XDCAM

[Guest lonedog]

...........

Edited December 17, 2004 by lonedog

[David Mullen ASC]

I've run into people shooting low-end local commercial spots in 24P using the Panasonic SDX900 so it may be that crowd that Sony is also aiming the XDCAM for, as well as sports & news people who shoot interlaced.

[Jon Allen]

I'm not saying that xdcam can't take off, but Sony has a bad habit of introducing products that are completely (in?)uncompatible with other manufacturers.

This is kind of how Apple got into trouble right after Jobs left in the 90s- they said no one could make stuff for their stuff, this drove out "competitors" but it also reduced their ability to make it reasonably priced, due to no 3rd party producers of hardware and software. I guess to some extent this is still going on, but I digress...

Sony will happily produce anything they make to any niche market -for a premium price (think minidisc). I don't think I would recommend losing the DV deck until at least another manufacturer picks up this technology as a standard for a line of equipment.

Also, I find it hard to believe that anything that does on-the-fly mpeg conversion can realistically be that great- but hey, I've been wrong before.

[David Mullen ASC]

I would assume that the quality of DVCPRO-50 and IMX at 50 mb/sec would be about the same. Phil? You are usually the expert here on these issues...

[John Sprung]

The question I'd ask is why anyone would leave progressive out of any new camera design. If you're going to do any post work within the image, progressive is better. The electronics needed to do it are minimal, the additional manufacturing cost is probably under $100. Another question that will be asked more in the future is why bother to provide an interlaced output? The only reason is for legacy CRT television.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Jon Allen]

I guess my question is what's the resolution? I understand it's all depending on a lot of factors. But, I heard someone say the the 900's output was basically as good as 16mm without the grain- so is xdcam near HD res?

[Elhanan Matos]

so is xdcam near HD res?

 

The XDCAM is not an HD camera, its a Standard Def camera. It records in either DVCAM or MPEG IMX.

 

Here is some more info on the XDCAM . . . XDCAM Information

[John Sprung]

If it does progressive PAL, that's 576 line progressive, not so very far from the 720p of HDTV. Upconversions should be not quite HD, but really not so terrible. But then again, the prices are also not really down to the pro-sumer level, either.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I would assume that the quality of DVCPRO-50 and IMX at 50 mb/sec would be about the same. Phil? > you are usually the expert here on these issues...

 

Aargh, stoppit!

 

Seriously I don't really know as I've never shot either format, but it sounds reasonable. I'd expect the DV50 to have the edge as it was designed from the ground up as an intraframe codec, but we're talking degrees here.

 

Phil

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> The electronics needed to do it are minimal, the additional manufacturing cost is probably under $100

 

I think you might find it's a bit more than that, just to manufacture a CCD that'll do it - quite irrespective of the seven or eight figure investment required to design that CCD in the first place.

 

The additional DSP and electronics are probably reasonably trivial, price-wise.

 

Phil

[Sam Wells]

JS: "Another question that will be asked more in the future is why bother to provide an interlaced output?"

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

"If it does progressive PAL, that's 576 line progressive, not so very far from the 720p of HDTV. Upconversions should be not quite HD, but really not so terrible."

 

Having been down this route with the MSW900P in PAL IMX upconverted to HDCam via Teranex, I can say it can be far from "not so terrible"

 

At least one of those XDcams does IMX...

 

l-dog: "A local Sony rep was talking at a trade show this week about XDcam and he said. " The 530 XDcam eats the SDX900, it totally blows it away", the XDcam is only a tiny notch down from digi beta".

Any comments?"

 

Would your local Nissan rep tell you "the Maxima's not bad but an Accord blows it out of the water" ?

 

:P

 

-Sam

[John Sprung]

I think you might find it's a bit more than that, just to manufacture a CCD that'll do it - quite irrespective of the seven or eight figure investment required to design that CCD in the first place.

 

The additional DSP and electronics are probably reasonably trivial, price-wise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we're talking about 50/60p vs. 50/60i, I can see it being more expensive. But if the progressive is 24/25 fps, vs. 50/60i, you're reading out roughly the same number of pixels per second, and the same pixel count on the chip. So I thought the difference would only be in DSP and clocking. Is there such a thing as an inherently interlaced CCD?

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Laurent Andrieux]

Hi,

 

> I would assume that the quality of DVCPRO-50 and IMX at 50 mb/sec would be about the same. Phil? > you are usually the expert here on these issues...

 

Aargh, stoppit!

 

Seriously I don't really know as I've never shot either format, but it sounds reasonable. I'd expect the DV50 to have the edge as it was designed from the ground up as an intraframe codec, but we're talking degrees here.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I work every day with DVCPRO 50 and I find it pretty close to Digi Beta.

 

I look at XDCAM as the new "SX Like" low cost digital - Not HD but "nowdays", designed for ENG.

Edited December 11, 2004 by laurent.a

[Jan Crittenden]

A local Sony rep was talking at a trade show this week about XDcam and he said. " The 530 XDcam eats the SDX900, it totally blows it away", the XDcam is only a tiny notch down from digi beta".

