Questions on the FX1 and Z1 at DVinfo.net

David Gomez · November 11th, 2004, 12:08 AM

1) Will the Z1 be able to record in 480P (60P)? I saw 480P listed in that 46 page powerpoint document someone posted.

2) Is there any digital zoom on either the FX1 or Z1?

3) Is Sony building a special telephoto lens for the camera? What telephoto lens currently on the market would work with this camera (hopefully something under $400)? I need more than 12X zoom.

Chris Hurd · November 12th, 2004, 05:09 PM

1. Available frame rates in these camcorders are 60i, 50i, 30p, 25p, 24p. The FX1 NTSC version records 60i, 30p and 24p. The FX1 PAL verson records 50i and 25p. The pro version (the HVR-Z1) records all the above frame rates.

2. There is no digital zoom on either camcorder, nor would you want there to be, since digital zoom significantly compromises image quality in all camcorders (with the sole exception of the Canon GL2 by virtue of its flourite lens).

3. I think we can look forward to third-part manufacturers such as Century Optics producing a series of adapters, including a teleconverter, for these cameras.

Don Donatello · November 12th, 2004, 06:37 PM

i'm not sure that SONY calls the 24 thing 24p .. all the talk that i've heard from them they refer to it as 24fps and when i've asked is it progressive they just reply it's 24fps ... though they did refer to 30p 480p as progressive in dv mode on Z-1... but they would not use the word progressive with 1080 at 24fps..
we should know by DV expo ??

Mike Tiffee · November 12th, 2004, 06:48 PM

The HDV downconverted component output of the Z1 is switchable between 480i and 480p. It does not record anything progessive.

Chris Hurd · November 12th, 2004, 07:08 PM

It's important to understand that the CCD's in these cameras are interlace, not progessive. Therefore you will never hear Sony refer to their 30, 25 and 24 fps frame rates as "progressive" or "30p" or 24P" etc. These frame rates are interpolated via algorithms in much the same way that Panasonic uses for their own Frame Movie mode. Well, maybe not "much in the same way." It's probably completely different! But the fact remains that they're not going to call it progressive just like you can't call Panasonic's Frame Mode progressive. Because these are not progressive scan CCD's.

Sony is branding it as CineFrame. It's a 30p emulation. And a 24p, 25p emulation, etc. Remember that the Canon XL1, XL1S, GL1 and GL2 all used Panasonic's Frame Movie mode in their cameras. It produces the same results as 30p but through different means (using the Pixel Shift process actually, and interesting to note that these Sony cams also have Pixel Shift so maybe that's part of how they're doing it as well).

Panasonic and Canon camcorders equipped with Frame Movie mode will produce 30p results but you'd never hear those manufacturers calling it 30p because it really isn't. It's an emulation. The same results but through a process other than progressive scan CCD's.

The same thing is happening with these Sony HDV cameras. They offer 30fps, 25fps, 24fps. The frame rates emulate a progressive-scan image. But these cameras have interlace CCD's so they're not about to call it "progressive scan" nor will they put the "P" in 24p. It wouldn't be right, nor accurate. They've got to call it something. Frame Movie mode is a Panasonic technology which Canon has borrowed before. Sony does their own thing so they're calling it CineFrame.

I'm referring to it here as 30p, 24p etc. because let's face it, it's the same thing (for those purists out there who insist it isn't the same thing, well look, it's as close as it's going to get, come on). Remember it's just like many people referred the XL1, GL2 etc. as "30p" because that's the look you get with Frame Movie mode.

Well, 30p, 25p and 24p is the look you get with CineFrame, so that's what I'm calling it. As long as people realize that we're not talking about progressive scan CCD's here then I think it's okay. After all, it's worked well in the past for many years.

Mark Kubat · November 12th, 2004, 10:41 PM

Chris, this is starting to sound confusing - your mention of the Panasonic frame mode used in cameras like the GS400 and AGDVC-30 is not the same as the progressive scanning done to give true 24p in the DVX100/A models... Canon's "frame modes" prior to XL2 were also severely lacking - it is interesting to note that the more recent iterations of the frame mode in cameras like the GS400 are way better than previously (ie. old XL1 frame 30 mode was TERRIBLE)

In fact, the FX1's cineframe 30 almost seems satisfactory in terms of SIMULATING THE FILMIC CADENCE the way the Panasonic frame movie mode of recent models does. However, because the mode does not do a true 24 progressive scan the way the DVX100 (and the Sony CineAlta and the Varicam) does, filmmakers who want to go out to film print are feeling left high and dry by the FX1... At least, that's the way I understand the "facts?"

