<<< Originally posted by Chris Hurd :
Toke:
<< These electronic giants have long time ago stopped giving "best quality" to anybody else than those who can pay the most. It's all about making the most profits. >>
Sorry but that's absolutely not true. The quality of these lower-priced camcorders is nothing short of incredible. I'm still amazed at the image quality in a prosumer camcorder you can buy for $4,000 compared to ten times the cost just ten short years ago for something only half as good.

Besides, the electronic giants are corporations. The idea is to make profit. This fuels the advancement of technology. Where is the problem with being profitable. >>>

So the quality is incredibe, but the idea is to make profit?
See the problem?
Idea is to make as much profit as possible, which means to offer optimum quality-price ratio that increases the sales the most. No "best quality".

Are you also amazed that you can by 100 times faster pc with price of one quarter than 10 years ago?
That's called progress.
And in 10 years there has been very slow progress in prosumer cameras. Just from vx1000 to pd150, mainly.

<<<
<< Sony sells interlaced hdv camera today so that they can sell progressive hdv camera next year. >>
If they do, it'll be 720P. What's wrong with expanding the line.>>>

Why would they go to 720p instead of 1080p?
"That's not in the hdv specs" is wrong answer.
Neither was dvcam in the dvc specs.
There is nothing wrong with expanding, but I feel a little bit cheated, when I have to buy a new thing every year, when they could have made it today for the next five years.
Same thing eg. with Nokia's phones: they keep adding one feature at a time, although they could give all the features at once. So you had to wait 5 years to get a phone with fm radio and bluetooth.

<<<
<< If they would think a little bit of "best image" they would have rised the datarate from 25Mbps which is same than dv cameras 9 years ago. >>
First of all, *for the very low cost involved here* there is nothing wrong with the image quality at 25Mbps. And if you think there is, then you have other HD options waiting for you. Secondly, this datarate gives us backward compatibility with our existing DV format. >>>

Dvcpro50 has downward compability to 25M, so why couldn't HDV50 have compability to dv/dvcam/hdv?
-97 sony offered dvcam to pro users, not minidv.
Now they are offering same thing to both consumers and pro.
I think this is the only segment in ICT-industry that nobody is surprised that there is no progress in datarate after whole decade.

<<<
<< But it's cheaper to keep manufacturing the same tape mechanism for the next decade... >>
It's definitely less expensive and far more pleasing to the end users. Can you imagine the angry uproar from DV people -- the exact market HDV is targeted to -- if they had to switch tape formats? You're complaining about something that is very much a *good* thing. >>>

They wouldn't have to switch tape format.
Eg. you can record to dvcproHD tape with 100M, 50M of 25M. Why not with hdv? 40 minits of hdv50 to a 80mins minidv-tape would sound very reasonable to me.

Again the reason for this is not technical...

Think about beta casettes: ten years ago you could put there 88Mbps (digibata) and now you can put there almost 500Mbps (hdcam sr).

Toke, you would be well served with a Z1 for movie making, just use CF25 and forget about CF24 unless Charlie White's observations about 48i/CF24 on the Z1 were correct.

As staunchly as I'm saying CF24 on the FX1 is BAD (see my test from a post earlier in this thread), I say that CF30 and CF25 modes are GOOD.

Judge for yourself, locate and download some of Kaku Ito's clips from this board and see.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

24P is a cadence that people are used to. Overall, it has little to do with the film look.
Here I completely disagree. 24P, and grain, are the single most important factors in the film look.

It's important to separate out the "movie" look from the "film" look. Movies look like movies because of art direction, lighting, composition, etc. But all those elements can be equally applied to video or film shooting. Even shooting the same scene with the same lighting and the same cinematographic techniques and the same DOF, 60i video will look like "video".

People talk about DOF... you can shoot film in the exterior daytime, wide-angle on f/16, the whole world will be in focus, and it'll still look like film. You can shoot video with hyper-shallow DOF and it'll still look like video (you see this in sports all the time).

Contrast ratio? You can shoot a flat-lit scene with an overall 2:1 contrast ratio on film and on 60i video, and the film will still look like "film", and the video will still look like "video". Shoot it on 24P video and it'll be very difficult to discern which was film and which was 24P video.

There are many differences between film and video, including color response, latitude, grain, and temporal motion. The temporal motion signature is the #1 most easily discerned difference between film and video, and IMHO it is the most important element in creating the sought-after "film look".

<<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle :
Motion blur doesn't have to be low temporal resolution. There is technology that can allow it to happen.
...
sorry, "Impossible" doesn't fit with my knowledge of technology. any more than apparently "never" and technology doesn't fit with yours. -->>>

What is this technology?
Eg. how can you get motion blur of 1/48 seconds exposure time to 60i frame? Frame blending?

Fitting the movement of 1/48 seconds to image with exposure time of 1/60 sounds at least a bit hard for me. Maybe you can alter time? :-)

Barry,
you're right, I'm just getting caught up in the moment of response. What I meant was the cadence of 24 isn't everything when compared to what else is important. Of course the feel of 24 is part of the "film look" and it provides a good portion of the emotional aspect of the visual experience. I'll retract that portion in the context in which I said it.

I suppose I'm getting tired of the rumor, inaccurate comments, and potshots being taken at a camera that only perhaps a hundred or so people have actually seen, shot with, and edited with, and it's definitely taking it's toll on my patience.
Apologies to you and anyone else that might take issue with the statement.

Toke, all things will be revealed when Sony decides to express what's being done inside the camera. Until then, it's all circumspection, right?

