V1u review, article, footage, grabs

[meta4]

Article (http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/articles/camcorders/SonyHVR-V1_camcorder.htm)

[luster]

i just lost a lot of excitement for this camera. those stills look really bad.

[meta4]

I just love the fact that Sony gives the man a 'not-yet-out' camera to test and the guy jumps out of a plane with it!!!

I love it!

but yeah, the images are video-ish

[Jack_Felis]

I can't tell if it's good 24p or not, looks nice for what it is but so does the FX1/Z1U/HC1/HC3/A1U/SR1/UX1!

But besides that, did anybody else notice the slight image ghosting as the person swooped down and then back up? It's shown in one of the stills as well. I hope that was just a fast motion error.

In any case, I think the V1U looks great, I'd like to see more tests besides people jumping out of planes, but yeah, I feel pretty positive. The dream though would be to have the same V1U quality in a small A1U-esque package, maybe even Canon HV10 size! That'd be an instant buy for me.

[Bogdan]

With all due respect to Douglas, he's used or tested probably all cameras money can buy, Viper and F900 included (and he is also a successful musician), but I feel some of his statements are a little bit too bold and there's a pinch to much of excitement there :)

There are no full 1080p camcorders in this price range available yet and V1 does not offer full 1920x1080 resolution at the imager because there are simply not enough sampling points. It's the image processor that generates that raster through interpolation algorithm. In effect, it's similar to pixel shift, but it won't go as far as 1920x1080 with 960x1080 sensors.

Saying that, I repeat based on specs and first images, Sony V1 promises to be very, very good camcorder.

[luster]

the footage looks better than the grabs, but still......not great

[Barry_Green]

The ghosting is probably not present in the original footage (at least, I sure hope it isn't!) I would presume that the ghosting was present due to the way the footage was handled in post.

That said... the HD100 can deliver similar ghosting so I guess it's possible. That's what I thought of on the first shot, but the second shot makes me think that it's not in the original footage. It looks too much like a pulldown error in the post process. The JVC ghosting is always red-tinted, whereas this ghost is clean and original-color. So again, until we see evidence otherwise, I don't think the ghosting is in the original footage.

I would imagine that if someone were to import the original .m2t files into something like After Effects and remove the pulldown from there, they may have better luck; AE will properly strip out the pulldown.

[J.R. Hudson]

That is some heinous looking shite

[DavidBeier]

This review strikes me as blatantly Sony-biased. He claims that it's the first camera in this price range to offer a 1920x1080 imager which isn't true. He doesn't mention any of my bigger concerns like if this HDV codec is as crappy as Sony's last or if more image tweaking options and some decent cine gammas and cine colors have been added. Not to mention the picture look like utter crap.

[meta4]

I am pretty sure they even say that the double image is from pull down not being corrected. From the proper footage (which is posted with cinefrom) seems to be alright.


Let's not totally bash this thing. A lot of us are extremely negative on Sony, we'll wait for more.

At least they're giving us progressive 24fps chips?

[Barry_Green]

I'll wait until I have it in my own hands to test and decide, but I'll say this:

Is that slow-mo footage a mistake? Or a joke? I have never, under any circumstances, seen a worse-looking clip from any camcorder.

[rawfa]

The slo mo is horrendous. There's GOTTa be some mistake. I don't think ANYONE would post footage like that actualy knowing what it looked like.

[MovieSwede]

More review

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=141

[Bogdan]

Very interesting review - thanks for the link. The fact that Canon was left out of discussion bugs me a little bit since reading the article left me under impression it's the game between Sony, JVC and Panasonic only. Well, good thing is the review is based on practical experience with all compared camcorders.

Imo, this review is much more believable than commercial ads from Sony's website. At least the results are consistent with majority of tests and opinions from other users, e.g. with regards to JVC's image quality ranked slightly higher than HVX200 and high quality of HDV compression.

[DavidBeier]

Playing the footage back straight from the V1 using both a high-def monitor and my standard Sony 28-inch CRT television set, I was pleasantly surprised. The 1080i footage is about as close to the Z1 as you will ever get. I did some A/B monitor switching between Z1 footage of the same kind of subjects in the same location at the same time of year, last year, and the new V1 footage shot on Sunday (working on a Sunday, I know…). There really was nothing in it, they are characteristically identical with similar detail preservation, definition and overall sharpness. Playing back the 1080p (Progressive) footage looked a little different. The colour saturation and contrast were about the same, only the overall sharpness of the 1080i was not there. However, this is a characteristic of progressive footage, it does look a tad softer due to the way it works, this is why motion such as sports programmes always looks nicer in progressive as opposed to interlaced as it renders movement in a different way. Overall I liked the progressive look. I’ve been leaning towards progressive for about 6 months now, which is the only reason I sold my two Z1s.

