Sony HDV ok

[TotalX]

I went to the DV Expo West yesterday to look at the new FX1 and the Pro version.

Since this is a DVX user forum and most of us are interested in 24p, I would not buy the Sony camera. I found the resolution better than the DVX - a no brainer, but not that much better. Cineframe 24 does not look good on the Sony -
IMHO.

Waiting for the DVX HDV will be well worth the wait. Unless I am broadcasting HD to selected stations, why would I buy this camera at this time? What am I going to output to besides broadcast?

WHAT IS THE RUSH?

[Guest]

Are you one of who had the chance to try a Z1U? Did you try the "25p"? Was it any good?

[TotalX]

Actually, I tried the Z1U since they didn't have the FX1 on display. I did a side-to-side comparison with the VX-2100 and zoomed in a couple of cigar boxes to see the difference in resolution.

To tell you the truth, it will be hard pressed for consumers to tell the difference. I could see the difference in the sharpness of the lettering on the boxes. But, I wouldn't want to change my workflow for this product. It is way too early to get involved with this product - unless you do broadcast ( but, you would have enough money for a $50,000 camera ayway).

The 25p was better and that is what the rep wanted me to see. but, I would like to see a side to side comparison in motion between the DVX 100a and Z1U in 24p. *

[kplo]

I saw the Sony Z1 also, and it's a whole lot better than "OK"!
I love my 100a and frankly was expecting HDV to be "just another highly compressed format"...until I saw the Sony demo shot with the Z1 projected on a 14-16 foot wide screen.
WOW! According to the Sony rep, the demo footage had been decompressed/recompressed twice: once to assemble the footage and once to add the CG bug in the corner. It was played back for the demo from Sony's new mini-only HDV deck (3,900 list) through component outs to a projector.
Now, I'm a cynical old film guy and don't impress easily, but the images were stunning, both in resolution, tonal range and lack of artifacting or noise. Excellent color separation in heavily saturated reds and blues with no bleed.
Of course the picture will pick up some degradation in post, but if anything near this quality can be achieved from a film out, then this baby is going to be the gold standard in wide screen production in this price range ( at least until Panasonic's version is released).

Just my .02.
Ken

[evinsky]

I saw the same demo, and whatever that cineframe thing is, it is decidedly not 24P. I reminds me of 1/30 on a 60i camera that just strobes more. Yes the resolution was high but not strikingly so. The DVX still holds up very well in comparison. If you like 60I this is your cam.

[TotalX]

I saw the demo as well.

There was artifacting in the ballet movements. The demo was also not in "Cineframe" mode. I think it would be a completely story if you saw that. I will have to say that in 60i or whatever they shot it in - it was impressive - but, it was interlaced shots, so who cares. You also have to have a comparison side-to-side. I would venture to say that a real pro could make the same images pop with a DVX.

Take in consideration the projector and if they really shot the footage on the Z1U.

I would rather have side-to-side comparisons by users than a demo by a "corporation".

[Barry_Green]

I haven't seen that demo, but I have shot interlaced DVX vs. interlaced FX1, and up-rezzed DVX footage to HD resolution, and -- no, you can't get the DVX to quite the "wow -- I'm looking through a window" factor of interlaced HDV. If you want an interlaced image, with that hyper-reality look, the FX1 delivers.

It has its problems (artifacting, loss of resolution on moving shots, chromatic aberrations etc) but you gotta give it its props where it deserves them: when you watch it on a high-def monitor in interlaced HDV mode, you'll say "wow". Trying to get it to do anything else (act as a regular DV camera, simulate the film look, make DVD's of the footage etc) it falls down, but I have no doubt that the HD-projected interlaced footage was impressive.

It's just not anything remotely whatsoever like film, so if that's what you want, the FX1 isn't for you. If you want that hyper-realistic sharp HD imaging, the FX1 will deliver that look better than the DVX will.

[Guest]

I had also seen the demo. The Demo looked great and crispy sharp on the big screen. However, The demo was shown with two huge and powerful projectors running simultaneously. They informed me that there weren't much editing processing in the computer for the footages, but only on camera editing. In other words, the footages had been shown in a relatively clean source.
As for final output DVD format, I was told, the video will look only a little better in resolution. The best result is to have these footages played on HD vtr.

[Hayden_Rivers]

I wish I could have been there and checked this out for myself. Still, I'm convinced we're going to see some good stuff out of HDV. And I'm sure Panasonic, JVC, and Canon will start improving on the FX1 and Z1U series.

[TotalX]

I just can't imagine, this format taking off, with consumers just settling in with SD DVD. Not only will the infrastructure of DVD will have to change (conversion of SD DVD movies to HD, new HD players, mpeg encoders, and deciding which format to use) but the quality will have to be more than enough to accept this new format. We just go rid of VHS, and now technology wants us to accept HD?

The jump in image quality from VHS to DVD was large enough where consumers wanted to buy DVD players. Can you say the same for SD DVD to HD DVD?

[Barry_Green]

I frequently go off on this rant, but I don't think quality had anything to do with why consumers ever convert to a different format. They'll convert for new features and new convenience, but not for quality -- if quality mattered, they would have bought Betamax over VHS, or S-VHS over VHS, or SACD over CD, or... well, the list goes on and on. HD, or HD-DVD or blu-ray, had better offer some substantial improvement other than just picture quality, or consumers may be quite reluctant to adopt it.

[Richard__Knight]

The rep said that the video presented was shot in the PAL 50i format. And he also mentioned that there was a second identical camera taking footage of the same events seen in the video. The second camera was set on the NTSC 60i format but the rep mentioned that the footage was found to be a bit over exposed so they had decided not to show it.

The video was quite nice, especially the flower scene. :-) Perhaps it was my view of the screen (left side front row), but I didn't notice any artifacts. I might have been too close but I wanted to get a good look at the image clarity.

The detail in the rolling ocean waves and items in the marketplace were profoundly clean and sharp.

From what the rep said, their intention was to show what the camera could do in different types of locations and camera settings.

I was impressed. Very nice.

[monster]

>Trying to get it to do anything else (act as a regular DV >camera, simulate the film look, make DVD's of the footage >etc) it falls down



Barry, Why does is it not good for a regular DV camrera?

