OT? Sony's FX-1 HDV cam "about $3,700"
PeterWright
wrote on 9/7/2004, 3:06 AM
Comments
farss
wrote on 9/7/2004, 4:26 AM
Our's is already ordered. Looks like they took a long, hard look at the DVX 100 and realised that not everyone without deep pockets might have a clue how to use a camera withour having their hand held every step of the way, but damn no Bluefang, how will it ever take a decent image without it :)
By all accounts should go nicely with Vegas.
Bob.
By all accounts should go nicely with Vegas.
Bob.
PDB
wrote on 9/7/2004, 4:38 AM
Why doesn't it have progressive scan? I thought all HDV screens were progressive....
rique
wrote on 9/7/2004, 4:48 AM
No 24p mentioned in the press release. Do you know if it has it?
JJKizak
wrote on 9/7/2004, 5:35 AM
Mouth is watering. I guess the DV Camera will be on the shelf come November.
JJK
JJK
farss
wrote on 9/7/2004, 5:55 AM
No, at 1080 as far as I know it's only interlaced. 720 is progressive or interlaced I think. WMP has 1080p but it isn't a broadcast standard.
I'll still be interested to see how this camera stacks up, 1/3" megapixel CCDs don't make for great latitude etc, maybe Sony have found a way around the physics but somehow I think a good DV camera / lens is still going to give better images.
Of course I could be wrong, in which case a huge chunk of Sony's product line will be made obsolete by this but if that's the case at $4K Sony must be figuring on huge sales to offset the loses on the rest of the product line.
Bob.
I'll still be interested to see how this camera stacks up, 1/3" megapixel CCDs don't make for great latitude etc, maybe Sony have found a way around the physics but somehow I think a good DV camera / lens is still going to give better images.
Of course I could be wrong, in which case a huge chunk of Sony's product line will be made obsolete by this but if that's the case at $4K Sony must be figuring on huge sales to offset the loses on the rest of the product line.
Bob.
BrianStanding
wrote on 9/7/2004, 9:09 AM
I don't see any XLR inputs..... am I missing them?
RBartlett
wrote on 9/7/2004, 9:23 AM
ATSC Picture Display Formats
HDTV
1080p 1080 1920 16:9 Progressive 24
1080p 1080 1920 16:9 Progressive 30
1080i 1080 1920 16:9 Interlaced 30
720p 720 1280 16:9 Progressive 24
720p 720 1280 16:9 Progressive 30
720p 720 1280 16:9 Progressive 60
EDTV 480p 480 704 16:9 Progressive 24
480p 480 704 16:9 Progressive 30
480p 480 704 16:9 Progressive 60
480p 480 704 4:3 Progressive 24
480p 480 704 4:3 Progressive 30
480p 480 704 4:3 Progressive 60
480p 480 640 4:3 Progressive 24
480p 480 640 4:3 Progressive 30
480p 480 640 4:3 Progressive 60
SDTV 480i 480 704 16:9 Interlaced 30
480i 480 704 4:3 Interlaced 30
480i 480 640 4:3 Interlaced 30
Add to this the PAL 50/25 variants - which by the better judgement of us Europeans again mess up the world compatibility thing.
HDV has already specified a tape format that can support upto 60Mbps. Suggesting that 60p 1920x1080 might even be viable within what we know now as HDV. There is nothing that prohibits going above 60Mbps but that is the top limit that the member companies believe are worth specifying for this less than pro-acq format. Current HDV tapes can be recognised from their DVHS cousins for the technology pool they've sprung from.
I believe that all cameras can make worthwhile telly when put in the right hands. To make a living you sometimes need to fulfil your feature-envy by making a purchase.
Pro HD can make some pretty dandy SD MPEG-2 / WMV by down conversion. Possibly true also of HDV - such is the way of natural compression algorithms? 63mins is a pain - why no internal hard disc?
We've all got wish-lists. (MJPEG, 4:2:2, etc, etc)
HDTV
1080p 1080 1920 16:9 Progressive 24
1080p 1080 1920 16:9 Progressive 30
1080i 1080 1920 16:9 Interlaced 30
720p 720 1280 16:9 Progressive 24
720p 720 1280 16:9 Progressive 30
720p 720 1280 16:9 Progressive 60
EDTV 480p 480 704 16:9 Progressive 24
480p 480 704 16:9 Progressive 30
480p 480 704 16:9 Progressive 60
480p 480 704 4:3 Progressive 24
480p 480 704 4:3 Progressive 30
480p 480 704 4:3 Progressive 60
480p 480 640 4:3 Progressive 24
480p 480 640 4:3 Progressive 30
480p 480 640 4:3 Progressive 60
SDTV 480i 480 704 16:9 Interlaced 30
480i 480 704 4:3 Interlaced 30
480i 480 640 4:3 Interlaced 30
Add to this the PAL 50/25 variants - which by the better judgement of us Europeans again mess up the world compatibility thing.