This doesn't sound like a true progressive chip to me.

[dkamisat]

I think he means that the motion is not as sharp in the progressive format because of the lower frame rate.

[DavidBeier]

^
We'll see. Previous Sony cameras have lost resolution in their attempts at progressive. Lets wait for some more footage.

[Noel Evans]

I'll wait until I have it in my own hands to test and decide, but I'll say this:

Is that slow-mo footage a mistake? Or a joke? I have never, under any circumstances, seen a worse-looking clip from any camcorder.

And I thought it was just my eyes. The stills are horrible also. This is why as a manufacturer I too would be reluctant to have early footage releases. But it begs the question why dont they (company) shoot some scenes in perfect conditions for their cam and release that?

Im not buying this cam, and am not even in the market for it, but I am 100% sure images coming from it would be a lot better than this if used properly. Although one thing did bother me a little, the colour is shite (once again could be settings).

[Nathyn]

Is it me or does it seem like we dis every new camera that comes out and of course when it does come out it pretty much works as stated. The HD100's SSE being an exception. This has always been funny to me. I understand the fuss over the Z1 and FX1 for not having 24p considering this is now almost a standard feature on a modern prosumer dv/hdv camera, not to mention the fact they lied about it and tried to make us think it was real 24p, but going after a camera for ghosting (which, mind you, the reviewer openly states is caused by the NLE) and image quality we all know we won't be able to truly check until the camera drops to the market is almost laughable in this day and age.

I know it's cool to bash Sony, I do it myself and with good reason but this does sound like a good camera and two working reviewers, DSE being one of them seem to like this camera. So what gives? I doubt Douglas would lie or just make stuff up about image quality, I mean it is his name on the line. He may be wrong about some of the innerworkings of the camera but I'd like to think this famous (at least in these parts) videographer would know a good image when he sees it. I wouldn't base a purchase on his or anyone else's opinion alone but sheesh.

-Nate

[DavidBeier]

Is it me or does it seem like we dis every new camera that comes out and of course when it does come out it pretty much works as stated. The HD100's SSE being an exception. This has always been funny to me. I understand the fuss over the Z1 and FX1 for not having 24p considering this is now almost a standard feature on a modern prosumer dv/hdv camera, not to mention the fact they lied about it and tried to make us think it was real 24p, but going after a camera for ghosting (which, mind you, the reviewer openly states is caused by the NLE) and image quality we all know we won't be able to truly check until the camera drops to the market is almost laughable in this day and age.

I think most of us realize that the ghosting is an NLE issue. That doesn't change that the slow motion looks lousy. And yeah we won't truly know what the camera is capible of untill it's out but, in general, early footage tends to look much better than this. It seems like it has the same video-ish colors and gamma of other Sony's.

I know it's cool to bash Sony, I do it myself and with good reason but this does sound like a good camera and two working reviewers, DSE being one of them seem to like this camera. So what gives? I doubt Douglas would lie or just make stuff up about image quality, I mean it is his name on the line. He may be wrong about some of the innerworkings of the camera but I'd like to think this famous (at least in these parts) videographer would know a good image when he sees it. I wouldn't base a purchase on his or anyone else's opinion alone but sheesh.

-Nate

Who says we are accusing him of lieing? "[he] knows a good image when he sees it?" Are you implying we should overwrite our own opinions for his because he's a well known reviewer. I'm looking at the images and I'm not blown away (and it has nothing to do with the ghosting). More so, he say apparently liked the Z1 and says this produces images just like it. Many of us dont' like the Z1's image however. The Z1 got a lot of good reviewers but I still wouldn't ever want to use it. Since when does being un-biased mean we have to agree with whatever a reviewer says even if it goes contrary to what we think?

