HVR-Z1U Sony America press release!

[PappasArts]

Here is the Sony usa press release on the HVR-Z1U


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

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5331

[mickeloaf]

Anything here that hasn't already been known?

[Barry_Green]

Mainly that someone would be silly to buy the FX1, now that we know what all the Z1 does. The audio features alone would be worth the price difference (to me, at least). The price difference is $1200, the Z1 has an MSRP of $4900.

[David Jimerson]

Nicely placed to undercut XL2 sales.

[monster]

Mainly that someone would be silly to buy the FX1, now that we know what all the Z1 does. *The audio features alone would be worth the price difference (to me, at least). *The price difference is $1200, the Z1 has an MSRP of $4900.


Barry, does this part of the release satisfy your doubts about the true 24p or is this still gonna be faux 24p?

"The HVR-Z1 is unique in its ability to record HDV and DVCAM™ images at 60i, 50i, 30, 25 or 24 frames per second—in either SD or HD. "

[Neil Rowe]

...the minute i read the shadily written release i knew that it would flare up the 24p issue again.

it is NOT real 24P. it records 24 frames per second, but that doesnt mean its 24p. i could take 1 field *every 1/120th of a sec, and just interpolate and use the first 24 and throw out the rest , and record the first 24 interpolated frames to tape over 1 sec and say "look.. its 24fps." *that does not mean the sampling was either progressive or 24fps .. it was sampled at 120 fps, and interlaced. *and converted to 24fps. * the sony samples at 60i and then converts to 24fps using fancy deninterlacing. but the motion redition, and resolution are obviosly not going to be the same as true 24p. *... the horse is dead. * to be very clear on the issue *since sony has irritated me into a foamy mouthed frenzy:

if the camera could do *30p, 25p, or 24p, they would say simply and proudly say it does 30p, 25p, and 24p instead of making up a name like "cineframe technology" to describe their 60i or 50i to 24fps or 25fps conversion process.


if this release had said that the camera did NOT have cineframe , and that it did 24 and 25 fps.. id be inclined to look into it further thinking that they by chance might have actually given it real 24/25p *but seeing as it incorperates the cineframe hash.. its going to be the same as the FX1.


sorry for being foamy mouthed.. i just hate shady advertizing. alot of spend thrift consumers or video newbs will be misled and uniformed into their purchasing decision from stuff such as that.

[Policar]

A similar difference in price between the vx2100 and pd170. Nice work, Sony. With the rumors of $6,000 dollars I was starting to think bad things, but that's perfectly reasonable, though I'm sure most of that difference is pure profit.

Still, I want REAL 24p, but I bet even this fake 24p looks pretty sweet since it's hi-def.

[ccroo]

Will the quality of SD/DV from the FX1 be better than the quality of the DVX progressive with the 16:9 adapter?

Also, it seems the FX1 will do 480p... but that may only be when downconverting from HDV in the camera internally. Anyone know?

[monster]

ok so it has real 30p but not not real 24p ?

[David Jimerson]

It does not have progressive-scan chips. Any "progressive" mode it might have will be an internal deinterlacing.

So no, no "real" 30p.

[Kidster]

Sony is going to tell all about the Z1 Cineframe mode at the pinnacle of Indie film festivals "Sundance". Which implies to me that however Sony is getting this 24fps thing to work, the film look must be pretty good. And they are aiming this camera at the independent film maker.

[Barry_Green]

Barry, does this part of the release satisfy your doubts about the true 24p or is this still gonna be faux 24p?

Unquestionably no 24P. It's "fake" 24P.

Didn't stop me from calling Rush to order one today though! :)


ok so it has real 30p but not not real 24p ?
It has no "real" progressive scan of any type. It's all faked.

[David Jimerson]

Why wouldn't they try to hawk a low-cost HDV cam at Sundance, however the film look works? I don't take that as evidence of much.

Canon was trying to play up the XL1 as the filmmaker's choice just about right up until the XL2.

[David Jimerson]

Didn't stop me from calling Rush to order one today though! :)


Brave man. Be a pioneer!

[Barry_Green]

You can usually tell pioneers, they're the guys with arrows in their backs.

[David Jimerson]

Or at least smaller wallets.

[Walter_Graff]

i am a member of SMPTE. Every month we have a meeting to be given a white paper demonstration. Tonight it was HDV. Here are some thoughts.

Sorry folks this demo was incredibly disappointing. I heard JVC and Sony tell their versions showing their cameras, footage, and lots of technical power-point. I saw both the $3000 version and the $6000 version. i took lots of notes. I have to say, it's not impressive and I really wonder if it's going to make it at all. This format is going to be a tough sell even to consumers.No wonder why they built it on a DV backbone, they will still have DV when and if it fails.

