EventDV.net
Search EventDV

EVENT-DV 25
2010 Awards Show
2009 All-Star Team
2008 All-Star Team
2007 All-Star Team
2006 All-Star Team


RELATED SITES
Streaming Media Producer
OnlineVideo.net
Streaming Media
EMediaLive Archive


PRIVACY/COOKIES









Copyright © 2004 -
Information Today, Inc.



September 30, 2010

Table of Contents

In the Field: Canon XF300 4:2:2 HD Camcorder
Schneider Distributes Cam Caddie Stabilizing Handle
iZotope Releases RX 2: Complete Audio Repair Suite
Singular Software Releases PluralEyes 1.2 for Final Cut Pro
Sachtler Announces New Cine DSLR Fluid Head
Sony Electronics Expands Professional Camcorder Line with New 4:2:2 Memory Model

In the Field: Canon XF300 4:2:2 HD Camcorder

Canon revolutionized event videography with its numerous, affordable DSLRs that can record HD video with “filmic” shallow depth of field. Canon continues to innovate in the traditional camcorder market, and the XF300 makes it clear that Canon continues to take this market very seriously. The XF300 is an entirely new camcorder with numerous innovative features. Canon has given up on the rotating mode dial introduced with the XL1 and developed a camcorder that, from the ground up, is designed to leverage the capabilities of compact flash media. The XF300 (along with its Genlock-capable and slightly pricier sibling, the XF305) is Canon’s first professional camcorder to use flash media, though the company has been producing flash-based consumer camcorders for years. Much will be written about the camcorder’s ergonomics (it’s front-heavy), new features (its LCD screen swings to left or right side of the camcorder), and huge glass lens (with 82mm filter threads). I consulted fellow professional videographers to find out what they were most curious about. Based on their questions, I decided to focus my attention on the 4:2:2 color space and 50Mbps data rate and see how that affects image quality—especially as noise from gain takes over the image as light levels drop. To do this, I put together 3 days of studio tests to compare the XF300 (Figure 1, right) against five other camcorders of varying style, design, recording format, data rate, and media.

Day 1
I pitted the Canon XF300 against my 5-year-old Sony HDR-FX1, the first prosumer HDV camcorder to gain wide acceptance in the market, and the Canon 5D Mark II, the latest “video” camera (which, of course, is not a video camera in any traditional sense) to see wide adoption in numerous markets. Both the XF300 and the 5D have nearly identical 50Mbps bit rates. But the 5D uses the more efficient H.264 codec as opposed to the XF300’s MPEG-2-based codec. (Note that while both HDV and the new Canon codec are both MPEG-2-based, the Canon MXF codec is much more generous with image quality, with full 1920x1080 resolution, twice the data rate, and more than twice the color resolution of HDV.) But what will the H.264/MPEG-2 dichotomy mean when noise from gain fills the image?

For this test, I visited the studios of PixelPops Design, home of EventDV Graphic Thoughts columnist Lance Gray and his partner Brian Gunn. Gunn and I set up a static scene and used an external waveform scope to assess the light levels from the different cameras (Figure 2, below). I set the back wall to 80% luminance. Then I would ramp up gain or ISO settings at standard intervals and use other camera settings (shutter, ND filter) to bring down the light to keep the back wall at a consistent 80%.

Canon XF300 at PixelPops Design
Figure 2. Testing the cameras at the PixelPops studio

I exported uncompressed images from each of these video clips. Because this test was not done simultaneously on all cameras (the focal lengths of the 5D prevented that), you should use the individual images only to assess the image quality delivered by each camera as noise increases. Here are a couple comparison images from these three camcorders showing both mid-level and extreme samples of gain (Figure 3, below). The top image shows that each can produce some very clean-looking video at moderate gain. The second, more extreme example shows that high noise causes problems everywhere.

