+++ DVXuser Exclusive! +++ Sony V1 Footage and Stills! DV, HDV, 50i and 25p!

[mikkowilson]

http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_DV25p_1_half.jpg (http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_DV25p_1_full.jpg)
Click for fullsize. (http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_DV25p_1_full.jpg)

Yes that's right, twice in one tradeshow, DVXuser is proud to be the first to post video from a new camera.

A few mintues ago I got over to Sony and got some footage rolled off in their new V1E camera.

I have HDV and DV 16:9 in both 50i and 25P on tape and captured!

The files are uploading now...

I will organaize and caption/explain settings etc, as I have time in the coming days, but for now, without furthur ado:


PLEASE RIGHT-CLICK AND SAVE file to your hard drive, I don't know what my server can take.

These have been shot quickly at a tradeshow booth in non-ideal conditions. THESE ARE NOT THE BEST THAT THIS CAMERA IS CAPABLE OF.


FRAMEGRABS:
DV - unedited .tif grabs.
http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_DV50i_still1.tif (http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_DV50i_still1.tif)
http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_DV25p_still1.tif (http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_DV25p_still1.tif)


VIDEO:
DV
http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_DV50i_1.avi :2sec (8.8MB)
http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_DV25p_1.avi :3sec (12.3MB)

HDV - RAW TS captured with software from: http://www.videohelp.com/tools?tool=CapDVHS
http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_1080-50i_HDV_RAW.mpg :5sec (18.5MB)
http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/SonyV1/SonyV1_1080-25p_HDV_RAW.mpg :6sec (18.8MB)


- Mikko

[rawfa]

You're the man, Mikko! Can't wait for the footage!

[rawfa]

That looks freaking sweet, man. Specialy the RAW stuff. Thanks a lot, bro!

[rawfa]

Hey Mikko, do you know if this baby has matrix, knee, gamma, etc control?

[nalu]

nice work Mikko

what's your thoughts on the footage? - especially your gut feeling of it versus what you would have got out of a FX1 or Z1

cheers

[Hideaki Anno]

hey mikko, thanks, can you try also to capture in the slowmode function?
This footage looks very good....

[Zim]

I could watch the DV but not the HDV

[Elton]

Rename the HDV .mpg files to .m2t (change the file extension) and they play fine in VLC.

These look pretty good. Thanks Mikko!

[MovieSwede]

I have split feeleing of the footage.

Its a very clean highres video, but it still feels like video.

Would be nice to now the tweaks in the camera.

[delaro]

i'm impressed by the 25p footage .....

[Hideaki Anno]

Hey Mikko, do you know if this baby has matrix, knee, gamma, etc control?
It has something called "Cinegamma and cinematone" if I remember correctly...

[Zim]

if this is released in the USA is there another show Sony might wait for?

[rawfa]

Puff, if it's the same cinematone as on the Z1/FX1 it is not very good. I'm looking for the same image control as the A1/DVX/HVX/H1/etc...

[delaro]

Puff, if it's the same cinematone as on the Z1/FX1 it is not very good. I'm looking for the same image control as the A1/DVX/HVX/H1/etc...

if they finally understood that people want real 25p they probably put cinegammas and more controls in the v1

[mikkowilson]

I did not try any complicated settings, other than a set of gain tests. I'll post a report on those when I get home to Finland where I can handle Sony HDV properly.

- Mikko ... kicks himself for forgetting the slo-mo.

[delaro]

I did not try any complicated settings, other than a set of gain tests. I'll post a report on those when I get home to Finland where I can handle Sony HDV properly.

- Mikko ... kicks himself for forgetting the slo-mo.

you did a great job! thanx!

[Hideaki Anno]

- Mikko ... kicks himself for forgetting the slo-mo. Don't worry Mikko, you already did a great job! Thanks :beer: I believe this camera has more than gain settings...sure it has a good control of image considering it's a "professional" product as Sony declares.

[microbob]

Maybe it is just me, but the footage looked squished.

[Camera Expert]

You guys should be playing these files using the latest version of DIVX because it looks a whole lot better than VLC.
http://www.divx.com

[Jack_Felis]

The footage looks pretty good considering how funky Cineframe looked (though a recent project used Cineframe 24 and they fiddled with it in post and the outcome looked pretty snazzy). But I want to see what the US version will look like, I hope that people won't have to continue to use the "Z1-25p-to-24p"-method to get decent results.

By the way, MovieSwede, I too felt that it looked a tad bit more on the video side than film but then again, to me, even Cinealta 24p looked strange compared to Panasonic's, Canon's, and JVC's 24p. COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE OPINION, of course.

[Drew Ott]

I think that footage looked very good. It did feel like video though, but, good video.

