Why is everyone overlooking the most important aspect of this camera? Forget about HD, think SD, DV25 is NOT SD, it's 4:1:1 or 4:2:0. It would seem with this camera that at last we can deliver SD at 4:2:2 for a reasonable price.
This technology will soon be in our hands, if you don't get the difference between DV25 with all its nasties and true SD then I think you're in for a few surprises.
You should also note that even if you don't want to go near HD at all this camera is the best DV25 camera Sony has built, it's their answer to the DVX 100 and better, 16:9 native. Think of it as buying a DV camera with the option to shoot HD if you must.

Bob.

I'll tell you one thing I would use it for: capturing still images at the same time as I shoot video. My wife has this program where she collects American style school backpacks, fills them with school supplies and fun goodies, then delivers them to underpriviliged kids in South America. I shoot footage along the way and it really helps in promoting this cause. I've I always end up using stills from the video because with still cameras you just never capture the right moment, plus there isn't really time to go back and forth between shooting video and taking still photos. I use several programs including the incredible "Photozoom Pro" to do this and get surprisingly good results. HDV footage would really shine here!

So, Farss, With this technology, are you saying the the footage will be BetaSP quality (4:2:2) or better?
I'm on board with all those who really hate the evils of DV25 (I shoot on a JVC GY DV500), after having being brought up in a BetaSP world.
I find the quality of DV (as seen on a small handfull of computers that i've had the opportunity to experiment with) to be about the quality of 4th or 5th generation BetaSP.
DV looks great if you have nothing to compare it to, but head to head with BetaSP, I am distracted by the lack of sharpness and colour depth. With this new technology make me a happy guy - as far as we know?

I don't care what anybody says, I'm buying the pro version as soon as it's available!

mjroddy; BetaSP, if it were digital, would be considered a 3:1:1 format, not 4:2:2. Also, I'm relatively sure the reason you prefer BetaSP has more to do with the quality of the optics and camera used to record the BetaSP tape as opposed to the tape format itself. Personally, I am THRILLED to be rid of analog videotape, particularly BetaSP.

John

head to head with BetaSP, I am distracted by the lack of sharpness and colour depth.

This is likely due to camera comparisons, not the format. DV shot properly with good lighting and good glass, good CCD's, is superior to SP.
But if you're comparing a consumer grade cam to SP, or shot in lower light to SP with lesser grade glass or CCD's, then SP wins.

Argh! I hate when John Cline posts faster. :-)

HAHA! Speedy replys are amazing!
Ok... You guys may be right. I'm using (at Work) an Ikigami front with a Sony BetaSP back behind a Cannon lense of my SP setup. My DV setup (Home/Freelance) is, as stated, my DV GY500. A good 3 CCD camera for less than 5K (at the time), but nowhere NEAR the quality of the Iki/Cannon combo.
SO, you're saying that on equal cameras, shot under identicle conditions, a DV or MiniDV cam will scope better and look better to the eyes than BetaSP? I've read otherwise, but I've come to trust this list more than some other sources.

Oops... I hope I'm not hi-jacking the thread. This info still applies in an OT sort of way, right?
er... um... Maybe I should have started a different thread...

I'll take my Thompson LDK750 over a VV1 ANY day of the week.

Yes,
I'm saying with this technology you MAY be able to get video much better than BetaSP, you MAY even be able to exceed the quality of DigiBeta. As SPOT rightly points out optics and other factors will also come into play. There's no way this camera with it's good but still puny prosummer lens is going to compete with a full broadcast lens.
To do that someone needs to build the same thing with an interchangeable lens and that'll push the price way up.
It is very early days. I just keep shouting this message because everyone is focused on the HD part of the deal. That maybe of zero interest to you in your line of work for another decade. But even if your only delivery format is SD then this thing could still be very interesting.
It could be one giant flop too but so far the signs are very encouraging, no one has found any show stoppers with it, Sony appear to have done their homework on this one and taken a lot of lessons from Panasonic. At last a Sony camera that doesn't treat us like idiots.
Oh and should I mention another thing? The mpeg-2 streams are far more error tolerant than DV25, far less risk of dropouts, the bane of my existance.
So don't dismiss this camera for any reason just yet, it already looks good on the Vegas TL, go have a play with some footage.
Bob.

I just spent some time doing some informal comparisons between Kaku's HDV footage downconverted to SD via ProCoder, some DV shot with a PD150 captured via Firewire, some BetaSP footage captured with my Digisuite's 4:2:2 MJPEG codec in its "mathematically lossless" mode and some recent NASCAR DigiBeta footage captured via SDI. The FX1 HDV holds up amazingly well compared to the DigiBeta and looks significantly better than the BetaSP and PD150 DV. Both the BetaSP and DigiBeta were shot with high-end cameras.