Regardless of what I read, this format does do both 720p and 1080i and 1080p and 480p. What many do not understand is how I-frame works. It's not video like we know it. It's packets of info that have no beginning and no end. That is the confusion. This format uses an MPEG GOP method of making frames. The system uses i-frames, p-frames, and b-frames. Very simply it uses the past to tell the future, and the future to tell what's in between. I know it sounds confusing but I am to tired to explain it now. Just know that it uses a way that gives you frame accurate video for editing. And as for the editing problems, as of today they are all pretty much fixed. *

JVC: Their idea is to create an entire low cost infrastructure for consumers including a $1000 HDV deck for playback. As a professional I can tell you JVC was trying to sell this camera up to the level just before broadcast for use (event, wedding, government, industrial, etc) but JVC has never sold a product professionally that professionals actually took to much so I doubt there *entry will be a contender. JVC has not decided on frame rates but this format is capable of 24p up to 60P The 720p version records at 19mbs and the 1080i version at 25mbs with 74.25 and 55.6875 sampling rates. yes 1080i samples at a lower rate. Its a chroma sub-sample so it's 4:2:0. *JVCs version has 4 audio tracks sampling at 48khz. JVC made it clear they aren't committed to what exactly they will do because frankly they don't know yet. I used this camera and it's viewfinder is low res, it's difficult to focus and I'll tell you one more thing in a second, let me continue for a moment before I do. *Just know that they are looking to create an entire solution so that you don't just shoot in HDV but you also end up with everything you need to shoot edit, and play it all back including what will be a $500 deck. All told they were talking about a HDV complete solution for about $12,000. But frankly much of what the JVC guy said got lots of sighs and lots of head shaking from some pretty big network types at the meeting. I too laughed at some of the stuff said. As for editing, pretty much everyone now has either native editing for HDV or a simple plug in that lets you edit lust like other video. They did mention that the Mac Lumeire and Heuris codecs were very impressive for HDV.

The only thing I was told was good about JVCs entry after the seession *is the $25,000 decoder. James Ferder who is one of the folks who designs all of CBS' infrastructure told me they are using them in Letterman's studio which is being converted to an HD facility as video distributers so that Letterman and others can see what is going on in edit rooms from their office. I know it sounds like a lot of money for DA but consider that the other option is a $90,000 device made by a company called Harris. $25,000 isn't that much if that's the case.

Sony: Sony unveiled their $6000 camera. They call it a professional consumer camera. It does not have the integrated system JVC was trying to sell where you could shoot, edit and end up with it on a cheap deck. Sony's method is too expensive for most all of the folks I see post here. They have two channels of audio xlrs. Their camera also has the 720p and 1080i option. It has gammas and the like similar to Panasonic. I could go on but lets get to the real results- the pictures.

Sony very carefully showed the group very specific footage and for good reason, any movement with this format is disastrous. One shot of a locked down tripod showed a street scene with some folks walking at camera and others mingling. The girl walking toward camera was blurred by a strobish effect and this was 60i footage. At one point someone slightly hit the tripod and a black and white sign on a phone booth suddenly showed horrible vertical smear. A very slow zoom out at one point to demonstrate the 12x lens showed horrible stuttering effect but not in the entire frame, only around where 4:3 TV safety would be vertically, and the zoom was very slow. They showed a close up of a parrot but his feathers were making a very strange moire. *And of course they showed lots of green shots of Japans country side but even then it was not very good looking footage even though green is a trick these folks use because cameras love green. *What they did not show the group and the reason they stopped the tape was the footage of the NYC marathon and other movement shots. I happened to see the footage though earlier when they were setting it up and it was completely unacceptable even in a home video set-up. Obviously they opted not to show it as a result. The bottom line is that any movement looks so bad as to be horrible. Sony also shoed HDV 24p and that looked like someone had applied a trail effect to the video. Bottom line this format is really bad. Worse than that it's awful. If you shot a wedding with it, you couldn't shoot dancing because you would not be able to make out anyones faces. The group of about 100 engineers including some pretty big friends of mine who build all the infrastructures at many of the networks and production facilities in NY all didn't have anything good to say about the demo after the show. In fact the 50 or so engineers and the like talked about everything but the demo as they left as if they wanted to move on. *I will not be using this format for anything anytime soon.

And in case you are wondering this footage was shown in a state of the art intermediary room on the latest 2k NEC projector. They used Sony's HVR-M10U HDV deck. If you don't know what this room is, it's where motion pictures that originate on video are projected and color corrected. The screen was ten feet high so it offered a lot and also offered resolution well beyond the capability of HDV so it was a good place for the SMPTE demo.

