New SONY HDR-FX1!

S

Shaw

Greetings all,

Sony just issued a news release about their new (the prototype was seen at NAB) HDV camera - and it's 1080i! No progressive scan that I can see (yet - this is the consumer version. A pro version is rumored to be coming) but even deinterlaced 1080 would look pretty damn good.

Here is the press relrease:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040907/latu053_1.html

And more info:

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


Specs as mentioned thus far:

1080i
3 1/3" megapixel CCDs
16:9 "aspect mode" (beats me. Sounds like a jacked up name for "squished image")
Carl Zeiss Lense (!)
14bit A/D Converter
Utilizes MiniDV tape (there are rumors about BlueRay discs.... maybe the pro version?)
Shooting range from 32.5mm to 390mm! (that's just as wide as the DVA100A if I remember correctly)
12x zoom lense
Non-perpetual zoom ring! (hell yeah!)
"Expanded Focus mode" (supposedly enlarges the image on the LCD by 4 times without loss of quality - could prove tremendously useful, especially with HD)
250,000 pixel LCD
Wide Range stereo mic
External Audio level switch
Manual iris, gain, white balance, shutter speed and focus
"Cinetone Gamma"
"Cine Frame function" (? - sounds like some form of internal deinterlacing/conversion)
"Picture Profile Function" (mess with the image presets)
"Shot Transition Function" (settings to control focus, zoom, iris, gain, shutter and white balance, focus can gradually be shifted from the front of the screen to a deeper subject, or vice versa, enabling an effortless transition in depth of field."
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
No worries about the other thread King Goldfish :) I do that sort of thing all the time!

>>I think I will wait and buy this one.<<

You mean the Sony HDV camera?

24 progressive is very nice to have but certainly not necessary. Especially if you have THAT much resolution to work with. The Sony also has a pseudo 24p mode which essentially mimicks the motion signature of 24p - only without a true progressively scanned frame.

So... I think the Sony is a perfectly good choice. It really depends on what you need to do though.

If your primary output is going to be film then the HDV is probably the way to go - hands down. If, however, you only intend to go to regular DVD (HD-DVDs are coming sometime) you will need to compare downressed HDV to the DVX footage. Which will look better in this situation is still not determined yet. Theoretically downressed HDV will look better - but because of the high MPEG2 compression it's hard to call without actually SEEING the footage.

So... I'd say wait and see what sort of HDV footage gets posted in the next month or so before making a choice.

SIDE NOTE:

You can "upres" the DVX footage to HD specs. You won't gain any *new* information (ie clarity, detail etc) but the image will hold up better when projected.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Editing is the major detterent at the moment. Both FCP and Premier are releasing plug-ins to edit HD, but (and this is a BIG but) - it doesn't take in the footage at full resolution. So you're paying for an HD cam, and unless you're editing with a full AVID suite, you're not getting the full HD quality.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Umm... Even vegas has the different ratios built in. You're saying that i will only get a max of 720 res?


True HD is I think 1280 x 720 (I heard its actuall 1300+) but unless you are willing to shell out 80 thousand bucks you're only gonna get a maximum of 1080x720 res.


which is a huge improvement from 720x480 I would think.


but if vegas doesnt give me 1080x720 resolution then I will be forced to go back to Adobe.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So umm.. Which is better the JVC GR-HD1 or the Sony HDR-FX1?

Im now being talked into buying the JVC because Im told the sony doesnt do well in Low Light.

Also, I cant find any decent specs on the JVC GR-HD1. Does anyone know if it has the 24p feature where the Sony doesnt?

Im buying one of these cameras by the end of the year.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
King Goldfish:

The JVC is 720 30p only. None of the HDV cameras (yet) can do 24p. The JVC is absolutely horrid in low light. It has a lux rating of 35 whereas the Sony has (I think) a rating of 5lux? That's not half bad!

So I would definitely go for the FX1. You also get full *true* manual control as well. There really isn't any benefit to the JVC at this point :).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shaw.. Im not flip flopping here.. so forgive me if I say something one day and something another.. It has to do with the conflicting information I get off the net and sales people.

But i seem to be getting a better understanding now. But i just read on a consumer report site (I found it on google and dont know the link..sorry) that said the new Sony FX1 isnt any better.. they found it to be in the 30s as far as lux sensitivity went. So until its out on the market I dont think anyone can give fair feedback.

I wouldnt be surprized if it got alot of negative feedback which Sony needs to improve its next Gen camera.

but then again from what people saw on the showroom floor were very impressed.

I just made a whole new thread trying to get everyone to explain 1080i better to me and then followed up with more conflicting info that a sales guy gave me.

Is 1080i better then 720 30p? 720 30p is double the res right? so in short it is for smaller screens HD Quality when masked to 16:9?

lots to learn.. but I have a better understanding I think. I want to buy a mid range projection system for my new home. It will only be a 9-12 foot screen but it will be fun to have a home theatre.. My house I live in now has a Huge Cathedral ceiling and a 50 foot wall to house such a large screen but I dont have 15k and up for a high end projection so Im glad Im gett a smaller single story house. :D


one day I will have the funds to build a good system. Right now I wanted a decent camera not only to do indie as a hobby but to video tape my children in a better quality that my children will find in the future with lower end cameras. at least they will have a better quality of history of their upbringing. Im 39 and only have 2 videos of me prior to age 14. one on an old reel to reel tape system when I was 12 and a beta video at my uncles house in 1981 at age 15. both tapes lost :(

sucks.. someone out there I know has come across them.. i would burn it to DVD and even show you guys them if I ever come across them.

Especially that black and white one from school. My family never invested in a 8mm film camera so The earliest motion video I currently have is from 1991 of me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top