Waiting for the Z2

[Aaron Koolen]

I don't need them hosted. Even if someone put them up on an FTP and emailed me the address so I could get them for me that's all I need. I am working something out so Douglas can FTP some to my server but they won't be available for all.

Douglas, how big are such clips? Even a MB per second or such is OK.

Cheers
Aaron

[Ken Ross]

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : For the people who keep asking for online clips, I'd like to remind them that web hosting is not cheap when it comes to video -- especially on a message board with this level of popularity -- believe me you get slammed very hard. So for whoever is asking to see this stuff, the clips are there and the shooters are more than willing to put them up, but *you* need to pony up with the server space and bandwidth. -->>>

Many times I've seen, over the years, people making excuses for why they must wait for the next model. When the next model arrives, those same people say the very next day "Maybe I'll wait for the next model, I just don't like that silver color". I've found it's really pointless to try and convince people like that. In those cases the camera (or whatever it is) is simply not for them for whatever their real reason is. Any real interest in this camera would almost certainly bring them to a place where they can touch, feel and shoot with it. Besides the fact that any posted footage will never ever do justice to what this camera looks like when displayed on a high quality HDTV....but hey, that's just my opinion.

[Shannon Rawls]

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Ross :
..........Any real interest in this camera would almost certainly bring them to a place where they can touch, feel and shoot with it. Besides the fact that any posted footage will never ever do justice to what this camera looks like when displayed on a high quality HDTV.... -->>>

Unless ofcourse, they are like a collegue of mine, who bought 2 Canon XL2's. He is now jealous and kicking himself in the ass.

It's one thing to wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait for the next SD camera to come out with 1 or two extra features.

But to WAIT on going from SD to HIGH DEFINITION!!! Oh my, all those who are "WAITING" for this, "WAITING" for that, "WAITING" for NAB, etc.... are idiots if you ask me. My Z1 is almost paid for (in a literal sense from jobs I have aquired). I bought it January 28th. LOL When it is, I will make an announcement and ask all those who "WAITED", how much money did they make by sitting idly by waiting for NAB.

- Shannon W. Rawls

[Bill Pryor]

Sounds as if you had work waiting on you, and that's great. I've always refrained from buying any equipment until there was a paying need for it. If somebody has work coming up that can be done with a new camera then buy it; but if there's no pressing need, it would be nice to wait till NAB, especially since HDV is such a new format and not widely in use yet.

[Heath McKnight]

I think I'm going to rent from now on. I can't keep up.

heath

[Nick Hiltgen]

I'd like to take this moment to post some of my disinformation so as to be o par with everyone else. I keep hearing this crap about 720p being better then 1080i or vis versa, I would seriously like to take this opportunity for some one to "taste test" the difference and tell me they can tell which is which. I can't maybe it's just me. Further To do a 180 degree swish pan (or flash pan or super pan or peter pan or whatever) in 2 seconds is not unreasonable. And it can be done on a hdw-700a and to be honest it can be done on a z1u. My company (which shoots with the 900, 750 and 700 HDCAM's) recently aquired the z1u and it looks good not HDCAM good but definitely better then DVCAM. People who complain about the low light in my opinion have not shot with the "real hdcam's" they're comparing it to. Furthere there is grain at +18db gain and a little at 9 but it's much better then say one of the old panasonic s-vhs camera's. I think by all means if you don't have a gig or gigs set up that will pay for your camera and don't have the discreationary income to perpetually upgrade (be it a wife or a camera) then you shouldn't buy it. The best line on this forum is if you're waiting then you're not shooting. The conversation seems to border on stale when everyone is "waiting for the next camera to come out," You know you'll have made it to the next step in the camera buying experience in saying "I'm waiting for the next gig to come up"...

[Dennis Kane]

I recently attended a broadcast trade show in San Fran, SVASE, and had a chance to ask the specific question of "why does the microphone extend so far forward in the Z1 that it interfers with many of the features of various matt boxes " I personally use graduated neutral density filters for panoramic shots and I am not able to use these valualble tools with the current design. I spoke with an Andy of Sony, based out of New Jersey, who just returned from Sundance and he had no answer. I get the feeling that marketing had not considered and is surprised by all the new applications being discovered by the tremendous reception of this camera and that future design will address this and other issues in the future. For me, the current microphone design is a deal killer

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Great post, Nick.
I'll dispute one small thing, and that's the pan speed/quality of the two cams. When we were at Sundance, we did exactly this, shooting a metal fence with a white banner on the back side of it. We did the "picket fence" test with the Z1 and the 900. They both looked quite similar, but neither had the smooth blur of a faster pan, and of course the Z1 has a slightly higher sense of blur, but the pan needed to be either faster or slower to get one effect or the other. There is a "sweet spot" in the speed on either side of the coin. Putting the 900 in 24p and the Z1 in CF25, they both looked really nice, solid interpolation of verticals over the distance, but the CF 24 was definitely an unacceptable look. Inserting the pulldown in post helped, but it wasn't as good.

I've just added more confusion to the issue, but you're right, most of the naysayers have never held the cam, and it's frustrating to keep hearing about the pan speed, artifacting, compression, etc, etc, from people who know nothing about the camera or format.