Very simply, as a twenty year veteran *who has worked on more commercials and television programs than most, working extensively in 35mm, HD, and SD video, *I can say run don't walk from this format. It is NOT anything that you will consider like HD once you see it. I can almost say it's like bad DV or Dv gone haywire. *My eyes still hurts from using the JVC camera for a half hour putting it through its paces.

Any questions feel free to ask.

[mickeloaf]

Nice post Walter, very imformative. I just feel for all those folks that rushed to sell their DVX's because they bought into the illusion of HDV.

[Guest]

I don't think that sony would try to sell a camera that can't have fast motion for 6 grand. I will wait for some real footage before making a judgment call. I think HDV has a real shot at being great. Remember that DV was frowned upon too, now we use are beloved DVX's that are dv based.

If they will scale the compression to about 50mbs, mpeg2 encodeing are not, it will look great. Of course, I am looking for Panasonics answer to HDV....would like to see a 50mbs, h.264 HDV camera with 24p. It will happen, at least the 24p.

[Walter_Graff]

"I don't think that sony would try to sell a camera that can't have fast motion for 6 grand."

That is what I would have thought.


"If they will scale the compression to about 50mbs, mpeg2 encodeing are not, it will look great. "

Sorry the format standard is 19 and 25mps, no more.

"*Of course, I am looking for Panasonics answer to HDV....would like to see a 50mbs, h.264 HDV camera with 24p. *It will happen, at least the 24p."

Sony showed their 24p with gamma correction and it was pretty awful. But I guess we'll wait and see.

[Guest]

It's confusing. The mpg2 encoding with the SD-2000 encoder can give you an excellent mpg2 DVD quality with as low as 4-6Mbs and a peak level 7-8Mbs. Have you ever seen a disastrous quality on your DVD?

The HDV is 25Mbs , the size of the picture is almost 3 times the SD and if I just count from the DVD mpg2 than it should give me a good quality with 25Mbs. The standard is interlaced and we can't wait any progressive for this little investment, it's ok. But the quallity of the interlaced footage has to be good.

"any movement with this format is disastrous" - I don't know what they did but it's hardt to belive it's true. I've seen a demonstration, and there is a few clips on the internet with pan, fast movement. It isn't disastrous.

[oleg]

how good is the footage in regular dv format ?

[Walter_Graff]

It's confusing. The mpg2 encoding with the SD-2000 encoder can give you an excellent mpg2 DVD quality with as low as 4-6Mbs and a peak level 7-8Mbs. Have you ever seen a disastrous quality on your DVD?

The HDV is 25Mbs , the size of the picture is almost 3 times the SD and if I just count from the DVD mpg2 than it should give me a good quality with 25Mbs. The standard is interlaced and we can't wait any progressive for this little investment, it's ok. But the quallity of the interlaced footage has to be good.

"any movement with this format is disastrous" - I don't know what they did but it's hardt to belive it's true. I've seen a demonstration, and there is a few clips on the internet with pan, fast movement. It isn't disastrous.

Should and would are two different things. First off, only the 1080i is 25. The 720p is 19. I understand your questions and your concerns but I have to say, folks around me during the demonstration kept looking at each other and sighing. It was hard to believe that Sony did not see what we all saw very clearly during the presentation. But then again I have gone to many of these demos where they simply did not know what they were doing. The way that HDV gets away with a smaller bandwidth is that at 720p30 it places half the load on the encoder that a more robust 720p60f system does so it can use a smaller bandwidth. The 1080i scenario uses a 15 frame GOP which means that the picture is susceptible to not one but two types of motion-induced artifacts. YOu can help eliminate it by using shutter but you can not get rid of it. Bu that's what you get with such a lousy data rate. It's just enough but not enough and it will be a problem.

[Kidster]

Why wouldn't they try to hawk a low-cost HDV cam at Sundance, however the film look works? I don't take that as evidence of much.

Canon was trying to play up the XL1 as the filmmaker's choice just about right up until the XL2.


it's to my understanding that no camera manufacturer has ever introduced a new camera's technical feature in this fashion ( at North America's most famous film festival) Maybe it is just a marketing ploy and the Sony Cineframe 24 will not be near as good or filmic as true progressive 24p and Sony is looking for a "unofficial" endorsment by saying that they unveiled the Z1 to America's Film Makers. However, Sony has IMHO been the leader in the camera industry for a long time. Why is that? Sony is a innovator and a risk taker when it comes to new technologies. Also, I would say yes, they also MARKET their products to make them seem like the best thing since sliced bread.

I guess we will have to wait and see how good the Cineframe mode really is.

[Jonathan]

Walter, do you mind if I quote your post on a UK broadcast forum, as the debate is hotting up here and people need info and opinions?

BTW-those press releases are somewhat inaccurate and misleading. As we know, there is no progressive mode of any kind on either camera and is 50i/60i only, and the camera is in fact 8 bit processing not 14! (HDCAM is only 10!!)

