Just found this on the vegas user forum one of their employees which is now owned by sony has put some footage online of the new Sony HDV camera. Looks pretty good but I was wondering if the XL2 could reproduce similar results although at slightly lower resolution?

Here is the link.

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=315238&Replies=15&Page=0

Wow, I feel honored to be living in the same city as a Prototype of the Sony HDV camera

:)

The footage sure looks a whole lot better than the JVC, well the colors anyway, although you can still see white clipping in some of the sequences.

Shame it doesn't do progressive scan, because even with all that resolution, it'll still have that ugly video look I despise when there's some movement in the frame. This comes from the 50i acquisition, there's no way around it.

Why can't we just get rid of interlaced images? (ok I know why, and this is obviously one very biased point of view based on personal preferences).

Looks fine, but I'm more impressed with Barry's XL2 footage (see below) than this HDV.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31660

I think HDV has a way to go before it reaches its full potential. MiniDV seems to have reached the pinnnacle with the XL2 and the DVX100A. I know Canon is working (presumably) on HDV cameras, but Panasonic seems to be sticking to MiniDV/DVCPro50-100. It'll be very interesting to see what they come up with as an answer to these Canon and Sony products.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jaime Valles : Looks fine, but I'm more impressed with Barry's XL2 footage (see below) than this HDV.

I think you might want to look again . . .

Take the clip from the new Sony and display it "full screen" on a monitor with 1280x720 resolution, or better yet feed the DVI or RGB output of your display to a large screen HDTV.

Then take the XL2 clip and do the same thing.

I think you will see what I'm talking about.

And this is the first and only footage from the Sony we have seen . . . and after being compressed to Windows Media HD at 1280x720!

As someone who works with the HD10 on a regular basis (and is used to editing HDV), I am extremely excited about that footage from the Sony.

I do wish they would have given us a "true" 30p option though.

One more thing . . .

Sometimes the 24p thing baffles me. If I'm trying to shop my product to potential distributors, the ability to demo my "film" on a large screen is of primary importance. Since I'm not going to spend my own money printing the project to film anyway, most likely that means I will be using digital projection to demo my product. Thus, I want the highest resolution I can afford so my film doesn't look like shat on the "big screen".

Thus, 24p doesn't become a factor to the very end game. If you honestly think a distributor or studio is going to say, after they've already fell in love with your movie, "sorry, you shot in 30p and converting to 24p is just not going to work for us", you are smoking some serious crack. We've already seen what products like Twixtor can do with 30p to 24p conversion, and you can bet the studio or distributor will be willing to spend the relatively small cost to perform that quality conversion or better before printing to film.

The idea is to maximize quality and minimize costs before you get a deal; after you get the deal, the money will be there to overcome small technical issues.

Of course, there are still a lot of people who shoot their "spec" work (i.e., fronting the money themselves) on 16 or 35mm, spend a fortune flying to film festivals shopping their work, and then wonder why they are "starving artists". So I guess shooting 24p is a whole lot better than that :)

Rant over. To be fair, if there is a large subset of people who think the "look" of 24p is a key factor in their production, then who am I to say otherwise.

P.S. I will admit that with the HD10 the only advantage over the DVX100 or XL2 was resolution, so the argument could be made that the DVX100 and/or XL2 produces a better overall picture. However, with the Sony the advantages are better resolution along with equal or better color accuracy, low light performance, etc.

Also remember this WMV9 clip doesn't even have the full original resolution of the material. So the footage would even be better if it was the original file size. It's amazing how well the WMV9 performs playing HD though!

Michael

Doesn't WM9 support up to 1080p?

Hi folks - as posted in another thread, I've downloaded this footage, imported into vegas 5, re-rendered out to avi so I can play through firewire on my preview t.v. monitor (non-HD) to have a look. Despite the down-rezzing and compression etc., it still beats the XL2 hands down! There is more detail, more sharpness - the tiny wide shot of the the guys on the park bench (near the end) has more detail than typical mini-dv wide-shots... Even if my final product was SD mini DV, I'd take this cam over the XL2, shoot in HDV 1080i, down-rez to SD DVD and still have stuff that I think would look better than XL2... It's sharper. It's the same idea as if you shot on film and scanned it down to mini-dv.

