I thought it's interesting because it echoes DSE's assessment at Govt. Expo that new FX1 is on par with varicam...

"FX1 is a Varicam killer"

Impressive....Most impressive.

Looking forward to seeing frame grabs and running footage that support this. The FX1 may well be that good, but an enthusiastic review from an anonymous source doesn't carry a lot of weight for me.

This is DSE's statement from gov expo:

"BTW, I failed to mention in my earlier post that I was allowed quite a bit of time with the new professional HDV cam from Sony while at Government Expo. I was simply blown away. It was sitting next to an HD cam costing several times as much, displaying on same model monitor, shooting same source. While there indeed was some difference, the differences are quite subtle."


Original Source: http://www.dmnforums.com/cgi-bin/displaywwugpost.fcgi?forum=sonic-foundry_vegas&post=040911151408.htm

DSE--whole other ballgame.

Still liking to see some comparison footage though, particularly after it's gone through some processing/rendering/multiple generations etc.

I'm quite interested in seeing some footage with fast horizontal motion scans.

Charles, I realize it's a whole 'nother ballgame, but the point was...
sitting on a tripod next to a 30K cam, showing on a pair of matched 10K monitors, this looked as good as any sub 50K anything I've ever seen. I tend to see lots of Varicam stuff and wish I had one, but not wishing as hard any longer.

DSE--I tried to find your "Instant Vegas" on your site but couldn't. Could you link up to it? Thanks...

You know what it would take for me to seriously look at the FX1? Interchangeable lenses. While I never had the chance to experiment with my XL1s, I feel very limited by the fixed lense of my GL1. I may not be able to BUY a new lens, but I could rent one...

As it is, this cam made me look twice, when I already knew I wanted the XL2.

Douglas, I think Charles meant that your impression is a whole nother ballgame compared to the anonymous guys posting that started the thread

Aaron

Thanks, Aaron, that's just exactly what Charles meant. In other words, there's not much credence in ananymous report, but you can take anything that Spot says and put it in the bank, because it's as good as gold.

so waddawedo now?

Make another "Extreme Ops" movie and pull the MX300 and sub the FX1 and...


get Charles to ski the steady?


Lets wait and then rejoice.

Little footage that I've already seen tells me that the price I would've paid for SD camera before the announcement of FX1, for the same price, I'm getting a HD camera[which can do 16:9 natively in SD mode, and in all terms seem to be doing anything which we have SD cameras doing in the same price today(with full manual controls)].

What is the problem there? If you just stop looking at it as a HD cam, you will realize that it gives you the best bang for the buck even in the SD category. Be happy that you are getting a lot for this money.

Yes, the still shots of that highway really look crappy, but that other motion footage simply looked great. Night shots have really left me in the awe, and I'm sure that day shots will be better equally once you get a hang of it....

I cant wait to get my hands on it...

Bye

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman :

As it is, this cam made me look twice, when I already knew I wanted the XL2. -->>>

Keith, those are my sentiments exactly.
I need a small camera for 16:9 broadcast work here in the UK and I was set on the XL2. Even if I don't shoot HDV today (or tomorrow), at least with the FX1 it's available when needed - but a fixed lens? and 12:1?
When are we ever going to see a camera in the price range of the Canon and Sony that's got it all right...

Robin

<<<-- Originally posted by Robin Davies-Rollinson : <<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman :

As it is, this cam made me look twice, when I already knew I wanted the XL2. -->>> When are we ever going to see a camera in the price range of the Canon and Sony that's got it all right...
-->>>

I’m a big fan of Canon’s digital SLR lineup and as much as I wanted to like the XL2, there were things about it that was hard to ignore.

First, while interchangeable lens is the optimal solution in any cinematographer’s arsenal, the XL2's pickings seem a bit slim. In my opinion, the lenses currently available for the Canon each appear to be hobbled with a particular shortcoming that compromises its full potential.

