Just spotted this posted at DVinfo.net's boards.....

Thought it might be of interest here as well.

http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/5118

It doesn't appear from the specs to use 720p mode - only 1080i. Don't know how many of you've worked with 1080i, but I haven't found it the most conducive HD format for editing. The 60 interlaced frames could be easier to convert to 25p for PAL, or 24p for film though.....

Still; for CC Batson it may at last be time to throw down $3,700 approx. on a HD cam that isn't a JVC.

You are correct. However, mind you, I have absolutely nothing against JVC (in fact, I love my HD DVHS deck by them). I have just judged the current JVC HD cam offerings inadequate for my needs (quality and ease of use). On the other hand, this new Sony has got me saving up, it sounds like it will suit my needs precisely.

I am saddened that this spells the end of SD (or the beginning of the end). Also exciting is the inevitable tidal wave of competing products from Canon, JVC, and Panasonic....bring them on, the sooner the better.

Hi
I went to a sony's sight tonight and down loaded a sample of video from sony's HDV cam. it was rendered in wmv-9 at 1280x720 16:9 at 5.26 mbps. and they were of flowers and landscapes. I have some footage from a GR-HD1 of flowers rendered to wmv-9 at 1280x720 16:9 5.06 mbps To tell the truth the JVC looked better. the colors looked almost the same. But the JVC had more fine detail like around the flowers and the small leafs. I'm sure the manual controls will be better ( Plus Audio control ) But for me I want the best picture!!! and i'll wait for JVC's update I'm sure there will be one! I think the people that run out and trade there HD1/HD10 thinking they are going to get alot more might not be that happy after the extra money spent. This is just my point of veiw ! and i'm not a pro. Has any one else seen the clips ? what do you think ?


Len

Yep.... Saw the footage. I know how despite WMV9 being the best means at the moment for distributing HD material for viewing over the net, there is a noticeable reduction in the full impact of the HD image.

While I did think that the clip showed greater colour saturation and stronger depth of field than an un-filtered / non-customised HD10, I cannot say that it stood out as markedly superior.

The manual control features do add a certain appeal to the FX1, and it would be mainly for these that my interest has been piqued....

I'll reserve my judgement until I've actually demoed the Sony, and even then, I wouldn't be 'palming off' my HD10u.

I agree, you simply cannot compare or accurately judge clips viewed over the net. there are too many steps in the middle which could degrade or alter the final product seen. You have to see them side by side direct to the same monitor, with the same subject matter, to make a comparison.

Don't known if this matters but both files were wmv-9 HD types the Sony was made from a higher Rez. over the JVC and I played the Sony until i got the best flower and paused it. Opened a 2nd player and Did my file from the JVC and paused it. The color looked better on the Sony but the detail looked better on the JVC. That was the only way I could tell. I'm not trying to say the Sony is not a great cam. All my other stuff is Sony. I just dont no if it is worth selling or trading in for the Sony at this point it just seems to be to close to tell.. and to spend about 2000.00 or more. the controls seem to be great if it does what they say it will. and I love the audio bal. knobs on the Sony. I now that the color can be fixed in the editing program but can the detail be added? Are am i looking at it all wrong!



Len

I go back to my first answer, that is to say that we can't tell from these files. A better comparison would be direct from the camera, or tape. With this you should get a good idea of the relative picture quality. Don't forget the matter of versatility. If it is difficult to get an optimal picture on one camera and not the other, this is very important in the decision making process.

To me, there appeared to be less chroma noise....which is certainly worthwhile!! As for detail - possibly a whisker more in HD10 footage, but that's not too surprising as there were two re-rendering processes involved with the Sony footage. First was de-interlacing (not necessarily just a 'splat-splat' combine of upper and lower fields), and then the resize/compression to WMV9. As HD10 progressive video doesn't require de-interlacing there's one less 'destructive' processing algorithm to contend with.

Perhaps we should reserve judgement on the FX1 until we get to demo the thing for ourselves..... I certainly won't be getting rid of my HD10 even if I do end up getting an FX1, because I'm sure two HD cameras will be better than one, regardless of whether one outshines the other.

It's always nice to be able to have some knowledgeable people who give their input. I tried the GR-HD1 for about three weeks and had a great time. (And now have about 60GB of data on my computer that I've got to convert to MPEG2.) In my funny mind, 720p "feels" like a more integral picture. Wouldn't the optimal be 720p @60fps (as opposed to the current 30fps)?

No, that would be a nonstandard format (and too much data). Progressive is 30 fps (or 24 for some folks), and interlaced is 60 fps.