http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=29230

I'm "concerned" a bit about the paragraph re: cineframe 24 and how "good" it is... er, this sounds like news to me...??? Is there something we're all missing?

Great pics and great review overall - man, this kinda press gets my blood pumping - I cannot wait till 2005!!!

Review suggests the Z1 records at 48fps and with deinterlacing, records 24p? (not true progressive, but "exactly like 24p if not better"). who can confirm?

I can't get over the amount of conflicting information on this.

Anyway, if it is recording 48 fields per second, it is not "as good as" 24p, because blur still needs to be added to remove combing when there's fast motion.

It's probably good enough, though, at least for 1280x720 displays (which most now are). We're not going to get perfect 1920x1080/24p footage out of anything but the Cinealta.

If the article's even half true though, this WILL be my next camera.

I read this article this morning, and it seemed to me like the guy was brown nosing a little. It can't be as good or better than 24p because it isn't!

Murph

It has been reported on camcorderinfo.com by attendees at the unveiling in New York that the HVR-Z1 uses the same 24fps method as the FX1.

Hope this helps.

Chris, any comments on this? Maybe since DSE is so intricately involved via the editing process with Sony/Cineform, he can weigh in on this issue and clear it up once and for all?

Charlie is usually so thorough, so on-the-money - I can't decide if he knows something that the rest of us don't or if he's off the mark this time re: cineframe 24 on the Z1...

BTW, Chris, there was another article at dvformat.com that had a nice quote from you re: the cam from NY and if I was a Canon XL2 user, your statement alone re: Z1 would have converted me to Sony for all eternity...

"I was really impressed when I first saw the type of image quality that the Z1 captures" said Chris Hurd, president of DVInfoNet and HDV InfoNet. "And I remain impressed. Sony has outdone itself with this camera."

http://www.dvformat.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=29075

I don't think this is going to be resolved until we're actually using the camera.

<< It has been reported on camcorderinfo.com by attendees at the unveiling in New York that the HVR-Z1 uses the same 24fps method as the FX1. >>

Oh, please -- I have reported that myself, right here! I was there too, you know.

I'll get back to answer Mark's post here a little but later tonight...

Maybe the people at Sony don't even know.

Actually the people at Sony DO know. And, there is no conflicting information at all. Having read Charlie's article, I'm not seeing what the concern is here. His statement that CF24 is "as good as" 24P is his own subjective evaluation which he is certainly entitled to. Some people will agree with him on that and some won't. It's just like what I said earlier: CF24 produces nearly the same results as progressive scan -- but by a different method. The principles of good production values using CF24 are the same for 24P. In other words, if you're not careful with that frame rate then it's not going to look very good. CF24 is to these Sony camcorders as Frame Movie mode is to Canon and Panasonic camcorders: the best emulation of progressive scan that you can get with an interlaced chipset.

There is *no difference* in CF24 between the FX1 and Z1U. They are exactly identical in that respect. You get another gamma setting with the Z1U but the CineFrame 24 mode is exactly the same as the FX1. What the Z1U buys for you in terms of frame rates is the CineFrame 25 mode.

Any other questions, fellows? Charlie did write an enthusiastic review. It was nice to finally meet him in New York last week.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Having read Charlie's article, I'm not seeing what the concern is here. -->>>

The "concern" that some people are having is this statement:

"We first saw this CineFrame technology in the HDR-FX1, Sony ’s consumer-level camcorder , but in that model, the company billed it as delivering “a feeling of film-like 24 fps.” This new Z1 model is actually shooting at 24 frames/48 fields per second, so the CineFrame technology has an easier time of electronically combining two fields into one progressive frame, giving you the same or better video than you’d get if you were actually shooting at 24p, especially considering the small size of these CCDs. The result to these trained eyes is some great-looking, smoothly cadenced 24-frame footage that looks exactly like 24p if not better. Bravo, Sony ."

When he says "But in that model..." referring to the FX-1
and then "This new Z1 Model is actually..." referring to the Z1 specifically, it sounds as if he's comparing two two cameras.. basically he's saying the FX-1 only delivers a "feeling of fim-like 24fps" and the Z1 delivers the real thing.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : << It has been reported on camcorderinfo.com by attendees at the unveiling in New York that the HVR-Z1 uses the same 24fps method as the FX1. >>

Oh, please -- I have reported that myself, right here! I was there too, you know.