Second, the XL2 really could have benefited from a true 16:9 CCD. Instead, it gave consumers a pseudo work around cramming more pixels into a smaller CCD real estate. Of course, it works, but at what cost? Limited dynamic range, DOF, light capture or maybe all of the above?

Third, the XL2 suffers heavily from chromatic aberration (purple fringing). At the $5000 price point, this was unacceptable to me. However, this could be a result of the 20x lens.

While the camcorder had more resolution and an arguably better looking picture than the DVX100, ultimately, the camera had too many things going against it (based on my assessment) to bar further consideration.

Not sure what the verdict will be with the FX1, but so far it looks promising. I guess we’ll find out soon enough. Sure, the FX1 has limitations that Sony intentionally placed within the camera, but at this price most cameras are bound to have shortcomings that make it less than perfect.

So what’s the solution?

I guess it comes down to what is important to the individual and what are they willing to make compromises with? For many film makers, the lack of progressive scan and 24p is a serious obstacle. Does the FX1’s true 16:9 CCD and ability to film in HD offset this? Are there acceptable solutions that mitigate these shortcomings? Sometimes, it seems that people get too fixated on 24p and the ever elusive “film look” to objectively consider different alternatives. So much so it seems that they are willing to accept degradation in image quality and resolution (i.e. DVX100 or the XL2) in order to achieve that film look. With the advantages gained in the FX1, coupled with increasingly sophisticated software/hardware solutions in post processing, does having in-camera 24p capability become the “Holy Grail” to film makers as it once was? Honestly, I don’t know.

I guess time will tell.

Good points there Paul.
As far as I'm concerned. I don't want anything to look like film - been there, done it. I just want good sharp pictures!

Robin

There was an effect the old Toaster generated that epitomized the absurdity of the "film look." It created scratches on the video! When will we give it up and cross the bridge into the 21st century of HD? If we don't educate the new generations about the new look of new media, who will?

<<<-- Originally posted by Lynne Whelden : There was an effect the old Toaster generated -->>>

Was just reading a review of "Magic Bullet for Editors" the other day, and evidently it does the same thing!

Ah, but will it simulate a hair in the gate???

Robin

I think I would rather have the scratches, than the motion artifacts of HD... tough call.

Thanks Aaron and Chris for correctly interpreting my obfuscating brevity! I'm on the road and posting from my Treo, tring to avoid mini-keyboard carpal tunnel syndrome, which I think I just got from writing THIS post...

I realized for the first time when I attended the Canadian XL2 launch on Sept. 16 (just after FX1 announcement - boy, were they sweating bullets!) that Canon first and foremost is a "lens" company, not a mini-dv or a camera company.

Once you accept this philosophy, everything Canon does to confound us actually makes sense.

Their whole take on orig. XL1 wasn't to bring the most advanced camcorder to market. They saw with the VX1000 that mini-dv was here to stay - how could they possibly cash in on this? Already they were big sellers of high-end lenses for broadcast. Oh, okay, let's make a lens that's cheaper than our high-end broadcast stuff but still rocks and put a mini-dv "box" on the back of it. Voila. The XL1 interchangeable lens system is born - and don't forget to buy that 3x lens and EF adaptor for your EOS SLR lenses, folks! Canon endorses mini-dv!

Canon's idea with mini-dv is how to sell more lenses. So it's no surprise ultra-pro XL1s users ended up having to fork out for the "full manual" lens. Etc. Etc. Canon could have easily put this lens on in the first place, no? But then you wouldn't get the chance to carry your "repertoire" of Canon lenses around, would you?

Also, Canon could have very easily designed their own piece of cheapo aircraft aluminum to fit "pro" 35mm and 16mm motion picture camera lenses, but no, they leave it up to 3rd parties to explore this avenue to satisfy the masses - god forbid too if you want to use a non-Canon lens and actually get pro results, then you should pay big bucks for it and buy a certain German adaptor system that's known by it's initials and costs more than the camera...

