High Definition for £2,000 !

[John Willett]

I have been at the Institute of Broadcast Sound weekend at BBC Wood Norton all weekend discussing 5.1 sound for HD.

While I was there someone showed us the new Sony HD-2 camera.

A consumer HD 16:9 camera for only £2,000! with an absolutely superb picture and an ability to produce excellent lictures under natural light - I was amazed at the results.

After seeing this I can't see anyone wanting a PD-170 or it's ilk any more.

Even if the final result is normal definition, this should be better than shot normal.

I'm amazed. :eek:

John

[infocus]

Have you seen the FX1 or Z1? If so, how does this differ, in particular is it much smaller and lighter? And recording format - is it also HDV?

[John Willett]

Originally posted by infocus:
Have you seen the FX1 or Z1? Not at all - just this one, which was handed around by the sound supervisor (he had bought it for his wife for Christmas, lucky lady).

We saw the results made by a reporter earlier, on a camera of this sort, projected onto a large screen and only shot in available light - it was full broadcast quality.

Looking at the screen as it was handed around I was amazed what it could see - even better than I could with my own eyes!

And it was the price that knocked me out.

No doubt others will come - but HD is now here to stay.

John

[RayL]

John

It seems a bit odd that, out of the blue, up pops another Sony HD camera in the same price band as Sony's FX1 (released in November in the UK, just in time for your Sound Sup to buy one for Christmas). Sony call the FX1 a consumer camera. The Z1 (when released) will be the 'pro' version.

Methinks that what you saw was an FX1 (re-badged?). Most obvious distinguishing feature - did it have a folding LCD amidships at the front of the carrying handle?

Ray Liffen

[Nigel Longman]

Could this indeed have been an FX-1 with the confusion caused by a reference to Sony's implementation of HDV which I read is known as HD-2 whereas JVC's implementation is known as HD-1 :confused: .

NL

[infocus]

Originally posted by John Willett:
Looking at the screen as it was handed around I was amazed what it could see - even better than I could with my own eyes!
Just a word of warning - don't rely on the screen too much for quality assessment.They're useful for framing, white balance reasonable etc, but a picture can be quite grainy and/or soft on a normal TV but still look OK on the built in screen. Same with still cameras - thats why they generally have the magnify feature.

And yes, I have found this out the hard way....

It does begin to sound like an FX1, are we talking about a fairly big camera, comparable to a PD170?

[John Willett]

Originally posted by RayL:
...did it have a folding LCD amidships at the front of the carrying handle?Yes

[John Willett]

Originally posted by infocus:
are we talking about a fairly big camera, comparable to a PD170? Yes.

OK - it seems like I got the model number wrong (?)

I am a sound man not a picture man.

But seeing the results of this camera projected on a large screen, shot under available light indoors, really amazed me.

John

[tom hardwick]

So we can all breathe normally again - this is the FX1, right?

Sony don't claim this to be as good as the PD170 in low light John, and the specifications would have me believe it too. The FX1 has a slower lens (smaller maximum aperture at every focal length other than max wide) and chips with smaller (and therefore less light sensitive) pixels. Sony rate the PD/VX at 1 lux; the FX/ZU at 3 lux.

tom.

[Alan Roberts]

HDV has two format variants; HD-1 is the 720p version (e.g. JVC), HD-2 is the 1080i version (e.g. SonyFX1/Z1).

[John Willett]

Originally posted by Alan Roberts:
HDV has two format variants; HD-1 is the 720p version (e.g. JVC), HD-2 is the 1080i version (e.g. SonyFX1/Z1). Aah - that explains it Alan - thanks.

So when Andy Quested was talking about the Sony HD-2 camera he was talking about the format rather than the model number....

John

[Alan Roberts]

Yes. Andy has a habit of being specific in terminology, but I'm surprised he went that far.

[Nigel Longman]

I believe I might have suggested this point was causing the confusion 8 posts up :rolleyes: .

NL