Sony HDV ok

Re: Sony HDV ok

Thanks for the clarification. Apologies. I was under the impression that in the US digital TV equated with HDTV.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

With Snell & Wicox you can convert SD<->HD, 24p to 50p, 1080i to 720p etc. The toppmodell UKON can convert between all the formats you have and doing this in real time. It is using motion analyse, dinamic filtering etc. It has a very high quality.

Algolith makes software to do this job. It is an AfterFx plugin. But it isn't realtime.

It means that even the stations goes HD they can use standard SD in production.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

Algolith looks VERY interesting!

Anyone got the ability to compare a 24P or 25P upscaled DVX screen grab using Algolith's CAS system compared to both an interlaced and deinterlaced FX1?
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

I saw an example of the CAS and it looked good. Micheal Porirer ( one of the reps) said that several people are using CAS to uprez SD to HD - including IMAX.

So, there you go.

I might buy the CAS ( I have the others) and test it with the DVX (even though I don't need HD specs since I only go to DVD).
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

I understand the advantages of 24p when it comes to film look; and I can see the many downfalls of the FX-1!

But, if you want to transfer DV to film, the image strech that needs to happen to regular DV, won't be there; thus giving you better quality already!

Secondly, maybe the FX1 isn't the solution with CF; but I think the Z1, shooting at 1080i50 ussing 1/50th, will make a great solution using a converter software like DVfilm.

Now, I'm a humble man, who is barely trying to understand all the inner works of DV and HDV. We have pre-order two Z1s and the HDV Deck from Promax, if I'm wrong, I still have time to go for the XL-2s!
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

jorge.. since the sony is not progressive, you have to deinterlace it for a progressive film out..which means you lose 1/2 your resolution.   so your almost back to DV res.  uprezzing the DVX or XL2 will look nearly the same in a progressive filmout environment.. except the images from the DVX or XL2 will exceed those of the sony in lattitude and color rendition and motion rentition, and will also be free of MPg2 motion artifacts and the like created from the HDV compression.  ..if your looking for a high res interlaced HD cam then its great, but if you want progressive 24p then get a DVX or XL2
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

You would lose vertical res, yes, but the Sony still has twice the horizontal resolution (even though it uses the same # of CCD pixels as the XL2, in the horizontal).

Still, questions about film-out suitability are just speculation until someone tries it. And we're going to do that, once I select the right footage for it. So the answer is coming...
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

tis true ..so is it actual resolved resolution, or is it just upsampling? ..or some sort of pixel shift enhancement to the inherant resolution?
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

It has 960 active pixels in the horizontal, and uses pixel-shifting to get 1440 samples. Then on playback that gets up-rezzed to 1920.

However, on a still shot, the thing has horizontal resolution, that's for sure. Looks like a clean 800 lines, maybe as many as 900. So whatever tricks/manipulations they're doing, doesn't matter: for horizontal res in HDV mode it looks great.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

[quote author=Simon Wyndham link=board=sony;num=1102579536;start=15#18 date=12/11/04 at 05:33:15]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?[/quote]

30743FX1-Kitten.jpg

What’s next from the "glass is half empty" choir?

* The FX1/Z1 causes cancer in children?
* HDV will burn out your computer hard drive and processor?
* Sony molests puppies and steals Social Security checks from your grandma?
* The compressed audio from the FX1 has been proven to cause permanent damage to your ear drums?

For each of the points you listed in your post, I could have easily made the same weak argument back in the mid/late 90's with the arrival of DV. Same blather, just a different format.

Who are you trying convince more of the perceived eventual failure of HD(V) … other forum visitors or yourself?

Enjoy SD!
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

Listen Ranger:

I would venture to guess, that any of us, would be more apt to jump on the Sony bandwagon if 24p on HDV was possible. We are all here for the look of film via digital. If you like the interlace look on HDV, then buy the camera and be happy. For myself, I could care less about a "video" look no matter how pristine it looks.

My business and everyone else's is to deliver the best look for the budget that we have. Right now, the DVX100a or XL2 fits the bill. HD is the future - but not now. And, we all have the sense to know when to jump on board. We don't have manic attacks like some people and have to buy every new frikkin thing that comes out.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

[quote author=TotalX link=board=sony;num=1102579536;start=30#31 date=12/11/04 at 13:21:21]Listen Ranger:

I would venture to guess, that any of us, would be more apt to jump on the Sony bandwagon if 24p on HDV was possible. We are all here for the look of film via digital. If you like the interlace look on HDV, then buy the camera and be happy. For myself, I could care less about a "video" look no matter how pristine it looks.

My business and everyone else's is to deliver the best look for the budget that we have. Right now, the DVX100a or XL2 fits the bill. HD is the future - but not now. And, we all have the sense to know when to jump on board. We don't have manic attacks like some people and have to buy every new frikkin thing that comes out.[/quote]
Machts nichts to me what bandwagon you jump on. To each his own. However, what raises my eyebrows is this collective slamfest exhibited towards the FX1/Z1. The FX1 has barely left the starting gate and the Z1 will not be released for several months, and yet so many people seem all too quick to condemn the camera without even allowing it to stretch its legs.

