HDR-FX1 - Shoud we be worried?
 

Hi guys

Just surfing around the web

found out about this new HD Sony Camera, is it a replacement to PD170? Are sony scared by the imminent release of the XL2

Does anyone know about this camera?

Should I hold off buying an XL2?

Argghhhhh... You always think you are 1 step ahead of the game, then suddenly more new info appears to affect your decisions!

Have a look at this website here

http://www.global-dvc.org/Sony%20HDV.htm

Let me know your thoughts

Regards
Lawrence

A camera in the hand now beats two in the bush that may be slightly better but you won't know for sure for another 6 months while they are tried in the field.

If you keep waiting for the next best thing, you're going to be waiting for ever.

I totally agree with you

However, how imminent is this camera? If it is coming in 6-12 months there is n point in waiting, however, if it is coming within 1 -2 months then I would wait.

Personally I think Sony are worried

Look how recently they released the PD170, all these prosumer cameras have around a 2 - 3 year cycle, however with the PD170 released recently, they are already looking like they are to replace it!

I just dont know anymore, and I have already preordered an XL2 in the UK!

HDR-FX1
 

Not necessarily. Having worked with MPEG-2 codecs for 7 years, I'm not ready to plunk $$ down on a single pass, MPEG-2, encoded on the fly HD camera. Reasons?

1) Most consumers think that a progressive DVD image is high definition. We can generate that source from a 24p or 30p, 16x9 image on an XL2.

2) The MPEG encoders I have used on NTSC sources (Cinemacraft, Adobe, etc) do best when using higher, variable bit rates with a minimum of 2 passes. HD, I would have to think would be more demanding.

3) Since MPEG-2 is a lossy compression scheme, editing of the footage is destructive. Any edit would require regenerating the necessary reference frames and re-encoding all the intermediate difference frames with attendant artifacts and losses.

4) Using the footage for normal NTSC purposes (DVD, regular video) would require transcoding and down converting the image and losses would occur.

Remember that 24p and 30p images are generally considered the first step in the HD ladder. Give me a 720p, 4:1:1, lossless camera system, and I'll reconsider. My XL-2 will do just fine for the next 3-5 years.

Paul

SONY *is* worried ;). Sony is indeed singular (as it is a sole company) :D

I have heard that this camera is expected out in approx 3 months. Not sure how accurate that is or where the information comes from....

see here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=XL2;action=display;num=1094548720;start=0

november release...
 

price: <$3700

with a higher-end version Q1 of next year...

it's best to get used to rapid release cycles from here on out.

source:


http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-Announces-High-Definition1080i-HDR-FX1-First-3-CCD-HDV-Camcorder.htm

the same bruhaha ensued when the JVC HD-1/HD10 was announced. IMHO, HDV is a LOOOOONG ways from being a viable format for prosumer use. DV is here, today.

I don't worry, a bit, about this initial entry of Sony into the HDV market. There's some mahor issues here, including XLR input and video output in 24p. The HDV format doesn't include 24p.

And, how about editting and final output quality? Admittedly, there are several NLE's than can or will handle HDV. Nevertheless, I think the losses assocated with de-convolving and re-encoding MPEG2 for NLE's are greater than those with DV. In the end, a beautiful native HDV footage may be worthless when held up to an editted DV footage.

The JVC HD cams are, arguably, frought with problems and user-unfriendliness. Sony's entry certainly isn't and won't be the holy grail.
What, me worry? nahhh!!

So are you saying that in order to get the higher resolution of the new sony cam onto the miniDV/DVCAM tape, it is not using the miniDV codec, but instead Mpeg-2 compression?

If this is so, then you are absolutely right, that is not good for editing

Lawrence

The Sony is supposed to hit the stores in the next couple of months.

Personally I think it would be irresponsible to buy something like the XL2 if you don't *need* it right now, when there's a less-expensive and *potentially* more interesting choice just 9 weeks away.

It's not like a rumored "some day it may come out" type of thing, Sony's put a street date of October 15th on it (according to some posts, November according to others).

If you need an XL2 now, get it now. A couple of good jobs and it'll pay for itself. But if you don't NEED it now, why buy it now? Why not wait and see how the Sony compares, for your particular needs?

