Just letting you guys know that Sony will be releasing an HDR-FX7 (for discussion and specs, go here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=74986)).

Is anyone thinking of selling their FX1s or Z1s? Their value is definitely going to drop a bit in the next little while so if you want to upgrade, now's probably the time to sell. I for one am happy with my Z1 so I'll be keeping it for awhile.

I think it would probably be best not to get into Z7 speculation, as per board rules.

Is anyone thinking of selling their FX1s or Z1s?Nope. From your link, the FX7 doesn’t seem to have XLR’s so I won’t be selling my Z1 any time soon. (I may pick up an FX7 as a second cam though) ;-)

~jr

What do you think the purpose in making it smaller is?? before long videographers are going to have to get hand reductions to run these little cameras. Also tripods are going to have to be made out of lead to keep these feather cameras steady. Just a question

It looks to me like it’s the same size as the VX2100/PD170 so it’s actually not smaller. It’s just that the FX1/Z1 was bigger. ;-)

~jr

It's disappointing that they're still using a capture resolution of 960x1080 (like the fx1) and now going 1440x1080 native (as the new Canon XH models will). Definitely not an "upgrade" of the FX1 to replace the model. Hopefully Sony has more announcements to come soon...

I have seen where it is 25% smaller than the FX1 and 40% lighter.

Guys,

Remember, it's consumer, and, a smaller camera is always nicer. 3 CMOS is very cool.

heath

No question it is consumer type camera, no XLR inputs, 8 lux, great camera to handhold the trip to the ZOO. Sony is definitly focused on the consumer and tapeless aquisition side of things right now. Sony remember you make a big DVcam type HDV tape now, give us a HDV camera that accepts these tapes. Amazing the consumer camera is 20 by zoom and the Z1 prosumer camera cant even get there with a Century teleconverter. Bet Canon is fealing pretty good today. Sony we believe in you just dont make the Z1 a toy in the future.

No question it is consumer type camera, no XLR inputs, 8 lux, great camera to handhold the trip to the ZOO. Sony is definitly focused on the consumer and tapeless aquisition side of things right now. Sony remember you make a big DVcam type HDV tape now, give us a HDV camera that accepts these tapes. Amazing the consumer camera is 20 by zoom and the Z1 prosumer camera cant even get there with a Century teleconverter. Bet Canon is fealing pretty good today. Sony we believe in you just dont make the Z1 a toy in the future.

Sony has two divisions, consumer and professional. Sony consumer has the FX1/7, HC3 and pro has Z1, PD170, F900, etc.

heath

Sony also has there XDCam which aquires to Blue Ray Disk. What i have seen over the past few months from Sony is a huge push in there marketing campaign for small consumer cameras and anything and everything Blue Ray. I know in the past couple of days they have made it back to the Prosumer/Professional tape driven products and I'm glad to see that. I thought for a while they were going to put all there eggs in one basket, the Blue Ray basket. I am real glad to see they have come out with a new Z1, cant wait to see the tests between the new Z1 and Canons new XH, let the games begin.

I may be wrong, but I think the Z1 is staying around and the V1 is a whole new camera.

heath

Yes, if you look at the sonybiz links in the V1 thread they say that the Z1 is their "flagship" model and this is just a new addition to the line.

Sony today announced the addition of its latest professional HDV camcorder, the HVR-V1E, to its wide range of professional HDV products, which includes Sony's first and flagship HDV professional camcorder, the HVR-Z1E and the compact and lightweight HVR-A1E.

I dont think the FX7 is native 16:9 so I dont think any prosumers will be trading their FX1 for it.

It is indeed--HDV is widescreen by default.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sony.jp%2FCorporateCruise%2FPress%2F200609%2F06-0907%2F&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

heath

I am going to search now for the article I read stating it isnt actually 16:9. Maybe I am mistaken. I will f/u.



It is indeed--HDV is widescreen by default.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sony.jp%2FCorporateCruise%2FPress%2F200609%2F06-0907%2F&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

heath

Check out this article: http://gizmodo.com/search/fx7

"Nor does the FX7 have the FX1's native 16:9 capture, instead horizontally stretching each pixel."