Canon XF 300, Canon 5D, Sony FX1
Figure 3. Mid-level (top) and extreme (bottom) gain levels compared on the XF300, the 5D, and the FX1

In the high-gain image, bottom left of Figure 3 (above), the 21 dB of gain in the XF300 kicks in some noise reduction that’s not present in the 18 dB image. So it looks cleaner, but now the color component becomes blotchy with blue and yellow patches. In the center slice, the 5D looks pristine, until you look closely and realize that so much fine detail is gone—smoothed out of existence. Also, the wood most clearly shows off the 5D’s blotchy green and orange compression artifacts. Lastly, the old FX1 looks noisier than the other two, but the level of visible detail surpasses either of the two newer cameras. The noise is restricted to the luminance channel, and the FX1 does not have anywhere near the level of color blotchiness of the XF300 or 5D.

Lastly, we used a resolution chart to try to differentiate between the three camcorders (Figure 4, below). The difference was not as dramatic as you might think.

Canon XF300
Figure 4. Comparing the XF300, the 5D, and the FX1 on the resolution chart. Here, the newer cameras really shine, and the XF300 camcorder hangs in well with the 5D.

On the left, the XF300 looks phenomenal well beyond 800 lines—the camera softly resolves the vertical down to where the lines blur together. Horizontally, the camera even resolved the stair stepping evident in the printed glossy chart. The Canon 5D also did well, showing no aliasing that I could discern. The FX1 did not do as well here, limited by the subsampled HDV resolution (1440x1080) and the lower bitrate (half that of the other two camcorders). The FX1 has some interlacing evident in the circle. This came about because the only way to match the size of the chart was to pull a still from a slow zoom. The FX1 was the only camera shooting interlaced video. I reshot this later, but even without the zoom, the resolution of the fine detail in the middle was about the same.

Day 2
For the second set of tests, I visited Dallas-based video production house GlobalWebHQ Productions. Production manager Adam Oas and I put four cameras side by side to shoot the same static scene and lowered the light on the scene to see which camera and which codec could hold up as the light went away.

Contestants in this gambit were the Canon XF300, the Sony FX1/Z1U, the Sony FX7/V1U, and the Canon 7D DSLR (Figure 5, below). All shot 1920x1080p30, save for my Sony FX1, which shoots 1080i30 (60 interlaced fields). The Sony V1U shoots 1080p30, but it records an HDV-compliant 1080i30 stream. Put the two fields together in software and you get your 30p back.

Canon XF300
Figure 5. The Day 2 lineup, from left: the Canon EOS 7D, the Sony V1U, the Sony FX1, and the Canon XF300

We started with 80 foot-candles (fc) of light to give us a good overall exposure on our Barbie and Mr. Potato Head scene as judged on an external waveform scope. This placed the background greenscreen at 30%. We used this arrangement to set all the cameras as evenly as possible as we dropped the light levels down from 80 fc to below 3 fc, as measured with a Sekonic incident light meter.

We used 1/60-second shutter and kept the f-stop settings fixed to isolate gain adjustments, until we ran out of gain and used what little bit of iris we had left to suck in more light. The one exception to this was a 3 fc. We used the incredible 33 dB of gain on the XF300, which actually forced us to close down the iris to keep the overall exposure consistent.

The gain settings are not an accurate comparison between cameras because camera manufacturers can set 0 dB of gain wherever they want to. Indicative of this, the Canon XF300 offers -3 dB and -6 dB of gain for slightly cleaner images than the standard 0 dB gain setting. The 7D adjusts ISO higher, and there is no direct correlation to gain setting. Moreover, the higher bit rates of the XF300 and the 7D, not to mention the three different codecs used in these cameras, all play a part on image quality and compression artifacts due to noise. So the comparison images based on incident light readings are the only way to qualitatively compare the images from the different cameras.

Canon XF300

In these select images from the 80 fc test (Figure 6, below), you can see some clear differences in image clarity starting with 0 dB of gain. The HDV cameras have more artifacting in the colors of the face compared to the XF300 and the 7D.

