HDR-FX1 - Shoud we be worried?

Boyd Ostroff · September 8th, 2004, 05:04 PM

I am just wondering.... wouldn't it be cool if the FX-1 had a hot shoe that was compatible with PDX-10? Then it would have XLR's :-) See the following thread for my ASCII art representation of the PDX-10 hot shoe, which is definitely different from the shoe on my VX-2000. Do any of the newer Sony camera's have this style connector? TRV-950? VX-2100? HC-1000?

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=29598

Ignacio Rodriguez · September 9th, 2004, 12:18 AM

> wouldn't it be cool if the FX-1 had a hot shoe that
> was compatible with PDX-10?

Would be. I personally feel the FX1 is closer cousin to the PDX10 than to the VX2100/PD170. The larger LCD, the bigger resolution, the real 16x9... it's much what I would expect from a next-generation PDX10.

Boyd Ostroff · September 9th, 2004, 04:50 AM

C'mon Ignacio, you're stretching things.... ;-) I see very little in common with the PDX-10. Physical manual controls for everything. PDX-10 only has the little wheel and awkwardly placed buttons. Calibrated zoom, focus and iris rings... none of the Sony prosumer cameras come close to that. The LCD is native 16:9, something the PDX-10 really could use instead of wasted black pixels in the letterbox. No touchscreen on the FX-1. I could go on... and on. Also funny... PDX-10 will sell for exactly 50% of the FX-1 price ($1,850 vs $3,700)

I still really like my PDX-10, but really don't see any similarities.... well, OK. They are both made by Sony, and both have "X-1" in the names ;-) I think what you really meant was that the FX-1 is everything you wished your PDX-10 was...

Ignacio Rodriguez · September 9th, 2004, 11:00 AM

> I think what you really meant was that the FX-1
> is everything you wished your PDX-10 was

Exactly what I meant. Although the "everything" remains to be seen when we take a look at the vertical smear.

Thomas Smet · September 9th, 2004, 12:26 PM

Right now I do not like HDV very much but remember HDV uses 25mbits/S. Regular DVD's only use 4 to 10 mbits/S. Now of course we are talking more pixels to deal with but even with more pixels of HD it should at least be of the quality of a 10mbit/S DVD.

After that however I still do not like using HDV for the same reason I wouldn't master to DVD and edit with that. Even though HDV is easier to edit with than DVD standard mpeg2 it is still higher quality loss than DV. In a day and age where we are trying to move away from compression we now get a format even worse than DV. A lot of people don't realize how much image we are loosing to DV compression. If you can get a raw 4:4:4 RGB video image you can blow it up almost 4 times the size. Yes it is a little soft but it would still be uncompressed. Trying blowing up a compressed image and you will see the artifacts on a big screen.

Bill Ravens · September 9th, 2004, 12:35 PM

Thomas brings up a very valid point. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, there is no means to distribute HDV content. It won't encode to a DVD, there are no set-top players to view generated HDV content. Moreover, according to an article in the latest issue of Videography, less than 10 million HDTV displays have been shipped to dealers and that amounts to less than one-tenth of U.S. households. And only about a third of those HDTV displays can actually get an HDTV signal of some sort. So, right now 97 percent of U.S. TV's cannot get HDTV. My apologies to those in PAL land, as this statistic may not be true, however, as far as the USA is concerned, HD is a non-starter so far.

Barry Green · September 9th, 2004, 12:57 PM

Bill, you're more right than you know, because in PAL land, HDTV isn't even on the map. As far as I can tell, there are no plans in Europe at all to even consider going to HDTV.

Australia seems quite up for it, but right now it looks like the only market who's actually adopting HD in any significant numbers is Japan. American consumers don't seem to care, and European broadcasters aren't even thinking about it.

Antoine Fabi · September 9th, 2004, 03:08 PM

well,

i think the same,

but if we're right, then...why "even" consider the new Sony HDV ?

...i mean, could we really see any advantage once it has been downsampled to SD (DVD) ?

Bill Ravens · September 9th, 2004, 03:14 PM

In fact, there is still an advantage, even downsampled. When compositing, the zoom options are quite incredible. If you zoom into an SD image, image deterioration happens quickly. Zooming into an HD image retains its quality for much longer zooms.

