And yet once again I have to agree with Barry and Graeme.

I sometimes think SONY loves 1080i just because it sounds more impressive in a brochure. I don't think very many people could really tell the difference between the two if it was shown on a HDTV. Yes it would be nice to have 1080p but 1080i is far from 1080p. Like I said above have fun spending countless hours converting your 1080i footage into 1080p.

I even question at this point if the 1080i/p on the Panasonic is going to be good enough. This is a camera with the same size chips and type of lens as all these other cheap HD cameras so how well could it even look? Now Panasonic could have taken a page from Reel stream to get some half way decent results. Look what the guys at Reel Stream did with the 720x480 chips from the DVX100A.

I know I haven't seen any footage from any of the new 720p cameras but I know Graeme knows what he is talking about when it comes to image quality. I think I might be leaning towards getting a HVX200 and a HD100. They do cost a lot more together so I might have to make due with just 2 HD cameras for now.

Radek/JG/Don Quixote/Etc, I think we liked you better when you posted under your Joseph George alias -- at least then you didn't drop words out of your sentences to make it sound like you were a foreigner. Your tirades have always been a little difficult to follow, but at least they were usually proper English; now it's even more difficult to follow what you're saying. Except for the one constant: "sony good, matsushita bad" -- that part's coming in loud and clear in your posts.

ANSWER: Comon, I don't criticize your DVX, HVX propaganda, anti-Sony, pro-Panasonic retoric, don't need your BS. You made so many posts of DVX better than FX1 in past that can't do more but turn head why you did that.
------------

Nigel, the question was: why the JVC instead of the Sony? There are many differences between those two products, and for some people's circumstances one will be obviously a far superior choice than the other. For someone doing TV commercials, the JVC. For someone shooting live events, the Sony. For someone shooting for a 720p network (Fox, ESPN, ABC) the 720p JVC. For someone shooting for a 1080i network (NBC, CBS, PBS, Discovery), the 1080i Sony.

ANSWER: If shoot for 720p networks, need 60p, not 30p. Creating 720p60p from 30p? Do you think can fool them with converted rate to 2x, do you think pros shooting for networks will use uncompressed 60p output, record to computer or super expensive recoreder? Some 90% HDTV broadcast worldwode is 1080i, including Japan, there 1080i started years in front of US. Korea, Europe, significant majority of U.S HDTV broadcast is 1080i. Some only 10% world HDTV broadcast is 720p and is in US only. No 1080i broadcaster or country, ever going switch from 1080i to 720p. If there ever switch, it will be 1080p.
--------

If someone values the shoulder-mount form factor or the broadcast-style lens or the ability to interchange lenses, the JVC is obviously prefereable for those circumstances. But, the JVC costs more. And it doesn't shoot "live" footage. And that's a major, major drawback. For someone shooting live events or reality TV, someone who wants and needs the 60i/60p look, the JVC can't do it.


There are three basic frame rates that people are discussing here, which are 24p, 30p, and 60i/p. They break down like this:

24P: JVC should be superb, Sony is an atrocious simulation
30P: JVC should be superb, Sony is half-resolution simulation.
60i/P: Sony does superbly, JVC doesn't do *at all*.

ANSWER: You forgot 25p. Europe shoots 25p, 24p and 25p makes no differnce. Slowdown and digital pitch change in post extremely easy and fast. You can go from 24p to 25p very easily. No one in audience will ever notice difference. So Sony FX1E and Z1 do have 24p, made from 25p. Sholder mount? Just get shoulder mount for the Sony.
-----------

So for those wanting a specific frame rate, the question should be really quite easy. Just pick which frame rate suits your shooting style (film-like, go JVC; reality-like, go Sony).

ANSWER: As I said, forget Sony's 24p, use their excellent 25p or use superb, fast post conversion by DVfilm software.
---------

Regarding overall quality of the footage, you really can't compare them directly because they don't do the same frame rates at the same sizes. 720p HDV and 1080i HDV are utterly different, but at the core they will provide about the same perceived resolution, when all is said and done. But not at the same frame rates. The JVC's 24p/25p/30p should (should) be substantially, significantly sharper than the Sony's CF24/CF25/CF30. But the JVC has no way to compare against the Sony's 50i/60i. It doesn't even try. The best it offers is "motion smoothing" on 30p, which we have yet to see, but should be about comparable to shooting 30p with a 1/30 shutter (in other words, it'll probably be blurry and nowhere near a direct simulation of 60i). But, we'll see...

