Jump to content


Photo

Sony PDW 350


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 02 April 2006 - 07:42 AM

I read a review of a new HD camera at studiodaily.com

Has anyone tested or used the new XDCAM HD Cinealta PDW 350? If so, does anyone have a screenshot of the images it renders to share?

Árni Heimir
Garðabær, IS
  • 0

#2 Tim J Durham

Tim J Durham
  • Sustaining Members
  • 742 posts
  • Director
  • East Coast, Baby!

Posted 02 April 2006 - 10:35 AM

I read a review of a new HD camera at studiodaily.com

Has anyone tested or used the new XDCAM HD Cinealta PDW 350? If so, does anyone have a screenshot of the images it renders to share?

Árni Heimir
Garðabær, IS


This is shortly going to be my main camera but the big problem with it at the moment is that there are only two lenses available for 1/2" CCD HD cameras. Fuji will be releasing 3 more shortly. Remember, if you are planning to mount a lens meant for 2/3" CCD cams, you have to account for the fact that the 1/2" CCDs only see ~63% of what the lens is seeing so what you gain in telephoto, you lose in wide-angle.
  • 0

#3 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 02 April 2006 - 07:19 PM

Wouldn't the image quality be better on this camera than the 900? The 900 is almost six years old. And the XDcam seems to do very little compression. But how is 4:2:0 different from 4:2:2?
  • 0

#4 Saba Mazloum

Saba Mazloum
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • China

Posted 02 April 2006 - 08:00 PM

From my amiture Student film mind.. i would say 4:2:0 is basically taking 4:2:2 <---- The last 2 and squezing it to the other 2 which ends up like this 4:2:0... Am i right guys? ur bascally sqeuezing and loosing quality .. which is pretty lame..
  • 0

#5 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 04 April 2006 - 10:54 PM

The XDCAM HD system lets you pick one of three datarates; 18, 25, or 35Mbps. Any of these datarates uses more compression than HDCAM.

I've played with the camera and seen other demo footage, and it looks "good." That is, it's not the same imager as the F-900, but it's probably better than Sony's HDV offerings. I haven't had a chance to field-test the camera and push it to its limits, but I wouldn't expect a 1/2" chip and lower-cost processing to produce a better quality image than the newer generation of the F-900.

The bottom line is that Sony positioned this camera technologically and economically between its prosumer HDV system and its high-end HDCAM/HDCAM-SR systems. It's a good camera, but you do get what you pay for.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

CineLab

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

The Slider

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Tai Audio

Glidecam