With the amount of information currently released about the camera, there is no way it will be out in a month or two. Surely, Sony will want months of anticipation leading up to the release of their first prosumer HD camera. And just think about all the delays that accompany any major electronic release. To me, it just seems like Sony is trying to take consumer attention away from the new XL2, and to make those same consumers doubt their decision to buy an XL2. "If Sony's will be out in just a few months...."

<<<-- Originally posted by Lawrence Stevens : So are you saying that in order to get the higher resolution of the new sony cam onto the miniDV/DVCAM tape, it is not using the miniDV codec, but instead Mpeg-2 compression?-->>>

Exactly.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joel Guy : With the amount of information currently released about the camera, there is no way it will be out in a month or two. Surely, Sony will want months of anticipation leading up to the release of their first prosumer HD camera. ...." -->>>

Can't agree. Sony's already announced that it will be in stores in November, and some people are saying October 15th.

Canon announced the XL2 and it was in the stores a few weeks later. Panasonic announced the DVX would be available in Oct. 2002, and they actually *beat* their date by a few days. So I would fully expect the Sony to be on store shelves in November.

If we look from a quality point of view though, how can we professionally edit high quality footage frame accuratley when it is compressed in mpeg-2 format? If this is indeed the way in which the HDR-FX1 works?

Thoughts?

The Sony will work in HDV. HDV is NOT HD!! It's a consumer version. As such, it uses sufficient compression to allow everyday computers (3 gig processors, 1 gig RAM, standard IDE Hard drives, etc, etc) to process the video stream. It still fits on standard DV type tape.

What do you mean, HDV is not HD? HD is many things... HDCAM, DVCPROHD, HDCAM SR, etc... HDV complies with ATSC HD specifications, so why do you say it isn't HD?

You can edit HDV frame-accurately. The JVC HD1 has been on the market for a year now, and editing solutions are already in place that deliver frame-accurate edits. Heck, you can drop an HD1 .ts transport stream right on the timeline in Vegas and be editing immediately, frame-accurate. CineForm and others are developing high-speed realtime editing solutions for HDV.

Sorry for being inaccurate. Indeed, HDV is a subset of HD. However, what I meant to say is that the HDV subset is that it's really HD compressed into MPEG2 for storage to tape. As such, while you get the true format size, 1080 or 720, you also get the artifacts associated with MPEG2 compression and the requirement to have adequate computational power to successfully do the frame accurate editting. Generally, this means, with todays current computer technology, that your special effects, transitions, etc. will bring your computer to its knees when editting HDV. The color space is stil 4:2:0...hardly 4;2;2.

It's simply my opinion, Barry, humbly, I submit....HDV is not the Holy Grail. The holy grail will cost us a little more than $3700.

It remains to be seen whether, in the final analysis, the images from this camera will be significantly better than the XL2. The new XL2 images I've seen rival what I've seen out of an HD-1...simple as that.

In an uncorrelated thought...
I was asked by Canon's rep at NAB whether I'd rather have HDV or re-use of my existing inventory of XL1 lenses and accessories. Without hesitation, I replied that I'd MUCH rather be able to re-use my XL1 accessories. So, while I don't think I substantially affected Canon's development roadmap, obviously, enough other videographers felt that same as I do. Canon doesn't have a reputation for pandering to the consumer market quite like JVC or Panny. I'm sure, one of these days, we'll see a Canon HD camera. By definition, it won't be able to use the 1/3 inch CCD lenses, but it will be a solid entry into the HD(v) market. Until then, i'll be cautious about my jumping off the boat while I'm still at sea.

BTW, I would expect my stable of 35mm SLR lenses to still be useable on an HD format camera.

I think the FX-1 and XL-2 are aimed at slightly different markets. The XL-2 looks like a really nice camera, but if you can wait another 90 days then why not keep your options open? If you need it now, and if you like what you've seen about the XL-2 then buy it and don't look back. The FX-1 price difference is significant and I wonder if this will put some downward pressure on XL-2 pricing come November (another reason to wait if you can)?

The MPEG2 is a non-issue guys. The FX-1 can also shoot in 4:3 and 16:9 DV mode and record DVSP and DVLP. So you could think of the 1080i HDV mode as a "bonus" (and a nice one at that :-) It doesn't have interchangeable lenses or XLR's, but there are a lot of other very nice features. 16:9 native 250,000 pixel LCD panel, new design native 16:9 CCD's. 14 bit DSP. Calibrated zoom, focus and iris rings with end stops. 32mm equivalent wide end.