ANSWER: The JVC recorded to tape will NOT be significantly sharper than CF24, CF25, for certain not when converted by DVfilm. CF24? Yes, the JVC will be significantly better, just shoot 1080i50-60, deinterlace by DVfilm or use CF25.
-----------


With the JVC, you could always change out the lens. I wouldn't be surprised if the stock lens of the JVC was not a great performer, probably comparable to the Z1's lens (not bad, but a lot of C.A.). But the JVC has the option to put on other glass, something the Sony can't do (well, at least, without a hacksaw and the help of Eidomedia, that is). BUT: the alternative lenses for the JVC are pricey pricey pricey, so I doubt fewer than 5% of HD100 users will ever get the optional lens.

For super-telephoto work, the JVC wins hands-down. For shoulder-mount "looking-like-a-broadcast-shooter" concerns, the JVC wins hands-down. For actual manual control of the lens, the JVC wins. For OIS and autofocus and the programmable zoom/focus feature and all that stuff, the Sony is the clear and obvious winner. And the FX1 is much, much cheaper... the Z1 is a little cheaper ($300 retail, we'll see what street price is). Plus the Z1 is true international (does both 50i and 60i, NTSC and PAL) whereas the JVC is only partially international (does 24p/25p/30p, but only NTSC OR PAL, not both).

ANSWER: For super telephoto work, use telephoto extenders on the Sony cameras, which lot less expensive than 82 mm JVC accessories.
---------

Graeme's seen footage from the JVC on tape, and I believe he said it was the best-looking HDV footage he'd ever seen. JVC's implementation of HDV has a lot less compression than Sony's implementation, which should make it cleaner with less susceptibility to motion artifacting/macroblocking/etc. You just have to make sure that the type of shooting you intend to do with it is appropriate for the framerates it offers.

ANSWER: I have Sony FX1E and microblocking, motion artifacting is myth. Unless do extremely fast pans, etc., which are ridiculous anyway. Difference between Sony and JVC artifacting not be that different anyway because compression is about equal, because you guys don't take consideration fact that Sony has GOP 12-15, JVC has GOP only 6, makes Sony compression equal to JVC compression. Longer GOP MPEG2 is more efficient.
----------

For TV display, probably (and this is a wild guess) 90% of the HDTVs out there are 720p-native. JVC's making a big point of that in their marketing. There are a few 1080i TVs (mostly CRTs) and a couple of 1080p televisions, but the vast, vast majority of LCDs and plasmas and DLPs and everything else are 720p native. Plus Europe looks poised to go 720p. The US allows both standards, and so far the major sports networks have gone 720p (ABC/Fox/ESPN) and the others have chosen 1080i. In Europe it'll pretty much be 720p-only, pending the EBU's release of a final recommendation.

ANSWER: You, Panasonic man and Steve Mullen, JVC man, been repeatedly saying that. JVC, Pansonic are Matsushita brands, Matsushita is pushing 720p HDTV, Sony pushing, lot more successfully, 1080i. Just small segment, maybe 10%, not 90% of HDTV's in use are 720p native. Most what was sold as HDTV are EDTV with 480p performance, added downsampling from 720p, 1080i. Many were plasmas, many were made by Matsushita. See native resolution of sets. Just because now are lot more 720p's sold does not mean it was past or will be future. Future HDTV sets is 1080p. JVC announced two new lines HDTV sets Japan and Canada. One is 1080p native, one 720p native, same screen sizes, 1080p somewhat more expensive. Westinghouse now offering native 1080p about 37" LCD set for only 2,000 USD list. Panasonic, Hitachi keep making plasmas, two Japan's most respected TV makers, Sony and Toshiba abandoned plasmas, because LCD better quality image. It's not true Europe will be pretty much 720p. Only HDTV broadcast we have are two 1080i satellite channels, Sony been very active pushing 1080i in Europe, providing kit of HDCAM camera, HDCAM VTR, HD lens, software, etc. to every European country at about 30,000 euros. Is provided to state controlled broadcasters like BBC, Czech TV, etc. Sony's push for 1080i in Europe been very strong, that's why EBU backed away decision on 720p. Sony's logic is future will be MPEG4, level 10, 1080p, plus future HDTV sets will be all 1080p native, so 1080i more suitable.
---------

So, in other words, there are very good reasons why someone would choose one of these cameras over the other. They both do things that the other one doesn't. You just have to determine which unique capabilities are more important to your shooting style -- after that, the choice should be easy.

ANSWER: That is true. Thank you. I'm sending copy of this to Sony CEO. I do have his email address, was provided by someone. Sony should know what going on these boards, especially one you moderate.
----------



My answers are above.

I sometimes think SONY loves 1080i just because it sounds more impressive in a brochure. I don't think very many people could really tell the difference between the two if it was shown on a HDTV. Yes it would be nice to have 1080p but 1080i is far from 1080p. .

