Stirring up the pot: Sony HVR-Z1 24p Rumors

[Ranger]

I’m surprised that no one has posted this yet, but there seems to be credible sources that indicate that the pro-version of the FX1 (HVR-Z1) may have an improved CCD and true 24p capability. This could easily turn out to be false, as Barry Green so eloquently pointed out elsewhere, but the recent buzz has created quite a ruckus.

Since I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to link to another forum site, I’ll just give the skinny on what was written:

• 50i / 60i switchable
• True progressive scan (24p and 25p)
• No time delay from the iLink output
• iLink output converts HDV to DV
• “Larger CCD’s" than on FX-1. Note: I don’t believe this to mean a larger CCD real estate, but higher pixel density (similar to the XL2). Purported to have a wider field of view, shallow DOF and better image quality than the FX1.
• Price: $6000. Shipping: Early 2005 (Jan – Mar).
• Sony will showcase HVR-Z1 at the Sundance Film Festival.

At this point, anything is possible, but it would be great news if it was true - unless you work for Canon. :'(

Personally, I believe the rumors (call it wishful thinking on my part).

[moe_snodgrass]

Regardless of what features actually materialize initially, I would be hesitant to invest in the first generation of this camcorder. Maybe after a Z1"a" has the bugs worked out ...

[Guest]

That sounds a little too good to be true, almost like someone thought up everything they would like the camcorder to have, and then started a rumor that it would have all of those things. I thought the pro version was being announced in February and then premiering at NAB 2005. Maybe they decided to bring it out sooner, but Sundance seems awfully early.

[Ranger]

That sounds a little too good to be true, almost like someone thought up everything they would like the camcorder to have, and then started a rumor that it would have all of those things. *I thought the pro version was being announced in February and then premiering at NAB 2005. *Maybe they decided to bring it out sooner, but Sundance seems awfully early.
If this was just one anonymous source then I might be inclined to agree with you, but these rumors seem to have some merit.

Also, word on the shipping date for the HVR-Z1 (for at least the last few weeks anyway) was January 2005. So shipping in February or March was later than I expected or hoped. I don’t think Sony will wait for NAB to roll around.

[Ranger]

Regardless of what features actually materialize initially, I would be hesitant to invest in the first generation of this camcorder. Maybe after a Z1"a" has the bugs worked out ...
Well, I guess we'll see soon enough how the FX1 fares on the market. *To date, the feedback has been very positive, but it's far too soon to make that assessment. *If that trend continues, then Sony's pro-version has my dollar (with or without 24p).

Additionally, I don't want to wait anymore for the Holy Grail of camcorders. I've been searching for several years now. It's time to piss or get off the pot.

[Barry_Green]

Well, if all goes well I'll be able to answer firsthand, since I'll be one of the first to get the camera.

But I can almost definitely say there's no chance on earth it'll have larger CCD's. Simply not possible. It would require an entirely different lens to accomodate them, and the prototypes and brochures that they've shown all have the same lens block. Of course, maybe they'll design a whole new lens assembly in the next couple of months, but I think the chances are zero.

As for 24P, Sony doesn't make 24P on any camera in their lineup under $35000. They specifically disavowed it at the introduction of the FX1. I really, really, really hope it's there, as I've got to get one of these anyway and it'd obviously be a sweet bonus, but I think there's a 95% chance that this is false, and what they're instead referring to is CineFrame 24 and CineFrame 25.

But come on, Sony, surprise us all!

[insanityfw]

"If this was just one anonymous source then I might be inclined to agree with you, but these rumors seem to have some merit."

I wish that honesty was the root of all information, but it's just not the case, especially with the unchecked power of the internet (i'm for keeping it that way). Rumors are just rumors. For years now I've been passing myself off as a young, well-adjusted filmmaker from the West, when I'm on a forum, but in fact I'm a 75 year-old, transvestite, bi-polar alcoholic from Cleveland. ;D Go figure.

We'll have to wait and see what's true, but for now the DVX and it's users are tried and true.

That said, we'd better all start saving our pennies just in case. ;)

[xort]

did I try to buy you a drink down on the flats last week? Thanks for turning me down, I gotta get new glasses!