So Canon waits and waits to see what will "stick" in the mini-dv world and then introduce it on the back of their lens, so they can stay competitive in terms of selling more lenses. Hence the revolutionary introduction of 24p on the XL2 some TWO years after Panasonic brought it out on the original DVX100...

I mean, come on, DVX100A comes out a year after the original - why so long for the Canon version of 24p? That long to solder a few wires? etc?

I too felt let down by the disappointment that XL2 was not HDV. Aha, but why not you ask? After all, Canon is part of the consortium and signed on at the same time as Sony in Sept. of 2003. How long does it take to tweak a format, anyway?

Let's not forget. Because Canon is a lens company.

Now with HDV, Canon is in a fix. Much like Panasonic not endorsing HDV because it would in a way cannibalise their high-end HD, Canon is wary of HDV because of what it means potentially to their high-end HD lens business if heaven-forbid HDV catches like the wildfire it's starting to erupt into...

So now Canon is scratching their heads. They wonder, wait a minute, if we put out HDV, we'll have to put on a lens that can deliver HD resolution. And offer it for under $10K. How are we going to make money?

If we give 'em a "cheap" lens (ie. in XL2 price range) then all of a sudden people are going to ask themselves why they should pay big bucks for high-end Canon HD lenses when they can just get an XL2 HDV. Okay, not everyone, but I DO think all of a sudden you're going to get a significant number of people who were potentially in the market for say a Varicam now suddenly deferring on saving up their money for a while longer as originally planned and now taking the FX1 instead... I know my game plan has now changed...

It's exactly the scenario Avid found itself in when the likes of low-cost NLE's came knocking.

Also, Canon doesn't stand to gain as much profit margin off a "cheapie" HD lens on a sub-$10K HDV cam as it does from a purple-hazing SD lens ("do you want fries with that?") on a cam they price at $6K. Good HD lenses are pricey, right? So is Canon gonna suddenly give away the farm? How could they stay as the most PROFITABLE Japanese company?

So the business case of HDV for a lens company like Canon right now does not make any sense. Not now. It might in a year and a half when SD mini-dv virtually will have gone the way of the dodo bird, but right now, no, not right at this moment, there is no need to pursue it...

Now if this somehow seems to sound like I am giving Canon a bit of a hard time, yes, I admit, there's grist in my mill. Look at my profile. I should update it since I sold my original XL1 just over a month ago and now shoot primarily with the DVX100.

I originally bought into the XL1 "system" expecting fantastic possibilities with the EF adaptor since I had a Canon SLR. But 7x factor? People got tired of me making movies about their nosehairs. I actually bought the explanation that it couldn't be possible, blah blah, CCD vs. 35mm film frame, blah blah... and then xl1solutions comes out with said ring of aircraft aluminum and voila, which Panavision camera do we want to emulate today?

I predict to minimize their "losses" on HDV and gain as much profit margin on their "lens" as possible, Canon's first foray into HDV will be a fixed-lens concoction a la GL3.

They will eventually have to answer the call for an interchangeable lens HDV cam that really "delivers" - they will either "eat" the price of the lens or try to make us "eat" it by pricing the cam higher and trying to justify why "their" HDV looks better than HDV in general. Oh, maybe they'll slap on some fluorite or something...

I hafta admit, I take my hat off to Sony for being "adventurous." Okay, what did they do for us? Oh, they came out with the first 3-CCD mini-dv camera. With CineAlta, they made "24p" a reality to give video people the "look" of film.

Now they are about to bring HD videography to the masses.

