Sony Press Release: 24p HD cam w/loads more

[JediLee]

Hey anyone read the press release on sony's hd cam? it could be old news to everyone but its dated back to november. anyway it says it can record HDV, DVCAM and DV images at 60i, 50i, 30, 25 or 24 frames per second, in either SD or HD and is to be out in Feb.05. says it will be $4900. here is the link:

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5327

[David Jimerson]

That's kind of the whole point of this section of the forum . . . ::)

[mgalvan]

lol ... :P

[Barry_Green]

And, again, it is *not* a 24P camera, nor is it 25P nor is it 30P. That's misleading terminology in Sony's press release (or deceptive marketing, take your pick).

[mgalvan]

I'd say a good amount of both Barry ;D

Being a recent owner of the XL2, I had to take a trip down to B&H to test out this Cineframe mode in person to see how it stacks up to the XL2's true progressive. Indeed, it didn't stack too high ... :-/

Upon hearing of the debut of the FX1 and the Z1, I started wondering if purchasing the XL2 was a "not so good" decision seeing how these cams are the glimpse of the supposed future and whats to come. Well, I have to say that I am even happier with my XL2 after seeing and using the FX1. I'm real big on progressive and seeing how jumpy and strobey the FX1 was in cineframe mode just totally turned me off from the camera. Don't get me wrong ... my initial use of this camera revealed a pretty nice image quality to the eye, but it is really nice looking video and not the "psuedo film" look that progressive at 24 frames can provide. And that was one MAJOR reason in purchasing a camera, so the XL2 made a really good choice in that regard. If you don't care about progressive, than these HDV cameras may float your boat ... but I for one would wait a little to see how the workflow improves with HDV as there really is no viable platform to distribute what you've shot with it or even display your work (unless you wanna carry around your camera with an HD set) ;D

[mgalvan]

lol ... indeed it does ;)

By no means am I saying anything bad about the FX1 ... I haven't used it far long enough to make any definitive conclusions, especially as I was only really interested in testing out and analyzing the Cineframe modes ...

All I can say is that from what I've seen in regards to Cineframe, if you are looking into getting a cam that can give you that "film" looking footage, the FX1 boat sank deep into the ocean in comparison to what the DVX/XL2 can provide. Actually, its as if the FX1 never even left the dock ...

But as I said, from intial looks, the footage that comes out of if does look pretty nice. But don't expect anywhere close to the motion rendering progressive provides with this camera.

[jpgentry]

I'd say a good amount of both Barry *;D

Being a recent owner of the XL2, I had to take a trip down to B&H to test out this Cineframe mode in person to see how it stacks up to the XL2's true progressive. *Indeed, it didn't stack too high ... *:-/

Upon hearing of the debut of the FX1 and the Z1, I started wondering if purchasing the XL2 was a "not so good" decision seeing how these cams are the glimpse of the supposed future and whats to come. *Well, I have to say that I am even happier with my XL2 after seeing and using the FX1. *I'm real big on progressive and seeing how jumpy and strobey the FX1 was in cineframe mode just totally turned me off from the camera. *Don't get me wrong ... my initial use of this camera revealed a pretty nice image quality to the eye, but it is really nice looking video and not the "psuedo film" look that progressive at 24 frames can provide. *And that was one MAJOR reason in purchasing a camera, so the XL2 made a really good choice in that regard. *If you don't care about progressive, than these HDV cameras may float your boat ... but I for one would wait a little to see how the workflow improves with HDV as there really is no viable platform to distribute what you've shot with it or even display your work (unless you wanna carry around your camera with an HD set) *;D

I'd be curious to know if the strobing went away if you played with shutter settings.

[videoman69]

Are you guys for real? You teste dit in the store? Did you use 24 or 30 CF mode? Did you turn on the film gamma settings? Custom settings?

The FX1 in 30CF mode with teh film gamma settings BLOWS away my DVX, and I liek it MUCH better than the XL2 I tried out. Also, you do not need an HD set to show yoru footage. I shoot in HDC mode every single day for important projects. I edit in FCP just as easily as I do with any other DV footage. I then out put to DVD and the resulting DVD is MUCH better than ANY I have made with my DVX or Xl2!

