WHOA! I've got something here...RE: Z1 - 24p??

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Hey everyone interested in the Z1...check this possibility out.

If Sony wants to convert and pee-off XL2 & DVX100 customers that have 24p by providing 24p on the Z1 - I believe they can do it!

What if?

Sony has 24p on the DV setting and NOT the HDV setting????????? Technically, they will fall into spec for the HDV standard because it's not on the HDV recording. However, it could be offered on the DV mode!

Please, can anyone tell me if this has been talked about before? I can't find it anywhere. Sony's been quiet about the missing features, they've also not said no to the 24p, yet we all know they can't do it on the HDV.

My theory is they'll have a 24p DV option, but no 24p HDV! I'll take it! It would justify the increase in price wouldn't it?

Murph

[Betsy Moore]

But it would be like the old dentist joke, "your teeth are fine but your gums will have to go." It would be typically perverse of a camcorder maker to have a camera that's modelled to be perfect for film transfer in all but one aspect (24p), then add that one aspect and cripple everything else that would make it appropriate for film.

[Heath McKnight]

That's speculation, of course, and the DV isn't native 16x9 like the XL-2 is. It would be nice, but why bother going 24p DV when you have 1080i HDV and you can use software to make it 24p? 480 lines of resolution (DV) vs. 1080 lines of resolution (HDV).

heath

[Joel Guy]

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : and the DV isn't native 16x9 like the XL-2 is. ->>>

Heath,

what do you mean by this? I thought the Sony was using 16:9-shaped CCD's.

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Isn't the 1080i HDV downconverted to 24p suppose to look really funky? I guess it's much better than 30p, but still isn't native 24p DV with all the HDV benefits (via optics etc) worth having? I'm just thinking that 24p is hot - and Sony doesn't have it in the price range of XL2 & DVX100.

Everyone has been making the rounds on what it will have, no one has said this one yet. Interestly, it's really the only practical thing....it will be as good as the XL2 & DVX100 (ok, subjective upon seeing footage)....and it won't be "HD" 24p to hurt their upper line.

Again, this is my theory....but a darn good one compared to most! It seems to bring this whole Z1 thing back to earth. Sony definately has something coming up, and all signs point to real 24p in DV mode only.

Remember if this happens I broke the news first! ;)

Let's pray! (even if you ain't religous!)

Murph

[Scott Anderson]

Murph, even if Sony wanted to offer 24p in DV mode only, it would still have to have CCDs that would time out at 24 progressive frames, then pass those progressive frames onto the DSP section of the camera before being written to tape. My point is that if the CCDs were already timed to run at 24p, then it makes no sense at all not to use that feature while in HDV mode. Both modes will likely use the same CCDs and post-CCD DSP, the only difference being in which mode gets written to tape - full HDV, or downconverted DV. We already know that the pro version will convert to DV live over the firewire port, even if you shoot in HDV. It would be a trivial matter to write that DV stream to tape.

I really don't buy the argument that has been brought up so many times before on so many products that Sony (or others) "don't want to hurt sales of the high end HD lineup". The CineAlta and Varicam products are in an entirely different market segment than this camera would fall into. The folks who buy those products will continue to buy them, and there are very few who fall into a legitimate middle ground between a $6000 camera and a $50-100,000 camera. Any HDV camera, including the upcoming JVC ENG-style is not going to make so much as a dent in high-end HD, not to mention the Dalsa, Thompson Filmstream or Panavision/Sony cameras coming into film production. The only major market shift would be all the indie wannabe filmakers now gunning for DVX-100's would shoot their indies on this cam. That may happen anyway, even if the 1080/60i conversion to 24p is better than DV 24p to film.

No, I don't think that Sony will intentionally hobble the camera by having a fully functional 24p process, but limiting that to DV only. I believe that Sony's thinking on DV is backward compatability, plus the ability to deliver DV originals to the clients that need that format. The focus on this camera seems to pack as much innovation into the camera as possible, and let it clearly dominate the market segment it's in. I also hope Sony really does make this a "one size fits all" camera, in that it's 50i/60i switchable, 25p and 30p optional, one model worldwide. I also still hold out hope that 24p is an option. It's been clearly demonstrated as possible, even within the 60i HDV specification, ala the DVX-100. It would also make a heck of a lot of sense if Sony wanted 1 camera model worldwide. 24p is the only format that is easily distributed in both NTSC AND PAL environments, 60i and 50i HD, as well as worldwide cinema.

[Mike Gannon]

I posted the DV-only 24p mode speculation last month on the basis that 24p is not part of the HDV format. Barry Green correctly pointed out that 24p isn't part of the DV format either, but Panasonic and Canon did it anyway.

I think it's safe to say from several sources that Sony is going to monkey with the CCD block on the Z1, the only question is why? If it's just to give us true 1440 rez w/o pixel shifting, I guess that's OK, but I have not heard anyone really complain about the pixel shift in the FX1.

So why are they doing it? My guess is that they are going with progressive scan, but it will be of the 25p/30p flavor. My question is if they stick with 1080 or run that at 720. For 6-7K, I'd better be getting more than XLRs, etc.

