Charlie White's review of Pro Z1... is he wrong?

[Chris Hurd]

Hey Tim...

<< I apologize if you were offended. >>

No worries -- actually I was amused, not offended. Sorry if it appeared that way!

<< The net is a wonderful thing but the proliferation of "misinformation" drives me batty! >>

Precisely the reason why I started these boards back in 2001. Now if I can just get you guys to stick around with us here, our goal is always the good information and only that. Forget about the rest of the net, there's a lot of inaccurate stuff floating around.

For Peter...

<< Chris, sorry but there is definitely a conflict between what you're saying and what the article is saying. >>

Can you clarify that conflict in some detail? Because I'm not seeing it. When Charlie White comments about the quality of CF24, he's stating his *opinion* which others may or may not agree with.

<< I'm obviously inclined to believe you, >>

Good on ya!

<< but I still question whether anyone at Sony has this straight. And no one has yet confirmed anywhere whether the pulldown is easily removed like it is on the Panasonic DVX100A. Or whether it uses 2:3:3:2. >>

Sony has it straight, and for the *record* their 3-chip 1080i HDV cams are using a 2:3 pulldown. Not 2:3:3:2. Hope this helps,

[Dennis Adams]

There is no valid reason to use 2:3:3:2 pulldown in MPEG-2. There are other ways of achieving a superior result.

///d@
Sony Media Software

[Barry Green]

Chris, the conflict is quite simple to see.

The FX1 shoots 60i. It uses in-camera interpolation to create a simulated 24P.

Charlie states flat out that the Z1 shoots at 24 frames per second (which implies true progressive scan at 24Hz rather than simulated/created from 60i). He then goes on to say that the CCD runs at 48hz when shooting the CineFrame 24 mode.

The FX1's CCD runs only at 60hz. If the Z1 is running at 48hz, that is obviously a HUGE difference: CineFrame 30 looks much better than CineFrame 24. If the CCD were running at 48hz, they could be creating this new CineFrame 24 using the same good technique as CineFrame 30 on the FX1, rather than the lower-quality CineFrame 24 of the FX1.

So there is a direct conflict. You're saying CineFrame 24 works exactly the same on both cameras. Charlie's saying that the CCD is running at a different frame rate, and then he also said that it is actually shooting 24 frames per second, which is a very very different concept than "creating" 24 frames per second out of footage that was shot at 60 fields per second.

Some clarification is necessary, because this is a directly conflicted point and one that could influence some purchase decisions.

[Chris Hurd]

Ah. Thanks, Barry. I can always count on you to explain things clearly (which is the mark of a good filmmaker, I might add!)

Well not to take a dig at Charlie White, but something's amiss here. I'm sticking to my story on this one.

Will get DSE's input -- wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong!

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Pull down is easily removed. From a technical standpoint, most agree that 3:2 is the best method of approach.
Charlie's comments are his opinion. I happen to agree with him, I was there, saw what he saw on a glorious 62' screen. I've NEVER seen video look that good coming straight off a camera. Chris may or may not feel differently, we've not discussed this. I feel CF 24 is as good if not better than 24fps.
From a technical standpoint, 24P sucks. From an emotional/artistic standpoint, it's great. If you can have the emotional/artistic without the technical loss, where's the beef?
Editing is sweet and easy with this cam, you'll want to use the Lumiere, Connect HD, or Aspect HD plugs, only a fool would edit the t/s streams natively. Talk about pain and loss!

Sony's got it right. And as I play with this, perhaps you'll hear a sweet lil' bombshell soon....that's NOT Sony sanctioned, I'll wager, but a major beneficial byproduct of owning the cam. I just need to confirm a few more things.

This is exciting times, eh? :-)

[Joe Carney]

Finally, straight scoop. I was getting luke warm about this cam. If the end result is as good or better than SD24p, then thats all that matters. Plus 50i/25p which is eaven easier to deal with.