[androbot2084]

Even if the slow motion footage were cleaned up the fact remains the slow motion footage was shot in the 1080i interlace mode and interlace is no substitute for real progressive 720p60 high definition that the Panasonic HVX-200 can shoot. Sony seems to have this attitude that it is a 1080i world and 720p is not real high definition so you are better off shooting with a good standard definition camcorder. I saw a Fox baseball game today in 720p and not only does 720p look better than 480i but it also looks better than 1080i. But even if Sony were right about this being a 1080 world then were are the 1080p60 Sony camcorders that can shoot full progressive high definition footage at 60 frames per second?

[Tim Le]

But even if Sony were right about this being a 1080 world then were are the 1080p60 Sony camcorders that can shoot full progressive high definition footage at 60 frames per second?
This one isn't a camcorder but here's a 1080/60P studio/field camera:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplayModel?m=0&p=2&sp=24&id=80711

It just cost $90,000.

So is it just a matter of time before 1080/60P trickles down to our level? Who knows but probably not for a long time since there is no standard to broadcast it and I think the only format that can record is HDCAM-SR (could be wrong though).

Personally, I'd just ignore the slow record function. It's really only good for SD applications since the resolution is only 512 x 240 when in 12 second mode (according to this (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=547428&postcount=11)). If you really want slow motion, one method is to shoot in 1080/60i and downconvert to 720/60P. Elton has a workflow for this that he has posted elsewhere.

[androbot2084]

Saying that you are going to downconvert 1080i to 720p implies that 720p is not real high definition. Why not say you are going to upconvert 1080i to 720p ?

[Elton]

I know what you mean, androbot. It's actually best to call it "cross-converting". 1080i can bump to 720 60p and look excellent, and likewise good 720 can move to 1080i and look great.

[Tim Le]

Saying that you are going to downconvert 1080i to 720p implies that 720p is not real high definition. Why not say you are going to upconvert 1080i to 720p ?

That was not my intention. 720 is a physically smaller frame size than 1080 and that's the only reason I used the word "downconvert". Sorry if usage of that word in that context offended you.

I have no problem with 720P being real high definition. In fact, I even considered buying the GY-HD200 specifically for the 720/60P recording.

[Nathyn]

Many of us dont' like the Z1's image however. The Z1 got a lot of good reviewers but I still wouldn't ever want to use it. Since when does being un-biased mean we have to agree with whatever a reviewer says even if it goes contrary to what we think?
That wasn't really my point. My point was simply the negative responses versuses the "wait and see" responses. In my experience it seems that a camera is always bashed until it actually comes out and that includes the DVX100 which no one originally thought would do good 24p or people kept asking why was it needed. 2006 it's the camera most indie filmmakers choose if they can't afford HD. Honestly I do slow-mo in the NLE and no one has ever said my slow-mo wasn't good but I don't think we can judge anything on a few questionable clips on the internet, or even a reviewer's opinion.

-Nate

[DavidBeier]

That wasn't really my point. My point was simply the negative responses versuses the "wait and see" responses. In my experience it seems that a camera is always bashed until it actually comes out and that includes the DVX100 which no one originally thought would do good 24p or people kept asking why was it needed. 2006 it's the camera most indie filmmakers choose if they can't afford HD. Honestly I do slow-mo in the NLE and no one has ever said my slow-mo wasn't good but I don't think we can judge anything on a few questionable clips on the internet, or even a reviewer's opinion.

-Nate

I'm fine with a wait and see attitude but there's nothing wrong with guessing based on what we've seen. And I'm sorry but I'll always question a reviewers opinion, especially since he's looking for different things then I am. He says that the gamma, color, contrast, and lattitude (and resolution in 60i according to him) all look the same as the Z1. That alone eliminates this camera as an option for me since I thought the Z1 looked far too video-ish; not just far as motion went but as far as all those other things. If this reviewer who you think is worth trusting is accurate in his review, then it's not a camera that I and a lot of narrative film makers would be interested since there's a lot more to the film look than just true 24p (though that certainly is nice). If he's wrong and footage shows that, then I'll gladly eat humble pie.

[Fugitive]

He says that the gamma, color, contrast, and lattitude (and resolution in 60i according to him) all look the same as the Z1. That alone eliminates this camera as an option for me since I thought the Z1 looked far too video-ish...that I and a lot of narrative film makers would be interested

The FX1/Z1 are great cameras. You could replace the word "Z1" with any other camera's name in your quote, and it would still hold valid. The point is, there are as many people who love the FX1/Z1 and dont like images from the other cameras.

Besides, the 24p cadence cannot be accurately recreated in post without losing atleast a little resolution, while given good lighting, a good film-look can be achieved in post. So for me, this camera being progressive turns out to be very important.