MUCH MUCH cleaner picture, NO noise, deeper blacks, and smooth motion at 30CF.

The picture difference is amazing. I get no jaggies at all.

Its amazing, and you do not need an HD set to even use this in HDV mode. You also do not need any special editing software as any will do. shoot in hdv only, 30cf and use the custom settings and gamma.

Why all of this false information? EVerytime I see a negative about teh FX1 its from someone who tried it at a store, or didnt learn how to use it.

It gives MUCH cleaner images in low light and normal light. NO jaggies at all, ever in HDV mode (Which is all I shoot in for my normal 4X3 TV and DVD output)

I was never 100% happy with the DVX, I also had the DVC-30 and have owned the Xl1, and tried the XL2.

Ive also owned the SOny PD150 and VX1000, 2000, TRV900, 950

The FX1 is my favorite DV camera EVER. The handling, controls, build, lens, HDV/DV modes, and overall picture quality are amazing.

Also, again, you do not need a HD TV to use this camera. The images on 4X3 standard TV's is MUCH nicer than any DV cam I have owned.

[niko]

i assume it's worth waiting for. i've made a very good choice
when i bought my first DV back in 1997, so i trust Sony with
this product.
back in 1997 it was a pure gamble, but today we're waiting
eagerly for HD cameras with such low prices.

all my cameras since then were Sony (DSR 300, PD 150, PD 1, VX9000).

[mgalvan]

Are you guys for real? You teste dit in the store? Did you use 24 or 30 CF mode? Did you turn on the film gamma settings? Custom settings?

The FX1 in 30CF mode with teh film gamma settings BLOWS away my DVX, and I liek it MUCH better than the XL2 I tried out. Also, you do not need an HD set to show yoru footage. I shoot in HDC mode every single day for important projects. I edit in FCP just as easily as I do with any other DV footage. I then out put to DVD and the resulting DVD is MUCH better than ANY I have made with my DVX or Xl2!

MUCH MUCH cleaner picture, NO noise, deeper blacks, and smooth motion at 30CF.

The picture difference is amazing. I get no jaggies at all.

Its amazing, and you do not need an HD set to even use this in HDV mode. You also do not need any special editing software as any will do. shoot in hdv only, 30cf and use the custom settings and gamma.

Why all of this false information? EVerytime I see a negative about teh FX1 its from someone who tried it at a store, or didnt learn how to use it.

It gives MUCH cleaner images in low light and normal light. NO jaggies at all, ever in HDV mode (Which is all I shoot in for my normal 4X3 TV and DVD output)

I was never 100% happy with the DVX, I also had the DVC-30 and have owned the Xl1, and tried the XL2.

Ive also owned the SOny PD150 and VX1000, 2000, TRV900, 950

The FX1 is my favorite DV camera EVER. The handling, controls, build, lens, HDV/DV modes, and overall picture quality are amazing.

Also, again, you do not need a HD TV to use this camera. The images on 4X3 standard TV's is MUCH nicer than any DV cam I have owned.



Hi videoman69,

Your post confuses me like the look of this face ???

You claim that you don't need any special editing software for editing HDV but from what I know, no NLE natively supports the format yet. Can someone verify this?

Also, my comments were restricted to the cineframe modes as that is the only thing I really looked at. I can't make any comments or conclusions about the camera in general because I haven't messed with it enough to do so. BUT I can tell you that cineframe is not smooth at all. I'm sure Barry can attest to that ... just read some of his posts in regards to it ....

If the camera makes you happy, than good for you, it obviously serves your purpose. But I am only trying to relay what I've seen in regards to the camera ....

[mgalvan]

I should also further clarify that I specifically looked at cineframe 24. Cineframe 30, I really didn't look at so that could be smooth .... 8)

[Steve_Shovlar]

McGalvan,
I do understand what you are saying.

I have owned an FX1 since it was launched and absolutely love it. But there are problems at the moment with editing in HD. Lumierehd.com plugin is out but does not yet allow record to tape, and they seem to be taking an age to get there.