[insanityfw]

LOL...Oh, that was you. :o

[Zoomforce]

If it had 24p.. i would buy one the day it came out. We just shot a feature with the Sony 900s and the pro 35, and it would of been nice to have a suitable HD B cam for second unit and stunt stuff without spending a grand a day for a rental. Wowzers.. will be nice for Sony to get back in the Indy Filmaker game.

January is pretty close :)

[SoBeTV]

Like I said in my other post. I used a demo of the pro version of the Sony's HDV camera "Z1" or "PD190" (or whatever unofficial name you choose) last week. It does not have a true 24p function per se, BUT it does have a feature that is called "filmlook", a simulated 3:2 pulldown effect, that in 1080i looks every bit as "filmic" as the DVX's 24p feature.

The picture quality is quite impressive even when played back on a large HD screen. It is not indicative of the compression that this format has. Loads of detail in the blacks and a significantly greater dynamic grey scale range than the DVX. While its not in the same ballpark as a Varicam or Sony's HDCam, it comes long way from standard DV. The lens seems much sharper than the PD 170. Oh yes, it HAS a switchable recording function. This camera records in SD DV format too, as well as HDV. The switch is located right next to the record thumbswitch

They have added the XLR connectors to the pro version in approximately the same place as the DVX has them. The manual iris wheel is much improved. The 16:9 LCD screen is quite good. The overall metal construction of this camera seems like it will be much more durable than the DVX. Much less of a "plastic" feel.

I know some people here that probably haven't even touched this camera yet will strongly disagree, but overall, if it were available now, I would have bought this pro version of the FX1 vs the DVX100A. These are just MY subjective impressions after having actually shot with the camera.

[ccroo]

This camera really has "greater dynamic grey scale range" than the DVX? Wasn't the lack of latitude a fault of the JVC HDV cam?

[SoBeTV]

The JVC HDV cam has only 1 CCD.

Absoultely NOT in the same league as the Sony HDV cam.

[ChuckS]

SoBeTV,

I’m producing a show that has a lot of scenic aerial vistas and decided early on that DV didn’t provide the look that I was hoping to achieve. I’m curious about your experiences with the Vericam and the new Sony HDV camera.

Do you think there would be a noticeable difference inter-cutting shots from both cameras, the Vericam for the money shots that require more resolution and color fidelity and the HVR-Z1 for closer shots of the host on location?

How well do you like your Vericam? Any complaints?

Thanks

~chuck

[SoBeTV]

Even though the Varicam is 720p, the CCD pixel resolution and depth of dynamic range is much greater than the 1080i HDV camera being developed by Sony. You are talking about a $74,000 hi def camera with a very sharp $20,000 lens on it vs. a $6000. handycam and a fair lens. There is a huge difference in how the Varicam's or Sony's F900 menus can be manipulated to render an incredible image in hi def. That image can be transfered to 35 or 70mm film with little loss. The same cannot be said of HDV because it is so heavily compressed. It is my feeling that footage from the Varicam and HDV will not mix or match well when viewed on a 1080i or 720p hi def screen. It may be another case if both are downconverted to SD.

[Guest]

You shall recieve 3 out of 4 Christmas presents this year. ;D

[Gary_McClurg]

Which three?

[ChuckS]

Thanks for the input SoBeTV.

For me it’s not so much the price, but the form factor. As you might imagine, working on an aviation related production really has size and weight limitations, so I’m looking for the smallest most portable HD system with the highest quality. It would be great if there were a camera between the Sony HDV camera and the Panasonic Vericam for $30 to $50K. :P

[Guest]

. . . BUT it does have a feature that is called "filmlook", a simulated 3:2 pulldown effect, that in 1080i looks every bit as "filmic" as the DVX's 24p feature . . . if it were available now, I would have bought this pro version of the FX1 vs the DVX100A. These are just MY subjective impressions after having actually shot with the camera.
Wow! That's VERY encouraging to hear those words from someone like you!