I'll get back to answer Mark's post here a little but later tonight... -->>>

Sorry Chris. I was aware that you had attended the event but had not read any posts you had concerning the matter of the 24f mode on the Z1.

It was my intent to only help Mark find an answer.

I apologize if you were offended.

Tim

Chris, sorry but there is definitely a conflict between what you're saying and what the article is saying. I'm obviously inclined to believe you, but I still question whether anyone at Sony has this straight. And no one has yet confirmed anywhere whether the pulldown is easily removed like it is on the Panasonic DVX100A. Or whether it uses 2:3:3:2.

For clarification so I don't add to the confusion.

I was speaking specifically concerning the 24f modes being identical on the Z1 and the FX-1, not the intricacies thereof.

The net is a wonderful thing but the proliferation of "misinformation" drives me batty!

Tim

<<<-- Originally posted by Peter Moore : Chris, sorry but there is definitely a conflict between what you're saying and what the article is saying. I'm obviously inclined to believe you, but I still question whether anyone at Sony has this straight. And no one has yet confirmed anywhere whether the pulldown is easily removed like it is on the Panasonic DVX100A. Or whether it uses 2:3:3:2. -->>>

I've sucessfully removed the pulldown from the FX-1 in after effects and it works great.. footage playsback smoothly. The FX-1 uses 3:2 pulldown.

Hey Tim...

<< I apologize if you were offended. >>

No worries -- actually I was amused, not offended. Sorry if it appeared that way!

<< The net is a wonderful thing but the proliferation of "misinformation" drives me batty! >>

Precisely the reason why I started these boards back in 2001. Now if I can just get you guys to stick around with us here, our goal is always the good information and only that. Forget about the rest of the net, there's a lot of inaccurate stuff floating around.

For Peter...

<< Chris, sorry but there is definitely a conflict between what you're saying and what the article is saying. >>

Can you clarify that conflict in some detail? Because I'm not seeing it. When Charlie White comments about the quality of CF24, he's stating his *opinion* which others may or may not agree with.

<< I'm obviously inclined to believe you, >>

Good on ya!

<< but I still question whether anyone at Sony has this straight. And no one has yet confirmed anywhere whether the pulldown is easily removed like it is on the Panasonic DVX100A. Or whether it uses 2:3:3:2. >>

Sony has it straight, and for the *record* their 3-chip 1080i HDV cams are using a 2:3 pulldown. Not 2:3:3:2. Hope this helps,

There is no valid reason to use 2:3:3:2 pulldown in MPEG-2. There are other ways of achieving a superior result.

///d@
Sony Media Software

Chris, the conflict is quite simple to see.

The FX1 shoots 60i. It uses in-camera interpolation to create a simulated 24P.

Charlie states flat out that the Z1 shoots at 24 frames per second (which implies true progressive scan at 24Hz rather than simulated/created from 60i). He then goes on to say that the CCD runs at 48hz when shooting the CineFrame 24 mode.

The FX1's CCD runs only at 60hz. If the Z1 is running at 48hz, that is obviously a HUGE difference: CineFrame 30 looks much better than CineFrame 24. If the CCD were running at 48hz, they could be creating this new CineFrame 24 using the same good technique as CineFrame 30 on the FX1, rather than the lower-quality CineFrame 24 of the FX1.

So there is a direct conflict. You're saying CineFrame 24 works exactly the same on both cameras. Charlie's saying that the CCD is running at a different frame rate, and then he also said that it is actually shooting 24 frames per second, which is a very very different concept than "creating" 24 frames per second out of footage that was shot at 60 fields per second.

Some clarification is necessary, because this is a directly conflicted point and one that could influence some purchase decisions.

Ah. Thanks, Barry. I can always count on you to explain things clearly (which is the mark of a good filmmaker, I might add!)

Well not to take a dig at Charlie White, but something's amiss here. I'm sticking to my story on this one.