I do all my editing on a mac with FCP 4.5 HD, but have to edit in SD, then burn to dvd in DVD Studio Pro 3. The results are superb though. Yes, it's standard def but the quality of the picture really is top notch. On playback from tape to my HD Plasma, the results are simply stunning.

But the software isn't ready yet to edit in HD, and of course Blu Ray is still in the distance, if it comes out at all. I would imagine there will be an update in FCP in the not too distant future which will allow HD editing through the whole timeline.

As for 24p, well yes the FX1 doesn't have it, but I have the PAL version and Cineframe 25 looks OK and the CF50 excellent. Remember, you can always do the film look in post prod with filters.

[Zim]

It might be a good camera. The price might also bring down the XL2 and the DVX price. I'm looking to buy in about 2 or 2 months. Having HD would be a plus, but so would a cheaper XL2!

[Zim]

What does Sony mean by, "cinema like"? So I take it just recording in 24p is not true 24p? Does this mean it could not be blow up for the big screen?

Sony's website says "cineframe 24 meter 3:2 pulldown function"

It also says, "precision 16:9 SD DV recording"

and 16:9 native.

Good or bad?

[mgalvan]

Cineframe 24 is NOT true 24p. It uses some sort of field blending to achieve the look. And yes, it is native 16:9, which is good if you are looking to shoot ... well ... 16:9 ;D

[mgalvan]

McGalvan,
I do understand what you are saying.

I have owned an FX1 since it was launched and absolutely love it. But there are problems at the moment with editing in HD. Lumierehd.com plugin is out but does not yet allow record to tape, and they seem to be taking an age to get there.

I do all my editing on a mac with FCP 4.5 HD, but have to edit in SD, then burn to dvd in DVD Studio Pro 3. The results are superb though. Yes, it's standard def but the quality of the picture really is top notch. On playback from tape to my HD Plasma, the results are simply stunning.

But the software isn't ready yet to edit in HD, and of course Blu Ray is still in the distance, if it comes out at all. I would imagine there will be an update in FCP in the not too distant future which will allow HD editing through the whole timeline.

As for 24p, well yes the FX1 doesn't have it, but I have the PAL version and Cineframe 25 looks OK and the CF50 excellent. Remember, you can always do the film look in post prod with filters.


Hey videoman69, are you editing yuour footage the same way as Steve is here ... editing it in SD? FCP doesn't natively handle HDV yet.

[ShannonRawls]

You claim that you don't need any special editing software for editing HDV but from what I know, no NLE natively supports the format yet. *Can someone verify this?....

Yes, Sony Vegas 5.0 edits HDV just fine.

[David Jimerson]

No, it doesn't. It does HD, but not HD. I'm sure it will very soon, though.

[Barry_Green]

It might be a good camera. The price might also bring down the XL2 and the DVX price. I'm looking to buy in about 2 or 2 months. Having HD would be a plus, but so would a cheaper XL2!
The XL2 has already come down. A month or so ago it was selling for pretty much retail at B&H, but since then they dropped it to 4499 and most recently I believe it's gone to 4299. I don't know if it's directly traceable to the Sony HDV cameras (since the HDV price also dropped, initially it was a firm $3700 but now it's down to $3299) but, whatever the reason, these excellent cameras are now more affordable than before.

[Barry_Green]

What does Sony mean by, "cinema like"? So I take it just recording in 24p is not true 24p? Does this mean it could not be blow up for the big screen?
Well, technically you could blow it up, yes. But the motion rendition is very odd, almost erratic. It wouldn't look good. It doesn't look good on the small screen, and magnifying that wouldn't make it look better.

If you were going for a film blowup from an FX1 or Z1, I'd highly recommend to skip the Cineframe 24. From an NTSC FX1 you'd be better off to shoot in 60i and use DVFilm Maker to convert it, or let DVFilm do the conversion for you. From the Z1, I suspect you'll get better results from using Cineframe 25 and slowing down to 24p, but it's possible DVFilm Maker would do a better job from 50i material.


Sony's website says "cineframe 24 meter 3:2 pulldown function"
Yes, Sony's camera does employ 3:2 pulldown. The problem is, it generates its 24 frames "wrong"... it then applies 3:2 pulldown onto those "wrong" frames. So it's not the same, and doesn't look the same, as actual 24fps capture.


