Hmm, question about the Z1's "HDV" status?

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Hi,

I've not seen this addressed yet anywhere. What are the chances that Sony is not making the HVR-Z1 an "HDV" camera? Think about it - they put out the HDR-FX1 and have said a "Pro" version of the camera is coming out soon after. But, where have they officially said it was to definately be a "HDV" spec camera? Isn't it possible they simply are not making the Z1 "HDV"? Just a thought, but maybe they are putting out the "pro" Z1...simple as that? It can have 24p because it's not tied to the "HDV" spec? Maybe it will be essentially be "HDV" compatible, but not officially "HDV"?

Can anyone point me to where Sony official called the HVR-Z1 an "HDV" camera?

Anyone care to comment?

Murph

[Mark Kubat]

sounds like you're almost leaving the door open for the thing to shoot 720p then, since that too doesn't conform to HDV spec.

Yuck! That would be a pity - man, if it's under 1000 lines, I ain't interested...

bwhahahahahahaha

Geez... we're all punch-drunk here with the notion that the Z1 could have 24p. I have to admit, now that the possibility seems even remotely possible, it is totally changing my plans - up until now when the posts all said "same ccd, same lens, same 1080i" then I was like, "what? go pro just for black body and xlr's and being able to keep my evf on at same time as lcd?" but now this would really explain the price gap...

I don't know, Murph - sony has that HDV logo everywhere now on their website - who's to say the spec simply hasn't been massaged a bit since being announced in Sept. 2003?

Just because 24p wasn't originally in spec doesn't mean they can't find a way to work it in, does it?

Like I said, Canon people I talked to here in Canada seem pretty certain Z1's lens element will be different than FX1's - we're just gonna have to wait.

I know something for sure - I will not BUY FX1 until official specs on pro Z1 come out - here's hoping there's official clarification around time frame FX1 comes to market here (and not say, December or January).

But watch Sony be coy and try to suck people into grabbing the first iteration before announcing "new and improved" features on pro... hey - why not sell 2 cams instead of 1?

[Scott Anderson]

Does the Panasonic DVX-100a shoot 24p? Yes. Does it write to tape in the DV format? Yes. Is it within the DV spec, although you can still extract 24 discrete frames? Yes. As long as the end signal is written to tape in 1080/60i, I don't see where the conflict is. The HVR-Z1 can capture off the CCD at 24p, apply a pulldown to 60i, then write to tape completely within the HDV bitrates and specifications. Some of the early reports of annoying judder remind me when folks watched the Advanced Pulldown straight off the DVX-100, before it was fully understood. That type of pulldown is not meant to be watched raw, it's meant to easily extract 24 frames in post.

[Barry Green]

Can anyone point me to where Sony official called the HVR-Z1 an "HDV" camera?

Anyone care to comment?

Murph

There was a .PDF brochure floating around that had the "pro" version of the camera, and also a deck on it, I think it came from Sony Australia? In any case, it had HDV all over it.

[Barry Green]

sounds like you're almost leaving the door open for the thing to shoot 720p then, since that too doesn't conform to HDV spec.

Not sure what you mean. 720P is most definitely part of the HDV spec. HDV includes 720 at 25P, 30P, 50P and 60P, all at 19mbps, and 1080 at 50i and 60i at 25mbps.

[Barry Green]

Yes. As long as the end signal is written to tape in 1080/60i, I don't see where the conflict is. The HVR-Z1 can capture off the CCD at 24p, apply a pulldown to 60i, then write to tape completely within the HDV bitrates and specifications.

JVC has already announced plans to do exactly that: on the 2/3" pro shoulder-mount camera they're developing, they say they'll support 24P at 1080 resolution, and it will be HDV-compliant, even though HDV doesn't specify 24P (and of course neither does DV, just like you pointed out, yet Panasonic and Canon did it anyway).