[TotalX]

Barry:

I think you are right on that subject.

Actually, I think progressive download and/or streaming videos offer more convenience and future with consumers. Just look at the porn industry - their whole format is going that way. I have just implemented a T1 line and selling my clips online instead of DVD ( I do sport videos not porn - I wish ;D. This not only circumvents distributors, but import issues and etc with other countries.

I can say without a doubt, that if the format I just talked about takes off, (Movielink.com and etc.,) then HD is dead in the water except for braodcast.

[alpi69]

yep. here in europe people are just buying harddisk-recording DVD recorders/players. in SD. they cost them around € 250-400. those people will NOT go out and get a new HD recorder next year. or in 2. maybe not even in 3. especially when HD-DVDs will cost more.

the future is certainly networked-tv in any format. that´s also why microsoft is working hard on setting WM9-HD as a standard. it is cheaper nowadays to setup a wireless broadband connection in our living room than buying a DVD deck. it will be up to us to make good films and get them downloaded ;)

[Barry_Green]

Barry, *Why does is it not good for a regular DV camrera?
It's just not anywhere near as good as the class-leading DV cameras, when producing DV footage. The DVX is a full two stops faster in low-light conditions, produces sharper footage, and has nearly two stops more latitude than the FX1 in DV mode, and the FX1 suffers more vertical smear. And if you want to use it as a 16:9 camera (because it does have 16:9 chips) then the XL2 is about a half-stop faster than the FX1, produces sharper footage in native 16:9 mode, offers about a half-stop more latitude, and delivers 24P/30P/60i vs. the 60i-only of the FX1.

Seriously, a Sony VX2000 is a significantly better DV-only camera than the FX1 would be, at around half the price. The FX1 is specifically and only a high-def interlaced camera, and in that context it shines well. For any other usage it isn't as good as the others.

[zigernot]

seriously. that camrea is bogus, i was talking to the rep and asked him why the camera is so jittery, first he tried telling me it was the shutter, changed it, then he tried to explain to me because the camera was doing the 2:3 pulldown that the playback was going to be sub par until capture where then my "Editing Program" would some how fix the problem. Sigh. I also got to shake RUSHES hand their haha.

[zigernot]

But i must say when the camera was at a stand still with no motion i was very impressed. Except for the extreme video like detail. I would buy it if i needed and hd cam, but i dont and i won't ever need one because hd will not take over. Oh btw did nybody see the booth selling the led's lite kits for around a 1000.

[Guest]

There seem to be a few issues plaguing the FX1 now that more people have got their hands on it. To summerise;

- Vertical smear.

- Lower resolution during camera movement as well as GOP 'catch up' after the camera or object stops moving.

- Interlaced and therefore the gap is not as wide when comparing progressive footage from SD DV once the HDV footage is deinterlaced.

- Possible problems with dropouts. I know a few people will say to use Sony's new tapes etc. But to be perfectly frank I know of a few people that are now charging more to shoot peoples wedding's on an FX1. Is it really woth risking a dropout during the vows? Even if the chance is slim, unless you have two FX1's you are looking at a refund or a reduced price. That's not a risk worth taking IMHO. Of course hard drive storage etc is a solution, but it doesn't solve the other problems.

- Rendering time. HDV is one hell of a render hog. Spot is saying on the other forums how great Vegas is at downconverting the HDV footage. How it is better than SD shot straight from the camera (one wonders if he ever compared with a high end camera). I'm sorry, but once any colour correction has been applied AND the downcoversion AND MPEG2 compression it's going to take forever and a day to render out anything longer than a 10 min project!

Extra costs. Use Cineform and you are looking at bigger files. More hard drive space, and more processing power to deal with a higher bitrate. I thought HDV was supposed to be inexpensive?

I agree totally that for consumers to be sold it will take more than picture quality. The US is going to try and force HDTV by turning off SD transmissions. BIG mistake. People aren't just going to have to buy a new TV set, they are going to have to buy a new DVD player/recorder, new cable or satellite decoder etc. That's not going to impress the average joe who probably wouldn't know what the difference between film and video is!

As others have been saying, people have only just generally moved over to DVD. Even now there are still people without who still insist on sticking with VHS.

All in all HD is a big mistake. Not because it isn't any good. But because they decided to thrust new SD technologies upon us and then try to force HD on us straight afterwards. Normal people just aren't going to be impressed at being forced to spend more money on something they don't even regard as giving them a huge advantage in convenience.

Oh, but then in a few years time they will give us 1080P at 60fps (I was told by a BBC engineer who specialises in HD technologies that this is what is being worked on).

But back to HDV. From what I can see HDV does not give enough advantages to kill off standard DV. There seem to be people who want to force it upon us. But why would I want to buy a camera that has problems with vertical smear, variable resolution during movement (including GOP catchup), much, much longer rendering times and the need for more CPU power, just to have a HD picture that I can't distribute anyway?

[Neil Rowe]

simon, HD is not being purshed or forced. DIGITAL TV is being mandated ... not HDTV. .. this is a very common misunderstanding , but they are only forcing the switch to digital broadcasting....not high definition digital broadcasting. like digital cable and digital satelite, and other digital signal transmissions.. just like most cell phones went from analog towers to digital. they will still transmit SD TV as usual ..it will just be coming from a digital signal, and you will have to buy a digital signal converter box if you want to keep your old TV with the analog VHF/UHF tuner. Im sure that HDTV transmissions will continue to grow as well though.

[Guest]

Thanks for the clarification. Apologies. I was under the impression that in the US digital TV equated with HDTV.

[Guest]

With Snell & Wicox you can convert SD<->HD, 24p to 50p, 1080i to 720p etc. The toppmodell UKON can convert between all the formats you have and doing this in real time. It is using motion analyse, dinamic filtering etc. It has a very high quality.

Algolith makes software to do this job. It is an AfterFx plugin. But it isn't realtime.

It means that even the stations goes HD they can use standard SD in production.

[Guest]

Algolith looks VERY interesting!

