HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

Well put; they seem to be hyping the 'all in one' camera when they should try and focus on one thing and do it well. The DVX100 uses the 60i and 24p and 30p and I never ever use anything but 24p (it suits my needs).

I cant imagine someone saying "Well hell, it'll shoot 'HD 60i/50i and 25p/24p and its switachable from NTSC to PAL! This is exactly what I have been looking for!" --- Maybe?

Seems they're not sure what market they are after and are trying to please everyone.
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

Here's my take on it: I believe there's some sort of cultural difference, and all the manufacturers are Japanese companies.  And perhaps some of our Japanese members can chime in here, but it's my understanding that in Japan, ALL dramatic production is done in 60i.  The Japanese audience apparently doesn't value the look of 24p the same way other audiences do, so the people making the decisions, who are so used to 60i in everything, apparently believe that everyone wants 60i.

I could be completely off-base here, but it's my understanding that the only reason the CineAlta went with 24p was because George Lucas asked them to.

And maybe it's giving too much credit to Jan and Stuart English, but I believe it's because of Panasonic USA's lobbying that the DVX included 24P.  I believe the management was shocked at how successful that particular feature has been.  And Canon responded with it because they knew they'd be DOA without it.

JVC will develop it because they're a sister company to Panasonic, so technological innovations can be shared between them (DVCPRO-50 is bit-for-bit bitstream compatible with JVC's Digital-S, for example).

Sony, however, sits back and says "we are sony".  They don't have to answer to anyone, or so they think. It seems like they believe that the natural order of things is that they produce the product and then we buy it.  And they view 60i as being what people want.  So that is what they give us.

They simply don't understand, apparently, that this "24p" thing is for real.  So they continue to spring interlaced camera after interlaced camera upon us, with no clue that that is specifically NOT what we want.

Sony copied so many features of the DVX on their new FX1: scene file dial, proper switches and controls, even nearly cloning the lens functionality, but they missed the one thing that was most important - 24p.  And I think it's because their overall culture doesn't value it in their own television viewing, so it just doesn't occur to them that 24p could be so important to us.

If Jan and Stuart hadn't been so diligent in communicating with us the users, in finding out what we wanted, and if they hadn't been so visionary and so persistent in demanding the feature from Panasonic headquarters, we may never have gotten 24P on the DVX.  But they were, and they did, and the rest is history.

Do not look for genuine 24P from Sony anytime soon.  If Panasonic releases a 24P DVCPRO-HD camera and it utterly destroys Sony's FX1/Z1 in the marketplace, that will be perhaps the time that Sony "comes around".  But if Sony is able to sell all the Z1's and FX1's that they plan to, then they will see it as validation of their strategy and their belief that 24P is not necessary.

(and if they're happy with their sales, who's to tell them they're wrong?)
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

I'll go along with that. Even the placement of the buttons and switches is a close copy of the DVX. But they blew the part that most DVX owners care about the most.

Even people on this board have had trouble understanding that straight-up resolution isn't what we're worried about; for us, 24p is the thing.
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

I always say (and am waiting for Jarred to issue the T Shirt)

Give me 24p or give me Death
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

"But if Sony is able to sell all the Z1's and FX1's that they plan to, then they will see it as validation of their strategy and their belief that 24P is not necessary. "

I agree, but I think it's a risky strategy, because I think there will be an initial sales surge, and then when people figure out that their finished product still has to be SD, sales will taper off. And I believe what Panasonic announces concerning their HD entry, if they get it right, could do serious damage to the sales of these cams. I'm waiting for Panasonics response, and if they develop one with 24p and HD that is not HDV at a reasonable price (and I don't see Sony's price for the Z1 as reasonable, because in a lot of ways you get more for a lot less with the DVX) I'll bite. If not, I'll get a DVX (I've just been holding off to see what's coming, and I have a flexible timeline concerning the projects I want it for).
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think in spite of all the hype and excitement, we (speaking as one who does among other things, event videographry), are still years away from significant demand or ability to deliver HD to the customer (end user).  It's definitely interesting times for Prosumer cams!
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

I agree 100% with everything you say, except I'm not sure that viewing the Z1's price as unreasonable is something I can agree with... it's a $4900 high-def camera that does deliver a legitimate high-def picture for about 1/10 the cost of the next lowest-priced high-def camera... it's not what I want, and I don't think it's what any aspiring filmmaker would want, but it definitely has a place.

As far as if Panasonic's going to do a 24p-HD-nonHDV camera, and you biting... well, sharpen your teeth... ;D
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=sony;num=1106156074;start=15#25 date=01/20/05 at 22:36:01]

As far as if Panasonic's going to do a 24p-HD-nonHDV camera, and you biting... well, sharpen your teeth...  ;D[/quote]

Hmmmm, Don't suppose you could elaborate on this a little?
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

I'm just repeating what Jan has already said: Panasonic will be introducing a DVCPRO-HD camera that will be priced to compete with the Sony. And since Panasonic's been showing a prototype of a 3-CCD model with "DVCPRO-HD" stamped on the side of it, and since they've been going around lining up editing systems (Final Cut Pro has native DVCPRO-HD support, and now so does Avid's Express HD) it sure seems like it's getting time for an announcement. However, I should retract the "24p" thing -- Panasonic has never, as far as I know, made any sort of announcement regarding the features of the proposed camera (other than the "3CCD" and "DVCPRO-HD" badges on the side of the prototype). However, I think we would all be collectively shocked if any new Panasonic prosumer model didn't offer 24P.