Aaron Shaw · September 9th, 2004, 03:18 PM

True but how many of us are going to actually try to composite with an HDV camera? And even then why would we want to digitally zoom the image? :(

Boyd Ostroff · September 9th, 2004, 05:56 PM

Well that Sony camera is also capable of shooting SD DV in both 4:3 and anamorphic 16:9, it records in both DV SP and DV LP modes. Of course we'll have to see what that looks like, but with the new native widescreen 1/3" CCD's and 14 bit DSP you might hope for something very nice. Too bad no progressive scan DV though. But anyway, just looking at the native 16:9 hi-res LCD, the calibrated zoom, focus and iris rings, gain switch, volume knob, etc... much nicer manual control than a PD-170... and it's native widescreen! The HDV modes could really just be considered a "bonus" on a very decent DV camera, and at about the same price both the PD-170 and DVX-100a were intro'ed at.

But if you need a reason to shoot HDV, even if you think HDTV isn't picking up a lot of steam yet, would you like to have a market for your work 5 or 10 years from now? Wouldn't it be nice to "future proof" yourself a bit? Or do you think HD will never catch on? I remember plenty of people who felt "the internet" would never catch on 10 or 12 years ago.

Once HDTV does catch on there will be a huge demand for high resolution widescreen footage. You know how people hate letterboxed 16:9 on their 4:3 sets now? Ten years from now how do you think they'll feel about low resolution, pillarboxed 4:3 DV on their new 72" LCD screens ;-)

Paul Matwiy · September 9th, 2004, 05:56 PM

What I really want is an XL3 with 1920 x 1080, 24/30 p or 60i that records in a RAW digital format like the Viper, direct to a firewire 800 drive...

As my mama said, that and $0.50 ($2.50 at Starbucks) will get me a cup of coffee.

Bill Ravens · September 9th, 2004, 07:50 PM

"Future proof?"
I think that's pretty shaky rationale. We all recognize that technology changes on the hour. By the time HDV becomes a household name, that sony...and that canon, will be relics for the dust bin, aka the history shelf.

Ignacio Rodriguez · September 9th, 2004, 10:43 PM

> Bill, you're more right than you know, because in PAL land,
> HDTV isn't even on the map. As far as I can tell, there are no
> plans in Europe at all to even consider going to HDTV.

I saw a consumer HD broadcast in Spain more than two years ago. Looked awesome. I think it was satellite though, not UHF. Also, there is PALPlus, the enhanced resolution analog standard which I think is being implemented first in Germany but is a Europe-wide standard.

Jim Giberti · September 9th, 2004, 10:56 PM

<<You know how people hate letterboxed 16:9 on their 4:3 sets now?>>

It's interesting Boyd, I've used 16:9 letterboxing on almost all my commericial broadcast work for the past couple of years or so. I find people respond just the opposite as do the clients. In fact watching NFL Thursday night launch tonight (go Pats) at least every other, if not more, national ad (shot in lots of different formats) were letterboxed 16:9 and I think they all look more "powerful" for it...4:3 is just so square and vanilla <g>.

September 9th, 2004, 12:18 AM	#47
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> wouldn't it be cool if the FX-1 had a hot shoe that > was compatible with PDX-10? Would be. I personally feel the FX1 is closer cousin to the PDX10 than to the VX2100/PD170. The larger LCD, the bigger resolution, the real 16x9... it's much what I would expect from a next-generation PDX10. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

September 9th, 2004, 11:00 AM	#49
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> I think what you really meant was that the FX-1 > is everything you wished your PDX-10 was Exactly what I meant. Although the "everything" remains to be seen when we take a look at the vertical smear. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

September 9th, 2004, 05:56 PM	#57
Paul Matwiy Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Marin, CA Posts: 85	HDR-FX1 What I really want is an XL3 with 1920 x 1080, 24/30 p or 60i that records in a RAW digital format like the Viper, direct to a firewire 800 drive... As my mama said, that and $0.50 ($2.50 at Starbucks) will get me a cup of coffee. __________________ Paul

September 9th, 2004, 10:43 PM	#59
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> Bill, you're more right than you know, because in PAL land, > HDTV isn't even on the map. As far as I can tell, there are no > plans in Europe at all to even consider going to HDTV. I saw a consumer HD broadcast in Spain more than two years ago. Looked awesome. I think it was satellite though, not UHF. Also, there is PALPlus, the enhanced resolution analog standard which I think is being implemented first in Germany but is a Europe-wide standard. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