Hey Spot,

I'm totally with you on that. Rumors and potshots are very tiring. I much prefer to get to the bottom of what is factual, whenever possible (again, kudos to Chris Hurd for running his site that way).

For the record, I don't really care whether the Sony delivers "genuine" 24P or not. I just want it to look like it does. Haven't been overly impressed with CF24 on the FX1, but the testimonials from you and Charlie, and the tantalizing prospect that the Z1's CF24 may be better than the FX1's, are very intriguing. Near as I can tell, the PDX10 does indeed do 16:9 differently than its "consumer" sibling, the TRV950... so it's not unprecedented for Sony to implement similar features differently on different-class cameras.

I don't blame you for losing your patience. The rumors and the "mine's better than yours" arguments get very old. For the longest time, people who didn't have access to 24P would say "24P's not important, it's all about lighting." People with 24P but 1/3" chips would say "who needs shallow DOF, look at Citizen Kane."

I think it would make things easier if we could separate the Film Look away from the Movie Look. Movies look like Movies because of all that goes on in front of the camera -- lighting, set design, art direction, sound design, etc. Film looks like film because of the inherent tangible properties of the medium (grain, 24 fps discrete frames, etc). There've been millions of feet of 8mm home movies that have been shot that look nothing like a "movie" but still look like film! :)

DSE,

Don't get too worked up. Remember we all just went through this same type of hype/myth/confusion/image quality... ad nauseum stuff eariler this summer before and after the XL2 was announced.

Hope you're doing well out there.

=gb=

Yeah, I've gone thru this with the XL2, various builds of Vegas, ACID, Sound Forge, DVD Workshop, etc. Everyone always seems to "know" what's going on when no one really knows what's going on, even the engineers at various companies.
I just need to take a breather. I think for me, it started when an idiot on another forum called my Sony press conference presentation "amateurish" when he wasn't even there. Since then, I've had a stiff neck. Maybe some wine and sunshine will cure what ails me. :-)

Technology changes all the time and companies aren’t always willing to tell you everything before their product is officially launched. That's just the reality of it.

Personally, I appreciate all the opposing views expressed here and kudos to everyone for that. I do feel like a juror at times. Although the outcome of this trail may affect my professional life deeply, at least there is no lying fertilizer salesman to deal with. ;-)

While I do trust the opinions of many of the esteemed members who have seen the CF24 in action and loved it, I shall still hold out judgment until I actually see the footage and play with camera myself.

Now, I like to ask the practical use of the CF24 technology. Can it be output from the camera and recorded on film at 24fps? Or is CF24 just for shows i.e. display on a HDTV set or large projection screen in a theatrical (i.e. non-broadcast) environment? This may give us some clue about why Sony would reserve some Z1 announcement until Sundance.

I am sold on the Z1 already. The FX1 too even if the CF24 may not be the same for both cameras.

Lastly, this forum is the best with all you wonderful and knowledgeable folks around.

Toke:

<< You keep repeating "read my post", but won't answer my simple questions, which aren't answered in your previous posts. If you don't want to answer or talk about it why don't you just say it? I'll ask once again and then drop the subject. >>

I realize that you are new here but I want you to understand that this kind of attitude is very strongly discouraged here. He has answered your questions plainly and directly and in detail. Perhaps you do not like the answers. There is nothing we can do about that. If you did not understand his answers then please say so and ask for a clarification. Otherwise I will insist that you drop the subject.

<< If it is a language problem, maybe you should try to explain things more clearly or declare this site to be native english speakers only. Don't forget that the rest of the world has learned to speak your language, so that you don't have to learn theirs. >>

When I created this board, I wanted it to have an international membership appealing to people from all over the world. And in fact this has happened, much to my delight. However, due to the limitations of a text-based message system which discusses points of interest about digital video technology, there really is no other choice but to do it in english. For better or for worse, english is the language of business these days. I do not wish to impose any inconvenience on our international members, especially since I place such a high value on our worldwide appeal and the diverse array of nationalities that are represented here. But practical purposes dictate that we use english as the official language of the forum. We have always been more than happy to accomodate members for whom english is not their native language -- our history proves this. With that said, if you have a need for further clarification of a subject or if you just want to see different words explaining the same thing, we will always be happy to do that. But please keep a courteous tone at all times here. Politeness brings politeness. Most of us here are strangers to each other but we all pursue the same interests. If there is a misunderstanding, it should be resolved with a smile and a positive attitude. Things go so much better that way.

Just wanted to add, so that my input wouldn't be all that negative, that there are lots of features in fx/z1, that has never been in these small cameras.

First of all this is the first with real 1/3" 16:9 chpis, isn't it?
XL2 has 4:3 chpis, so its 16:9 area is smaller than 1/3".

I've been waiting for this since -95 when I bought myself first 16:9 tv and vx1000.

This Expanded Focus thing also sounds promising; it's been hard to focus with pd150's lcd...

How is the sensivity of the z1?
I noticed that in tele end of the zoom max aperture is only 2.8 instead of pd150's 2.4. Combining this to very small pixels in ccd, this doesn't sound promising...
Is the sensivity same with hdv than dvcam or might there be somekind of coupling of ccd pixels in dv mode to get more sensivity?

That's also nice that you can have both stereo mic and a shotgun mic on the camera. I wish there would have been 4 audio tracks; if xlr's would have been 4-pin stereo ones, it would not have needed even more surface space from the camera.
Many times it would be nice to get eg. two body mics, boom and camera mic all to the same tape.
Well, maybe it's better to have more from that limited datarate to video...

I didn't really see anything wrong between the debate between Douglas and Toke.

But I find it funny that you jump all over Toke for wanted his questions answered or misunderstanding, which ever one.