I'm saving my pennies right now and figuring out what I'm gonna say to my long suffering wife. Might even get the vtr since it runs on batteries.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Joe, remember that the CF 24 being "as good or better than" 24p from the other cams, that's my opinion, apparently shared by others.
Here in part, is a post I made on another forum about 24P. I fully expect to be hammered, but this is my feeling:

One argument that I hear is just the "emotional quotient" of 24P. Frankly, I see that in the Sony Z1 cam using the CF mode. Is it exactly the same as film? Nope. Neither is the DVX 100. Argument lost on me then. If you want that exact emotional quotient, shoot film.

Next argument: "I gotta have 24P for matchback to film." OK, who here has done a matchback to film that was shot on a 24P camera? If so, why would you be using Vegas? Why would you be using a DV cam?

Next argument: "24P saves a lot of space on the DVD."
OK, I can buy/do buy this argument. In fact, I've used it frequently. You'd be surprised at how many of the VASST DVDs are done at 24P AFTER being acquired at 60i. And it gives an interesting cadence. Still not the same as being acquired at 24p.

Next argument: "24p is what George Lucas shoots at, if it's good enough for him it's great for me." Hello?! George Lucas doesn't shoot with a 4000.00 camera from Panasonic. He shoots with Sony Cinealta cams. Add another pair of zeros to the above figure, you too can have your own Cinealta with great glass. (ok, that's an exaggeration, Cinealta's don't cost 400K with glass, but it's closer than 4K is.) The Cinealta also doesn't use 1/3 chips.

Color and cadence are both what we want, yes? The "feel" of 24P with the depth of color that we get with 60i lit and shot well. So, with the new HDV cam, we get additional spatial resolution, nearly triple, actually. We get to keep our temporal resolution as well. We can always reduce spatial or temporal resolution in post or in the CF mode.
Now I'll be real insane in the minds of those that love 24p.
The film look is SO MUCH MORE than 24P. It's widescreen. It's colorspace management. It's color bloom, it's lighting, it's saturation, it's cadence, it's how things are shot, it's depth of field, and those are the things that REALLY count.
Show the average joe something that has shallow DOF, that is letterboxed, with slightly saturated colors, and he'll tell you it's film. Toss in 24P and that's just icing on the cake, but the sweetness in what people perceive isn't the cadence itself.
People in other forums are pissing on the Z1 because it's missing 24p at acquisition. Doesn't matter that Sony is concerned about image quality first, oh no! They want 24P regardless of how weak it looks by comparison, and that Sony knew people were after the "look" more than the math.

[Mike Tiffee]

I'm one of those that shares Douglas Spotted Eagles opinion on the CF24. I've shot a lot of film and the CF24 looks as good as anything I've shot.

I don't have a HDTV set yet, but just got back from circuit city watching some footage I shot on the 34" Sony widescreen CRT and man that stuff looks brilliant. It's very cinema-like.

[Peter Moore]

Chris,
You're saying that the FX1 and the Z1 have identical Cineframe24 modes. The article says:

"We first saw this CineFrame technology in the HDR-FX1, Sony ’s consumer-level camcorder , but in that model, the company billed it as delivering “a feeling of film-like 24 fps.” This new Z1 model is actually shooting at 24 frames/48 fields per second, so the CineFrame technology has an easier time of electronically combining two fields into one progressive frame, giving you the same or better video than you’d get if you were actually shooting at 24p, especially considering the small size of these CCD"

He is saying that the CCDs are operating at 48 Hz. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the FX1 Cineframe24 does NOT do that. So there's a difference right there and a pretty significant one. And it would have a HUGE advantage over a 60i->24p process. There would be some resolution loss, but NO temporal jitters. And I definitely saw temporal jitters in the sample Cineframe 24 footage from the FX1.

[Toke Lahti]

Douglas, why from a technical standpoint, 24P sucks?

If 24F of fx1 is so good, why Charlie is saying in his article that in z1 24F is so much better?