[Guest]

I truly can't believe that motion is as bad as Walter says. I will accept it if is true, but I have to see it for myself. I can't believe Sony would blow a major revenue stream. Plus I would be highly disappointed.

Perhaps engineers shot the footage.

Theoretically, 1080 60i should look pretty good with motion.

[Walter_Graff]

I truly can't believe that motion is as bad as Walter says. I will accept it if is true, but I have to see it for myself. I can't believe Sony would blow a major revenue stream. Plus I would be highly disappointed.

Perhaps engineers shot the footage.

Theoretically, 1080 60i should look pretty good with motion.



Your quote about engineers may certainly be a factor. Sony has blown demos before with lousy representations of their own equipment. I am going to demo a camera and deck and see what I can do that they can not. As for your comment on 1080i and motion "should look pretty good" would be true of this was not an I-frame format.

[Guest]

Hi Walter,

I was at the event too. I had a whole other experience than the one you described. I thought the footage was awesome when compared to the low rez footage of a DV rig , as in XL1S and the like. 720 X 480 leaves alot to be desired when you project it on a large screen or play it ion a HD TV.

I do agree that there are MAJOR problems with the HDV format. For starters, the audio standard is too low. I can not imagine that people that have been used to 5.1 24 bit audio with their DVD's are now going to embrace a lower quality such as 384 kBPS 16 bit MPEG 1. Especially those that invest in a 1080i Plasma (next years model) to watch their HD content. They are going to want to keep at least the same quality, if not improve. (I therefore, would only suggest this camera for those that want cheap HD for possible use later within a better standard that includes improved audio. Or transferring it to film.

As far as the movement, I agree with you, one has to be careful in order to minimize on screen blur. I have been looking at some footage recorded by an amatuer on the FX1 put up on the web. http://www.hdvinfo.net/media/kakugyo/

There are some clips with movement and they look ok, better than I would have expected. Also, the night shots look decent and the FX1 is only 6lux. (I would encourage you to look at this footage before writing this camera off.)

I think you should compare the FX1 to the DV standard not vastly more expensive formats like you mentioned, in comparison to DV it, that might be projected or played on a HD monitor, The FX! will blow away any DV camera.

Just my opinion.

[Barry_Green]

it's to my understanding that no camera manufacturer has ever introduced a new camera's technical feature in this fashion ( at North America's most famous film festival)
Actually Sony did this before, they took their VAIO digital editing PC's to Sundance to promote them as the ultimate all-in-one computer/video editing solution. I think it was like three years ago that they did this, so promoting the camera like this seems consistent with their actions in the past.

[parasite]

I have never loved a miniDV camera more than my beloved VX1000. To this day I still shoot on it. My guess would be, "real" 24p or not that Sony probably has a damn good camera and they know where the bar is set - the dvx100. I'll be curious to see what the test images look like when they take it public.

[Guest]

Technicaly the FX1 isn't a "film"-maker camera, it is a "video"-maker kamera. The HDV standard is interlaced and we are making a high quality video with it.

Yesterday, we had a pre-production meeting i the studio. The client had a few video clips showing us the locations. It was made with a Sony8-camcorder. All about Dirt Jump. One of the others is a big fan of this and I could see on his face that he was enjoying these clips even the quality. It means to me that the "story" is selling your movie not the technical parameters.

[Kidster]

We are about to get a real hands on look and review of Sony's HDV. I believe that Barry Green is getting his hands on one in the coming weeks. So we will all know what the "Real Deal" is with this camera then.
I myself cannot wait until Barry get to put the FX1 through it's paces. Because Barry is a pro, and has no hidden or intended agenda with Sony or any format. So I would trust his evaluation over any review I read or hear from Sony reps, or people attending expo's.

[Ranger]

I believe that Barry Green is getting his hands on one in the coming weeks.
I could be mistaken, but I think Barry is getting the Sony pro model, not the FX1. So, unless he is able to get his hands on a borrowed or rental camera, you will have to wait until February for his feedback.

[Neil Rowe]

... i dont get all the talk about the bad motion.. from any example that ive seen, it seems to be just fine, and has a great picture. I really think its looking to be an awsome camera, if it did 24p id looking into getting one, but perhaps all of the web samples ive seen to date have been misleading on the motion issue and it just looks fine in the ones ive seen?.. when you pioneers get your hands on this hot little number, it would be great to see it put to the test. ..i have feeling it will do just fine. (and watch out for people carrying bows!)
as far as panasonics answer.. its my understanding that panasonic hasnt bitten into the HDV apple yet , so whatever they do is likely completely non-subjective to the results of using the HDV standard which we are currently speculating about.

