XL2 vs HDR FX1

53 replies [Last post]
womblingfree
Offline
Joined: May 16 2001

Well one's a high definition camcorder and one isn't.

One has 24fps and one doesn't.

Both are broadly aimed at the same market of prosumers, low/no budget film makers and 2nd unit TV crews.

It's like all those years ago trying to decide on an XL1 or a VX1000. Back then I chose the VX1000 due to the lower cost with comparable quality. Today the differences are starker.

Which would you get? Will you be waiting for Canons entrance into the HD market or be opting for a another choice altogether?

Personally I think the support of 24fps on the Canon tips the balance for me. Yes I know the Sony has a 24p mode but it's not quite the same is it. Then again Sony's usually have the superior low light performance...

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

If you want interchangeable lenses then there's no debate. If you want it now, ditto. If you want a side (top) screen, ditto again. If you're happy to be an early adopter (and pay the inevitable price) ditto again. The FX1 is no match for the PD170 in low light, so it could well be that Canon's XL2 will match it.

tom.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

FX1 isn't aimed at prosumer and low end broadcast, it's aimed fairly and squarely at the consumer market. If they were aiming at the pro and broadcast market they'd have done "film mode" better, rather than running the camera at 12.5Hz. There will be a pro version of it launched next year that will aim at pro and broadcast (no information yet on the differences, apart from XLR audio and proper metering).

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

womblingfree
Offline
Joined: May 16 2001

FX1 may not be squarely aimed at broadcasters but it will certainly be used by them in droves.

Turn on the TV any morning, any channel and you'll still see footage filmed using VX1000's and XL1's.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

I know, I know, been there done that for years.

BUT, if you ask Sony what they see as the market for the FX1 they'll say "consumer". That's why it's made by their consumer factory and not by any of the pro or broadcast factories. Sony is a highly fragmented company, their factories don't often talk to each other, so you find that the Broadcast part actually doesn't know what products are coming nout of the other parts. I've been dealing with Sony (and other manufacturers) for years, and Sony's always been one of the hardest, simply because there's no central contact you can use, you have to have separate contacts in all the various parts.

The "pro" version will have different facilities, and that's the one the broadcasters will go for, simply because it will have sensible connectors.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Unicorn
Offline
Joined: Apr 12 1999
Quote:
Personally I think the support of 24fps on the Canon tips the balance for me.

Why? Are you really going to be projecting your video on a cinema screen from a 35mm print?

(And, even if you are, you'll probably get a better image from deinterlacing FX1 footage and slowing it to 24fps than from DV footage with a quarter as many pixels).

P4-3.06/2GB RAM/2500GB IDE/SATA. Avid Media Composer, Liquid Edition, Premiere 6, Lightwave, Vue 6, eyeon Fusion 5. DV and HDV editing/compositing.

Jim Bird
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

Hi,

Are we saying here that the Canon XL2 great camera though it may be, is too little to late and has possibly missed the boat?

Jim Bird

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

In my opinion, yes, that's the case. I really can't see any point in having a consumer video camera running at 24fps in 625-line countries. Even at the professional level ,it doesn't make a lot of sense, people shooting seriously for film will be using HDTV such as the Sony HDW900 at 24p, or the 750 at 25p (or the Panasonic 27F), because they make great pictures if they're set up right for film work. There aren't any consumer level cameras that have that flexibility and it shows in the output, they don't look right.

The only point in shooting at 24p using a consumer camera is if you're going to use the output in a 525-line environment and want 2:3 pull-down. That'll get you the nasty jerky film motion, but it won't make it look like film.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000

Won't the HDR-FX1 in HDV mode record fields on the tape that will have virtually identical vertical resolution to the XL2 anyway (and twice the horizontal resoltuion) and so you could drop fields to get a 25p effect and be no worse off.

I suspect that some of the more intelligent filmising techniques about will let you claw back some of the lost resolution anyway.