Sure, over time the FX1/Z1 may in fact fail miserably, but premature negative nitpicking and going to extreme lengths to find fault is IMO counter-productive.

For me, I think I'll wait for Jarred's and Barry's camera shootout before passing judgement. That seems a far better solution than recklessly slinging mud around.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

[quote author=Simon Wyndham link=board=sony;num=1102579536;start=15#18 date=12/11/04 at 05:33:15]All in all HD is a big mistake.  ...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.[/quote]

This has got to be the most asinine statement I have ever read in any video-related forum. First, HD is no BIG mistake. Its taken video engineers over 40 years to get to this point. Second, normal people were never forced to buy color TVs, nor were they ever forced into buying huge projection LCDs. Can you please tell me an instance when anyone was impressed at being forced to buy something they didnt want? Dumb blanket statements like these serve no purpose. You need to be banned.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

Ranger:

If you haven't noticed, you are participating in a forum that bought the DVX for the 24p mode.

Having said that, if Sony attempts to pass on their "Cinreframe" mode as legitimate then they are open game. So far, they have failed. If you haven't read (which you fail to acknowledge) we all have said that the "interlaced" 60i was stunning. But, we are not interested in interlaced.

As I said before, buy the Sony camera for the interlaced HD and be done with it. If the Sony camera had a legitimate 24p mode, I would be the first one to buy it.

Emilio:

Leave your tree- hugging fanatical statements on "banning" to yourself. Everyone is allowed to give their opinion.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

Emilio, you should have quoted the ENTIRE sentence. If you had read it properly you would have seen that I said HD was a big mistake but NOT because it isn't any good BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE BRINGING IT OUT AFTER ONLY JUST DEVELOPING NEW SD TECHNOLOGIES. Please read what I say first instead of cutting my sentence in half to make me say something I did not.

In the UK people have only just been pursuaded to get digital boxes for SD, as well as DVD. They WILL NOT want to be upgrading again to HD in such a short amount of time. This is NOT an unreasonable assumption at all. As Barry said, if quality was at the front of peoples minds why didn't Betamax take off? There are more examples. But if HD means people will have to spend more money on a new TV, a new recordable DVD, a new digital box etc they won't go for it.

The FX1 is the right camera at the wrong time. Plus those problems I mentioned with the camera were taken from Barry's own tests that he published. So for the guy accusing me of being a 'cup half empty' person I am afraid you are wrong. I want the best camera I can get. I don't see why I should get a new camera that has problems I wouldn't accept in an older SD one.
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

You'll find that most people still don't know what HD is. Look at Japan to see how HD is even though they've had it since the 80's. My sister lives in Osaka, but has found it easier to find VHS in shops than DVD! In fact she hasn't even made any comment to me at all regarding HDTV. Which is unsual considering she knows it is something I would be really interested in hearing about. Osaka is the home of Sony. You can buy things there that will probably never be available over here. A technological paradise. It's odd then that despite HD technology being available to them since the 80's that there hasn't been any developments regarding a camcorder that does HD in some form until now even if it would have only been available over there.

Europe cannot move to HDTV because there isn't enough bandwidth and there are TV programme licensing issues because of borders. Sure we have a test channel, but it's only that. Satellite is the only other option but they will still have bandwidth issues.

If you're a european why buy a camera with a function you can't really use? When HD finally does become viable over here a better camera will be out anyway and we can buy that one instead. Currently though why do I want to buy a camera with more vertical smear and worse low light performance etc than it's nearest competitors?

So in short, people are NOT demanding HD at all. Most still don't even know what it is, and as shown by another thread here some can't even tell the difference even when they are shown it!

I can see why HD is impressing the US guys. If we take 720P for example, which is not really HD, it's Enhanced resolution, the difference between 720P vertical resolution is not massive compared to standard PAL. The difference is about the same as that between NTSC and PAL. Further, 16:9 digital transmissions in the UK have been around for a while now, and there is a much higher proliferation of 16:9 TV sets in Europe than in the US.

Let's see those comparions. Let's see anamorphic 24/25P DVX footage uprezzed with Algolith CAS compared to the FX1 (ESPECIALLY the PAL DVX). I want to see if the result is worth the $2500 difference with all the additional problems the HDV workflow currently has!

Let's also see someone deal with the rendering time issue.

People can accuse me of being a miserable git if they like, saying that I am criticising the FX1 for no reason. Well I hate to rain on your parade, but I would love to see HD as standard. But I don't think the FX1 in particular offers as many advantages as the pro FX1 guys think. So while the FX1 lovers have a right to point out the good points, considering this thing costs thousands of dollars and as a potential customer I have every right to point out it's deficiencies!
 
Re: Sony HDV ok

[quote author=CCCP link=board=sony;num=1102579536;start=30#39 date=12/12/04 at 18:33:04]Mr. Hudson can you explain me why is this FX1 better than your DVX?[/quote]

Not for me it isn't. Give me 24p or give me death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top