[DavidBeier]

The FX1/Z1 are great cameras. You could replace the word "Z1" with any other camera's name in your quote, and it would still hold valid. The point is, there are as many people who love the FX1/Z1 and dont like images from the other cameras.

What's your point? Each of us reacts to the review based on our wants and our needs. I don't like the look of the Z1 and, if this is the same, I'm not gonna like the look of this.

Besides, the 24p cadence cannot be accurately recreated in post without losing atleast a little resolution, while given good lighting, a good film-look can be achieved in post. So for me, this camera being progressive turns out to be very important.

I always hear that but rarely ever see it. The claim that the film look can be achieved in post is so often promised but so rarely delivered. At the end of the day, no under 10k cameras do the film look as well as the DVX and HVX.

[Bogdan]

...
The claim that the film look can be achieved in post is so often promised but so rarely delivered. At the end of the day, no under 10k cameras do the film look as well as the DVX and HVX.

This is one of the funniest posts I've seen so far on this forum.

First of all, if you can, provide definition of "film look".

There are probably as many "film looks" as cinematographers and many of them made more than one "signature look". That's why we talk about "The Matrix", "Traffic", "Saving Private Ryan", "Three Kings", "Sleepy Hollow" and many more looks.

Claiming that specific look and feel (I wouldn't use term "film look") is so rarely delivered in post is ridiculous. If you don't agree, just check Magic Bullet for example and you will see how many beautiful variations are possible just using the Presets, let alone full set of customizable parameters.

It's widely accepted as best strategy for digital cinematographers to shoot wide dynamic range without pushing too much for specific look and feel in the camera (though it's possible of course, and DVX or HVX are no better than XL2, XL-H1 or HD100) because that will return more possibilities for post production. 24 frame cadence looks very good in all of those cameras, unless one looks through the microscope to catch some artifact that will support his anti-HDV campaign.

Today's software can truly do wonders with any decently shot source material.

EDIT: typo fix.

[DavidBeier]

This is one of the funniest posts I've seen so far on this forum.

You're easily amused. I hope you're around when I bust out some of my dirty limericks.

First of all, if you can, provide definition of "film look".

Sure. It's when something looks, to my eye, like it was shot on film :)

If you wanna get more technical, it's a combination of color, gamma, lattitude, motion, and a little bit of resolved detail thrown into the mix. And yeah, it's pretty damn subjective. I find that the DVX and HVX do it better than anything else in their respective price range. So do a lot of people (which is why the DVX continues to sell like it does). Doesn't mean we're "right" and anyone else is "wrong." It's just how we feel.

There are probably as many "film looks" as cinematographers and many of them made more than one "signature look". That's why we talk about "The Matrix", "Traffic", "Saving Private Ryan", "Three Kings", "Sleepy Hollow" and many more looks.

No kidding.

Just as there are many video looks there are many film looks but there are certain characteristics that make all the 35mm stuff look more like each other just as there are characteristics that make 1 CCD consumer cams look more like each other.

Claiming that specific look and feel (I wouldn't use term "film look") is so rarely delivered in post is ridiculous. If you don't agree, just check Magic Bullet for example and you will see how many beautiful variations are possible just using the Presets, let alone full set of customizable parameters.

Well point of fact, it's not the same thing. Once again, you can do a hell of a lot in CC (I prefer to use more powerful tools than Magic Bullet like the Discreete color correctors) but there's still a limit to what you can do. Part of it comes down to compression which is ESPECIALLY icky with something like HDV. If you're shooting 4:4:4 from a Genisis and have TONS of resolution and depth to play with then yes it'll behoove you to shoot and simple and clean as possible. On the other hand, when you're trying to cram and HD or even SD signal onto a 20-25 mbs codec, you're going to want to get as close in possible in camera before the image becomes compressed and artifacts build up. I realize this is still a bit of the debate in the community but I've been shooting DVX100 for a while and I still find that the closer I get it in camera, the better. When I was younger I made the mistake of thinking I could do anything in post but that just isn't the case, not with the type of compression you are working with. Oddly enough I'm finding I'm having to break some of this habbit with the HVX200 since it's codec is so much nicer and gives you so much to play with.