I'm glad there is healthy skepticism out there, but come on. If 1080i HDV on mpeg2 wasn't a winner, could Sony afford to put it out to compete against the XL2 and the Panny DVX100/A? Surely if it didn't live up to and exceed expectations, they wouldn't bother releasing it - would they?

I'm more inclined to believe some of the recent posts on other sites from Dutch engineers who've had the privilege to test the cam in a head-to-head against the Varicam and the XL2. What is key to me as an indie filmmaker/wedding videographer is that this new Sony cam is bound to meet all my expectations. Finally, I will be able to shoot and project on the big screen; at least that is the consensus from early reports. The detail that 1080i alone provides makes it worth for me as a wedding videographer to get this cam. This footage alone has sold me on this - of course, I will want to hold it and see for myself in Oct. or Nov. or whenever.

I was a long time Canon XL1 user but switched to the DVX100 when development from Canon seemed to grind to a halt. Now again I felt let down when the rumours of the XL2 being HDV didn't pan out. I think Canon is now back where they were before the XL2 was announced - instead now behind Panny's 8-ball, they are behind Sony's...

Sony is so aggressive with this line of marketing. The world is changing so quickly and now in digital video you have to be a leader to stay in the game. We video guys are gearheads - we want the latest and the best. Panasonic was out of the running for years and then they brought out 24p in the DVX100 and went from "zero" to "hero" almost overnight. All thanks to one sexy feature and great marketing. Let's face it, JVC blew it when they didn't go 3-chip with their HD mini dv offering. 1-chip 720p vs. 3-chip 24p SD? the former requiring about 35 lux min to be effective? Sorry.

The only saving grace for Canon is that they are part of the HDV consortium. They will respond in time to what the market wants as they always have - but why did we really have to wait so long to get an XL2 with 16:9 native 24p and a 2-inch flip-up semi LCD? Couldn't that have come out last year? Hopefully their response to HDV will be faster or they will be toast... again.

Now I bet Panasonic/Matsushita is scratching their heads wondering what to do next. They are definitely about to lose their crown, I think... The XL2 maybe wasn't scary enough but the HDR-FX1 I think is....

Hey, I've had a drink, all right? Just thinking out loud.

If the pro Sony HDV is in fact close to US$7000 and it's only improved offering are XLR and 720p, I don't think they'll sell many. I think it will be more like and HD1 vs. HD10u situation where the "pro" version will only be slightly more than the consumer - here's hoping at least. So, I'd like use the cheap Sony HDV-FX1 for picture and lug around an XL2 to use for XLR audio and sync it all using a slate just like in film!

Curious why the footage shows little or no motion.

- don

As I posted on another forum, while I think the color of this demo footage shows much less chroma noise than the JVC HD cam typically does, I'm dissapointed with the image detail level. It doesn't look anywhere close to the image detail of 1080i footage I've seen from professional HD cams, and when I did a side by side on my Apple cinema display with JVC footage, the JVC footage appeared to have more detail present. So I wonder what's going on here? I know the footage was converted to 1280*720 wm9 and I wonder why?? I'd really want to see more native footage from the camera before I jumped on the bandwagon of saying that this is a major step up from the JVC cam, although the color looks to be, and the manual controls are just great from what I can see. I hope someone post some unaltered footage from the camera soon. The demo footage is also extremely flat in every shot by the way. I would wait and see. It's bound to be crippled in some way, otherwise it would be too much competition for their high end cams.

Yeah it just seems like a waste of time to post anything other than native res and native format footage.

