4:4:4 Uncompressed 1080i HDR-FX1?

[Wayne Morellini]

That would be a very good start, if they allow you to use them uncompressed during filming (unlike the JVC).

[Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn]

Well, about the interlaced thing for Cinema.
It is not a big problem to have 1080i source because it is easier to convert 60i to 24 fps than 30p..
So I guess it is a good candidate for such a work..

[Wayne Morellini]

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Moore :
Features component video out (but NOT in)" -->>>

Yes, this is like what they did with the vx1000. I think it was "ilink out" but not in, stopped me from buying it, they upgraded it in the next model.

shooting 60i for eventual 24p output is totally doable nowadays with good results via affordable software, but it is a significant step added to the post process. i'm doing exactly that with a longform project right now and some of the potential drawbacks include:
- significant increase in labor & logistical management for compositing effects
- possible discrepencies in synch (though miniscule) if your sound designer is working from the pre-converted 60i edit
- possible aesthetic discrepencies from your 60i edit (ie. the field containing a quick gleam/flash/muzzle flare happens to be one of the fields dropped by the conversion software), though you can go back and reconvert the shot with the gleam.
- though the framerate conversion looks good and is probably invisible to 95% of all consumers, there are some visual flaws from the interpolation that show up in your footage.

some of the advantages are:
- option of cleanly "overcranking" any of your footage to 80% or 40% slow motion or "undercranking" to 160%, with very good results. aside from the obvious use for effects, it has actually been useful in editing, with a few shots where motion/movement continuity was flawed.
- if you plan to do any non-constant time remapping, 60i will yield much better results than 24p or 30p.

personally, after dealing with this firsthand, i would opt for shooting 24p, especially if your project involves a lot of compositing. and 30p flat out cannot convert to 24p without looking like a big mess (in my opinion).

but so far i've read some info online about the HDR-FX1 that implies that there's a strong possibility that it will be able to output at least some of the HDV-sanctioned 720progressive framerates of 24, 30, 50, and 60, but only through the component outputs (the HDR-FX1 reportedly won't lay the 720p footage to tape). i just hope that "raw mod" juan can get in there and pull those raw frames out for us, especially if those progressive framerates are actually coming off the ccds at 1080 and getting resized to 720 by the dsp. 14-bit, 4:4:4, 24fps, 1080p from a $3700 camera just sounds insane... call the crazy house, because i wanna move in.

[Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn]

how do you know the chips are 14 bit???
Not every conversion include discarding fields.Be carefull with that.
Every post-house has its own method.Remember quality depends on people not machines, most of the times....

[Charles Moore]

WM9 encoded Sony HDV footage:

File location:

The URL: ftp://md-ftp.sonypictures.com

Username/Password (case-sensitive):
dude
Sweetn3ss

for more information on how it was shot:

http://www.creativecow.net/forum/read_post.php?postid=109480679582805&forumid=24

juan, good point about how not all 60i to 24p conversion techniques discard fields. i can't speak for the numerous proprietary methods developed by post houses, but i was speaking specifically about software available to anyone. and among those options, there seems to be three general approaches, and it seems that all of the software available utilizes one, or some sort of combination, of these; fractionally discarding fields, morph technology-based temporal interpolation, and frame blending. and all three have their own achilles heal when it comes gleams/flashes that appear (or peak) for one field.

[Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn]

Charles, those user and pass don´t work..

[Chris Sorensen]

Juan, it does work, though you may need to try an FTP program rather than IE. Check out this thread.

[Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn]

OK thank you very much

[Wayne Morellini]

If the CCD's could be offset (if we can get raw footage), than 960*1080 becomes 2880*1080 (or some other configuration) and with an anamorphic adaptor it would be good for 2.39:1 shooting.

[Juan M. M. Fiebelkorn]

Wayne, I guess that when you offset the CCDs yo move just a little the green one, and in such a case what you would get would be 1920x1080.
The idea is that you put the green pixels on the interspace between the other CCD pixels.If you wanted to shift the 3 chips you won't have enough space to gain resolution.
Anyway offsetting the chips is almost impossible unless you have a really expensive equipment just for that kind of manipulations..

I guess that idea is fantastic for the DVX100, after Juan's discovery of the pixel shift scheme it has.
If that could be used you would be getting a fantastic 15XX x 500, and assuming the Bayer Mosaic is said to has around 75% the resolution of a 3 chip conf. we could assure it would be like a 1280x500.(assuming its 794 horizontal res.)

[Wayne Morellini]

Yes, it would be a workshop only type conversion.

[Aaron Shaw]

Could you do some sort of software offset or does the CCD HAVE to be physically moved?

[Juan P. Pertierra]

You can do many things in software, but if the CCD's are not shifted then there is no way that software can 'know' what actual light was impinging between red/blue sensor elements. The data will simply not be there.