Last night, I shot images of elk in rut, after sundown, at a long distance. I put it up on our 12' projection system, it looked awesome. High motion, low contrast, great detail even in very low light conditions. (I had 6dB of gain)

[Nick Hiltgen]

Douglas thanks, you're right, often times I read these posts right before I go to bed and have been listening to the real life version of the naysaying (or prosaying) of these cameras all day, again by people who have never even touched one, so when I read about it here at night I kinda go off a little. You're right, I'll double test the pan test and see if I can get acceptable results, I agree with you on the cineframe (I had seen it used in the prototype, but have yet to use it myself) and 24p on the 900 is great but it often takes directors and other viewers a few moments to get used to the PsF. the only fair comparisons I can think to make are viewing both cameras in 1080 60i mode and there the 900 is still better but that doesn't mean the z1u stinks, I would even venture to say it will be the best camera that 70% of the population will use (until the next big thing comes out).

[Ken Ross]

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Hiltgen : I'd like to take this moment to post some of my disinformation so as to be o par with everyone else. I keep hearing this crap about 720p being better then 1080i or vis versa, I would seriously like to take this opportunity for some one to "taste test" the difference and tell me they can tell which is which. I can't maybe it's just me. -->>>

Nick, I can tell you watching on the HD broadcast side for years, 1080i is definitely sharper than 720p. The argument for 720p always used to center around its ability to handle motion better than 1080i. This is true to an extent, but many people felt that since 1080i is an interlaced format, it was laden with the same interlaced artifacts that our old NTSC system was. It's not, clearly it's not. There are still some, but greatly greatly reduced from where we were with NTSC. The more I see people exposed to both formats, the more the consensus seems to favor1080i.

Also keep in mind that much has to do with the display you're watching it on and, if it's a fixed pixel display, that display's native rate. Some displays don't have the resolution capabilities to take advantage of the much higher pixel count of 1080i and so these displays will probably show very little difference between the two.

[Nick Hiltgen]

The displays that I've seen both formats on have been:

-Sony bvmd9h5u (the 9" monitor) which arguably could be too small to tell a difference.
-A sony 42" HD LCD monitor which arguably may not have the resolution for 1080 and so everything is converted to 720 or some bastardization of both formats.
-And an apple cinema display, but being a display may be biased in and of it's self.

I remember seeing 1080 24psf on a 20" monitor (sony broadcast not the lvm the more expensive one) but I can't say I remember seeing 720p on it for sure, as I believe that would be the best viewing format. I Still stand by the fact that if you have someone who really knows how to use the camera (or at least set it up) it would be VERY hard for a person to tell the difference between the two formats all other things being the same. I've seen bad looking varicam footage and soft cinealta footage, and I've seen both of them tweaked to there best, but I stand by my assertion that 1080i is not significantly better or worse then 720p (but well concede that 1080 24psf is a better format then both)

All in all it seems that the broadcasters are moving mostly toward 1080i so it could be a moot argument anyhow.

[Sean M Lee]

I think you need to see it on a real 1080i monitor that is bigger than 9". I've used the 9" before, it's a great looking monitor, but it's forgiving, too.

[Martin Doppelbauer]

but sharp, smooth footage without artifacts even my wife can detect when fast panning shooting action is the minimum what you can demand from a camcorder.

Hans,
I've done tons of tests with the camera and just like everybody else who actually owns one I can tell you for sure there is NO problem whatsoever with capturing fast motion nor with the MPEG-encoding.
I have also done several testchart shots in comparison with my XM2 (aka GL2) DV-camcorder.
I used 1/1000 shutter speed and panned across the chart horizontally at various speeds.
When panning app. 0,5 secs per picture width (i.e. double the picture width per second) the HDV-image finally dropped to a quality equal (!) to DV at standstill (!!!) (deinterlaced using WinDVD 6). At the same speed the DV-image was completely useless. What more do you want ?
Martin

[Hans ter Lingen]

Hi guys,

I stirred up some emotions after starting this thread. I have to admit that I have not had the chance yet to hold a Z1 in my hands so I am only trying to summarize all the info from different sources (not only this site but also from various other sites/magazines/publications/tests ets) Often there is a red line in those tests/opinions/experiences. One of them is that the fast panning/zooming issues (artifacts/too slow/blurr) are definately present independant on what source you use to look at the footage.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

One of them is that the fast panning/zooming issues (artifacts/too slow/blurr) are definately present independant on what source you use to look at the footage.

Hans, you cannot judge this without seeing the footage and shooting it yourself. You're shooting ducks in the dark. Here, you have a wide variety of people who OWN the camera telling you that the problems you refer to are greatly exaggerated, and then on other sites like DVXUser.com, you have people who don't own the camera that have reasons to pick at the camera saying that the motion blur is a big issue.
Rather than creating more stir in the forums, I'd again strongly suggest you get your hands on the camera. I refuse to believe that you can't find an FX or Z1 in your area to demo, or can't buy one with possibility of returning it.

We might as well have a discussion here on what might happen if we started launching missles at asteroids. No one knows, no one has done it, and so what's the point of continuing the discussion?

Get your eyes and hands on the camera, have a preset idea of what you'd like to shoot, go shoot it. Judge for yourself. On an HD monitor, you'll likely be surprised with what you see.