Am I mistaken on any of these points?

I remember too reading when the DVX100 first came out, everyone said the camera was really just doing 3:2 pulldown "internally" and it was like, "oh, don't buy the hype - it's just saving you from doing Magic Bullet in post stage" - but now Panasonic claims DVX100 is in fact shooting true progressive? Well, I can certainly vouch from extensive experience that frame mode on GS400 is NOT the same thing as 30p/24p on DVX100/A... although it DOES look great on Panasonic cams like the GS400 and I happily use it to give my "videos" a filmic feel...

And despite all the tweaking I try with cineframe 24 FX1 in Vegas and whatever, I cannot get anything that's as "pleasing" as 24p via DVX100 in terms of cadence...

Cineframe 24 seems to be a total dud.

Cineframe 30 seems useful, albeit only for "simulating" a look - god help you if you want to go to film print (okay, not most of us, but the purists here who have chosen DVX100 and forced Canon's hand with XL2 are obviously a strong lobby)

60i to 24p via software de-interlacing, pulldown etc. seems to be the consensus for filmmakers hoping to adopt the FX1

But what about cineframe 25? Is it somehow doing the pulldown differently? Could it be a true progressive since PAL is 50i?

I think it's dangerous to use the 24p/25p/30p when discussing Panasonic Frame modes or what the FX1 is doing - it's suggesting it's the same as what you get with Sony CineAlta and Varicam, and that's not the case... right?

Chris Hurd · November 12th, 2004, 11:58 PM

Hi Mark,

I appreciate your feedback -- all your points are well taken.

<< Could it be a true progressive since PAL is 50i? >>

Once again: the CCD's in these Sony HDV cameras are not progressive scan. Therefore it can offer no true progressive mode no matter what the frame rate is. It can only emulate progressive, which is what CineFrame is at any of its three frame rates.

<< I think it's dangerous to use the 24p/25p/30p when discussing Panasonic Frame modes or what the FX1 is doing - it's suggesting it's the same as what you get with Sony CineAlta and Varicam, and that's not the case... >>

Trust me, I would *never* suggest that it's the same as CineAlta or VariCam. I tend to compare things only if they are priced alike.

<< filmmakers who want to go out to film print are feeling left high and dry by the FX1 >>

Why would anybody with the budget for a film out shoot on one of these things anyway? It happens only very rarely -- definitely the exception to the norm -- so much the exception that when it happens it's an anomaly that gets press, like "28 Days Later" shot on the XL1. It's just not happening that often. If you're going for a film out, then by definition you've got the budget for a better camera than $3700 (which buys how many minutes of 35mm transfer -- not very much).

I think the large majority filmmakers that are realistically expecting to go to 35mm are more commonly shooting in the professional HD formats; I don't think HDV is intended for this. Use the right tool for the right job is all I'm saying. I'd never recommend these Sony HDV cameras to a filmmaker. This is a corporate and event videographer's tool, not a filmmaker's tool.

This won't stop a filmmaker from using it (and in my opinion, nothing should stop a filmmaker except a bad review from Joe Bob Briggs). But at least its limitations in the filmmaking environment should be known going in.

Ray Van Eng · November 13th, 2004, 04:06 AM

Using the FX1 or Z1 for certain types of moviemaking does make sense. And not just for low-budget concerns.

The lightness and relative simplicity of these HDV cameras means a smaller crew, more portable support equipment, faster setup time and better mobility. Which are the reasons why there are landscape photographers who use 35mm or medium format gears instead of the traditional large format 4x5 or 8x10 cameras.

I do agree that if you are interested in the ultimate image quality in digital video then HDCAM, Varicam etc. are the way to go. I personally do not think that these ‘upscale’ markets will be threatened by the HDV entries from Sony or anyone else. The onslaught of HDTV will only increase the use of all the HD tools - HDCAM, Varicam, HDV, Viper or any other formats that may come through the pipeline later. In the end they are all just tools and you choose the one that works best for you when all factors are taken into consideration - budget, portability, unobtrusiveness, simplicity etc.

Sony’s CCDs being interlaced will certainly open up a market for true 24P in HDV for other manufacturers. Sony must have realized that and I think what they are saying is, look, if you are really serious about a film-out, then use one of our bigger toys, i.e. HDCAM or Cinealta. Or if you must use HDV, there are workable solutions such as the tried-and-true route of shooting 60i and convert it in post or maybe even give Cineframe a try and see if you like it.

