I guess I was thinking that for other projects they could use HDV in the future, yes but for now mostly it is for the web.

Has anyone seen DV footage from one of these cameras? How does it compare to cameras in this class?

Read this month's emedia. Stephan Nathans shows a GREAT example of HDV resampled to SD, vs the same shot in SD.
Maybe the fool at DV.com needs to read that article himself. Supports what I've been screaming about for a month now.
Seriously though, Nathans' gets it. In terms of picture, the z1 offers a tremendous amount of greater control. If you are planning/usually shoot in auto-mode, I'd get the FX instead.

So I suppose the writer at Videomaker doesn't know what he's talking about either in his review of the Sony cam?

He claims for DV footage alone, you're better off with the VX2100. Sharper and better in low light than the HD model . He does rave about the HD quality in 1080, but mentions you need the proper monitor to see it's full potential.

So why buy now, when the prices will no doubt be lower when more folks have the equipment to view your work?

All that said, it's a cool-looking camera. That is what the VX2100 should have looked like.

eMedia magazine is a bit of a joke. I keep getting offers for a free subscription, along with the current issue, and I've never wanted it.

Each cover raves about a particular product likes it's the return of Christ! Poorly designed, it's full of those second and third tier advertisers that couldn't afford to be in a real magazine. No real value.

I guess I'm just an idiot then, DGates.
The reviewer for Videomaker has NEVER held a Z1U, and not edited with either one. But I'm an idiot for liking this camera, according to all the naysayers.
What the hell...acquiring at 3 times the spatial resolution was a dumb idea anyway, right? shame on Sony for having thought of it.
OF COURSE you need a different monitor. Just like to view HD on a home system properly, you need an HD monitor.

BTW, the VX2100 couldn't have looked this good, because the technology wasn't available at that design stage.
I won't even begin to comment on Videomaker vs Emedia.

Also, something to keep in mind is whether you want to acquire footage and record in native 16x9 or 4x3. The PD-170 chipset is native 4x3 and the Z1U is 16x9. So, what this means is that the PD-170 will give you a better 4x3 image than a native 16x9 in the 4x3 mode.

A perfect example of this is on my DSR-500WSL DVCam. It is native 16x9 and if I shoot 4x3 without a special Century Precision Optics .8x wide adapter - the 4x3 looks very tall and narrow to the eye. It looses about 20% of the field view without it. The technical reason for this has to do with how 4x3 is acheived from the 16x9 chip.

I work in the broadcast industry and the full implementation of 16x9 is still a few years away. Anyone who buys a native 16x9 would be wise to also buy a wide convertor for 4x3 use.

Jay Mitchell

Hi Jay. I'm not sure I accept your argument that a 16:9 CCD will give poorer results in 4:3 mode. That would surely depend on the camera design, and I don't see why you can't design a large CCD that is effectively native for both aspect ratios.

One thing is becoming clear though. If Sony's new HDV cameras are as good as some people say, they will grab a large share of the market from Canon and Panasonic. Therefore there is very serious money at stake here, and I think we can expect to see all sorts of claims made for and against the Sony cams. It will be difficult for many of us customers to know exactly what to believe until the cams are actually being used by video makers and we start to see the results for ourselves. (I'm not accusing anybody of anything, just being my normal sceptical self!)

Richard Hunter

Pan/cropping the image from 16:9 to 4:3 in the footage acquired with the Z1 does not result in a serious degradation of the image. Remember, the spatial resolution is significantly higher to start with.
At the Sony demo, I arbitrarily zoomed in on a woman's nose, and the audience was still clearly able to discern oil pores on the nose, on a big screen projection system.
When it's convenient, I'll post images.
Read the emedia article. Even though you may not respect the magazine, our own Dr. Dropout has some very nice quotes in there related to the downsampling and/or pan/cropping of the original image.
Richard Townhill from Adobe concurs with what Dr. Dropout says as well.

Can't find emedia? Post a link please.

I'm planning to get the Z1U over the FX1 mainly because of the XLR jacks, shotgun camera mic and separate audio limiters even though I am mainly an auto settings / run and gun kind of guy and will probably never use the PAL or 24P settings. At 43 I've become quite far sighted and don't really trust my eyes to adjust focus. Plus, I'm mainly a musician who does video, even though I do more video than music work. One thing I've always loved about Sony cameras is how well the auto settings work.

What is the best way to get in line to buy this camera early. I've spoken to B & H photo and they aren't taking orders yet. I'm worried that when it finally does become available in February, it will be sold out before I can order one.

I would like to thank Sony for Listening to what People want and Creating It in this Camera ! Im very interested in the PRO Version ..Just one question

If I shot in HDV Would I be able to Capture to Vegas In Ordinary DV.... Because of the Better recording quality of the Camera would this mean Better Captured DV footage ?

Buster, I just realized that I'd not really provided my 2cents on this one.
My recommendation is to shoot HDV, then use either the camera or Vegas to downsample the vid to SD. You'll still get a great picture, and in my view, a *slightly* better image than you will with a standard DV cam. I've done both. If you want to mail me off line, I can send you some pix, but I'm not at liberty to post as they aren't copyrighted to me. However, I know that the owner doesn't mind one-to-one sharing. I also know you well enough you won't post them.
Anyway, I think this is a big part of the HDV migration path. Shoot HDV, downsample to SD in one tool or another, store in HDV, recall the EDL at a later point in time, recapturing the data and outputting to Blu-Ray, Windows HD, or other HD delivery format.
It's also a great SD cam, but I didn't notice anything "spectacular" about it as a DV cam, other than the focus ring and DOF are among the best I've ever felt/seen.

