The HVR-Z1U, Sony's new pro HDV camcorder

Sony hit us hard with the HDR-FX1, their first consumer-grade high-definition camcorder a couple of months ago, and now they're back with the HVR-Z1U, their latest camera that's compatible with the High-Definition Video, or HDV format. Only this one is more on the professional tip, and besides costing a lot more ($4,900 vs. $3,600), the HVR-Z1U can also record at video at 24 frames per second, something which is supposed to give digital video more of a cinematic look, a feature that was conspicuously absent from the HDR-FX1. Should start rocking retail beginning in February.

[Will @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

The "cinematic look" is actually achieved when a camera shoots progressive rather than interlaced frames. While this camera shoots 24 fps, they are not fully progressive, but an 'effect'.

[Christian Kent @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

No, the "cinematic look" is a combination of things, but it is substantially the low frame rate (in essence, a very mild strobe filter), combined with a better contrast ratio (which CCD cameras are slowly approaching), discrete imaging per frame (which CCD cameras will never easily achieve), and a bit of grain (which is getting optional, and might even be undesirable depending which side of the CD/vinyl revolution you come from).

The "film look" has been described by lay-people to have added the feeling of millions of dollars of budget to some productions -- for instance, watching a TV show on DVD on your computer may reduce the frame (field) rate from 50 or 60 fps, to 25 or 30 fps. Unfortunately, none of the other benefits of film are present, although this didn't stop lots of TV shows in the Euro/Australian markets jumping on the bandwagon and "adding" this effect in the late '90s (just try looking at the "remastered" Red Dwarf DVDs). You'll still see some shows using this today, but the BBC banned the drop-field effect for all their productions around 1998.

The "effect" you speak of might just be a filter on the interlaced image that can be applied either in the camera, or back at your computer in post-production. Methods have remarkably improved -- you don't have to put up with the side-effects of weaving or bobbing anymore -- but you'll likely still have less spatial detail than a truly progressive image to begin with.

CK.

[ArC @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

It was my uninformed theory that 24 fps has a film look in part because of the motion blur that comes from the relatively long exposure times per frame.

BTW, I believe the modern "24P" camcorders shoot a real 24 progressive frames per second.

[Howard @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Actually, if you're wanting to shoot "film look", you are better of NOT using the in-camera 24p feature. Instead, shoot at the normal 60fps. The film look can be achieved with better results in post on an NLE.

In fact, a friend shoots his productions with an Canon XL-1S. Then in Premiere Pro, after he's made his final edit, he fudges with the video image throughout to suit the mood/look he wants to achieve -- adjusting color, contrast, brightness, etc., and applies a "film grain" filter. He outputs the whole thing at 24 frames per second.

The effect looks very similar to 16mm film, more convincingly when viewed on television sets. He's never tried to output to film, but he says to get the best results that would require outputing still frames at 24 frames per second, and then transferring each frame to film stock -- an expensive and time consuming process.

Anyway, with these HDV cameras, ignore the 24p feature. You don't want to use it while actually shooting, if you already have the skills and stuff for NLE.

[jeff @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

howard - you are halfway there. While all of what your friend does to his video is definitely critical to the film look, none of these will create the effect of 24 fps. It is really a mishmashing of all of the effects you listed AND 24p that will get you closest...not to mention good lighting, cinematography, aspect ratio, etc. I have shot projects in both 60i (with a low end miniDV) and 24p (with a DVX100) and while i got exceptional film-like results using post production techniques with the 60i footage, there really is something to be said for what 24p can do to video. Combining it with some post work really does create some incredible footage. Don't knock 24 till you try it.

[Duncan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Does this camera shoot true full quality HD or is it some weird compressed lower quality HD?

[Julian Gibsone @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I can not understand the obsession with 24 frames per second. Even back in the1960's 60 frames per second were being tested on film. Film shot on a roller coaster at 60fps proved to be much better than 24fps. We now have a great opportunity in taking a step forward with HDV. I gather over the next 5 years we will be able to shoot 1080/60 progressive scan in the meantime I would recommend that it is best to shoot HD video at the fastest frame rate possible as this reduces the flicker effect and enhances reality. The sooner we move to video projection in cinemas the better. Then any frame rate can be projected on the large screen. Our home receivers are likely to remain 50 or 60 interlace for the foreseeable future. It is time to move on into the 21st century.