[rawfa]

When will the next big audiovisual fair/expo happen? I'd like to know more or less when should I be crossing my fingers for a new panasonic hd camera.

[Zim]

yes, when will the next show that Sony might release a US version of this camera?

Could Panasonic pull something out of their hat?

[mikkowilson]

Don't hold your breath. News can come any time.

Though IBC and NAB at the "big" shows, there are tradeshows all the time all over the place.

Cinex next week in Germany, Broadcast Asia is coming up I think, there's Cinegear in the middle of the summer in LA, There's DVexpo East .. and West. Canon has their own shindig in NY I think, etc... there are just too many shows to wait for the next one. And product announcements are even less predictable.

- Mikko

[Barry_Green]

There are indeed many shows. Panasonic and Canon actually showed their HVX & XLH1 at ResFest, which isn't really a trade show at all, it's a traveling film festival.

Panasonic's first hands-on for the DVX, and JVC's first hands-on for a working HD100, was at the WEVA expo in August in Las Vegas.

The HVX's big rollout, and the XLH1's big rollout, were at DV Expo in Los Angeles in November/December.

But the companies don't always wait for shows to announce; the JVC HD100 was announced in press releases in February, no show anywhere nearby; they showed the first working prototypes in April at NAB.

And the XHA1 and XHG1 were announced unrelated to a show, n'est-ce pas? So even though this IBC was the first chance to get hands on a working prototype, they'd already been announced. And Sony announced their little AVC-HD consumer cameras in press releases, unrelated to any trade show.

So news can come at any time, although shows are a place where you can get first footage and first user impressions.

[rawfa]

Lets hope for sooner than latter...duh...

[TimurCivan]

wow the V1 looks pretty good.

[Heath McKnight]

I've seen some other footage from the camera and it looks stunning. What I saw makes this camera WORTH buying. It's stunning and I recognized how this camera will benefit me, and many others.

heath

[Fugitive]

Heath, How does it compare to the FX1/Z1 in terms of perceptible resolution, lattitude, etc?

[Heath McKnight]

To my eye with what I saw, it was better than the FX1 and Z1, and I use those cameras every week.

heath

[Fugitive]

Better as in? Latitude, detail, color rendition? what aspect? The V1 has lower resolution than the FX1 so I do find that suprising (but in a good way!)

[vncnt]

When I tried this camera at IBC-Amsterdam I zoomed in 100% at the (horizontal) blinds and changed the mode to 25 progressive.
Horizontal contrasts are very difficult for camera's.
Unfortunately this created a LOT of moire patterns.
I suspect it's not a true 25 fps camera.
Look very careful at the specs, tests and try before you buy.

With CMOS you would expect more noise but the picture looked quite clean.
Don't know if this is filtered.

[Bogdan]

Better as in? Latitude, detail, color rendition? what aspect? The V1 has lower resolution than the FX1 so I do find that suprising (but in a good way!)

What do you mean? I am at lost. FX1 and V1 both include 960x1080 sensors plus V1 has progressive scan. In 1080i they will go hand to hand. In progressive, well... do I have to say that?

[Heath McKnight]

What do you mean? I am at lost. FX1 and V1 both include 960x1080 sensors plus V1 has progressive scan. In 1080i they will go hand to hand. In progressive, well... do I have to say that?
I don't see how the V1 has less resolution than the FX1, and like Bogdan says, same sensor size.

heath

[Fugitive]

That was my mistake actually, based on a misunderstanding of interlaced mode of the FX1.

But the V1 has a smaller chip (1/4 inch) so they may not be absolutely the same in interlaced. Lets see...

[Bogdan]

Heath -

To be perfectly technically accurate I have to make one correction to what you wrote. Sensors resolution is the same, size is different :-)

Of course, efffective resolution in 1080i may be slightly different. It depends on so many factors that listing them could earn me PhD ;-)

[Fugitive]

Yes, I already mentioned that Sensor size is indeed different. 1/4 inch compared to 1/3. Must have been a typo or somthing.

[Heath McKnight]

We'll see what happens when the camera comes out. A video engineer isn't the person to make judgments on quality with a good DP. Maybe 1/4 inch CMOS are like 1/3 inch CCD.

heath

[Fugitive]

I wasnt making a judgement on Quality, rather, on DOF. I think its pretty obvious 1/4 CMOS would have a deeper focus than 1/3 CCD. Unless I am missing something.

[Heath McKnight]

I wasnt making a judgement on Quality, rather, on DOF. I think its pretty obvious 1/4 CMOS would have a deeper focus than 1/3 CCD. Unless I am missing something.

