Jump to content


Photo

New Sony NXCAM 35mm affordable prosumer camera


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Guillaume Cottin

Guillaume Cottin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Toronto

Posted 17 November 2010 - 10:24 PM

Hello,

Today in New York during a SMPTE conference, a new camcorder in the NXCAM series was announced. His codename : "NXCAM 35".
Il will be more low-cost than the PMW-F3 since it is announced under $6000. Release is scheduled for the first semester of 2011.
Il will be a real prosumer model, between the $2000-consumer VEG-NX10 and the $10000-"professional" PMW-F3.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

The spokesperson said it was only a prototype and the design can still change. We hope so !

This camera will have a E-mount (like the NEX cameras) and you will be able to use Sony Alpha still lenses with an adapter that will allow the autofocus.

- CMOS sensor, Super 35mm format
- E-Mount
- Records AVCHD up to 1080/p60
- Price : around 6000 $

The press release : Sony Global - News Releases - Sony to expand 35mm large format sensor camcorder lineup "NXCAM" HD camcorder under

Bye
  • 0

#2 Gabe Spangler

Gabe Spangler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 November 2010 - 02:54 AM

AVCHD – Blech!
E-mount – Blech!
Price $6,000 – Blech!

For $6,000 I would expect at least XDCAM.

Nothing I'd be interested in. For that price, I'd rather pay another couple grand and have a Scarlet s35 body when they come out. Shoot on a 5D or 7D until then.
  • 0

#3 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 November 2010 - 03:50 AM

I suspect a Scarlet S35mm basic shooting kit would be more expensive than the base price quoted by RED. This was the case with the RED One.
  • 0

#4 Gabe Spangler

Gabe Spangler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 November 2010 - 04:44 AM

I'm sure you're right. Still not too interested in this camera, though.
  • 0

#5 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 November 2010 - 05:27 AM

I expect Scarlet and these cameras can coexist, not everyone wants RAW and with a video (same as the F3) rather than a stills sensor there should be some advantages over the DSLR cameras. The E mount does allow the use of adapters for other lens mounts. With a Nanoflash fitted, on paper, it should keep the broadcasters happy.
  • 0

#6 Oliver Christoph Kochs

Oliver Christoph Kochs
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Film Loader
  • Germany

Posted 18 November 2010 - 06:23 AM

Well, the F3 has a slightly faster sensor readout than 5D/7D and XLRs but that's about it.
Onboard codec of the F3 is far worse in comparison and Canons H264 has even more data rate.
4:2:0 is not even broadcast standard today for a $15000 camcorder and the NXCAM series is far below and their NDXDCAMEX whatever LONGGOP mpeg2/4 is a mess.

I was really excited about the F3. This would have been my weapon of choice but, hey Sony, it needs 4:2:2 and at least 50 MBit/sec onboard on $x$ card, I tell you.
  • 0

#7 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:31 AM

I don't think the F3's on board codec is intended as the serious production codec, but as Sony's take on a proxy or at best the grab B camera. The DSLRs have artefacts like moire patterning, which do cause problems and the resolution figures aren't out for these new cameras.

With an HD SDI output, you can achieve a broadcast codec using an external recording device. The question may be if the cheaper camera announced yesterday (fitted with say a Nanoflash) is good enough to do a lot of the requirements that the more expensive F3 seeks to address.

Here's some F3 material:


Edited by Brian Drysdale, 18 November 2010 - 07:33 AM.

  • 0

#8 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:37 AM

A F3 short film:


  • 0

#9 Oliver Christoph Kochs

Oliver Christoph Kochs
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Film Loader
  • Germany

Posted 18 November 2010 - 10:52 AM

I had seen this F3 short projected 4K at a press event. All of it was recorded to the internal cards but to a HDCAM SR deck at least in 4:2:2 and then color graded. This looked excellent. On the other end the camera was there to test it and the images recorded there looked lousy. Hopefully the F3 has a firmware option to record 4:2:2 / 50 MBit/s to the internal cards. I really don't want to use an external recorder on this camera as it needs cables and batteries.
  • 0

#10 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 November 2010 - 02:06 PM

4:2:0 is not even broadcast standard today ..., hey Sony, it needs 4:2:2 ....


4:2:2 is a relic of analog and interlace, an antique. Given progressive scanning and a frame's worth of memory, there's no reason that 4:2:0 shouldn't look just as good as 4:2:2. Given the same bandwidth/storage constraints, it should actually look a little better, because it requires a little less compression. Unfortunately, 4:2:0 has become associated with low end implementations.