Will get DSE's input -- wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

Pull down is easily removed. From a technical standpoint, most agree that 3:2 is the best method of approach.
Charlie's comments are his opinion. I happen to agree with him, I was there, saw what he saw on a glorious 62' screen. I've NEVER seen video look that good coming straight off a camera. Chris may or may not feel differently, we've not discussed this. I feel CF 24 is as good if not better than 24fps.
From a technical standpoint, 24P sucks. From an emotional/artistic standpoint, it's great. If you can have the emotional/artistic without the technical loss, where's the beef?
Editing is sweet and easy with this cam, you'll want to use the Lumiere, Connect HD, or Aspect HD plugs, only a fool would edit the t/s streams natively. Talk about pain and loss!

Sony's got it right. And as I play with this, perhaps you'll hear a sweet lil' bombshell soon....that's NOT Sony sanctioned, I'll wager, but a major beneficial byproduct of owning the cam. I just need to confirm a few more things.

This is exciting times, eh? :-)

Finally, straight scoop. I was getting luke warm about this cam. If the end result is as good or better than SD24p, then thats all that matters. Plus 50i/25p which is eaven easier to deal with.

I'm saving my pennies right now and figuring out what I'm gonna say to my long suffering wife. Might even get the vtr since it runs on batteries.

Joe, remember that the CF 24 being "as good or better than" 24p from the other cams, that's my opinion, apparently shared by others.
Here in part, is a post I made on another forum about 24P. I fully expect to be hammered, but this is my feeling:

One argument that I hear is just the "emotional quotient" of 24P. Frankly, I see that in the Sony Z1 cam using the CF mode. Is it exactly the same as film? Nope. Neither is the DVX 100. Argument lost on me then. If you want that exact emotional quotient, shoot film.

Next argument: "I gotta have 24P for matchback to film." OK, who here has done a matchback to film that was shot on a 24P camera? If so, why would you be using Vegas? Why would you be using a DV cam?

Next argument: "24P saves a lot of space on the DVD."
OK, I can buy/do buy this argument. In fact, I've used it frequently. You'd be surprised at how many of the VASST DVDs are done at 24P AFTER being acquired at 60i. And it gives an interesting cadence. Still not the same as being acquired at 24p.

Next argument: "24p is what George Lucas shoots at, if it's good enough for him it's great for me." Hello?! George Lucas doesn't shoot with a 4000.00 camera from Panasonic. He shoots with Sony Cinealta cams. Add another pair of zeros to the above figure, you too can have your own Cinealta with great glass. (ok, that's an exaggeration, Cinealta's don't cost 400K with glass, but it's closer than 4K is.) The Cinealta also doesn't use 1/3 chips.

Color and cadence are both what we want, yes? The "feel" of 24P with the depth of color that we get with 60i lit and shot well. So, with the new HDV cam, we get additional spatial resolution, nearly triple, actually. We get to keep our temporal resolution as well. We can always reduce spatial or temporal resolution in post or in the CF mode.
Now I'll be real insane in the minds of those that love 24p.
The film look is SO MUCH MORE than 24P. It's widescreen. It's colorspace management. It's color bloom, it's lighting, it's saturation, it's cadence, it's how things are shot, it's depth of field, and those are the things that REALLY count.
Show the average joe something that has shallow DOF, that is letterboxed, with slightly saturated colors, and he'll tell you it's film. Toss in 24P and that's just icing on the cake, but the sweetness in what people perceive isn't the cadence itself.
People in other forums are pissing on the Z1 because it's missing 24p at acquisition. Doesn't matter that Sony is concerned about image quality first, oh no! They want 24P regardless of how weak it looks by comparison, and that Sony knew people were after the "look" more than the math.

I'm one of those that shares Douglas Spotted Eagles opinion on the CF24. I've shot a lot of film and the CF24 looks as good as anything I've shot.

I don't have a HDTV set yet, but just got back from circuit city watching some footage I shot on the 34" Sony widescreen CRT and man that stuff looks brilliant. It's very cinema-like.

