You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

New sony hd cam

Posted: Tue, 7th Sep 2004, 6:39pm

Post 1 of 37

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=2&aid=D84URQRO1_story

Looks pretty cool. And not a bad price tag.
Posted: Tue, 7th Sep 2004, 7:18pm

Post 2 of 37

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Seems cool, and a good price, but it makes me wonder how good it'll really look. From what I understand, that JVC HD camera didn't do too well. Plus, I'm not really a fan of Sony. Guess time will tell.
Posted: Tue, 7th Sep 2004, 8:22pm

Post 3 of 37

Spanish Prisoner

Force: 310 | Joined: 21st Aug 2003 | Posts: 378

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

if I have money in February 2005, I'll might get one of these... price is ok. Or should I just wait until the next model? would be too long of a wait I guess.

I really need a new cam sooner or later though my Panasonic NV-MX 300 is really good.
Posted: Tue, 7th Sep 2004, 8:39pm

Post 4 of 37

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

HD goes a long way to making DV look like film.
Posted: Tue, 7th Sep 2004, 8:43pm

Post 5 of 37

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I may trade in my current sony dv and put some extra money in and go for it.
Posted: Tue, 7th Sep 2004, 8:59pm

Post 6 of 37

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I need to see it in action. I was quite impressed by the XL2, but when I saw video of it, it looks not as good as the DVX-100. Although I'm sure the video was done quickly, and I've gotten better footage on my XL1 than on either video sample from the XL2 or DVX.

It'll be interesting to see how good this HD camera looks.
Posted: Tue, 7th Sep 2004, 9:30pm

Post 7 of 37

TheRenegade

Force: 190 | Joined: 2nd Mar 2004 | Posts: 345

MacOS User

Member

The JVC HD cam was a 1 chip camera thats why it looked like crap. Not sure what this is but I doubt it is a 1 chip. I'm wating from HD 24fps cam and from the looks of things I am going to be waiting awhile.
Posted: Tue, 7th Sep 2004, 11:56pm

Post 8 of 37

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

It's a 3 CCD camera.

http://www.creativecow.net/show.php?forumid=162&page=/articles/lindeboom_ron/sony_hdr-fx1/index.html
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 12:18am

Post 9 of 37

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

Seems cool, and a good price, but it makes me wonder how good it'll really look. From what I understand, that JVC HD camera didn't do too well. Plus, I'm not really a fan of Sony. Guess time will tell.
I'm just going to shoot for the skies here, and ask:

Should I regret getting an XL2 because HD is going to take over the entertainment industry? I feel kind of bad here. confused
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 12:28am

Post 10 of 37

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Xl1 is a great camera, don't regret it.
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 12:40am

Post 11 of 37

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Just hope you put your money into something that will be of use.
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 2:10am

Post 12 of 37

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

does it still use 4:1 compression?
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 5:34am

Post 13 of 37

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

It's cheap for a hd camera, but not really cheap overall (9.000 $). I am settled with my XL1s.

EDIT: Yeah, yeah, I meant 3600$. biggrin

Last edited Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 3:01pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 6:12am

Post 14 of 37

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

9,000?

Says in the first paragraph of the article $3,600.

Atom - I thought you got 2 XL1s'?
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 12:09pm

Post 15 of 37

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

How exactly do you get HD FOOTAGE onto your PC?

I can't see it being done with firewire as it's too slow to get that amount of data through, or maybe not?
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 1:57pm

Post 16 of 37

MrShmoe

Force: 1114 | Joined: 29th Apr 2003 | Posts: 411

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Redhawksrymmer wrote:

It's cheap for a hd camera, but not really cheap overall (9.000 $). I am settled with my XL1s.

Aculag wrote:

9,000?
Says in the first paragraph of the article $3,600.
Japanese electronics and entertainment giant Sony Corp. plans to begin selling a camcorder designed for consumers that takes video at digital high-definition quality and is being priced at about $3,600.

Professional camcorders sell on Sony's Japanese Web site starting at about 1 million yen ($9,000).

That would probably explain it all, or would it??? biggrin
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 2:22pm

Post 17 of 37

TheRenegade

Force: 190 | Joined: 2nd Mar 2004 | Posts: 345

MacOS User

Member

TAP2 wrote:

How exactly do you get HD FOOTAGE onto your PC?