As an owner of a WUXGA projector that shows on an 11.5' screen, you can tell one hell of a diff between 720p and 1080i converted to 1080p. No, I don't like the render time. No, I don't like that the cam doesn't shoot it. But...720p converted to 1080p doesn't look at all the same as 1080i converted to 1080p, and I've viewed it at p30 and p60 both, with a variety of different footages as tests. I've not done a full-length anything in 1080 p 60. I don't think I've got a vacation coming up during which I could render. But...It's not just Sony's "thing" but rather where the industry is heading. 1080p60. I hope it's ubiquitous while I still have decent eyes to enjoy it.

Barry, Thomas, Graeme,

Thanks for your responses - very valuable.

[QUOTE=Barry Green]Radek/JG/Don Quixote/Etc, I think we liked you better when you posted under your Joseph George alias -- at least then you didn't drop words out of your sentences to make it sound like you were a foreigner.


Hmmm, I've pondered over these 'Radek' posts...

Cheers,

Nigel

Guys, just a friendly reminder from the management... we really can't allow this to turn into a discussion about personal feelings regarding each other. Please try to concentrate on technical issues. Thanks!

As an owner of a WUXGA projector that shows on an 11.5' screen, you can tell one hell of a diff between 720p and 1080i converted to 1080p. No, I don't like the render time. No, I don't like that the cam doesn't shoot it. But...720p converted to 1080p doesn't look at all the same as 1080i converted to 1080p, and I've viewed it at p30 and p60 both, with a variety of different footages as tests. I've not done a full-length anything in 1080 p 60. I don't think I've got a vacation coming up during which I could render. But...It's not just Sony's "thing" but rather where the industry is heading. 1080p60. I hope it's ubiquitous while I still have decent eyes to enjoy it.

This means if you do film out, means using 2K burner, you're better shooting at 1080i, which is 2K, and rendering to 2K, although is very slow, than shooting 720p, which is 1K, and rendering to 2K. 1080i originated footage should give better quality image on film than 720p. I've herad from DP's that quality for film out is about same for 720p Varicam and 1080i HDCAM, not 1080p HDCAM, origination.

If understand correctly, if CCDs and lenses are excellent, 1080i HDV may have edge over 720p HDV for film out, and for conversion to 1080p, which where is industry heading.

Radek

"ANSWER: The JVC recorded to tape will NOT be significantly sharper than CF24, CF25, for certain not when converted by DVfilm. CF24? Yes, the JVC will be significantly better, just shoot 1080i50-60, deinterlace by DVfilm or use CF25."

But as one of the few people who've actually seen HD100 720p24 footage, I can tell you it's a lot sharper than anything of a FX1 or Z1, and looks less compressed.

As for "everyone is broadcasting 1080i", just think about that for a second. What are they broadcasting exactly?? For the most part it will be film sourced material, ie movies, and that's 24p embedded in 1080i with 3:2 pulldown.

Sony loves 1080i because interlace is the look of drama in Japan. In the USA, 24p is the look of drama, and interlace is the look of crappy soap operas, news and current events.

The point is, that 720p produces video with equal quality to 1080i (at the same frame rate) so to get any real improvement we're looking at moving to 1080p60 / 1080p50 which I don't see coming very soon. I mean, the USA can't even manage a "simple" move to digital broadcasting without mucking it up so completely that the implementers have become a laughing stock. They're fouling up a move to HD by having upmteen different standards, and they've not had the common sense to address the major failings of NTSC in the process, the utterly ludicrous 29.97fps non-integer frame rate. I wouldn't trust the FCC, ATSC, whoever, to organise a piss-up in a brewery.... Ok rant off. Sorry...

Graeme

Is clear that present 1080i is dominating HDTV broadcast and HDV, with Sony being main proponent. Future will be 1080p60. For most of us 1080p24 is enough, if 1080i60 can be pushed through 25 Mbps pipe, you be able push 1080p24 through 20 Mbps pipe, even better quality 1080p24 at 25 Mbps.

Maybe new Panasonic HVX200 will be catalyser, will make 1080p24 mainstream mode on future HDV cameras by Sony, others.

If new Panasonic camera provides true 1080p24 at 80 Mbps, and 1080p30 at 100 Mbps, will be true breakthough. My opinion is we will have to wait for true 1080p for while. Sony, Matsushita need make money first by saturating market with 1080i and 720p. 1080p24 will be next step, then 1080p60, will become new HDTV standard and everyone in industry need to upgrade again.

Radek

But who has enough room in their house to do justice to a 1080p picture?? Most people don't have a TV good enough for standard def. The broadcast pipe to people's homes is so compressed (and will always be if they can broadcast two channels instead of one in the same bandwidth) that there's little point in high def anyway, if it's going to look like macroblock city....

HD is wonderful for replacing film for drama production, for movies and stuff, but to madly rush onwards when very much most people cannot even fully appreciate standard def is really ignoring the major issues facing television production today.

