Simon Wyndham
November 12th, 2004, 01:09 PM
Just came back from picking up a new lens for the 510P I'm buying. While I was at the showroom I was able to have good look at some high def demos and also the FX1 via a high def display.
Pretty impressed I was. But then at that resolution it would be hard not to. Although unfortunately I didn't get to witness any recorded HDV material. Apparently they made some recordings in another country such as Thailand or somewhere, but they didn't have the tape to hand. But anyway, there was some amazing detail going on there and I will be keeping a close eye on it. Although if I go HD it will probably be through a full size rig, or getting a Z1 should I start getting demand for HD stuff for conference projections etc.
There are some controls lacking, even on the Z1 that stop it from really being a pro camera. Lack of lens barrel markings for one. They could have at least have put a true focus adjustment on there rather than a servo ring again.
Regarding the progressive issue. I saw it in Cineframe mode and to be honest it looked awful. The strobing was absolutely horrific. Definitely a mode to avoid from what I saw. But on the other hand from the HD demos I have seen I'm not sure why progressive is as important as it is with SD video. Interlaced HD video has a look all of it's own, and the sheer quality stops it from having the 'cheap video' look that we associate with SD interlace.
I don't think the lack of progressive is too much of an issue. In fact I think it may be possible that interlaced HD will gain a desirable look all of it's own. However if someone does make a 1080P HD camera I wouldn't complain. This of course could be done in the same way the DVX100 does 25P (24P is another matter altogether). But I don't think it's as important as people may think. There could even be a reversal against the progressive look in the long run, who knows. Or maybe the 2 looks will become equally as desirable depending on the directors choice, with neither one being seen as dominant.
One thing I was wondering however was about the depth of field on an FX1/Z1. It only has a 1/3" CCD. However, that 1/3" has double the pixels of a normal 1/3" CCD. Shouldn't this mean that the FX1 has a much shallower depth of field capability than most MiniDV 1/3" cams?
Pretty impressed I was. But then at that resolution it would be hard not to. Although unfortunately I didn't get to witness any recorded HDV material. Apparently they made some recordings in another country such as Thailand or somewhere, but they didn't have the tape to hand. But anyway, there was some amazing detail going on there and I will be keeping a close eye on it. Although if I go HD it will probably be through a full size rig, or getting a Z1 should I start getting demand for HD stuff for conference projections etc.
There are some controls lacking, even on the Z1 that stop it from really being a pro camera. Lack of lens barrel markings for one. They could have at least have put a true focus adjustment on there rather than a servo ring again.
Regarding the progressive issue. I saw it in Cineframe mode and to be honest it looked awful. The strobing was absolutely horrific. Definitely a mode to avoid from what I saw. But on the other hand from the HD demos I have seen I'm not sure why progressive is as important as it is with SD video. Interlaced HD video has a look all of it's own, and the sheer quality stops it from having the 'cheap video' look that we associate with SD interlace.
I don't think the lack of progressive is too much of an issue. In fact I think it may be possible that interlaced HD will gain a desirable look all of it's own. However if someone does make a 1080P HD camera I wouldn't complain. This of course could be done in the same way the DVX100 does 25P (24P is another matter altogether). But I don't think it's as important as people may think. There could even be a reversal against the progressive look in the long run, who knows. Or maybe the 2 looks will become equally as desirable depending on the directors choice, with neither one being seen as dominant.
One thing I was wondering however was about the depth of field on an FX1/Z1. It only has a 1/3" CCD. However, that 1/3" has double the pixels of a normal 1/3" CCD. Shouldn't this mean that the FX1 has a much shallower depth of field capability than most MiniDV 1/3" cams?