So, no concrete knowledge, but just connecting the dots and thinking that some teeth-sharpening might be in order.
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

In reference to what? Various posts have referenced either the FX1 or the Z1... what part were you asking about?
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=sony;num=1106156074;start=0#13 date=01/20/05 at 18:10:23]It shoots at 60i, and only 60i, to make its CineFrame 24.

Then it somehow drops/blends fields to make a simulation of 24 frames.  The results are really nothing like 24P: you end up with frames that have variable resolution and uneven motion.  I tested it to find out exactly what it was doing.  It groups frames together in groups of five, which are four
"pseudo-progressive" frames that have 2:3 pulldown applied to them to round them up to five interlaced frames, so at first glance it almost looks like 24PN on tape.  However, the first thing I noticed is that it pulses and crawls, even on a still frame.  Frame-by-frame examination of a resolution chart shows that in each five-frame group, you have two frames with 475 lines of resolution, two frames with 425 lines, and then one with 575 lines!  So even if you're shooting a static shot, the very process of CF24 will add shimmering and motion in the shot!

The other disturbing thing is how it handles motion.  Because it samples at 60 samples per second (60hz), it has to try to simulate the motion of 24 samples per second (24hz), but of course it can't do that directly.  So what it ends up doing is slicing the motion apart so that over the course of any pair of frames, something like 1/3 the motion happens in one frame, and 2/3 happens in the other.

As an example, I checked true 24p against cf24 of a car driving by.  The 24P shoots a frame at 24 equally-spaced intervals in time, and with a constant-speed object like a car, you would expect that it would travel an equal distance each frame.  And it did.  Every frame was something like 33 pixels of movement.

But with CineFrame 24, on even frames the car would move like 25 pixels or so, and on odd frames it would move something like 40 pixels.  (I don't remember the exact numbers, I think I posted the test results on DVInfo.net)  So instead of evenly-spaced motion, you get an uneven herky-jerky motion... Very, very unfilmlike for anything that's showing a lot of motion.  For mild motion it's not so bad; headshots/talking interviews, etc.  But for ice skating it was startlingly "wrong".

So, 24P as implemented on the DVX = higher resolution and filmlike motion.
CF24 as implemented on the FX1 = lower resolution, variable resolution per frame, and uneven herky-jerky motion.[/quote]

Here your talking about the F1. Which I guess will probably handle the 24 the same as the Z1.
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

I still have not decided on what camera I'm buying and probably will wait a month or two to see what shakes out. The DVX is probably an awesome camera and my guess is the Z1 will be too. HD tv might not be as far off as some of you think. Go into any store and HD sets are all over the place. The Sony at least gives you that option.

Just my opinion but Panasonic will have to do something now. The 24p alone will not make me get my Visa card out. With the sony you can do HD, SD, 16:9, 4:3, DVCam, etc,etc and if I really wanted something for film I've read that video to film transfer houses say for best results shoot in 60i and 16:9. So do you really need 24p? It's one of the things I'd like to have and I don't know why Sony just didn't go ahead and do it. Also I don't see why Panasonic does not have real 16:9.

None of them are getting my cash for a month or two!
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

"except I'm not sure that viewing the Z1's price as unreasonable is something I can agree with.."

You're probably right, Barry. I guess my thinking is that, since it doesn't have 24p, and HDV isn't too meaningful right now (if it ever is), for the current market it's at the price point where I think you would need to seriously look at some cams that would offer more for an amount that is not drastically higher. If Sony gets lucky and HDV wins out, then I would probably view it as a reasonable price.
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

"HD tv might not be as far off as some of you think. Go into any store and HD sets are all over the place"

But even if those TV's were all that were being sold (and they're not), there is such a huge established user base of SD 4:3 TV's out there that it will take a long time to have significant penetration of the market. Except for videographers, there is no real demand for HDTV. I know people that own them that think that everything they watch is in HD, because it's an HD monitor. And many of them are just HD ready. The average viewer doesn't really know the difference, and many that buy these items just want to be the first on their block. I also think people are getting a little burned out on having to update to new, more expensive technology all the time.
Something else that troubles me with this issue is that there are already wedding videographers selling HDV packages without explaining to their customer that they can't deliver an HDV DVD. But they charge the customer extra money and the poor unsuspecting slob believes he has a HDV DVD.
I'm convinced that SD will be the primary format for a long time to come. But, hey, I've been wrong once or twice ;D
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

I think it really depends...