[Guest]

The big question is, how many filmtransfer did you have in the past 2 years? If "0" than to use the DVX as it is just good. No need to hunt a new camcorder.

But all tv-stations are going to support the HDV. They are meaning that HDCAM/HD is the only thing which counts. Soon or later you have to transfer your DVX footage to HDV just to be taken seriously.

[Barry_Green]

I could be mistaken, but I think Barry is getting the Sony pro model, not the FX1. *So, unless he is able to get his hands on a borrowed or rental camera, you will have to wait until February for his feedback.
I'm using an FX1 this week. Not in a pro context, we're actually shooting PAL DigiBeta, but my friend with the FX1 brought it along so I get to use it during the downtime...

[Barry_Green]

... i dont get all the talk about the bad motion.. .
Actually the motion argument makes a lot of sense. I'd seen a little bit of the effect before from the JVC, but then again I haven't seen it on a 15' screen yet!

The motion problem is going to likely come from the MPEG-2 compression. MPEG-2 is a very efficient compression algorithm for still or relatively-still images, because it records and compresses the change between frames. If you were doing a headshot, for an interview, for example, MPEG-2 would do a fantastic job on that because the background wouldn't change, so all the bits in the compression stream could be dedicated soley to the face, etc.

But when doing a pan, EVERY PIXEL CHANGES on the screen! That means there's *no savings whatsoever* from using the delta-based compression scheme of MPEG-2. And that really strains the compression algorithm. If every pixel is being re-compressed, there most likely aren't going to be nearly enough bits to go around to accurately represent the whole picture, so the overall picture will perhaps drop in resolution.

The problem should be more noticeable on the FX1 because it has to encode proportionally more pixels per second with less available bitrate than the JVC had to (i.e., 19 megabits goes further on 1280x720x30 than 25 megabits does with 1440x540x60!)

[oleg]

Barry could you please check the dv 16\9 24 mode against the dvx .

[Neil Rowe]

..agreed, i do understand where bad motion rentition could come into play..same as with a too low bitrate windows media or quicktime file, but im just saying that i havent seen it yet. pending how good the implemented hardware encoder and HDV codec is, the mpg structure could hold up really well ..or really bad under heavy loads like ful screen motion. from what ive seen it seems to be just fine though.

i guess im just optimistic about it though. id like to think that its not just another JVC and full of fatal flaws... even though im waiting for a 24p model. ill confess im a little biased to think that the technology is there to meet my expectations.. and build upon with future released cams. i do know that many other hardware encoders are capeable of encoding HD content at small bit rates without any real loss in resolution or motion rendition.. such as cineforms HD solutions and other desktop HD hardware. so im laying my confidence into Sony to be able to at least blend in withe the surroundings.
..if possible, youll have to give us a little review after youve had some hands on play time. ..even if only for the sake of curiousity, im very interested to see how it holds up.

[Guest]

Walter,

This was posted in another forum. It describes the setup you saw at the SMPTE night on 11 Nov.

It explains a lot of what you say.


1) While the facility has a 2K projector -- it was never used. All material was shown on a $1000 Sanyo non-HD projector. Viewed on a super expensive Sony Qualia the footage was supurb.

2) The street footage was clearly announced to be CF 24.

3) The zoom was perfect on the Qualia. The Sanyo does not have a good deinterlacer and hates anything with vertical motion.

4) The Sanyo had horrible noise -- the Qualia did not.


In short, Walter reviewed the projector not the camcorder.



Now,I've followed your write-up on the HDR-FX1 and appreciate you bringing everyone back to ground on this subject.

Yes, the camera only employs MPEG2/25meg and no it won't drop Cinealta's/ Vipers sales but it is a better camera than what you where describing on the SMPTE night.

David Farland

[taubkin]

You really start having doubts in their capability to develop a product they lack the competence to sell. Still I really want to believe that the new Sony is a great cam and that HD is going to be availiable for the masses shortly, so I'll keep waiting more scientific tests. If the Sony guys can't get a projector to display HD images decently, I'll wait for my HD a little longer...

[mickeloaf]

Yeah, it would seem strange that this fact wasn't disclosed at the beginning of the demonstration.

[Guest]

It was...

eye witness account:
<The Sanyo logo appeared for a 15-second count-down before the Sony material was shown.>

[Walter_Graff]

It was...

eye witness account:
<The Sanyo logo appeared for a 15-second count-down before the Sony material was shown.>

yes I found that out yesterday while discussing it. I was relieved as I couldn't believe how bad the footage looked. I will have a camera in two weeks to put through the paces so will give my person opinions based on my own shooting then. Thanks for the clarification. I know it's got to be better than what they showed but you have to wonder, why do the always screw these things up?

[CharlesC]

Since Walter Graff's earlier bad review was only a review of a sub standard video projector I strongly suggest that the moderater or Walter delete it since it is filled with a lot of misinformation that is not true.