It's widely accepted as best strategy for digital cinematographers to shoot wide dynamic range without pushing too much for specific look and feel in the camera (though it's possible of course, and DVX or HVX are no better than XL2, XL-H1 or HD100) because that will return more possibilities for post production.

It's widley accepted for top of the line cameras like the F950 or Genisis. Every pro I know who shoots with some of the lower end ones, be it DVX, XL2, or HD100 knows the value of getting it looking good in camera before you compress it on to a tape. Look on some boards for those cameras. Notice all those people sharing scene files? It's not just to make friends.

24 frame cadence looks very good in all of those cameras, unless one looks through the microscope to catch some artifact that will support his anti-HDV campaign.

It's interesting that often the same people who want to look "through a microscope" for a few more lines of resolution on a chart just wanna forget it when it comes to HDV. I've worked with both the Z1 and HD100 and HDV isn't something you only notice with a microscope. It's real and it's a pain. I tried doing some heavy CC with the HD100 in Combustion and I just couldn't push it as far as I needed; not nearly. I've seen people get some great results in camera but for CC it just wasn't cutting it. That said, JVC's HDV codec is still nicer than Sony's which, as far as the Z1, was out and out awful. One of my biggest concerns which wasn't answered in the reviews if if this camera is using a new HDV codec or it's the same crappy one as before. Motion compression of HDV is also a huge deal. It was enough for the HD show (shot with CineAltas) the 1440 stick with the DVX100 for POV shots rather than use a Z1.

To my eyes, the Z1 not only had the most video-ish look of the cheap HD crowd (yes, a subjective thing) but it also had the least amount of image controls and the harshest compression. I've seen some impressive CC on it that made it look far better than I ever thought possible but it still wasn't on par with the better stuff I've seen from other cameras and it no doubt took a hell of a lot more work.

[ShannonRawls]

At the end of the day, no under 10k cameras do the film look as well as the DVX and HVX.
David, now that's just utterly silly.
You know better then to say such a thing. I expect newbies to this game to say uneducated stuff like that.....not professionals.

[Bogdan]

Sure. It's when something looks, to my eye, like it was shot on film :)


That's kinda blurry definition considering how many factors influence final "film look" and how different the images can get. What do you mean by saying "like it was shot on film"? Which film, how was it shot, how was it developed and processed, what's the final media you view it from?
You could define anything this way :)

Claiming that "film look" is so hard to achieve in post is simply not true. Many people do that successfully in DV and HDV, but of course first one needs to acquire quality material to work with. It's not about turning garbage footage into something beautiful in post. It's about turning Quality into Beauty.

Film surely has its characteristics, but the results can look extremely different. There's simply no way you can emulate all that in the camera. That's where advanced CC tools come to play and they can get you in much wider territories. CC tools with smart deartifacting can produce amazing results because they calculate and extrapolate color internally with deep precision. It's as good as it can get with technology available to most of us.

Maybe CC in post did not work for you because you were expecting too much? For me and many people I know and speak with it looks beautiful as long as we deal with quality DV or HDV footage.

[DavidBeier]

That's kinda blurry definition considering how many factors influence final "film look" and how different the images can get. What do you mean by saying "like it was shot on film"? Which film, how was it shot, how was it developed and processed, what's the final media you view it from?
Once again, you do get a lot of different looks from film but they all end up being closer together than all the different looks you'll get from a single CCD consumer camera. And yeah, it's blurry definition and it's very subjective. I make no claims otherwise. And the DVX and HVX200 certainly aren't the only cameras that manage a film-ish look. Several do it differently and with their own flaws. Canon tends to have a more red-ish look to it. JVC tends to have much more muted colors than some. The DVX often looks a bit more blue-ish except in skin tons which look more redish to my eye. The HVX200 looks similar to the DVX100 but with more subtle color gradations and less pronounced skin tons. It's all subjective and all a different look. And yes these cameras can be made to look completely different. In my book however, the Sony looks by far the most video-ish and unappealing.

Claiming that "film look" is so hard to achieve in post is simply not true. Many people do that successfully in DV and HDV, but of course first one needs to acquire quality material to work with. It's not about turning garbage footage into something beautiful in post. It's about turning Quality into Beauty.
Taking footage that already looks pretty good an making it look even better is yes possible even with DV and HDV compression. When the image of the Z1 is already so video-ish and unappealing to my eyes to begin with however, it's not so simple. Like I've said, I've actually seen people do some stuff which I didn't think would be possible with the Z1 in post but I have yet to see even the best stuff from it match the better things I have seen from the XLH1, HD100, or HVX200.