Any comments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is the sort of stuff that one might expect from a 5 year old saying that my Dad can beat up your Dad. If it is such a hot camera, then why hasn't it been the most widely adopted format? It only costs $10,000 more than the SDX and you have to adopt a new format, so the deck to play it back in is also very expensive. For the price of the SDX and its companion feeder deck the AJ-SD93 you could purchase the XDCAM camcorder. Oh and then you have to add the 24P card.

 

Sorry, this struck a nerve this morning. And if you want the skinny on how the I-frame MPEG compares with DV50 and DigiBeta, I direct you to the EBU/SMPTE report made some years back when the I-frame only codec was only a codec and not even on tape. http://www.smpte.org/engineering_committees/pdf/tfrpt2w6.pdf Look in the addendums at the back where they compare all of the digital formats.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Jan

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Now, now. Let's be nice!

 

XDCAM is a really good idea for people like... well, me, because I incessantly shoot just a few minutes' worth of stuff which needs to be cut very quickly. The ENG workflow for a disk-based format is great. Lovely idea. Readable in a PC. Yes, very nice.

 

But while we're bashing, can I please question the concept of a two-grand digital memory card that you have to give to the client? Yes, lovely, great idea if you're CNN and all the equipment and media is company-owned, but clearly nobody at Panasonic ever wants to sell another camera to a freelancer.

 

Phil

[Jan Crittenden]

Phil said:

>Now, now. Let's be nice.

 

Hi Phil,

 

Since you said, "Lets be nice," should I assume, by your post, that that is not what you really mean? Let me just say that my commentary about the SDX was in response to the post about the Sony guy being quoted that the XDCAM camera outperforms it. I didn't bash, I thought the Sony remark to be a bashing remark. I pointed to outside references, namely the EBU and SMPTE to help educate about the stored (used to be recorded) signals.

 

>XDCAM is a really good idea for people like... well, me, because I

>incessantly shoot just a few minutes' worth of stuff which needs to be

>cut very quickly. The ENG workflow for a disk-based format is great.

>Lovely idea. Readable in a PC. Yes, very nice.

 

I didn't say it wasn't a nice camera, just much more expensive. But you said in an earlier quote that you had not shot in either format, so how do you know what it is like to work from the XDCAM disk? Where is it just readable in a PC? PC with a blue-laser drive? Seen one of them lately? Sony sells a viewer so you can see the real footage, or you can work with the proxy. I believe one uses a VTR-like deck or the viewer to get the content into a PC, but I might be wrong. In my understanding from my NLE friends, one edits the proxy and then the NLE software (?) conforms the final output. Contrast that with P2. The P2 mounts as a drive, and in Avid or GV - and soon Pinnacle and FCP - the material is immediately accessible and editable. The process takes about 3 seconds to get started. You can also actually view the native content on any PC with a PCMCIA slot using our freeware viewer. One of those NLE folks showed 5 streams of real time video and something like 12 audios coming off the card. Can't do that with optical disk - it's an access and speed thing.

 

>But while we're bashing, can I please question the concept of a

>two-grand digital memory card that you have to give to the

>client?

 

As with all things, at the beginning of a revolutionary workflow transformation, there are some hurdles to cross. One of these is the concept of media-less, just as digital still cameras are media-less. The other is to embrace a more IT centric view, where the files on the cards can be off-loaded into any storage vehicle one likes, from DVCPRO tape or HDD to optical disk or the newer optical holographic devices that hold ~10X a blue laser disk. What we hear from users is the hurdles will be crossed, because the benefits are so clear. That said, please recognize that as it stands today, we are not marketing to the production community but rather the news arena. For that application, in most cases the memory card works just fine. It is a workflow thing, and a willingness to leave traditional work flow to achieve cost savings and efficiency.

 

Nevertheless, I'm not here to argue for P2, but to defend the SDX900 against the not nice remark quoted by lonedog "A local Sony rep was talking at a trade show this week about XDcam and he said. " The 530 XDCAM eats the SDX900, it totally blows it away", the XDCAM is only a tiny notch down from digi beta". And frankly this is totally not true, the XDCAM does not just totally blow it away - on this particular camcorder, the 530, you would have to record in the IMX mode to come close to the 4:2:2 recoding of the DVCPRO50. (Spare me from going into why the front end is better - just check out the number of serious shoots done with the SDX900, and the glowing reviews, the latest being the four part mini series for the Sundance Channel, by Robert Altman.)

 

>Yes, lovely, great idea if you're CNN and all the equipment and media

>is company-owned, but clearly nobody at Panasonic ever wants to sell

>another camera to a freelancer.

 

When it is really ready to be sold to freelance production, you will certainly see and hear the message "buy here now." (Sorry, Ram Dass.) ;-) There will be a point in time where it becomes outstandingly evident that P2 and memory recording is the future. But then what else would you expect me to say, unless you understood the same details that mark memory recording as the future and you too would be in agreement.