The real bad review would be for the lousy quality control that Sony did for thier presentation.



Walter,

This was posted in another forum. It describes the setup you saw at the SMPTE night on 11 Nov.

It explains a lot of what you say.


1) While the facility has a 2K projector -- it was never used. All material was shown on a $1000 Sanyo non-HD projector. Viewed on a super expensive Sony Qualia the footage was supurb.

2) The street footage was clearly announced to be CF 24.

3) The zoom was perfect on the Qualia. The Sanyo does not have a good deinterlacer and hates anything with vertical motion.

4) The Sanyo had horrible noise -- the Qualia did not.


In short, Walter reviewed the projector not the camcorder.



Now,I've followed your write-up on the HDR-FX1 and appreciate you bringing everyone back to ground on this subject.

Yes, the camera only employs MPEG2/25meg and no it won't drop Cinealta's/ Vipers sales but it is a better camera than what you where describing on the SMPTE night.

David Farland

[CharlesC]

Myself & Ned Soltz recently posted comments to the MacWorld MacCentral News Posting of the new Sony Pro HDV system which is at:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/11/12/sony/index.php

CharlesC
Re: Sony intros pro high-def HDV video system [re: News]
* * * 11/13/04 12:04 AM
*
The fact of the matter is that HDV is and will be a Pro High Definition Format for a very long time with different flavors in it. It will be able to be edited professionally with at least a half dozen editing programs early next year. In addition there will be quite a number of new Professional HDV products introduced in every quarter from now on.

Those whining about Pro HDV are like those that said that DV/DVCAM/DVCPro was not a Professional format when they were proved wrong as it became the most widely used professional format there is all over the world. It is the easiest thing in the world for anyone to be a critic.

It is years later and electronics are so much better and able to do so much more. In partnership with that, computer editing systems & software are so much more powerful and sophisticated in what they are able to do.

Sure there will be some glitches in the first couple of years but these will be solved and corrected much more quickly than previous pro formats and their accompanying software. It looks like the Sony HDV Pro system will be capable of professional high definition workflow production starting in February or March of 2005. That being said, here is what I noticed with the Sony HDV Cams:

Sony HDV FX1 & Z1 Do Not do a true 24P, 25P or 30P. Sony does not make this clear enough at all. Those modes are from their electronically generated CineFrame mode so one could call those a Faux/Fake P.

The Sony HyperHad CCD 1/3" chips are interlace chips that although very sophisticated are composed of 1080 Vertical x 960 Elongated Horizontal Pixels. My understanding is that this is electronically upsampled to record at 1080 x 1440 then it is electronically upsampled when played back to give the full 1080 x 1920 interlace HD format.

Given all that it does produce a high quality high definition recording/playback picture that is very suitable for many areas of professional video production
More info is at sonyhdvinfo.com & camcorderinfo.com & in the 2-pop.com HDV forum
* * *

Re: Sony intros pro high-def HDV video system [re: CharlesC]
* * * 11/13/04 06:30 AM

>>There are a number of areas that must be refined within HDV editing as the format matures. A primary example here is that FCP does not handle long GOP's particularly well but this is a part of what Apple is working on as a part of offering its promised support of HDV. I totally agree with other writers who noted that the nay sayers derided the use of DV/DVCAM in serious production work. Some still do. We live in an age of the co-existence of multiple choices which in many ways does deviate from the most pristine of standards. In other words, standards have dropped much to the chagrin of those who have been around this industry for decades. At NAB I was part of some heated discussions over the viability of DVCPRO HD as a serious HD format. And yes, there are any number of broadcast programs shot on Varicam and edited over firewire on FCP. Personally, I know a number of documentary makers who are just chomping at the bit to replace their PD150/170's or DVX100A's for HDV. Yes, it is highly compressed and I would never consider a side-by-side comparison with even HDCAM. But lets face another reality-- by the time any HD broadcast is even more highly compressed for DirectTV/Voom/DishNetwork or even worse (YUCH) cable-- even pristine 4:4:4 HD looks like kitty litter. And thanks to CharlesC for the reference to 2-pop.com. My final word: these days professional is alas defined as anyone who gets paid for work by anyone willing to pay him/her.
Ned Soltz>>

[mickeloaf]

So I am confused about something. If HDV format looks bad on standard def digital projectors, what projectors does it look good on?

Are these digital projectors widely available and affordable? I don't recall seeing many HD projectors sitting around anywhere, so it seems that HD showing on inappropriate gear could be a common thing.

I guess part of the sucess of HDV will require that the format is supported in the places it will be shown, or the image must be down converted which I am still curious about the quality of on the big screen. This may be the issue in the next few years, if the right equipment is available for the picture quality...