September 8th, 2004, 05:04 PM	#46
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	I am just wondering.... wouldn't it be cool if the FX-1 had a hot shoe that was compatible with PDX-10? Then it would have XLR's :-) See the following thread for my ASCII art representation of the PDX-10 hot shoe, which is definitely different from the shoe on my VX-2000. Do any of the newer Sony camera's have this style connector? TRV-950? VX-2100? HC-1000? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=29598

September 9th, 2004, 04:50 AM	#48
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	C'mon Ignacio, you're stretching things.... ;-) I see very little in common with the PDX-10. Physical manual controls for everything. PDX-10 only has the little wheel and awkwardly placed buttons. Calibrated zoom, focus and iris rings... none of the Sony prosumer cameras come close to that. The LCD is native 16:9, something the PDX-10 really could use instead of wasted black pixels in the letterbox. No touchscreen on the FX-1. I could go on... and on. Also funny... PDX-10 will sell for exactly 50% of the FX-1 price ($1,850 vs $3,700) I still really like my PDX-10, but really don't see any similarities.... well, OK. They are both made by Sony, and both have "X-1" in the names ;-) I think what you really meant was that the FX-1 is everything you wished your PDX-10 was...

September 9th, 2004, 12:26 PM	#50
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Right now I do not like HDV very much but remember HDV uses 25mbits/S. Regular DVD's only use 4 to 10 mbits/S. Now of course we are talking more pixels to deal with but even with more pixels of HD it should at least be of the quality of a 10mbit/S DVD. After that however I still do not like using HDV for the same reason I wouldn't master to DVD and edit with that. Even though HDV is easier to edit with than DVD standard mpeg2 it is still higher quality loss than DV. In a day and age where we are trying to move away from compression we now get a format even worse than DV. A lot of people don't realize how much image we are loosing to DV compression. If you can get a raw 4:4:4 RGB video image you can blow it up almost 4 times the size. Yes it is a little soft but it would still be uncompressed. Trying blowing up a compressed image and you will see the artifacts on a big screen.

September 9th, 2004, 12:35 PM	#51
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Thomas brings up a very valid point. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, there is no means to distribute HDV content. It won't encode to a DVD, there are no set-top players to view generated HDV content. Moreover, according to an article in the latest issue of Videography, less than 10 million HDTV displays have been shipped to dealers and that amounts to less than one-tenth of U.S. households. And only about a third of those HDTV displays can actually get an HDTV signal of some sort. So, right now 97 percent of U.S. TV's cannot get HDTV. My apologies to those in PAL land, as this statistic may not be true, however, as far as the USA is concerned, HD is a non-starter so far.

September 9th, 2004, 12:57 PM	#52
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Bill, you're more right than you know, because in PAL land, HDTV isn't even on the map. As far as I can tell, there are no plans in Europe at all to even consider going to HDTV. Australia seems quite up for it, but right now it looks like the only market who's actually adopting HD in any significant numbers is Japan. American consumers don't seem to care, and European broadcasters aren't even thinking about it.

September 9th, 2004, 03:08 PM	#53
Antoine Fabi Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: sherbrooke (Quebec) Canada Posts: 108	well, i think the same, but if we're right, then...why "even" consider the new Sony HDV ? ...i mean, could we really see any advantage once it has been downsampled to SD (DVD) ?

September 9th, 2004, 03:14 PM	#54
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	In fact, there is still an advantage, even downsampled. When compositing, the zoom options are quite incredible. If you zoom into an SD image, image deterioration happens quickly. Zooming into an HD image retains its quality for much longer zooms.

September 9th, 2004, 03:18 PM	#55
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	True but how many of us are going to actually try to composite with an HDV camera? And even then why would we want to digitally zoom the image? :(

September 9th, 2004, 07:50 PM	#58
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	"Future proof?" I think that's pretty shaky rationale. We all recognize that technology changes on the hour. By the time HDV becomes a household name, that sony...and that canon, will be relics for the dust bin, aka the history shelf.

September 9th, 2004, 10:56 PM	#60
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<You know how people hate letterboxed 16:9 on their 4:3 sets now?>> It's interesting Boyd, I've used 16:9 letterboxing on almost all my commericial broadcast work for the past couple of years or so. I find people respond just the opposite as do the clients. In fact watching NFL Thursday night launch tonight (go Pats) at least every other, if not more, national ad (shot in lots of different formats) were letterboxed 16:9 and I think they all look more "powerful" for it...4:3 is just so square and vanilla <g>.