Anyone got the ability to compare a 24P or 25P upscaled DVX screen grab using Algolith's CAS system compared to both an interlaced and deinterlaced FX1?

[TotalX]

I saw an example of the CAS and it looked good. Micheal Porirer ( one of the reps) said that several people are using CAS to uprez SD to HD - including IMAX.

So, there you go.

I might buy the CAS ( I have the others) and test it with the DVX (even though I don't need HD specs since I only go to DVD).

[Guest]

I understand the advantages of 24p when it comes to film look; and I can see the many downfalls of the FX-1!

But, if you want to transfer DV to film, the image strech that needs to happen to regular DV, won't be there; thus giving you better quality already!

Secondly, maybe the FX1 isn't the solution with CF; but I think the Z1, shooting at 1080i50 ussing 1/50th, will make a great solution using a converter software like DVfilm.

Now, I'm a humble man, who is barely trying to understand all the inner works of DV and HDV. We have pre-order two Z1s and the HDV Deck from Promax, if I'm wrong, I still have time to go for the XL-2s!

[Neil Rowe]

jorge.. since the sony is not progressive, you have to deinterlace it for a progressive film out..which means you lose 1/2 your resolution. * so your almost back to DV res. *uprezzing the DVX or XL2 will look nearly the same in a progressive filmout environment.. except the images from the DVX or XL2 will exceed those of the sony in lattitude and color rendition and motion rentition, and will also be free of MPg2 motion artifacts and the like created from the HDV compression. *..if your looking for a high res interlaced HD cam then its great, but if you want progressive 24p then get a DVX or XL2

[Barry_Green]

You would lose vertical res, yes, but the Sony still has twice the horizontal resolution (even though it uses the same # of CCD pixels as the XL2, in the horizontal).

Still, questions about film-out suitability are just speculation until someone tries it. And we're going to do that, once I select the right footage for it. So the answer is coming...

[Neil Rowe]

tis true ..so is it actual resolved resolution, or is it just upsampling? ..or some sort of pixel shift enhancement to the inherant resolution?

[Barry_Green]

It has 960 active pixels in the horizontal, and uses pixel-shifting to get 1440 samples. Then on playback that gets up-rezzed to 1920.

However, on a still shot, the thing has horizontal resolution, that's for sure. Looks like a clean 800 lines, maybe as many as 900. So whatever tricks/manipulations they're doing, doesn't matter: for horizontal res in HDV mode it looks great.

[Neil Rowe]

yeah the shots ive seen look pretty nice. ALOT of pixels in the end to throw around!

[Ranger]

There seem to be a few issues plaguing the FX1 now that more people have got their hands on it. *To summerise;

- Vertical smear.

- Lower resolution during camera movement as well as GOP 'catch up' after the camera or object stops moving.

- Interlaced and therefore the gap is not as wide when comparing progressive footage from SD DV once the HDV footage is deinterlaced.

- Possible problems with dropouts. *I know a few people will say to use Sony's new tapes etc. *But to be perfectly frank I know of a few people that are now charging more to shoot peoples wedding's on an FX1. *Is it really woth risking a dropout during the vows? *Even if the chance is slim, unless you have two FX1's you are looking at a refund or a reduced price. *That's not a risk worth taking IMHO. *Of course hard drive storage etc is a solution, but it doesn't solve the other problems.

- Rendering time. *HDV is one hell of a render hog. *Spot is saying on the other forums how great Vegas is at downconverting the HDV footage. *How it is better than SD shot straight from the camera (one wonders if he ever compared with a high end camera). *I'm sorry, but once any colour correction has been applied AND the downcoversion AND MPEG2 compression it's going to take forever and a day to render out anything longer than a 10 min project!

Extra costs. *Use Cineform and you are looking at bigger files. *More hard drive space, and more processing power to deal with a higher bitrate. *I thought HDV was supposed to be inexpensive?

I agree totally that for consumers to be sold it will take more than picture quality. *The US is going to try and force HDTV by turning off SD transmissions. *BIG mistake. *People aren't just going to have to buy a new TV set, they are going to have to buy a new DVD player/recorder, new cable or satellite decoder etc. *That's not going to impress the average joe who probably wouldn't know what the difference between film and video is!

As others have been saying, people have only just generally moved over to DVD. *Even now there are still people without who still insist on sticking with VHS.

All in all HD is a big mistake. *Not because it isn't any good. *But because they decided to thrust new SD technologies upon us and then try to force HD on us straight afterwards. *Normal people just aren't going to be impressed at being forced to spend more money on something they don't even regard as giving them a huge advantage in convenience.

Oh, but then in a few years time they will give us 1080P at 60fps (I was told by a BBC engineer who specialises in HD technologies that this is what is being worked on).

But back to HDV. *From what I can see HDV does not give enough advantages to kill off standard DV. *There seem to be people who want to force it upon us. *But why would I want to buy a camera that has problems with vertical smear, variable resolution during movement (including GOP catchup), much, much longer rendering times and the need for more CPU power, just to have a HD picture that I can't distribute anyway?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/data//500/30743FX1-Kitten.jpg
What’s next from the "glass is half empty" choir?

* The FX1/Z1 causes cancer in children?
* HDV will burn out your computer hard drive and processor?
* Sony molests puppies and steals Social Security checks from your grandma?
* The compressed audio from the FX1 has been proven to cause permanent damage to your ear drums?

For each of the points you listed in your post, I could have easily made the same weak argument back in the mid/late 90's with the arrival of DV. Same blather, just a different format.

Who are you trying convince more of the perceived eventual failure of HD(V) … other forum visitors or yourself?

Enjoy SD!

[TotalX]

Listen Ranger:

I would venture to guess, that any of us, would be more apt to jump on the Sony bandwagon if 24p on HDV was possible. We are all here for the look of film via digital. If you like the interlace look on HDV, then buy the camera and be happy. For myself, I could care less about a "video" look no matter how pristine it looks.

My business and everyone else's is to deliver the best look for the budget that we have. Right now, the DVX100a or XL2 fits the bill. HD is the future - but not now. And, we all have the sense to know when to jump on board. We don't have manic attacks like some people and have to buy every new frikkin thing that comes out.

