Sony HDV ok

T

TotalX

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

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

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

WHAT IS THE RUSH?
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

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

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

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

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

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

Just my .02.
Ken
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

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

I saw the demo as well.

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

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

I would rather have side-to-side comparisons by users than a demo by a "corporation".
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was impressed. Very nice.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

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



Barry, Why does is it not good for a regular DV camrera?
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

Barry:

I think you are right on that subject.

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

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

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

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

[quote author=monster link=board=sony;num=1102579536;start=0#12 date=12/10/04 at 07:09:51]
Barry,  Why does is it not good for a regular DV camrera?[/quote]
It's just not anywhere near as good as the class-leading DV cameras, when producing DV footage. The DVX is a full two stops faster in low-light conditions, produces sharper footage, and has nearly two stops more latitude than the FX1 in DV mode, and the FX1 suffers more vertical smear. And if you want to use it as a 16:9 camera (because it does have 16:9 chips) then the XL2 is about a half-stop faster than the FX1, produces sharper footage in native 16:9 mode, offers about a half-stop more latitude, and delivers 24P/30P/60i vs. the 60i-only of the FX1.

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

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

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

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

- Vertical smear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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