1440x1080 and 1920x1080 is indeed widescreen. Remember, Sony's HDV has non-square pixels which makes it easier to go to 1920. The sensor size for all the HDV cameras (not including the A1, new Canons, and the new Sonys), along with the HVX, are as follows (thanks to www.adamwilt.com and the Texas Shootout!!!):

Sony FX1/Z1: 960x1080
Canon XL H1: 1440x1080
JVC HD100: 1280x720
Panasonic HVX200: 960x540

heath

Check out this article: http://gizmodo.com/search/fx7

"Nor does the FX7 have the FX1's native 16:9 capture, instead horizontally stretching each pixel."

None of the Sonys have square pixels, they're all non-square. That's how it gets to 1440 and 1920 so well. That gizmodo article doesn't sound right.

heath

Sony's HDV has non-square pixels which makes it easier to go to 1920. heath

Hi Heath. Are you sure about this? I thought the 960 wide image has to go through an upscaling process to get to 1440, which is what is captured to tape. How can that be better than a 1440 image staying at 1440 with no upscaling?

Richard

Hi Heath. Are you sure about this? I thought the 960 wide image has to go through an upscaling process to get to 1440, which is what is captured to tape. How can that be better than a 1440 image staying at 1440 with no upscaling?

Richard

Non-square pixels. I also go by what I see on a 720p, 1080i or 1080p monitor, NOT just spec sheets. When I look at the 1280x1080 or 960x720 on the HVX200 on any of those screens, it's widescreen and looks nice. The Sonys (FX1, Z1) look great, too.

heath

As nice as I'm sure the guys at Gizmodo are, I wouldn't exactly trust their technical explanations of gear such as this.

HDV works a very specific way. 1440H stretched 1.33 upon playback to yield a 16x9 picture.

Non-square pixels. I also go by what I see on a 720p, 1080i or 1080p monitor, NOT just spec sheets. When I look at the 1280x1080 or 960x720 on the HVX200 on any of those screens, it's widescreen and looks nice. The Sonys (FX1, Z1) look great, too.

heath

Hi Heath. I was referring to the statment that non-square pixels makes it easier to go from 960 to 1920 resolution compared with starting at 1440. If they both have to go through a tape stage at 1440 resolution, then the 960 pixels have to be upsampled to 1440, while the 1440 pixels don't need any upsampling. So, in what way is it "easier"? I'd have thought that any resampling algorithm, no matter how simple or how elegant, can't be easier than no resampling at all. By the way, I was not looking at any spec sheets, and I haven't seen the Gizmodo site. Just looking for some clarification, thanks.

Richard

Hi Heath. Are you sure about this? I thought the 960 wide image has to go through an upscaling process to get to 1440, which is what is captured to tape. How can that be better than a 1440 image staying at 1440 with no upscaling?

Richard

You are correct. The 960 pixels are upscaled to 1440 in the camera and encoded and recorded. HDV must have 1440 pixels as must HDCAM. It is anamorphic video.

When the 1440 is displayed as a 1080i video -- the anamorphic HDV is unsqueezed to fill 1920 pixels.

Canon's 1440 is better than Sony's 960. They directly yield anamorphic HDV.

But, the CMOS chips in the A1 were 1440x1080 or 1920x1080 so why weren't they used? They also directly yielded anamorphic HDV.

Hi Steve. Thanks, that sounds logical.

Are you talking about the Sony A1 (rather than the new Canon)? Interesting question. I suppose it's possible they are reusing some circuitry and algorithms from FX1/Z1 to keep costs low (but of course I have no idea). :)

I'm looking forward to seeing reviews of these new CMOS cams, particularly with regard to noise levels and image smearing.

Richard

Hi Steve. Thanks, that sounds logical.

Are you talking about the Sony A1 (rather than the new Canon)?

Richard

Yes. The new Sony seems to the replacement for the HC1. But, the tradeoff seems to be 3 chips with lower resolution verses 1 chip with higher resolution.

Unless, green-shift can be used with the Clear Vid pixel arrangment. If it can, the output from the 3 would be equal to the output from the one.

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

Ouch. You guys make my head hurt....