 

Best regards,

 

Jan M. Crittenden

Product Line Business Manager, DVCPRO50/25, Cameras

Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems

[Lars.Erik]

The XDCAM is not an HD camera, its a Standard Def camera.  It records in either DVCAM or MPEG IMX.

 

Here is some more info on the XDCAM . . . XDCAM Information

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not quite right. It's correct that it records either in DVCAM or MPEG-2, but the ccd chip itself is actually a HD chip.

 

The problem is that the discs XDCAM uses, in todays technology, can only have a max of 72RPM's, which limits it to a maximum of what's called IMX 50 in the camera. But when the discs can reach 140RPM, the ccd can be used to the maximum. And become a low end HD cam.

[Simon Wyndham]

Not quite right. It's correct that it records either in DVCAM or MPEG-2, but the ccd chip itself is actually a HD chip.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not really true. The CCD does have a fairly high pixel count, although due to some technical speak that I don't understand, as per all cameras of its type including the SDX900 etc the real pixels used are pure SD resolution. I wish I could remember the reasons and technical speak so perhaps someone else more knowledgable could chime in.

 

It is possible to use an SDI board to take 4:2:2 images straight off the camera head uncompressed on both the 510 and the 530 however, but they will still be SD resolution.

 

One thing of interest is that the Grass Valley Viper Filmstream camera apparently uses the same CCD block as their other cameras including the SD ones (its even mentioned in their Filmstream brochure)

 

But as far as the xdcam goes, no, there's no chance of converting either camera into an HD one. Although Sony are working on a version it will be a few years yet. Enough time for me to save up for a HD lens to take the sting out of buying a camera body.

[Simon Wyndham]

bash, I thought the Sony remark to be a bashing remark.  I pointed to outside references, namely the EBU and SMPTE to help educate about the stored (used to be recorded) signals.

Seen one of them lately?  Sony sells a viewer so you can see the real footage, or you can work with the proxy. I believe one uses a VTR-like deck or the viewer to get the content into a PC, but I might be wrong.  In my understanding from my NLE friends, one edits the proxy and then the NLE software (?) conforms the final output.  Contrast that with P2. The P2 mounts as a drive, and in Avid or GV - and soon Pinnacle and FCP - the material is immediately accessible and editable.  The process takes about 3 seconds to

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hehe, I've seen many put downs of the xdcam system by Panny reps over time. Both companies want to sell their product so its hardly unreasonable that the Sony rep would say that the 530 blows away the SDX just as you defend P2 with all the vigor of a Bengal Tiger.

 

But regardless, the XDCAM cameras and decks hook upto the PC and act like another drive. Just like P2 the MXF files can be dragged straight onto compatible NLEs timelines. You can also edit the proxies and then conform the final output like you mention. The method is up to the user in question. Since I believe P2 also records proxies the workflow can be pretty similar. For example if I am on location for a few days I can edit the proxies on a really low powered and small laptop in the evenings so that when I get back to base I've already got a rough edit of the video done using PDZ1. It'll be the same for P2 when you don't want to be storing the high res video on a field laptop and instead just want to perform a rough edit.

 

Now, as more NLEs get MXF compatibility the PDZ1 software becomes less relevant so that actual, almost finalised edits can be performed on location with a low powered laptop.

 

To me the arguments that go on between P2 and XDCAM are mute and meaningless. One person will prefer one format, and another person will like the other instead. It is all dependant on circumstances and the type of work people do. At the moment the advantages and respective disadvantages of each system balance each other out.

 

For example P2 has the running time and constantly having to upload footage problem, but has faster access times. On the other side of the coin the XDCAM has slower file access when transferring footage., but allows much longer shooting periods before any footage transfer needs to take place.

 

Personally after weighing things up (and the 0% finance on XDCAM helped!) I decided I would much rather have the cheaper discs and longer recording times. A lost or damaged disc is easier to replace than a P2 card (although thats assuming there wasn't any valuable footage on it!)

 

I think the two systems will co-exist with people making similar reasoned descisions based on their working environment/company needs.

[Jon Allen]

I think the two systems will co-exist with people making similar reasoned descisions based on their working environment/company needs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nevermind that XD is only SD and P2 can do both HD and SD applications.

[Simon Wyndham]

Nevermind that XD is only SD and P2 can do both HD and SD applications.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats a pretty pedantic argument when a) the main NLE camera rivals are the Panny 800 and the Sony 530. Both SD cameras, and b ) the cost of P2 is such that HD still isn't mainstream viable on those cards.

 

Sony are already working on the HD version of XDCAM. By the time P2 comes down in price by any degree the HD version of XD will be out.

 

Certainly if you were making a HD drama or movie these days you would choose a Varicam or one of the Sony F900 series cameras (or a Viper). Not a P2 camera. So that argument is rather mute.

Edited May 7, 2005 by Simon Wyndham