Steven

Richard Payne
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

Our HDR-FX1 arrives tomorrow. I'll know alot more after the weekend.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Steven, you're right but you'd need access to the uncompressed HD signal to do that. As far as I know there's precious little software around to do that yet.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Dragonslayer
Offline
Joined: Jan 27 2004

Interesting thread.

All I will add to this is, yes I agree with Unicorn, shooting in 24P (or 25P if you buy in this country) is pointless unless you intend to doing a transfer to film, that's pretty much the only reason 24P came about, to make transfers to film easier for independent filmmakers.

Like Alan Roberts said, 24P will give you that horrible flickering affect of film, but it certainly won't look like film, 24P look on digital tape looks plain ridiculous until it has been transfered to film.

If you want that so-called film look, there are better ways to do it in post, you have to go way beyond a simple 24P, there is a ton of colour, gamma and contrast adjustments to be made, film-base effects in different programmes and god knows what else, and you need zillions of pounds of post production gear to get anything that is going to be believable.

I think the pro version of this Sony 1080i is going to kill stone dead the AG-DVX100 and Canon XL2, I mean the pro version of the Sony is only going to be between £1000 and £1,500 more than this standard one and considering Prestons are selling this version for £2,500 that would make the pro version next year cheaper than the XL2 wouldn't it?

HD or 24P, isn't no choice at all, HD is what is needed, you can't shoot on an XL2 or an AG-DVX100 and put in HD effect in post production now can you ;) but you can do 24P in post with your HD shot footage.

I know what I'm waiting for.

This is my Signature so don't take offense:

"The box said Windows 98 or better - so I bought a Mac"

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Yep, you can get film motion that way, but you need to do far more to get a good film look. You need to get deep into the camera's menus and make significant changes. I've made a profession of doing this; you can't do it in consumer cameras, they just don't have the controls.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

I agree with dragonslayer. In the old days shooting Kodachrome 40 Super-8 at 18fps gave more of a 'film look' than shooting the same stuff at 24fps, simply because projectors with three bladed shutters gave an exagerated progressive scan feel to the footage (though of course we didn't know it was called that back then). And with digital cinemas sprouting everywhere, why on earth shoot video for transfer to film? I much prefer the smoothness of 50i to 24p, though I do dislike 50i's half resolution of movement. But the FX1 should make that much more acceptable.

Richard - is the FX1 replacing your PDX10/950?

tom.

Dragonslayer
Offline
Joined: Jan 27 2004

Tom, don't they project DV tapes at Cannes these days, I thought I heard someone in the business tell me they started doing that for independent films last year?

If not I'm sure it will only be a very short matter of time before they do.

I have a DLP projector mounted on my ceiling with an 7' screen on the wall and when I project one of my own DVDs that I made myself shot on DVCAM the quality of the image is always slightly blurred compared to Hollywood blockbusters shot on 35mm or high end HD.

I can't wait to get my hands on this Sony for a couple of days to see what that footage will look like via my DLP on the big screen, I suspect that this is where HD comes into it's own.

I agree with you about the horrible flickering look that 25P gives, I have an AG-DVX100A in my posetion at the moment for the next two weeks and there is a big difference between a reel of celluloid film spinning through a mechanical shutter wheel at 24 fps with a big bright bulb shining through an array of glass onto a screen and a silly digital version on tape, as stated by other folk on this thread, Progressive mode on these digicams is simply to make the transfer process to film a little easier and it simply cuts out a little work in that dept.

I think a lot of people are getting swept along with all this 24P thing without really understanding that is is aimed at independent filmmakers who know that they are going to transfer it to Super 16 before they even shoot a single frame.

This is my Signature so don't take offense:

"The box said Windows 98 or better - so I bought a Mac"

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

"when I project one of my own DVDs that I made myself shot on DVCAM the quality of the image is always slightly blurred compared to Hollywood blockbusters shot on 35mm or high end HD."

I'm not surprised in the least!! The fact that it come anywhere near acceptable is a tribute to the technology we can buy, and something we should all be gob-smacked at. Each (half) 35mm frame of film that races through Hollywood's cameras is about 8 million pixels; yours are 1/3 of million.

tom.