[Dithermaster @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

The Cineframe24 (24 fps) mode on this camera is the same as on the HDR-FX1. It does shoot 24 frames per second, but at a maximum shutter time of 1/60s. These frames are put down as 60i using 2:3 pulldown.

> Does this camera shoot true full quality HD or is it some weird compressed lower quality HD?

It shoots HDV 1080i, which is 1440x1080 pixels per interlaced frame, just like HDCAM. The pixels are wider than tall, to fill out the full 16:9 frame.

///d@
Sony Media Software

[Duncan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Great info.

Thanks

[gianis @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I tested the FX1, shooting with various light contitions, indoors and outdoors. I have recently worked with panasonic HD c27varicam, for a serie. Sony did a great job.I couldnt believe my eyes when i saw the results in a projection. Its not c27 (who costs 20 times more), color reproduction and low light situations needs "some help" but the overall picture is great. The problem is not in the picture resolution, the interlace or not, but at the compression. Backgrounds in low light make visible blocks of compression, same with fast moving objects or pans and tilts. This is logical, but i m afraid it will be the same with Z1U ... So pro's must be carefull to that. Handling need some work and i hope the Z1U will have more options for "zoom work". There is also some slight mechanic noice recorded to tape from Sony mic, but in most situations it will not be problem. I liked the camera and soon we start testing with it for a transfer to film. I will be back with more then!

[Noel @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Hey folks, I'm looking to buy 6 HVR-Z1U for an upcoming international project. I keep reading everywhere that it's listed for about $4,900 U.S. However, that's not the real retail price just the wholesale price for authorized Sony resellers. The people selling this darn camera won't tell me just how much exactly it will be retailed for until after the end of the year or even as late as late January. Anyone know about how much I should budget for per camera?
You folks are the ones with the brains, I'm sure one of you should know.
Thanks

[Noel @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Thanks

[bogdant @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I 100% agree with Julian. Can not understand all that noise about 24p either. How many of us really end up transfering video to film? One in a thousand? Maybe. The rest of us will finalize the projects on DVD or hi-def DVD that's just around the corner. Folks, digital projectors will soon take over all theaters and it is very likely, 30p or even 60p becomes new standard. Actually, 30p looks much better than 24. What you see sitting in a theaters is not even 24p because projectors double each frame for smoother feeling. I'm getting tired of that "24p" buzzword. People, we now got a chance to step forward and finally forget about all those conversion problems. Wouldn't you rather work with simple 30p or 60p solutions and watch it the same way on your big widescreen TV and in theaters? Let's push for it instead of getting messed up with all those 24ps and pulldowns.

[Robert Aldrich @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, at 11:41 PM, Robert Aldrich wrote:

> Hi Larry,
>
> Just thought you might know the answer to this comment...do the theatres double the frames for a smoother look?


on film, No. Generally. However there was a 70mm process called showscan that ran at 60 frames per second

>
> Bob
>
> see below:
>
> Posted Jan 6, 2005, 5:44 PM ET by bogdant
>
> I 100% agree with Julian. Can not understand all that noise about 24p either. How many of us really end up transfering video to film? One in a thousand? Maybe. The rest of us will finalize the projects on DVD or hi-def DVD that's just around the corner.


Not if they want academy qualification. The will need to show in a theatre in Hi def cubit lucasfilms standard.

Generally once a film takes off someone will strike prints.

> Folks, digital projectors will soon take over all theaters and it is very likely,


Absolute bullshit. The theatre owner will not pay for a $250,000 projector or even a $50,000 projector. And the studios and disney quit paying for it. Boeing Bailed out.

What is happening is that some less quality projection is going into smaller houses for independent film makers to show their stuff but see note above on academy qualification. Microsoft and Landmark have a deal going. One screen per complex.

> 30p or even 60p becomes new standard. Actually, 30p looks much better than 24. What you see sitting in a theaters is not even 24p because projectors double each frame for smoother feeling.


No film is 24frames per second in ALL mainstream theatres. As for digital. Most is DLP, a few Barcos and sony. Probably all running at 30 frames but I am not sure.