But you don't jump on the person who wrote out his answers in caps and boldface.

My understanding using caps is shouting on the net. Now if its in bold is that not screaming?

I wonder why you didn't call down that person as well?

Again I think they were saying the same thing but in different ways and they just couldn't figure out between them what was going on.

Toke:


<< So the quality is incredibe, but the idea is to make profit?
See the problem? >>

No. I do not see any problem. If the quality was poor, it would not be in demand, it would not sell and therefore it would not be profitable.


<< Idea is to make as much profit as possible, which means to offer optimum quality-price ratio that increases the sales the most. No "best quality". >>

I'm sorry but you are mistaken. This is incorrect. Throughout the worldwide market, the "best quality" products are always the most profitable. Automobiles for example. The highest quality BMW or Mercedes car also carries the highest profit margin for the manufacturer. You are trying to draw a relationship where high profit equals low quality and this simply is not true. In fact, in reality the opposite is true. In general terms, best quality equals higher price equals most profits.


<< Are you also amazed that you can by 100 times faster pc with price of one quarter than 10 years ago? That's called progress.
And in 10 years there has been very slow progress in prosumer cameras. Just from vx1000 to pd150, mainly. >>

I do not think this is a good analogy. For twenty years now there have been only two "formats" of PC's that dominate the market share: Windows and Mac. The improvement of internal components such as operating systems, processor speeds, drive speeds and memory capacity is amazing. But it is done in increments, a little at a time. With camcorders, who wants to switch formats every two years? But a format change is what you get if you improve a tape transport by making it run faster. Continuously changing formats is not a good business strategy for a videographer.


<< Why would they go to 720p instead of 1080p? "That's not in the hdv specs" is wrong answer. >>

Actually it is the right answer. Consult the HDV specifications. There is no such thing as 1080p in HDV. And if there were, what do you think the entry-level price point would be? Certainly not $3700.


<< Neither was dvcam in the dvc specs. >>

And the vast majority of DVCAM gear is far, far more expensive than the vast majority of DV gear (the only two exceptions I can think of are the PD170 and PDX10 style cameras, but even these are still more expensive than their DV counterparts).


<< There is nothing wrong with expanding, but I feel a little bit cheated, when I have to buy a new thing every year, when they could have made it today for the next five years. >>

Well, here is a problem with the way that you are thinking. The truth of the matter is that you do NOT have to buy a new thing every year. Any dedicated filmmaker who is passionate about the story they want to tell can take a ten-year-old camera and a two-year-old computer and editing software, and create a work of art with it. You are never "forced" to buy something new. You can produce award-winning quality work using only mildly outdated equipment, and that's a fact. Perhaps you might feel like I do at times, just a little jealous of those who are just getting into this for the very first time and their choices are always better than what we had when we first got into it. But that is the nature of rapidly evolving technology in the marketplace. It is a mistake to think that you "must keep up every year." If you are careful with your business, you can change up your equipment every few years economically. If you are running a business, all of this gear should pay for itself within a few months at the most anyway.


<< Same thing eg. with Nokia's phones: they keep adding one feature at a time, although they could give all the features at once. So you had to wait 5 years to get a phone with fm radio and bluetooth. >>

You are complaining about the continuous incremental change in the technology of electronics products. Yet this is the nature of the marketplace. Blame capitalism, if you like. But the situation will not change. You are welcome to complain about it all you wish, but the situation will not change. Therefore I will ask you not to complain about it on my forums, because it does not help anybody and is not productive. My intention here is that we help each other to work within the limitations of the provided technology, and to explore what those limitations are and how to do productive work to the best capabilities that we can discover within ourselves and share with others.

There is a lot we can do on this forum to help each other. Helping each other is is a practical thing which serves a worthwhile purpose. It accomplishes something. Complaining about the nature of incremental product changes is not practical. It helps no one and accomplishes nothing. Now I respect the desire someone may have to change the system. Perhaps an effort can be led in a combined assault upon the Japanese electronics industry and the western capitalistic business model. But our forums here will not be the platform for that. You will have to use some other part of the internet to stage that campaign.


<< They wouldn't have to switch tape format. Eg. you can record to dvcproHD tape with 100M, 50M of 25M. Why not with hdv? 40 minits of hdv50 to a 80mins minidv-tape would sound very reasonable to me. >>

I think you may have answered your own question. There are other HD formats such as DVCProHD, HDCAM and HDCAM SR that will already do what you want. HDV is intended to be an affordable, inexpensive format. Your proposal will raise the price of HDV equipment. Why do you want to make it more expensive, when another existing HD format will meet your needs already?

Gary:

<< Now if its in bold is that not screaming? >>

My understanding was that if it's in caps, it's screaming. But if you like, I can disable our ability to to use bold, underline and italics.

<< I wonder why you didn't call down that person as well? >>

Because he did a great job of answering it very well the first time.

Great conversation going on here! Thanks for the clarifications, Chris!

heath

<< I wonder why you didn't call down that person as well? >>

Because he did a great job of answering it very well the first time.

To me that just shows how misunderstandings can take place. Because they both kept it going. I understood what Douglas was saying but according to Toke he didn't.

I just felt that both parties should have been told to knock it off. It doesn't matter if one party did a great job of answering it very well the first time.

It was the second time that mattered. But I do admit he did quit so maybe he did see the errors of his ways so we can get onto more important things.