Carlos E. Martinez · November 13th, 2004, 05:30 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Ray Van Eng : Or if you must use HDV, there are workable solutions such as the tried-and-true route of shooting 60i and convert it in post or maybe even give Cineframe a try and see if you like it. -->>>

A much much better route is shooting 50i and post-converting to film. No software process involved. Cleaner and less expensive.

Carlos

Chris Hurd · November 13th, 2004, 11:03 AM

<< I think what they are saying is, look, if you are really serious about a film-out, then use one of our bigger toys, i.e. HDCAM or Cinealta. >>

Actually this is exactly what Sony said at their press conference when they announced the Z1 earlier this week.

Bill Pryor · November 13th, 2004, 12:13 PM

Good points. Yet, every year we see a very few movies that were shot with 1/3" chip DV cameras that make it to film and theatrical release. Not many, but some. I think having two different small, economical 1/3" chip cameras available that have 16:9 chips is great, because if somebody manages to do something with an XL2 or an FX1/Z1, and it gets to a print, then it will look better than had they done it with an XL1s, PD170 or DVX100a. Higher resolution is always going to look better for going to film. It won't look as good as if they used a 2/3" chip camera and HD, but it'll still be an improvement.

Kevin Dooley · November 13th, 2004, 03:52 PM

I'm not sure who said it around here, but it strikes me as being pretty true...people who are intending to end up on film probably have a larger budget to accomodate better equipment and the cost of going to film... Of course there are exceptions to this...but they're just that, exceptions.

Honestly in this price range, what I am concerned about...as a corporate/event videographer and on again off again "filmmaker" is really the look of film...I probably (unless God causes his face to *really* shine upon me) won't go to film any time in the forseeable future (nor would I plan on it...) However, I have clients that don't want things to look like video, but they don't care to pay for a super high end production either... So for me (and my money) I'm going to do everything I can to give them a look that doesn't look video-y. How does HDV fit in? I honestly don't know at this time...but I am very, very excited about where it could go...is it perfect? Nope. But neither is the DV world I currently work in.

Of course I understand there are considerations for using smaller cameras besides budget--they're the benefits I currently enjoy--but I still think there are better options if you are intending to end up on film...

November 11th, 2004, 12:08 AM	#1
David Gomez Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 50	Questions on the FX1 and Z1 1) Will the Z1 be able to record in 480P (60P)? I saw 480P listed in that 46 page powerpoint document someone posted. 2) Is there any digital zoom on either the FX1 or Z1? 3) Is Sony building a special telephoto lens for the camera? What telephoto lens currently on the market would work with this camera (hopefully something under $400)? I need more than 12X zoom.

November 12th, 2004, 05:09 PM	#2
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	1. Available frame rates in these camcorders are 60i, 50i, 30p, 25p, 24p. The FX1 NTSC version records 60i, 30p and 24p. The FX1 PAL verson records 50i and 25p. The pro version (the HVR-Z1) records all the above frame rates. 2. There is no digital zoom on either camcorder, nor would you want there to be, since digital zoom significantly compromises image quality in all camcorders (with the sole exception of the Canon GL2 by virtue of its flourite lens). 3. I think we can look forward to third-part manufacturers such as Century Optics producing a series of adapters, including a teleconverter, for these cameras. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

November 12th, 2004, 07:08 PM	#5
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	It's important to understand that the CCD's in these cameras are interlace, not progessive. Therefore you will never hear Sony refer to their 30, 25 and 24 fps frame rates as "progressive" or "30p" or 24P" etc. These frame rates are interpolated via algorithms in much the same way that Panasonic uses for their own Frame Movie mode. Well, maybe not "much in the same way." It's probably completely different! But the fact remains that they're not going to call it progressive just like you can't call Panasonic's Frame Mode progressive. Because these are not progressive scan CCD's. Sony is branding it as CineFrame. It's a 30p emulation. And a 24p, 25p emulation, etc. Remember that the Canon XL1, XL1S, GL1 and GL2 all used Panasonic's Frame Movie mode in their cameras. It produces the same results as 30p but through different means (using the Pixel Shift process actually, and interesting to note that these Sony cams also have Pixel Shift so maybe that's part of how they're doing it as well). Panasonic and Canon camcorders equipped with Frame Movie mode will produce 30p results but you'd never hear those manufacturers calling it 30p because it really isn't. It's an emulation. The same results but through a process other than progressive scan CCD's. The same thing is happening with these Sony HDV cameras. They offer 30fps, 25fps, 24fps. The frame rates emulate a progressive-scan image. But these cameras have interlace CCD's so they're not about to call it "progressive scan" nor will they put the "P" in 24p. It wouldn't be right, nor accurate. They've got to call it something. Frame Movie mode is a Panasonic technology which Canon has borrowed before. Sony does their own thing so they're calling it CineFrame. I'm referring to it here as 30p, 24p etc. because let's face it, it's the same thing (for those purists out there who insist it isn't the same thing, well look, it's as close as it's going to get, come on). Remember it's just like many people referred the XL1, GL2 etc. as "30p" because that's the look you get with Frame Movie mode. Well, 30p, 25p and 24p is the look you get with CineFrame, so that's what I'm calling it. As long as people realize that we're not talking about progressive scan CCD's here then I think it's okay. After all, it's worked well in the past for many years. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