Of course, all this footage (inchage?) was shot with different cameras, so it isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, But the HDV footage gave DigiBeta a pretty good run for the money and the BetaSP footage looked "soft" and "analog" by comparison, not to mention a few of the infamous BetaSP tape dropouts.

I also converted all this footage to DV using the Vegas DV codec and the HDV and DigiBeta footage still looked really good. The BetaSP got even softer and, of course, still had those irritating dropouts. The PD-150 looked like, well... a PD-150. Decent but not great.

Of course, playing these four formats in their native resolution on my Sony 34" HD monitor, the HDV wins by virtue of higher resolution and being native 16:9. I'd sure like to see some DV footage shot with the FX1...

John

By the way, Steve Mullen, has written the best article I've seen yet on the FX1 in this month's Video Systems magazine.

http://videosystems.com/mag/video_sonys_hdv_debut/

or here is a slightly different version from Steve Mullen's personal website:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dvcnyc/Sony%20HDR-FX1.htm

Just a thought:

My understanding is that mpeg-2 is significantly more compressed than standard 4:1:1 DV video. With HDV video that is edited with straight cuts and dissolves, I can see where it wins out over standard DV on resolution alone. However, what happens to HDV with more sophisticated editing - advanced compositing, effects, colour corrections, etc? Does the fact that you are starting with a (relatively) highly compressed mpeg stream introduce artifacting or other problems not present if using DV (which is itself compressed approximately 5:1)? I'd like to hear the pros weigh in on this one, as I'm planning a similar purchase mysefl in the next 18 months.

Kevin.

Kevin,

I plan on doing just that when I get the time.

One of the reasons that MPEG2 can be more highly compressed than DV is that it compresses by only storing the bits which describe the differences between succesive frames in a "group of pictures." It compresses one full frame (the "I" frame) and the next 15 or so frames (the "B" and "P" frames) refer to the differences between them and the previous "I" frame. The "I" frame can be decoded by itself, but the "B" and "P" frames must be reconstructed. It's actually more complicated than that and it is more difficult to edit for the reason above.

DV is compressed one frame at a time and each frame "stands alone." Essentially, it consists entirely of "I" frames. It can't achieve as great a compression ratio as MPEG2, but it's also much easier to edit.

John

In its native format no, decompressing and recompressing mpeg-2 for say compositing will make things fall apart real quick. However the Cineform codec that's been available for Vegas for some time gets around this very nicely. Currenlty I think it's only for 720p but very soon...
Bob.

In theory, Farss is right. However, after compositing some vid from the FX1, it holds together VERY well. The JVC didn't hold together at all, but there is less information in their frames, and to be fair, what I had shot with the JVC wasn't all that great anyway in terms of contrast and luminance.
But the FX 1 stuff holds up much better than you'd think.

One possible use for HDV RIGHT NOW is small-venue (microcinema) screenings using an LCD or DLP projector.

I've done quite a bit of this, and as much as I love my PD-150, I have to admit, the images suffer when you blow them up much more than five or six feet across. More resolution would certainly help, and most projectors go up to 1280 X 1080 now, so 1080i should be no problem.

With an HDV camera/deck and a good projector, I am drooling over the idea of filling the screen in the old 1920's movie palace here in town with a decent image. Yum, yum!

The idea of having that kind of capability available and still be able to shoot good ol' DV in one camera sounds too good to resist.

Not having a good delivery or editing system in place didn't stop me from loving my old Sony VX-1000 back in 1996. I didn't have to wait long until the other technology caught up. Get the Sony!

With the FX1, you can shoot HDV, but capture as widescreen DV. Then, in the future, if you want to do an HD version of your production, recapture as HDV. If you use the Cineframe24 mode, you get 24p 16:9 DV, just like the Canon, with the option for HD.

If you like interchangeable glass, the Canon is the way to go, but if you're happy with the Sony lens, I'd take the FX1.

///d@

And if you can afford the extra $$.....wait'll you see the Pro model! Can't comment more than that, but DAMN! It's nice. And going to SD with it....whew.
Super sweet.

I want to know more about shooting HD and capturing DV!

Can you do it so that the file names are the same? That way you could recapture the HD footage into an edited DV project and render an HD final product!

Waiting for the pro model: How long? How much more money?

Seven years of work for a camera! I think you got ripped off...

Wait a minute here. I was told differently. Sony said:

"If you use the Cineframe24 mode, you get 24p 16:9 DV, just like the Canon, with the option for HD."

I was told the Cineframe24 was still 2 interlaced fields put togeather, not 24p. So it would be more of a 48i rather than the 2:3 or 2:3:3:2 pulldown that the dvx100 and xl2 do. The thing that most drives me crazy about video is the jaggies associated with interlaced video and every deinterlacing mode I've tried has some short coming or other that make them less desirable than the dvx100's way of doing things. So, if I understand things right, the fx1 would have something approaching the blurred motion of a 24p or film shoot, but still have the jaggies. For me at least, this is a huge difference.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to be in this case.