Hd resolution is amazing, and even converted to sd is still breath taking. I mean look at all those divX files you can find all over the internet (dv-rips for example). The resolution is close to DV but the quality of the film is ten times better. Do not forget that 24p isn't anything. The level of details is also what makes digital video look real.
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

Jeff, I totally agree with you. All I'm saying is, if the Z1 does what you want, $4900 is an absolute steal when you consider that the next-lowest-priced HD camera is maybe 10x that. Just like the DVX was, before the XL2 and SDX came out -- if you wanted 24P, it was either a $3500 DVX, or a $65,000 VariCam. An unbelievable steal... but only if the product does what you want.

Now, regarding consumer adoption of HDTV... here's the thing that drives me batty, and you just reminded me of it with this statement:
I know people that own them that think that everything they watch is in HD, because it's an HD monitor.
Click to expand...
I know a guy who's an aspiring director, a very talented writer and a great actor. He's "in the business". I was over at his house not too long ago, and he had a 42" projection HDTV there. I know it was HDTV because it still had the sticker on it that said "HDTV", so I guess he was proud that he had HDTV, right?

Only, what was he watching on it? An over-the-air broadcast of the local news. Now, all of our stations broadcast HD, but he apparently doesn't have an HDTV tuner so he was receiving the standard-def signal. Which is 4:3, of course, because all SD broadcasts in the USA are 4:3. And, of course, he doesn't want to see those ugly "black bars" on the sides, right? So here's an SD signal that's all stretched out horizontally, so the women broadcasters looked *enormous*... they say "the camera adds 10 pounds", well, on this set the camera was adding about 40-50 pounds.

In summary, it was the *absolute worst* picture I've ever seen on any television ever. It was a horribly-tuned-in, over-the-air, standard-def broadcast that was digitally scaled and stretched out. It looked *AWFUL*.

And he didn't notice, or care. He was so proud of his HDTV that he still had the sticker on it that declares that it's "HDTV".

And this is a guy who's in the business, folks...

... I still say, aside from a few techno-junkies and video gear-heads (probably the same few that embraced LaserDisc), the general public couldn't give a flying fig about HDTV. They do want 16:9, I think, even though they can't tell when the aspect ratio is wrong(!) But they don't know about HDTV, couldn't pick it out of a crowd, and wouldn't pay $100 extra for an HDTV set even if they could see the difference.
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

I was slapped in the face at how good American Idol looked in HD.

Seriously. Took my breath away. I've had my TV for more than three years and I thought the novelty had worn off.

One of the problems with HD, I think, is that while there are a few standards of resolution, there's no particular standard of quality. Most SD network shows look pretty much the same. Not so for HD. Compression levels, artifacting, keyframing, bitrates . . . they vary wildly from program to program, to say nothing of what they were shot on. It is quite possible that someone could see something that actually IS in HD but looks like crap, and then they'd think "what's the big deal"? Unfortunately, I find this to be the rule more than the exception in big box stores. Could account for some lack of interest.

But I also agree that the leap in quality alone is not going to be enough to edge the general public.
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

I currently work for a cable company, and I used to install HD converters. Most satellite and cable companies only have a small handful of HD channels, and most local stations that broadcast in HD have most of their content shot in SD and upconverted. Voom offers the most channels but are also selling off due to low subscriber rates and operating at a loss since launch. Like Barry said, most people don't know the difference. At almost every install I had to explain why on some channels, people’s heads were squished or there were black bars on the sides. Most still opted for the "fat head" mode over the proper aspect ratio.

HD is great for a crystal picture compared to SD for sure. The only two ways of using it would be at home for personal use, if you have your computer hooked to your HDTV or some expensive new component that also streams to your tv in HD, and if you are shooting for a station to broadcast it. Even shows shot in standard def are compressed so much for digital transmission, that the DVX and XL2 are far higher quality than the end product. I can see blocky pixelation all the time...again, most don't notice it.

It's a changing technology, but do not delude yourself as to the integration of this in American society being so quick. It's coming, but very slowly. If you buy HD now, it should only be for your personal gratification unless you have an agreement to produce a HD program on a shoestring budget for a network. HD will be innevitable in some form, and many more camera's will be produced between now and when HD becomes dominent in American homes. IMHO  :)
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

HD is also good if you want to show your movie in cinemas on a big screen -> even on festivals it really makes a difference... (converted to standart 35mm film tape of course)
 
Re: HVR-ZIU - B&H - $4,900

[quote author=navitas link=board=sony;num=1106156074;start=30#38 date=01/21/05 at 13:23:37]HD is also good if you want to show your movie in cinemas on a big screen -> even on festivals it really makes a difference... (converted to standart 35mm film tape of course)[/quote]

This is true, but wouldn't 720 24p or 1080 24p be better than interlaced? For something that will show any faults as much as a film out transfer, I would want the best I could get. 35 transfers seem to be thrown around a lot here as points of speculation, but that's an incredibly expensive prospect, and why make your weakest point your initial image acquisition? If I EVER knew or had any real hopes of film out, I would not use the FX1 or pro version. I would rent a Varicam or an equivalent HD camera. ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top