Aaron

I'm glad they posted the footage but I as well look forward to full 25mbps footage not re-compressed 5mbps. We might be only seeing 1/5th the data on those WMV9 Clips. Still, those clips look very good. I remember when the DVX100 came out in 2002. Everyone was waiting for clips, then the beacch/bird footage surfaced, Soon HD-FX1 clips at there full scope will be online. For me this is a great time. I first got to use HD back in 1987. These cameras were so different then. They used Saticon or Plumbicon tubes not ccd's. Ever since then HD was a dream technology for me to use for film. In 1986 I was keeping an eye on a movie that was in production being shot in a prototype HD camera that took over an hour to warm up before use. The movie was Julia Julia staring Sting and Kathleen Turner. It was released in 1987. I remember being at the Edward's Town center movie theater in OC,CA. Just a teenager at the time here I was sitting in the projection booth, telling everyone this movie was made with video cameras. Nobody cared, and they still don't. Since that night, I have waited for it to become affordable. We have finally reached that moment. In my opinion, this will have a much much bigger wave then the Mini DV one of 96-97-98-99 did.

Michael Pappas

I work at small digital indie movie theater. We play classics, documentaries and foreign movies. We've got a high-end digital projector and we usually play dvds which are the same resolution as mini-dv (720x480). It's actually very impressive the way it looks good.

I put this HDV footage on our movie server and played it on the big screen. It looked FANTASTIC. It looked as sharp and precise as film (okay maybe I'm exagerating, but still...). I can't wait for those cameras to come out so I can shoot my movies and know the quality will be good enough for the big screen!

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Mogg : As I posted on another forum, while I think the color of this demo footage shows much less chroma noise than the JVC HD cam typically does, I'm dissapointed with the image detail level. It doesn't look anywhere close to the image detail of 1080i footage I've seen from professional HD cams, and when I did a side by side on my Apple cinema display with JVC footage, the JVC footage appeared to have more detail present. So I wonder what's going on here? I know the footage was converted to 1280*720 wm9 and I wonder why?? -->>>

Ah i'm glad someone else finally thinks the resolution department isnt as HIGH Defintion as it could be. with 960x1080i native pixels going into the image its no wonder.... then poor lowly MPEG2 used to compress it (it hates interlaced remember?).

Sure the footage is far better then my lowly SD miniDV cam but far from fullfilling the potential of 2MP video resolution (and no wonder when there's only 1MP being used and none-square pixels 1.5:1!).

I dont mean to be one of those people, but i typed in dude as the user name and Sweetn3ss for the password and it didn't work.

Greg,

It worked for me after I made sure the first S in Sweetn3ss was capitalized.

What didn't work was getting any video to play, just music. Sure, I have the WM9 HD player for Mac OS X, but I don't think my little G3 iBook, though twice as fast as my first blue and white Power Mac G3 edit system, could handle it.

heath

Heath,

The video played for me with the following: Windows Media Player for Mac 9.0.0, OSX 10.3.5 on a G5 Dual 2GHz /w/ 8GB RAM.

The amazing thing is that it seems to play fine at 100%, but when I jump to full sceen, playback throttles down to about 10-12 frames per second. I guess that WM9 is just not well optimized for Mac.

I downloaded it and will try again soon. I wish they'd shot on 1080i non-PAL...

heath

Hi
I went to a sony's sight tonight and down loaded a sample of video from sony's HDV cam. it was rendered in wmv-9 at 1280x720 16:9 at 5.26 mbps. and they were of flowers and landscapes. I have some footage from a GR-HD1 of flowers rendered to wmv-9 at 1280x720 16:9 5.06 mbps To tell the truth the JVC looked better. the colors looked almost the same. But the JVC had more fine detail like around the flowers and the small leafs. I'm sure the manual controls will be better ( Plus Audio control ) But for me I want the best picture!!! and i'll wait for JVC's update I'm sure there will be one! I think the people that run out and trade there HD1/HD10 thinking they are going to get alot more might not be that happy after the extra money spent. This is just my point of veiw ! and i'm not a pro. Has any one else seen the clips ? what do you think ?