Canon XF300
Figure 6. Image comparison at 80fc, o dB gain

When you get down to 15 fc and the various gain settings that have to be used to achieve the same image brightness, you start to see how clean and crisp the XF300 and the 7D are (Figure 7, below). The FX1 has a lot of gain noise, but as I noted in Day 1 tests, its luminance noise is evenly dispersed. The V1U has the poorest image. Please excuse the guest appearance by the viewing loupe for the 7D.

canon xf300
Figure 7. Image comparison at 15 fc

When you get down to 7 fc, the differences really become apparent. The XF300 may have noise, but the clarity and resolution of the image is unquestionable. You can see patterns in the flat green field up top, but I’d hazard a guess that it would still cut a clean key, especially with 4:2:2 color space to back it up. The FX1 has an overall grainy feel, but the edges of the figure are clearer than the V1U, which seems to be overcompensating with noise reduction, which makes it appear to have a cleaner image at the expense of edge sharpness. The 7D continues to have a nice bright image at the expense of edge sharpness. The shallow depth of field would hurt your ability to get a clean edge key. Compression artifacts and noise are very low, even at this high ISO.

Lastly, at 3 fc, I had to gain the XF300 up to 33 dB to get enough light. But then I had to iris down to 3.4 to keep the image consistent with the others (Figure 8, below). You can see that the noise from the gain here basically makes this image unusable in terms of quality. But if you absolutely had to get any image, the XF300 could do it. The FX1 and V1U were already maxed out at 18 dB gain, but they had a bit more left in the lens, so they were opened up from ƒ3.1 to ƒ2.0. This put them under the luminance levels we had set, and the issues from gain noise and noise reduction remain. The 7D image now starts to strain. Visible blockiness and color artifacting start to appear as the camera’s noise reduction compensates for increased noise. However, it still has the cleanest image of the group and is able to gather enough light to maintain the image brightness we had set at the beginning.

Canon XF300
Figure 8. Settings necessary to get anything approaching a clean image at 3 fc

For kicks, we tried one more test. We dropped the light levels down to about 1 fc. The needle on the incident light meter barely twitched. But it did move, and there was light on the subject. The FX1 and V1U would be too dark to be usable, so we only shot the XF300 and 7D. You wouldn’t want to use either clip of video in a polished production.

The temporal artifacts of the noise and compression are understated in these still images. But the XF300 continues to maintain the sharp focus throughout the image that the small imager provides by design (but the 7D provides the cleaner and more pleasing image).

I’d have to say I was impressed that the XF300 got there, but the 7D proved that it could get there with better style and grace.

Day 3
One request I got from a reader was to test skin tones and highlight handling as well as to test the XF300 against Panasonic’s HPX370. So with the assistance of Barak Epstein of Videotex Systems, who let me use the company’s HPX370 and studio, I put the two camcorders to the test as a Caucasian face was ramped up from 75 IRE on the skin tones to 100 IRE to see how Canon’s 4:2:2 50Mbps codec and image processing held up against Panasonic’s 4:2:2 112Mbps DVCPRO HD codec.

The HPX370 was a bit soft—an unfortunate situation—but the skin tones are still there for comparison between the cameras in these images. The skin tones hold up well as you go up the scale. Obviously, there seems to be a big change once the face hits 100%; neither looks good. But I’d have to say that even at 95%, the Canon XF300 looks better than the Panasonic here (Figure 9, below).

Canon XF300
Figure 9. Skin tones comparison, with the XF300 images on the top and the HPX370 on the bottom

Latest Developments
As I write this, Canon just announced the XF100 series with the same 4:2:2 and 50Mbps in a smaller and potentially more affordable package. I suspect that small camcorders like this are the death knell for HDV. Yes, there is AVCHD, but that’s trading one color space-reduced MPEG-2 codec for a color space-reduced MPEG-4 codec.

The XF camcorders more than double the color resolution, and they give the whole image a lot more breathing room in the data rate. This is a distinct advantage over HDV and AVCHD, and it bodes well for color grading, keying, and overall image quality.

Conclusions
You can read a lot about “shooting for grading” online and see samples of video that looks dull and washed out—which ensures that all of the black and white detail that the chips can record is saved to your video file. Video that looks “snappy” right out of the camera has settings that lose black detail and crush some whites. So tweaking the camera, any camera, to ensure that you get what you want means that every possible adjustment changes the results of a test.