Film surely has its characteristics, but the results can look extremely different. There's simply no way you can emulate all that in the camera.
I beg to differ. Once again, look at all the scene file requests online. Look at so many of the great looks produced in camera. I remember some fantastic desert M2 footage on the HVX200 board that everyone was blown away by when they found out it had zero CC. It's possible and it works better.

That's where advanced CC tools come to play and they can get you in much wider territories. CC tools with smart deartifacting can produce amazing results because they calculate and extrapolate color internally with deep precision. It's as good as it can get with technology available to most of us.
What CC programs are your refering to. I don't use Magic Bullet becaue I've been told time and time again that things like Avid Adrenaline and Combustion provide much more powerful color correcting options. I've heard amazing things about Davinci but that's pretty damn far out of my price range. When your sampling is so limited to begin with then it's hard to achieve what you want even if you work uncompressed later. I guess SDI out could help this but it sounds like most people are planning to shoot to HDV.

Maybe CC in post did not work for you because you were expecting too much? For me and many people I know and speak with it looks beautiful as long as we deal with quality DV or HDV footage.

The bottom line is I'm not seeing a whole lot of narratives from the Z1 or color corrected stuff that looks nearly as good as what I'm getting from the other cameras. Now, perahps that simply people aren't willing to try because it's previous progressive attempt looked so crappy. I may well find a whole bunch of great images coming out of the V1 and, if that's the case, I'll no doubt be eating humble pie. That said, I still don't think people would spend so much time trading scene files for all the other cameras if getting the perect look was so easy in post.

David, now that's just utterly silly.
You know better then to say such a thing. I expect newbies to this game to say uneducated stuff like that.....not professionals.

Perhaps I should have been clearer that it's a matter of preference but it's one I stand by. Everyone has a different preference as far as the look goes. I've heard so many claim they think that the HD100 produces much nicer colors and skin tons than the XLH1 but, from the stuff I've seen, I vastly prefer the XLH1's rendering.

[Nathyn]

Saying that you are going to downconvert 1080i to 720p implies that 720p is not real high definition.
Since when?
I always hear that but rarely ever see it. The claim that the film look can be achieved in post is so often promised but so rarely delivered. At the end of the day, no under 10k cameras do the film look as well as the DVX and HVX.
Yea, this is a pretty funny statement. Considering the XL2 and HD100 which I've seen footage from with my own eyes, I have to chuckle here. Even Sony's Cineframe 30 can pull this off good enough for the average person. It's actually funny but in 2006 this isn't a big feat anymore. And you can slap on adapters to many of these cameras to get that oh so craved DOF so the whole argument about not being able to get the filmlook is somewhat outdated.

-Nate

[Zim]

David, now that's just utterly silly.
You know better then to say such a thing. I expect newbies to this game to say uneducated stuff like that.....not professionals.


so are you planning on getting the Sony V1 Shannon? Just wonder if you feel it is good enough for your movies?

[ShannonRawls]

No Zim,
I currently employ the Canon XL-H1.

[ecking]

I saw that slow-mo footage and I wondered "when did Hi 8 come back in style?"
Jesus christ that was terrible.

[ecking]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Panasonic needs to lower the price of the dvx100b to 2999.
Suck it up and join the HDV group and produce an HVX100 for 3999.
Keep the HVX as a flagship.

Then sit back and let the ownage begin as almost no one buys a non prosumer(hate that word) panasonic camera, SD or HD.

It's a simple formula I just don't know what they won't bite the bullet.

After that finally, FINALLY 92% of this board would shut the f*ck up. lol

[DavidBeier]

Suck it up and join the HDV group and produce an HVX100 for 3999.
Keep the HVX as a flagship.

Not gonna happen but they're already working on one using AVC-Intra compression (which is much milder than HDV). Wouldn't be supprised to see something using that and perhaps some time of cheaper memory cards.

[Zim]

No Zim,
I currently employ the Canon XL-H1.

your not even thinking about the A1 or G1?

[Nathyn]

There's a ton of talk over at DVI about it http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=76943 and I'm hoping Barry and crew can get their hands on it and tell us what they think. I'm a fan of tape but direct to disk is something I'm not at all against and the little harddrive that rest top this camera is hot. While I like the idea of P2 it not quite ready for primetime IMHO. I can't wait to see what type of image it produces. I myself am still looking at the Canon's A1.

