XDCAM HD & HDCAM Test

[JCTV]

Let’s have a little fun. F900 HDCAM & F350 XDCAM HD, Can you tell which one is which?

First, let me explain what this is. We did several tests with a F900 and a F350 to see how they looked together. The 900 was on standard factory settings, shooting 24p and the 350 was on “cine 3” setting shooting 24p. This was not a scientific test by any means, we just had both cameras and a few minutes of down time so we shot a few scenes for comparison. We then transferred the XDCAM to a HDCAM tape and then down converted both of them to a Betacam tape. That tape was then digitized into an Avid, edited and exported as a Windows Media File. And as if that was not enough processing, the file was emailed to me and I uploaded it so it can be accessed here.

So, please understand this is not a comparison of “quality”, but just a look at how they compare after being processed. It’s a bit crude and not very long, but it’s all I have at the moment. I wish I could show you what they looked like on a HD monitor, it was unbelievable.

Anyway, take a look and post a guess which one is the F900 and which one is the F350. I will post the answer in a few days.

Click here to see the video: XDCAM HD-HDCAM Test


-

[SimonW]

Hmmm, I'll take a look at the video later, but I will say that a highly compressed WMV isn't a good way to make a comparison.

I've been shooting with both the 350 and the 330 all weekend, and I will say that they have been producing superb pictures.

As long as the right shutter speed is selected the slow motion on the 350 is amazing.

[freedom]

"We then transferred the XDCAM to a HDCAM tape and then down converted both of them to a Betacam tape. That tape was then digitized into an Avid, edited and exported as a Windows Media File. And as if that was not enough processing, the file was emailed to me and I uploaded it so it can be accessed here."

Not a good test in my opinion. I'll bet it would be hard to tell the dif between F900 & betacam under those test conditions.
How did the original transfer to HDCam look?
Again, I have a client that shoots a lot of HDCam and they reported that they could see a big difference between HDCam & XD-HD.

[JCTV]

Let me reiterate that the video is all I have to post right now, the quality is not great but it is a sample of the tests we did. By the way, the Betacam did not hold up in the comparison. We shot the same settings with a D600 and it looked good but the down converted HD was better. It may have to do with shooting 24p but the colors a depth of the image was more pleasing with both the HDCAM & XDCAM HD video.

In the HD version of the test you can see every needle of the cactus and could even roll focus from the little cactus to the larger one. On the Betacam the needles looked more like a soft fur. On another test we shot into dark foliage with hot spots of sun light throughout and a very fine miss of water between the camera and the plants. We were looking for the artifacts that show up on the HDV sometimes when dealing with a lot of information, but the XD held up beautifully.

[Stoney]

I like the hands-on camparisons. Thanks for the test. However, both look like crap on my notebook computer!

What I would like to know is what you found in-person! I am shooting a long-term show and it is about to go HD. Which HD, I don't know (although it will be a broadcast/pro format, not HDV). I am hoping for tapeless, yet there are delivery issues there. But, personal tests from people in the field go a long way in my book. Hopefully the client listens to my advice, too.

[PHX Shooter]

I actually think this is a good test as even though a WMV file on a laptop does not do HD justice, it is the relative picture quality that tells the tale. I think if the 350 is even in the same ballpark quality wise, that's a good thing for those of us looking for a solution better than HDV but lower than the F900/Varicam.

I haven't shot on either, but I'll go out on a limb and say the A is the F900 as it appears to have a shallower depth of field (2/3" vs 1/2"). It also seems to have an edge quality wise (as far as I can tell). I don't really care if I'm right or not, it's fun to guess. Anyone else want to join me on the limb?

I think it's great that were seeing reports and images from photogs in the field, as that is the real world. Thanks JC.

I'm hoping the the XD HD does turn out to be a workable standard for the industry as I've started shooting with a hard drive and it will near impossible to go back to tape. Plug it into the computer, edit straight of the HD, consolidate the desired media to the regular HD (saving space in the process) and master. That work flow works for me and I think I can get that from the XD system.

[EFP]

Wow JC,
the clip you uploaded is not even the quality of the 1.5Mbps XDCam proxies.

I hope you’re just jiving us and you don’t really expect anyone (including your clients) to judge the head/format quality based on 4 seconds of a stationary plant shot - uploaded in fisher-price codec quality.

“””we shot into dark foliage with hot spots of sun light throughout and a very fine miss of water between the camera and the plants.”””

That’s a good test.
Different coloured leaves “swaying” in the wind.is a good format comparison. I can clearly see differences even between DV25 and Beta SP using that kind of test. Never mind DigiBeta.or even IMX.
HDCam should do a lot better then 35Mbit/s 4:2:0 using this kind of comparison.

High contrast sun-light peeking through the trees, along with mostly dark areas in the forest.is a good CCD comparison. You should be able to tell between ½ and 2/3 using this test – in smear from light sources and S/N noise in the darker scenes.

Then do major post work and convert to final DVD or broadcast play-out quality. Then, maybe someone will actually take your test.

Although lensmith once showed me a Cuban documentary about all the old cars and within’ seconds (even with a fisher-price quality internet-stream format) I could tell within’ seconds that a handycam was used – too much smear on the shiny cars.