Len

How about Sony ante up and post some low-light footage taken with their new HDV handycam? heh

- don

Quick somebody pinch one from a show and copya heap of footage.. ;)

<<<-- Originally posted by Leonard Richardson : I think the people that run out and trade there HD1/HD10 thinking they are going to get alot more might not be that happy after the extra money spent. -->>>

I think it's way too early to draw any conclusions about this un-released camera. Wait a few months until they are out in the field. I agree it would be a bad idea to sell your existing camera on the hope that some new model will be better... you know the expression "better the devil that you know." Personally I hold out a lot of hope for this new Sony, but am not jumping to any conclusions at this early stage.

Visit the XL-2 forum to see an example of what can happen... someone over there sold his DVX-100a and ordered an XL-2 sight unseen. Now there are certain aspects of the XL-2 which are not to his liking and he's facing some deadlines. I'm sure the XL-2 is actually fine, but for whatever reason it wasn't what this guy expected. Not a good idea to put yourself in such a position...

<<<-- Originally posted by Daymon Hoffman : Ah i'm glad someone else finally thinks the resolution department isnt as HIGH Defintion as it could be. with 960x1080i native pixels going into the image its no wonder.... then poor lowly MPEG2 used to compress it (it hates interlaced remember?). -->>>

As has been pointed out elsewhere, while the CCDs are 960x1080, the FX1 uses a 50% horizontal pixel shift (like Canon and Panasonic) between the green and red+blue pixels to get an effective 1440 pixel horizontal resolution (960 x 1.5 = 1440).

I'm sure that's true Bob, but the footage I've seen posted so far doesn't look like 1440 * 1080 footage to me in terms of detail, (which is the same as the CineAlta I believe). I hope that native footage from the camera, when it becomes available, looks closer to what you would expect from that 1080i HD resolution. Let's hope.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bob England : <<<-- Originally posted by Daymon Hoffman : Ah i'm glad someone else finally thinks the resolution department isnt as HIGH Defintion as it could be. with 960x1080i native pixels going into the image its no wonder.... then poor lowly MPEG2 used to compress it (it hates interlaced remember?). -->>>

As has been pointed out elsewhere, while the CCDs are 960x1080, the FX1 uses a 50% horizontal pixel shift (like Canon and Panasonic) between the green and red+blue pixels to get an effective 1440 pixel horizontal resolution (960 x 1.5 = 1440). -->>>

Would you mind pointing me to where it was pointed out (something official would be great thanks)?

If such a processs is true... i fail to see how it can result in a "real full pixel" equivelant when its 1/3rd of a pixels definition? (if you get me!) :). But hopefully some explanation from the enineers will explain it.

Taking into consideration what Paul is saying and what the footage shows... a downconvert of 1440 should produce even more stunning results then the native 1440 itself due to the nature of resizing smaller (low quality footage at D1 looks great at Half D1 for example). So the sample should have been rather stunning i would think. Even though it was still nice footage, for HD its really not that nice. The tree scene with the ppl on the chairs is very underdetailed and blurry or smeary (for want of better words)... seems seroiusly lacking detail (the in focus shot).

So, does anyone else realize that none of the footage shows any motion? It's like watching a set of still images. Is this not important to anyone? Perhaps Sony decided that nobody would be impressed looking at MPEG breakup?

- don

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Berube : So, does anyone else realize that none of the footage shows any motion? It's like watching a set of still images. Is this not important to anyone? Perhaps Sony decided that nobody would be impressed looking at MPEG breakup?

- don -->>>

Hi Don, just wondering if you have worked with the HD10 or HDV before? While the HD10 is not without its faults (1 CCD, crappy low light sensitivity, not enough manual control), I can say first hand that traditional MPEG2 problems are not a factor with HDV (since we shoot everything in that format right now). 19 Mbps (25 Mbps for the Sony) is a pretty high bit-rate for MPEG2, so even scenes with fast motion are free of mosquito noise, breakup, and other compression artifacts. I believe it is the high bitrate combined with a very good MPEG2 encoder that makes this possible.

I can only imagine the Sony would do better. The only thing going against it is a total lack of progressive scan, which is a dissapointment. Even 30p would have been great. I have no experience working with 1080i, hopefully it de-interlaces better than 480i.