> I'm getting tired of that "24p" buzzword. People, we now got a chance to step forward and finally forget about all those conversion problems. Wouldn't you rather work with simple 30p or 60p solutions and watch it the same way on your big widescreen TV and in theaters? Let's push for it instead of getting messed up with all those 24ps and pulldowns.
>
> From: http://digitalcameras.engadget.com/entry/2645310329797287/
>

You should watch Steve Jobs Macworld Keynote. Very interesting stuff video wise.

>
Laurence Hammett

[Robert Aldrich @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

The repsonses contained in this post are not mine, but from Larry Hammett, an experienced projectionist and friend of mine whose job is to verify the projection settings and image quality in many of the theatres around Los Angeles.

[Robert Aldrich @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

For a few minutes last night as a cameraman at the premiere for Coach Carter, (Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, California), I had the chance to use the consumer version of this camera. That thing practically JUMPED into my hands! The huge external viewfinder is beautiful to look upon! The steadyshot feature is awesome! I work a lot hand-held and it practically felt like I had a stedicam, the image looked so smooth! Lots of other nice wrinkles, like the expanded image to focus with, accesible controls, and I love the idea of going to a wider screen to get more action in!

Somehow it seemed lighter but I think this is because the form-factor, it's larger but about the same weight as the PD-150, so the pressure is less on your hands...

Afterwards, I went back to my old PD-150 and it immediately started to malfunction for the first time in months! It was jealous! It felt heavy and unresposive in my hands compared to the Hi-Def camera...

[Julian Gibsone @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Taking up a few points raised by Robert Aldrich on the 12th of January:

1) It will not be the theatre owners that will pay for the projectors it
will be the distributors as it is in their interest to do so. The reason
being, projection prints cost at least $1500 for each film. Some releases are shown in over 500 screens at once. Say there are at least 150 films released a year and you are looking at a lot of money tied up in film prints. The digital scratch free alternative costs next to nothing in comparison.

2) Regarding the dear old Academy. All I can say is it is time they came into the 21st century digital age. Technologies come and go I am afraid but that is the way it is. Sundance take note!

3) Yes, thank God for Apple and Steve Jobs.

4) Great to read Robert is impressed with the consumer version of the camcorder. I can not wait for the Pro version.

A Happy New Year to one and all.

Julian Gibsone

[Tony C. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

It was my understanding that this Pro version was acctually variable frame rate. I am looking at Videomaker Magazine that it quote "Offers a wider range of frame rates (60i, 50i, 30, 25, and 24 frames per second)than its consumer cousin, the HDR-FX1." This would mean that it is not just an "effect" because you need plugins to capture and edit these formats in most NLE's.

Sony HVR-Z1U + Color Finesse(or Davinci 2k) = good times

tony corella

[Simon Harris @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

What is all this noise about making video look like film? WHY?? Video is NOT film, it is VIDEO and I for one would like movie making to take a step into the 21st century and embrace this fantastic new medium of HD Video, creatively WITHOUT just degrading it to make it look like film. Can we not start being creative with the smooth and perfect look of HD Video? I think the look of HD Video is wonderful and it is SUPERIOR to grainy, flickery old film (which is SO 20th Century!). Sony have given us a wonderful tool, making high quality moviemaking available to all - this is a brave new world - FORGET the film look, it's like wanting to make SACD sound like vinyl - why?? I had a chance to play with the HVR-Z1U last week - absolutely incredible camera, I am going to buy one when it comes out and I am going to shoot with the wonderful clean look of high definition video - 1080i - exactly what I have always wanted!

[Tony Corella @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Simon,

I am a filmmaker; I am assuming you are too. Video is video... film is film. Video was invented for realism. Film is for story telling. Color finesse and 24p video was invented to make video capable for cinema; in this case realism is a step back. If I were shooting a documentary, interlaced video would be superb. I am not shooting documentaries. I am creating worlds. The distant look of progressive and film-like video does the job and allows stories to be accepted more easily, especially to the all of the generations who enter a movie theatre expecting to see the soft look of 35mm. It allows people to know that they are watching a movie and not the news. I don�t know that it is something that really needs to change, let alone can be changed. But if you still want to make movies on 60i, more power to you, filmmaking is an awesome thing that comes in no bad form, but I will stick to my 24p.

tony corella

[kay madsen @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

There�s something else about the film look that nobody talks about. The different focal lengths you use with 2/3" Video compared to 35mm film.

A 20mm lens on a 35mm film camera is quite a wide angle. You can do a wonderful close up with it with only little distortion, a slightly softened background and still see a huge amount of the environment the actor or model is standing in.