<<<<Canon's idea with mini-dv is how to sell more lenses. So it's no surprise ultra-pro XL1s users ended up having to fork out for the "full manual" lens. Etc. Etc. Canon could have easily put this lens on in the first place, no? >>>>


This is actually not true. Since I was part of this in some way and involved in this arena at the time I can say from having been there. I first got to use and test the XL1 months before it was released. Canon had no plans for a manual lens. It was not tell Optex in London modified a Fujinon lens that I tested before release and reviewed as well my crazy Lens system config using SLR lenses did Canon really see that people needed and wanted a manual lens system. Canon in what is unusual for them fast tracked the first 14x manual lens to pretty much make the need to for the Optex non existent. Then at a later date they came out with a refined and very good manual lens that had ND filters etc. That's truth about that little history. Canon has learned alot from this XL line DV camera system. They take building these tools that film-video and all media people use very serious. Trust me, canon in LA and major film/television production market zones ask alot of question from professionals on how they can make their cameras better for production on the XL2 and GL2. On the XL1 they didn't ask at all pretty much. Now they due. This is the way Canon does it in there PRO SLR devision. Because they have always taken the photographic side very serious and the needs of photographers. Their top video camera design team now takes that same approach as well. Chris Hurd can back this up as well since we both lived this bit of history.......

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

and so I'm sure we can look forward to some similar "fast-tracking" in terms of Canon's HDV offering? If Canon is so good at reacting to little Optex/Fujinon, then maybe when they get the snot kicked out of their XL2 numbers starting next month by a fixed-lens mpeg2 cam they might come and join the party?

I wish the XL2 was HDV!

I was so excited this summer when those "rumours" started - it seemed to be plausible given that a new XL-cam was due and Canon had joined the HDV thing last year...

Oh well... one day!

<< so I'm sure we can look forward to some similar "fast-tracking" in terms of Canon's HDV offering? >>

I seriously doubt that. You need to review your Canon history, Mark, because it's the best indication of how the future will unfold. Remember that Sony rocked the market in early 1995 with the world's first prosumer 3CCD camcorder in the DV format: the legendary VX1000. How long did it take for Canon to respond? They didn't introduce a DV camcorder until very late 1997, with the original 1CCD Optura and the 3CCD XL1. Nearly two years... and there's your indicator of their market response. They are always the last manufacturer to the dance. This is by choice though. It's a very conservative company. With HDV, it'll be just like the times when DV first hit. I'm willing to bet that history will repeat itself.

and it's usually worth the wait. I know, I know... patience to all grasshoppers.

Canon certainly has benefited from sitting back and taking stock - hence 16:9 with 24p on XL2 over the DVX...

I guess it takes time to develop things right and in some ways, the world of mini-dv is changing now more rapidly, so it sometimes seems like Canon is waaaay back.

And to be fair, Canon has actually introduced something novel that I'm surprised hasn't caught on more but maybe will in the future after people are looking for the next big thing after HD:

the 3D lens.

<<<<<I wish the XL2 was HDV!

I was so excited this summer when those "rumours" started - it seemed to be plausible given that a new XL-cam was due and Canon had joined the HDV thing last year...

Oh well... one day!>>>>


You were not alone. I to had my fingers crossed when there were rumors of the XL2 being HDV. On a positive note Mike Zorich, Canon's Director of Marketing of Consumer video said "While a great camera, [the XL2] will be the last SD camera from Canon, and while I don't have a timeline on when we'll be ready to announce something in a different format, like HDV, we have a lot of work ahead of us in terms of design and engineering." This was back in July, so Canon is aiming towards that direction and when they do it, it will be awesome I'm sure of of that.

Michael Pappas

I still can't see what the big deal is with HD... From everything I have seen, it isn't much better than sd, except in color. HD set ups are very pricey, and the results aren't much better than web video, due to the artifacts. And I for one, can't see spending $3000 on a tv, just to watch artifacts. I would rather have film.

Now, as far as the FX1 goes, I like the larger ccd's and the native 16:9 for starters, as opposed to Canon's approach. I am intrigued by the cinematic features, even though I am still unsure of the validity of mixing 24p with a 30fps media. And finally, the lens. It seems to be a really nice lens, and it had better be... because you can't buy an alternate. Will the pro version have interchangeable lenses?