[Ranger]

Listen Ranger:

I would venture to guess, that any of us, would be more apt to jump on the Sony bandwagon if 24p on HDV was possible. We are all here for the look of film via digital. If you like the interlace look on HDV, then buy the camera and be happy. For myself, I could care less about a "video" look no matter how pristine it looks.

My business and everyone else's is to deliver the best look for the budget that we have. Right now, the DVX100a or XL2 fits the bill. HD is the future - but not now. And, we all have the sense to know when to jump on board. We don't have manic attacks like some people and have to buy every new frikkin thing that comes out.
Machts nichts to me what bandwagon you jump on. To each his own. However, what raises my eyebrows is this collective slamfest exhibited towards the FX1/Z1. The FX1 has barely left the starting gate and the Z1 will not be released for several months, and yet so many people seem all too quick to condemn the camera without even allowing it to stretch its legs.

Sure, over time the FX1/Z1 may in fact fail miserably, but premature negative nitpicking and going to extreme lengths to find fault is IMO counter-productive.

For me, I think I'll wait for Jarred's and Barry's camera shootout before passing judgement. That seems a far better solution than recklessly slinging mud around.

[Guest]

All in all HD is a big mistake. *...Normal people just aren't going to be impressed at being forced to spend more money on something they don't even regard as giving them a huge advantage in convenience.

This has got to be the most asinine statement I have ever read in any video-related forum. First, HD is no BIG mistake. Its taken video engineers over 40 years to get to this point. Second, normal people were never forced to buy color TVs, nor were they ever forced into buying huge projection LCDs. Can you please tell me an instance when anyone was impressed at being forced to buy something they didnt want? Dumb blanket statements like these serve no purpose. You need to be banned.

[BLUESPIDER]

whao, now people, My VHS-C is still the best camera out there! You people on crack or something?

[donbarzini]

If the FX1 had a pee pee, I bet some of you would be all over it :D

[TotalX]

Ranger:

If you haven't noticed, you are participating in a forum that bought the DVX for the 24p mode.

Having said that, if Sony attempts to pass on their "Cinreframe" mode as legitimate then they are open game. So far, they have failed. If you haven't read (which you fail to acknowledge) we all have said that the "interlaced" 60i was stunning. But, we are not interested in interlaced.

As I said before, buy the Sony camera for the interlaced HD and be done with it. If the Sony camera had a legitimate 24p mode, I would be the first one to buy it.

Emilio:

Leave your tree- hugging fanatical statements on "banning" to yourself. Everyone is allowed to give their opinion.

[Guest]

Emilio, you should have quoted the ENTIRE sentence. If you had read it properly you would have seen that I said HD was a big mistake but NOT because it isn't any good BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE BRINGING IT OUT AFTER ONLY JUST DEVELOPING NEW SD TECHNOLOGIES. Please read what I say first instead of cutting my sentence in half to make me say something I did not.

In the UK people have only just been pursuaded to get digital boxes for SD, as well as DVD. They WILL NOT want to be upgrading again to HD in such a short amount of time. This is NOT an unreasonable assumption at all. As Barry said, if quality was at the front of peoples minds why didn't Betamax take off? There are more examples. But if HD means people will have to spend more money on a new TV, a new recordable DVD, a new digital box etc they won't go for it.

The FX1 is the right camera at the wrong time. Plus those problems I mentioned with the camera were taken from Barry's own tests that he published. So for the guy accusing me of being a 'cup half empty' person I am afraid you are wrong. I want the best camera I can get. I don't see why I should get a new camera that has problems I wouldn't accept in an older SD one.

[Guest]

You'll find that most people still don't know what HD is. Look at Japan to see how HD is even though they've had it since the 80's. My sister lives in Osaka, but has found it easier to find VHS in shops than DVD! In fact she hasn't even made any comment to me at all regarding HDTV. Which is unsual considering she knows it is something I would be really interested in hearing about. Osaka is the home of Sony. You can buy things there that will probably never be available over here. A technological paradise. It's odd then that despite HD technology being available to them since the 80's that there hasn't been any developments regarding a camcorder that does HD in some form until now even if it would have only been available over there.

Europe cannot move to HDTV because there isn't enough bandwidth and there are TV programme licensing issues because of borders. Sure we have a test channel, but it's only that. Satellite is the only other option but they will still have bandwidth issues.

If you're a european why buy a camera with a function you can't really use? When HD finally does become viable over here a better camera will be out anyway and we can buy that one instead. Currently though why do I want to buy a camera with more vertical smear and worse low light performance etc than it's nearest competitors?

So in short, people are NOT demanding HD at all. Most still don't even know what it is, and as shown by another thread here some can't even tell the difference even when they are shown it!

I can see why HD is impressing the US guys. If we take 720P for example, which is not really HD, it's Enhanced resolution, the difference between 720P vertical resolution is not massive compared to standard PAL. The difference is about the same as that between NTSC and PAL. Further, 16:9 digital transmissions in the UK have been around for a while now, and there is a much higher proliferation of 16:9 TV sets in Europe than in the US.

Let's see those comparions. Let's see anamorphic 24/25P DVX footage uprezzed with Algolith CAS compared to the FX1 (ESPECIALLY the PAL DVX). I want to see if the result is worth the $2500 difference with all the additional problems the HDV workflow currently has!

Let's also see someone deal with the rendering time issue.

People can accuse me of being a miserable git if they like, saying that I am criticising the FX1 for no reason. Well I hate to rain on your parade, but I would love to see HD as standard. But I don't think the FX1 in particular offers as many advantages as the pro FX1 guys think. So while the FX1 lovers have a right to point out the good points, considering this thing costs thousands of dollars and as a potential customer I have every right to point out it's deficiencies!

[J.R. Hudson]

Mr. Hudson can you explain me why is this FX1 better than your DVX?

Not for me it isn't. Give me 24p or give me death.

[strancali]

lol David is on a mission. There's no place you can hide Serjej hahaha :-X

[SimonMW]

Hope you're not referring to me (Simon Wyndham)? :-) Cos I certainly aint no Serjej or whatever his name is.

[David Jimerson]

Hope you're not referring to me (Simon Wyndham)? :-) *Cos I certainly aint no Serjej or whatever his name is.

