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

[Harish Kumar]

Hi guys,

Thanks for your positive feedback as always. I think I will wait as suggested.... as I can wait .There is no compelling reason as of now because I havent even got the script yet. I will get it today or tomorrow. As the camera alone is not the only purchase , I will have to buy a new computer also for HD and a wideangle, plus some filters ...oh .......and also the editing software....I guess i should wait for two months and just get other things ready.

but if the producer insists that we shoot in the winter and finish by feb then I will go buy it.

Thanks guys ...you are the best as always

[Greg Boston]

<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : You can never get the same motion blur with interlaced than with progressive.-->>>

Hi Toke,

Welcome to the forums. I wanted to comment on your statement from your post. I have been primarily employed in the semiconductor industry for the past 25 years. If there is ONE thing I have learned about technology, it would be:

NEVER SAY NEVER!

The engineers seem to keep finding ways to almost defy the laws of physics. I can tell you that in the early 80's, they claimed we would 'never' go beyond 1200 baud on a standard 2 wire phone line.

I haven't personally seen the FX1 or Z1 footage, but I believe what Chris and DSE are saying. I think Sony's engineers have probably figured out a path past 'never' in the quest to achieve a certain look without using the traditional methods.

Like Chris, I am amazed at how much camera image quality your $5K will get these days. I think we should pass a world wide law that states.."the words NEVER and TECHNOLOGY are not allowed to be used in the same sentence."

Again, welcome to the forum.

regards,

=gb=

[Toke Lahti]

<<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle : Toke, re: the "feel" of 24p, which is what you are describing as cinematic, and the artistic/emotional quotient that I describe, are all the same thing. Just different nomenclature.

Please read my post, I really don't see the sense in continually repeating myself. If it's a language thing, maybe someone can interpret what I said and fit it to what you are asking, because I feel I answered it more than once. -->>>

"Feel of 24p" consist a whole lot more than what I was talking about as you know. I just mentioned motion blur.

If we want to compare the image produced by different cameras in a logical, rational and analytically we have to focus on a one aspect at a time.

You keep repeating "read my post", but won't answer my simple questions, which aren't answered in your previous posts. If you don't want to answer or talk about it why don't you just say it? I'll ask once again and then drop the subject.
I don't think this is a language problem, although I'd like to hear what you mean by "cadence".
If it is a language problem, maybe you should try to explain things more clearly or declare this site to be native english speakers only. Don't forget that the rest of the world has learned to speak your language, so that you don't have to learn theirs.

You have said:
November 19th, 2004 10:13 PM:
"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. "
"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."
"The "feel" of 24P with the depth of color that we get with 60i lit and shot well."

So what you are saying that with 24f you get better "feel of 24p" than with 24p itself and still you get temporal resolution as with 60i.
If part of "feel of 24p" comes from long motion blur (= low temporal resolution) then this is impossible.

Depth of color means bits per pixel in digital domain so it has nothing to do with this 24f/24p/48i/60i converation.

Now is your opinion that 24f is better than 24p because it's really 48i and does not have eg. motion blur of 24p but it's closer to 60i?

[Toke Lahti]

<<<-- Originally posted by Greg Boston : [i]
Hi Toke,
Welcome to the forums. I wanted to comment on your statement from your post. I have been primarily employed in the semiconductor industry for the past 25 years. If there is ONE thing I have learned about technology, it would be:
NEVE SAY NEVER! -->>>

Thanks Greg,
I still would say that it's impossible to get perfectly to the same result from one progressive frame than from two fields from adjacent moments of time. Maybe with huge processing you can get close like with these smart deinterlace filters, but not perfect.

And what is the idea desperately waste some engineer workyears for developing these secret advanced tehnics to convert interlaced image to progressive (or to look like progressive) when you could capture the frame progressive from the beginning?

Might be that some two years ago, when sony started to develop this first 16:9 6mm chip, they still believed that interlaced is good enough, but after 100A and XL2 they noticed that they have to do something fast to patch what was missing.