Graeme

But who has enough room in their house to do justice to a 1080p picture?? Most people don't have a TV good enough for standard def. The broadcast pipe to people's homes is so compressed (and will always be if they can broadcast two channels instead of one in the same bandwidth) that there's little point in high def anyway, if it's going to look like macroblock city....

HD is wonderful for replacing film for drama production, for movies and stuff, but to madly rush onwards when very much most people cannot even fully appreciate standard def is really ignoring the major issues facing television production today.

Graeme

Did you ever watch excellent set HDTV next to excellent set TV? It's night and day. If 1080i60 can pushed through 19 Mbps pipe, you can push through 1080p60 just easily if MPEG4, part 10 is used. 1080p allow you sit closer to set, not be bothered by pixels, etc., if you have lot room, can sit far away, watch real big screen.

The macroblocks you refer are caused by operaters who are trying squeeze more than one channel through one channel pipe/bandwidth.

Radek

First, I've never been lucky enough to see a decent HDTV broadcast. They're all over compressed. Second, what size 1080p screen do you think would be suitable for viewing distances appropriate for a normal home? Personally, that resolution is not practical in the vast majority of homes.

Graeme

Native resolution would be 68.8 inches (based on 32 pix per inch)
Optimally, a 60" television is what you'll want. Is that too big? I'd dispute it is. And this is only if you want to view at native. Most folks won't care/know the diff RIGHT NOW, but we're moving towards the original proposal of 60p, and getting there a heckuva lot faster than people thought we would. Just a month ago, someone commented that we'd not see 60p displays for at least another 6 years. They were only off by 5 years, 11 months.

Wow I didn't realize the Czech Republic was the capital of the HD movement. Heck I think I should move there so I can finally watch decent HD.

Radek why are you talking about 720p like it is some nasty disease? I thought the whole point here is not what the broadcast format will be in 5 years but what kind of video can we get out of the cameras we can buy today. I personally don't really give a rats but what moronic format some dumb suit wants to throw at us in the future. I care about what the video looks like that I shoot today.

Currently Graeme is the only one of us to have seen and compared footage from both of the formats. I think we can all agree that when it comes to image quality Graeme knows his stuff. If he says the 720p from the JVC looks just as good if not better than the 1080i from SONY well maybe it does. While it does kind of suck to only have 30p 720p right now, 1080p is also limited to 30p. This means in terms of motion they will look the same. It's kind of funny how people will say 720p 30p looks like garbage but then say 1080p 30p will look perfect.

For your 60" wide TV, showing full 1080p, you have to be about 9 ft back to not see any pixels. I dare say you can actually sit a lot closer and not be bothered by pixels though.

I have to wonder, however, how many people are able to set up a screen and projector (I don't think a 60" TV set is at all practical) to get the benefit of 720p, never mind 1080p, especially given that the projector is going to be a lot futher back still.

Graeme

For your 60" wide TV, showing full 1080p, you have to be about 9 ft back to not see any pixels. I dare say you can actually sit a lot closer and not be bothered by pixels though.

At the local Best Buy they have plenty of HDTVs on display and watching 90% of them, they look very pixelated. I know this can be because of the signal being routed from one box to 100 TVs or the material they are showing or the settings of the TV.

Now do some of those TVs have a built in deinterlacer? I'm pretty sure I remember Samsung having one built in. I'm not too sure.

If you watch 1080p footage frame by frame on your computer, you do not see any pixels. Why would you see it on a TV that is made to display that resolution?

20/20 vision wields approximately 1/60th of a degree resolution for the human eye.

So, my 50" TV is 1280x720.
The height of the TV is 24.5".

Each pixel, then, is .034" tall. The viewing distance (x) ideally would be the distance at which .034" (y) is less than or equal to 1/60th of a degree of vision for me.

So the calculation is:

tan ( 1/60 degrees ) = .034 / x
x = 117"

So you want to be approximately 10 feet away from a 50" 720p screen in order to no longer be able to perceive scan lines with 20/20 vision.

As it so happens, the rule of thumb for TV watching is double the screen diagonal size, which happens to yield, in this case, 100", whereas my 20/20 formula yields 117". Not bad. And 10 feet is not very far in a decent size living room. For a 10" projection screen, you want to be 20 feet away. Well, that's not so bad either, because the throw length for projectors is going to be more than that anyway, so if you can't sit 20 feet back then your room's too small anyway.

Now, I'm gonna wait for 1080p projectors because I don't want o have to be 20 feet away - I wasnt to be able to sit as close as I would in a movie theater, i.e., have the screen take up more than 50% of my field of view. If we had 1080p screens, we'd be able to sit closer to the same TV, or have bigger picture sizes, without sacrificing picture quality.