HDV has already specified a tape format that can support upto 60Mbps. Suggesting that 60p 1920x1080 might even be viable within what we know now as HDV. There is nothing that prohibits going above 60Mbps but that is the top limit that the member companies believe are worth specifying for this less than pro-acq format. Current HDV tapes can be recognised from their DVHS cousins for the technology pool they've sprung from.
I believe that all cameras can make worthwhile telly when put in the right hands. To make a living you sometimes need to fulfil your feature-envy by making a purchase.
Pro HD can make some pretty dandy SD MPEG-2 / WMV by down conversion. Possibly true also of HDV - such is the way of natural compression algorithms? 63mins is a pain - why no internal hard disc?
We've all got wish-lists. (MJPEG, 4:2:2, etc, etc)
rique
wrote on 9/7/2004, 9:28 AM
I think they are on the other side up near the lens. There was a picture on another site showing a shotgun plugged in.
John_Cline
wrote on 9/7/2004, 9:59 AM
I just posted a couple of pictures of the prototype HDR-FX1.
HDR-FX1 High Resolution image - (2622x1913 - 2.9 megabytes)
Here's a shot of the other side of the HDR-FX1 that I took at NAB last April (when it was known as the DSR-0000.) It was sitting in a plexiglass box, so the photo isn't great. Nevertheless, note that It does have XLR audio inputs.
HDR-FX1 other side - (2272x1704 - 780k)
John
HDR-FX1 High Resolution image - (2622x1913 - 2.9 megabytes)
Here's a shot of the other side of the HDR-FX1 that I took at NAB last April (when it was known as the DSR-0000.) It was sitting in a plexiglass box, so the photo isn't great. Nevertheless, note that It does have XLR audio inputs.
HDR-FX1 other side - (2272x1704 - 780k)
John
BarryGreen
wrote on 9/7/2004, 10:34 AM
The XLR's were deleted on the production model.
You only get a 1/8" unbalanced minijack...
You only get a 1/8" unbalanced minijack...
John_Cline
wrote on 9/7/2004, 10:44 AM
Well, that isn't good news at all. What is good news though is that it has a REAL, calibrated zoom ring and a lot of other manual controls.
As more news of this camera leaks out, perhaps everyone could post any links they find here in the thread. Here's one that may get updated soon:
GlobalDVC web site
John
As more news of this camera leaks out, perhaps everyone could post any links they find here in the thread. Here's one that may get updated soon:
GlobalDVC web site
John
HPV
wrote on 9/7/2004, 11:28 AM
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-Announces-High-Definition1080i-HDR-FX1-First-3-CCD-HDV-Camcorder.htm
Looks like it only does interlace, the 24/30p modes aren't true progressive scan. There is mention of a pro model coming out 1Q of next year for under $7k. KInda sad that the Sony rep didn't mention Vegas being able to do HDV NOW. Hey wait, how will you capture with this cam? Is there software shipping with it or will Sony update VidCap to work with HDV?
Craig H.
Looks like it only does interlace, the 24/30p modes aren't true progressive scan. There is mention of a pro model coming out 1Q of next year for under $7k. KInda sad that the Sony rep didn't mention Vegas being able to do HDV NOW. Hey wait, how will you capture with this cam? Is there software shipping with it or will Sony update VidCap to work with HDV?
Craig H.
wcoxe1
wrote on 9/7/2004, 12:31 PM
I realize that you are "Supposed" to get more if you go to the "Pro" version over the consumer version, but isn't doubling the price a bit high?
Makes you wonder if there isn't going to be something, real soon now, in between the $3700 and $7000 versions.
I think I'll wait a while and see what develops.
Makes you wonder if there isn't going to be something, real soon now, in between the $3700 and $7000 versions.
I think I'll wait a while and see what develops.
farss
wrote on 9/7/2004, 3:36 PM
The PAL variant 'thing' is what makes this a bit of a mess.
I'm yet to be convinced that with 1/3" CCDs this camera is really going to shoot that brilliant images. In controlled situations for sure it'll do some wonderous things but....
Tehn there's the issue of motion artifacts from the mpeg compression, pushing the bit rate up will sure help but what can you write to at 60 Mbps? Not DV25 that's for sure.
Bob.
I'm yet to be convinced that with 1/3" CCDs this camera is really going to shoot that brilliant images. In controlled situations for sure it'll do some wonderous things but....
Tehn there's the issue of motion artifacts from the mpeg compression, pushing the bit rate up will sure help but what can you write to at 60 Mbps? Not DV25 that's for sure.
Bob.
PeterWright
wrote on 9/8/2004, 1:39 AM
Shame about the XLR audio - exspecially after the earlier "mock-up" had it - ah well, just means another couple of months wait and a few more thousand $$$ !
JJKizak
wrote on 9/8/2004, 5:28 AM
If it downloads from firewire you will probably have to use Cineform codec to capture the mpeg stream and convert to avi.
JJK
JJK