That doesn't mean the HVR will be 24P however. They'd have to have designed progressive-scan CCD's, and near as I can tell from everything I've heard from Sony, or quoted about Sony, they're all about 1080i and don't give a hoot about progressive scan.

[Mark Kubat]

I guess I meant more it deviated from Sony's adherence to the spec which focuses on 1080i vs. 720p (JVC)

Saw an article somewhere recently that when announced by broadcasters in Europe that they were more likely to endorse 720p, Sony expressed "disappointment" because monitors actually have capability for 1080, so why not take full advantage?

Everyone says that Sony will be sticking to 1080i - will they?

Aw, let's have 1080p...?

[Daniel Broadway]

Yes, I agree. For us filmmakers, give us 1080/24p/30p for those video people, give them 1080/60p

Interlaced video should have been ancient history by now.

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Ok, so...lol. It looks like there is a PDF somewhere, but no one can definately point to a specific place right now and say "there"!

At this moment, if you really think about it...the HVR-F1 isn't "HDV" per say. It's a "Pro" version for the "HDV" HDR-FX1.

This is plausible, so if it is....24p isn't such a pipe dream. It is factual that Panny has a 24p camera in the same price range. (actually less than the Z1) Why wouldn't Sony want to kill the Panny 24p right now?

Possible logic:

Sony dominates low price point under $7,000 - 24p camera with compressed image. Also, dominates middle and higher price points.

The only thing that makes no sense is the 1080i in the FX1? If the FX1 has no 24p then I'm not sure why Sony would even put it out. (In relation to my hypothisis) Therefore, I'm totally not sure about this entire thread I started....argh!

It would just make sense for them to take Panny to the cleaners with the Z1 if it were 24p - yet, not capable of hurting their upper line of cameras. They would need to say the heck with the "HDV" spec, but hey....didn't Panny opt out anyway? That means Sony is possibly going to nail Panny outside of the "HDV" spec?

Murph

[Scott Aston]

It would just make sense for them to take Panny to the cleaners with the Z1 if it were 24p - yet, not capable of hurting their upper line of cameras. They would need to say the heck with the "HDV" spec, but hey....didn't Panny opt out anyway? That means Sony is possibly going to nail Panny outside of the "HDV" spec?

Murph -->>>


If the Z1 (PRO) is in deed 24p, also can shoot 60i & 50i. Better lens and bigger better or whatever CCD's than it's little brother F1, I think it wouldn't hurt Sony's pocket book from lack of sales of the CineAlta what so ever.

I read somewhere (I believe on this forum) that Sony sold just over 300 CineAlta's last year. At a $100,000 a pop that sales of 30 million. I hate to specualte how many Z1 (PRO) they would sell, but lets say world wide sales of 5000 Z1's at $7000 a pop. Nice little chunk of change at 35 million. I think that anoyone who can afford a $100, 000 camera, would be in the market for a $7000 camera.

I really hope that Sony has included all that is speculated in this thread, and if so, with Sony's reputation as a leader, I believe that this Z1 & F1 will slamdunk the competition at their propspective price level.

Let me ask you guys this: A 1/3 3CCD HDV 24p Sony Z1 (complete with XLR's Cinagamma control etc) at $7000. Would you even consider the new JVC camera that is 2/3CCD but at a price tag of $20,000? Is it worth the extra money for the larger CCD's?

[Mike Gannon]

I think the FX1 has already killed the DVX. At the end of the day, going from 60i to 24p in post is virtually the same as doing the conversion in camera. I know I'll probably get flamed for that, but we are talking about 1/3" chips here, so simply having a film tape rate isn't going to make a production look like a Cine Alta, much less 35mm.

Even so, deinterlaced 1080i from the FX1 is still going to give you a true resolution of 1440x540 in native 16:9. I'll take that over the progressive DVX SD rez in non-native 16:9 any day.