[Heath McKnight]

I read that like the JVC HD10, the DV will be native 4:3.

heath

[Jeff Kilgroe]

<<<-- Originally posted by Heath McKnight : I read that like the JVC HD10, the DV will be native 4:3. -->>>

I really hope this isn't so. Why would they do such a thing? OTOH, from what I have seen of the FX1 footage so far, it would seem to make more sense to always shoot in HDV mode and then convert to SD/DV only when needed at the time of final output. I will be seriously interested in the pro version too if it really does support DVCAM format. I know DVCAM is still far from perfect and not much better than DV in most respects, but from my [limited] experience with it, DVCAM doesn't seem as affected by the pixelated chroma bleeding off red objects and a lot of the other fun stuff we get along with DV.

Anyway, if the FX1/Z1 (Z1 especially) doesn't support 16:9 natively for DV (yes, it will still encode as anamorphic 4:3), I will be very disappointed. If the Z1 does support DVCAM, that could be a good sign in regards to 16:9 concerns -- IIRC, DVCAM supports non-squeezed 16:9 at 854x480. Or perhaps that was one of Sony's other DVCAM/DVCPRO derivatives. ???

[Heath McKnight]

That's what I'd do, down-convert it to DV from HDV. The HD10 allows you to hook up the camera to another camera and deck and either up-convert to 1080i or down-convert to 480p or 480i. I wouldn't be surprised if the FX1 and the Z1 both can do that, to stay competitive.

heath

[Scott Anderson]

Jeff, the difference in DVCam vs DV is only in the tape speed and track pitch, not in the digital data at all. DVCam is still DV. As an example, look at the Sony VX-2100 vs the PD-170. They both use the same lens, the same CCDs, and the same DSP before writing to tape, I believe (this was the case in the 200/150 - wasn't it?). They also write exactly the same data to tape. In fact, you can do a losless firewire transfer from a DVCam tape to a DV tape, or vice versa.

DVCam was developed by Sony as a professional format to address durability concerns for pros who put more physical stress on the tape. The tape has a wider track pitch, runs faster through the transport, and is a slightly different tape formulation, although you can intechange DVCam and DV tapes in each other's cameras (that is you can record DVCam on a regular DV tape, and DVCam or DVCPro is usually fully backward-compatible with regular DV - however DV equipment is usually not forward compatible with DVCam or DVCPro).

If you've seen less chroma bleeding from DVCam sources compared to DV sources, it's a result of better electronics and optics in DVCam cameras, not because DVCam is a better format than DV. I just wanted to clear up the misconceptions that still seem to float around concerning DVCam, but I may be slightly off base with the 2100/170. The point is that all things being equal, the format is identical. The only difference is how that format is physically written to the tape.

DVCPro50 is an entirely different animal. I believe it's still DV-based compression, just at double the data rate (50Mbits/sec. vs. DV's 250Mbits/sec.). If we saw some scaling up of HDV to 50Mbits/sec., say branded as "HDVPro" or similar, a lot of the concerns about MPEG2 compression would go away, although then we'd have to deal with that doubled data rate in shorter tape run times, Hard Drive storage and speed requirements, and double the processor power in our editing systems.

[Barry Green]

There is one other difference between DV and DVCAM, which is that DVCAM uses locked audio, whereas DV uses unlocked.

The video data stream is indeed identical, but the audio recording method is a little different. However, some DV cameras actually use locked audio as well (the DVX and the JVC DV500/DV5000 being a couple of examples).

[Ron Evans]

DVCam and DVCPro were PRofessional formats of DV initially intended to fit into linear editing suites and thus locked audio was essential. Faster tapes speeds for less influence by dropouts and more robust tape. DVCPro went one step further to making it like the analogue formats it was to replace by having a cue track and control track just like M11 or Betacam. DV non-locked audio is still ONLY 1/3 a frame out at most. Most NLE on capture lock the audio. So once in the PC there is no difference between any of them!!! For linear editing there could be a big difference.

Ron Evans

[Don Donatello]

the locked audio vs unlocked audio was a selling point for the shoulder size camera's and of course something the BIG production companys could say to make the hand size camera seem like they don't record sync audio ..

the DV format spec is for audio to be within 1/3 of a frame ..

if you can hear/see 1/3 frame drift then you got some ears/eyes !!!! then use a camera with locked audio ...

[Barry Green]

Originally posted by Jeff Kilgroe IIRC, DVCAM supports non-squeezed 16:9 at 854x480. Or perhaps that was one of Sony's other DVCAM/DVCPRO derivatives. ???

All NTSC DV/DVCAM/DVCPRO formats shoot 720x480, for both 16:9 and 4:3. Even DVCPRO50 in native 16:9 is still 720x480.

The pixel array never changes size. What changes is the pixel aspect ratio, but the # of pixels never changes, it's always 720x480 for both 4:3, 16:9, 4:1:1 and 4:2:2, DV, DVCAM, DVCPRO or DVCPRO50 or even Digital-S.