Ouch. You guys make my head hurt....

3 CMOS chips with green-shift can offer up to 1.50X more rez so 960x1.5 is 1440.

The single CMOS is 1440.

The reality is green-shift never gets more than about 1.15X -- so in reality the single CMOS offers more rez. In fact at full wide -- it offers 1920.

This sounds tempting to replace my fx1. The cons are the size/weight reduction, HDMI output!!!, and how the lcd is on the side. But as far as the chip sizes doesn't the fx1 1/3" CCD has better PQ than a 1/4" CMOS??

And why did sony didn't up it to 1080p??

This sounds tempting to replace my fx1. The cons are the size/weight reduction, HDMI output!!!, and how the lcd is on the side. But as far as the chip sizes doesn't the fx1 1/3" CCD has better PQ than a 1/4" CMOS??

And why did sony didn't up it to 1080p??

You seem to be missing the point that the F7 is a lower-end consumer camcorder -- only a step above the HC3. It no more replaces the FX1 than the V1 replaces the Z1. The V1 being a newer version of the A1.

Both are cheap and small -- for those who don't want the bulk of the FX1/Z1 nor the too tiny too hold HC3/A1.

I'm not sure either has a "built-in 60GB drive" as there was a model number for the drive if I remember correctly.

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

I'm not sure either has a "built-in 60GB drive" as there was a model number for the drive if I remember correctly.
c[/url]

None of the HDV camcorders have a built in hard drive. If they did, it wouldn't be HDV by definition alone. It would be a 25Mbps camcorder that uses the MPEG 2 compression scheme, but by trademark and format definition, couldn't be HDV.

I don't think the V1 is a step up from the A1 or a step-down from the Z1. It's a completely different camera altogether, while still having some similarities.

heath

None of the HDV camcorders have a built in hard drive. If they did, it wouldn't be HDV by definition alone. It would be a 25Mbps camcorder that uses the MPEG 2 compression scheme, but by trademark and format definition, couldn't be HDV.

We know that, but since Sony will have a harddisk drive that attaches to their "HDV" camcorder -- clearly "HDV" can be recorded to disk. Unless Sony are going to say "connect your HDV camcorder to your Sony 'not-HDV' harddisk so you can record hours of 'not-hdv'."

Sony and JVC can change the definition of HDV -- as they have already for 24p -- when they want to. Or they can refine the meaning to "ANY camcorder labeled HDV must be able to record to tape. But, 'HDV' the data stream can be recorded to other media."

Sony would be a fool to kill the term HDV so soon -- and I don't think folks are going to warm to "M2T" camcorders.

Alright Steve, just to play the game of semantics...
Of course you're right, the HDV spec can be changed, and already has been (twice) so for the time being, by the current definition of the HDV specification and stipulated definition, HDV cannot be recorded internally to any storage medium but tape.
Will this change? Probably. I'll be surprised if it doesn't. But for the time being, the definition of the format is what it currently is and manufacturers must adhere to it if they wish to continue to put the trademarked HDV logo on the tape-based camcorder or related tape-based device.
This is also why one well known manufacturer recently received notice for trademark violation, not using the logo for, but the name "HDV" on a non-tape-based product.

For what it's worth, the new Sony hard disk recorder HVR-DR60 is not branded with the trademarked HDV logo. Its markings say "for HDV / DVCAM / DV" but there's no HDV logo. Instead it carries the HDD logo. No doubt there's some provision somewhere that states "only devices containing a hard disk recorder may carry the HDD logo." Just a guess, but I'm willing to bet a case of Shiner on it.

For what it's worth, the new Sony hard disk recorder HVR-DR60 is not branded with the trademarked HDV logo. Its markings say "for HDV / DVCAM / DV" but there's no HDV logo. Instead it carries the HDD logo. No doubt there's some provision somewhere that states "only devices containing a hard disk recorder may carry the HDD logo." Just a guess, but I'm willing to bet a case of Shiner on it.

I'm not taking that bet, cuz you're absolutely correct.

Alright Steve, just to play the game of semantics...But for the time being, the definition of the format is what it currently is and manufacturers must adhere to it if they wish to continue to put the trademarked HDV logo on the tape-based camcorder or related tape-based device.