The reason why z1 doesn't have 24P is just because people so desperately want it. So they can get IMX or XDCAM...

Does anybody remember how much sony's bigger camera sales went down in -96 because of vx1000?

How 24F is better than 24P?

Was that 62" display interlaced? (eg. plasma using ALIS)

Guess about different frequencies of ccd sounds quite reasonable. One thing I learned in "4:4:4 10bit single CMOS HD project"-thread is that these ccd/cmos cells can be tweaked a lot only if you just have an interface to them.

Can anybody come up with a reason why sony is so heavily sticking with interlaced picure?
Because its plasmas are interlaced?
Overall development with diplay technologies is going to progressive scan. What's the benefit with interlaced?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

First, please read my ENTIRE post, as I explain why 24P sucks from a technical standpoint. Look for the words "temporal" in there.
I didn't say ANYTHING about the FX1 having bad 24p output. No where. Please read my post carefully.

The reason why z1 doesn't have 24P is just because people so desperately want it. So they can get IMX or XDCAM...
I don't think so. Sony wants you to have the BEST image possible. These cams use 1/3 inch chips.You can't even begin to compare these cams with the XD or HDCams. Totally different image.

Does anybody remember how much sony's bigger camera sales went down in -96 because of vx1000?
Who cares? It was a revolution, just like now. Aside from that, where are you getting your information? I'd struggle with accepting that there was a huge difference in sales unless Sony demonstrated it. Same would apply to Ikegami, Panasonic, and every other major ENG/EFP camera manufacturer.

How 24F is better than 24P?
Again, read my post if you want my particular opinion on this.

Was that 62" display interlaced? (eg. plasma using ALIS)
Again, read my post, I said 62' or SIXTY TWO FEET


Can anybody come up with a reason why sony is so heavily sticking with interlaced picure?
Because its plasmas are interlaced?
Overall development with diplay technologies is going to progressive scan. What's the benefit with interlaced?
Greater information, smoother images. Easier migration paths. History. Lots of reasons for the current time. Do you really think this particular generation of cams will be around in 10 years?

[Michael Struthers]

"Sony's got it right. And as I play with this, perhaps you'll hear a sweet lil' bombshell soon....that's NOT Sony sanctioned, I'll wager, but a major beneficial byproduct of owning the cam. I just need to confirm a few more things."

Ummmm, what is this, a detective novel? *L* Can't someone just come out and give the facts with this cam?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Remember, I don't work for Sony. I *think* a feature of the cam has been back-door uncovered, but I want to have someone at Sony verify what I think I'm seeing. If so, it's a really trick feature. If not, I'll keep my mouth shut as to avoid putting my foot in any further. :-)

[Barry Green]

Well, here's the question, the way I see it:

CineFrame 24 on the FX1 is, in my opinion from limited viewing, inadequate. It's lower-resolution with temporal oddities introduced by the 60i->24fps conversion.

The Z1 is the one I'm interested in (and have, in fact, already pre-ordered). I had assumed that for filmish video I would be shooting HD 1080/CF25 and converting it.

Charlie White's assertion is very interesting indeed. I mean, the Z1 already has a variable-scanning-rate CCD, at least as far as 50 and 60hz... would it really be that far of a stretch to think that they could have included 48hz as well? Or, for that matter, 24?

So Spot, the question goes to you: is your praise of CF24 based on the Z1 or the FX1?

Chris, the question bounces over to you: how sure are you that the FX1's CF24 and the Z1's CF24 are identical?

And Charlie, do you have any documentation or specs from Sony to back up the 24fps/48hz claim?

If so, this is very, very good news indeed. If not, it's just another rumor that needs to be squelched.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

My praise of CF 24 is based on the Z1's footage that I've got. If I still could have my hands on the freakin' camera, I'd shoot both and post streams.
I've got a call in to the engineering team at Sony/Jersey to ask specifics on the diff's, because I think I know, but not gonna embarass myself by being sure of something that ain't so. (read Wil Rogers)