From what I have seen, 24f's resolution is worse than plain interlaced, but still I'm thinking to buy this z1...

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Toke,
This is clearly a language issue.
Depth of color, is not related to pixel by pixel basis, but rather the saturation perception of the viewer. If you want to discuss this on a technical level, we'll use words like "chroma" instead of color.
"Cadence"=rhythm. 24p has a rhythm. So does any other fixed framerate. 24P is a cadence that people are used to. Overall, it has little to do with the film look. "Cadence" is a common industry term here in the US. I don't know about Finland, I've only been there once. Do a search for cadence, 24P, you'll be hit with LOTS of information.
Motion blur doesn't have to be low temporal resolution. There is technology that can allow it to happen.
Again, if you'd read my rather lengthy post clearly, you'd recognize I'm saying this, but since English isn't your first language, (mine either, for the most part) you're missing the nuances of what I'm saying.
As I said in the post, you aren't going to get great information out of a 1/3 chip.
That said, everything about this camera hasn't been put to bed yet, so who knows what Sony will do.
I realize that in a mathematical sense, you think you've got this all figured out, and you likely do. What that has to do with the emotional/artistic value of the camera is beyond me.... I've held and shot video with this camera, I've seen it on big and small screen, I'm impressed as hell, whether it's CF 24, CF 30. The camera DOES provide for motion blur, and it's very sweet. Ask anyone who has seen quality footage shot by this camera.
sorry, "Impossible" doesn't fit with my knowledge of technology. any more than apparently "never" and technology doesn't fit with yours.

[Toke Lahti]

<<< Originally posted by Chris Hurd :
Toke:
<< These electronic giants have long time ago stopped giving "best quality" to anybody else than those who can pay the most. It's all about making the most profits. >>
Sorry but that's absolutely not true. The quality of these lower-priced camcorders is nothing short of incredible. I'm still amazed at the image quality in a prosumer camcorder you can buy for $4,000 compared to ten times the cost just ten short years ago for something only half as good.

Besides, the electronic giants are corporations. The idea is to make profit. This fuels the advancement of technology. Where is the problem with being profitable. >>>

So the quality is incredibe, but the idea is to make profit?
See the problem?
Idea is to make as much profit as possible, which means to offer optimum quality-price ratio that increases the sales the most. No "best quality".

Are you also amazed that you can by 100 times faster pc with price of one quarter than 10 years ago?
That's called progress.
And in 10 years there has been very slow progress in prosumer cameras. Just from vx1000 to pd150, mainly.

<<<
<< Sony sells interlaced hdv camera today so that they can sell progressive hdv camera next year. >>
If they do, it'll be 720P. What's wrong with expanding the line.>>>

Why would they go to 720p instead of 1080p?
"That's not in the hdv specs" is wrong answer.
Neither was dvcam in the dvc specs.
There is nothing wrong with expanding, but I feel a little bit cheated, when I have to buy a new thing every year, when they could have made it today for the next five years.
Same thing eg. with Nokia's phones: they keep adding one feature at a time, although they could give all the features at once. So you had to wait 5 years to get a phone with fm radio and bluetooth.

<<<
<< If they would think a little bit of "best image" they would have rised the datarate from 25Mbps which is same than dv cameras 9 years ago. >>
First of all, *for the very low cost involved here* there is nothing wrong with the image quality at 25Mbps. And if you think there is, then you have other HD options waiting for you. Secondly, this datarate gives us backward compatibility with our existing DV format. >>>

Dvcpro50 has downward compability to 25M, so why couldn't HDV50 have compability to dv/dvcam/hdv?
-97 sony offered dvcam to pro users, not minidv.
Now they are offering same thing to both consumers and pro.
I think this is the only segment in ICT-industry that nobody is surprised that there is no progress in datarate after whole decade.