[ccroo]

A $20,000 DV cam has DV format resolution of x number of lines. Although the resolution is the same the lens is better and the chips are bigger so you get a better image than you would from a $3,000 cam.

Now along comes HDV. Does this mean we get 20,000 image quality in a DVX-priced cam?

Raoul

[ccroo]

This article says:

"Basically this camcorder allows you to shoot in Hi Rez HDV or in Normal Rez DV and has a built in down converter. "

Built in downconverter sounds good.

Here's the link:

http://www.visuals.co.uk/index.html?http://www.visuals.co.uk/hdv_handycam.asp@2

[Shaw]

Hardly. We get a super compressed HD image. That and we don't have the larger chips or expensive lens.

[ccroo]

Another quote from the above referenced article:

"Our resolution tests also showed that the VX2100 shoots an objectively sharper image on our SD production monitor, which brings up an important point: on an SD television, whether by S-video or by component video outputs, the advantages of HDV and higher resolution will not be apparent."

Can that be true? Won't an image downconverted to DV from HDV be a higher quality image than straight DV?

[Shaw]

Personally I doubt it. Mathematically I don't think there is any proof of this theory. In fact I believe the math suggests they will be precisely the same everything else being equal. I would suspect downconverted HDV to be worse than standard DV as you have a much higher compression ratio and worse color rendition.

[ccroo]

Really Shaw? Maybe this is stupid, but when I cut DV material I shot next to footage of a feature film transfered to DV the feature film footage maintains it's quality and look and makes my DV stuff look low-res and crummy...

[Shaw]

I think that has more to do with:

1) The originating format (ie film and it's texture)
2) The superior lenses used for film capture
3) The original film source contains absolutely no compression

I could be wrong though! :)

[ccroo]

Damn, one of the things that bums me out about DV is the fact it's low res... long shots loose detail. One would think you'd get more detail in long shots in HDV and that would be preserved when you downconvert...

Just when I had dough to buy a DVX this thing comes along...

Raoul

[Shaw]

Again, take what I say with a grain of salt (or two or three). I don't know this for sure but that would be my initial thought on the matter.

[ccroo]

Steve Mullen's article (I think) talks about "oversampled SD DV." Is he refering to HDV downconverted to SD by the camera?

[Shaw]

Don't know. Do you have a link to this article?

[ccroo]

Found it:

http://www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c/

[cineman9]

Check this out from the Steve Mullen article: "CineFrame 24 works by dropping every fifth frame—over the period of 30 frames—24 samples are created. While 24 samples are obtained, the sampling interval is not constant as it would be with a real 24fps camera."

This is not viable for film production. Surely Sony isn't trying to sell frame dropping as a feature? Let's hope the "pro" model offers genuine 24 frames progressive. *

[Barry_Green]

I'd hold off on believing anything that's written about it until we get it in our hot little hands.

It would be hard to believe Sony would punt that badly on the CineFrame 24 feature. It's possible, sure -- but it would be a colossal bonehead mistake, and I sincerely doubt they blew it like that. They seem to have cannibalized a lot of good ideas from the DVX (wide-angle lens, scene file dial, true manual zoom, focus readout in display, etc) and even improved a bit (zoom-in on the display for accurate focus, etc) so I don't think we should believe any speculation until we get it in our hands and test it.

[cineman9]

Good call, Barry. Rumors are fun but not really useful.

[robroysyd]

Funny thing is no one has mentioned sampling.
HiDef samples at 4:4:4
SD Samples at 4:2:2
DV25 samples at 4:1:1 (or 4:2:0 for PAL)
HDV samples at 4:2:0
I'm told intercutting HDV with HiDef this is immediately noticable.
HDV uses both spatial and temporal compression as it uses mpeg-2. Macroblocking can be a big issue at such low bitrates (25Mb/sec in 1080i). HiDef also uses mpeg-2 but at I think 100Mb/sec, huge difference.
Shooting HiDef, no matter what the camera, is a whole new ball game.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this camera could be that it shoots DV25 at 16:9 off a native 16:9 set of CCDs.
Remember also the staggering cost of ALL things HD, VCRs, monitors, scopes etc.