Sorry if you thought I meant you about the video engineer comment, but I get frustrated when people look at things on paper vs. using it. If you look at the sensor size of the HVX (960x540) on paper, you'd flip. But when you use it, it's great, just like the Z1, HD100, etc.

heath

[Fugitive]

No offense taken.

You are absolutely right. Thats why I am planning to get an affordable HD cam ASAP and just start shooting rather than talk. Working in SD land is getting frustrating.

[epicedium]

I wasnt making a judgement on Quality, rather, on DOF. I think its pretty obvious 1/4 CMOS would have a deeper focus than 1/3 CCD. Unless I am missing something.

Yes, this is obviously correct, this is laws of physics/optics :)

There are other reasons why smaller isn't better ... the smaller the pixels, the less light each photosite receives, so more noise (although a low quality 1/3in might be noisier than a high quality 1/4in). Also, a smaller sensor needs sharper glass. If you shoot a comparison of 1/3 and 1/4in sensors with the exact same glass, then the 1/4in will be using a smaller amount of the glass (i.e. the middle)-- and any problems with the lens will effectively be magnified very slightly, and you will be trying to resolve the same number of lines through a very slightly reduced area of glass.

But, that's not to say that Sony's CMOS chips won't be super low noise and the Zeiss glass pin sharp! Time will tell. But certainly the odds would be better if we were talking about 1/3in CMOS chips ........... shame.

The DOF issue is unavoidable, and a blow for those striving for shallow DOF for film.

Personally I'm expecting to pick up the XH-A1-- I see it like this:-

Canon- H1 pedigree, famous for great glass, high res 1440 sensor, should be a smooth film-like image.

Sony- 1/4in DOF (bad), low-light MAY also suffer, heavy reliance on pixel shift from relatively low-res chips ... Deal-killer for me will be the almost-certain Sony super video look ... shite for anything other than documentary/corporate/weddings. BUT, true progressive COULD it a real edge for P work.

IF Canon mess something up (unlikely), and Sony delivers staggering high-res footage with awesome low-light performance, good image/cinegamma control, and (critically) a P mode that doesn't look Video-as-hell, then maybe (just maybe) it will offer something special.

I think it's unlikely.... and that the A1 will be better and cheaper.

[Fugitive]

I am not too worried about the video look, because I strongly believe its a function of lighting and post. I have lit several sets and shot on Sony cams before and they always turn out really film-like when lit properly.

I am just worried about 1/4 inch, but then again, as Heath pointed out, the image could just be so good that any other factors would become a non-issue. You could always use an adapter, for example...

[Heath McKnight]

I wonder, again, if 1/4 in. CMOS chips are more similar to 1/4" CCD.

hwm

[meta4]

Well it gets worse...

And Barry, correct me if I'm wrong but with the sony's 'diamond' shaped CMOS pixels, you're going from a diamond sensor to a square or rectangular television pixel, so the data collected on that individual pixel has to be ?shrunk? to fit within a rectangle?

I really don't even understand it, but I know they sense light with diamonds, but we all know our televisions have rectangular pixels, so each pixel has to get 'cropped' to the right shape.

Wouldn't this make the effective pixel size even smaller? I mean, it collects light like a 1/4" chip but then if the pixels get shaved to shape it would be like shaving the whole chip? Right?

I just don't understand why they'd to that.

[Zim]

Yes, this is obviously correct, this is laws of physics/optics :)

There are other reasons why smaller isn't better ... the smaller the pixels, the less light each photosite receives, so more noise (although a low quality 1/3in might be noisier than a high quality 1/4in). Also, a smaller sensor needs sharper glass. If you shoot a comparison of 1/3 and 1/4in sensors with the exact same glass, then the 1/4in will be using a smaller amount of the glass (i.e. the middle)-- and any problems with the lens will effectively be magnified very slightly, and you will be trying to resolve the same number of lines through a very slightly reduced area of glass.

But, that's not to say that Sony's CMOS chips won't be super low noise and the Zeiss glass pin sharp! Time will tell. But certainly the odds would be better if we were talking about 1/3in CMOS chips ........... shame.

The DOF issue is unavoidable, and a blow for those striving for shallow DOF for film.

Personally I'm expecting to pick up the XH-A1-- I see it like this:-

Canon- H1 pedigree, famous for great glass, high res 1440 sensor, should be a smooth film-like image.

Sony- 1/4in DOF (bad), low-light MAY also suffer, heavy reliance on pixel shift from relatively low-res chips ... Deal-killer for me will be the almost-certain Sony super video look ... shi*e for anything other than documentary/corporate/weddings. BUT, true progressive COULD it a real edge for P work.

IF Canon mess something up (unlikely), and Sony delivers staggering high-res footage with awesome low-light performance, good image/cinegamma control, and (critically) a P mode that doesn't look Video-as-hell, then maybe (just maybe) it will offer something special.