Chris,
You're saying that the FX1 and the Z1 have identical Cineframe24 modes. The article says:

"We first saw this CineFrame technology in the HDR-FX1, Sony ’s consumer-level camcorder , but in that model, the company billed it as delivering “a feeling of film-like 24 fps.” This new Z1 model is actually shooting at 24 frames/48 fields per second, so the CineFrame technology has an easier time of electronically combining two fields into one progressive frame, giving you the same or better video than you’d get if you were actually shooting at 24p, especially considering the small size of these CCD"

He is saying that the CCDs are operating at 48 Hz. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FX1 Cineframe24 does NOT do that. So there's a difference right there and a pretty significant one. And it would have a HUGE advantage over a 60i->24p process. There would be some resolution loss, but NO temporal jitters. And I definitely saw temporal jitters in the sample Cineframe 24 footage from the FX1.

Douglas, why from a technical standpoint, 24P sucks?

If 24F of fx1 is so good, why Charlie is saying in his article that in z1 24F is so much better?

The reason why z1 doesn't have 24P is just because people so desperately want it. So they can get IMX or XDCAM...

Does anybody remember how much sony's bigger camera sales went down in -96 because of vx1000?

How 24F is better than 24P?

Was that 62" display interlaced? (eg. plasma using ALIS)

Guess about different frequencies of ccd sounds quite reasonable. One thing I learned in "4:4:4 10bit single CMOS HD project"-thread is that these ccd/cmos cells can be tweaked a lot only if you just have an interface to them.

Can anybody come up with a reason why sony is so heavily sticking with interlaced picure?
Because its plasmas are interlaced?
Overall development with diplay technologies is going to progressive scan. What's the benefit with interlaced?

First, please read my ENTIRE post, as I explain why 24P sucks from a technical standpoint. Look for the words "temporal" in there.
I didn't say ANYTHING about the FX1 having bad 24p output. No where. Please read my post carefully.

The reason why z1 doesn't have 24P is just because people so desperately want it. So they can get IMX or XDCAM...
I don't think so. Sony wants you to have the BEST image possible. These cams use 1/3 inch chips.You can't even begin to compare these cams with the XD or HDCams. Totally different image.

Does anybody remember how much sony's bigger camera sales went down in -96 because of vx1000?
Who cares? It was a revolution, just like now. Aside from that, where are you getting your information? I'd struggle with accepting that there was a huge difference in sales unless Sony demonstrated it. Same would apply to Ikegami, Panasonic, and every other major ENG/EFP camera manufacturer.

How 24F is better than 24P?
Again, read my post if you want my particular opinion on this.

Was that 62" display interlaced? (eg. plasma using ALIS)
Again, read my post, I said 62' or SIXTY TWO FEET


Can anybody come up with a reason why sony is so heavily sticking with interlaced picure?
Because its plasmas are interlaced?
Overall development with diplay technologies is going to progressive scan. What's the benefit with interlaced?
Greater information, smoother images. Easier migration paths. History. Lots of reasons for the current time. Do you really think this particular generation of cams will be around in 10 years?

"Sony's got it right. And as I play with this, perhaps you'll hear a sweet lil' bombshell soon....that's NOT Sony sanctioned, I'll wager, but a major beneficial byproduct of owning the cam. I just need to confirm a few more things."

Ummmm, what is this, a detective novel? *L* Can't someone just come out and give the facts with this cam?

Remember, I don't work for Sony. I *think* a feature of the cam has been back-door uncovered, but I want to have someone at Sony verify what I think I'm seeing. If so, it's a really trick feature. If not, I'll keep my mouth shut as to avoid putting my foot in any further. :-)

Well, here's the question, the way I see it:

CineFrame 24 on the FX1 is, in my opinion from limited viewing, inadequate. It's lower-resolution with temporal oddities introduced by the 60i->24fps conversion.

The Z1 is the one I'm interested in (and have, in fact, already pre-ordered). I had assumed that for filmish video I would be shooting HD 1080/CF25 and converting it.

Charlie White's assertion is very interesting indeed. I mean, the Z1 already has a variable-scanning-rate CCD, at least as far as 50 and 60hz... would it really be that far of a stretch to think that they could have included 48hz as well? Or, for that matter, 24?

So Spot, the question goes to you: is your praise of CF24 based on the Z1 or the FX1?

Chris, the question bounces over to you: how sure are you that the FX1's CF24 and the Z1's CF24 are identical?