Just curious, do you see a lot of these problems in satellite, OTA, or cable HDTV broadcasts? I watch a ton of ESPN HD on a very large HD screen (100"), and I can't remember the last time I wasn't in awe of the picture. As you can imagine, ESPN HD has a ton of fast moving images :) And that is MPEG2 encoded at a substantially lower bitrate (10 - 15 Mbps) than HDV*. We also test our HDV projects (shot on the HD10) on that same screen, and they all look very nice (much better than our footage from a Sony PD-150, that is for sure).

Just some food for thought.

Ben

*Of course the stuff on ESPN HD is shot at 720/60p on high end HD studio cameras. However, if the compression of MPEG2 was a problem, then you would see those compression problems regardless of the originating format.

just to add, maybe its me but WMV codec seems to make everything smudgey, i've encoded lots of stuff using wmv9 and the results seem (to me anyway) to lose detail, i think its because wmv trys to apply some kind of smoother filter to it, so it can encode more effeicintly , in my view Quick Time seems to be better in that respect.

It all depends on the bitrate. 5 mbps is a low bit rate for those clips.


<<<-- Originally posted by Anhar Miah : just to add, maybe its me but WMV codec seems to make everything smudgey, i've encoded lots of stuff using wmv9 and the results seem (to me anyway) to lose detail, i think its because wmv trys to apply some kind of smoother filter to it, so it can encode more effeicintly , in my view Quick Time seems to be better in that respect. -->>>

Three or four posts about the Sony FX1 and still no one bites, eh Don? It could just be that the folks here know that Canon is one of your top clients.

Wayne O. writes:
>>>>>>>>"Three or four posts about the Sony FX1 and still no one bites, eh Don?"

Hi Wayne, yes, only our good friend Ben has taken the time so far. How about you? Care to share with us how you feel?

>>>>>>>>"It could just be that the folks here know that Canon is one of your top clients."

Yes, Canon is one of my top clients. One of them. I don't see how that matters though. Perhaps you did not know that I shoot more on other brands of camera, some of which are much higher end. It is inconsequential whether or not you knew that though. I'm not trying to compare camera brands here. I don't even see why one would bring Canon into the discussion,,, Everyone knows that Canon does not offer an HD solution, other than their lenses. I'm talking about formats,,, which has nothing to do with any brand of camera per se, especially HDV - at least for now since the format has still yet to mature. Again, would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the format, since you are so involved in the high end High Def production scene - what comes to your mind when you look at HDV footage? What artifacts, if any, do you see? What comes to your mind when *some* people say that it more or less looks just as good as High Def footage from cameras using more robust formats such as VariCam or Cine-Alta?

Ben, to answer your question, yes I have used the HD10. I think you are on target to address the delivery aspects of consumer HD and the notion that it is there where the bottleneck lies.

Wishing everyone well,

- don

I think to presume that HDV as Sony has used it may have artifacts on movement is a bit premature. I have one of the first Sony demos of miniDV from way back. It's contains the same static like shots and my HD demo tests from Sony that were shot by Allen Daviau contain the same static type shots or very slow movement. Mini DV and CineAlta didn't have that issue and I am sure the 25mbps HDV doesn't to. What's so funny about all this banter from all the boards is this same bashing of the standards was done in 1996-97 to MiniDV. All I heard was MiniDV and it's compression artifacts. It's not Broadcast quality, it's a cheap consumer format with out any professional merits. It was hogwash then and I am willing to bet it's hogwash today in regards to HDV.

Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms
PappasArts.com

Hey Mike,

Nobody is bashing here, well, at least I am not. We should be able to discuss topics here in a mature, professional way without being perceived as negative bashing. I don't want to be perceived as only looking for the negatives and not being able to focus on the positives regarding HDV,,, and I have no intention of starting a flame war or motivating any HDV users or supporters to get upset,,, I just want the artifacts to go away. That's all. Just speaking from experience and what I have seen so far. I go to all of the trade shows and I keep my eyes and mind open. My experience with viewing HDV sample clips is not limited to just downloading clips from the web. Iv'e seen the stuff resolved in just about every which way you can think of, including very large screen projection from extremely high end projectors, 20"+ CRT monitors, 42"+ DLP, LCD and plasma panels, etc... The only output which I have not yet seen is an HDV film out.

