Sony HVR-Z1U

[christufty]

I just played with the new Sony Z1U and think it's GREAT! what's to stop me from buying one??

Chris

[David Cox]

Depends on your application. The HDV recording format is very compressed and is 4:2:0, so your post house would freak if you presented them with blue / green screen shots from it :-) It will also limit how far you can push a colour grade.

 

However, it is very cheap - isn't it! And if neither of the above apply, then I'm sure the "back end" processes won't become a problem.

 

I'm sure there are better qualified people to talk about the shiny bits on the front...

[Ed Nyankori]

I just played with the new Sony Z1U and think it's GREAT!  what's to stop me from buying one??

Chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

please tell us more. How does it compare to the dvx100? f900? etc What did you like about it??? User friendly? Thanks

[Aidin Aren]

please tell us more. How does it compare to the dvx100? f900? etc What did you like about it??? User friendly? Thanks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

There are comments out there saying the Z1 comes close to the F900. Ive used both and personally I think the proper way to describe it is different looks. As always it depends on the application. As mentioned you will see problems with Z1 footage with graphics intensive post.

 

Other than that I think the image quality is great. Sort of a muted HD. Detail and highlight handling could be better but that's with all DV I've come across. The build quality and balance is better than any camera in its class hands down. LCD positioning seems logical. The viewfinder is inadequate for me, but show me a miniDV camera with a good viewfinder.

 

If you need real 24p then DVX100. Z1 has simulated 24p. If you need great audio then Z1 may not do the job for you. The bit rate is actually lower than DVcam at 384kpbs and the low end frequency response is not that great for me. It may be acceptable for events, corporate, industrial. There's too much high end and it's not sculpted well enough in my opinion. If you use double system then it may not be as much an issue.

Edited April 2, 2005 by Aidin Aren

[Aidin Aren]

Low light sensitivity is a bit off as well at 3lux compared to the competition. So a flavor of HD at 5k doesn't come without technical tradeoffs.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

I posted the following in the "HD General Discussion" forum over at creativeCOW.net, but it might apply in this case, too:

 

=====

Unfortunately, it's difficult to discuss video these days now that there are so many disparate standards and quality levels and products at every price point, many of which are referred to by the manufacturers' with far too similar-sounding names & abbreviations.

 

In addition, the internet is a wonderful amplifier, making it very easy to spread both accurate information & misinformation. I know I'm as guilty of this as much as -- if not more than! -- anyone, so I'm not pointing fingers. If we were talking face-to-face or on the telephone, instead of typing via the net, we could correct & amplify info & ideas mid-converstaion.

 

For example, in another recent thread [on creativeCOW.net], Kevin made the following statemnt. I think I know what he was trying to say, but the choice of words may contradict his intended point:

 

[Kevin Dooley] "... I would however tell them my price for renting a couple Varicams or F-900's and then tell them that there is a more affordable solution, and while the quality is [not] quite the same, you do get passable High Definition footage. ..."

 

In this example (and I don't mean to pick on Kevin; I'm only using this as an example), the phrase "... you do get passable High Definition footage ..." in this context will be heard by many clients as: "A <$5K USD camcorder can produce high definition video which can _pass_ for hi-def footage from a >$75K USD camcorder." That's what the client hears, but this info is incorrect.

 

(Again, apologies to Kevin if I'm misquoting you or misrepresenting his intended meaning!)

 

The current crop of & soon-to-be-announced "high-end" HDV and "low-low-end" DVCPROHD camcorders can produce video which is arguably slightly higher resolution than similarly-priced _DV25_ camcorders. But, in every other significant respect (color fidelity, noise level, motion artifacts, minimal contrast & color matrix control, lens-induced chromatic aberations, and so forth) these new cams produce video which is _no_ better than similarly-priced _DV25_ standard definition camcorders. Some of these "HD-lite" cams are actually worse than DV25 cams in certain regards, others slightly better, but taken as a whole, it's a wash. They cost about the same because the results are very similar!

 

Describing the recorded output of these new low-end HD-lite cams with words such as "passable" or "comparable" or "similar" or "almost as good as" or "intercuts well with" -- without including detailed and clearly articulated _conditional_ language -- serves no good purpose.

 

It's a disservice to everyone for manufacturers' marketing materials to make unqualified use of phrases like "high definition", and it's counter-productive (a la "eating your children") for production people to do the same.