If you read his original post, he's more interested in the DV capabilities of HDV camcorders. In the case of the VX2100 vs the HDR-FX1, there's no difference in what he wants the camera for. Why spend about $1400 more for something you're not going to use, especially when the price will be more competitive down the road?

And you're not an idiot. I took some of your advice back at the old Cow forums. But you do seem to have burned many bridges within the business. I don't know if it's an ego thing or what.

Buster is asking for reasons to justify his friend spending the extra cash for future value. HDV will be here for a long time. In fact, I believe it will be the standard just as DV is today. Several other "pros" agree with me. Steve Mullen called the FX1 the camera of the year. So have others in many reviews.
Point being, if his friend wants longevity, then HDV is the way to go. You don't need a new computer, because HDV has the same datarate as DV. You DO need a new monitor, if you want to monitor HDV, but any good LCD that can do 1920 x 1200 will be fine for this. Of course, you can spend a fortune. But you don't need to.
Pissing on eMedia because they're not the Grail of magazines (BTW, they are the COW's biggest supporter) doesn't mean that Stephan Nathans isn't a smart, knowledgeable guy. He's very good at what he does, better than most of the guys that write for whatever they get free. Videography has it's issues, so does Videomaker and every other rag. That doesn't mean their information is crap. Stephan placed real-world images created from the FX1. They demonstrate what I've been saying for a while now. And if Buster's friend wants a long future for his investment, IF he's not going to be making money with the cam in the short term, then the FX1 is a great direction to go. It will be around as a format for many years to come. I could be wrong, I've been there before.
As a DV cam, it's a nice cam. Great rack, great feel, great lens, great images. Good sound, solid build. Is it an XL2? Not if he wants 24P. Otherwise, it's a sweet setup. The Z1 might be out of his price range, but for most guys, the FX1 is plenty. The only super important thing, IMO, is the Hypergain. Very nice feature. Expandable to approximately 36dB, but it's a floating point, so it's really not possible to nail it exactly down.

What's the expected list price on the Z1?

I suspect he won't be able to justify his budget on the Z1 or the FX1, but I want to convince him, so I can get my hands on the camera.

Spot, I'll take a look the pics

filmworks
%AT%
google's mail system


Also I found a link to the article. No pictures though. Emedia has changed its name to EventDV

Spot if the Footage is in SD can I ADD FX In say AE While its in SD ? Or Perhaps I could convert it to Uncompressed ? Anyway would this Give me a better Quality Picture than using A Standard DV Camcorder ?

Really What Im trying to find out is if there is an Advantage to Buying this Camera if its Going to end up on Ordinary DV !

If you NEVER have plans to work towards HDV, I'd save my cash and just do a regular DVcamcorder. It's a really nice DV cam, but if you have no eye for the future, why bother? The only thing about it that stands head and shoulders above other DVcams is the DOF, but that alone isn't worth the extra $$. The Canon XL2 gives you native 16:9 as well, and with the broadcast lens you're still cheaper than the FX1. The broadcast lens on the Canon is as nice as the lens on the FX1, and since the FX1 doesn't have the rack focus ability that the Z1 does...I'd probably be in the XL2 or PD 170 camp. I really like the XL2, especially with the broadcast lens, and if you have the broadcast eyepiece, DANG but what a nice DV rig that is. We did some shooting with one last week in Hawaii, I was even more impressed than I was at DV Expo East when I first played with it. Since then, I've had several experiences with it. Were I staying DV, I'd be buying 2 of the XL2's instead, if I had the cash for the broadcast lenses.

Buster, your mail bounced back to me.

Spot

Great Info ! Thanks for that :)

Well explained Spot! . . I think I do have an eye to the future . . but so does my Bank Manager! - HAH! . .But I guess if I was THAT successful I'd be buying all that I wanted anyway? . . teh .. hey ho!

(.. now where did I put my Green Shield Stamps? )

Best regards,

Grazie

If I shoot HDV at 1080i and downsample to DV @ 4:2:2 using the Sony codec do I gain anything? Everyones rabbiting on about downsampling to DV at 4:1:1, if what I've heard is true why in the hell would you want to downsample that far?
I'm suspecting encoding for DVD from 4:2:2 is going to look one a lot better. Also things like CKs should be a lot easier.
Surely this is a HUGE bonus even if you're delivering DV spatial res, having better chroma sampling isn't to be scoffed at. Technically you should be able to downsample to DV res with 4:4:4 sampling, apart from uncompressed I don't know where you'll find a codec to support that but it'd be nice if it could be done.
Now maybe I'm daydreaming here, if I'm not then can Sony please start shouting about this huge advantage.
Sorry the question was simple, I know the answer is going to involve a lot of technical stuff but that's what I'm into.
Bob.

Farss, I've not tried that yet, thanks for bringing it up. I can probably use the Sony footage for this, I'll ask. I'll leave it to BusterKeaton to comment on what he's seeing in the two images I sent to him, but there is a difference, and the HD down to DV looks smoother to my eyes. I've only got one short piece that is comparable where an HDV cam was at the same location as a DV cam, so resources are limited currently for me.