Sony HDV-FX1 footage is quite telling...
 

okay, there are various sources for this test footage shot by the Vegas Video team posted today... I think it might even be here somewhere in one of the threads...

I imported the wmv into vegas video 5 and rendered out as avi to play back live through my television. So there is downsampling taking place for sure, etc. etc. But what I can tell you is that the advantage of 1080i is still very apparent in the quality of the video - this is the sharpest "mini-dv" I've ever seen - it doesn't look like film - it does look like HD, though.

The 4:2:0 colour space looks very similar to dv's 4:1:1 in a lot of instances. You just "see" so much more detail in terms of texture and outlines.

The flower footage provided shows me for sure that this cam will be a hit with wedding videographers and industrial shooters alike - nature videographers will be amazed. You know when you're travelling on a jet plane and you watch the HD tourist video showing all the highlights of your destination and it all looks so rich and vibrant? That's what this stuff looks like.

A lot of the flower shots were set up to show a DOF effect with blurred background - there is a slight cadence that I thought might be the cineframe mode but it turns out that the footage was encoded as 25P pal, hence the "filmic" quality.

Yes, I'd have to say that it does look better than the XL2...

Better in terms of sharper, more detail - there is more "apparent" to the viewer, the picture is richer. And this is even when downsampling to mini-dv resolution.

So far so good, Sony...

I'm liking the look of 1080i - I'm wondering if 720p would have been an appreciable enough advantage over XL2's 525 lines...

This kind of image for $3700 US? Crazy.

i agree with Mark, but we really need much more footage, also the file that was we downloaded was encoded with unrelaseasd Vegas, and i'm wondering if other encoders may have done an even better Job as compared to Vegas.

This cam will cause a stir, and i suspect that the Canon and Sharp and JVC (maybe even panasonic he he :) )
will have something to follow up.

update re: vegas support for hdv
 

unreleased vegas? I thought it was vegas 5b that was used for this footage...

sony hdv software support links dated sept. 7 include link to vegas press release from NAB (April) with Sept. addendum tacked on at the bottom of it explaining that HDV has been supported since ver. 4 and any refinements/enhancements to formats will be supported in future versions. Vegas is very robust - you can even edit quicktime mov and apple dv directly in timeline...

Who cannot afford to support hdv?

I am curious to know pipeline for getting best possible look from HDV to DVD for non-HD televisions - Based on the HDV footage downsampled, I think it will still end up looking better than from XL2... Wow. And then when U.S. goes HD in 2 years, you can still use your HDV cam... Sony is thinking!

"And then when U.S. goes HD in 2 years..."
Huh? Where did you get this info Mark?

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Orr : "And then when U.S. goes HD in 2 years..."
Huh? Where did you get this info Mark? -->>>

I assume America has Governmental guidelines for the implementation of HD FTA broadcasts.

Here in Australia; for instance, the FTA stations must already be providing (if memory serves me well) at least 50% HD programming, and total digital services with parallel HD service by 2007.

Perhaps Mark was indicating something similar.....

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale : <<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Orr : "And then when U.S. goes HD in 2 years..."
Huh? Where did you get this info Mark? -->>>

I assume America has Governmental guidelines for the implementation of HD FTA broadcasts.

Here in Australia; for instance, the FTA stations must already be providing (if memory serves me well) at least 50% HD programming, and total digital services with parallel HD service by 2007.

Perhaps Mark was indicating something similar..... -->>>

Well, there is some confusion over this . . .

The FCC is mandating all stations to be broadcasting digital (DTV) by a certain date (can't remember when), but there are ABSOLUTELY NO requirements for them to start broadcasting HD.

Unfortunately, while the technical and financial requirements for "going digital" (broadcasting digital instead of analog) are relatively low, going HD is a different story. For primary markets this will not be an issue (as they are all broadcasting HD right now anyway), but for secondary and tertiary markets cost is a big factor.

Case in point; all the "major" stations in Alabama are already broadcasting their DTV signals (some at half power though), but very few are passing along the HD signals from the networks yet.

Hopefully customer demand will move things along though. It is good to see when you walk into Circuit City "affordable" HDTV's, that should definitely help matters.

Ben

WAIT!!!! Mark, you used the New Sony????????? Can you tell more if you did? Would you make the change from the DVX100 to that camera?
thanks

There is mandate here for DTV, and it is 'law' for them to broadcast 1080hrs (oh the irony!) of "High Definition." Unforunatly for us the Ruling bodies allowed 576p50 to be called "HD" (and it drives us crazy!!!). No 720 broadcats at all... its either 576p or 1080i. Ok thats bad enough... but get this... there is no laws about quality or nativeness of the footage. i.e. it can be fake upconverted 576p50 (frame doubled) or it can be upconverted 1080i!!! Not Happy Jan!

That combined with simulcasting DTV and Analog means the HD streams get seroiusly starved of bitrates.. so most run at 12mbps 1440x1080 while the other FTA channels (2 of them) do poor 576p50 and try promoting it as "HD".