[alpi69]

yes, if it does not look good on the projectors and screens that are out there then it is useless. and to moderate walter´s first post is also not the way to help Sony out with their marketing. this was apparently a big meeting and they blew it. or let´s say: they showed what the reality is. this cam is really good in your studio - if you have the correct setup - but your viewer might get a headache. and given the chance that many here make commercials and jobs they are payed for i suggest to get your hands off that camera until these things are clarified.
or do you wanna ship the DVD with a disclaimer: can only run on SONY screens or SONY projectors from $ 5000 and up..... :P

[Anhar_Miah]

I'm not sure about the exact details, but like with all equipment it has to be correclty set up, i remember when I hooked up my nintendo to my pocket TV it looked terrible, no surprise there.

I have read users experiance of using this camera on projects (average to half decent) and the results where just great, no complaints at all.

It would be wiser to transode to the correct target res of the projector than allow the projector to do it for you (inlcuding deinterlasing)

by the way the Sony Quilia is about $30,000!!

The way i see it is that the DVX100 has a 1/3" sensor, so has the FX1 so the images are gonna be the same albiet at a lot higher resolution which would translate in holding up sharper and more detailed when blown up...

Also it seems that the future Panny HD P2 is going to be based on mpeg2 compresion not to different to HDV

[Integr8d]

Hey. What's up guys? I've been reading this post and, sure enough, it's been fun reading. I'm impressed at how far we've come -from fake wives to what looks good on what kind of projector. I just want to add my 2 cents.

I was once the proud owner of a PD-150. I thought it was a great camera. It had solid build, handled great in low light, and had pro audio inputs. But it was an interlaced camera. And my personal feeling is that interlaced video is great for: the news, a low budget documentary, and American Idol.

Progressive scan has been a big help to achieving a more cinematic look to video. When I saw the first footage from the DXV, I was blown away. It looked like 16 transfered right on the spot! It had a lot of filmlike quality. However, the latitude of video still held true. You had to keep your ratios pretty tight, otherwise the 'video' would rear it's ugly head.

Consider the pros...

Now we have the Panavision Genesis which is coming out, the Thompson Viper, the Dalsa Origin-which I think got scrapped, the Arri D20 project, and all the different models of high-end high def cameras. And what do all the pros still trust??? 35mm. There's a reason 35 gets scanned in at 4,000 lines of resolution. But I'm getting off point... If you want a camera to poke around with, something to shoot the holidays and birthdays with, don't blow all your change on one of these prosumer cameras. Get a little thousand dollar camera. If you want to shoot a lot of docus or weddings, get this little Sony high def. I'm sure it'll be great. If you want to shoot a ton of shorts or spec spots, go w/ the Canon or Panasonic. But if you want to do one thing really big, take that five grand you would've spent on a video camera and rent a SR3 and buy yourself four hours worth of footage and transfer time. It's not just the kinetic frame rate of film that makes it the preferred choice. It can stand up to harsh lighting conditions that video would otherwise fail in. It has got infinite color space. And it's future proof -well for 40 or 50 years at least. Plus IT'S COOL.

FYI: You can go on eBay and for $700 find a used Beaulieu 4008ZM4 Super 8 camera w/ perfect Scheider 12:1 f1.4 glass that is ten times sharper than anything built into a video camera. It's also a c-mount camera. So there is tons of other lenses available. And the camera will shoot from 2-80 fps w/ transistorized 24 fps... or crystal 24 -if you got the extra $$$. And you can do aperture compensated speed ramps while filming. Good luck finding that in the $6k range ;) And Super 8, w/ good glass, is good for around 1000 vertical lines. That's in pissing range of 1080P. Albiet it'll have more grain. But who here can shoot 1080P for $700?

I know this is a video post. But I enjoy reading everything and seeing all sides. The film guys are no different that the vidiots. They all get caught up in the technical issues. Just get out there and shoot. And keep in mind that all forms of image capture have their respective specialties and benefits.

[Integr8d]

Oh two more things...

Does anyone know why the three clips linked to in this post are 100+MB in size???

I saw Episode 2 digitally projected when it first came out. The stobing effects of some camera pans nearly gave me a headache. I felt like I was, at least, going cross-eyed.

Mike

[Kenn_Christenson]

In theory Super 8 may have around a 1000 lines of resolution, if there was such a thing as a registration pin in these cameras. *

Although you may be able to find one of these cameras for around $700, you've also got to factor in the raw stock and a decent transfer, if you want to edit the film efficiently. So at about $35 for 2.5 minutes of shooting time plus transfer at $250/hr plus prep for x/fer plus extra $ depending on the format you're transferring to plus the fact you'll have to record 2 system audio and those cameras aren't known for their lack of noise... well, I think you get the picture. *

The FX1 and the Z1 don't seem so outrageously priced after all. ;)

[Integr8d]

True, I mean I've projected Super 8 onto 60" screens and I suppose there could be some jitter in the image. Fortunately, there are plenty of plugins available to tackle anything like that. I'm trying to think if it was a Boris plugin or something already built into FCP. Either way, I don't think it would be reasonable to expect a registration pin or dual registration pins in something so moderately priced. If you haven't seen footage shot w/ one of these cameras, you really should. They are pretty tack sharp.