<<< Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Toke:
<< Idea is to make as much profit as possible, which means to offer optimum quality-price ratio that increases the sales the most. No "best quality". >>
I'm sorry but you are mistaken. This is incorrect. Throughout the worldwide market, the "best quality" products are always the most profitable. Automobiles for example. The highest quality BMW or Mercedes car also carries the highest profit margin for the manufacturer. You are trying to draw a relationship where high profit equals low quality and this simply is not true. In fact, in reality the opposite is true. In general terms, best quality equals higher price equals most profits. >>>

I think you are wrong here. "Best quality" products are in niche and big profits are made with bulk products which sell 100 times more than "best quality".
If you sell one car in a year with 90% profit you don't make as much money if you would sell 1000 cars with 10% profit.
And I'm not saying high profit equals low quality, I'm saying that high profits don't equal best quality.

Eg. sony has made more profits with pd150 than with any other pro camcorder even if it's one of the cheapest pro models.

<<<
<< Are you also amazed that you can by 100 times faster pc with price of one quarter than 10 years ago? That's called progress.
And in 10 years there has been very slow progress in prosumer cameras. Just from vx1000 to pd150, mainly. >>
I do not think this is a good analogy. For twenty years now there have been only two "formats" of PC's that dominate the market share: Windows and Mac. The improvement of internal components such as operating systems, processor speeds, drive speeds and memory capacity is amazing. But it is done in increments, a little at a time. With camcorders, who wants to switch formats every two years? But a format change is what you get if you improve a tape transport by making it run faster. Continuously changing formats is not a good business strategy for a videographer. >>>

I think this is a perfect analogy.
You are right in that videographers don't want to change format every year and because of that when format changes once in a decade (dv->hdv) there should be great improvements like giving more bitrate.



<<<
<< Neither was dvcam in the dvc specs. >>
And the vast majority of DVCAM gear is far, far more expensive than the vast majority of DV gear (the only two exceptions I can think of are the PD170 and PDX10 style cameras, but even these are still more expensive than their DV counterparts).
>>>

You really didn't get the idea?
Sony has jumped out of the specs so many times before, that it wouldn't surprise at least me, that they would do it again. And fx/z1 will definitely be one of the most expensive hdv cameras just like vx2100 is one of the most expensive minidv camera.

<<<
<< There is nothing wrong with expanding, but I feel a little bit cheated, when I have to buy a new thing every year, when they could have made it today for the next five years. >>
Well, here is a problem with the way that you are thinking. The truth of the matter is that you do NOT have to buy a new thing every year.
>>>

Sony thinks I have to buy, I don't. It's just when you know something about technology and what the real content makers want, you can quite accurately tell what features in a new camera could be and when they are really going to be out in a market.

If you look at a history sony did make a mistake by not putting enough features in a new camera. PD170 didn't have enough features, so it couldn't compete with 100A and XL2. Without those two cameras releasing z1 would have been somewhere in the future. So PD170's market life will be extremely short for this kind of product; less than a year.

<<< Therefore I will ask you not to complain about it on my forums, because it does not help anybody and is not productive.>>>

So it's okay to praise sony here, but not okay to give some perspective to things here.
Your sandbox, so you make the rules, no problem.

It's just funny that everybody's asking does it have 24p and somebody's telling the objective truth that it does not have 24p because
a) 24p is not what you want even if you want it
b) even if you shouldn't ask or use 24p there is a fake 24p which is better than real 24p

I'm just giving my opinion why this camera is lacking the most wanted feature from it.

<<<<
<< They wouldn't have to switch tape format. Eg. you can record to dvcproHD tape with 100M, 50M of 25M. Why not with hdv? 40 minits of hdv50 to a 80mins minidv-tape would sound very reasonable to me. >>
I think you may have answered your own question. There are other HD formats such as DVCProHD, HDCAM and HDCAM SR that will already do what you want. HDV is intended to be an affordable, inexpensive format. Your proposal will raise the price of HDV equipment. Why do you want to make it more expensive, when another existing HD format will meet your needs already? >>>

If I had money to buy dvcpro100 or hdcam, do you think I would still be in this forum?
Problem for me being freelancer indie videographer in a small country that there are no good options in a price range from 5000¤ to 30 000¤ which I could afford.
Xdcam(imx) with a good lens is way more and to a hdcam you can add one zero if you also want to edit that stuff.

I wonder why is this?
Am I alone with this problem?
Why to get the next better model from pd170,100A&XL2 you have add zero to the pricetag and there is nothing between.

I wouldn't be complaining here at all, if there would be something like z1 5k$ + 1k$ for real 24p + 1k$ for 50M + 1k$ for 4 audio channels + xk$ for 1/2" ccd etc.

But nothing like this in the market, mainly because these Japanise giants don't think they get enough profits if they don't sell 200 000 pcs of the same model.

If this text is again too much out of scope and idea of this forum, just say it and I won't bother you any more.

Toke,

This is very simple, if you wan to buy one do it, if you dont dont.


If you want a feature it exists its a only a matter of how much your willing to pay for it, could they make it cheaper SURE but this is reality, and we cant change that, if you dont like it go over to the HOME-MADE HD threads on this very forums they are doing some wonderfull things.

Bottom line is:

get some first actual hands on experiance and decide for your self wether this tool will meet your "requirment/ expectation"

ad really thats all this is another tool, damn there is more too life than just boring specs....

<<<-- Originally posted by Anhar Miah :
get some first actual hands on experiance and decide for your self wether this tool will meet your "requirment/ expectation"

ad really thats all this is another tool, damn there is more too life than just boring specs.... -->>>

Thanks for a good advice but:
a) this thread is about a camera that almost nobody can get their hands on for several months. If you don't like speculation, this is a wrong thread to you.
b)I've heard that there is a life out there and camera is just a tool, but then again if you care what you do, then you care about your tools and if you talk only about a tool, there isn't very much more than the specs and features and how to use them and how good they are...