After trying three times to conduct seemingly scientific tests comparing disparate camcorders and then seeing the great disparity of the images that result, I’ve come to the conclusion that entirely objective tests are impossible. There are so many ways to adjust the internal image control settings any more that any adjustment, or nonadjustment, can have a big effect on the resulting images. I counted 68 different internal settings on the canon XF300 that can be tweaked for any given custom picture profile.

So the results of all this testing tell me that the cameras continue to improve, look better, and offer more capability and faster access to your data.

You can see clear depth of field differences between the XF300, or any video camera for that matter, and a DSLR such as the 5D or 7D. In deference to shallow depth of field purists, in my testing, having various parts of the foreground subject be out of focus was actually a problem. In terms of cutting a key, you need that edge to be sharp. I needed more depth of field. I know that can be achieved with a higher ƒ-stop, but that loses light and forces the DSLR into higher ISO’s noise reduction and artifacts faster. That makes it less useful. It was actually quite nice to be able to shoot at ƒ2.0 and have everything in focus for the still-life tests. But that was only possible with the video cameras, not the DSLRs.

There was a slight blue shift with the XF300 as the gain increased, but I saw it only at higher gain settings; 9 dB of gain proved surprisingly clean. Compare the CMOS-based XF300 to the CCD-based FX1 or the CMOS-based V1U, and you’ll realize that the type of chips used don’t make anywhere near as much difference as the amount of light the lens can gather and the quality of the video processing inside the camcorder. In both these respects, the XF300 excels. The massive light gathering of Canon’s sizable integrated lens (83mm diameter threads), the 4:2:2 color space, and the generous 50Mbps data rate of the MPEG-2 codec make for some beautiful and extremely sharp images. Of course, you can dial down the sharpness with several of those 68 in-camera adjustments.

I put the XF300 up against both a Canon 5D and a Canon 7D expecting the XF300 to be trounced when it came to low-light capability. In the end, the difference wasn’t anywhere near as great as I expected. Yes, the DSLRs can shoot a little cleaner at lower light levels. But at light levels you’ll see in typical productions, the XF300, like the 5D and 7D, is extremely clean, the only appreciable difference being the greater depth of field offered by the XF300.

The DSLRs had a surprising amount of artifacts in the video, considering they were shooting the same 50Mbps as the XF300 but with half the color resolution (4:2:0) and using an interframe codec that’s supposedly twice as efficient (H.264). Given those distinct advantages, I would have expected the DSLR footage to blow away the XF300, but it just didn’t.

If you can add one or two lights, would like to record high-quality audio into the same file as the video, and have ready access to all the camcorder settings for adjustments on-the-fly—like a feathery smooth zoom rocker—the XF300 offers an incredibly capable camcorder with many innovative features and image quality that is very hard to beat until you more than double the camera’s $6,799 MSRP.

The MX format needs editing software from the last year or so, but the advantages offered by tapeless ingest are well worth it. Canon clearly did its homework with this camcorder. Adding the new, smaller XF100 series to the family only further solidifies the format’s future growth. Now there’s a huge Canon fan base looking for the same camcorder wrapped around the Canon 5D imager (XF500?). If Canon wants to quickly take over a significant share of the prosumer camcorder market, adding a camcorder like that to its XF lineup will certainly make it happen.

Anthony Burokas (VidPro at ieba.com) of IEBA Communications has shot award-winning corporate video internationally and recorded events since the days of 3/4" tape. He is currently technical director for the PBS series Flavors of America and resides just outside of Dallas.

Back to Contents...

Schneider Distributes Cam Caddie Stabilizing Handle

Schneider Optics is pleased to announce the exclusive worldwide distribution of Cam Caddie. This amazingly effective stabilizing handle and accessory holder system is ideal for work with virtually any lightweight still, DV HDSLR and video-enabled DSLR camera. Cam Caddie combines versatility and a price anyone can afford. Every camcorder owner should want one.