[Barry_Green]

HDV is high def. There are many recording formats for high-definition television, including HDCAM, HDV, HDCAM SR, and DVCPROHD. Just like there are many recording standards for standard-def, including Digital Betacam, Hi8, DV and VHS.

What format are you referring to when you say "HiDef"? *The only version of high-definition that I can think of that records 4:4:4 is HDCAM SR, the newest variant from Sony, which records in MPEG-4 format.

I believe HDCAM and DVCPRO-HD both sample at 4:2:2.

[Gary_McClurg]

Barry,

You seem to be the expert here. I thought that the DVX flagged the frames. Then when you bring it into FCP, Vegas, etc., it drops the flagged frames. So would the Sony work the same way?

[Policar]

I think HDCAM may be 3:1:1.

[Barry_Green]

I thought that the DVX flagged the frames. *Then when you bring it into FCP, Vegas, etc., it drops the flagged frames. *So would the Sony work the same way?
The DVX puts flags in the user bits that can be read by editing programs to determine the pulldown sequence, and for 2:3:3:2 footage, the editor can simply discard the split frames.

The Sony can't work the same way, because the Sony doesn't shoot any sort of progressive-scan footage.

However, I pulled a "CineFrame 24" clip into a 24P Vegas project, and used Vegas' 3:2 pulldown removal system, and the result was something that looked an awful lot like 24 frame video...

[Antoine_Fabi]

=====================================
"However, I pulled a "CineFrame 24" clip into a 24P Vegas project, and used Vegas' 3:2 pulldown removal system, and the result was something that looked an awful lot like 24 frame video... "

dixit Barry Green
=====================================

now, this sounds very very interesting, because if the editing systems match the 'right" fields to build a correct progressive frame, that could explain why it "looks" like it originally dropped a frame every 5 frames.
If you carefully look at a 24p advance footage without removing the advance pulldown, you can actually see that there is a "skip" every 4 or 5 frames (dont remember). ...and this is corrected when you remove the advance pulldown and see it with a normal 3:2 pulldown.

that sounds promising....because that could lead to true 24p "embeded" in a 29.97 timeline.

...even more, it seems you could work in a true 24p timeline.

[Neil Rowe]

theres no way you can get true 24p from a 60i cam . the cam does not shoot progressivly, so you cant get real progressive footage from it. and it doesnt sample at 24fps. so you cant get true 24fps motion from it. you can make 24 frames per second clips with frames that were converted to progressive from it, but thats not 24p. i can do the same thing with a pd150. if you want true 24p you have to buy a true 24p camera.. dont get me wrong i like what i see so far of the pro cam and.. i really want the cam to be cool for advancements in technology, but an investment like that, why would you buy good tasting milk to try and churn out butter?. .. why not just buy some real good tasting butter.

[Antoine_Fabi]

right,

but it can look as good though...

honestly, i dont care about "true" or "faked" 24p, as long as it looks like, as long as it looks good.

after all, we like the DVX's image because it successfully "fakes" film imagery...

[Neil Rowe]

..i respectfully disagree,

i think it can look good, but since youll always lose resolution converting interlaced to progressive, and youll allways have the motion differences from 60i sampling versus true 24p motion sampling. it will look different. in motion , and resolution. *it may be able to look similar, but to say that it can look just as good, is saying that the DVX true 24p and the motion redering, and progressive image detail, and quality is worthless. *which *i do not believe. of course there is no point *in making a point of our differences of opionion, because im fine with anyone buying it when it comes out. i really do think its an awsome camera, and i think it looks like it will kick major butt in the 60i world. * * .. but buying it to use for 24p is just silly to me. imho its pretty much the equivelent of buying *an xl1 with its frame mode right before the DVX came out.. * *sure you could convert it if you had to, but.. i wouldnt say that converting 60i motion and fields to 24p could *just as good as true progressive scan 24p *footage of the same naitive resolution unless there was no movement at all in the frame. * now if you were to compare the res of the sony converted to 24p to the progressive res of the dvx.. the sony may still be higher , but the motion will not be the same.. * *but * comparing the res of the sony converted to 24p with a soon to be true 24p cam of the same res.. no comparison. * which is why i say *that buying it *for 24p would be silly . but * i see that why we are probably viewing this differently is that you are probably comparing the image quality possible from a conversion to 24p with the current SD progressive 24p cams.. i am comparing the image and motion rendering to a yet to come true 24p HD res camera equivilent. which is why i say . bah..i can wait.. ive got a DVX and it'll be fine till i can buy a real 24p hd res cam *in the price range, cause for projection..a filmout or true 24p DVD..looking close to the real thing just doesnt cut the mustard. ..for me at least.. but if you need somtehing right now.. sure why not ..it is an awsome camera! ;)