Dragonslayer
Offline
Joined: Jan 27 2004

Yes I know that Tom, What I really meant was, it will be interesting to see how much better the quality of the new Sony is compared to DVCAM when blown up onto screen via DLP projector?

This is my Signature so don't take offense:

"The box said Windows 98 or better - so I bought a Mac"

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Just look at the specifications of the film stocks available today, you'll see significant mtf at 7000-line resolution. Of course, that's only for the camera negative, but if you the scan that and use it for tv, you get quite a sharp picture. But, if you process it normally, (i.e. make an interpos for editing, then interneg of the cut to make release print, and that's the minimum you can get away with) the resolution will drop to about 1000-lines or less (I've seen some recent release prints that didn't even match 625 tv decently).

Just remember that when you make your masterpiece, you can show the original footage, unless you've processed it. The film industry doesn't have that luxury.

And there's more, film negative can capture 11 stops of contrast range (that's what the data curves claim). In practice, some stocks (like Kodak 77) will record around 20 stops (that's 2^20:1, 1 million to 1). Your video camera will struggle to do better than 8 stops. A Digibeta 790 does 7.5 stops unless I've breathed on it, HD cameras will do up to 12 stops after my treatment. So, your video source is never going to have the range of subtle colour effects that film has, we can only dream of getting there.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Richard Payne
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000
Quote:
Originally posted by tom hardwick:
Richard - is the FX1 replacing your PDX10/950?
tom.

It is for DVC so not for my home use. It's much lighter than the mockup pro version from IBC.

We had to get one to test Edius SP for HDV and Edition 6 HDV Editing.

We'll be showing it off next on Saturday 13th at our open day with Edius and Edition 6 and a JVC Hi Def monitor. Ive also found a £600 JVC TV with 1080i support through component.

Dragonslayer
Offline
Joined: Jan 27 2004

Richard, how much are DVC going to be selling the Sony for?

This is my Signature so don't take offense:

"The box said Windows 98 or better - so I bought a Mac"

Richard Payne
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

Probably £2599Inc VAT - We won't do the numbers to compete with the main camera dealers but will sell as part of a package with HDV Edit kit.

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by Richard Payne:
It's much lighter than the mockup pro version from IBC.

Ahhhh! That (combined with balance) was my criticism of the FX1 from IBC, and an area in which the XL2 seemed far better - no point in having the best engineered camera in the world if it's ergonomically unusable! I'd understood that the IBC version was the "finalised" product from what I'd been told, so your news is very interesting. I await any other comments you'd like to make after you've looked at it further.

I think it's worth saying that there are two sides to the discussion - the "techie", engineering side, and the operational, cameramans side. On the techie side, if you want HD, theres no contest, if HDs not important, on the "camera" side, the XL2 seemed to have a nicer feel to it. Somewhere along the line a balance has to made between all the aspects. I do wonder how long it will be before a Canon HDV comes out, an issue far more relevant in the States and Japan than in Europe.

To Dragonslayer - I agree with most of the points you make, but think the phrase "quality of DVCAM" needs some amplification. The quality of prosumer DVCAM and pro DVCAM (DSR500 etc) are two very different things - obviously due not to tape formats, but lens, chip, signal processing etc. Which were you referring to?

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Canon won't have an offering before the end of next year, from what my spies tell me.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Ed Stradling
Offline
Joined: May 18 1999

So ignoring HD and 24fps for a moment, and for those of us who are only interested in, y'know, proper 16x9 in DV which we've never had before, which of the two cameras looks the better bet?

Is the Sony a DV or DVCAM camcorder?

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

The FX1 records HDTV in the HDV format (MPEG2) on a miniDV tape. It also records SDTV (that's standard definifition tv) on the same tape using the standard miniDV coder, it makes standard tapes. As far as I can tell, it's ordinary miniDV and not DVCAM. Richard Payne may be able to confirm this, as I know he already has a manual for the camera (which is more than I have, although I've had 2 days testin g the camera without one).

I believe that the pro version, due out next year, will record SDTV in DVCAM, using the tape 50% faster. I'd hazard a guess that they might make that switchable though.

