<<<Let's hope that Sony didn't follow JVCs crippling footsteps. I for one will sell my HD1 in a heartbeat and get the FX1 if it's not crippled like the HD1 and especially if it offers 1080i monitoring via the component outs while recording .>>>>

Even if so, i can't imagine that would stop you from wanting to achieve a much higher original quality recording. I too want it 1440x1080 mpeg2 out the yuv. If it's not I will have to get a deck that does or whatever will do it. But first and fore most it's important to achieve the best image first generation and then go from there.

"Playback will actually be upconverted to 1920X1080i/60 via the component outs on playback just like the JVC does."

Remember, component out is analog, so the display device doesn't know or care how many pixels make up each line, only how many lines per frame there are. So it doesn't matter if the sony captures at 1440, 720, or 1920, it's all the same to the TV.

I have seen the sony FX-1 on Fotokina in Cologne. The pal-version will ship in oktober for 4200 €.

But for me the Sony-Cam is useless. Very sharp hires picture. But by pans in normale speed the picture quality break down.

And don't forget that already dv is not very good for color correction - how woud it be by mpeg 2?

HDV is in my opinion a interessting development but not yet ready for professional use.


regards
Daniel

I've just seen the images.

I must say I'm not sold yet. The JVC's images looks sharper than those of the FX1 and the XL2's looks so much more beautiful and less like video. Of course the XL2 is SD but the image is so much sharper for the size. I agree with Don, we should see some moving images, even those stills are not impressing, I saw (and took) equally good flower footage on the JVC, the chroma noise seems less apparent but no High colors where taken (pure reds, greens and blues). Chroma noise has a tendency to appear in low contrast highly colored areas. Another thing, 4:2:0 performs better in progressive than in interlace because of the field separation witch makes a 4:2:2 field and a 4:0:0 one so it is important to see moving images, not just for the MPEG2 compression, but for the 4:2:0 as well.

I guess we should have a better idea in a few weeks.

Yeah, I'm still unsure about the Sony. Some of the footage looked easily superior to anything I've seen from the XL2 or HD1 (can't remember if I've seen HD10 footage), but some of the shots were a bit too sharp and video-like (although I find the XL2 too soft). Of course, the best XL2 and HD1 footage I've seen has seemed to have been from skilled videographers who know their cams, while this FX-1 clip looks too spontaneous to be a real indication of the cam's abilities. And I'd definitely like to see more motion shots before deciding.

Charlie,

I think you nailed it:

<<he best XL2 and HD1 footage I've seen has seemed to have been from skilled videographers who know their cams>>

That is so true, and really makes the difference with the camera!

heath

You can always make something look "filmlike" in post, somehow, someway. Maximum, clean resolution is what I would like.


Well who knows till the darn thing comes out...

you're right--do a film-look if you end up not going to 35mm.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Daniel von Euw : I have seen the sony FX-1 on Fotokina in Cologne. The pal-version will ship in oktober for 4200 €.

But for me the Sony-Cam is useless. Very sharp hires picture. But by pans in normale speed the picture quality break down.

And don't forget that already dv is not very good for color correction - how woud it be by mpeg 2?

HDV is in my opinion a interessting development but not yet ready for professional use.
-->>>

What's the problem with pans? The tests you did were NTSC or PAL?

Can you ellaborate a bit more on why HDV is not ready for professional use?



Carlos

I don't know if they meant it's not ready for pro use, but remember this...DV has problems with fast pans and tilts, etc.

heath

I have seen the pal-model.

And the problems are great fast moving objekts and pans in normal speed. In both case the picture quality went down - there are plenty pixel shown and sometimes some strange color aberrations.

So on the one hand we have a camera with a great picture quality on still scenes, but on the other hand very poor picture quality by fast movements und normal pans.

I truely sure that professionals will dont accept such a great difference in picture quality and also not such an poor quality by motion and pans. And because there is no HDV camera without that problems, i came to the opinion that HDV is not ready for professional use.


Sorry for my bad english - hope its a little bit clearer what i meant.


regards
Daniel

It reads quite clear.

What I can't conceive, if it may be possible, is how a company like Sony will release a supposedly high-definition equipment that can not pan with the same quality as it does static shots.

Perhaps the problem you saw was due to the monitor or output interconnection, and not an actual HD output.

Will try to check on that with some people I know that will be beta testers.


Carlos

Once again, I believe that the problem is both the MPEG compression and (most importantly) the 4:2:0 scheme, the HD10 does ok because it is progressive but an interlaced signal, in MPEG, at such a high definition and a low bitrate in 4:2:0, one field will be completely off because of the chroma. The other problem is the long GOP, the longer, the more artefacting is likely to occur. If the 50i version has problems, imagine a 60i at the same bitrate...

Of course the compressors will eventually become better but for the moment, 1080i HDV will have problems. The compression on DVHS (I saw 1080/60i at 25 Mb/s) looks good but let's not forget that they are professionnaly encoded and (much more importantly) they are from 24p film sources, thus using a pulldown method and using less bandwidth. Also film makers use less drastic motions than video makers because of the frame rate so these problems are less likely to appear in these situations.

Simple answer..... Sony wouldn't release a new system that did have those problems. HD is so less forgiving when it comes to playback compared to SD video. SD masks artifacts and other issues due to it's already low res and softer video. HD and it's monitors are more exact and don't hide artifacts. Sony would be shooting their own foot if their Flagship HDV camera's ( FX1&PD190 ) did have these issues. This post about problems during pans are the same hogwash that was posted about Mini DV ( VX1000 ) back in 1995-96. People would say they couldn't stop seeing the artifacts etc. BS then, most likely BS today........



""""What I can't conceive, if it may be possible, is how a company like Sony will release a supposedly high-definition equipment that can not pan with the same quality as it does static shots."""""

You are right, it does not look like Sony to do that :)

I would say they aren't problems with the camera, but with HDV. Eric is right about that.

Don't forget, of course, that Sony's HUGE success with the high-end HD line plays into how they'll market HDV.

Lastly, HDV isn't HDCam.

heath