FX1/Z1 footage on 35mm?

[Filip Kovcin]

anyone transfered footage on 35mm?

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Yeah, two sources I'm aware of
1. Sony did their HDV launch in Mexico City this week on 35mm Premiere stock. What I've seen of it is simply stunning.
2. Footage from the TV show JAG has been transferred, and Sony will have a special screening at NAB.

[George Zabetas]

Was this filmout from the NTSC or PAL version Spot?
thanks

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

There isn't an NTSC or PAL version of the Z1. It's 50i or 60i. It was shot at CF25, which would be considered PAL, but it was shot at CF 25 to match to film with the 4% diff.

[Barry Green]

I know that this is a battle I'm likely to lose, but I still have to try... :)

As Spot says, the Z1 is neither NTSC nor PAL. It can shoot both, yes... but only when in standard-def mode. In HD mode it is not NTSC and it is not PAL. It is HD. HD is a new format that transcends NTSC and PAL. The only difference between 50i and 60i is the scanning rate (well, and the GOP size, but that's a compression issue, not a broadcast or display issue). So a Z1 in PAL mode would be shooting standard-def video. If you're shooting high-def, you are *not* shooting PAL or NTSC, you're shooting high-def. So let's try to keep the nomenclature straight -- 50i or 60i would be a more accurate way to say it than "PAL" or "NTSC"...

(and the reason I know I'll lose this battle is because people call tissues "kleenex" whether they are or not, and "band-aids" and "xerox" and all sorts of things... we use names we know and are comfortable with, not necessarily their accurate names... but still...)

[Maheel Perera]

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37476

[George Zabetas]

thanks. it wasn't clear which of the 2 cameras was used.
I was hoping it was the lower end (NTSC-US) FX1 that I am saving up for.

[Toke Lahti]

<<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle : There isn't an NTSC or PAL version of the Z1. It's 50i or 60i. It was shot at CF25, which would be considered PAL, but it was shot at CF 25 to match to film with the 4% diff. -->>>

To me this is kind of culmination of Sony's bad choises in technology.
When they itself demonstrate their interlaced camera, they use it in CF-mode. I hope someone in Sony asks: "Why didn't we make progressive camera in the first place?"

[Bryan McCullough]

Originally posted by George Zabetas
thanks. it wasn't clear which of the 2 cameras was used.
I was hoping it was the lower end (NTSC-US) FX1 that I am saving up for.

Take heart George!

Both the Z1 and the FX1 have the exact same optics. The Z1 will shoot 50i but the FX1 will do CF25, CF30 and 60i. So footage shot at CF25 on a Z1 will look identical to CF25 footage shot on an FX1.

Or so I understand.

[Filip Kovcin]

<<<-- Originally posted by Bryan McCullough : The Z1 will shoot 50i but the FX1 will do CF25, CF30 and 60i. -->>>

i beleive it's just the oposite... but i understand this is type mismach...

filip

[George Zabetas]

Bryan,I think CF25 is only on the PAL verision (half of 50i). Right?
American would probably only be CF30. (60Hz US power cycles)

[Barry Green]

For the FX1 that is correct: the US version gets CF30, and the European version gets CF25.

On the Z1, all Z1's have all modes: CF24, CF25, CF30, and 50i and 60i.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

<<<-- Originally posted by Toke Lahti : <<<-- Originally posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle : There isn't an NTSC or PAL version of the Z1. It's 50i or 60i. It was shot at CF25, which would be considered PAL, but it was shot at CF 25 to match to film with the 4% diff. -->>>

To me this is kind of culmination of Sony's bad choises in technology.
When they itself demonstrate their interlaced camera, they use it in CF-mode. I hope someone in Sony asks: "Why didn't we make progressive camera in the first place?" -->>>

50i/60i has nothing to do with Sony's terminology, that's a worldwide standard and nomenclature. It's what I was attempting to address in a less forthright manner than what Barry posted. The CF is Sony's best response because frankly, at this resolution progressive on a 1/3 chip is likely gonna suck. Maybe Panasonic will have a great answer, only time will tell. But for the resolutions that Sony wanted to achieve at the price point they wanted to achieve, interlaced was the answer. And it's also part of the ATSC spec whereas 60p currently isn't. But that has nothing to do with why they did what they did, IMO. It was an artistic offering while maintaining a price balance.

[Filip Kovcin]

the guys from sony - durning IBC 2004 - told me that real progressive scan is "not possible", due to some legal issues connected with HDV standard. in 720 mode - yes, but NOT in 1080!

and this approach is the closest possible to AVOID confilcts with HDV standard.
you cannot find SINGLE word that CF is de facto progressive scan. but when you look at - it is.
maybe it's "grabbed" in a different manner than in panasonic's case (DVX100 - i am talking just about progressive scan and its feeling, not resolution)

when you look at HDV standard - yo can clearly see that there is nothing about 1080p. single word. so as i understand standards - if i agree on something, i will do as i agreed on. simple.


Toke,
i do not understand this:

The CF is Sony's best response because frankly, at this resolution progressive on a 1/3 chip is likely gonna suck.

why, in your opinion 1/3 chip can't deliver proper progressive scan?

you can find tons of HD cameras for medicine or specific purposes (also mentioned here on another threads) which are 1/3" cameras and they ARE progressive. (the other problem is recording its signlal to something like dv tape...)

my opinion on sony approach:
they builded new camera good enough to replace all dvcams, but not too good to replace any high priced HDCAMs. not because they can't build the camera with proper and nice progressive scan... (just check F900 or 750p cameras. something beautiful.) but because they do not need another competitor in it's own courtyard.

just a thought

filip