AS far as comparing XL2 and FX1 is concerned though, it all depends on what you mwant from the camera; if you want HD now, it has to be the FX1.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Richard Payne
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

The HDR-FX1 is only standard DV not DVCAM. One interesting thing we've discovered is that it can downsample HDV to DV down the FireWire to enable capture at 720X576.

If we get 5 minutes of bloody sunshine I'll tell you what the pictures look like !

We are showing off the camera and the editing facilities from Pinnacle and Canopus this Saturday at an Open Day.
http://www.dvc.uk.com/general/register.html

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Yep, it will work as a standard 720x576 camera making standard DV recordings. Also, when recording at 1440x1080, you can play the output as SD. What I don't know yet is the difference (if any) of image quality between these processes, I'd expect the SD recording to look better than the downconverted HD (because of lighter compression).

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000

Sony HDR-FX1 manual is available here

http://www.docs.sony.com/release/HDRFX1.pdf

One thing that interests me is whether recording in HDV for SD output might lead to better chromakey work than standard DV (as the chroma in HDV mode would be at 720x540 and so a downconvert -- in the PC -- should be able to give near 4:4:4 video)

Steven

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

It all depends on how the down-conversion's done. If it's in the camera, you'll still get 4:2:0 because it'll be a DV bitstream. If it's in software, all bets are off. However, either way it should be better than a normal DV camera because the lens is HD and fills the bandwidth better than an SD camera would. The downside of that is that it might cause more compression artefacts because the hf content is higher magnitude.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Richard Payne
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

Isn't HDV a 4:2:0 as well?

Incidently I just read an interesting Video Guys Blog

http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=9057

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

Yes, HDV is 4:2:0 as well.

HDV luma signal has 1440 pixels by 1080 lines interlaced.
HDV chroma signal has 720 pixels by 540 lines interlaced. But only 270 lines in each field.

DV luma has 720 by 576 interlaced.
DV chroma has 360x288 interlaced, 144 in each field.

So there aren't enough properly placed chroma samples in HDV to make 4:2:2 in SD DV, it still has to be interpolated.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Richard Payne
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

Not only was it sunny today but our HD monitor arrived from JVC so lots of HDV shot and watched. Thanks for your advide Alan - I shot it all on picture profile 1. It looks great.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

I look forward to seeing it on Saturday.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Rookie
Offline
Joined: Sep 27 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonslayer:
I have a DLP projector mounted on my ceiling with an 7' screen on the wall and when I project one of my own DVDs that I made myself shot on DVCAM the quality of the image is always slightly blurred compared to Hollywood blockbusters shot on 35mm or high end HD.

Wouldn't the fact that you are actually doing a compression [for DVD] of another compressed format [DVCAM] being more of a culprit than the original resolution in this case?

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

That's certainly a factor, but given the large size of the image, you're using it as a magnifier on all the possible defects. So you're going to see the results of the less-good lens of video (it will have a much loower mtf), the lower resolution of the video system (sharp limitation versus soft limitation for film), enthusisatic edge enhancement on video, as well as the concatenation of compressors. Standard definition tv is not up to images this size unless you're going to view them a about 6 times picture height, i.e. a long way back.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Rookie
Offline
Joined: Sep 27 1999

OK! [Theoretic example]Would this mean that if you shot the same footage with the eact same conditions once with uncompressed SD and once with uncompressed HD then compressed it for DVD you would see a substantial difference in the image quality?[/Theoretic example]

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

You'd see a huge difference.

The HD camera has a lens with much higher mtf (I've measured the FX1, the lens is nice, but "proper" HD cameras with "proper" lenses are amazing) so your output signal has genuine high-frequency content rather than artficially boosted but limited content. The HD looks cleaner and has less alias content so the final compressor has a much easier job to do. This is at the heart of a lot of high-end production for broadcast, I know mof productions that have been made in HD just to get the better SD quality, with no sale of the HD in sight at the time of shooting.

