We are the chosen ones....I like that.

The other day I read something that had an interesting quote:

"Pioneers get an arrow in the back"

If that doesn't describe the HD10U experience...I'm not sure what else does?! However, we might have made it to the promise land after all. This new camera will at the VERY LEAST be able to shoot in low light conditions without the horrid grainy look of the HD10U. All I really care about is an "improvement" over the HD10U. It's already a superior camera regardless of how the picture looks. Just the fact that it's got manual controls, 3 chips and the other few enhancements tells me it's worth the investment to move up from my HD10U.

JVC wet our appetite's, but Sony will be feeding us the meal. :)

Murph

I'm hanging onto my HD10 for a while, mostly because I mistakeningly leased it (d'oh!), but at least I get extra tax write offs. <g>

But also because I want to see what comes out in the next year or two. My next feature film, 9:04 AM (www.904am.com), is supposed to be shot, for now with the DVX100A. We may go with the XL-2, but if the 24p HDV or even the Sony HDV are good with minimal to no chroma noise, and transfers well to 35mm, we'll go with that instead.

heath

The orientation via 1080i by Sony was to be expected. The strange thing about the interlace HD is that it was initially released because they where not able to do 24p without an interlaced signal (thus using less bandwidth) at the first years of HD but now they can and 1080i is much less used now, the progressive transport is more likely to be the way to shoot in the future.

Still, 1080i provides a good way to do 30p and more importantly 24p with half the bandwidth. It will definitely be interresting to see this baby perform on the field. Indie cinematography will benefit from this new camera for sure. As for 720p support, I doubt that Sony will support it even in the prosumer version, sony has oriented its HD products toward 1080 and this one will not be different. If 720p grows in popularity in the future they may, but it will probably mean a new camera and support (Sony has a history of creating new supports of their own for every new type of signal). Even for this camera they have announced new types of tapes in the press release...

According to this press info the professional version will be a bit higher priced....
"Although not much information is available, it appears that Sony Broadcast is planning to introduce a higher-end version of the HDR-FX1. According to Sony consumer, that camcorder will be available in the 1st quarter of 2005 for under $7,000."

That pricing would be consistent with the PD150/DSR250 range... the PD150 was about $3400, and the DSR250 around $6500...

The main difference was that the DSR250 offered a real CRT viewfinder (as well as shoulder-mount, big tapes, etc)... if the new Sony pro version offered a real HD-caliber CRT viewfinder, that would be quite interesting indeed!

Oh Joy!

Does anyone want to buy an HD10 for a reasonable price. This is my second one, and only has a couple of hours on it.

Does anyone know how I can place an advance order? I just spoke with some people from B&H and they don't have a part number yet.

I just came into a little money. I'm more than happy to share my experiences with this camera with the everyone.

Let me know if there is a way that you know of that I can place an advance order for shipment on the day that it's releaseed.

Thanks in advance!

Bill,

You should use our private classifieds (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&forumid=16) to sell your HD10. But I'd wait until we get closer to the date it comes out; then again, the price of the HD10 will no doubt drop.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Haubrich : I am even more excited by the pro version and JVCs response which I wouldn't be surprised if it included 24p (a wild guess). -->>>

I'm very surprised by how many people ask for 24p.

I would rather expect a good camera to acquire *more* data per second, not *less*.

Say, 60p instead of 30p would be great.

You get more data - you can produce really sweet slo-mo effects etc.

You can always downconvert from 60p to 30p or 24p if you wish, in post.

But you cannot reliably get the missing frames out of the thin air if you have not acquired them in the cam in the first place. Thus starting with 24p is bad vs. 30p better and 60p best.

I'm not sure that Frederic (whom I respect very much) actually advocated 24p - it seems that he merely predicted that such mode may be included later on.

If true, seems like sad future - why step down in data acquisition AND impose yet more special requirements on editing?