 

Sure, a particular company might make & sell a hardware product which offers slightly more bang for the buck than a competitor's device, or offer the same or slightly fewer features for a slightly lower price. But _no_ sustainable business, large or small, can afford to sell 100% or even "passably" equivalent quality results for 1/10 the cost (or less)! Except in extremely rare instances, a sustainable business doesn't and can't work that way.

 

In this context, a gentleman named Steve Wargo recently said: "You get what you pay for, and you don't get what you don't pay for".

 

Certainly HD-lite gear will find use -- sometimes appropriately so -- in certain pro applications, but HD-lite is not "similar to" real HD. Not even close. And ideally one should explain very clearly exactly how HD-lite was appropriate in each case.

 

Sorry for the long post, but it's important for us to choose our words more carefully so as not to mislead or confuse.

 

Of course, I'm sure I haven't done a good or concise job here, regrets! ;-)

 

All the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

[David Cox]

Peter,

 

I agree entirely and thank you for a very worthy post.

 

I often find posts on forums that are based on hearsay and because they are then written down, and especially so because they are "on the net", they seem to automatically take on a certain factual gravity regardless of the faithfulness of the core information.

 

But of course the "clarity" of the information is not always just clouded by the Chinese whispers. Manufacturers are increasingly clever with vague language. Take this statement for example from the Sony HD-CAM SR VTR brochure. "HD CAM SR accepts full bandwidth RGB images.". That lead to a lot of people to believe that HD CAM SR recorded uncompressed RGB data. Of course when you read the statement again, they never make the claim that the system records uncompressed - it just "accepts it" (and then compresses it).

 

So NAB is here again, and I would urge all attendees to be wary of claims and demonstrations. I have seen many demos (mainly of post equipment) where the demo is hardly more than a well-choreographed bit of pre-recorded material. The viewer is lead to believe the demo is "live", but the swish and loudly amplified actor-lead "theatre" demonstration makes it impossible to stop and ask "Did you just do that, or did you make that earlier"?

 

Having said that, our beloved suppliers work in a very competitive market and when they make claims about a HD-Lite system or other low cost offering, we need to be knowledgeable enough to know that those claims are being made against competing systems for similar price, and not the big boys toys found elsewhere.

 

There is a phrase: "It is immoral not to take money from a fool". For the few suppliers that sell by that standard, lets make it our business not to be fools.

 

Happy NAB.

 

David Cox

Baraka Post Production

www.baraka.co.uk

[Aidin Aren]

The business of manufacturing I don't believe is about to change. As long as you realize it for what it is and depend on your own research more so than someone who has a financial motive, it can be navigated. The apparent Wild West atmosphere of formats and new cameras is a good thing I thing, as it spurs competition, despite the increased work required by the end user to sort it out. When I think of an alternative market atmosphere, I don't see nearly as much benefit. Advancement of the DV25 class in turn pushes the high end to do better, faster, to maintain market share.

 

Specs to me are a guide. I think there comes a time where you have to take off the specs sunglasses and not allow creative decisions to be dictated by them but by the creative results. A standardized process of testing new technology for exactly what you expect to get out of it before you allocate budget minimizes, if not eliminates, unexpected variables.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hello everyone,

Another good saying to bare in mind when considering the newest camera "revolution" (HDV for example) is: "if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is".

This is of course simplistic, however I don't think there will be a day any time soon when there is a "prosumer" (or any other) camcorder that can rival the true HD cameras like the F900, and if by some miracle there was, it would probably cost way more than $5,000USD.

And by the way, good post Peter! I agree.

Tomas.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

Mike Brennan has an interesting page up on his website in which he describes in fair detail some of his impressions -- mostly positive -- concerning the Sony Z1 HDV camcorder:

http://www.hd24.com/hdv_primer.htm

 

His page is a good example of the "clearly articulated _conditional_ language" I refer to in my earlier post.

 

Thanks, Mike!

 

All the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

[drew_town]

Those that toss around lingo as Peter describes try just as hard to convince themselves as their potential clients. Certainly a person would have to be a fool to buy into every pitch thrown out by a manufacturer in regards to their products. The idea behind "you get what you pay for" has been around long before motion pictures, and I think most people recognize that. For the others, let them buy into the current fad and fall on their faces. With enough wounds, they'll eventually die off when people get wise.