Just as an example, the size of the Disc Of Confusion for 2/3" broadcast cameras is approximately 22 microns, so a broadcast lens need not resolve any point finer than 22 microns and many don't. For an HD camera with the same format size, the DOC is about 10 microns, and many of the lenses achieve that, so pictures are sharper because more detail exits the lens. If you fit a Zeiss Digiprime to the HD camera, you'll get a DOC of 4 microns, actually too small for tv, so you have to use some softening filters but you get to control the softness, you're not stuck with it.

Until you've seen properly shot HD, you won't believe just how good it can be.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000
Quote:
The HD camera has a lens with much higher mtf (I've measured the FX1, the lens is nice, but "proper" HD cameras with "proper" lenses are amazing) so your output signal has genuine high-frequency content rather than artficially boosted but limited content.

Out of interest, how do you measure the mtf of a camera?

Steven

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

It's not easy.

Fundamentally, I know that the camera response must be a Sinc function based on the pixel count, so I can start from that. If the hf-response is higher than the calculated mtf, it must be from electronic processing (detail enhancement), and you should be able to detect that by turning it off. Sadly, that's not possible in most consumer cameras, but in the stuff I come across professionally, it's easy.

So, if I really want to know the mtf of the camera, I fit a lens to it that's far better than the camera needs (like a Zeiss (or Fuji) HD prime ) and turn off all detail enhancement, and turn off gamma. Point the camera at a zone plate chart and I get a graphical representation of the 2-d mtf. Gamma has to go off because it modifies the mtf. Or, point it at a resolution chart such as EIA1956 (the original or my modification of it) and measure at point frequencies on a waveform monitor.

If the camera doesn't have interchangeable lenses, then you're stuffed, it has to be the mtf of the system, and that's much harder to interpret from a test chart, but I can usually get a meaningful result if I try hard enough.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

philip b
Offline
Joined: Oct 9 2003

I've probably posted this in the wrong place, but here goes! Am I correct in thinking that the only consumer software for editing the HDR FX1 is PC based? I thought Apple was committed to HDV as well, but can't see any reference in their blurb on FC Pro to HDV compatibility.

PhilB

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

I think that's right at present. Given that the FX1 is only the first 1080-line HDV camera, I'm not surprised that there are many ways to edit it, but I suspect FCP will lag behind for long.

Note that we're only talking of editing solutions that take the DV-rate bit-stream. There are lots of editors for HDTV, but few of them can cope with the HDV data format yet.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002

Hi
Capturing HDV with a Mac may be possible at the moment as there is apparantly an Apple Developer QuickTime utility that allows MPEG-2 over a Firewire stream to be captured, then it can be transcoded by QuickTime Pro into any FCP editing codec.
Download DVHSCap and VirtualDVHS from "FireWire SDK 19 for Mac OS X"
from this page:
http://developer.apple.com/sdk/#FireWireX

However this is a Developer page, not part of the general Apple web site for ordinary users, so this is a temporary workaround,and a proper HDV implementation will no doubt be following sometime in the near future.

Anyone trying this should visit this site as well:
www.alfanet.it/squared5/mpegstreamclip.html

Richard Payne
Offline
Joined: Sep 15 2000

So far we have only managed capture, edit and output back to camera with Canopus SP for HDV. Pinnacle Liquid Edition 6 does not work with HDV properly yet, we've tried it. Its close but no cigar.

Avid Xpress Pro have said next year for HDV. Adobe should have a wavelet compression based capture format in the next few weeks to allow Premiere Pro 1.5 to edit HDV.

I understand Sony Vegas and Ulead Media Studio can work with HDV but have not tried them.

StevenBagley
Offline
Joined: Aug 14 2000

Details of the Pro version and a HDV VCR can be found here

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5327

and

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5331

Now, where did I put that piggy bank...

Steven

Alan McKeown
Offline
Joined: May 9 2001

So it looks like the Sony HVR-Z1 will be priced at a little over £3 000 (including VAT), in the UK. That sounds like good value for money when compared to the SD camcorders and in particular to the XL2.

