Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Gary Bettan, Sep 7, 2004.

  1. Gary Bettan

    Gary Bettan Guest

    New Handycam Model Brings High-Definition Quality to Personal Content

    SAN DIEGO, Sept. 6, 2004 — Sony, the worldwide camcorder market
    leader, today took another leap forward with the introduction of the
    world's first HDV 1080i camcorder. The HDR-FX1 Handycam® camcorder
    records and plays back high definition video with 1080 interlaced
    lines of resolution - the highest resolution (1440 pixels x 1080
    lines) of any consumer camcorder available.

    "With U.S. sales of HDTV sets exploding, along with the availability
    of high-definition programming, the expectation of having personal
    content in HD is growing rapidly," said Linda Vuolo, director for
    camcorder products for Sony Electronics. "The introduction of the
    HDV-FX1 has been timed and targeted to meet this desire."

    Gary 800 323-2325
    We are the Digital Video Editing & DVD Production Experts!
    For all the latest NLE,DVD & HDV news check out the Videoguys Blog
    Gary Bettan, Sep 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    dang... I KNEW that was going to happen right after I bought an AGDVX100a.
    Why 1440 though?
    nappy, Sep 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gary Bettan

    David Chien Guest

    Gee, only $3,700! Like an 'affordable' Ferrari!

    Funny that they'd price the world's first consumer HD camcorder at a
    price that matches or exceeds other HD camcorders for 'pros' that are
    already available, like the JVC's. (I'll leave the interlaced vs
    progressive image quality issue up to you.) Guess moms around the world
    will have to save up a little more for this 'consumer' priced camcorder...
    David Chien, Sep 7, 2004
  4. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    the JVC is no comparison to the new Sony. It is a single chip. $3700 is
    great price for 3 chip 1440 x 1080 camera!!!

    I will buy one for sure.

    (I'll leave the interlaced vs
    nappy, Sep 7, 2004
  5. Gary Bettan

    twobirds Guest

    I'm already trying to decide what to sell to offset the cost.
    twobirds, Sep 7, 2004
  6. Gary Bettan

    david.mccall Guest

    If you are talking about the similarly priced JVC camera, that is a
    actually consumer camera. As for professional HD cameras, you are
    off by more than an order of magnitude. This is very inexpensive for
    a HD camera. The AGDVX100a cost about that much, but is a
    standard definition camera. I think you will find that it is technically a
    prosumer camera, as is the Canon XL-1, (even though there are
    some "professionals" using it ). I think you will likely see this camera
    achieve a great deal of popularity in the low budget independent
    "film industry".

    david.mccall, Sep 7, 2004
  7. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    you and be both. I wonder how long it will take for our entire workflow to
    accomodate the format.
    nappy, Sep 7, 2004
  8. I wonder if you can plug the firewire into your notebook computer and capture
    directly to hard drive. Or even better, capture directly to a firewire drive
    connected to the notebook. Of course, even better would be straight camcorder to
    firewire drive, but from my understanding, they don't want to shakeup the
    industry by doing that.

    The reason I ask is that the 1 hour limit of the tapes could be a problem, say
    you are filming a long play or recital. If you had two of these, you could cover
    a school play or recital, using one for closeups and the other for distant

    From the little experience, converting HDTV to DVD format results in much better
    DVDs than mini-DV to DVD. So even if you are distributing the final product in
    DVD, you should see a substantial boost in final quality.
    Big Brother is Watching You, Sep 7, 2004
  9. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    Of course!

    And Camera to firewire drive solutions already exist.

    DV is only 1 hour also.
    nappy, Sep 8, 2004
  10. Yeah, isn't it 16x9? And shouldn't that be 1920x1080? Isn't that
    the resolution delivered by HDTV broadcasts?
    L David Matheny, Sep 8, 2004
  11. Gary Bettan

    manitou910 Guest

    Traditionally, the highest horizontal resolution numbers are reserved
    for industrial cameras, which are drastically more expensive (and larger
    and more difficult to operate and/or travel with) than even the best
    prosumer units.

    I'll be very surprised if the new Sony isn't pretty amazing.

    manitou910, Sep 8, 2004
  12. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    nappy, Sep 8, 2004
  13. Gary Bettan

    david.mccall Guest

    Yeah, Sort-of :)

    I was under the impression that the profesional cameras that support 1080i
    do have a horizontal resolution of 1920 when used at that resolution. A trip
    to Sony Broadcast, or Panasonic, on the web would probably clear that up.

    But there are special purpose industrial cameras that have much higher
    For instance
    Redlake ES-11000 does 4008 x 2672 Only 5 FPS though

    ES 2093 does 1920x1080 at 30 FPS

    HG-100K 1504 x 1128 less rez, but it does 1000 FPS

    david.mccall, Sep 8, 2004
  14. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    Yes.. that's true. Although many of the industral high rez cameras are
    monochrome. Even Digital SLRs have higher resolutions.. I was just curious
    about the irrelevant comparison as I don't know anyone who has shot a show
    or a commercial or even an antiwar documentary with an industrial camera! ;)
    Resolution is less of the issue than cost and tape format. 4k ccd chips have
    been around for over a decade in scanners.. etc..
    nappy, Sep 8, 2004
  15. Gary Bettan

    manitou910 Guest

    Just to clarify, I was thinking more of the Betacam format which, for
    VTR and broadcast purposes, had comparatively low horizontal resolution
    numbers (enabling Sony, during its Hi8 heyday, to crow that Hi8 rez
    exceeded broadcast standards...), but that the best Betacam cameras
    usually had horizontal rez specs in the 700-900 range.

    manitou910, Sep 8, 2004
  16. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    I understand.
    nappy, Sep 9, 2004
  17. Gary Bettan

    Mike Kujbida Guest

    Mike Kujbida, Sep 9, 2004
  18. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    so.. what did you thinkof it Mike?
    nappy, Sep 9, 2004
  19. Gary Bettan

    David Chien Guest

    There will, under the HDV format, never be a resolution higher than
    1080i because that's the max available. That or 720p are you're two
    main choices. That's why there's no 1920+ resolutions.

    They can modify the HDV format or add new resolutions and call it
    something like HDV+ if they will ever support higher resolutions.

    Don't have the actual HDV reference, but here's a page with the basics
    of what resolutions & frame rates are possible:
    David Chien, Sep 9, 2004
  20. Gary Bettan

    nappy Guest

    Not sure what you mean here David. Can you elaborate? 1920 is Hz rez .. 1080
    is V no?

    oh.. I see what you mean.. it simply is not in the spec yet.... got it.

    1440x1080 is awesome! But it is MPEG2. hmmm.. Also, it looks like the
    144x1080 is right up against the 25Mbps DV rate..

    Upon looking at the specs it will be interesting to see if editing is
    problematic etc...

    thanks for the link!
    nappy, Sep 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.