It also says, "precision 16:9 SD DV recording"
Yes, when in DV mode you can record in 16:9, or also in 4:3, your choice.


and 16:9 native.
Yes, the FX1 is actually the only 1/3" CCD camera on the market that has a 16:9-shaped CCD.


Good or bad?
The FX1 takes a pretty good 16:9 DV image. It's competitive with the XL2's 16:9 DV, although it's less light-sensitive than the XL2 is, and much less sensitive than the reigning low-light champs, the PD170 and DVX. If your priority is 16:9 shooting, and you want a 16:9 DV camera, the FX1 does a good job of it, but you do need to bring up the light levels to get the best picture.

[Barry_Green]

Yes, Sony Vegas 5.0 edits HDV just fine.

Well, to clarify: Sony Vegas can display and cut and trim HDV files. However, you cannot import or export them! You need to use an add-on $149 package, ConnectHD, to be able to import HDV files. And as of now, you cannot create files that can be exported back to the camera.

So, no, Vegas can't be said to be a fully native HDV editing app yet. I believe Canopus Edius, or Pinnacle or someone is claiming to offer a full native HDV editing system.

[Anhar_Miah]

don't forget ulead ;)

[zenbarai]

I was under the impression from other posts on this site that images captured on the FX1 in HDV mode, when down-converted to DV, didn't look as good as images generated by the DVX or XL2. It had to do with the MPEG2 compression on the FX1 being more visibly distracting than the lower overall quality of DV25.

For someone in the market for a 16:9 camcorder for indie features:
Is the FX1 footage run thru filmlook software—with or without CineFrame—going to look more aesthetically pleasing than the XL2 (higher resolution, filmic enough to not be distractingly videoish, well detailed) if it's cut and viewed in SD?

Or is one better off staying in the XL2 world until someone comes out with a low cost HD format less artifacty than HDV?

I realize this is all subjective, but this would just be in terms of getting images good enough that the viewing public would accept as a feature film on home video, and could hold up well enough for some large format screenings. It seems to me it would be easier to sell a film shot on high def (even if it's HDV) than one shot on DV.

Or put another way, forgetting about film: Would an FX1 (or Z1) with filmlook software look more like F900 footage than an XL2? Would an action sequence fall apart with the MPEG2 compression?

[Barry_Green]

images captured on the FX1 in HDV mode, when down-converted to DV, didn't look as good as images generated by the DVX or XL2. It had to do with the MPEG2 compression on the FX1 being more visibly distracting than the lower overall quality of DV25.
I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment -- I think the FX1 downconverted looks about the same as XL2 or DVX footage -- in interlaced mode... a little softer, but not any big deal. *But the FX1 can't do 24P, so the XL2 and DVX get a big boost there -- if you want a film-looking DVD, the XL2 and DVX just do a better job than the FX1 does.

It's not so much that the downrezzed FX1 doesn't look as good, because it is pretty close; it's that there's no advantage to the HD camera that survives the downrez process. *So you end up with footage that could have been taken on a VX2100 (except the 2100 costs about $1300 less, and is about 2 stops faster). *It's not that the FX1 footage looks bad or due to mpeg compression, it looks fine, just a little softer; but by using the FX1 it means you give up XLR audio, 24P, the fuller range of image controls the XL2 and DVX offer, get a less sensitive camera, etc.


Is the FX1 footage run thru filmlook software—with or without CineFrame—going to look more aesthetically pleasing than the XL2 (higher resolution, filmic enough to not be distractingly videoish, well detailed) if it's cut and viewed in SD?
I'd have to run that test to find out. *I do have a beta copy of DVFilm Maker that supports HDV footage, but I don't know when I'll run the test. *My inclination is to say that no, it wouldn't, just because overall the FX1 footage isn't looking better on SD than XL2/DVX footage. *But the only way to KNOW the answer is to run the test.