No. Not you. Problem taken care of. :)

[David Jimerson]

Machts nichts to me what bandwagon you jump on. *To each his own. *However, what raises my eyebrows is this collective slamfest exhibited towards the FX1/Z1. *The FX1 has barely left the starting gate and the Z1 will not be released for several months, and yet so many people seem all too quick to condemn the camera without even allowing it to stretch its legs.

Sure, over time the FX1/Z1 may in fact fail miserably, but premature negative nitpicking and going to extreme lengths to find fault is IMO counter-productive.

For me, I think I'll wait for Jarred's and Barry's camera shootout before passing judgement. *That seems a far better solution than recklessly slinging mud around.

You raise many good points, Ranger.

What kills this specific camera for me is not the HD but the 24p. Testing has shown that Cineframe24p is not a viable alternative.

I've got nothing against HD, of course, but I'd rather wait for a model which can deliver true 24p. This cam can't, so that's the only bitch I have with it. Unfortunately, it's a decisive one.

I had as high of hopes as anyone for it. I'm looking forward to 24p HD at the prosumer level.

So, I don't "slam" this camera; I only say it’s a first-generation offering that doesn’t have what I want yet.

[Bukkake]

I'm looking forward to 24p HD at the prosumer level.


You might be in for a long wait, cuz the HDV spec does not include 720 24P nor 1080 24P.

These may show up in perhaps a Pro HDV format, or not at all, especially at prosumer prices. I believe the CineAlta is the only camera capable of 1080 24P at the moment.

[David Jimerson]

You might be in for a long wait, cuz the HDV spec does not include 720 24P nor 1080 24P.


It doesn't. But then, DV has no spec for 24p, either, but Panasonic managed to do it.

I suspect it can be done in HDV the same way -- on-the-fly telecine.

[Bukkake]

True, but it may have something to do with the MPEG2 compression scheme.

[David Jimerson]

Sony claims its Cineframe24 mode does a reverse telecine and then a telecine. Looks like it will work once there are true 24p chips.

[Barry_Green]

JVC has already announced plans to make an HDV 1080/24p camera (presumably using the same technique as Panasonic and Canon use for DV). They showed a mockup last April, so presumably it won't be too far away (although it was supposed to carry a $20,000 price tag).

And Panasonic's already teased a prosumer mockup with a DVCPRO-HD tag on the side of it.

Just because HDV doesn't do it, doesn't mean we won't ever see it. And the final bell hasn't rung over whether HDV will be the "format of the future"... Sony's been the prime mover behind plenty of failed formats (and Blu-ray looks like the latest)... (yes Disney signed on, but didn't Disney also sign on to Divx, and to disposable-dvd, and to...)

The jury is still out. The ball is most definitely in Panasonic's court, as JVC and Canon and Sony have all committed to HDV. If Panasonic joins the HDV coalition, then HDV is the future. If they present a DVCPRO-HD alternative, then the battle begins. I for one would very much like to see a DVCPRO-HD camera with 24P (but then again, who wouldn't?)

[Gary_McClurg]

I think Bill Turner said that he heard that a 16x9 DVX (no HD I think) is coming soon or the rumor is its coming soon. Now thinking about that could he know something since they'd get a beta tester sooner than us to make adapters, etc.

So when the camera comes the wide angle, etc. are ready. Just one of my wild ideas as I repair for a cold night. At least cold for this california transplant. 17degrees.

[baquajim]

A DVX with 16X9 would be nice. I assume Juan would be able to modify this easily as well or perhaps his mod would already work with it.

In either case, we are talking about a new format: Super DV.

[Hayden_Rivers]

You realize that Juan announced his mod almost 11 months ago? (January 25th, 2004 to be exact). And at this point we have seen no moving clips, have no ETA, and no price point. The beta testing hasn't even started so I wouldn't be very surprised if you're unable to get Juan's mod within the next 6 months.

And even when you are able to get it, there's no guarantee that it's going to be worth it. We'll see, but honestly I'm surprised there isn't more skepticism about the mod overall.

[darkavenger]

where is the website for this algorith CAS uprezz that they're talking about?

[SimonMW]

http://www.algolith.com

[videoman69]

I just can not believe all of this nonsense being reported about the FX1 - Let me start by saying I have owned the DVX100 for 6 months and used it daily, and recently picked up a DVC30 as a backup. The DVX is a killer camera, but it has its drawbacks which we all know.

I picke dup the FX1 2 weeks ago and have been blown away by the footage I take. I too hate teh video look, which is why I bought the DVX in the 1st place. You just can NOT use the FX1 in cineframe 24 - it sucks, this is true...BUT in cineframe 30 it blows away my footage from both panny's with the dvx at 24p and teh dvc30 at 30. I use the film gamma settings and the look in cineframe 30 is a very smooth, film like image with detail that blows away my DVX footage.

Also, what is all of this talk about downconverting in Vegas?? Just set the DVX to downconvert in camera, in real time through firewire in to your editing program. I edit in Apple FCP, which does not yet support HDV, but I just have teh cam downconvert into FCP, in real time as I capture. There is no rendering time involved at all, and the finished product is amazing. CLean, noise free 100%, perfect color and white balance. The FX1 beats my DVX hands down, plus I shoot only in HD mode becuase the footage looks better than in sd mode when viewed on a normal TV. WHen hooked up to an HD TV you will be amazed.

I see NO drawback to the FX1. Side by side tests of my footage shows the cineframe 30 mode to look just as good as the panny 24p but with more detail, better color and better low light as there is NO noise at all with the FX1, even in total darkness.

But, always shoot in HD mode, always use cine 30 and the film like gamma setting. If you shoot in DV mode the footage will be the same as a VX2000. Plus, no need for an anamorphic lens, the focus is fast and spot on at all times, its built VERY well (Better than the DVX) and the controls and LCD are just about perfect.

I get 8 hours of battery life with the largest battery. I have not had one drop out and I use sony standard dv tapes. No smearing. Just beautiful video every time. So those of you bashing teh FX1 must not have one. Dont believe everything you hear. Im selling my DVX and DVC30!

