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

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

[quote author=ShannonRawls link=board=sony;num=1103529986;start=15#16 date=12/29/04 at 11:19:15]

Yes, Sony Vegas 5.0 edits HDV just fine.
[/quote]
Well, to clarify: Sony Vegas can display and cut and trim HDV files. However, you cannot import or export them! You need to use an add-on $149 package, ConnectHD, to be able to import HDV files. And as of now, you cannot create files that can be exported back to the camera.

So, no, Vegas can't be said to be a fully native HDV editing app yet. I believe Canopus Edius, or Pinnacle or someone is claiming to offer a full native HDV editing system.
 
Re: Sony Press Release: 24p HD cam w/loads more

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

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

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

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

Or put another way, forgetting about film: Would an FX1 (or Z1) with filmlook software look more like F900 footage than an XL2? Would an action sequence fall apart with the MPEG2 compression?
 
Re: Sony Press Release: 24p HD cam w/loads more

[quote author=junizen link=board=sony;num=1103529986;start=15#22 date=12/31/04 at 16:33:08]images captured on the FX1 in HDV mode, when down-converted to DV, didn't look as good as images generated by the DVX or XL2. It had to do with the MPEG2 compression on the FX1 being more visibly distracting than the lower overall quality of DV25.[/quote]
I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment -- I think the FX1 downconverted looks about the same as XL2 or DVX footage -- in interlaced mode... a little softer, but not any big deal.  But the FX1 can't do 24P, so the XL2 and DVX get a big boost there -- if you want a film-looking DVD, the XL2 and DVX just do a better job than the FX1 does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think we'll have to wait too very long for these cameras to materialize.  Within a year, most likely.  
 
Re: Sony Press Release: 24p HD cam w/loads more

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

From what you've said and from what I've read elsewhere, it seems to me that unless you have the green light from a major production company that needs HD deliverables, for now SD is the way to go.
 
Re: Sony Press Release: 24p HD cam w/loads more

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

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

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


Software is not prefect, in audio downcasting is call dithering, what do you get rid of? apogee made a killing providing the right solution. If you have more information you should have better results, you just need something that is smart to deal with it correctly. HDV is new, give it time.
 
Re: Sony Press Release: 24p HD cam w/loads more

Barry I learnt from one of your posts that image aquisition is what makes real 24/25p footage, that is what changed my approach to setting up scenes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top