-Nate

[Barry_Green]

The V1 and the XHA1 are both shaping up to be very interesting. I definitely would like to take them both for a spin and do a comparison review between them.

[John Froton]

I would so definitely look forward to that!

I wish Sony and Canon would supply you with the cameras to do a shootout but I know that's not going to happen.

I have been hoping to be able to get an HVX for so long and now I am starting to second guess my choice to get an HVX because of the possible quality traits of the V1 and XHA1.

[Bogdan]

Simon Wyndham, Nigel Cooper and Mikko who first tested V1E noticed loss of quality in progressive mode. It's obvious in the footage they captured. Guys who tested US model claim progressive is fine. I'm confused. I guess we have to wait for production models in December to be sure.
My choice is Canon A1 which I pre-ordered already, but I really hope Sony will deliver true progressive results. Could someone post a few screenshots comparing i and p in V1U?
Thanks!

[ShannonRawls]

your not even thinking about the A1 or G1?
No Zim
I already have 2 XL-H1's in my equipment cage, and 2 buddies who own one each that I can use if ever needed. So an A1/G1 would be no more useful to me then a "behind-the-scenes" camera. And for that I have a DVX100a in the cage.

My next camera will be a tapeless camera. And it "MUST" produce a motion picture image "BETTER" then a Canon XL-H1. Not to many digital cinema cameras can do that today as it is, so for now.....I'm Good.

[Simon Wyndham]

Yes, I noticed a huge drop in sharpness in progressive. Looks like it is down to some huge (and I mean HUGE) noise reduction going on in proscan mode.

The model of camera that I was given to test was pre-production. Sony are aware of my findings (whether they are happy or not is another matter, but then they shouldn't give me a camera with a faulty proscan mode on it if full res progressive scan is one of the main marketing points on the camera!)

I do have to say though as a counterpoint to that, that in most other respects I thought the camera was great. But I'll cut off there. My full review will be in Showreel Magazine.

[Nathyn]

Hey Simon,

Not to jack the thread but you worked on Left for Dead? I have to get this film. Everyone says it's hardcore action on top of action. Do you stay in contact with the guys a Mod Life? It's cool to see another action shooter. You know L4D was distributed by the same company that distributed "The Fourth Beast." If you google Nathyn Brendan Masters and "Wages of Sin" you'll find our new actioner. (Or you can just click on my signature). I'm definitely in the market for a new camera so I'm looking at all the reviews for this and the new Canons.

-Nate

[rawfa]

Yes, I noticed a huge drop in sharpness in progressive. Looks like it is down to some huge (and I mean HUGE) noise reduction going on in proscan mode.

The model of camera that I was given to test was pre-production. Sony are aware of my findings (whether they are happy or not is another matter, but then they shouldn't give me a camera with a faulty proscan mode on it if full res progressive scan is one of the main marketing points on the camera!)

I do have to say though as a counterpoint to that, that in most other respects I thought the camera was great. But I'll cut off there. My full review will be in Showreel Magazine.

Simon, could you at least let us know about the image control options this camera has? I just sold my FX1 and the A1 is just about to hit the spanish market. It has a great "pseudo" progressive mode, A LOT of image control options (matrix, gamma, knee, etc), nice latitude, good low light performance, good dof and bokeh...and most important of all, I've seen the footage and I love it. So, it would be very important to me to find out about what sony has to offer.

One thing that seriously grinds my gear about sony is this pro/prosumer thing they have going on (Z1/FX1, V1/FX7, etc). Other companies have it too but they don't make the 2 versions THAT different. Now, sony likes to hit us where it hurts. Let's take the G1 and the A1 for example. They are basicly the came camera (image wise) with some stuff left out. Now, if you take the V1 and the FX7, they have so many diffent things that they could hardly be considered the same camera (IMAGE WISE). On the FX7 they took off the progressive scan and most of the image control options. The FX7 COULD have been a great portable solution against the Canon A1, but sony just had to play their dirty little game. Anyway, I'm sorry for coming down so hard on this. I'm just tired of how sony does things.

