The World's Stock Media Marketplace
Login to your Account
Don't have an account?
Forgot your Password?
Username or Email:
Create an Account
Already have an account?
Sign in here
min 6 characters
min 8 characters
is exactly same as password
By Clicking 'Sign Me Up' button I accept the
Terms of Service
Sign Me Up!
Download our Free Stock Clip of the Week
Stock Video Footage
Trending Video Collections
Japan - transportation
Stock Photos and Images
Stock Music and Soundtracks
After Effects Project Templates
New Sony PMW-200
24 Sep 2012 15:28
Good-by EX1 here comes the PMW-200
- Three 1/2" Exmor CMOS Sensors
- MPEG HD422 at 50 Mbps
24 Sep 2012 23:42
Looks almost exact to the EX1... whats the benefit?
25 Sep 2012 02:49
EX1 is 35mbps. BBC requires EX1 to have a recorder. PMW-200 is 50 Mbps. No external recorder required.
25 Sep 2012 13:19
25 Sep 2012 13:19
How many of us shoot for the BBC? And would BBC be able to use footage from a mark II in photojpeg codec? Do they know what the source was?
25 Sep 2012 14:18
I would not be at all surprisd to see productions companies that work with the BBC using stock from P5.
25 Sep 2012 17:28
I think that if you are going to make a documentary for BBC and you state that your main cameras or cameras comply with de 50mbs requirement then they will approve your project. This will not apply to good quality B-Roll for fill in shots. I think the same applies to Discover and History Channel. I have heard that Sky is more restrictive.
25 Sep 2012 19:22
When's your first BBC documentary coming out Luxor?
Changed 25 Sep 2012 19:22 by jason ""
25 Sep 2012 20:53
I considered this camera before deciding on the FS700. It is on my list still, eventually to replace the Z5U and V1U. The form factor of the PMW-200 is almost exactly like that of the Z5U. Which is great for running and gunning (and yes, tripping and falling and rolling with the camera in a backpack when an ATV is about to land on you). The EX cameras are KNOWN for being tough, and I can attest, so too are the V1U and Z5U, which I appreciate.
Here's a bit of info for some who may not have realized it yet...I kinda knew it, but now I have proof:
Bit rate alone is NOT necessarily indicative of the actual image quality/resolution/color depth. Case in point: I get better image quality from HDV 25 Mb/s from the Z5 and V1 than from the Canon T2i 45-50 Mb/s. I record externally to PIX220 from Z5 and V1 and can directly compare the various qualities of different codecs at different bit rate.
Importantly - the 24 Mb/s AVCHD of the FS700 SMOKES the 25 Mb/s HDV. (So too does the 28 PS at 60fps) but that's not a fair comparison).
What this is is evidence of more efficient compression. Color correcting the AVCHD is luxurious compared to HDV, although it is a bit harder for the computer. I do not transcode except in specific instances, and I can say that the AVCHD has nearly as much latitude as ProRes, DNxHD, and PJPEG, all in their 4:2:2 modes...and the AVCHD is only 8-bit 4:2:0!
Frankly, I am surprised at this.
I have not tried the PIX recorder with the FS700 yet. Once I do, I am sure I will find that the comparison will be more accurate, and I will see further benefit from using the external recorder, even though it is going to be restricted to the 8-bit output, and the PIX unfortunately, does not record 60p.
For general run and gun stock shooting where I never know how much I might shoot, and I need to be fast and light, a lower bit rate from a more efficient codec is better, since I keep all my footage (although I delete garbage clips). When I am shooting something that is a known, as in an idea or such, then it makes sense to shoot in higher bit rates with less compression.
I think that if I got footage of the Arctic Sasquatch riding a moose across the tundra, no-one is going to complain about what camera/codec it was that I used to obtain it!
25 Sep 2012 23:19
Miz, I've watched some comparison videos with external recorder vs internal codec of the fs700 and couldn't see much difference. I rented the nano flash with my FS100 last year and saw absolutely no difference between the two, even with grading. I didn't do any green screen... so that might be where you benefit.
The avchd from my fs700 does smoke the hdv from my fx1000, it is insane how much better it is. Like noise, color, just the way the picture 'feels'.
People are so codec, non compressed crazy right now. I'm surprised the BBC still has these 50mbps standards, when you couldn't probably decipher which codec is which side by side. Now when editing you might notice the difference in computer speed required for the avchd, but other than that I feel it's almost a wash. Over time the codecs will get even better.
26 Sep 2012 12:45
I think Canon's XF300 is in real trouble with this new Sony. Sony is very aggressive with all those new cameras they have introduced this year.
@dapoopta - Using AVCHD (FS100), if you film complicated patterns like the grass in your front yard, do you see a difference? Is all the detail there? When you pan, do colors mix together and look like mud?
@jason - Only once have I assisted a company (Red Star Films) making documentaries for BBC. They very rarely come down here. Discovery, History, Univision, Telemundo, Infinito, NBC and CBS are the ones that do most of the documentaries down here. To answer your question: no I do not plan to make a documentary for BBC but before I turn 65 instead of assisting and be interviewed by film crews, I will do my own complete documentary.
Changed 26 Sep 2012 22:47 by LUXORPYRAMID ""
26 Sep 2012 20:43
I don't have the external anymore :-(, but i hear with lots of motion is where the external codec holds up.
I always have wanted to do a documentary style youtube series.. kinda like Louis Theroux. He is my favorite interviewer ever.
2 Oct 2012 19:42
Codec/bitrate considerations, and recent findings with the FS700 AVCHD: FYI: Complex/repeating finely detailed vegetation, especially panning, turns to mush at 24fps (AVCHD 24Mb/s) especially noted when overcranking (shutter 60/s over 24 fps), tracking raven in flight past grassland/spruce forest.
60fps normal cranking (28Mb/s) does not exhibit this as much, at least I haven't noticed it yet as objectionable, but I have not shot in all rates in all situations so cannot do an objective comparison yet.
Have not shot using the PIX220 with the FS700 yet. I will see what difference it yields. I'm not expecting the image to "look" different, but to hold up better to motion, gradients, etc.
It's a matter of time...I don't have any right now.
If it weren't for the abject orgasmic joy I feel when there is a Canon 100-400mm L lens sticking out the front of my FS700, I might be seriously considering sending this back and opting for the PMW-200, yes, seriously. But with nice glass, this is a very capable machine, although funky and slow in the field.
This is why, if speed of handling matters to you, and the INTERNAL 50 Mb/s 4:2:2 codec is something you can value and use, then by all means choose the PMW-200.
As I've said to some - I'd like one of each, please!