Like all other new cameras - including the XL-2 - it would be wise to wait for some production model reviews and user experiences before spending your hard-earned money....

I didn't see anything about the sony HDV cam being able to record NTSC.
Is that correct?

Has anyone here done any color correction to HDV footage?
If so, how well does the codec hold up?

Anyone here done any composting using the HDV codec?
If so, how well does the codec work (we know DV ain't that great)?

How about blue/green screen work with HDV? How's that?

The other issue I wonder about with this camera is that it does not
offer progessive scan, but 1080i. I don't think it can do any flavor
of 720P. Even the JVC only does 720P at 30 fps, not the full blown
60 frames needed for smooth video (though I admit liking 30p)

Not commenting on anything technical, but as I read the things Boyd mentioned (proper rings, LCD panel etc) I was just slowly shaking my head as to why Canon didn't add those, simple basic things to their camera. I think they matter to people and in all honesty are the things that'd stop me getting one becuase to get them I need to spend thousands on other lenses and an LCD monitor - but then I guess this argument has been done to death.


Aaron

> Since MPEG-2 is a lossy compression scheme, editing of the
> footage is destructive. Any edit would require regenerating the
> necessary reference frames and re-encoding

I strongly suspect this particular MPEG-2 implementation would not have intermediate frames, only keyframes, so editing is possible without losing info.

As to XLR, I am still not convinced that they are a requirement in the field. The Beachtek adapters work great as long as the camera has a good input circuitry and AD (like the XL1). In my case, a have a PDX10 with the XLR module and it is sort of like having a Sony-branded Beachtek adapter.

From my point of view, the next step up from the PDX10 was, until today, an XL2. Now that Sony finally delivered the HDV promise, I would not buy the XL2 without checking the new HDV offering. So my answer would be "yes, you should be worried".

I don't like posting direct links to other websites, but if you visit camcorderinfo.com you will find quite a lot of in-depth information on the new Sony camera; obviously they were given access to it much like Chris had for the XL-2. Obviously we won't know for sure what the features are until Sony themselves publishes them, but in multiple places on that site they say the camera can work in both SD and HDV and record DV at SP and LP speeds.

I bought the JVC (HD1) as first step into HD. I was not really purchasing a camera, just a cheap way to explore this new world.
At 2300$ it was cheap enough to not care about the future.
The learnings have already covered for the investment.
My only regret was not having 3CCDs. now i dream it and sony has made it. I will probably swap for the newborn very soon, just waiting for the first reviews and for that camera being more that rumours. This time i hope for a more serious tool.
For sure if the goal was to get a good DV device, it would be none of the JVC or the sony one, but probably a panasonic or a canon.
Unfortunately most of the people are not in a position to allow such money invested just for fun, so they need a different answer. My opinion is if you still live in the brave old world of DV, neither of the Sony nor the JVC should be a trouble for you.
If you want to enter into the new world of HDV, the sony is the only choice.

Worried?

The XL2 does true 24p. The Sony does 1080i. Can this really be compared? I got interested in the XL2 in the first place because of the native 16:9 and true progressive scan. If it did not have this, it would only be an XL1S revision2 and would have been of no use to me.

No matter the resolution of the FX-1, I don't think it's aimed at similar markets. If you want true progressive 24fps for transfer to film or for film motion look, the DVX100A and XL2 are the only viable choices. the JVC's seem to be nothing more than high tech toys. The new Sony has 3 CCDs, but apparently will only do interlaced.

If you're an indie filmmaker like me that comes from a film background, you still won't consider buying a camcorder (at least I would think), no matter the resolution, that can only shoot interlaced footage (god do I hate NTSC 60i), if your plan is going to film later on (or at least it'll look like film if you only release it on DVD).

Also, what seems to be the new and biggest problem with HDV is dynamic range. The footage is so compressed to fit on DV tapes that there's a lot of clipping. As a result, I always thought the JVCs' footage looked horribly video-ish and ugly. Unusable for dramatic projects.

