SONY HDV HDR-FX1 will be out Oct. 15th

Daymon Hoffman · September 7th, 2004, 03:56 PM

Well this really excited me when iseen it last night. But before i went to bed i realised i read "960x1080 3CCDs".... hmm so let me get this right.. 960x1080 interpolated to 1440x1080i then displayed at 1920x1080? Oh nice...... NOT!!! :( Why do they always do this to us? So many pixels claimed yet only half are effective!!

Pity.. as the features of this camera could be a killer and make me switch to Sony :P But not if the PQ and resolution is no where near HIGH DEFINTION!!!! gggrrr

Christopher C. Murphy · September 7th, 2004, 04:02 PM

Can we get a detailed explaination from someone (in idiot terms) in regards to the pixel count? I understand the numbers aren't adding up, but I think we all could use a simple explaination. The way I'm reading it is that what goes in isn't what's coming out? The lower pixel count to start is only being interpolated afterwards to fill in the missing pixels??

Murph

John C. Chu · September 7th, 2004, 04:22 PM

Man...

I'm thinking how groundbreaking this camcorder might be...

Imagine being able to actually shoot/or have someone shoot an important event like a wedding in High Definition.

Be able to edit it on a consumer machine.

Output it to perhaps WM9 HD? And deliver the DVD to the customer with a DVD player that can play Windows Media 9 discs?

Or have them play it off a PC in true high-def from a DVD.

Or just dump it to D-VHS?

And the customers end product could be 2 disc set...one SD version DVD and a WM9 HD-DVD...

woo hoo..

This is exciting times.

Lasse Bodoni · September 7th, 2004, 04:42 PM

You can make the movie with 1080i, edit in HDV, deinterlace, scale to size, 720 x 576(480) 16:9 and make a better DVD.

I guess the main point to me is to make a filmlook DVD, or HD. Never gonna transfer to film.

Aaron Shaw · September 7th, 2004, 05:03 PM

Christopher,

I'm not entirely sure how the system works myself but I did find the following info elsewhere:

"A brand new design, the CCDs will each be 960x1080 pixels in layout. Even more significant than this megapixel count is that each pixel will have the size and shape necessary to support 16:9 natively! (In video work, pixels are never square, but vary with each set of standards.) By having the CCD’s pixels optimized in shape for 16:9 mode, there will be no “input” resolution lost and no need for interpolation of regular squared CCD pixels into the 4:3 and 16:9 video formats. A small side effect will be that there will need to be interpolation to do the 4:3 mode. This is a minor detail however with the overall much higher resolution of the CCD when compared to the 720x480 DV compatibility mode. This camcorder was designed around HDV which is ALL 16:9 and choosing to make the CCD 16:9 with wide pixels is a tremendous step in achieving the best output quality possible."

Again, I'm not sure I fully understand....

Jesse Bekas · September 7th, 2004, 08:12 PM

"The interlaced 1080i provides for a grid of up to 1920x1080 pixels! Some implementations use 1440 "wide" pixels (1440x1080) which still looks far better than SD widescreen."

The sensors on the chips are rectangular, but not square. This is similar to how some DV cameras get HQ widescreen even though the SDDV format is natively 4:3. Technically, the cam does record HDV, but doesn't "see" it. Resolution will be taking a hit.

Ben Gurvich · September 7th, 2004, 09:25 PM

That Panasonic Camera looks like it might make some waves. What is this P2 format?

Jesse Bekas · September 7th, 2004, 10:09 PM

It's a flash memory recording system, currently consisting of four 1GB SD cards housed in a single PCMCIA (laptop cards) housing. Then the PCMCIA cards are four deep, providing 16GB of flash memory. That's how the system exists right now in one of their ENG cams which debuted last year(?).

A Panasonic rep told me at DVExpo East that they would have an afforadable Palmcorder shaped model using 4GB SD cards in 1 PCMCIA housing available in March '05. This recording system (non-tape) could be a reason they avoided agreeing to use the HDV spec. I am extremely interested in flash recording . It could eliminate transport noise, get better than realtime capture rates, and lengthen battery life, etc...I am waiting to her what Panny will have to say about this, and hope some new comes soon.

Steve McDonald · September 7th, 2004, 10:23 PM

I read on another website that this model has a 12X zoom range, with a 33.5mm to 390mm focal length. That's what it said, but how is that possible? That 390mm would seem to give a huge magnification effect, but the lens would also have no wide-angle with 33.5mm at the bottom end.
Naah, that must have been a misprint??

Also, it's too bad about it not having progressive scan. Think of the great still-captures you could grab from its footage, if it had progressive.

I wonder how well the "new and improved"
HDV metal-evaporated tape would work in a standard DV recorder? At $18. an hour?
But yet I once paid $32. over the counter for a 30-min. Beta SP cassette. It was at the only pro video store in a small town and I needed it badly.