The same shot is physically impossible to get with any DV, HD, HDV or even George Lucas� praised panavised HD cameras. Why, because the cdd chips are much smaller compared to the 35mm film image. The same lens on a 2/3" camera gives a mucher narrower field of fiew.

It�s the same problem as with most new digital slr still cameras. You put your old wide angle on it and suddenly you have to multiply the focal lenghts by a factor of 1.5 turning a 35mm lens into something like a standard 50mm lens.

Most videographers tend to use the longer end of their zoom lens to get the same small depth of field they love with 35mm film lenses. But at the end of the day it only limits my possibilities of using the whole spectrum of lenses to create different visual styles.

Companies that develop tools for filmmakers therefore try to incorporate chips that are the same size as 35mm film images allowing you to use the pristine lenses produced for film cameras, but they still need a huge amount of storage space to save the information you capture in one 35mm filme frame.

At 4k resolution a scanned 35mm frame has apx. 40 MB. AT 24fps that�s 960 MB per second, almost 60GB per minute. A 1000ft film mag has apx. 11min running time, that�s more than 650GB. A huge amount of data.

Film will easily last more than 100 years if stored correctly. Most videotapes from the 80�s are already useless. A lot of TV stations lost a huge amount of archival news video footage due to poor storage capabilities of magnetic tapes.

I�m not an advocate of film per se. I love my mini DV camera and I�m going to shot my next film on HDV because it allows me to save a huge amount of money and just let the camera roll as long as I want to. But film still is a great medium and it should set the standard for the quality that new technologies have to aim at.

At the end of the day film, HD or digital projection or whatever is only a medium to bring content to the audience. The quality of the medium will not garantuee good content. In my opinion we should be more concerned with content than technology.

[Dan @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I'm shooting a documentary in Africa this summer and fall and am curious about the abilities of the HVR-Z1U for this project. I really want to shoot HD but I'm getting conflicting reports on this camera's ability to handle the pans and movement inherent in shooting a doc. I've heard that there is noticeable pixilation with thesekinds of camera moves. We obviously won't be able to set up every shot and direct every movement. Any comments on using this camera for a doc. would be appreciated.

[David Russell @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

With the capability of HD to SD conversion with the HVR-Z1U, has anyone compared this video quality with normal SD, such as, VX2100 when viewed on an NTSC monitor?

[stallion @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Can someone give me advice on whether to buy a FX-1 or a Z1U. I'm using it for home use only, primarily for indoor lighting situations and outdoor sports events of the kids. I don't care about the cost, just want the best pix and ability to convert it to HD DVD(when available)and watch it on my home HD Tv.

[Tony Koorlander @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I've have used the HDR-FX1E AND have the HVR-Z1U. They are the SAME camera as far as picture quality goes. The feature set of the inbuilt DXP 14 bit processor is restricted on the HDR camcorder .. for marketing reasons.The Cinegamma level 1 is VERY useful, and I crank up color level to +3 to get perfect pictures every time... the detail in the picture is awesome. The 5 hour battery life is great too. I was using a VX2100E before .. take a look at my first impressions .... http://www.supervideo.com/2004l.htm 'shootout'.

I have had NO tape dropout in 3 months of use .. the PAL HDV is 20% less compression than the NTSC ... so there are virtually NO motion artifacts or compression problems in PAL.

I recommend the HDR version for most use as the film rate 'shutter' is pretty awful ... you get much better pictures from post processing using a utility like DVFilm maker.
As for the 'hypergain' (they left out the 'r' after the 'g'.) .. hmmm.
I'm a fairly fussy videographer .. this camera is the best thing that's come out EVER. Turns video cameramen into artists ... I love it!

All my output is recorded in HDV and downconverted out of the camera to DV for editing. I have edited in HDV, but it takes foreverto render, and as my customers don't want HD yet .. I archive the tapes for later.

Regarding audio .. the HDR microphone is excellent, although it can pick up hand noise on the camera. The noise reduction on the HVR has the side effect of degrading the stereo, and doing odd things when there is lots of bass in the sound.