Many will still say that they like the filmic "look" of the DVX with regard to color saturation, but again, this is something that can be done, with far more options, on a clean, hi-rez image, in post. That's the selling point of the XL-2 over the DVX, and one I agree with until you start adding up the real cost of the XL-2 package and realize that the Sony - consumer and pro - deserve a good hard look.

[Mike Gannon]

<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Aston : Let me ask you guys this: A 1/3 3CCD HDV 24p Sony Z1 (complete with XLR's Cinagamma control etc) at $7000. Would you even consider the new JVC camera that is 2/3CCD but at a price tag of $20,000? Is it worth the extra money for the larger CCD's? -->>>

For most people looking at the FX1/Z1, I think the answer is probably no. You are still going to have to put a nice HD lens on the JVC which will easily double the price. If I thought I could get $50,000 back out of a full camera package within a reasonable period of time, I would have bought the SDX900 a year ago instead of renting it now and then for $1500/day.

[Joel Guy]

It is to Sony's advantage to keep market distinctions between the various buying groups, consumer, prosumer, and professional. The Z1 is a prosumer camera (based on price), and I really think it would be very much to Sony's longtime disadvantage to offer some of the most important features offered to their $100,000/camera crowd, to the prosumer market. The broadcasting market is extremely important to Sony, and I don't think Sony plans on alienating them by giving away their high-price features for pennies. I just don't think it makes any sense at all from a business standpoint. Just because they have the technology to do so, doesn't mean that Sony wants to release the "ultimate" camera. They can make more money releasing a very good prosumer camera, and a much better professional camera. Many people will still buy the Z1 whether it has all of these features or not. And the high-price professional crowd will feel confident in their $30,000+ per camera purchases, as opposed to feeling undermined by a prosumer model. Of course it'd be great if Sony's camera came with all of these options, and larger CCD's, but from a business standpoint, why would Sony want to mix their marketing groups. They might make all the prosumers in the world ecstatic, but they will also make the upper crust uneasy. Maybe I'm being too skeptical, and I do hope the Z1 is as great as people are saying, but I don't see that happening. These camera innovations usually trickle down from the top quite slowly.

[Michael Struthers]

24p is way overrated in a camera. Shoot 1080i and de-interlace in post, it'll look great.

[Barry Green]

I read somewhere (I believe on this forum) that Sony sold just over 300 CineAlta's last year. At a $100,000 a pop that sales of 30 million. I hate to specualte how many Z1 (PRO) they would sell, but lets say world wide sales of 5000 Z1's at $7000 a pop. Nice little chunk of change at 35 million.

That's gross revenues, but not profit. The profit margin on a CineAlta might be $60,000 or $70,000 (who knows?) and the profit margin on a Z1 would be maybe $1000. So you're talking about a difference of cash-in-the-pocket to Sony between $21,000,000 for the 300 CineAltas, or $5 million for the Z1's. Big difference. However, I think the 5,000 figure is way conservative, I expect Sony to sell 5x that many in the first year, so yeah, actually, the net revenue figures would be about the same!

(considering this is all completely armchair guesswork with *no* basis in reality, none of us knows Sony's business model!)

I really hope that Sony has included all that is speculated in this thread, and if so, with Sony's reputation as a leader, I believe that this Z1 & F1 will slamdunk the competition at their propspective price level.

Agreed.

Let me ask you guys this: A 1/3 3CCD HDV 24p Sony Z1 (complete with XLR's Cinagamma control etc) at $7000. Would you even consider the new JVC camera that is 2/3CCD but at a price tag of $20,000? Is it worth the extra money for the larger CCD's?

To some people, yes. The shoulder-mount design looks more pro, the CRT viewfinder, the interchangeable lenses, the much better low-light performance of a 2/3" chip, and the much shallower DOF would be compelling arguments. Plus the larger tape size for hours of recording. However, 3x the price is asking a lot. I think JVC would sell all they could make at $12,000. Not so sure if $20,000 would hold up.