E-mount has a flange focal distance of only 18mm, so it'll be easy to make adapters to nearly anything. PL, for instance is 52mm, so you have 34mm to work with, about an inch and a third.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#11 Gabe Spangler

Gabe Spangler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 November 2010 - 10:05 PM

At least we're getting close to a interchangeable lens/s35 sensor @ 1920x1080 (not a DSLR sensor line skipped to HD)/ decent codec/full XLR audio camera at a decent price. Panasonic almost did it with their AF100/101, but like the dummies they are, they chose a 4/3 sensor. God, what a dumb move. I've been saying this for years. The industry is screaming for this:

– S35 sensor with 1920x1080 pixels (not 20MP line skipped to 1920x1080)
– Interchangeable lens ability, with option of adapters for PL, Canon, Nikon, whatever
– 24p, 25p, 30p, 50p and 60p frame rates
- Full manual control of iris, shutter
– Built-in ND filters
– Capture to compact flash cards
– Good, beefy codec (not AVCHD, HDV, etc...)
– HD-SDI out for the option to capture uncompressed RAW
– Dual XLR inputs with independent audio controls for channels 1 and 2
– Picture setting control

This should cost $5,000 for the body alone, not $28,000 like the new Sony F3 (god, what a joke). Panasonic gets the price point, they just missed with their sensor and their codec. Someone will get it right soon.
  • 0

#12 Guillaume Cottin

Guillaume Cottin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Toronto

Posted 18 November 2010 - 11:03 PM

Yeah, either Red or Canon.
My guess.
  • 0

#13 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 November 2010 - 12:28 AM

I'd go with Sony to "get it right," first, but that's just me. It seems Canon has been behind a lot in video systems, RED will only do RAW me thinks, Panasonic, they're great but I never got them, buy Sony has so far been really pushing for "bigger sensors than anyone else!" it seems, starting with the EX series.
Personally, I'd not mind the XDCam codec on a camera, but that's primarily as I'm very used to it. I'd love ProRes onboard a camera, but for that you'd currently need to go pro-res or an external. Still, we're going in the right direction, says me and I'm not going to turn my nose up to any well made system that works for the job at hand.
  • 0

#14 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 November 2010 - 12:31 AM

I'd love ProRes onboard a camera,


Arri Alexa has it.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#15 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 November 2010 - 01:44 AM

4:2:2 is a relic of analog and interlace, an antique. Given progressive scanning and a frame's worth of memory, there's no reason that 4:2:0 shouldn't look just as good as 4:2:2. Given the same bandwidth/storage constraints, it should actually look a little better, because it requires a little less compression. Unfortunately, 4:2:0 has become associated with low end implementations.

-- J.S.


The issue for most low budget people here really is the codec itself, not necessarily the chroma subsampling of the footage. Yes 4:2:0 footage can look really good if the codec that it is being recorded as can be handled properly by the NLE. Apple's Final Cut Pro (FCP) has generally been absolutely lousy at handling (transcoding) AVC based codecs, and given FCP's ubiquity in low budget post processes, this creates a big problem. FCP handles the 4:2:2 codecs a lot better, mostly because FCP was never future-proofed by Apple. Avid and, surprisingly enough Premiere CS (who would have thunk?), can handle just about anything that one throws away at them natively. In my experience, therein lies the difference between good looking 4:2:0 footage and lousy looking 4:2:0 footage.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 19 November 2010 - 01:45 AM.

  • 0

#16 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 November 2010 - 04:14 AM

This should cost $5,000 for the body alone, not $28,000 like the new Sony F3 (god, what a joke). Panasonic gets the price point, they just missed with their sensor and their codec. Someone will get it right soon.


That's about the price of the Scarlet 2/3" with the fixed zoom, which is cheaper than the interchangeable lens version. Production volume has a lot to do with the final selling price.
  • 0

#17 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 November 2010 - 04:27 AM

FD times quotes $16,000 for the F3

http://www.fdtimes.com/news/?p=3008
  • 0

#18 Oliver Christoph Kochs

Oliver Christoph Kochs
  • Sustaining Members
  • 323 posts
  • Film Loader
  • Germany

Posted 19 November 2010 - 07:57 AM

4:2:2 is a relic of analog and interlace, an antique. Given progressive scanning and a frame's worth of memory, there's no reason that 4:2:0 shouldn't look just as good as 4:2:2. (...)


As long as you don't use chromakeying or excessive color correction, this may be right. It's just a fact that other camcorders half the price do a lot better than the F3 in terms of color sampling and, more important, the codec data rate which is exceptionally low (35 MBit) on the F3.
  • 0

#19 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 November 2010 - 08:57 AM

The on board codec doesn't seem to be intended for the main production recording, rather a proxy or at the most grab type shots. Of course, the actual users may see it differently.

The above link to a FD times article, which goes into some more detail.
  • 0

#20 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 19 November 2010 - 10:36 AM

Arri Alexa has it.




-- J.S.


Ha John, i need not type when tired, as I meant to say you'd need to go to an Alexa or external recorder.
  • 0


Glidecam

Opal

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

CineTape

Opal

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post