Douglas,
How 24F has better temporal resolution than 24P?
Is 24F same as 48i?

You just said earlier: "We get to keep our temporal resolution as well. We can always reduce spatial or temporal resolution in post or in the CF mode."

Does this somehow answer to my question?

And eg. 24P vs. 48i is not just about temporal resolution.
It's also about motion blur. You can never get the same motion blur with interlaced than with progressive.

And if 24fps/180degrees motion blur is widely felt like "cinematic" and therefore optimal goal, where do you need more temporal resolution?

I think we should compare every camera to each other.
That's the only way to talk about image quality.

Sorry about that inch/feet mixup, but have you ever seen any other hd format shown straight out of camera to a 62' feet screen?

I agree that reason for interlacing is history and I think that's where it should be left.
Interlaced picture doesn't look good with progressive display and that's what all displays will be in couple of years.
Why did EBU just recommended only progressive hdtv to Europe?
In the history interlace was chosen because the structure fo crt and to save analog bandwidth.
Crt's are history and progressive picture compresses better in digital domain.

These electronic giants have long time ago stopped giving "best quality" to anybody else than those who can pay the most. It's all about making the most profits.
Sony sells interlaced hdv camera today so that they can sell progressive hdv camera next year.
If they would think a little bit of "best image" they would have rised the datarate from 25Mbps which is same than dv cameras 9 years ago.
Think about if we would use as fast hard drives than nine years ago! No progress at all.
But it's cheaper to keep manufacturing the same tape mechanism for the next decade...

62'
 

SIXTY TWO FEET !!!

what the flip!

you not gonna be exactly be hinding any image flaws/artifacts at that size.

Is that about the average size for normal cinema ?

apparently, some Chap was saying that the Z1's CF uses some kind of really cutting edge (sophisticated) software that is supposedly part of the mpeg2 codec, it apparently creates about 960 progessive image on still scenes, and drops to about 875-900 progressive lines when it comes to movement/motion which hes says is much better when compared to DVfilm which drops the resoloution to about 520 progressive lines.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Douglas' praise, and Charlie's praise, center on the Z1's implementation of CF24

Perhaps there is a difference?

I've got a Z1 on order, and access to a friend's FX1, so once it shows up I'll put it through its paces. But if there is a difference, it would be nice to know.

Where does everyone have this Z1 on order from'?

Anhar:

<< SIXTY TWO FEET ! Is that about the average size for normal cinema ? >>

It is the screen size of the Sony Theater high above Madison Ave. in New York, where the Z1U was officially presented.


Toke:

<< These electronic giants have long time ago stopped giving "best quality" to anybody else than those who can pay the most. It's all about making the most profits. >>

Sorry but that's absolutely not true. The quality of these lower-priced camcorders is nothing short of incredible. I'm still amazed at the image quality in a prosumer camcorder you can buy for $4,000 compared to ten times the cost just ten short years ago for something only half as good.

Besides, the electronic giants are corporations. The idea is to make profit. This fuels the advancement of technology. Where is the problem with being profitable.

<< Sony sells interlaced hdv camera today so that they can sell progressive hdv camera next year. >>

If they do, it'll be 720P. What's wrong with expanding the line.

<< If they would think a little bit of "best image" they would have rised the datarate from 25Mbps which is same than dv cameras 9 years ago. >>

First of all, *for the very low cost involved here* there is nothing wrong with the image quality at 25Mbps. And if you think there is, then you have other HD options waiting for you. Secondly, this datarate gives us backward compatibility with our existing DV format.

<< But it's cheaper to keep manufacturing the same tape mechanism for the next decade... >>

It's definitely less expensive and far more pleasing to the end users. Can you imagine the angry uproar from DV people -- the exact market HDV is targeted to -- if they had to switch tape formats? You're complaining about something that is very much a *good* thing.

Hey Barry:

<< would it really be that far of a stretch to think that they could have included 48hz as well? Or, for that matter, 24? >>

But then wouldn't they advertize it? In, like, a really big way?