<<<
<< But it's cheaper to keep manufacturing the same tape mechanism for the next decade... >>
It's definitely less expensive and far more pleasing to the end users. Can you imagine the angry uproar from DV people -- the exact market HDV is targeted to -- if they had to switch tape formats? You're complaining about something that is very much a *good* thing. >>>

They wouldn't have to switch tape format.
Eg. you can record to dvcproHD tape with 100M, 50M of 25M. Why not with hdv? 40 minits of hdv50 to a 80mins minidv-tape would sound very reasonable to me.

Again the reason for this is not technical...

Think about beta casettes: ten years ago you could put there 88Mbps (digibata) and now you can put there almost 500Mbps (hdcam sr).

[Jim Arthurs]

Toke, you would be well served with a Z1 for movie making, just use CF25 and forget about CF24 unless Charlie White's observations about 48i/CF24 on the Z1 were correct.

As staunchly as I'm saying CF24 on the FX1 is BAD (see my test from a post earlier in this thread), I say that CF30 and CF25 modes are GOOD.

Judge for yourself, locate and download some of Kaku Ito's clips from this board and see.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

[Barry Green]

24P is a cadence that people are used to. Overall, it has little to do with the film look.

Here I completely disagree. 24P, and grain, are the single most important factors in the film look.

It's important to separate out the "movie" look from the "film" look. Movies look like movies because of art direction, lighting, composition, etc. But all those elements can be equally applied to video or film shooting. Even shooting the same scene with the same lighting and the same cinematographic techniques and the same DOF, 60i video will look like "video".

People talk about DOF... you can shoot film in the exterior daytime, wide-angle on f/16, the whole world will be in focus, and it'll still look like film. You can shoot video with hyper-shallow DOF and it'll still look like video (you see this in sports all the time).

Contrast ratio? You can shoot a flat-lit scene with an overall 2:1 contrast ratio on film and on 60i video, and the film will still look like "film", and the video will still look like "video". Shoot it on 24P video and it'll be very difficult to discern which was film and which was 24P video.

There are many differences between film and video, including color response, latitude, grain, and temporal motion. The temporal motion signature is the #1 most easily discerned difference between film and video, and IMHO it is the most important element in creating the sought-after "film look".

[Toke Lahti]

<<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle :
Motion blur doesn't have to be low temporal resolution. There is technology that can allow it to happen.
...
sorry, "Impossible" doesn't fit with my knowledge of technology. any more than apparently "never" and technology doesn't fit with yours. -->>>

What is this technology?
Eg. how can you get motion blur of 1/48 seconds exposure time to 60i frame? Frame blending?

Fitting the movement of 1/48 seconds to image with exposure time of 1/60 sounds at least a bit hard for me. Maybe you can alter time? :-)

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Barry,
you're right, I'm just getting caught up in the moment of response. What I meant was the cadence of 24 isn't everything when compared to what else is important. Of course the feel of 24 is part of the "film look" and it provides a good portion of the emotional aspect of the visual experience. I'll retract that portion in the context in which I said it.

I suppose I'm getting tired of the rumor, inaccurate comments, and potshots being taken at a camera that only perhaps a hundred or so people have actually seen, shot with, and edited with, and it's definitely taking it's toll on my patience.
Apologies to you and anyone else that might take issue with the statement.

Toke, all things will be revealed when Sony decides to express what's being done inside the camera. Until then, it's all circumspection, right?

[Barry Green]

Hey Spot,

I'm totally with you on that. Rumors and potshots are very tiring. I much prefer to get to the bottom of what is factual, whenever possible (again, kudos to Chris Hurd for running his site that way).

For the record, I don't really care whether the Sony delivers "genuine" 24P or not. I just want it to look like it does. Haven't been overly impressed with CF24 on the FX1, but the testimonials from you and Charlie, and the tantalizing prospect that the Z1's CF24 may be better than the FX1's, are very intriguing. Near as I can tell, the PDX10 does indeed do 16:9 differently than its "consumer" sibling, the TRV950... so it's not unprecedented for Sony to implement similar features differently on different-class cameras.