[Tony Koorlander @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I've have used the HDR-FX1E AND have the HVR-Z1U. They are the SAME camera as far as picture quality goes. The feature set of the inbuilt DXP 14 bit processor is restricted on the HDR camcorder .. for marketing reasons.The Cinegamma level 1 is VERY useful, and I crank up color level to +3 to get perfect pictures every time... the detail in the picture is awesome. The 5 hour battery life is great too. I was using a VX2100E before .. take a look at my first impressions .... http://www.supervideo.com/2004l.htm 'shootout'.

I have had NO tape dropout in 3 months of use .. the PAL HDV is 20% less compression than the NTSC ... so there are virtually NO motion artifacts or compression problems in PAL.

I recommend the HDR version for most use as the film rate 'shutter' is pretty awful ... you get much better pictures from post processing using a utility like DVFilm maker.
As for the 'hypergain' (they left out the 'r' after the 'g'.) .. hmmm.
I'm a fairly fussy videographer .. this camera is the best thing that's come out EVER. Turns video cameramen into artists ... I love it!

All my output is recorded in HDV and downconverted out of the camera to DV for editing. I have edited in HDV, but it takes foreverto render, and as my customers don't want HD yet .. I archive the tapes for later.

Regarding audio .. the HDR microphone is excellent, although it can pick up hand noise on the camera. The noise reduction on the HVR has the side effect of degrading the stereo, and doing odd things when there is lots of bass in the sound.

[Andy S @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I want to buy a miniDV camera and make an indy film with it. I want to shoot in 24p and therefore make it look as close to film as possible. This being said, I also want the film shot in native 16:9. Here's my questions regarding the HDV-Z1u.

1) Does this camera shoot on native 16:9 and how does this compare to the Canon XL2's "native" 16:9?

2) Does the Z1u shoot in "true" 24p, or does it drop a fifth frame like the FX1?

3) Which camera is better for filmmaking? I'm talking about making a movie which looks as close to film as I can. Therefore, I want the best film replication in native widescreen. *note, I realize lighting and what not correlates to the "film" look. But technical aspects only...which camera is better suited for indy filmmaking?

Canon XL2, Panasonic DVX-100A, or the Sony HDV-Z1u?

[Andy S @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Sorry, I mean HVR-Z1u...any suggestions?

[John S. @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I just received my camera a few days ago. Ordered from NAB 05 saved a few hundred dollars. I love the camera and I will never go back standard video ever again. If you have the budget to buy this camera don�t hesitate at all. I was going to buy a DVX-100a and now I'm glad I didn't. I hooked the camera up to a real plasma HD TV 55" the picture looked like a real movie. I really do believe that year 2006 is the year of HD. -John

[Robert Aldrich @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

One more comment about the Z1U: A salesperson at Bandpro in Burbank (www.bandpro.com) ([e-mail]) told me that the 24P feature in the Z1U camera uses the exact same internal hardware (circuitry) as the DVX100A by Panasonic, if you are in PAL mode! (although this makes me think, is it 24 or 25 frames a second?) Or is it the Cine-like mode in PAL...

Just a thought for those who care about these little facts!

[Joseph Tekippe @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

I find the draw of the 24p capability of this camera has more to do with it being progressive than with the actual framerate (or being "film-like"), as it is much easier to pull a good matte off of a solid frame than from two interlaced fields. I don't think that shooting at 60i and then down-converting will solve this problem. Does anyone have experience with this camera for shooting elements for effects/ compositing work?

[Austin @ Dec 19th 2005 12:06AM]

Research compatibility issues with AVID Express and final cut pro and know what you're in for. Spending $5,000 on a camera is fine, but once u invest in good lenses for that film look to compliment your reliance on 24p, your stuck in a room with a few others editing something you have never tried before and your out $8,000 at the end of it. Next year may be the year of HD, but if you've gone to an HD expo in L.A. like i did earlier this year, you'll realize, the entire market is one gigantic beta fest and more peripherals than you ever thought posible become available. If you've got a pocket, go for it and join rest. If you don't, patience will reward you by just letting Panasonic, JVC, and Sony go at it until one of them comes out with a true progressive camera thats affordable, and blows away the competition. For now, creatively line yourself up and dont limit yourself, pixelization of too much movement and compression wont be an issue. JVC isn't focused on rivaling Sony, they are focused on pioneering the entire HD market. Panasonic is focused on maintaining their name as innovators in the HD 'consumer' world. Sony is focused on rivaling everyone, all models, and both consumer and pro HD levels. All I can say is patience and we'll se what formula works best.