So... I'm still up in the air, as far as which features I want the most. Maybe I'll just wait and see what JVC and Panny will pull out of their... sleeve :)

<<<-- Originally posted by Keith Forman : I still can't see what the big deal is with HD... From everything I have seen, it isn't much better than sd, except in color. HD set ups are very pricey, and the results aren't much better than web video, due to the artifacts. And I for one, can't see spending $3000 on a tv, just to watch artifacts. I would rather have film.

Will the pro version have interchangeable lenses? -->>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's too soon to make a judgment call on HDV. To date, I've only seen two video montages shot from the FX1 -- the static flower montage and the images from Taiwan. For web viewing, each was adequate in conveying a general feel for the camera's potential, but it is my prediction that these two examples are hardly representative of HDV's true capabilities.

From what I read, the general consensus, from those that have actually seen the FX1, has been very favorable. No one, that I recall, has mentioned any noticeable artifacts within the picture. I realize that a lot of "Chicken Little-The sky is falling" types have expressed doom and gloom over artifacts, but thankfully (so far) this has not panned out (no pun). However, in several weeks time, we'll find out soon enough.

Oh, and the pro-version will not have interchangeable lens.

Re: a pro HDV camera with interchangeable lenses, this is in the works, and it will come from JVC. It's a full-size shoulder-mount camera based on the GY-DV7000 design and will cost about $20,000, which is much less than the (in my opinion) best SD camera out today, the Panasonic SDX900.

Let me ask you this... What changes would you like to see in the FX1? What is the single feature that gets your attention?

Just thinking "out loud" here...

We usually think of getting 3rd party lenses for our cameras. Maybe if Canon is going to be slow to market with HDV, we should look the other way 'round? That is, maybe a competitor should produce (or just "threaten" to produce!) an HDV camera body with an XL mount?! (Maybe there are patent issues with this idea, but if 3rd party XL lenses are legal, maybe the reverse is ok, too?)

Assuming that HDV really is a step up, there must be a lot of XL lenses out there by now that would happily sit on a quality HDV body, regardless of who made it.

I figure my 20x and 3x lenses are worth about half of the $6K I've invested in the XL system so it wouldn't bother me one bit to slap a $2-3K Sony/JVC/Pana body on them if HDV really is the winner most of us anticipate it to be.

Parenthetically, I must say that I'm VERY pleased with the 16:9 images the XL2 is giving me...as eager as I've been for HDV, it really will need to be dramatically sharper if it means abandoning my investment into the XL2's unmatched (for "consumer" cams) depth of features. A **slightly** sharper image with a lesser feature set won't do it for me; it'll have to be a slam dunk.

Ah, well. I guess most of us have yet to directly see HDV footage with our own eyes..."Patience, Grasshopper." ;-)

It certainly is worth thinking about...

It's not an easy one to answer because, actually, the FX1 seems pretty feature rich...

I'd have to say for "convenience" it would have been cool to have XLR on cheapo version a la basic DVX100...

More importantly, I'd offer that what I'd like to see is a cineframe/filmic type mode that really delivers if true 24p is not possible/part of HDV spec... Panasonic has done a nice job of this with their "film-like" frame modes on recent cams like DVC-30 and GS400 - they're both much better than "old" Canon frame mode used to be...

Sony brought out 24p on cheapie 1-CCD consumer level cam this past summer, no? It's not like Sony is anti-24p!

Also, I'd have liked a "better" lens on pro FX1 (Z1?) to justify the higher cost/make you think twice about whether or not to buy pro version.

Having XLR and the ability to watch EVF and LCD at same time, etc. are not enough of a benefit to me to justify spending the extra $$$ on pro - I think the big question-mark right now is really how much more the Z1 is going to be over the consumer - from feature set listed so far, I don't understand how they can justify ~$7,000.00... The posts that claim image quality of consumer FX1 will be exactly the same as pro are the dealbreaker for me and make me go "yeah, alright, really no need to wait for pro" - if that's the case!