And Charlie, do you have any documentation or specs from Sony to back up the 24fps/48hz claim?

If so, this is very, very good news indeed. If not, it's just another rumor that needs to be squelched.

My praise of CF 24 is based on the Z1's footage that I've got. If I still could have my hands on the freakin' camera, I'd shoot both and post streams.
I've got a call in to the engineering team at Sony/Jersey to ask specifics on the diff's, because I think I know, but not gonna embarass myself by being sure of something that ain't so. (read Wil Rogers)

Douglas,
How 24F has better temporal resolution than 24P?
Is 24F same as 48i?

You just said earlier: "We get to keep our temporal resolution as well. We can always reduce spatial or temporal resolution in post or in the CF mode."

Does this somehow answer to my question?

And eg. 24P vs. 48i is not just about temporal resolution.
It's also about motion blur. You can never get the same motion blur with interlaced than with progressive.

And if 24fps/180degrees motion blur is widely felt like "cinematic" and therefore optimal goal, where do you need more temporal resolution?

I think we should compare every camera to each other.
That's the only way to talk about image quality.

Sorry about that inch/feet mixup, but have you ever seen any other hd format shown straight out of camera to a 62' feet screen?

I agree that reason for interlacing is history and I think that's where it should be left.
Interlaced picture doesn't look good with progressive display and that's what all displays will be in couple of years.
Why did EBU just recommended only progressive hdtv to Europe?
In the history interlace was chosen because the structure fo crt and to save analog bandwidth.
Crt's are history and progressive picture compresses better in digital domain.

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.
Sony sells interlaced hdv camera today so that they can sell progressive hdv camera next year.
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.
Think about if we would use as fast hard drives than nine years ago! No progress at all.
But it's cheaper to keep manufacturing the same tape mechanism for the next decade...

SIXTY TWO FEET !!!

what the flip!

you not gonna be exactly be hinding any image flaws/artifacts at that size.

Is that about the average size for normal cinema ?

apparently, some Chap was saying that the Z1's CF uses some kind of really cutting edge (sophisticated) software that is supposedly part of the mpeg2 codec, it apparently creates about 960 progessive image on still scenes, and drops to about 875-900 progressive lines when it comes to movement/motion which hes says is much better when compared to DVfilm which drops the resoloution to about 520 progressive lines.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Douglas' praise, and Charlie's praise, center on the Z1's implementation of CF24

Perhaps there is a difference?

I've got a Z1 on order, and access to a friend's FX1, so once it shows up I'll put it through its paces. But if there is a difference, it would be nice to know.

Where does everyone have this Z1 on order from'?

Anhar:

<< SIXTY TWO FEET ! Is that about the average size for normal cinema ? >>

It is the screen size of the Sony Theater high above Madison Ave. in New York, where the Z1U was officially presented.


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.

<< 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.

<< 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.

<< 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.

Hey Barry:

<< would it really be that far of a stretch to think that they could have included 48hz as well? Or, for that matter, 24? >>

But then wouldn't they advertize it? In, like, a really big way?

<< Chris, the question bounces over to you: how sure are you that the FX1's CF24 and the Z1's CF24 are identical? >>

During the Z1U presentation in New York, I attended the press conference in the Sony Theater. Charlie White, D.S.E. and Steve Mullen were there as well. During the Q&A, Steve asked how is CF24 different in the Z1U. The answer from Sony (by Hugo Gaggioni) was that there is no difference. I'm paraphrasing Steve's question, he asked it in a roundabout, more detailed kind of way but that's what he was getting at. Hugo's answer was fairly emphatic: no difference.

Again, nothing against Charlie White. I would have called my contacts at Sony today to get further clarification on this, but I'm on the road right now.

I've been wrong before though. But I promise we will get a definitive answer in here.

Toke, re: the "feel" of 24p, which is what you are describing as cinematic, and the artistic/emotional quotient that I describe, are all the same thing. Just different nomenclature.

I assure you, I know the differences between progressive's motion blur and the look of interlaced footage in the same scene.

Please read my post, I really don't see the sense in continually repeating myself. If it's a language thing, maybe someone can interpret what I said and fit it to what you are asking, because I feel I answered it more than once.

Chris, I don't think you are wrong.