November 12th, 2004, 10:41 PM	#6
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	Chris, this needs to be cleared up... Chris, this is starting to sound confusing - your mention of the Panasonic frame mode used in cameras like the GS400 and AGDVC-30 is not the same as the progressive scanning done to give true 24p in the DVX100/A models... Canon's "frame modes" prior to XL2 were also severely lacking - it is interesting to note that the more recent iterations of the frame mode in cameras like the GS400 are way better than previously (ie. old XL1 frame 30 mode was TERRIBLE) In fact, the FX1's cineframe 30 almost seems satisfactory in terms of SIMULATING THE FILMIC CADENCE the way the Panasonic frame movie mode of recent models does. However, because the mode does not do a true 24 progressive scan the way the DVX100 (and the Sony CineAlta and the Varicam) does, filmmakers who want to go out to film print are feeling left high and dry by the FX1... At least, that's the way I understand the "facts?" Am I mistaken on any of these points? I remember too reading when the DVX100 first came out, everyone said the camera was really just doing 3:2 pulldown "internally" and it was like, "oh, don't buy the hype - it's just saving you from doing Magic Bullet in post stage" - but now Panasonic claims DVX100 is in fact shooting true progressive? Well, I can certainly vouch from extensive experience that frame mode on GS400 is NOT the same thing as 30p/24p on DVX100/A... although it DOES look great on Panasonic cams like the GS400 and I happily use it to give my "videos" a filmic feel... And despite all the tweaking I try with cineframe 24 FX1 in Vegas and whatever, I cannot get anything that's as "pleasing" as 24p via DVX100 in terms of cadence... Cineframe 24 seems to be a total dud. Cineframe 30 seems useful, albeit only for "simulating" a look - god help you if you want to go to film print (okay, not most of us, but the purists here who have chosen DVX100 and forced Canon's hand with XL2 are obviously a strong lobby) 60i to 24p via software de-interlacing, pulldown etc. seems to be the consensus for filmmakers hoping to adopt the FX1 But what about cineframe 25? Is it somehow doing the pulldown differently? Could it be a true progressive since PAL is 50i? I think it's dangerous to use the 24p/25p/30p when discussing Panasonic Frame modes or what the FX1 is doing - it's suggesting it's the same as what you get with Sony CineAlta and Varicam, and that's not the case... right?

November 12th, 2004, 11:58 PM	#7
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Hi Mark, I appreciate your feedback -- all your points are well taken. << Could it be a true progressive since PAL is 50i? >> Once again: the CCD's in these Sony HDV cameras are not progressive scan. Therefore it can offer no true progressive mode no matter what the frame rate is. It can only emulate progressive, which is what CineFrame is at any of its three frame rates. << I think it's dangerous to use the 24p/25p/30p when discussing Panasonic Frame modes or what the FX1 is doing - it's suggesting it's the same as what you get with Sony CineAlta and Varicam, and that's not the case... >> Trust me, I would never suggest that it's the same as CineAlta or VariCam. I tend to compare things only if they are priced alike. << filmmakers who want to go out to film print are feeling left high and dry by the FX1 >> Why would anybody with the budget for a film out shoot on one of these things anyway? It happens only very rarely -- definitely the exception to the norm -- so much the exception that when it happens it's an anomaly that gets press, like "28 Days Later" shot on the XL1. It's just not happening that often. If you're going for a film out, then by definition you've got the budget for a better camera than $3700 (which buys how many minutes of 35mm transfer -- not very much). I think the large majority filmmakers that are realistically expecting to go to 35mm are more commonly shooting in the professional HD formats; I don't think HDV is intended for this. Use the right tool for the right job is all I'm saying. I'd never recommend these Sony HDV cameras to a filmmaker. This is a corporate and event videographer's tool, not a filmmaker's tool. This won't stop a filmmaker from using it (and in my opinion, nothing should stop a filmmaker except a bad review from Joe Bob Briggs). But at least its limitations in the filmmaking environment should be known going in. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