Now HERE is a total irony, IMO.

>>>>I wouldn't be complaining here at all, if there would be something like z1 5k$ + 1k$ for real 24p + 1k$ for 50M + 1k$ for 4 audio channels + xk$ for 1/2" ccd etc.<<<<<

So, you'll not accept a faux 24p that looks great nor will you accept a real 25P, but you'll accept substantially below industry standard audio? When overall audio is more important than video?
I can't follow that logic.

Further, 4 channels of audio aren't part of the HDV spec, and frankly, I can't see how it could be. It's already substantially dumbed down audio. Any dumber, it couldn't be used at all, anywhere. Maybe ADR will become super popular on low budget films or something.

No one here has suggested that the Sony Z1 has "true 24P" and that people are bothered by what you call the "objective truth."
What's objective, is that Chris and I, and a few others here on the site have seen with our own eyes, what the CF24 looks like. Some like it, some don't. We've also seen what the 30P looks like. Some like it, some don't. But we've seen it. The people who are crapping all over it HAVEN'T seen it, and certainly haven't seen it on a sixty foot screen where it's really difficult to hide artifacts. Particularly in a room of people who want to shoot it down. What's not objective is to take potshots at a camera or format you've not held, not seen, not shot, because it's not available yet.

Regardless of the tech-geek-speak, the math, and the "I know this or that because I have a life in video/film/television/monkey feeding" attitude, the camera outputs beautiful footage. It's an artists tool. It might not be the artistic tool you choose to use.
It would be really easy for me to brag on my Emmy's and Grammy's and say "Shut up because I know what I'm talking about." I won't say that, because it's meaningless to the discussion.
What I will say, is that as a professional with a long history in this biz offering his opinion, this camera looks great. CF 24 is very sweet. Is it a film killer? Nope. Is it a DVX 100 killer? If you like that cam a lot....then nope, it's not. Is it an HDCam killer? Absolutely not.
Where will it find use in the professional world?
The number one place is with television broadcasters. Great footage, and when the cameraman falls in a ditch, you can actually be (for the first time ever) more concerned about the cameraman than the 5K camera he just dumped in the mud. He won't have to worry about being fired. (BTW, that analogy came straight from the mouth of a technical buyer of one of the 3 largest networks and their Washington Bureau)
Then there are "filmmakers" and wannabe filmmakers that can't afford to shoot on film. And then there is government. And don't fool yourself for a second that they aren't already very hot on this product. They are. Sony made an allusion to that fact (which surprised the hell outta me) at the press conference in NYC. And then there is the rich traveler who wants to make home movies with the best cam he can buy that's luggable. He'll probably even hire some yuk to follow him around with the cam, since personal histories seem to be the life feature du jour right now. One of our trainers has been hired to follow a local sports legend around to make a "personal documentary" of this celeb's life, including his female conquests and his business deals.
So, this cam may or may not fit into your world. But it IS going to be a huge, monster selling cam and format. This upcoming NAB will be FILLED with the words HDV everywhere. If you don't have something related to HDV in your booth, you'll be a dead booth. I fully expect to see HDV speakers, HDV rubber washers, and HDV cable trays. Just like we saw Digital Speakers (whatever the heck those are) and USB2 moneyclips. (however they worked)

My parting comment in this thread would be to echo Anhar Miah...

>>>>>get some first actual hands on experiance and decide for your self wether this tool will meet your "requirment/ expectation"
<<<<<< Cuz' EVERYTHING else is just a guess. Or do we call that interpolation these days?

Good answer, Douglas!

heath

Toke:

<< "Best quality" products are in niche and big profits are made with bulk products which sell 100 times more than "best quality". >>

The camcorders we are discussing here are very much in the niche market. Ten to twenty times as many camcorders in the consumer range will be sold over the prosumer camcorders we're talking about here. And ten to twenty times the money will be made in the higher end professional broadcast division.


<< And I'm not saying high profit equals low quality, I'm saying that high profits don't equal best quality. >>

My own point is that within the realm of the cameras we're discussing, there is a very high level of quality for the money.


<< You are right in that videographers don't want to change format every year and because of that when format changes once in a decade (dv->hdv) there should be great improvements like giving more bitrate. >>

But doing so would decrease the total recording time available on the small cassettes. HDV is a consumer-prosumer level format and I think it's a good assumption that most users will want 60 minutes per tape. And even though the bitrate is the same (or less even), the error correction is much better. I think it's important not to get hung up on a numerical specification like the bitrate, and instead to evaluate the format based on the results it provides. The proof is in the quality of the image. You cannot evaluate that based on numbers. You can evaluate it only with your own eyes.


<< So PD170's market life will be extremely short for this kind of product; less than a year. >>

Actually the PD170 has been on the market for a year already and I doubt it's going away anytime soon.


<< So it's okay to praise sony here, but not okay to give some perspective to things here. >>

Once again, the purpose of this forum is to provide resources and interaction for people who are working with these tools, and how best to work within the limitations of the format.