Yes, it's great to speculate - dammit, how many more days? And why aren't we getting any reports from Japan by now?

Any hunch how soon Ulead/Adobe/Apple will have capture utility ready to get HDV footage into computer?

Back to Tai Chi....

I have a rptv that cost well under 1500.00 US and 1080i broadcast (when originating from HD source) are stunning. SD interlaced footage that has been uprezed from old analog
source tends to look bad.

As far as the 'film' look? The HD video look has a long future ahead of it. I've been watching concerts, nature shows, travel shows, DIY stuff, racing, hotrod shows... on INHD, INHD2 and discovery HD, and all I can say is wow.

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Kubat : I don't understand how they can justify ~$7,000.00... -->>>

simple they are the ones making a 3ccd hd camera with xlr inputs thats handheld and sd/ntsc/pal switchable

a lot of firsts there...

Plus, $7,000 will seem like a bargain compared to the forthcoming JVC offering at $20,000. Of course, that one's a full-size shoulder-mount camera with interchangeable lenses and all the pro features. Think GY-DV7000 in HDV.

The "under $7,000" price tag is not official, based as far as I can tell on what one Sony rep at IBC said (in euros) to someone who posted it on the web. Remember that the mock-up version displayed at NAB last spring came with a "under $5000" estimate from the Sony people there.

Certainly, the confirmed 46 differences we know of in the pro version don't add up to a $3300 upgrade in a value-added sense, especially when third-party products are available to add on the FX1 for considerably less.

I really believe the price of the pro version will be much closer to $5000 than $7000 for two reasons. First, the confirmed differences between the consumer and pro are pretty much the same as the differences in the consumer VX2100 and the pro PD-170. If the same mark up between those two is applied to the HDV offerings, you get about $5k for the pro. Like the PD-170, a wide angle adapter could be included.

Second is marketing. The FX1 seemed to be aimed squarely at the DVX100A from a price point prespective. And with only $3700 to spend, I see very few reasons to choose the DVX over the Sony. At $5000, the pro version will go up against the XL-2. For that comparison, I guess we'll have to wait for some real world tests of both not only in camera but in the edit bay as well.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : ... the (in my opinion) best SD camera out today, the Panasonic SDX900. -->>>

Chris, I hate to deviate from the thread, however can't help but ask if you looked at Pana SPX800 (DVCPRO50 4:2:2, $20K list + glass) and Sony PDW-530 XDCAM? And what do you think about them comparing to Pana SDX900 you mentioned?

Once again, so sorry if this is off topic.

>>Plus, $7,000 will seem like a bargain compared to the forthcoming JVC offering at $20,000. Of course, that one's a full-size shoulder-mount camera with interchangeable lenses and all the pro features. Think GY-DV7000 in HDV.
<<

I think there will be a place for both. If JVC uses full size tape and lowers the price a few thousand, it will be very popular. IMHO. The issue will be reliability, which plagues JVCs new cameras.

I'm willing to bet that the camera is released closer to 12K.

Alex, I know of those cameras, but have no hands-on experience with them. Let's amend my claim about the SDX900 to include it and the SPX800 and the XDCAM as all collectiely being at the top of the hill.

Joe, I agree that the JVC camera would be much more attractive if it used a full-sized cassette.

Next summer I'm planning to shoot a low budget feature. We were thinking seriously about the XL2 but now this new Sony HDV has thrown us for a loop. What I'd like to see is footage from both camcorders, under similar conditions, transferred to 35mm. Any thoughts on which camera would deliver the better image?

Chris, how easy is it for you to get to Manhattan? I might be able to arrange a hands-on of both cameras for you.

Very easy. Are you in the New York this week? Thanks for the offer! Do you still have my cell number?