I can't see it being done with firewire as it's too slow to get that amount of data through, or maybe not?
Its all in the compression. Its MPEG 2 not DV so it wont be to much for firewire.
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 2:40pm

Post 18 of 37

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

The latest version of Apple Final Cut Pro called FCP HD, lets you capture HD footage capture via the Panasonic HD format via firewire - but you need monster hard drives.

As pointed out, HDV is HD size encoded in MPEG-2 so the size is much less.
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 2:59pm

Post 19 of 37

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Jonne wrote:

Redhawksrymmer wrote:

It's cheap for a hd camera, but not really cheap overall (9.000 $). I am settled with my XL1s.

Aculag wrote:

9,000?
Says in the first paragraph of the article $3,600.
Japanese electronics and entertainment giant Sony Corp. plans to begin selling a camcorder designed for consumers that takes video at digital high-definition quality and is being priced at about $3,600.

Professional camcorders sell on Sony's Japanese Web site starting at about 1 million yen ($9,000).

That would probably explain it all, or would it??? biggrin
That's how I get when I write articles on FXHome 7:30 in the morning. biggrin
Posted: Wed, 8th Sep 2004, 6:16pm

Post 20 of 37

MrShmoe

Force: 1114 | Joined: 29th Apr 2003 | Posts: 411

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

heh kinda slow in the morning
Posted: Thu, 9th Sep 2004, 4:01am

Post 21 of 37

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Final Cut Pro has been able to capture HD footage since version 3. It is named FCPHD because it makes working with HD footage a lot easier.

Canta unsure
Posted: Thu, 9th Sep 2004, 5:27pm

Post 22 of 37

billy3d

Force: 2678 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2002 | Posts: 1273

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sidewinder: I think its 4:2:0 now,
also!
"...14-bit A/D converter that processes four-times more digital information than converters used in traditional television cameras -- producing sharper, richer and more true-to-life images."
i really need to see this cam in action.
but the captured with will be 8bit right? I'm a little confused here.
Posted: Thu, 9th Sep 2004, 5:57pm

Post 23 of 37

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Interesting read...

1) 3CCDs doesn't mean good quality anymore. In the future more and more quality cameras will use just 1 CCD as they are improving all the time to the point that they are proving better overall as they are easier to package and manufacture. Some camera firms are even making cheaper 3CCD cameras to try and catch out people who instantly think this means higher quality.

2) A problem with the JVC and this new Sony is that they store in MPEG2 not DVCPRO50/100 like professional HD cameras. Generally MPEG2 doesn't make a great editing format, it is only ok quality (like DV) and doesn't like being recompressed. To get around multiple recompressing on those complicated composites there is a QuickTime HD editing codec you can use or you could stump for none compressed but you would have no chance of playing that in realtime. I expect in the next couple of years DV/HDV cameras will move to DVCPRO50 so they can store twice the data per second and we can expect better quality.

3) The MPEG2 is compressed on to regular MiniDV tapes - hence HDV. It can be put on to you computer via firewire easily. For the record DV (and HDV) is about 25megabits per second and standard Firewire (now called Firewire 400) can handle 400megabits per second (Firewire 800 = 800 mbps).

4) MPEG 2 uses 4:2:0 sampling so you're still going to face the same chroma key problems as with DV.

14-bit A/D converter that processes four-times more digital information than converters used in traditional television cameras
I wouldn't take much notice of that, HDs resolution probably accounts for it processing that much more information.

Overall it looks like an interesting camera, a bit more professional than the JVC camera. I think we will wait to see where all this MPEG2 on DV goes for now, I think HD users will want more quality in the end so cheaper versions of DVCPRO50 will appear. If anyone gets one let us know how it looks but for now I think the Canon XL2 is king.
Posted: Fri, 10th Sep 2004, 1:10pm

Post 24 of 37

billy3d

Force: 2678 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2002 | Posts: 1273

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

but 4:2:0 is better than 4:1:1
Why doesnt anyone just come up with a direct to harddrive solution, so that you can directly capture onto a firewire harddisk within the firewire benchmarks?
Posted: Fri, 10th Sep 2004, 1:25pm

Post 25 of 37

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

4:2:0 isn't really any better than 4:1:1 - its still only 1 chroma sample for every 4 luma. 4:2:0 maybe spreads its limitations slightly better but in the end the amount chroma data is the same.

http://www.chumpchange.com/parkplace/Video/DVPapers/dv-beta.htm

4:2:2 is better but thats generally for higher end cameras - would be great if this progressed to lower end cameras.