If anything, I vote for 60p mode, NOT 24p.

though it would be veeeeery nice I doubt 60p is probable in a near future in HDV 1080, the data rate would be much too high. 60p is not even implemented in pro 1080! Actually, the pro JVC to come out in december (at the soonest) is supposed to implement 720/60p, I wonder if it will be HDV in that mode though 'caus 30p is already using all the data rate!

I actually meant just that, 720p60.

You're right, 720/60p would be a treat. Personally I would much prefer progressive 720 to interlace 1080.

Alex,

Funny you should write this. I agree with you. I always thought that the craze for 24p was silly. 30p is just as filmic as 24p in my opinion. The progressive nature is what gives the filmic look.

The only reason one should want 24p is in the event of film transfer for theatrical projection.

Having said that, there is an industry reality. Panasonic ate everyone's lunch when they released a 24p DV camera. Why?...well because dv filmmakers with aspirations of becoming the next Speilberg felt it was important to be able to up convert to film should Sundance accept their film and ask for a print which will cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

I guarantee that the percentage of DVX100 owners who have actually transferred their program to film is very very small...virtually inexistent.

But instead of arguing with the consumer that 24p isn't as good as 30p or even 60p, the industry decided to capitalize in the hype and here comes the XL2 with 24p.

HDV 24p makes a lot more sense than DV 24p, simply because of the enhanced resolution which will look a lot better projected than DV resolution. (In the event you need to blow up to film)

So, when camera makers ask me what features I would like to see in a new generation HDV camera I say "If you can, put in 24p...I think it's silly, but you'll selll more cameras."

Frederic

You're absolutely right Frederic. A very low portion of the indie film makers who actually shot in 24p ever transferred it to film. But it gives them the illusion that they are "close" to it. For marketing purposes, 24p is a winner, but let's be honest, if you want to shoot in a film compatible format, 48p would be much better and smoother, it just does not exist as a format...

I am working a film transfer into our budget, esp. in the event we need to do self-distribution. So 1080i or 24p HDV is best for me.

heath

Heath

They are doing miracles with video to film transfers now. 1080i footage uprezzed and transferred to film (assuming well-shot) would look better than any of the features like November, Open Water, Pieces of April, Tadpole, etc.

In fact, I bet Indigent has a bunch of these Sony's on order already...

<<<-- Originally posted by Alex Raskin : If anything, I vote for 60p mode, NOT 24p. -->>>

AMEN! (but of course 50p as i'm in PAL land *G*

Has anyone heard of the Sony's abillity to do 60p in any mode?
I quite like the 60p mode of the HD10. Great for slow-mo or high action scenes.
I personally would take 720 60p over anything interlaced. No matter what the reslolution.

I am actaully quite suprised 720p wasnt adopted as a "consumer" format and 1080i/p as a pro format. I'd kill for a native 720p50 (or over cranked p75/p100 ;)) feature set put in the FX1 Body. :)

I see the major concern over HDV is the MPEG-2 compression. But I must say, just using common sense here, would Sony, or the other companies for that matter give us a video signal that was LESS quality than NTSC DV? Surely not.

I know everyone says the JVC camera has compression artifacts on certain scenes. However, I believe that in a large part, that can be due to it being a 1CCD chip.

Now, I have no scientific numbers to back me up, but hear me out. When I shot a scene on my 1CCD chip JVC DV cam, (it's about 3 years old.) I could see tons of compression artifacts in the grass outside. However, when I filmed the same scene with a DVX-100, there were no compression artifacts in the grass. Perhaps this could be due to the 3CCD and better DSP?

So, what I am saying is, maybe this Sony has a very clean MPEG-2 signal. At least not worse than DV. If Sony did that, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

I personally would take 720 60p over anything interlaced. No matter what the reslolution.

That would be nice but I bet it would be a great deal more than $3700.

About $20,000 apparently. Doesn't change my point though ;>)

<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : That would be nice but I bet it would be a great deal more than $3700. -->>>

But that would only be due to the Cool-and-new or Much-desired factor only.

Daniel - "I see the major concern over HDV is the MPEG-2 compression. "

You shouldn't be.

"I know everyone says the JVC camera has compression artifacts on certain scenes."