Does anyone know what Sony's "surprise" for the Sundance Film Festival is with the Z1U? And could this "surprise" play into how some people are seeing a difference in the CF24 between the two cameras?

Anyone who knows anything about what Sony might have or not have going on or not going on regarding the Z1 at Sundance this January would not be permitted to comment in any way regarding the event or non-event that is planned or not planned.
What makes you believe Sony has anything planned? Sony has ALWAYS been a major sponsor of that event.

ok guys,


I am suppose to buy the fx1 tomorrow , but that is only iff its 24cf is same as z1. Thats the most important thing. If z1 24cf is any way better than fx1 i will wait and work on the script for 2 more months ..keep refining it ...but if there is no diff then I will buy it tomm...I am trading my dvx100...and my producer is paying...I have been constantly reading the views of you gurus and am happy I am on the forum. There has been war of words going on and also intense discussion on the tech differences. I respect everybody's views but I am getting confused every moment as the thread progresses. I trust only you guys and your sincere and honest criticism of each and every feature. Please guide me as if I should wait for two months on a no risk situation or just go ahead . XLR is no issue as I will be on an external boom into an external Hard Drive recorder with xlr. Only other thing is from the thread .......hmmm....if 24cf on z1 is somehow better..??????


Thanks guys ..keep on discussing as there is no concrete solution yet ....I dont see steve mullen intervening the discussion with his 2 cents ...that would have been much more information ....but maybe he has his own reasons.......I will make my decision only on the final outcome of you guys and no other salesman trying to sell me fx1 ..specially who has no clue about what he is talking about.

Thanks again ...you guys are the best



Kumar

Hi Kumar,

Thanks for your very kind words. My opinion has always been: if you have something to shoot now, then *now* is always the best time to buy.

Chris, thank you for your dedication to finding out the truth, that's one of the things I enjoy most about this board. You're quick to squelch false rumors, and you're quick to correct inaccuracies, and you'll go the extra mile to find out the facts!

Kumar, is there any compelling reason why you have to buy now? If you have to buy now, buy now. But if you can wait, the Z1 has many improvements other than just some XLR's. If there's no compelling reason to buy now, why not wait?

Just for hypergain and hypergamma alone is worth the wait, IMO.

I've been saying in various forums that there is a quality loss when comparing CF 30 to CF24 on the FX1, with the CF24 appearing less sharp.

I've made a small movie demonstrating the problem.

http://www.imageshoppe.com/video/Sony/CF24_vrs_CF30_split.mov

I took two shots from the Kaku Ito footage, both locked off views of a street and did a wipe from top to bottom and back again, with the CF24 footage "underneath" the CF30 as it wipes down then up.

As to testing technique, both raw m2t clips were loaded into After Effects, the CF24 clip was treated with 3:2 removal and placed into a comp with the CF30 clip on top with an animated mask revealing it from top to bottom and back.

Notice that the CF24 imagery is very "buzzy" (note when the wipe crosses the diagnal line of the fence).

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

http://www.imageshoppe.com/video/Sony/CF24_vrs_CF30_split.mov

downloading to HDD

Hi guys,

Thanks for your positive feedback as always. I think I will wait as suggested.... as I can wait .There is no compelling reason as of now because I havent even got the script yet. I will get it today or tomorrow. As the camera alone is not the only purchase , I will have to buy a new computer also for HD and a wideangle, plus some filters ...oh .......and also the editing software....I guess i should wait for two months and just get other things ready.

but if the producer insists that we shoot in the winter and finish by feb then I will go buy it.

Thanks guys ...you are the best as always

<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : You can never get the same motion blur with interlaced than with progressive.-->>>

Hi Toke,

Welcome to the forums. I wanted to comment on your statement from your post. I have been primarily employed in the semiconductor industry for the past 25 years. If there is ONE thing I have learned about technology, it would be:

NEVER SAY NEVER!

The engineers seem to keep finding ways to almost defy the laws of physics. I can tell you that in the early 80's, they claimed we would 'never' go beyond 1200 baud on a standard 2 wire phone line.

I haven't personally seen the FX1 or Z1 footage, but I believe what Chris and DSE are saying. I think Sony's engineers have probably figured out a path past 'never' in the quest to achieve a certain look without using the traditional methods.