[Policar]

I agree completely with IAL. There will be issues with shutter speed, etc. and if it does indeed drop every fifth frame, that would make strobing a lot worse (and weirder looking) than it already is. It would be like watching 30fps, then 15fps, then 30, then 15. Not smooth at all. Maybe this would be acceptable for talking heads, but pans (which would already look worse due to compression artifacts) would probably be unacceptable.

Still, Dancer in the Dark was shot interlaced than converted to 24p and it looked good, except for a few motion scenes. 60i to 24p can be done pretty effectively, and for film out under 4,000 dollars, the fx1 may surpass the dvx, although getting the footage to be good looking 24p would require a lot more post work.

Since high definition 24p cameras will undoubtedly come out pretty soon, I don't think this camera will be worth it for those who care about progressive scan. Compressed audio, a lack of XLRs, 25mbps with interframes, etc. all keep the product from competing with the DVX for "dramatic work." But if you just want to capture something with great resolution, well....it looks really, really great. And if the pro model is anything like what rumors claim, well...it will definitely be a pretty amazing camera.

[David Jimerson]

However, I pulled a "CineFrame 24" clip into a 24P Vegas project, and used Vegas' 3:2 pulldown removal system, and the result was something that looked an awful lot like 24 frame video...

Do you mean . . . like 24p? Or "video" like 48i?

[David Jimerson]

Since high definition 24p cameras will undoubtedly come out pretty soon, I don't think this camera will be worth it for those who care about progressive scan. *Compressed audio, a lack of XLRs, 25mbps with interframes, etc. all keep the product from competing with the DVX for "dramatic work."

I'm inclined to agree based on what we know *right now* -- which, to be honest, isn't much. We may be in for some surprises. But if not, if it turns out to be how it looks now, waiting for the next generation seems to be my most likely option.

[Antoine_Fabi]

...and Panasonic is abnormally silent... ;)

[Shaw]

Isn't Panasonic always silent? ;)

[Barry_Green]

Do you mean . . . like 24p? *Or "video" like 48i?

I mean, the footage looks like 24PN. There are three completely interlace-artifact-free frames, which sure look like progressive frames, followed by two "split frames". It looks like the camera has performed some sort of in-camera 60i->24P conversion, then written it to tape with 3:2 pulldown.

The footage imports as 60i. But you can choose "file format properties" and tell Vegas to treat the footage as if it has 3:2 pulldown, and instruct Vegas to remove the pulldown. After doing so I was left with a file that sure seemed to act like a raw 24P file.

Now, I don't know how the motion compares to real 24P, because we didn't shoot side-by-side obviously (this footage was from Japan after all!) But it looked reasonably good, I think...

[Antoine_Fabi]

Barry,

so, again, it looks promising...

just for the curiosity, could you try to remove pulldown from a normal
60i captured file ? (i know it makes no sense but i just want to figure if it really detects the pulldown.)

If Vegas refuses to do so with the 60i from the DVX, but accept *to remove the pulldown from the 60i captured file from the Sony camera, THEN it would indicate something very interesting.

Just very curious.

[Barry_Green]

It doesn't detect pulldown at all. It just chops the file up. If there was 3:2 pulldown in it to begin with, then the end result is a 24P-type file. If there WASN'T 3:2 pulldown in there, then you just end up with gibberish.

You can tell it to interpret any file as if it had 3:2 pulldown, but the results will just be jumpy, stuttery video.