The day HDV manufacturers will come up with true 24p 3 CCDs camcorders that have found a way around the very limited dynamic range and can offer a better solution than MPEG2 (which is a pain to edit) highly compressed to DV tape with a max. 25Mps bandwith, I'll sure give it a second look. Let's bet a $2 this could be Canon, who as usual, will be the last player to enter the new format, but this should not be until a year or 2.

Until then, there's a great deal of issues for HDV to resolve in order to be used in a professional environment (dynamic range being the priority, Mpeg2 compression artifacts and editing problems being the second).

> The day HDV manufacturers will come up with true 24p
> 3 CCDs camcorders that have found a way around the
> very limited dynamic range and can offer a better solution
> than MPEG2 (which is a pain to edit) highly compressed to
> DV tape with a max. 25Mps bandwith, I'll sure give it a
> second look.

I agree with much of what you say David, but we don't know yet that Sony has not "found a way around the limited dynamic range". It wouldn't make sense to have 3 CCD chips in there if all that color range could not get written to tape. MPEG2TS with only keyframes should be as easy to edit as any other digital format. I am under the impression (please correct me if I am wrong) that intermediate frames are not used.

I don't know if 25 Mbps is not enough. HDTV broadcasts look great to me and they use less than that!

And I daresay the resolution loss of deinterlacing is probably made up for with the enhanced resolution of 1080i. If you resample 1080i/60 to 480p/24 you might get something at least as good as the output from an XL2 or DVX100. Perhaps with even better low-light performance and less noise, not to mention it won't suffer as much when upscaled for HD later on... because it doesn't need to be upscaled at all, see?

I can tell the XL2 and DVX100 are excellent SD cameras. The XL2 is surely impressive. But what will happen to that footage later on? Surely we need to asess the FX1 HDV footage and see how well it does in both and HD and an SD world and vice versa. Then we can make the choice.

<<<<"found a way around the limited dynamic range".>>>>

surely you jest. even if they found some magic in a black hat, there's still the issue of being able to edit( aka process) the massive data stream that would be required with full 4:2:2 video. No way, jose...not with today;s technology, anyway.

So no one has the answers to my questions?

Kinda hard to believe with all those JVCs out there that no one
has tried color correction, compositing, or blue screen work.

These are things I am interested in. Talking heads? Ugh.
(Sorry for the attitude ;)

Ignacio, you might be right about the Sony and JVC using keyframes, I must say I didn't do a whole lot of research on the HDV after actually seeing the footage from the JVC. It was enough to convince me the technology wasn't at a satisfactionary level yet.

The XL2 seems to have a great low light performance which is virtually noise free (judging by the night footage shot by Johnnie). It suits my needs on this front.

As for the dynamic range, we'll have to wait and see of course. I won't make the mistake of condamning a camcorder before it's out, but judging by the JVC, they have a mountain to climb to get my attention. I would assume the 3 CCDs will make for a much better color accuracy (JVC's footage looked blemish and washed up) and probably a better dynamic range, but from what I've read, the dynamic range problem of this new format is highly linked to the high compression ratio and won't be so easily overcomed.

All I know is that interlaced 60i footage and 24p is not meant for the same purpose. Give me quadruple the resolution, if it's 60i interlaced, I'll still find it ugly as hell. I'm biased because I come from a film background, but I would assume indie filmmakers are too, and like me, will want 24p before taking the HDV plunge.

I'm not one to adopt early technology until I get solid proofs it's not all hype and nothing more. So far, until I see HDV footage that actually looks good (not only on paper), it'll remain hype. I'll be checking that Sony of course, but my expectations are not that high. The resolution increase has been used as a marketing gimmick for a long time in digital photography and has provided very few tangible results. Hope video won't follow the same path...

Yes. We will have to wait and see. Oh and yes, we will not edit HDV on our G3 or PII laptops. Apple, Intel and everybody else are going to love HDV because we will have to buy new hardware. Again.

I'm not sure I see how a 60i camera, even at 1080 can be seen as an alternative to the XL2. The Xl2 was designed specifically to be a new generation film motion, film view camera. redesigned CCDs optimized for 16:9, 24p, 48 fps with cine gamma and color curves are what this camera is all about.

Shoot the XL2 in 4:3, 60i and it looks like pretty good video. Shoot it in
16:9 24p using the 5 pages of image control and it's literally a breakthrough look...certainly to me.