Like Chris, I am amazed at how much camera image quality your $5K will get these days. I think we should pass a world wide law that states.."the words NEVER and TECHNOLOGY are not allowed to be used in the same sentence."

Again, welcome to the forum.

regards,

=gb=

<<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle : Toke, re: the "feel" of 24p, which is what you are describing as cinematic, and the artistic/emotional quotient that I describe, are all the same thing. Just different nomenclature.

Please read my post, I really don't see the sense in continually repeating myself. If it's a language thing, maybe someone can interpret what I said and fit it to what you are asking, because I feel I answered it more than once. -->>>

"Feel of 24p" consist a whole lot more than what I was talking about as you know. I just mentioned motion blur.

If we want to compare the image produced by different cameras in a logical, rational and analytically we have to focus on a one aspect at a time.

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 don't think this is a language problem, although I'd like to hear what you mean by "cadence".
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.

You have said:
November 19th, 2004 10:13 PM:
"Joe, remember that the CF 24 being "as good or better than" 24p from the other cams, that's my opinion, apparently shared by others. "
"One argument that I hear is just the "emotional quotient" of 24P. Frankly, I see that in the Sony Z1 cam using the CF mode."
"The "feel" of 24P with the depth of color that we get with 60i lit and shot well."

So what you are saying that with 24f you get better "feel of 24p" than with 24p itself and still you get temporal resolution as with 60i.
If part of "feel of 24p" comes from long motion blur (= low temporal resolution) then this is impossible.

Depth of color means bits per pixel in digital domain so it has nothing to do with this 24f/24p/48i/60i converation.

Now is your opinion that 24f is better than 24p because it's really 48i and does not have eg. motion blur of 24p but it's closer to 60i?

<<<-- Originally posted by Greg Boston : [i]
Hi Toke,
Welcome to the forums. I wanted to comment on your statement from your post. I have been primarily employed in the semiconductor industry for the past 25 years. If there is ONE thing I have learned about technology, it would be:
NEVE SAY NEVER! -->>>

Thanks Greg,
I still would say that it's impossible to get perfectly to the same result from one progressive frame than from two fields from adjacent moments of time. Maybe with huge processing you can get close like with these smart deinterlace filters, but not perfect.

And what is the idea desperately waste some engineer workyears for developing these secret advanced tehnics to convert interlaced image to progressive (or to look like progressive) when you could capture the frame progressive from the beginning?

Might be that some two years ago, when sony started to develop this first 16:9 6mm chip, they still believed that interlaced is good enough, but after 100A and XL2 they noticed that they have to do something fast to patch what was missing.

From what I have seen, 24f's resolution is worse than plain interlaced, but still I'm thinking to buy this z1...

Toke,
This is clearly a language issue.
Depth of color, is not related to pixel by pixel basis, but rather the saturation perception of the viewer. If you want to discuss this on a technical level, we'll use words like "chroma" instead of color.
"Cadence"=rhythm. 24p has a rhythm. So does any other fixed framerate. 24P is a cadence that people are used to. Overall, it has little to do with the film look. "Cadence" is a common industry term here in the US. I don't know about Finland, I've only been there once. Do a search for cadence, 24P, you'll be hit with LOTS of information.
Motion blur doesn't have to be low temporal resolution. There is technology that can allow it to happen.
Again, if you'd read my rather lengthy post clearly, you'd recognize I'm saying this, but since English isn't your first language, (mine either, for the most part) you're missing the nuances of what I'm saying.
As I said in the post, you aren't going to get great information out of a 1/3 chip.
That said, everything about this camera hasn't been put to bed yet, so who knows what Sony will do.
I realize that in a mathematical sense, you think you've got this all figured out, and you likely do. What that has to do with the emotional/artistic value of the camera is beyond me.... I've held and shot video with this camera, I've seen it on big and small screen, I'm impressed as hell, whether it's CF 24, CF 30. The camera DOES provide for motion blur, and it's very sweet. Ask anyone who has seen quality footage shot by this camera.
sorry, "Impossible" doesn't fit with my knowledge of technology. any more than apparently "never" and technology doesn't fit with yours.