[Aejaz]

I want to criticise Sony not FX1, 'taking this opportunity'.

I have to again harp on the old issue of the MICROMV stunt cams by Sony. But unofrtunately that has become my achilles heel....that's why.

I remember years back Sony was like a ...guaranteed icon of quality and customer satisfaction to me. But my ideas changed drastically after I purchased one of their MICROMV cams...IP220. Those who are familiar with the MICROMV cams would know that it was an attmept by Sony to launch their own propriety format, vis a vis the DV format, that msierably failed. I know technology is technology...new ones are bound to come out and succeed or fail....but what matters is the attitude and professionalism of the marketing company of the new technology. I really did not want to say it but after the numerous problems with the cam, I found Sony the worst company I have ever dealt with. They were simply trying to hide their stupid mistake by not listening *to the genuine complaints of so many of those who had purchased their stunt cams for thousands of dollars, with a faith in the name SONY.

SONY not only discontinued manufaturing several models of the MICROMV cams subsequently but also withdrew support for its accessories. Equipment worth thousands of dollars was rendered scrap overnight. I was lucky enough to have sold my cam for 400dollars, which I had got for hefty 2000, within 7 months of the lauch of the model. I have heard the same camera is now available dirt cheap....if someone is still interested ;).

What I am trying to say is that SONY, with such a bad track record of intoducing new, untested tech products, by no means could be trusted with yet another stunt.

Believe me I am not saying it since I am an owner of DVX or a member of this forum.... I really want all of you...who might read my comments...to think twice before investing their hard earned moeny on ANY un-tested technology from the company.

These are just the feelings of an ex-sony-customer. I am not on Panasonic's pay roll either ;D

[videoman69]

>Trying to get it to do anything else (act as a regular DV >camera, simulate the film look, make DVD's of the footage >etc) it falls down

FALSE - Always use in HD mode, have camera set to downconvert through firewire in real time. Much nicer than DV mode. Always use cine 30 mode, and film gamma. The film look in this mode looks just as nice as my 24p panny footage. Just cleaner, better color and no nise at all.

the DVD I made with the FX1 is awesome. I own the FX1 and DVX...

[videoman69]

It's just not anywhere near as good as the class-leading DV cameras, when producing DV footage. *The DVX is a full two stops faster in low-light conditions, produces sharper footage, and has nearly two stops more latitude than the FX1 in DV mode, and the FX1 suffers more vertical smear. *And if you want to use it as a 16:9 camera (because it does have 16:9 chips) then the XL2 is about a half-stop faster than the FX1, produces sharper footage in native 16:9 mode, offers about a half-stop more latitude, and delivers 24P/30P/60i vs. the 60i-only of the FX1.

Seriously, a Sony VX2000 is a significantly better DV-only camera than the FX1 would be, at around half the price. *The FX1 is specifically and only a high-def interlaced camera, and in that context it shines well. *For any other usage it isn't as good as the others.


Again, false information. How can this be posted without the poster using or owning an FX1? I own teh FX1, and a DVX. I have owned teh DVX for 6 months, and the FX1 almost 2 weeks.

Low Light - I get MUCH better results from the FX1. NO NOISE AT ALL, even in total darkness.

Sharpness - I get much more detail out of the FX1, not even close here.

Vertical Smear - NONE whatsoever with daily use of the FX1. havent seen it yet.

Vs XL2 - I used an Xl2 for a day, but HATED It. I compared teh footage I took that day with the Xl2 to FX1 footage. In 16X9 - Fx1 wins again. Low light, FX1 wins.

Vs VX2000 - In straight DV mode they are about equal, but you should NOT use the FX1 in DV mode, ever as there is NO need to. use it n HD mode. When you view on a normal TV the cam downconverts in real time to SD and it loks much better than DV mode. Same with editing. The fireiwre port can be set to HD or HD>SD real time. This produces a much nicer image than standard DV mode.

Also I have experienced no drop outs at all. plus, as a bonus, when viewedon my HD tv the picture is incredible.

I see no drawback to the FX1 at all. If you use it right (CIneframe 30, film gamma, hd mode) then it beats the DVX in every area, and it even looks filmish (in 30 mode)

Im so impressed with it Im selling my DVX this week. Its a night and day difference when I compare the 2. Plsu I get better color and WB with the Sony.

[David Jimerson]

Gotta say, videoman, all that sounds a little too enthusiastic to be gospel.

I'm waiting with interest as to what Barry has to say about the pro model.

[David Jimerson]

Again, false information. How can this be posted without the poster using or owning an FX1? I own teh FX1, and a DVX. I have owned teh DVX for 6 months, and the FX1 almost 2 weeks.


Dude, you're dissing Barry. He doesn't have that "DVXuser Guru" tag under his name for nothing. He doesn't post ANYTHING without solid info. He HAS used and tested the cam.

There are a LOT of seasoned pros on this board who have forgotten more about cameras and filmmaking than most of us will be blessed to know (Barry is one). Be careful who you're disparaging.

[SimonMW]

Videoman, the FX1'a vertical smear has been documented by many people.

I talked about downconverting within Vegas as it is known to perform a much better job than the in camera downconvert.

Rendering time IS an issue. You only talked about handling DV res footage. What if your project is entirely HDV? That is serious render time.

Now, let's see how any Algolith CAS comparisons come out.

[TotalX]

I find it hard that the 30p can look filmish and beat the DVX, but I will wait for the test. I have done enought de-interlacaing, Magic Bullet in my days to know the difference in 30p and 24p look.

[David Jimerson]

It's not really 30p. It's true that 30p is your worst possible option if you want to go to filmout, but I have no idea how Sony's equivalent of 30p would behave. Similarly? Don't know. Barry?

[videoman69]

Videoman, the FX1'a vertical smear has been documented by many people. *

I talked about downconverting within Vegas as it is known to perform a much better job than the in camera downconvert.

Rendering time IS an issue. *You only talked about handling DV res footage. *What if your project is entirely HDV? *That is serious render time.

Now, let's see how any Algolith CAS comparisons come out.