<< Chris, the question bounces over to you: how sure are you that the FX1's CF24 and the Z1's CF24 are identical? >>

During the Z1U presentation in New York, I attended the press conference in the Sony Theater. Charlie White, D.S.E. and Steve Mullen were there as well. During the Q&A, Steve asked how is CF24 different in the Z1U. The answer from Sony (by Hugo Gaggioni) was that there is no difference. I'm paraphrasing Steve's question, he asked it in a roundabout, more detailed kind of way but that's what he was getting at. Hugo's answer was fairly emphatic: no difference.

Again, nothing against Charlie White. I would have called my contacts at Sony today to get further clarification on this, but I'm on the road right now.

I've been wrong before though. But I promise we will get a definitive answer in here.

Toke, re: the "feel" of 24p, which is what you are describing as cinematic, and the artistic/emotional quotient that I describe, are all the same thing. Just different nomenclature.

I assure you, I know the differences between progressive's motion blur and the look of interlaced footage in the same scene.

Please read my post, I really don't see the sense in continually repeating myself. If it's a language thing, maybe someone can interpret what I said and fit it to what you are asking, because I feel I answered it more than once.

Chris, I don't think you are wrong.

Does anyone know what Sony's "surprise" for the Sundance Film Festival is with the Z1U? And could this "surprise" play into how some people are seeing a difference in the CF24 between the two cameras?

Anyone who knows anything about what Sony might have or not have going on or not going on regarding the Z1 at Sundance this January would not be permitted to comment in any way regarding the event or non-event that is planned or not planned.
What makes you believe Sony has anything planned? Sony has ALWAYS been a major sponsor of that event.

ok guys,


I am suppose to buy the fx1 tomorrow , but that is only iff its 24cf is same as z1. Thats the most important thing. If z1 24cf is any way better than fx1 i will wait and work on the script for 2 more months ..keep refining it ...but if there is no diff then I will buy it tomm...I am trading my dvx100...and my producer is paying...I have been constantly reading the views of you gurus and am happy I am on the forum. There has been war of words going on and also intense discussion on the tech differences. I respect everybody's views but I am getting confused every moment as the thread progresses. I trust only you guys and your sincere and honest criticism of each and every feature. Please guide me as if I should wait for two months on a no risk situation or just go ahead . XLR is no issue as I will be on an external boom into an external Hard Drive recorder with xlr. Only other thing is from the thread .......hmmm....if 24cf on z1 is somehow better..??????


Thanks guys ..keep on discussing as there is no concrete solution yet ....I dont see steve mullen intervening the discussion with his 2 cents ...that would have been much more information ....but maybe he has his own reasons.......I will make my decision only on the final outcome of you guys and no other salesman trying to sell me fx1 ..specially who has no clue about what he is talking about.

Thanks again ...you guys are the best



Kumar

Hi Kumar,

Thanks for your very kind words. My opinion has always been: if you have something to shoot now, then *now* is always the best time to buy.

Chris, thank you for your dedication to finding out the truth, that's one of the things I enjoy most about this board. You're quick to squelch false rumors, and you're quick to correct inaccuracies, and you'll go the extra mile to find out the facts!

Kumar, is there any compelling reason why you have to buy now? If you have to buy now, buy now. But if you can wait, the Z1 has many improvements other than just some XLR's. If there's no compelling reason to buy now, why not wait?

Just for hypergain and hypergamma alone is worth the wait, IMO.

I've been saying in various forums that there is a quality loss when comparing CF 30 to CF24 on the FX1, with the CF24 appearing less sharp.

I've made a small movie demonstrating the problem.

http://www.imageshoppe.com/video/Sony/CF24_vrs_CF30_split.mov

I took two shots from the Kaku Ito footage, both locked off views of a street and did a wipe from top to bottom and back again, with the CF24 footage "underneath" the CF30 as it wipes down then up.

As to testing technique, both raw m2t clips were loaded into After Effects, the CF24 clip was treated with 3:2 removal and placed into a comp with the CF30 clip on top with an animated mask revealing it from top to bottom and back.

Notice that the CF24 imagery is very "buzzy" (note when the wipe crosses the diagnal line of the fence).

Regards,

Jim Arthurs

http://www.imageshoppe.com/video/Son...CF30_split.mov

downloading to HDD