Really clean interlaced video is of no interest to me nor most of the clients I know looking for what they're seeing more and more; which is a growing body of work that while not film, is definitely percieved as film like and specifically not video.

I can't see how anyone could go very wrong committing to this camera, without waiting to read every post and every review on every site and wait the release of the next cameras.

This camera is here and now and without question the best looking thing I've seen below true film and real HD...including cameras way above it's price range.

Take Digibeta. It has more dynamic range and a better color space, but those are fine points when you're comparing image quality this close...it's indisitinguishable to the vast majority of the people who view what we create.

What is definitely distinguishable to them is a smooth rich detailed image in wide screeen and 24p motion...the things they associate immediately with film making.

> redesigned CCDs optimized for 16:9

Oh the FX1 has some of those too. Actually Sony did something I think nobody had done before: the CCD panels on the new camera have rectangular pixels! Thus the sensitivity and resolution are optimized and less resampling is required to meet the HDV spec. My camera, which is also 16:9 native, has square pixels, which is great for photos but not optimum for anamorphic video.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : > Since MPEG-2 is a lossy compression scheme, editing of the
> footage is destructive. Any edit would require regenerating the
> necessary reference frames and re-encoding

>I strongly suspect this particular MPEG-2 implementation >would not have intermediate frames, only keyframes, so >editing is possible without losing info.

Since the HDV video format supports MPEG-2 compressed video (MP@H-14), at two 16:9 resolutions:
- 720p (1280 x 720, progressive), at approximately 19 Mbps data rate
- 1080i (1440 x 1080, interlaced), at approximately 25 Mbps data rate

I don't see how you can get the 25 Mbps data rate without using both I (intra picture) frames and p (predictive picture) frames. They may keep the GOPs smaller, but editing will still be somewhat destructive and transcoding to other resolutions will result in some loss of data. That said, 25 Mbps is a good data rate (NBC transmitted the Olymics at around 22 Mbps), but I still don't like the idea of a single pass encoder.

The test of this would be to shoot in moving fog or clouds. That usually wreaks havoc with the simple encoders.

<<<-- Take Digibeta. It has more dynamic range and a better color space, but those are fine points when you're comparing image quality this close...it's indisitinguishable to the vast majority of the people who view what we create.

What is definitely distinguishable to them is a smooth rich detailed image in wide screeen and 24p motion...the things they associate immediately with film making. -->>>

This is my feeling as well. The most obvious distinctive features of film are the dynamic range and 24fps sampling rate. Aspect ratio too to some extent (and resolution obviously). This is what we've come to like and look for. Call it conditioned, imperfect, poorer than 60i motion since the sampling is done less frequently and thus the motion is blured and requires more effort from the brain to connect the images between them and perceive motion, it's still the way film looks, and people who want a film look identify with those elements.

What HDV has right now that gets it closer to film quality (I guess we could arbitrarely say 35mm is the standard format by which every other is compared) is a higher resolution, which is still miles away from film resolution of course. But when looking at film, even on TV with a 3:2 pulldown, the first thing that separates between video and film is the sampling rate used to acquire the image and the level of motion blur associated, introduced by the 1/48th shutter speed. After this, dynamic range comes into play to create dramatic contrasts that video cannot handle.

If HDV cannot provide on those 2 fronts, I'm not interested. When it does, I'll listen. Obviously Sony is not targeting users like me with this new HDV camcorder, which is why I don't see the point of "getting worried". No matter the quality of this Sony cam, it doesn't produce what I'm looking for.

Well I completely agree - getting back to the title of the thread - why should anybody be "worried?" If the XL-2 has the feature set that you want, and if you are happy with the price then I don't see how the Sony camera can take anything away from that. The XL-2 sounds really nice to me. So does the Sony. It's good to have options. If nothing else it may put some downward pressure on the XL-2 price.