Not really sure about the direct capture to HDs as it would be extra bulk, and its useful to be able to swap tapes about.
Posted: Fri, 10th Sep 2004, 6:02pm

Post 26 of 37

billy3d

Force: 2678 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2002 | Posts: 1273

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

"The latter, on the other hand, uses half the luma sample rate for the colour differences, but the two differences are only sampled on alternating lines (resembling SECAM). Both give the same total data rate, but the 4:2:0 sampling gives a better apparent colour resolution for PAL"

http://www.hut.fi/~iisakkil/videoformats.html


I too really hope 4:2:2 would progress to prosumer cameras. 4:2:2 footage would be obviously easier to key. But imagine 4:4:4 (film) biggrin *billy3d dreams*
Posted: Fri, 10th Sep 2004, 6:26pm

Post 27 of 37

TheRenegade

Force: 190 | Joined: 2nd Mar 2004 | Posts: 345

MacOS User

Member

schwar wrote:

Interesting read...

1) 3CCDs doesn't mean good quality anymore. In the future more and more quality cameras will use just 1 CCD as they are improving all the time to the point that they are proving better overall as they are easier to package and manufacture. Some camera firms are even making cheaper 3CCD cameras to try and catch out people who instantly think this means higher quality.
That is true in a sense. But 3ccd take in more color so whether or not a 3ccd has more pixels than a 1ccd camera is beside that fact that 3ccd camera look better because they give a more accurate representation of scene.
Posted: Sat, 11th Sep 2004, 1:45am

Post 28 of 37

Kerfin

Force: 240 | Joined: 20th Jun 2003 | Posts: 40

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Here, someone posted some footage from a prototype! I'm at work on a slow computer so it doesnt playback very well (1280x720 HD wmv file), but you can still see the picture quality.

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=315238&Replies=15&Page=0

I tried a couple times at first I could'nt log in, but an hour later it worked. Maybe someone can mirror it (I don't know if that would be legal, tho).

Enjoy !
Posted: Sat, 11th Sep 2004, 2:19am

Post 29 of 37

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Thats really nice...
Posted: Sat, 11th Sep 2004, 2:32am

Post 30 of 37

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Please somebody host it somewhere else?
Posted: Sat, 11th Sep 2004, 2:45am

Post 31 of 37

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Why can't you get to it?

I'll host it if its not illegal...But if sony will try and get to me, hell no!
Posted: Sat, 11th Sep 2004, 2:48am

Post 32 of 37

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Nevermind I got it to work in IE, pretty impressive stuff.
Posted: Sat, 11th Sep 2004, 5:49am

Post 33 of 37

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Ok, that looks great. If that camera has the ability to shoot in 24p (which it won't I bet...) it will be extremely popular.

I want one.
Posted: Sat, 11th Sep 2004, 7:16am

Post 34 of 37

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Holy shiznit!
Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005, 2:43pm

Post 35 of 37

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Some more information on the Sony HDV camera has come to light recently. It doesn't do real progressive like the Canon XL2. Like the XM2 it fakes progressive from 2 interlaced frames but not half as well as the XM2 does it.

Basically all 3 of the Sony HDV cameras only work interlaced (60i or 50i) and then use this function (called Cineframe) to convert to 24P, 25P or 30P but in all these cases the footage doesn't look anywhere near as good. If you are only interested in shooting for HDTV then thats ok, but for printing to film it basically means the camera isn't half as useful as expected.

HDV still has some way to come I think and after the dire progressive capture on Sony's other semi-pro cameras (12.5fps NTSC/15fps PAL on the VX2100 - not sure how thats useful to anyone) this is a real insult.
Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005, 2:52pm

Post 36 of 37

wdy

Force: 1700 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1258

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

XM2 Baby razz
Posted: Wed, 12th Jan 2005, 6:19pm

Post 37 of 37

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Yeah. Xm2 all the way smile