Steve McDonald

Steve McDonald · September 7th, 2004, 11:10 PM

Each of the 3 CCDs of the FX1 is 1/3-inch and has 1080 X 960 pixels. That's just half of the 1920 pixels used by a camera with the full 1080 HDTV specification, to produce its horizontal resolution. They claim the FX1 camera delivers a pixel size of 1080 X 1440, but the 1440 must be derived from the same extrapolation process they use to claim a higher pixel image from digital cameras, than the actual pixels that their CCDs have.

Considering the dumbing-down of HDTV to the M-PEG2 format that is recorded on HDV and what is broadcast as HDTV, it probably won't make any visible difference. You're not going to convert HDV to film-----are you?

Steve McDonald

Lasse Bodoni · September 8th, 2004, 02:54 AM

I just can't follow. Isn't it right if I say, the XL2 720x576 (pal) progressive going to be the same image quallity than the 1080i recorded as interlace and played back as a 720p?

Steve McDonald · September 8th, 2004, 05:24 AM

Lasse, the 720 number in the XL2 CCD specifications, represents the pixels that are aligned horizontally along each of the 576 visible scanning lines, in a PAL video picture, in the DV CoDec. The 720 in the specifications for a 720P High-definition picture, is the number of horizontal scanning lines, that carry the pixels. There would be more than twice as many pixels in the 720P down-conversion, from a 1080I original, as there are in a standard DV picture in the PAL System. So, the resolution from an XL2 would be significantly less than the HDTV picture you described.

Steve McDonald

Greg Harris · September 8th, 2004, 06:17 AM

How do you think the DVX100 will look when compared to the new sonyHD cam when its in regualar DV (720 x480)???

Boyd Ostroff · September 8th, 2004, 07:17 AM

Trying to "compare" the Sony image to other cameras is nothing but wild speculation at this point. It would have been nice if there was a true progressive mode on this camera, but somewhere I read that they chose interlaced so that it would be possible to go to 24 fps in post for a film print. I'm sure there is controversy over this, but from what I've read you really can't do that on the JVC camera since you're locked into 30p.

Greg Harris · September 8th, 2004, 07:32 AM

What about Century Optics lenses. Would it be a good time to call century and SUGGEST that the .3 ultra fisheye doesnt vignette on the TV. I have the panny dvx100 with .3 fisheye 72mm and it vignettes on the TV in the lower left corner and i hate it.

September 7th, 2004, 03:56 PM	#31
Daymon Hoffman Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 267	Well this really excited me when iseen it last night. But before i went to bed i realised i read "960x1080 3CCDs".... hmm so let me get this right.. 960x1080 interpolated to 1440x1080i then displayed at 1920x1080? Oh nice...... NOT!!! :( Why do they always do this to us? So many pixels claimed yet only half are effective!! Pity.. as the features of this camera could be a killer and make me switch to Sony :P But not if the PQ and resolution is no where near HIGH DEFINTION!!!! gggrrr __________________ Welcome... to the real world!

September 7th, 2004, 04:02 PM	#32
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	Can we get a detailed explaination from someone (in idiot terms) in regards to the pixel count? I understand the numbers aren't adding up, but I think we all could use a simple explaination. The way I'm reading it is that what goes in isn't what's coming out? The lower pixel count to start is only being interpolated afterwards to fill in the missing pixels?? Murph __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

September 7th, 2004, 04:22 PM	#33
John C. Chu Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rego Park , NYC Posts: 665	Man... I'm thinking how groundbreaking this camcorder might be... Imagine being able to actually shoot/or have someone shoot an important event like a wedding in High Definition. Be able to edit it on a consumer machine. Output it to perhaps WM9 HD? And deliver the DVD to the customer with a DVD player that can play Windows Media 9 discs? Or have them play it off a PC in true high-def from a DVD. Or just dump it to D-VHS? And the customers end product could be 2 disc set...one SD version DVD and a WM9 HD-DVD... woo hoo.. This is exciting times.

September 7th, 2004, 04:42 PM	#34
Lasse Bodoni Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 39	You can make the movie with 1080i, edit in HDV, deinterlace, scale to size, 720 x 576(480) 16:9 and make a better DVD. I guess the main point to me is to make a filmlook DVD, or HD. Never gonna transfer to film.

September 7th, 2004, 05:03 PM	#35
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Christopher, I'm not entirely sure how the system works myself but I did find the following info elsewhere: "A brand new design, the CCDs will each be 960x1080 pixels in layout. Even more significant than this megapixel count is that each pixel will have the size and shape necessary to support 16:9 natively! (In video work, pixels are never square, but vary with each set of standards.) By having the CCD’s pixels optimized in shape for 16:9 mode, there will be no “input” resolution lost and no need for interpolation of regular squared CCD pixels into the 4:3 and 16:9 video formats. A small side effect will be that there will need to be interpolation to do the 4:3 mode. This is a minor detail however with the overall much higher resolution of the CCD when compared to the 720x480 DV compatibility mode. This camcorder was designed around HDV which is ALL 16:9 and choosing to make the CCD 16:9 with wide pixels is a tremendous step in achieving the best output quality possible." Again, I'm not sure I fully understand....