November 12th, 2004, 06:37 PM	#3
Don Donatello Hawaiian Shirt Mogul Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: northern cailfornia Posts: 1,261	i'm not sure that SONY calls the 24 thing 24p .. all the talk that i've heard from them they refer to it as 24fps and when i've asked is it progressive they just reply it's 24fps ... though they did refer to 30p 480p as progressive in dv mode on Z-1... but they would not use the word progressive with 1080 at 24fps.. we should know by DV expo ??

November 12th, 2004, 06:48 PM	#4
Mike Tiffee Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 150	The HDV downconverted component output of the Z1 is switchable between 480i and 480p. It does not record anything progessive.

November 13th, 2004, 04:06 AM	#8
Ray Van Eng Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 25	Using the FX1 or Z1 for certain types of moviemaking does make sense. And not just for low-budget concerns. The lightness and relative simplicity of these HDV cameras means a smaller crew, more portable support equipment, faster setup time and better mobility. Which are the reasons why there are landscape photographers who use 35mm or medium format gears instead of the traditional large format 4x5 or 8x10 cameras. I do agree that if you are interested in the ultimate image quality in digital video then HDCAM, Varicam etc. are the way to go. I personally do not think that these ‘upscale’ markets will be threatened by the HDV entries from Sony or anyone else. The onslaught of HDTV will only increase the use of all the HD tools - HDCAM, Varicam, HDV, Viper or any other formats that may come through the pipeline later. In the end they are all just tools and you choose the one that works best for you when all factors are taken into consideration - budget, portability, unobtrusiveness, simplicity etc. Sony’s CCDs being interlaced will certainly open up a market for true 24P in HDV for other manufacturers. Sony must have realized that and I think what they are saying is, look, if you are really serious about a film-out, then use one of our bigger toys, i.e. HDCAM or Cinealta. Or if you must use HDV, there are workable solutions such as the tried-and-true route of shooting 60i and convert it in post or maybe even give Cineframe a try and see if you like it.

November 13th, 2004, 05:30 AM	#9
Carlos E. Martinez Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Posts: 1,138	<<<-- Originally posted by Ray Van Eng : Or if you must use HDV, there are workable solutions such as the tried-and-true route of shooting 60i and convert it in post or maybe even give Cineframe a try and see if you like it. -->>> A much much better route is shooting 50i and post-converting to film. No software process involved. Cleaner and less expensive. Carlos

November 13th, 2004, 11:03 AM	#10
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	<< I think what they are saying is, look, if you are really serious about a film-out, then use one of our bigger toys, i.e. HDCAM or Cinealta. >> Actually this is exactly what Sony said at their press conference when they announced the Z1 earlier this week. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

November 13th, 2004, 12:13 PM	#11
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Good points. Yet, every year we see a very few movies that were shot with 1/3" chip DV cameras that make it to film and theatrical release. Not many, but some. I think having two different small, economical 1/3" chip cameras available that have 16:9 chips is great, because if somebody manages to do something with an XL2 or an FX1/Z1, and it gets to a print, then it will look better than had they done it with an XL1s, PD170 or DVX100a. Higher resolution is always going to look better for going to film. It won't look as good as if they used a 2/3" chip camera and HD, but it'll still be an improvement.

November 13th, 2004, 03:52 PM	#12
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	Film Prints and otherwise I'm not sure who said it around here, but it strikes me as being pretty true...people who are intending to end up on film probably have a larger budget to accomodate better equipment and the cost of going to film... Of course there are exceptions to this...but they're just that, exceptions. Honestly in this price range, what I am concerned about...as a corporate/event videographer and on again off again "filmmaker" is really the look of film...I probably (unless God causes his face to really shine upon me) won't go to film any time in the forseeable future (nor would I plan on it...) However, I have clients that don't want things to look like video, but they don't care to pay for a super high end production either... So for me (and my money) I'm going to do everything I can to give them a look that doesn't look video-y. How does HDV fit in? I honestly don't know at this time...but I am very, very excited about where it could go...is it perfect? Nope. But neither is the DV world I currently work in. Of course I understand there are considerations for using smaller cameras besides budget--they're the benefits I currently enjoy--but I still think there are better options if you are intending to end up on film...