Cam Caddie provides a comfortable, solid camera platform that provides stable support and dampens movement while shooting—enabling smooth and steady shots. What’s more, the system can facilitate moves that look like a professional jib arm or camera stabilizer. It is just the trick for capturing dynamic action camera work like skateboarders, sports, weddings, corporate films, walk throughs, and more.

Cam Caddie is the ideal way to add on accessories like a light, monitor, and more to the camera via the built-in mounting interfaces. The well thought-out Cam Caddie system offers optional accessories including the Accessory Shoe – that allows the attachment of lights, flash units, mics, and monitors. The Accessory Wing and Tripod Adapter works with the Accessory Shoe to mount multiple accessories. There’s also a 1/4-20 Flash Shoe Adapter to attach multiple accessories to any flash shoe, hot or cold mount

The Cam Caddie price starts at $59.95. A kit including the Cam Caddie and three accessories has an MSRP of $109.95. To find out more about the Cam Caddie Scorpion and accessories, visit www.schneideroptics.com.

Back to Contents...

iZotope Releases RX 2: Complete Audio Repair Suite

iZotope, Inc., a leader in audio DSP processing, has released RX 2 and RX 2 Advanced, updates to their award-winning audio repair software suites. With a range of new features and functionality, iZotope has expanded the scope of RX into any field where audio is recorded or restored by both consumers and professionals. Additionally, iZotope is offering introductory pricing on RX 2 and RX 2 Advanced purchases and upgrades throughout October 31, 2010.

RX 2 and RX 2 Advanced are designed to repair common and uncommon audio problems like tonal and broadband noise, hiss, buzz, hum, clicks and crackle, distortion from clipping and interfering sounds like cell phone rings, dogs barking, car horns, string squeaks, dropped drumsticks and just about anything else.

"RX 2 and RX 2 Advanced are crucial tools if you're recording new tracks or restoring old ones. Whether you're on location with a TV show or recording a voiceover at home for a company presentation, it's a challenge to get a good recording. RX gives you all the tools you need to repair damaged audio and deliver the best recording," explains Jeremy Todd, CTO of iZotope, "RX also includes specialized tools to restoring old recordings from vinyl records, tape and other sources with tools like Declick, Decrackle and automatic azimuth alignment. RX 2 and RX 2 Advanced are a complete set of the best processing tools with an immersive visual editing interface enabling you to quickly repair and deliver high-quality audio."

RX 2 builds on the success of the original's Denoise, Spectral Repair, Declick, Declip and Remove Hum modules with iZotope's latest DSP algorithm improvements and the new Decrackle and Channel Operations modules. RX 2 Advanced extends the standard RX with an adaptive Denoiser mode, a Deconstruct module, third party plug-in hosting, iZotope 64-bit SRC™ resampling, MBIT+™ dither, iZotope Radius® time and pitch control, ability to export an edit history, multi-resolution mode for Spectral Repair and automatic azimuth correction.

RX 2 and RX 2 Advanced include new visual editing features and functionality such as the Magic Wand, Lasso and Brush tools designed for selecting audio in the product's spectrogram. Similar to working in popular graphic design programs, these tools allow natural freehand selections around problem sounds. The Magic Wand can automatically select a sound and even automatically select its harmonics. After selecting, Spectral Repair resynthesizes audio allowing the user to seamlessly remove unwanted sounds or even fill in gaps in the recording.

RX 2 and RX 2 Advanced further improve the workflow from the first release. Like the original, they are available as both a suite of plug-ins for a DAW and as a dedicated application. An extensive edit history tracks every change the user makes allowing unlimited undo and compare processing. RX 2 Advanced adds the ability to export the history to an XML file for archival or forensic documentation. The application also saves complete session information, so the user can restart the application and continue working with even the audio selection and undo history being remembered. The updated Batch Processor allows the chaining together of modules to operate on multiple files, all optimized with the use of multiple CPUs.

RX 2 and RX 2 Advanced are ideal for restoration engineers, video post production engineers, forensic specialists, audio engineers, recording musicians, broadcasters, podcasters, archivists, videographers and anyone who records audio.