Or is one better off staying in the XL2 world until someone comes out with a low cost HD format less artifacty than HDV?
That's my tactic. *I think whether you're better off staying in the SD world is, what do you expect to accomplish in HD? *If you're shooting something that NEEDS to be in HD, like a corporate film for showing on a closed-circuit HD system, then by all means shoot it in HD. *If you're shooting something that's going to be distributed within the next five or six years, DVD is going to be the means of distribution to the public, and DVD is SD, so you could do fine with an XL2 or DVX (or with a downrezzed FX1 even, provided you like the results). *But there likely won't be any practical mass distribution of HD anytime soon.


I realize this is all subjective, but this would just be in terms of getting images good enough that the viewing public would accept as a feature film on home video, and could hold up well enough for some large format screenings.
That's an entirely subjective question. *The answer is up to you and the viewing public; the public has definitely accepted HD/24P. *Nobody makes movies in HD/60i. *For home video, SD/24P looks fantastic, as does downrezzed HD/24P.


It seems to me it would be easier to sell a film shot on high def (even if it's HDV) than one shot on DV.
Again, that's a question for the distributor. *It's infinitely easier to sell an SD/DV film with Julia Roberts in it, than it is to sell an HD film with no name actors in it... if all things are equal (meaning, no name actors at all, etc) then format would come into play; the same no-name film shot on 35mm might (MIGHT) sell sooner than the exact same film shot on DV, but the overwhelming likelihood is that neither would sell.


Or put another way, forgetting about film: Would an FX1 (or Z1) with filmlook software look more like F900 footage than an XL2?
On SD? *Not likely. *Maybe. *Have to test.

On a high-def TV? *Probably, if only because the horizontal resolution of the FX1/Z1 should survive fairly intact through the filmlook process. *So even though it'll have perhaps less vertical resolution than the XL2 would, it'll still have twice the horizontal.

The answer you really want is, when will someone make a high-def 24P camera? *That's the combination. *And the Sony is not the answer; it's a high-def 60i camera. *Panasonic and JVC have both announced intentions to introduce new cameras; JVC has specifically announced 24P, and while I don't think Panasonic has mentioned 24P yet, it's an extremely safe bet that it WILL offer it... speculation, but seems like safe speculation.

I don't think we'll have to wait too very long for these cameras to materialize. *Within a year, most likely. *

[zenbarai]

Wow, what a fantastic reply, Barry, thank you! I'm sure you're right—the manufacturers must all realize that anyone who comes out with a low cost 24p HD prosumer camcorder with anything remotely approaching the feature set of the DVX or XL2 would make a KILLING.

From what you've said and from what I've read elsewhere, it seems to me that unless you have the green light from a major production company that needs HD deliverables, for now SD is the way to go.

[Ruff_Futtidge]

I went for a uk demo of Canopus's HDV editor - very impressive , AND real time ! - However, I'm about to upgrade to Pinnacle's Liquid Edition 6 as I just LOVE the User interface and real time capabilities - NATIVE HDV without conversion !! and any-format timeline mix ! Shame I just missed Santa!
P.S. Happy New Year !

Ruff

[ettubaby]

'm not sure that's an accurate assessment -- I think the FX1 downconverted looks about the same as XL2 or DVX footage -- in interlaced mode... a little softer, but not any big deal. *But the FX1 can't do 24P, so the XL2 and DVX get a big boost there -- if you want a film-looking DVD, the XL2 and DVX just do a better job than the FX1 does.
*
It's not so much that the downrezzed FX1 doesn't look as good, because it is pretty close; it's that there's no advantage to the HD camera that survives the downrez process. *So you end up with footage that could have been taken on a VX2100 (except the 2100 costs about $1300 less, and is about 2 stops faster). *It's not that the FX1 footage looks bad or due to mpeg compression, it looks fine, just a little softer; but by using the FX1 it means you give up XLR audio, 24P, the fuller range of image controls the XL2 and DVX offer, get a less sensitive camera, etc.



Software is not prefect, in audio downcasting is call dithering, what do you get rid of? apogee made a killing providing the right solution. If you have more information you should have better results, you just need something that is smart to deal with it correctly. HDV is new, give it time.

[Barry_Green]

Nothing wrong with that advice at all! :)

[theos]

Barry I learnt from one of your posts that image aquisition is what makes real 24/25p footage, that is what changed my approach to setting up scenes.