I have not noticed any worth mentioning. Even in high motion scenes. No mosquito noise like DV. Chroma noise yes. More so on badly lit scenes. There are software filters to alleviate this.

Daymon -"But that would only be due to the Cool-and-new or Much-desired factor only."

Somewhat yes, but 720 60p would take more horse power than 1080 60i due to the increase in data. Or a lot more than what this Sony cam uses considering it records far less data than a true 1080i cam.

> HDV 24p makes a lot more sense than DV 24p, simply b
> ecause of the enhanced resolution which will look a lot
> better projected than DV resolution. (In the event you
> need to blow up to film)

Besides, for a bandwidth challenged medium like DV tape, 24p makes even more sense, a few frames less means more bandwidth can be allocated to each frame: result: better image. This is I think why DVDs encoded from 24p (film) look so much better than DVD's made from DV. Granted, I know it's not the *only* reason, but it might be an important factor.

Also: Adam Wilt has explained that 4:2:0 is really a good idea if interlacing is taken out of the equation, so 24p on HDV can have that advantage too! This is explained in http://www.dv.com/columns/columns_item.jhtml?category=Technical+Difficulties&subGenre=&articleId=23902973&_requestid=32355

And then, if the "pro" FX1 writes tapes at DVCAM speeds, Sony can cram a little more bandwidth in there. Imagine 24p onto 32 Mbps, smaller GOP, better color... :D

Ignacio, you are right for 24p in HDV because it is a GOP compression but DV is a individual frame compression and so far, 24p is recorded in 60i with either standard or advanced pulldown so there is no gain in quality whatsoever.

Adam also has a point, 4:2:0 is a disastrous compression in an interlace signal because it is performed in a 2 pixel height by 2 pixel width scheme witch means that it compresses over two lines of different field but it is better than 4:1:1 in a progressive signal no doubt since it does not extend over 4 pixel long.

> Ignacio, you are right for 24p in HDV because it is a GOP
> compression but DV is a individual frame compression
> and so far, 24p is recorded in 60i with either standard
> or advanced pulldown so there is no gain in quality whatsoever.

Exactly, because there is no real 24p DV, so redundancy from the pulldown pattern kills any advantage that could be had from the more efficient use of bandwidth. But since HDV is not meant to be compatible with the analog SD world, it could perfectly be extended to real 24 fps, it would most likely be technically trivial for all subsequent HDV equipment to support 24, 25 and 30 fps.

Except that DV actually has two compression methods, depending on the amount of difference between fields. If it detects a substantial motion difference between fields, DV will compress the fields individually as part of the full frame. If it detects little motion difference between fields, DV will compress the full frame as a frame.

That means when you're compressing 24PA/2:3:3:2, you're actually compressing frames as frames, as efficiently as possible. DV is already optimized for excellent progressive-scan capture, even with 24P!

I have no idea if HDV provides a similar optimization.

Barry, I was not aware that DV compression performed as such... I doubt HDV will work that way since it is a GOP based compression, still there should be a gain in using 24p, even by pulldown since there will be less difference between frames and GOP compression takes advantage of that.

C'mon, guys I still trust Sony enough so that I'm sure the picture with this cam will KICK ASS, 24p or not. Just by specs alone, it will smoke the jvc, (3 chips vs 1, 25mgps vs 19mgps, better lens) and the jvc has a better picture than the dvx....

Of course the sound is crippled, but I guess 3k will fix that ;-).

The cameras you guys are talking about are coming, but at much higher price ranges. For 20k I'd still take an Aaton A-minima.

1080i deinterlaces really well. I've seen it in post.

and the jvc has a better picture than the dvx....

I think you meant to say the JVC HDVs have higher resolution than the DVX100s?

"I think you meant to say the JVC HDVs have higher resolution than the DVX100s?"

Personally, I aver JVC has a much better picture, although the hard candy quality to the Sony's colors is adorable.

Didn't one of the web sites say this Sony camera would appear at the IBC in Amsterdam? Well, that started today (Sept. 9). Any word on its unveiling?