I think it's unlikely.... and that the A1 will be better and cheaper.

Maybe with the 24p the V1 won't have the "Sony super video look". Maybe it wil have the 24p film look. Maybe it will even be better that the 24F look!

Why would they put 24p on a camera only for it to end up looking like the sony video look?
I'm hope both cameras come out and are great.

[Barry_Green]

Well it gets worse...

And Barry, correct me if I'm wrong but with the sony's 'diamond' shaped CMOS pixels, you're going from a diamond sensor to a square or rectangular television pixel, so the data collected on that individual pixel has to be ?shrunk? to fit within a rectangle?

I really don't even understand it, but I know they sense light with diamonds, but we all know our televisions have rectangular pixels, so each pixel has to get 'cropped' to the right shape.

Wouldn't this make the effective pixel size even smaller? I mean, it collects light like a 1/4" chip but then if the pixels get shaved to shape it would be like shaving the whole chip? Right?

I just don't understand why they'd to that.
But it doesn't work that way. People really, really want to believe that the sensor pixels are directly related to the output pixels, and it just isn't so.

With CMOS it's closer, you can at least individually address the sensor pixels which is something that's impossible in CCD, but understand that even though you can get at the individual pixels, you're getting 960x1080 pixels, which get interpolated up to 1920x1080 by the EIP, then scaled down to 1440x1080 for recording, and then interpolated by the TV back up to 1920x1080 (or, far more likely, scaled down to 1280x720 because the overwhelmingly vast majority of pixel-based televisions out there are 720p-native).

So I wouldn't worry about diamond-shaped pixels not fitting into TV-shaped pixels. It just isn't relevant. All that matters is a) does the footage look good, and b) does it introduce any weirdness we need to be aware of as shooters.

[Bogdan]

Diamond-shaped (or 45 degrees rotated) photodiodes' purpose is to improve resistance to aliasing. It won't affect sensitivity or resolution. It's promising, but we'll have to wait a little to know for sure how it performs.

[mikkowilson]

Regardeing the "shape" of pixels.
Mathematically a pixel is just a single point of light. It has no shape.
The only time a pixel actually has a "shape" is at a display where those points are aranged in a pattern to fill up the correct aspect ratio. But when stored in any form, they are just single points.

An image doesn't have a bunch of values drawing a little rectangle for each pixel, it's just one value for the one point.

- Mikko

[StMad]

Why is deep dof even considered an issue? On a 1/3" sensor it'll be marginally shallower - and you'll only notice this when a number things like zoom and object distance are maximised. Even then you'll lose your field of view. Framing becomes more difficult.

Fit an adapter, and as long as your image is sharp to start with, you're laughing.

[epicedium]

Why is deep dof even considered an issue? On a 1/3" sensor it'll be marginally shallower - and you'll only notice this when a number things like zoom and object distance are maximised. Even then you'll lose your field of view. Framing becomes more difficult.

Fit an adapter, and as long as your image is sharp to start with, you're laughing.

Well, the difference in size (diagonal) compared to 1/3in is 33% ((6-4)/6), difference in area is 55.5% (((4.8*3.6)-(3.2*2.4))/(4.8*3.6)) .. is it not? (numbers in mm) Far from insignificant ... and actually makes it clear just how much less light 1/4in would receive, especially when you're already dealing with the tiny photosites needed for HD.

I don't know precisely how that change in area will relate to DOF, can anyone save me an hour of reading up on the maths involved? ;)

For those of us who always strive for as shallow DOF as possible, this may be significant.

I completely agree that if the cam is sharp enough then it will take a 35mm adapter, and this is something that I was seriously thinking about (35mm on a V1, fed via HDMI into the new blackmagic card), but the 35mm adapter will be really impractical for any kind of doc / run-and-gun type of work.... I wish that all of my filming was music promo and cini style, but it isn't ;)

EDIT: looking at the numbers (but not actually researching it properly yet), my best guess is that the difference in DOF would be proportional to the diameter ... so a 33% difference, where aperture and focal length are equal?

[accelv]

I saw this camcorder at NAB in NYC, Looks like the old VX1000 in size and shape, a bit heavier. It will compete with the HVX and the new small Canon. Sony has a new way of extracting HDV from 1/4" CMOS chips. Looks like the Canon A1 and will probably be its closest competitor, for now. I would like to see a side-by-side between these two camcorders.

[Bucknfl]

I recently saw some v-1 footage at the miami digital expo. It was an hdv tape playing back on a hdv sony deck. The footage looks like the real deal, 24p, nice color, and no motion artifacts. The blacks looked a little milky. I think sony is going to hit a home run on this one.