[Antoine_Fabi]

that's exactly what i want to know.
Good for us.
It "could" mean that the Sony adds a "real" pulldown in the 1080i if you dont see any stuttery video after "removing the pulldown"...

[David Jimerson]

So . . . it acts like the camera is doing an on-the-fly reverse telecine and THEN telecine-ing that result . . . still on the fly?

Seems . . . overly complicated.

[Barry_Green]

That is exactly what it looks like to me. However, again let's say that I don't know how well it compares to "real" 24P.

[David Jimerson]

“Compares” . . . in terms of movement? Resolution?

[Barry_Green]

Movement, is what I'm talking about. I don't know how well they convert 60i into a reasonable simulation of 24P. Resolution is, currently, a non-issue -- the images are way higher resolution than any SD image, so no matter what you do it's going to be higher resolution than you could get from a 24P standard-def camera. So I'm looking for natural motion rendition.

I've got a friend who's already ordered and paid for an FX1, so he should get one of the first ones off the boat at B&H. Should be able to report back here sometime around mid-November with some fairly definitive info on CineFrame 24.

[Antoine_Fabi]

hmmm. good !

I can't wait to read your report.


until then, well..., if you can see it in real time in a rendered 24p timeline and it "looks" like 24p with normal pulldown, then is is reasonnable to assume that it will stiil look OK once it will be burned on a true 24p DVD.

I think it also means that it would still look OK in a 29.97 timeline (after editing in true 24p).

I may be wrong, but based on what you saw (or what i understand you saw...my english is not very good...), and no matter "how" they achieved it, it will produce the very same picture as a "true" 24p.


BTW...at first glance, how would you compare the FX1's image to the HD1's ?

[Barry_Green]

until then, well..., if you can see it in real time in a rendered 24p timeline and it "looks" like 24p with normal pulldown, then is is reasonnable to assume that it will stiil look OK once it will be burned on a true 24p DVD.
But that's the thing -- I don't know that it looks "ok" yet. I mean, just 'cause something has 3:2 pulldown on it does not mean it has filmlike motion. There was some pronounced strobing, but I don't know that it was any more, or any different, than would have been produced by a 24P camera. Got to do some side-by-sides to know.

If they're using a sophisticated FilmLook-style in-camera 60i->24P conversion, it should look good. If they're just dropping a frame out of every five, it would look horrible. I saw one clip, and I thought it looked okay, but that doesn't mean it will hold up. Got to see it under controlled circumstances to find out just what it's really doing.

I may be wrong, but based on what you saw (or what i understand you saw...my english is not very good...), and no matter "how" they achieved it, it will produce the very same picture as a "true" 24p.
I am nowhere near ready to say that yet. It all depends on what image processing goes on. I don't think it can match "true" 24P, but maybe it can get as close as DVFilm Maker does (which is pretty darn close). But testing is necessary before any decisions can be made.

BTW...at first glance, how would you compare the FX1's image to the HD1's ?
That's an unfair question, because I do not like the HD1's picture at all. It's overly sharpened, low-latitude, and completely "electronic" -- nothing organic or smooth or filmlike about it. But, I have seen some amazing images out of the HD1, in the right hands.

So far all I've seen are some random grabs by some very helpful but not necessarily expert posters. I wouldn't hazard a guess about what the camera can do, based on those grabs. It's too early, and the users don't hold themselves out to be experts, so I think speculation at this point is just speculation.

[Antoine_Fabi]

...i know what you mean...but i can't believe Sony would release a high quality camera that would drop every 5 frames...I really dont believe they'd do that.

If they do that, then any videographer will use this camera in normal 60i mode for professional use, or wait for a camera that record filmlike smooth motion.

...that's why i wait for your report.
Let's hope...

thanks

[Barry_Green]

I hear what you're saying, but the way I look at it, I would put *nothing* past any manufacturer. I couldn't believe Sony would release the PD170 with a bad audio bug, but they did. And I still can't comprehend Canon releasing the XL2 without a) HDV, or b) real manual focus and real manual iris control.

But they did.