Alan

PaulD
Offline
Joined: Aug 31 2002

Hi
"The HVR-Z1U HDV 1080 camcorder can record HDV, DVCAM and DV images at 60i, 50i, 30, 25 or 24 frames per second, in either SD or HD. This switchable 60/50 capability allows videographers to use just one camcorder to meet an array of client needs.

The HVR-M10U model is a lightweight, compact HDV 1080 VTR capable of record and play back of HDV 1080, DVCAM, and DV SP, as well as playback of video recorded in 720/30P. In addition to allowing backward compatibility to the standard definition DV world, the 1080 recorded image can also be down-converted to SD output mode directly from the VTR or camcorder in the digital or analog domain.

The HVR-Z1U and the HVR-M10U are planned to be available in February, for about $4,900 and $3,700, respectively. "

Great!

Rookie
Offline
Joined: Sep 27 1999

HDV on Apple is not a problem, although you have to go through a third-party application to use it with Final Cut at the moment. You can find it here. Apple how however stated publicly that they will support HDV. I suspect we'll se QT 7.0 sometime in the begining of the next year and that this will bring HDV natively to all mac video applications...

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

I've withdrawn my reservations on the FX1's film mode, it's 25Hz.

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Can you say 25Hz Alan? Is it more accurate to say 25fps or 25p? But then again, with the 50i pictures we saw on Saturday, why would one bother to film at 25fps - purely for transfer to sprocketed film? Then I suppose footage originated on the FX1 could be sold to the USA TV distributors and they'd be none the wiser. Maybe...

tom.

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

I can say either that the "frame frequency is 25Hz (cycles per second)" or that "the franme rate is 25fps (frames per second)", mathematically and physically they're the same thing. I'm an engineer a think of things in terms of physics and maths, but I may occasioanlly use the wrong word :D

The reason for cameras having a "film mode" is that there's considerable market pressure for them to have it. People power. There's a strong band of programme-makers who want to make their output look like it came from film, the reasons vary. Sometimes it's because it "looks better", sometimes it's to "separate the viewer a bit more, to distance him from the story", sometimes it's just bloody-mindedness. Film-look is highly prized by people shooting dramas, where they claim it "distances" the viewer, reminding him that it's not real (as if I needed reminding that Arnie Schwartzenegger can't act). It's also popular in wildlife programmes because they're used to using real film and have to make electronic-shot stuff match.

Personally, I quite like the genuine film look, it captures much more contrast than electronics usually does (and that's what I specialise in, tweaking cameras to get that look), but I hate the jerky motion that you get from repeating information. Sadly, that's the one bit that you have to build into a film-look first, or they won't buy it. Except, of course, the Californians who're shooting 3-perf 35mm at 48fps and showing it without frame repetition (Maxivision48).

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

Alan McKeown
Offline
Joined: May 9 2001

Quote:
                      
“I can say either that the "frame frequency is 25Hz (cycles per second)" or that "the franme rate is 25fps (frames per second)", mathematically and physically they're the same thing. I'm an engineer a think of things in terms of physics and maths, but I may occasioanlly use the wrong word “

As an engineer, a scientist, a scholar and a gentleman, Mr Roberts should know that there should always be a space between the numerical value and its following unit symbol.

Thus he (and everyone else) should write 25 Hz , not 25Hz.

Alan

infocus
Offline
Joined: Jul 18 2003

After a couple of fairly recent visits to the cinema, I think it's about time film makers started trying to devise ways of making their films look more like HDTV........

Alan Roberts
Alan Roberts's picture
Offline
Joined: May 3 1999

OK, I'll buy that And you might have pointed out that I occasionally spell words wrong, or rather that I don't go back and fully correct my typing :D

Get my test cards document, and cards for 625, 525, 720 and 1080. Thanks to Gavin Gration for hosting them.
Camera settings documents are held by Daniel Browning and at the EBU
My book, 'Circles of Confusion' is available here.
Also EBU Tech.3335 tells how to test cameras, and R.118 tells how to use the results.

womblingfree
Offline
Joined: May 16 2001

Well I'm convinced.

FX1 is the prosumer camera of choice for me now.