Of course there are always some people who aren't happy unless they have the latest and greatest, and they will probably worry. But life is really short to dwell on that, so make your choice intelligently and then concentrate on using whatever tools you own to do something great.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joel Guy : With the amount of information currently released about the camera, there is no way it will be out in a month or two. Surely, Sony will want months of anticipation leading up to the release of their first prosumer HD camera. And just think about all the delays that accompany any major electronic release. To me, it just seems like Sony is trying to take consumer attention away from the new XL2, and to make those same consumers doubt their decision to buy an XL2. "If Sony's will be out in just a few months...." -->>>
That makes it sound like Sony decided to release this camera on a whim because of the XL2. This Sony cam has been in development long before the XL2 was announced.Guys, I think we need to be realistic. The Sony camera looks awesome, and with a 'pro' version coming after (XLR inputs, etc), I think it's a strong contender against the XL2. Canon ecided not to go with HD and it might cost them. You'll be able to buy the Sony for less money than the XL2, have HD and SD, flip out viewscreen, etc. The Canon XL2 is great as well, don't get me wrong. But don't bust on the Sony without having even seen it or used it. I think it's great that I get to decide between a Canon XL2 and a Sony HD unit!

We will have to wait for the real cost of the "pro" version of this. I've heard around the $7K mark. Now that's a lot more than the Xl2. But yes, If Canon had put an LCD on the Xl2, along with a good wide angle and barrel markings, it would've pretty much been a gimme for me. But unfortunately it wasn't to be.



Aaron

Wow
I didnt realise the debate that this 'simple' little topic would start

After reading through all the posts a few points have been identified that has made me feel a little colder towards the sony

1 - Higher resolution does not necessarily mean a better image. I think megapixels is a bit of a marketing ploy, being that it is assumed more is better, well let me tell you I downscaled a good photo to 1 megapixel and took it to a professional printers to test, and it looked much better than a 4 megapixel photo taken on a cheapo camera. Also my very good 4 megapixel camera outshines some higher megapixel cameras too.

It didn't really occur to me that this infact could happen to the digital video world, but it is now obvious that it can, and more importantly is. If sony can't get around the problems associated with this new mpeg2 technology 100% (which is still in it's relative infancy), then there is no point in having a high res, poorly coloured picture. It seems for now that the composition of the picture and colour reproduction on the XL2 should still shine through - for the time being anyway

2 - This does however lead me to a second point. I have always thought that if MiniDV is a digital tape, then it doesn't necessarily have to store info encoded in DV, why not be able to back up you hard drive on it (good idea hey? - 15GB per tape - each tape £2.00!) Anyway, with the continued and fast development of good video codecs is seems inevitable that soon someone will perfect a new codec that will squeeze as much as humanly possible out of the 25Mbit (i think thats right) bandwidth of the tape. How about a modified WMV9 codec or even a DiVX Codec (i know this doesn't look too great, but the data rate is tiny, so you could upscale the data rate quite alot and still be able to fit into the available bandwidth, and hence give a better image)

I think I will stick with the XL2 for the time being, and be happy that I can produce some of the stunning images I have seen from the various sample footages!

Lawrence

Aaron: just for my own curiosity, is the 16x manual (who has
markings) not good enough for some reason? And I assume the
flipover viewfinder has a too small an LCD screen for you to
consider it as an "LCD" ?

From a news article on MSNBC's web site this morning:

"Recording precious images at the best visual quality is important and the demand for that is sure to spread around the world."

How would you define "precious images"? Another quote from the same article may hold the key.

"The high-end offering, which Sony said was a world first as a high-definition camcorder for consumers, is instrumental for profitability at a time when camcorder prices are rapidly coming down, according to Sony."

The key words in the above are "camcorder for consumers." So I interpret "precious images" to be birthday parties, graduations, piano recitals, family picnics, and so forth. From everything I've read about this camera (and I haven't read it all), it is not aimed at professionals, as is the XL2, period.

Bill and Jim both have made excellent points and, based on my experience, I agree with them whole-heartedly. My XL2 is on the way and I can't wait to get my hands on it. I know I won't be disappointed.

Jay

A local news paper also ran such a story that this was "the first"
HD consumer camera according to Sony. Well I guess they haven't
seen the JVC. Or does that somehow not count as consumer and
theirs does?

i agree completely that single pass encoder is just not enough for particles (like water, fire, smoke..) or fast moving blur the lines action...

but then again dv does handle this that well either, without actually seeing the output from the sony cam i'm going to say i like what i see from dvcpro50...

as far as editing mpeg, i have been doing so since 1997 with my dc2000 and dc1000 cards in realtime, sd of course...

it can be done, and done well as in non destructive...