Check out this article: http://gizmodo.com/search/fx7

"Nor does the FX7 have the FX1's native 16:9 capture, instead horizontally stretching each pixel."

1440x1080 and 1920x1080 is indeed widescreen. Remember, Sony's HDV has non-square pixels which makes it easier to go to 1920. The sensor size for all the HDV cameras (not including the A1, new Canons, and the new Sonys), along with the HVX, are as follows (thanks to www.adamwilt.com and the Texas Shootout!!!):

Sony FX1/Z1: 960x1080
Canon XL H1: 1440x1080
JVC HD100: 1280x720
Panasonic HVX200: 960x540

heath

None of the Sonys have square pixels, they're all non-square. That's how it gets to 1440 and 1920 so well. That gizmodo article doesn't sound right.

heath

Hi Heath. Are you sure about this? I thought the 960 wide image has to go through an upscaling process to get to 1440, which is what is captured to tape. How can that be better than a 1440 image staying at 1440 with no upscaling?

Richard

Non-square pixels. I also go by what I see on a 720p, 1080i or 1080p monitor, NOT just spec sheets. When I look at the 1280x1080 or 960x720 on the HVX200 on any of those screens, it's widescreen and looks nice. The Sonys (FX1, Z1) look great, too.

heath

As nice as I'm sure the guys at Gizmodo are, I wouldn't exactly trust their technical explanations of gear such as this.

HDV works a very specific way. 1440H stretched 1.33 upon playback to yield a 16x9 picture.

Hi Heath. I was referring to the statment that non-square pixels makes it easier to go from 960 to 1920 resolution compared with starting at 1440. If they both have to go through a tape stage at 1440 resolution, then the 960 pixels have to be upsampled to 1440, while the 1440 pixels don't need any upsampling. So, in what way is it "easier"? I'd have thought that any resampling algorithm, no matter how simple or how elegant, can't be easier than no resampling at all. By the way, I was not looking at any spec sheets, and I haven't seen the Gizmodo site. Just looking for some clarification, thanks.

Richard

You are correct. The 960 pixels are upscaled to 1440 in the camera and encoded and recorded. HDV must have 1440 pixels as must HDCAM. It is anamorphic video.

When the 1440 is displayed as a 1080i video -- the anamorphic HDV is unsqueezed to fill 1920 pixels.

Canon's 1440 is better than Sony's 960. They directly yield anamorphic HDV.

But, the CMOS chips in the A1 were 1440x1080 or 1920x1080 so why weren't they used? They also directly yielded anamorphic HDV.

Hi Steve. Thanks, that sounds logical.

Are you talking about the Sony A1 (rather than the new Canon)? Interesting question. I suppose it's possible they are reusing some circuitry and algorithms from FX1/Z1 to keep costs low (but of course I have no idea). :)

I'm looking forward to seeing reviews of these new CMOS cams, particularly with regard to noise levels and image smearing.

Richard

Yes. The new Sony seems to the replacement for the HC1. But, the tradeoff seems to be 3 chips with lower resolution verses 1 chip with higher resolution.

Unless, green-shift can be used with the Clear Vid pixel arrangment. If it can, the output from the 3 would be equal to the output from the one.

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

Ouch. You guys make my head hurt....

3 CMOS chips with green-shift can offer up to 1.50X more rez so 960x1.5 is 1440.

The single CMOS is 1440.

The reality is green-shift never gets more than about 1.15X -- so in reality the single CMOS offers more rez. In fact at full wide -- it offers 1920.

This sounds tempting to replace my fx1. The cons are the size/weight reduction, HDMI output!!!, and how the lcd is on the side. But as far as the chip sizes doesn't the fx1 1/3" CCD has better PQ than a 1/4" CMOS??

And why did sony didn't up it to 1080p??

You seem to be missing the point that the F7 is a lower-end consumer camcorder -- only a step above the HC3. It no more replaces the FX1 than the V1 replaces the Z1. The V1 being a newer version of the A1.

Both are cheap and small -- for those who don't want the bulk of the FX1/Z1 nor the too tiny too hold HC3/A1.

I'm not sure either has a "built-in 60GB drive" as there was a model number for the drive if I remember correctly.

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

None of the HDV camcorders have a built in hard drive. If they did, it wouldn't be HDV by definition alone. It would be a 25Mbps camcorder that uses the MPEG 2 compression scheme, but by trademark and format definition, couldn't be HDV.