There is no propaganda here. If someone wants to praise a manufacturer, that's their business (but that's not what these message boards are for). However I do have an issue with the nay-sayers and doom-speakers who like to pontificate about how useless one camera or one format is over another, or how a new camera or software or format doesn't live up to their expectations. The problem with most of these people is that they're always waiting for the next big thing, and they feel "held back" because they perceive the lack of a feature or some other limitation to be a manifested roadblock to their creativity -- they can't make their movie without 24p or native widescreen whatever. Well, that's an unfortunate mindset to have. Now a new camera comes along and we set up a forum for the people who are using it or who are going to be using it. If someone drops by and says, "I didn't buy this camera because it doesn't have xxxx feature," that's fine. But I have a problem when that person continues to hang out in that same forum all the time, talking the camera down. Just because it's not right for them, doesn't mean it's not right for everybody else. This person needs to move on. We have a large number of other camera forums. I want this person to find the right one, and to get involved with other people using the same camera that this person has chosen. If they're just hanging out talking trash about the one they didn't buy, well, that doesn't help anybody. It's not productive.

We had this happen in our XL2 forum a few months ago. A fellow gave his perspective on what was wrong with the XL2. And gave it again and again and again. Well, we heard him the first time. I would want him to find better things to do online than to talk trash about the camera he didn't buy. It doesn't help anybody, for one thing. Get over it, move on and please join us when you've made your decision on a new camera, is what I told him. No matter what he buys, we've got a message board for it.

So if you want to give some perspective about why these Sony HDV camcorders aren't right for you, you're welcome to do that. Once. This is a message boards for *users* and for people who are interested in getting one. If you've ruled it out, if it's not the right camera for you, then you can say so but then you need to move on. I would want you to join us in discussing the camera that you do decide to buy. These forums are for the owners of these camcorders to help each other out. If you don't own one and aren't interested in getting one, then you're in the wrong forum. That's pretty much how it works around here. I'm interested in setting up a technical exchange of useful, practical information for the people who are actually using this format. It's for their purposes and priorities. If the format is not right for you, I'm hoping you'll find some other part of our site that is.


<< I'm just giving my opinion why this camera is lacking the most wanted feature from it. >>

You've done so, and I appreciate that. The camera is what it is and our members here will actively discuss how to work within its limitations. But if you have no plans to own this camera in the near future, if it is no longer under your consideration and you've decided that it isn't right for you, then I'll have to direct you to one of our other forums which might be of better use to you.


<< If I had money to buy dvcpro100 or hdcam, do you think I would still be in this forum? >>

I would hope that you are here in order to share with others how to work effectively within the budget that you have.


<< Problem for me being freelancer indie videographer in a small country that there are no good options in a price range from 5000¤ to 30 000¤ which I could afford. >>

The vast majority of our members here are very comfortable working with the tools available in this price range. Many of our members here are quite successful in business using this level of gear. I'm not sure why you feel that the options aren't good enough for you, but if that really is the case then I'm afraid you might be in the wrong place, because that price range is the one we concentrate on primarily around here. A casual glance of our discussions indicate that most of our members think these options are workable. You might be out of our league.


<< Why to get the next better model from pd170,100A&XL2 you have add zero to the pricetag and there is nothing between. >>

Part of the challenge we face together here is how to produce effectively within a limited budget. That's a big part of what we do here.


<< If this text is again too much out of scope and idea of this forum, just say it and I won't bother you any more. >>

What I'm telling you is that I appreciate your comments, but the board is for the camera owners. Someone can ask and make a determination that the camera is not right for what they want to do. And they'll say so. And that's fine. But then they need to move on to something else.

I'm hoping that no matter what you choose to shoot with, that you'll enter discussions here with your fellow shooters and proactively discuss the tools that you're using. That is a practical thing and a helpful thing and it's what we're all about here. Talk about the tools you have. Not about the tools you don't have or don't want. There's no point to that.

<<< The number one place is with television broadcasters. Great footage, and when the cameraman falls in a ditch, you can actually be (for the first time ever) more concerned about the cameraman than the 5K camera he just dumped in the mud. He won't have to worry about being fired. (BTW, that analogy came straight from the mouth of a technical buyer of one of the 3 largest networks and their Washington Bureau)….>>>

Now, you’re talking, Douglas.

I also heard that many TV networks are taking a serious look at the two Sony camcorders where before they didn’t even consider the JVC offerings. News reporting, some reality TV shows and lower budget productions are a good fit for HDV. And if you have to mount one atop a helmet for a skydive, an FX1 or Z1 makes sense also. Of course, as you have also pointed out, there are the government users, corporate and commercial videographers etc. All with an eye for a not-too-distant HD future. Actually, HDV was used in a Fuji blimp overlooking the US Open ground earlier this year in Aug/Sep. in NY. JVC was the tech supplier for that.

If the networks collectively gave their nod to HDV (which is very likely given the low entry price point for certain HD productions), it will affect the indie filmmakers also as they will use HDV to make their masterpiece and sell it to the TV stations and have it simulcast in both SD and HD. Here, I think Sony’s CF24 may play a role as well. Not in terms of converting the 60i (or 50i) video into 24P but to deliver that software derived ‘film look’ all the way from the playback console of a TV station to a consumer HDTV set. If everything holds up, that will be something to behold.

Will that be what the Sony people will touch upon at Sundance? I’ll be much interested to find out.

My thanks goes to Chris Hurd for his tireless efforts in being fair and accommodating to all posters. Much appreciated.

+++++++++++++

Toke Lahti,

In the sub-$5K category, the FX1 and Z1 are the ‘best quality’ products given the commercial realities that Sony has to work under. And these two camcorders will be very profitable for Sony. I don’t think many doubted that. Sony’s got a couple of winners in their hands for sure, but Sony will not be selling very large quantities of these as they are niche products as Chris Hurd rightly pointed out. Because essentially, the FX1 and Z1 are upscale consumer and prosumer items. Many professional and serious videographers would buy them and many TV broadcasters will purchase them by the truckload too as they did with the VX1000 and VX2000 when they first came out. But the scoccer moms and many vacationers will always look for a palm-size camcorder that can deliver an HD image if they ever were looking for one.