Specifications:
Windows (XP, x64, Vista, 7)
Mac OS X 10.5 or later (Universal Binary)
Standalone application
Plug-in formats: Pro Tools 7+ (RTAS/ AudioSuite), VST, MAS, Audio Unit, DirectX

Price and Availability:

An introductory price of $249 USD for RX 2 and $749 USD for RX 2 Advanced is available through October 31, 2010, and $349 for RX 2 and $1,199 for RX 2 Advanced thereafter.
Upgrade pricing is available for RX and RX Advanced owners. For product information, demo videos and ordering information, visit http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/rx/.

Back to Contents...

Singular Software Releases PluralEyes 1.2 for Final Cut Pro

Singular Software, developer of automation applications for digital media markets, is pleased to announce the availability of PluralEyes™ version 1.2 for Apple® Final Cut Pro®. Ideal for multi-camera, multi-take, DSLR and dual-system audio production workflows, the award-winning PluralEyes application automates the synchronization of multiple audio and video clips, saving editors countless hours in post. The newest release of PluralEyes adds an assortment of enhanced and brand-new workflow capabilities, including the powerful merged clips feature, options for single output sequence and support for locked tracks. "Customers provided valuable feedback and we listened – PluralEyes 1.2 contains an abundance of new features that simplify working with multi-device video projects," says Bruce Sharpe, CEO, Singular Software. "Users will find syncing DSLR video and other dual-system audio workflows even easier than before. We are pleased to offer Final Cut Pro users such a substantial upgrade and look forward to imminent updates for the other host applications - Adobe Premiere and Sony Vegas."

What's New in PluralEyes 1.2 for Final Cut Pro:
    •    Merged Master Clips – A powerful new feature that automates creation of merged master clips in the browser; a great starting point for the creative editing process.

    •    New Project and Sequence Sync Select – Version 1.2 sports a more convenient and intuitive project and sequence sync select option.

    •    Single Output Sequence – The new single output sequence option simplifies working with groups of synced clips.

    •    Replace Audio – This lets you automate replacement of existing audio with higher quality audio: ideal for productions using DSLR video cameras and external high-quality audio recording device.

    •    Locked Tracks Support – The new support for locked tracks makes it easier to update a previously synced sequence.

    •    Integrated Help – A message-specific help system provides in-depth information on each status message.

    •    Enhanced Multiclip Management – The new PluralEyes 1.2 update offers improved multiclip handling, including better support for subclips and in/out points.

    •    Optimized File and Project Management – Version 1.2 also improves the management of temporary files and handling of large projects.

PluralEyes Pricing and System Requirements
PluralEyes 1.2 for Final Cut Pro is available immediately through the Singular Software web site (http://www.singularsoftware.com) for an MSRP of $149.00 USD. Existing PluralEyes 1.1 for Final Cut Pro owners may download the update at no charge from: http://www.singularsoftware.com/downloads.html.

Back to Contents...

Sachtler Announces New Cine DSLR Fluid Head

Sachtler, a Vitec Group brand, presents a new fluid head specially designed for DSLR filmmakers. The Cine DSLR has a payload range of 2 to 11 lbs (1 to 5 kg) and is thus ideal for state-of-the-art digital single-lens reflex cameras with HD video function.

A counterbalance in ten steps as well as three vertical and horizontal grades of drag allow for professional operation. In addition, the Cine DSLR comes with a special camera plate with an anti-twist retainer for HD DSLR cameras.

"If a video-enabled DSLR is being used for filming, precise panning and tilting are only possible with fluid heads equipped with a corresponding tilt range. And it also requires well-engineered damping," explains Barbara Jaumann, Product Manager at Sachtler. For smooth horizontal and vertical pans, the new Cine DSLR fluid head works with the fully developed technology of the big Sachtler heads: The 3-step damping is based on the patented Sachtler damping system. "In comparison to other manufacturers, our fluid heads in this payload range offer extremely soft and finely graded damping," says Barbara Jaumann.

