Yeah, Spot wrote it. That's why I said he'd kill me for posting it here before he did.

He is too modest to self promote his own articles.

There's one serious limitation to the F350 unfortunately. The HD SDI feed is derived internally from a 4:2:0 signal. The XL H1 feeds full 4:2:2 down its HD SDI outputs that's derived from the interal 4:4:4 signal although as the Canon uses pixel shifting I'd question if its internals are 4:4:4 at HD resolution.

The F350 does produce richer images due to the larger CCDs, just a pity they clobbered the HD SDI. For the same money as the F 350 the XL H1 and a Wafian recorder leaves the F350 for dead for studio work.

Bob.

First, let it be said that (for probably the 100th time) there is no 4:2:2 for HD. It would be 22:11:11. That said... ;-)
It's true the 350 delivers post color subsample; compare it before you dis it. I would like to post images, but since I had a pre-production model, I was asked not to. I do have images from both camcorders' SDI output.
There is no comparison.
The Canon is a super camcorder, but shooting the same subject, same lighting, same effective stream but one at a lesser chroma subsample than the other...I'll take the Sony any day.
One thing that a lot of folks also mix up is the "4:2:0" of HD and 4:2:0 of PAL. Not at all the same. Samples are cosited, not coincident, among other differences. However, more than anything, it boils down to the glass and the imager, far more so than compression. And as much as I like the 350....wait'll you see Infinity from GV. J2K is even greater compression overall, but more efficient. But...it's more bux, too.

...........wait'll you see Infinity from GV. J2K

OK, you all have heard "take one step forward and two steps back."

What are you talkin about Spot,, man I'm so behind this Sh*^,, i try to keep up but .........,

I'm with you winrock -

Grass Valley has a new camera line, using a tapeless storage system built by iOmega (remember Jazz drives/Zip Drives?). They use JPEG 2000 compression in the camera, allowing scaling of the stored image, so you can have low-rez proxies, or full rez HD. Very efficient, latest and greatest of the compression technologies accessible to the high end. Easy to read/write for, and sweet. I don't know how well it will catch on, but Grass Valley, Sony, and Ikegami are the monsters in this space, so it will be an interesting battle. Infinity from Grass Valley. Dollar for feature, Sony has the best deal for what appears to be image quality, but since I've only seen Infinity shot from GV and haven't shot anything myself just yet...I don't know how the two will stack up. I do know how the 4:2:0 of the XDCAM stacks up, and have done some really fun tests with it. I prefer it over HDCAM in some ways.

"There is no 4:2:2 for HD" ?

Really, then why are even Sony saying to be aware that the F350 does NOT send true 4:2:2 down it's HD SDI port?
As far as I'm aware the SPMTE standard for HD SDI calls for 4:2:2?

In real world tests the HD SDI from the Xl H1 keys better than the HD SDI form the F350. The keys from the F350 produce noticably more noise and crawl than from the XL H1.

We're not talking about what the cameras record but what they send down the HD SDI feed. That may or may not mean anything whatsoever. The F350 RECORDS a much better image than the XL H1, no question about it, better CCDs and glass will normally win out any day. That's why I said in a studio situation. Recording directly to the Wafian or HDD via a BMD card for some work the XL H1 will beat the F350.

In the field or for ENG the F350 is a world beater.
What I'm dissing is why didn't Sony do the full deal, Canon did it on a way cheaper camera that's limited by its CCDs and optics, Sony have left a few bits off, and that's just fine for broadcasters but the indie mob may feel they've been short changed.

Money aside, for what I'd be likely to shoot in the next 5 years I'd sure take the F350 but that's just me. Sony could have a real world beater on their hands but unlike Canon they're just too focussed on broadcast.

Bob.

here's a website with some tests from the new Sony PDW F350 cam thru HD _SDI out for green screen. Supposedly Michael is the first to get the camera in the US and he has been posting and testing for people over on DVInfo.

http://www.redhawk-development.com/xl_h1_vs_f350_-_chroma_key.htm

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=63983&page=2

GG

Sony says that, because there isn't "true 4:2:2" in HD land. 4:2:2 is a Rec601 standard that has been thrown over to HD improperly. While it may be niggling to some small level, it's not an accurate means of measurement. Sony, Ikegami, and Grass Valley have all been fighting that marketing silliness, and forced to respond to it. Maybe this shows it better than I'd explain it
Anyway, XDCAM HD isn't designed for the indie film market, and at least in the US, they're not marketing it as such. However, I'd use one in a heartbeat, and will be so, as we've ordered one.
As far as the tests referred to on DVInfo (I assume they're the same as the ones Gary refers to) the testers admit they hadn't worked with the cam much yet, and they also don't specify which lens they used, which is fairly important. The stock lens ain't anything to write home about, IMO.

Michael D said he uses "The Fujinon lens is the HSs18x5.5BRD,
see http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-...ucts.cgi?p=336"

This is the first footage and reports I have seen of a user actually getting this camera. I did get to see the camera in Lansing, Michigan a couple of weeks ago at a broadcasters exhibition with Roscor. I did not have a chance to use the cam like Spot has done in Montreal.

This area of HD-SDI output from 4:2:0 is an area I had questions on compared to what the Canon H1 is providing at 4:2:2. I guess one should also wonder about buying 3 Canons instead of the Sony for around $35,000 after adding a lens. Is the Sony worth the extra $25,000?? I don't know. :-) I am sure that price of $35,000 can be lower (priced quoted from a Sony rep at the show)... but you get the idea.

GG

That was in fact where I was getting my info from ,my bad for not posting a link to it.

We're looking for something that's the next step up from the Z1 and as good a value for money, it's certainly a hard act to follow. So far the XL H1 is the one to beat. This is not just about the cost but rather what you get for the dollars. The F350 is certainly in our field of view, just by the time you put good glass on it and buy a deck or two it's looking harder to justify. The Grass Valley offering is looking very interesting.

I understand how Sony work, the marketing guys can see a big demand for a HD ENG style camera and following on from the big uptake of XDCAM is general the F330/350 will sell very well.


Looks like a busy NAB this year :(

I do agree, it's early days and as much as I like to talk numbers it's still how it looks on the big screen that counts most.

Bob.

The main thing from the tests GG linked to that bugs me, is that they claim the 350 is "noisier than the Canon." Having worked with both, and having the Canon sitting next to me, I find that difficult to believe.
Every test I'm aware of regarding the Canon vs Z1 or JVC shows the Canon to be noisier, and when I was shooting the 350, I went through all the gain steps, clear to "TurboGain" which is +48dB (it was very noisy there). The +6dB shots I took were clean as could be, and examining them in Photoshop, zoomed in deeply, they're still exceptionally clean. Whilst I've been asked to not post them, I've shared them with a couple of people (who are welcome to chime in here) that agree, it's clean as can be. The latitude is awesome, etc, etc. I don't see that in the tests that they've put up.
In the HDV world, the Canon is the tool to beat if you've got the cash, and if you need the SDI, no doubt. Buck for feature, the FX1 is the best value, and (IMO) the Z1 delivers the best overall image when all things are considered equally.
you're right, gonna be a busy NAB....Lots to see and do this year. As been said many times in this forum and other places....2006 is the year of HD orbit.