Although somewhat evolution in scope, the Sony HDV entries can be considered a revolutionary product as it will shake up the industry like never before and help kick-start all sorts of HD productions into high gear.

Great post Chris!

After reading it, I think you are in the wrong profession. You should run for Office. Governor, U.S. Senate..etc. It sure is refreshing to see someone be a straight shooter (the facts) and yet at the same time be very encourging. Chris I can tell from past posts that you are not one who looks for accolades from others. But I just have to say, from what I have read (posts that you authored) your'e a hell of a guy, and I thank you for taking the time out of your (I'm sure very busy) life to keep such a professional message board running top notch. Because I know it's not easy when having to deal with different personalities from all walks of life and around the globe.

The official word from Sony on the CF modes of the Z1 translated from the Japanese are as follows

::

The cinema frame 24 which expresses the judo kana movement like the film 25 30 (*)

-Cinema frame 24
Atmosphere of 24 scenes/the second when it is used with the film movie is created.

-Cinema frame 25
At the time of 50i setting it is selection possible.

-Cinema frame 30
It is faced to the image which has, movement such as CM and promotion video.
* In each case the image pickup of CCD is 60i. Also record to the tape becomes 60i.


Combining the cinema tone gamma black stretch cinema frame, actualizing the expression like the film movie. You answer the demand of the digital cinema and the promotion video production person.

::

everything else is in the eye of the beholder


Frankly my opinion is that 24P worship has more to do with union and job protection than anything else.

That's why Chris is in charge.

heath

"Frankly my opinion is that 24P worship has more to do with union and job protection than anything else."

I am neither in a union nor a professional filmmaker. I prefer 24p over 30p and 60i. I think we have the right to make that artistic decision without it being belittled.

I agree with that. I feel 24p is great for my films, 30p and 60i is great for my video work.

heath

<<<I am neither in a union nor a professional filmmaker. I prefer 24p over 30p and 60i. I think we have the right to make that artistic decision without it being belittled.>>>>

Agreed. It's an artistic choice, and you shouldn't feel like you're making a poor choice.

That said, 24p is indeed highly overrated just on the "buzz" value of the number. A lot of people shoot with it because they're told they're filmmakers for using it, when other choices make for emotional expression very well too. Those that know what they're doing with it make great images, and then there are those that just make great messes. But they are THEIR messes, and no one can tell them it's right or wrong.

I believe it's just a sensitive issue regarding this particular camcorder, and it's easy to make it be an issue since so few people have played with it.

I like the look of 24p, personally, for my movies, but I've shot on 60i for years and 30p on my most recent short (HDV).

heath

Come to think of it, I prefer 18fps from Super 8 or 8mm reels. They truly have a magic quality to them. More so than 24fps film. Sometimes I look at old home movies they show on TV of just some guy walking on snow around his cabin and I find that so engaging. It evokes such a nostalgic feeling mainly because of the slower pace of 18fps.

Actually, I think most people would have trouble distinguishing between 24P and 30P in a comparison test if you show them one after the other. I know I would miss at least some of the time.

"Actually, I think most people would have trouble distinguishing between 24P and 30P in a comparison test if you show them one after the other. I know I would miss at least some of the time."

Not only that, Ray, but most of those ridiculously expensive film commercials you see on the tube are shot in 30 fps, as well as many music videos.

Yup, 30 fps looks great on tv. Expect to see more of it as high def matures in broadcasting. HiDef widescreen concert footage at 30P with 5.1. Yummy.

Wayne Orr, SOC

If you took an alien or a person from a culture that had never experienced movies or television, put them in front of a nice HD monitor and showed them the same material originally photographed first as 60i and then as 24p, I think there'd be no question they would prefer the 60i. It would look "more real". Heck, I think we all would, if we could see with fresh new eyes.

However...

...We live in a world where close to 100 years of experience with 24fps has told us that this is "quality".

The temporial step of video is equated with "live" or reality, or inexpensive, or news. That is just the way it is, like it or not. You can dress up 60i with the best lighting, the best photography and it will still scream out "This is video!!!" Even a grandmother can tell the difference on some level, and come to a conclusion about the "quality".

Several years ago when the Spirit DataCine first came out, we shot some 35mm 30fps film for a client and transfered on the Spirit to video. The Spirit produced a remarkably clean, steady image. An image that the client then turned to us and said, "Why did you shoot video?". The film footage was lacking most of the "film clues". Even with the dynamic range, DOF, etc. it was the temporial beat and the lack of grain that bothered the high end client the most.

24fps, viewed either in a movie theatre or as transfered to video with 3:2 is burned into our collective brains as the choice of a high quality production. Fair? Who cares, it just is. Having a 24/25fps ability just removes one of the many hurdles between you and the audience when shooting dramatic programming.

Maybe this will shift away at some point in the future, but today isn't the day that will happen.

My two cents...

Jim Arthurs

The arrogance of the statements made here often astonishes me.

I guess photographs are preferable to oil portraits? Heck, I guess oil portraits are better than stone sculptures? Stone sculptures are better than frescos? Etc.?

If all that matters to your eyes are pretending that you're seeing it live, then I guess 60i or 60p is the way to go. Fortunately "realism" is not the be all and end all for most artists and audiences. I think even aliens would recognize that, unless they've become so dependent on their "realistic" technology that they can't appreciate art anymore.