September 7th, 2004, 08:12 PM	#36
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	"The interlaced 1080i provides for a grid of up to 1920x1080 pixels! Some implementations use 1440 "wide" pixels (1440x1080) which still looks far better than SD widescreen." The sensors on the chips are rectangular, but not square. This is similar to how some DV cameras get HQ widescreen even though the SDDV format is natively 4:3. Technically, the cam does record HDV, but doesn't "see" it. Resolution will be taking a hit.

September 7th, 2004, 09:25 PM	#37
Ben Gurvich Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 329	That Panasonic Camera looks like it might make some waves. What is this P2 format?

September 7th, 2004, 10:09 PM	#38
Jesse Bekas Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA Posts: 572	It's a flash memory recording system, currently consisting of four 1GB SD cards housed in a single PCMCIA (laptop cards) housing. Then the PCMCIA cards are four deep, providing 16GB of flash memory. That's how the system exists right now in one of their ENG cams which debuted last year(?). A Panasonic rep told me at DVExpo East that they would have an afforadable Palmcorder shaped model using 4GB SD cards in 1 PCMCIA housing available in March '05. This recording system (non-tape) could be a reason they avoided agreeing to use the HDV spec. I am extremely interested in flash recording . It could eliminate transport noise, get better than realtime capture rates, and lengthen battery life, etc...I am waiting to her what Panny will have to say about this, and hope some new comes soon.

September 7th, 2004, 10:23 PM	#39
Steve McDonald Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 366	I read on another website that this model has a 12X zoom range, with a 33.5mm to 390mm focal length. That's what it said, but how is that possible? That 390mm would seem to give a huge magnification effect, but the lens would also have no wide-angle with 33.5mm at the bottom end. Naah, that must have been a misprint?? Also, it's too bad about it not having progressive scan. Think of the great still-captures you could grab from its footage, if it had progressive. I wonder how well the "new and improved" HDV metal-evaporated tape would work in a standard DV recorder? At $18. an hour? But yet I once paid $32. over the counter for a 30-min. Beta SP cassette. It was at the only pro video store in a small town and I needed it badly. Steve McDonald

September 7th, 2004, 11:10 PM	#40
Steve McDonald Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 366	Each of the 3 CCDs of the FX1 is 1/3-inch and has 1080 X 960 pixels. That's just half of the 1920 pixels used by a camera with the full 1080 HDTV specification, to produce its horizontal resolution. They claim the FX1 camera delivers a pixel size of 1080 X 1440, but the 1440 must be derived from the same extrapolation process they use to claim a higher pixel image from digital cameras, than the actual pixels that their CCDs have. Considering the dumbing-down of HDTV to the M-PEG2 format that is recorded on HDV and what is broadcast as HDTV, it probably won't make any visible difference. You're not going to convert HDV to film-----are you? Steve McDonald

September 8th, 2004, 02:54 AM	#41
Lasse Bodoni Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 39	I just can't follow. Isn't it right if I say, the XL2 720x576 (pal) progressive going to be the same image quallity than the 1080i recorded as interlace and played back as a 720p?

September 8th, 2004, 05:24 AM	#42
Steve McDonald Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 366	Lasse, the 720 number in the XL2 CCD specifications, represents the pixels that are aligned horizontally along each of the 576 visible scanning lines, in a PAL video picture, in the DV CoDec. The 720 in the specifications for a 720P High-definition picture, is the number of horizontal scanning lines, that carry the pixels. There would be more than twice as many pixels in the 720P down-conversion, from a 1080I original, as there are in a standard DV picture in the PAL System. So, the resolution from an XL2 would be significantly less than the HDTV picture you described. Steve McDonald

September 8th, 2004, 06:17 AM	#43
Greg Harris Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Fairfax, VA Posts: 356	How do you think the DVX100 will look when compared to the new sonyHD cam when its in regualar DV (720 x480)???

September 8th, 2004, 07:17 AM	#44
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Trying to "compare" the Sony image to other cameras is nothing but wild speculation at this point. It would have been nice if there was a true progressive mode on this camera, but somewhere I read that they chose interlaced so that it would be possible to go to 24 fps in post for a film print. I'm sure there is controversy over this, but from what I've read you really can't do that on the JVC camera since you're locked into 30p.

September 8th, 2004, 07:32 AM	#45
Greg Harris Major Player Join Date: May 2004 Location: Fairfax, VA Posts: 356	What about Century Optics lenses. Would it be a good time to call century and SUGGEST that the .3 ultra fisheye doesnt vignette on the TV. I have the panny dvx100 with .3 fisheye 72mm and it vignettes on the TV in the lower left corner and i hate it.