I admit that the new Sony HDV clips look somewhat impressive for still video images. I'm looking forward to seeing motion samples shot in both outdoor light and indoor light. Every other HDV sample clip I have seen so far has exhibited some form of lossy compression artifacting to some degree, sometimes it is minimal and sometimes excessive - but usually it is dithering and banding in the colors, sometimes excessive bleeding in the colors, sometimes MPEG breakup in the colors and in the shadowy areas. Yes, there may be more pixels up on the screen in a much larger frame size, but that perceived higher resolution is dampered by the artifacting if it cannot be dealt with and negated. Hopefully, the format will improve and these issues will be resolved. I just hope the manufacturers will collaborate together to create something more than just another consumer format.

Wishing you well,

- don

Hey all,

Our passions for this camera are high, but let's keep things cool.

heath

Unfortunately Sony etc can't cut corners on optics,artifact prevention, overall performance because the monitor system in which we the buyers now view this material on doesn't hide imperfections like SD monitors have always done. That's why they can't throw any old lens on a HD camera. It would stand out like a pimple on a brides face. Because the bar has been raised, we will benefit from the fact that the building of these cameras are going to have to be better and use better components or it will look like junk on a 60" Sony LCD HD television. Sony wants to sell HD tv's like crazy. This will help to promote that product line. Not the FX1 but all the trickle down cameras that will follow over the next 12+ months.

I wanted to bring up another point that I have not read on the boards is the capturing from the FX1's component output to a HD card into a NLE. Like, Kona 2 you’ll be able to capture in 12-bit 4:4:4 RGB format. I bring this up because if Mpeg2 is going to be an issue for some, what about capturing the material from the component output to another standard like above. This would get the file out of the Mpeg2 realm and allow one to work with it in a post house better. Ofcourse the file sizes are going to huge, but that is not an issue at all any more with the size of Sata drives and there speed.

Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms
PappasArts.com

The FX1 component output intrigues me.

I have another post in two forums but no takers - is it RGB or YUV?

The fact that it exists at all is a BIG PLUS for this camera. I for one know that under certain conditions 25Mbs 1080i MPEG2 tape wont cut it for me. However a component recorder most definitely will even if its 50Mbs MPEG2.

A portable (over the shoulder job?) component recorder - that's it - for fast action sequences - the rest to HDV tape.

I saw your post's and found it odd that no one even entertained your question, even if it was speculation. It's doesn't surprise me at all that Sony put this on. Not any different then $50 dvd players that have YUV out. FW is only good with PC's or the very few tv's that have it. So YUV is the only other way. Glad it's on it, and I think the advantage to capture with a Kona or like card is you get the Quicktime file etc from the first capture and the need to convert a Mpeg to AVI,QT is bypassed if that's what you need.

Michael Pappas
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms
PappasArts.com

Is this type of process similar to an alternate imaging method? Like a few of the tech heads have done with other cameras, try to get the footage off of the camera without the camera doing its "after processing" etc ? mmmm Imagine that with this cam! oh la la!

No! This is using the YUV out put to a PCI etc HD capture card. This would create a non mpeg file and put the project in a 4:2:2 10 bit format or even higher color space. It won't give you more resolution, but will take you out of the Mpeg codec and in a more main stream post production flow.

Well i'm no Sony technician (yet :P). But woudlnt it depend on how the video was processed before it gets output even on those connections? perhaps its "faked" component from the MPEG2 stream? Just my line of thought...

I don't think we know yet. On DV cameras (at least back on the VX1000, and assumedly on all newer DV cameras) the S-video port is taken AFTER DV compression. So will the component output on these cameras be before or after MPEG-2 compression?

We'll have to wait and see... I guess the only ways to really know are to either trace the signal path on a schematic, or to invent some circumstance that really shows MPEG-2 compression artifacts and then see if it shows up on the raw component output as well.