Additionally, the human eye's physical response to 24fps and 60i is very different. 24 frames per second is said to invite the dream state, or at least a relaxed state, which aids in creating the feeling of entering another world, while video at 60i has been proven to be more jarring and less apt to 'carry you away." This isn't just a meaningless debate. It comes down to how our eyes work and respond to moving pictures, and is therefore not just arbitrary or the product of cultural conditioning. It's pure and simple science! Both 24p and 60i could be used to exploit the respective physical responses they generate, but they are definitely not the same. And for my money, 24 frames per second, or other close variations thereof, such as 18 frames per second, will always be preferable to 60i.

I think it can be safely said that 60i vs. 24p vs. 30p or whatever, it's all a *choice* that you can make. There is no one single definitive way to do it. It's an aesthetic decision one way or the other. Fortunately these cameras provide these kinds of options.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Orr :
Not only that, Ray, but most of those ridiculously expensive film commercials you see on the tube are shot in 30 fps, as well as many music videos.

-->>>

What? Which ones? No way.

Way!

Careful there John, Wayne is an SOC working in Hollywood and he knows what he's talking about. I'm sure he'll be happy to give you some examples though.

<<The arrogance of the statements made here often astonishes me.<<

Peter... are you referring to me? I'm PRO 24p. Read my post again, carefully, if you think not. But, no, I wouldn't agree that fresh eyes would think 24fps necessarily better or more esthetic to view. I don't think fresh eyes would post ANY esthetic value to either until some time had past and the various uses of each were demonstrated.

I never used the word "artistic" to describe 24p, but of course it can be. I prefer it. I use it.

BTW, everyone agrees that stone sculptures ARE better than frescos. It's common knowledge. :)

Joel, science eh? No wonder I'm feeling sleepy... :)

Jim Arthurs

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Way!

Careful there John, Wayne is an SOC working in Hollywood and he knows what he's talking about. I'm sure he'll be happy to give you some examples though. -->>>

Whoa! Schwing!

I had no idea. :O

<<<-- Originally posted by Joel Guy : This isn't just a meaningless debate. It comes down to how our eyes work and respond to moving pictures, and is therefore not just arbitrary or the product of cultural conditioning. It's pure and simple science! -->>>

I wonder who the subjects of these studies were? Had they ever seen or been exposed to movies and tv before? If so, the jury pool, so to speak, is tainted.

Who's to say that their experiences in the past, setting in darkened movie theatres vrs watching the hectic pace of the world as revealed through video images isn't subconciously influencing their responses to the studies based on the image cadence? Maybe the fact that story telling via 24fps entertainment has pre-disposed the subject to a lulled, dreamlike state... culture influencing the outcome of the scientific test.

Just food for though...

Jim Arthurs

Jim,

I agree with your logic. However, there weren't really "tests" at all, rather a biological evaluation of how the human eye sees, and what it is used to, what it responds to, the level at which 24fps and 60i create something "natural to the human eye." Interlaced frames are not exactly comforting to our eyes, which progressive frames are. I'm simplifying of course, but that was my basic point. That beyond just what we are used to, our bodies react in certain ways to different frame rates. I think if cinema had started out as 60i, we would have grown used to it, but I do think it would have evolved in slightly different ways, as the physical reaction to it would have been slightly different. I'm not talking about huge changes, but maybe just small, unconscious ways in how we would think of the cinema, which is associated so much with dreams, and might not have been. I might be going too far...

"Peter... are you referring to me? I'm PRO 24p. Read my post again, carefully, if you think not. But, no, I wouldn't agree that fresh eyes would think 24fps necessarily better or more esthetic to view. I don't think fresh eyes would post ANY esthetic value to either until some time had past and the various uses of each were demonstrated"

I understand your post. It's just a bold statement to say that anyone would objectively (or should) prefer one over the other, even with fresh eyes.

The point above about the dream state is fascinating. I wonder if that would explain why some people, at least I, find 24p very pleasing but 30p very ugly.

If we're going to keep talking about 24p and its merits, I suggest we take the conversation over to our Film Look page (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=34). We're WAY off topic.

heath

<<<Yup, 30 fps looks great on tv. Expect to see more of it as high def matures in broadcasting. HiDef widescreen concert footage at 30P with 5.1. Yummy.>>>

Wayne, I don’t mind 30P (or 60i) at all. In fact, I think video has an esthetic all of its own which is often overlooked and under-exploited. If the subject matter and presentation techniques (mainly cinematography and set design) are right, then a 30P production can display a gritty reality that are more real than real. I think some of the original CSI shows point in that direction.

Anyway, a film can feel like a video but still won't detract itself from its artistic merits. For example, Stanley Kukricks' 2001 A Space Odyssey feels more like a video (especially the space craft sequences) whereas Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut feel more like a film. A Clockwork Orange (with its clean and futuristic setting) leans towards being a video. All are great productions no matter how filmic and video-ish they are being perceived. My personal opinions anyway.

It's all art, right? And at the end of the day, that's all that matters, because you created it. People might trash it, they might smash it, they might cry or laugh at it, but it's ultimately yours.

> What? Which ones? No way.

Most of the ones I have worked in. 30 fps por NSTC (or 29.97). 25 fps for PAL.

When talking about what "feels more like a video or film", I think this is absolutly impossible to quantify.

Truly, its a very personal thing. The greatest films of our time have been great because they've affected a massive amount of people in more or less the same way. Whatever that way may be.

But as to if the FX1 feels more like video or film, well...
I suppose thats difficult to say. Context~ Its all about context!

Anyways, thats my two cents...

Which ones? Thanks Chris. (groan) I'll get back to you with some specifics, after I hunt them down.

BTW, Chris, I haven't forgotten that other matter. More soon, if you are still interested.

Wayne