Speedbalance technology for fast counterbalance
The new Cine DSLR fluid head works with Sachtler Speedbalance technology that enables a fast and target-oriented counterbalance of the camera set-up. The long sliding range of the camera plate as well as the self-illuminating Touch Bubble are practical features of the new head. The Cine DSLR has a tilt range of +90° to -75°.
The Cine DSLR is lightweight, compact, and easy to transport. It has a robust metal housing that dependably protects it from exterior influences. Thanks to the special Sachtler lubricated oil damping, filming is also possible in extreme temperature ranges, as the damping is not negatively influenced by them. With the Cine DSLR, Sachtler offers professional photographers and filmmakers alike an authentic, professional fluid head for filming with video-enabled DSLRs.

For more information visit http://www.sachtler.com

Back to Contents...

Sony Electronics Expands Professional Camcorder Line with New 4:2:2 Memory Model

Sony is expanding its XDCAM® line of tapeless acquisition technologies with the introduction of the PMW-500 shoulder-mount professional camcorder – designed for broadcasters, live event production, documentaries, rental companies or any professional application requiring a versatile and high-performance camcorder.

The new camcorder combines the exceptional picture quality and performance of Sony’s PDW-F800 optical disc camera with the operational flexibility of recording onto solid state SxS memory cards. The PMW-500 is equipped with three 2/3-inch Power HAD FX CCD image sensors and can record both 1080 and 720 HD pictures at 50 Mb/s.

“The PMW-500 represents the next step in the evolution of the XDCAM product range of tapeless technologies,” said Bob Ott, vice president of product marketing and management, Sony Electronics’ Professional Solutions of America. “Customers have been requesting an XDCAM HD422 memory camcorder to complement the phenomenally popular optical disc camcorder, and this new model is an ideal solution.”

The PMW-500 has two slots for recording onto SxS Memory Card* cards. First introduced to the XDCAM EX family in 2007, SxS memory cards provide an extremely high level of reliability and fast access to recorded data, both critical in demanding professional operations. Sony is also adding a new higher capacity 64GB (SBS-64G1A) card which can record 2 hours of material at HD422 50Mbps MXF mode, or more than 4 hours in DVCAM mode and has an increased transfer speed of 1.2Gbps** (SBS-32G1A & SBS-64G1A).

Other key features of the PMW-500 camcorder include:

  • XDCAM HD422 codec for exceptional picture quality at low data rate.
  • Switchable between MXF and MP4 for recording in XDCAM HD422, XDCAM HD and XDCAM EX modes.
  • Option to record MPEG IMX and DVCAM material allowing users to migrate to HD at their own pace.
  • Interoperability with major NLE systems enabling smooth workflow migration.
  • Lower power consumption for extended record time during shooting.
  • Four channels of uncompressed 48 kHz digital audio.


Another major introduction at IBC is XDCAM Station, a family of professional media recorders that bridges the worlds of SxS Memory card and Professional Disc. There will be three models in the line-up:

  • XDS-1000 - featuring an SxS Memory card slot and internal HDD storage
  • XDS-PD1000 - featuring an SxS Memory card slot, a Professional Disc drive and internal HDD storage
  • XDS-PD2000 - featuring an SxS Memory card slot, a Professional Disc drive and internal SSD storage


Depending upon the model chosen, customers can copy material from SxS memory cards or Professional Disc onto the hard disk or solid state storage within the XDCAM Station. The material can then be accessed for non-linear editing or can be replayed under slow motion control. SDI input and output and network capability allows the device to function as an MXF gateway linking XDCAM media, baseband video and networked operation. The Professional Disc based models will also be able to record and read Sony’s new higher capacity 128GB quad layer Professional Discs, PFD128QLW.

The XDS-1000 will be available in March 2011, with the XDS-PD1000 and PD2000 available in summer 2011 along with the PFD128QLW quad layer disc.

The PMW-500 camcorder will be available in November. The camcorder can be used in a studio configuration, using an HD camera adaptor (model XDCA-55), and camera extension unit (model XDCU-50), which are also available in November. These studio options also work with Sony’s PMW-320 and PMW-350 camcorders, when used with a 50-pin interface.

Back to Contents...