If we forget the camera and use a HDV deck with YUV playback out to a Kona 2 like card, your still doing better in a post production flow then capturing all that mpeg2 via FW and converting it to another file format like HD 10bit 422 or 12bit 444. With a card like the Kona, it all happens in real time conversion to what you want. It all depends on what you need and where the final product is going ofcourse.

Off this subject for a second.. Anyone notice that the first review of the FX1 on http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ is no longer on the main page. The article was titled ( Sony HDR-FX1 First Impression Camcorder Review ) . No longer on the page now. I have it saved as a file, but why did they pull the piece off the front page. Anyone know? I sent an email but never got an answer!

Michael Pappas

I'm sure that's true Bob, but the footage I've seen posted so far doesn't look like 1440 * 1080 footage to me in terms of detail, (which is the same as the CineAlta I believe). I hope that native footage from the camera, when it becomes available, looks closer to what you would expect from that 1080i HD resolution. Let's hope.

Paul, remember that the footage provided was downconverted to 720p from 1080i and also recompressed using WM9. So it took two hits on resolution.

So will the component output on these cameras be before or after MPEG-2 compression?

My take;

When outputting recorded content, the component outs will be after MPEG2 compression. This makes sense because the content will have to be compressed to MPEG2 prior to be stored to tape.

When 'monitoring' via component I believe Sony will do as JVC has done and limit the output to 480p. As much as I complained about this when I first got my camera, it makes perfect business sense. Just imagine being able to do just as John suggests and taking a RAW HD stream and recording it at a higher bandwidth to a HDD based recording system in possibly 4:2:2 format.

There wouldn't be no need to record to the tape and you as the consumer would have probably one of the best kept video secrets on the planet. Raw 1080i HD that's "main stream post production ready".

That's not going to happen.

Troy

I believe that the YUV is going to put out 1440x1080 mpeg2. I don't believe Sony is going to cripple the image just cause you don't have firewire on your HD/Tv/monitor. Sony is also banking on high end consumers as well, and they will be hooking up directly to large HD tv's to watch little johny's birthday etc. Ofcourse this is just a guess....

I believe that the YUV is going to put out 1440x1080 mpeg2. I don't believe Sony is going to cripple the image just cause you don't have firewire on your HD/Tv/monitor. Sony is also banking on high end consumers as well, and they will be hooking up directly to large HD tv's to watch little johny's birthday etc. Ofcourse this is just a guess

For playback yes, for recording no. I guess I didn't make that clear distinction in my post earlier. I assumed the conversation was with regards to recording.

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

Troy

I suppose 3 weeks is not that long to wait on this puzzle, but I can already see that Sony are not taking JVCs lead on anything and have already designed a camera which is way up against the stops on the HDV Spec.

HDV is quite specific that the format is tape based, however the YUV would allow that to be circumvented if a portable recording device from the camera head was in the pipeline.

Further if it is only 480p (were did that come from?) it means that the live feed from the YUV could not be monitored at native HDV resolution, which would hit sales of HDV field monitors when they come to market.

My calcs indicate there could be a delay of around 4 seconds if the live feed was YUV Mpeg2 - a tad impractical

The notion of uncompessed YUV would not necessarily hurt the Hi-End sales since they will always be protected by the availability of Hi-End glass and other features.

Furthermorre, uncompressed YUV offers more opportunity for further Sony after market sales than a crippled feed, which to my mind would be a wasted market opportunity

We live in hope until 10/15

I thought it was mid-November...

heath

Sony Japan have it written as 15 October also the component out is defined as D3/D1

spec is the second 'play' symbol under the picture:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=32320

John,

You make some valid points, but again it would be hard to believe that Sony would allow 1080i to be captured RAW from the component outputs.

Further if it is only 480p (were did that come from?) it means that the live feed from the YUV could not be monitored at native HDV resolution, which would hit sales of HDV field monitors when they come to market.

The HD1/HD10 camcorders can only display 480p through it's component outs while recording. You can't monitor HD (720p) from the component outs while recording.

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 .

Now to find someone who works for Sony so I can get a discount!!! :)

10/15 it is...

Troy