There's no semantics involved.

(1) The camcorder has no internal disk.

(2) The separate HDD unit will record "the data stream" sent from a Sony HDV camcorder via a FireWire.

My original post was that contrary to a post that the camcorder HAD a 60GB drive -- I said it didn't BECAUSE the HDD was announced as a seperate product. I never said why. I never said one word about HDV "definitions." Nothing. Nada.

You are the one who then posted about the definition of "HDV" which we all know. But, as you agree, the definition could have been changed so the poster who said the camcorder had a HDD could have been correct. That's exactly WHY I gave NO reason for it not having a HDD.

My second post was equally simple -- Sony's HDD will record from the camera. In the manual it will have to say, in some way, that it records both "DV" and "HDV." I really don't know or care if Sony decides to call it M2T or MPEG-2. It records HDV. In this post I never said one word about HDV "logos."

Now you are posting about logos which we also all know -- thus taking my two simple points even further OT. Time to drop this "discussion" of definitions and logos.

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

I'm going to throw in my two cents not as tech junkie or a wrangler here at DVInfo, but instead as a filmmaker. I don't care if there are arguments over the name and meaning of HDV or whatnot. What I care about is, what can HDV do for me as a filmmaker? That's important. We need to remember that at the end of the day, it's about what we can do with our talents and the camera.

I've seen some amazing stuff done on a GL1 or a Sony A1, and some crappy stuff done on an XL H1 or an F900. It's what my and my DP's strengths are with a camera, and understanding how it works. We can't lose sight of that.

heath

I don't really care what it does on the inside as long as it is done right and it looks good.

Bob is right, but I always say, if one doesn't have skills, no camera in the world will make that person look pretty!

h

Sony and JVC can change the definition of HDV -- as they have already for 24p -- when they want to. Or they can refine the meaning to "ANY camcorder labeled HDV must be able to record to tape. ]

This is what I was referring to. Yes, they can change the format. but the disk drive is basically a "not HDV product drive that records HDV." It isn't an HDV product. And as mentioned, the camera cannot have a built in hard drive without tape and still carry the HDV trademark unless the protocol for the format is changed.

I'm not sure either has a "built-in 60GB drive"

Maybe I'm misreading your now-edited post, but it appeared to me you were suggesting that Sony (or anyone else) could put an HDD in their HDV camcorder and still call it HDV.
Apparently we're agreeing, but for some reason you're not seeing that. Apologies if I'm missing your point. As you point out, I guess some of us just have less-than-simple minds, since I missed the "simple" points.

I thought I read that it had a 60gb external non removable hardrive. Maybe not.

I thought I read that it had a 60gb external non removable hardrive. Maybe not.


bob, you're partially correct. There is an external 60GB HDD available for the cam, but it's removeable, and is optional, doesn't come with the camcorder. Additionally, it works on any camcorder. Wait'll Sony makes more info available, you'll find a few other surprises.

Doing a direct link seems to not work, but surf through www.sonybiz.net until you find the HDV pro page and you'll see the drive. It mounts to the handle, etc., of the HDV cameras (and DV, DVCam, too). This link may work:

http://www.sonybiz.net/cgi-bin/bvisapi.dll/templates/neutral_content_product.jsp?OID=193395&channelId=-36287&BV_SessionID=@@@@0661256954.1158209015@@@@&BV_EngineID=caddhhkdkgelbemgcfkmcfjfdhl.0

heath

I think one 60gb drive is better than those P2 cards.

heath

It was early on. Either I read it wrong or it was posted wrong. I could never find it again. Thanks for clearing it up.

I think one 60gb drive is better than those P2 cards.

heath Probably cheaper too!!

The HVR-DR60 drive price according to Giroud Francois in this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=75022) is 1700 Euros (or about $2125). Check out the brochure at http://www.sonybiz.net/images/product/X/HVR-DR60(brch).pdf

Chris, that price is likely high, I suspect you'll soon be hearing a real number/final price. should be falling into the $30-$35.00 per GB bracket if it's gonna be competitive.