from CCD’s to do this natively? Anyway, sorry for the misinformation.

Good Luck
Michael Palmer

[Peter Corbett]

No worries. I got it wrong too about the 500K CCD. I think the 2000 records in full 10-bit AVC-Intra (with the option board) albeit at 720P.

Peter Corbett
Powerhouse Productions
http://www.php.com.au

[Chris Brown]

AVC on P2 cards works the same way. Just transfer the files and edit. Since it’s an intraframe codec, you’re good to go. No transcoding. FCP now supports AVC-Intra. You could always go to ProRes if you wanted to.

Videographer/Editor
Creative Director
Union Digital, Inc.
https://www.uniondigitalmedia.com

[Chris Brown]

“You should also consider that currently P2 using a card technology (PCMCIA) that is now no longer supported by most PC manufacturers while XDCAM HD uses a re-useable robust disk. ”

Please, that’s a very short-sighted comment. Yes, this is true in laptops…but a lot of P2 users aren’t using their laptops slots for data transfer.

That’s why you can:
– hook up a hard disk directly to camera and dump data via Firewire or USB 2.0
– transfer via the camera to a PC – a la XDCAM
– use a P2 deck or drive – same as using a XDCAM VTR or drive

Both formats allow you to do the same thing, via same methods. Unless you bought the interal XDCAM drive for your PC, you’re not inserting the media into the PC, you’re using a Sony branded device to transfer the data into your NLE, just like P2.

Videographer/Editor
Creative Director
Union Digital, Inc.
https://www.uniondigitalmedia.com

[Alister Chapman]

Commenting on the fact that P2 is an out of date technology is not short sighted at all.

When P2 was launched it was pushing the available technology to the limit. The problem is that it is still using the same technology.

If you are shooting large amounts of footage on location with P2 and XDCAM EX you will often need to make backups and erase the cards so you can re-use them. With XDCAM HD you simply pop in a new $25 disc, with XDCAM EX you put the SxS card in you laptops express card slot and get an 8x real time transfer. With P2 you get a transfer speed not much faster than real time (thanks to the old tech PCMCIA interface) and unless you are using an older laptop have to tie up the camera to do it.

So the interface used is very relevant. It is short sighted to think it is not especially as it will get harder and harder to source laptops with PCMCIA slots.