Well, I have had NO VERTICAL SMEAR at all. (nor dropouts using normal sony tape) Are they using it in DV mode? I do not. What render time are you reffering to? I capture direct into FCP and there is no rendering required, at all. I let the cam downconvert and it looks beautiful. No noise, smooth look, and gobs of detail with perfect colors and tone. I shot a 6 hour project last week, edited it to 90 minutes. Worked in FCP the same as I would with any DV footage, no addtnl rendering required. All shot in HDV.

I just dont see why anyone would want to load it into Vegas and let the software downconvert, becuase straight form the cam in to FCP, then to DVD or tape it looks amazing. When the cam is hooked up to my HD TV its ultra amazing.

Bottom line for me is that its beating my DVX in detail, overall quality, low light and though there is a slight diff in teh look between sonys 30 frame mode and pannys 24p, 99% of people wouldnt even notice. Plus, you can always use software to get to 24p if desired.

I stand by my remarks on the FX1 - Its an outstanding machine, if used correctly.

Im looking at some footage I shot last night, hooked up to my regular TV and its the best Ive ever seen, and Ive been shooting for years, since the beginning of the 8mm days.

Im not saying the DVX is a bad camera, I was nuts over it, and loved it. But after using the Fx1, my eyes have been opened.

FX1 Pros -

Fast accurate focus
Perfect WB
Controls, switches placed well and work well
Swing out 16X9 display
Battery life up to 9 hours
Cineframe 30 (works very well)
No need for anamorphic lens
Easy to hold/handle
HD if needed
Built to last, sonys best built consumer ever?

FX1 cons
No XLR audio
No true 24p


For $3500, its a great camcorder and beats all others I have owned including

Vx1000
VX2000
PD150
Canon Xl1, 2
DVX100
DVC30
TRV 900, 950

BUT, maybe its not for everyone. The DVX is an awesome camera, worth every penney. I guess its personal preference.

[Barry_Green]

Wow -- just logged in, and noticed this thread.

First, about "never used it" -- I've used the FX1 extensively, deeply, and thoroughly, for about a week, and spent three days with an FX1 strapped side-by-side with the DVX and the XL2. *My observations are not based on "hearsay" or "venom" or anything else -- they're based on using the cameras side-by-side, shooting *identical* scenes with them, and then comparing the results. *I've got about 15 minutes of compiled scenes of XL2/DVX/FX1 all splitscreened on the same screen on the same DVD.

As for "downrezzing in Vegas" -- Douglas Spotted Eagle has reported that HDV downrezzed in Vegas looks a lot better than HDV downrezzed by the camera itself. *I've got footage shot both ways, so it doesn't really matter to me, but I was doing the downrez-in-Vegas trick to give the FX1 the best chance.

As for low light, you must seriously be joking, right? *I mean, yes the DVX's signal is noisier, but have you compared them in the same scene? *The DVX can deliver a bright colorful picture in 1/4 the light the FX1 requires. *Here's a picture where the DVX is at f/5.6 and the FX1 is at f/1.6, and the DVX STILL looks brighter.
http://www.icexpo.com/dvxandfx1intimessquare.jpg
Yes the DVX is noisier. *So I guess if your standard is "which gives a cleaner signal" the FX1 is, but if it's "which lets me get the picture in low-light conditions" the DVX is just FAR superior. *If you want more detail I could have opened that DVX up about three more stops -- the FX1 had nowhere to go, it was already at wide-open.

As for vertical smear, if you haven't encountered it, then you haven't encountered it -- but that doesn't mean it's not there. *The Sony manual even specifically warns about it! *But if you'd like to what FX1 vertical smear looks like, this is an FX1 shot:
http://www.icexpo.com/fx1flarefromheadlight.jpg

Look, I have no axe to grind against the FX1 -- I'm just trying to report it as it is, not how I'd like to see it or how someone else would like to see it. *My tests are objective, not subjective, they're just what it is. *There's a 16-page report coming, Jarred's working on the photos for it now.

If you're happy with the camera, great. *If someone else is happy with their DVX, great. *If someone else is in love with their XL2, that's great too. *The three cameras are so very different that it's almost like they're not in direct competition with each other. *I'm just trying to help people decide which one is best for them. *They all have advantages over the others, and that means they're all compromised when compared to the others as well, and it's up to the buyer to determine which advantages are important to them and which compromises they can live with.

[Barry_Green]

I just dont see why anyone would want to load it into Vegas and let the software downconvert, becuase straight form the cam in to FCP, then to DVD or tape it looks amazing.
There are very valid reasons why one would want to let the editor do the downconversion.

Using your method, you start with 4:2:0 MPEG-2 compressed video. *The camera then does a real-time downconversion to 4:1:1 DV, adding another layer of compression. *Then you import it to your editor and make a DVD from it, which means you have to convert that 4:1:1 DV back to 4:2:0 MPEG-2. *Three compression cycles and two color-space conversions.

Whereas in using Vegas, you take the original 4:2:0 MPEG-2 source, and output a 4:2:0 MPEG-2 DVD. *Two compression cycles and *no* color-space conversions. *Should result in much cleaner DVD footage with higher color accuracy.


When the cam is hooked up to my HD TV its ultra amazing.
In HDV interlaced mode, it is definitely at its best. "ultra amazing" is in the eye of the beholder -- it's no VariCam, it's no CineAlta, but for $3500? yes it is ultra-amazing for the price.


I stand by my remarks on the FX1 - Its an outstanding machine, if used correctly.
And I agree -- if used correctly, the FX1 can produce some outstanding footage. *But "correctly", in my book, means using it to make interlaced high-def HDV 60i footage. *For any other use it's not as good as the reigning 3-CCD cameras out there. *The other cameras simply do much better: if you want standard-def interlaced DVD footage the VX2100 delivers a much brighter picture. *If you want filmlike footage on a DVD, the DVX spanks the FX1 as far as sensitivity, brightness, image control options, latitude, color control, gamma options, manual control, etc. *The FX1 does have a cleaner signal. *And a much more convenient way to shoot 16:9.

We may agree to disagree, but I stand by my observations, and the footage that generated those observations.

[TotalX]

Why doesn't videoman69 put up some of his amazing footage?