So the Sony looks superb on paper, but we can't foresee what surprises are in store for us...

[Antoine_Fabi]

that's precisely why i wait for your impartial report.

thanks

[identity]

The footage imports as 60i. *But you can choose "file format properties" and tell Vegas to treat the footage as if it has 3:2 pulldown, and instruct Vegas to remove the pulldown. *After doing so I was left with a file that sure seemed to act like a raw 24P file.


Barry, I'm a Vegas user and I'm not sure of what you're talking about. I see that when the m2t file is imported into Vegas, that the field order is upper first. Are you saying to change it to none (progressive)? Is the pulldown removed during rendering? Please explain how you removed the pulldown.

[ccroo]

Here's a quote from Millitmeter Magazine:

"Not ready to junk those VX2100s and PD170s just yet? Consider the following: Because the HDR-FX1 is equally an HDV and MiniDV camcorder, and because it uses the same Zeiss T* zoom, HD CCDs, and 14-bit A/D converter to capture both formats, it must now rate, hands down, as the finest Handycam-style 480i MiniDV camcorder available. With a price ironically below original list for the PD170, which shipped nine months earlier."

Do you think the new Sony cam will have a significantly better image compared to the DVX in interlace mode?

Here's the link:

http://millimeter.com/mag/video_hdv_bullet_train/

Raoul

[David Jimerson]

Do you think the new Sony cam will have a significantly better image compared to the DVX in interlace mode?

If it lives up to its specs, there's no way it couldn't.

Depending upon what you mean by "better," of course.

[Barry_Green]

Barry, I'm a Vegas user and I'm not sure of what you're talking about. *I see that when the m2t file is imported into Vegas, that the field order is upper first. *Are you saying to change it to none (progressive)? *Is the pulldown removed during rendering? *Please explain how you removed the pulldown.
First, it only works in Vegas 5.0, Vegas 4 doesn't have the option, so you have to be working in Vegas 5. Vegas 5 added a new feature that will let you remove pulldown from NTSC files, so (for example) you could get film transferred to video, and then do a reverse-telecine on it to be able to edit it as pure 24P. That's what I did to the Sony clip.

Second, the clip has to have been shot in CineFrame 24.

Third, "Allow Pulldown Removal" has to be checked on.

Fourth, you can only do the reverse telecine on DV files, so you have to convert the HD file to DV.

What I did was open a new DV project, and import the CineFrame 24 clip "dwaterfront24P.m2t". Then I exported it as an NTSC DV file.

Then, open a new DV 24P project, and import the newly-created DV file. Right-click the clip and go to "file format properties", and there's an option for "Enable 2-3 pulldown removal". Do that, and it'll automatically reverse-telecine the file and give you the raw 24P frames (or whatever the FX1 simulates as 24P frames).

[identity]

Cool! Thanks Barry, I'll try it tonight. I have Vegas 5b so it should work.

[Ranger]

Do you think the new Sony cam will have a significantly better image compared to the DVX in interlace mode?
Better image? From what I've seen so far, I think so, but let your eyes be the judge.

Some additional FX1 footage links.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20041027/zooma177.htm
http://citv.dip.jp/bm/

Having trouble viewing .m2t files? Try this ...
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

[tuface]

better?

[Caution]

Hey berry i just upgraded to Avid HD 5.0 are you tellling me that it will not support the new HVR Z1 ? but from what i can see it does have the option to capture 1080i and some other formats. One of the reasons i upgraded was I am planning to buy the HVR Z1 but I might not cuz I dont want sony to take out another HVR Z2 or Za once its clear they are not taking out another i plan to purchase the Z1 unless they have a Z2 or Za I will try and get one of those then.

[Barry_Green]

I don't know whether Avid supports native HDV editing or not. *I'm not an Avid user (yet, although that may change if Vegas doesn't add DVCPRO-HD support). *The only thing I do know about Avid, recently, is that they just announced that they will support desktop firewire editing with DVCPRO-HD.

Just looked at their webpage, Avid is saying that Express Pro HD natively supports both HDV and DVCPRO-HD, although "HDV support is planned for a future release, mid-2005".