Yeah so film and processing for 2.5min is about that much. Preping for transfer involves all of cleaning the film and splicing it together onto a reel. Transfer costs what it costs, unless you're savvy enough to strike a deal or just enjoy getting taken for a ride. And there are other options than going on a telecine. As far as the format goes, we're talking about HD right? Those tapes are around $100 for 40min. HDCAM. Probably want a downconverted tape for miniDV too right? So yeah, you could get a nice little, good looking movie for about the price of Sony HD Handicam. Plus you could get shots off that you could never get w/ the Sony. As far as sound goes, if anyone actually buys one of these things, they aren't exactly sound cameras. But then again they aren't 435s running at 150 fips either. A custom blimp could easily be made for less than $100. More often than not what it boils down to is bling$$$. And if you don't have enough to shoot film, you shoot video.

I don't really recall saying that the Sony Handicam was outrageously priced. I think I payed about $4700 for my PD-150 kit. I just said that each type of camera was suited to particular jobs. If I was crawling through rain and mud and God knows what else, would I rather have the electronic video camera or the little Super 8? It's not a hard choice. And if I wanted to shoot documentaries on a budget, I'd go w/ the Sony. That's all.

Love, peace, and chicken grease;)

[Integr8d]

Oh dookie! I almost forgot. On those Beaulieus, there is something of a pulldown claw. And, w/ all Super 8 cams, there is the motor that drives the film cartridge. Since the size of the film only allows for 1 perf per frame and only 1 perf on one side, I wonder if it's possible that the pulldown claw it pulling double duty. But then again do all Super 8 cams have the pulldown claws? I had two really nice Sankyos before too. But I never checked.

To all the people still reading this... sorry. I know it's off topic. I won't be saying anything else. Kenn, perhaps you can e-mail me.

Later all!

[alpi69]

in a editor´s e-mail forum someone shoots with the FX1 these days and he claims he had fast cars in rain at night and there was no problem with artifacts, blurs etc. simply pure pictures. once he puts some stuff online i will ask him to leave a link at dvxuser.com.
his problem is also: he has no device to view it properly yet ;D

[Barry_Green]

All Super 8 cameras have the pulldown claw. It's necessary to implement the intermittent movement, where the claw grabs the film and yanks it down into position, and then holds it there while the shutter opens and closes, and then it goes back up and grabs the film and yanks it down to the next position.

They all have a motor that turns the cartridge, but the motor is constant, whereas the film movement is intermittent.

But a pulldown claw is not a registration pin. All film cameras have pulldown claws, but few of them have registration pins. There is one (well, two) Super 8 cameras that have double claws, for better registration: the Nikon R8 and R10.

[John_Q]

*All film cameras have pulldown claws, but few of them have registration pins. *

I realize this video forum, and a thread to the new Sony. And I was reading this cause of my serious interest in the pro-model.

But I must correct you Barry. Not ALL film cameras have a pulldown claw.

There are some older super high speed film cameras (7-10,000fps) from around the WWII era that use a rotating prism in place of a traditional film gate. Cause a pulldown claw wouldnt be able to keep up and would shred the film to bits. Such as the 16mm Fastax I have on display in my living room. These cameras were used in government shooting for things like bomb testing. For a 16mm camera, its huge and heavy even when compared to many 35mm.

Anyway, not trying to veer off subject or be a jerk. Just a pet peeve of mine in trying to make all the facts known. Mainly cause I'm just another camera nerd.

As for the Sony, I await to see what it can do. People can vomit up technical specs til they choke on them. In the end, its what do the images look like for the purposes they are being used. My eyes will tell me all I need to know.

[Barry_Green]

DOH! Yes, you are correct, the Photosonics and Fastax don't have pulldown claws, and there's no way a claw would keep up with that.

I collect trivia in my head as well, and I appreciate being corrected, as I don't want to spread misinformation and I'm sure this will come in handy for someone, somewhere down the road!


People can vomit up technical specs til they choke on them. In the end, its what do the images look like for the purposes they are being used. My eyes will tell me all I need to know.
Exactly. The footage is most important, followed closely by the usability/features (i.e., if it makes incredible footage but it's too much of a pain to use, that's an important factor to know about). If all we did was go by spec's, the VX1000 may never have gotten off the ground!