[videoman69]

Well, I have no way to upload files, and if I did, it would be smaller QT files which wouldnt show anything.

And yes, when I said low light, the FX1 gives me NO NOISE - the DVX, while brighter is grainy and noisy and more washe dout looking - you lose the deep blacks. SO far, no vertical smear for me with the FX1, maybe I will encounter it but so far so good.

I still disagree about the DVX "spanking" the FX1 in color, and film like image. Yes, the DVX may give a bit more of a film look, but not by much, and it can all be done in your editor anyway. With the DVX I had many problems with White Balance shifts, and focus troubles as well. BUT it does produce a nice image.

I also prefer the image of the FX1 in cine 30 mode over the VX2000 and PD150 by far. Creamy smooth, no noise at all, and great color.

[David Jimerson]

With the DVX I had many problems with White Balance shifts, and focus troubles as well.


How could you have that unless you were leaving them on "auto"?

[Barry_Green]

The FX1 footage definitely has blacker blacks, probably related to it being HD rather than NTSC so it doesn't have to have a 7.5 IRE pedestal in the signal. *You can of course correct the DVX footage for that in post and get just as black blacks.

There is noise in the FX1 signal -- I could post a clip that shows it, but it's less than the DVX's and that's all that really seems to matter. *The DVX in dark conditions shows a lot more noise than the FX1 does.

I prefer to leave what you can do in post out of the discussion -- that's an entirely different subject that is completely unrelated to discussing the camera's capabilities. *One only has to look at Matt McDermitt's footage to see how wonderful he can make something look in post -- whether it be the GL2, the DVX, or the XL2. *But that's a completely different subject, unrelated to what the camera can do. *I dare say that McDermitt could, in post, make GL2 footage look far more filmlike and far better than any of us could make FX1 or DVX or XL2 footage straight from the camera.

[videoman69]

this is true. Good points. I dont want to start an argument. I was just stating my experience with the camera. Sorry if I stirred up trouble!

[Barry_Green]

No trouble -- healthy debate is good. *What we try to avoid here are the "religious" debates of "well, mine is better because it's a Sony, and Sony always makes good stuff"... or, "Of course the Canon is better -- it's a Canon!"... that type of thing doesn't help anyone. *So hey, I don't mind being proven wrong, because if I'm wrong, the sooner I find out about it, the better off I'll be.

My testing was conducted in cooperation with ultra-cameraman Jarred Land, and we used all three cameras side-by-side to shoot the exact same subjects under the exact same conditions, using (for the most part) the exact same settings, so that all variables could be removed and we could get down to evaluating the cameras themselves. *I am most certainly not the final word, and I look forward to hearing Jarred's evaluation of the footage, and to seeing test clips from anyone who cares to post them.

Like I say, no specific agenda for or against any of these cameras -- I'd love to write a book about each of 'em. *Cameras can become a sensitive subject among some folks who just spent $3000 to $5000 on something, fearing that they may have got the wrong thing or whatever, but really, these cameras are all completely superb, they're just aimed at different priorities... at least, that's the way I look at it, but other/differing opinions are always welcome! :)

[Bukkake]

7.5 IRE setup should NEVER be recorded into a digital stream. Digital video has always been and will always be RGB 0-255. From the image comparisons of the night-time footage, it appears the DVX is recording the image with 7.5 IRE on tape! Setup should always be 0 when being recorded. Setup is only used during analog playback, it should never be recorded into the digital signal as that reduces your luminance range.

[Neil Rowe]

..you can shoose whether you want 0 or 7.5 ire setup on the DVX since you will not always be working in an entirely digital environment. but the 7.5 isnt true setup anyway.. we wont get into that here because its worthless to use to begin with as you said.

[TigerScent]

Well, ... I must say that I do admire Videomans candid and unbiased 'real-terms' comments, observations and approach, which is what really counts at the end of the day...
...although I appreciate wellmeaning actions of those seeking to make a true comparison for the sake of better public knowledge...
...fiddling with complicated downconversions in 3rd party software just because so and so said it was better, or some 'Professor Donald Duck' thinks it better this way does not amout to 'squat' in real-world terms...
...while I am very much a perosn that like objectivity, I have so far seen a lot of 'negative-objectivity' against the fX-1 and its improved model the ZX-1 that is becoming quite apparant as an pervasive undercurrent...
...we all know tests can be maniupulated 'even subcounsiiously' to 'pass' or 'fail' or give an intended result in terms of wishful thinking, but what really makes the grade is real-life viewing and the general impressions most get in doing so..., right or 'technically wrong'
...perhaps we should all just go with the amazing 'value-for-money' PV GS400 and save ourselves a bundle bypassing the intermediate (almost redundant) DVX and that meanie) FX1 (thats becoming a national threat) or go back to hand cranking film waiting for a better model in the meantime...

;D

[TigerScent]

...I would also say, if you already have a DVX or XL2, why not stick with them a while longer if you are relatively happy with them... :), and wait until there is the 'need' to upgrade for whatever reason, and/or see what the other alternatives to the Sony FX-ZX1 may be down the track...
...they may also come up with a FX/ZX2 or FX/ZX1B in the meantime... :-/
...however, if there is a choice to be made now, (apart from going for the amazing 'value-for-money' PV GS400' which is a great little cam), it appears very much to me that the most future proof and overall best choice in terms of quality and flexibility all round is the ZX1 with the FX1 coming a close but not ideal 2nd...

[princigalli]

I have bozh a VX2000 and FX1. I am starting to understand the FX1 beter. VX2000 is incedibly sharp, and I like that for some things. FX1 has incredible colors. I've never seen anything like this. There are situations to avoid, which I think other cameras handle better. Big contrasts can be a problem. If you film a blue shy and have trees in the background, they will not look right. I like the FX1 in low light. I like blacks that look black and colors are deep and rich. If the light is too low and I allow some gain, the picture is not noisy the way you expect from other cameras. It's very much like film. I have to say it is a camera capable of delivering stunning footage but you need to know where to use it, and more importantly where to avoid using it. Probably a polarizer would solve a lot of the problems. Must test more.

[xray]

Wat is the visual problem with the blue sky and in the background green trees than?