I don't blame you for losing your patience. The rumors and the "mine's better than yours" arguments get very old. For the longest time, people who didn't have access to 24P would say "24P's not important, it's all about lighting." People with 24P but 1/3" chips would say "who needs shallow DOF, look at Citizen Kane."

I think it would make things easier if we could separate the Film Look away from the Movie Look. Movies look like Movies because of all that goes on in front of the camera -- lighting, set design, art direction, sound design, etc. Film looks like film because of the inherent tangible properties of the medium (grain, 24 fps discrete frames, etc). There've been millions of feet of 8mm home movies that have been shot that look nothing like a "movie" but still look like film! :)

[Greg Boston]

DSE,

Don't get too worked up. Remember we all just went through this same type of hype/myth/confusion/image quality... ad nauseum stuff eariler this summer before and after the XL2 was announced.

Hope you're doing well out there.

=gb=

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Yeah, I've gone thru this with the XL2, various builds of Vegas, ACID, Sound Forge, DVD Workshop, etc. Everyone always seems to "know" what's going on when no one really knows what's going on, even the engineers at various companies.
I just need to take a breather. I think for me, it started when an idiot on another forum called my Sony press conference presentation "amateurish" when he wasn't even there. Since then, I've had a stiff neck. Maybe some wine and sunshine will cure what ails me. :-)

[Ray Van Eng]

Technology changes all the time and companies aren’t always willing to tell you everything before their product is officially launched. That's just the reality of it.

Personally, I appreciate all the opposing views expressed here and kudos to everyone for that. I do feel like a juror at times. Although the outcome of this trail may affect my professional life deeply, at least there is no lying fertilizer salesman to deal with. ;-)

While I do trust the opinions of many of the esteemed members who have seen the CF24 in action and loved it, I shall still hold out judgment until I actually see the footage and play with camera myself.

Now, I like to ask the practical use of the CF24 technology. Can it be output from the camera and recorded on film at 24fps? Or is CF24 just for shows i.e. display on a HDTV set or large projection screen in a theatrical (i.e. non-broadcast) environment? This may give us some clue about why Sony would reserve some Z1 announcement until Sundance.

I am sold on the Z1 already. The FX1 too even if the CF24 may not be the same for both cameras.

Lastly, this forum is the best with all you wonderful and knowledgeable folks around.

[Chris Hurd]

Toke:

<< You keep repeating "read my post", but won't answer my simple questions, which aren't answered in your previous posts. If you don't want to answer or talk about it why don't you just say it? I'll ask once again and then drop the subject. >>

I realize that you are new here but I want you to understand that this kind of attitude is very strongly discouraged here. He has answered your questions plainly and directly and in detail. Perhaps you do not like the answers. There is nothing we can do about that. If you did not understand his answers then please say so and ask for a clarification. Otherwise I will insist that you drop the subject.

<< If it is a language problem, maybe you should try to explain things more clearly or declare this site to be native english speakers only. Don't forget that the rest of the world has learned to speak your language, so that you don't have to learn theirs. >>

When I created this board, I wanted it to have an international membership appealing to people from all over the world. And in fact this has happened, much to my delight. However, due to the limitations of a text-based message system which discusses points of interest about digital video technology, there really is no other choice but to do it in english. For better or for worse, english is the language of business these days. I do not wish to impose any inconvenience on our international members, especially since I place such a high value on our worldwide appeal and the diverse array of nationalities that are represented here. But practical purposes dictate that we use english as the official language of the forum. We have always been more than happy to accomodate members for whom english is not their native language -- our history proves this. With that said, if you have a need for further clarification of a subject or if you just want to see different words explaining the same thing, we will always be happy to do that. But please keep a courteous tone at all times here. Politeness brings politeness. Most of us here are strangers to each other but we all pursue the same interests. If there is a misunderstanding, it should be resolved with a smile and a positive attitude. Things go so much better that way.