[BillPryor]

Rawfa, it's called Takeout Marketing. By clever timing and generating web hype you can effectively take out people from the market who were ready to buy the competition's camera. Take 'em out of the market until you have something to sell 'em. It's a time-honored technique. There's a really good chance a lot of people who were on the edge of buying a Canon XH-A1 will wait for the Sony, and most of them will probably decide the tradeoffs aren't worth dropping down to 1/4" chips for, but Sony will have taken them out of the market for long enough so they at least have a chance to suck them in. I'm not knocking Sony; I have used Sony cameras for years. I am knocking the überhype--there hasn't been anything like it since...since the HVX überhype.:-Laugh(DBG):

[Bogdan]

Bill -

Nothing to add. Great post.

ps. I'm buying Canon XH-A1.

[DavidBeier]

Yes, I noticed a huge drop in sharpness in progressive. Looks like it is down to some huge (and I mean HUGE) noise reduction going on in proscan mode.

The model of camera that I was given to test was pre-production. Sony are aware of my findings (whether they are happy or not is another matter, but then they shouldn't give me a camera with a faulty proscan mode on it if full res progressive scan is one of the main marketing points on the camera!)

I do have to say though as a counterpoint to that, that in most other respects I thought the camera was great. But I'll cut off there. My full review will be in Showreel Magazine.

Sorry but that REALLY sounds like they are still using interlaced chips and they are simply finding a better way to get a fake progressive mode (a la the XLH1).

The only other thing I can think of (which may be a possability) is that perhaps the edge enhancment is applied differently in different modes. I remember Adam Wilt mentioning that edge enhacment on the HVX200 is lighter in the cine-like gamma curves.

[dando]

I think it's all over for Panasonic, quite frankly! This V1 coupled with a good DOF adapter and a matte box, will be heaven! I have owned a Sony A1U for a long time now, and have just sold it. The A1U was a great camera but for some of it's low light failings, all the while I just wished it would perform better in low light. Now, I think that the V1 is that better camera! Well Done Sony!

(When you actually stop and think about it, the V1 is a no brainer! 1080i HDV camera that also shoots in 25p and uses DV tapes! Great!)

[MovieSwede]

Dando U asume that everybody is as much impressed by the V1 as you are and people isnt.

If it cant send out real 24P they are not going to take much market share in the US.

And still you cant compare thoose who want HDV and those who want DVCPROHD.

Its to different group of people.

[Nigel Cooper]

I've just put the following notice on my review of the Sony V1 UK PAL version. Turns out the pre-preduction model had a glitch that was causing progressive to look soft, apparently it is sorted on the production models that will be shipping in the UK next month.

IMPORTANT NOTICE!
On Wednesday 18th October 2006 I was informed by Sony UK that the pre-production model of the V1 that I had for review was not of the same specification of the actual production models that will be sold here in the UK. Sony UK have just received this information directly from Japan. It turns out that the pro-production V1 that was loaned to me from Sony had an issue with the progressive scan mode. This issue caused the images to look a little bit soft compared to the interlaced mode. My review here states that in progressive it looks a little soft compared to interlaced and I even go so far as saying that the V1 lacks a little detail on wide shots and is a trifle soft in progressive when compared to the JVC GY-HD111E. Sony will be sending me a proper production model in the not too distant future so I can modify my review according to my new findings. In the meantime anyone reading this review should ignore any mention of softness or lack of details as it is almost certainly down to the faulty pre-production model I had.

[Emanuel]

...since the HVX überhype.:-Laugh(DBG)::-Laugh(DBG):

[xray]

Sorry but that REALLY sounds like they are still using interlaced chips and they are simply finding a better way to get a fake progressive mode (a la the XLH1).

You are talking a lot about 'filmlook' and that 'look' is something that appears like film for you. If it appears like progressive to me, it is progressive for me.

Just like all other cams do these days: scanning the chips and go in the magic voodoo box to filter, shape, sharpen, crossconvert, amplify etc. What you see is what you get.

[DavidBeier]

You are talking a lot about 'filmlook' and that 'look' is something that appears like film for you. If it appears like progressive to me, it is progressive for me.

Well, in regaurds to the Canon XLH1, I'm fine with its progressive mode because it DOES look pretty much indistinguishible from true 24p to me. I haven't put it side by side with a 16mm camera or a real 24p cam but I havn't been able to tell a difference. The Sony Z1's progressive mode however didn't look like real 24p. The motion was was un-natural looking and off.

What we're wondering is whether or not Sony is using a true progressive image or just doing a better job of faking it like Canon does. Now, if hey are doing a better job of faking it, i.e. a flawless one, then yes it doesn't matter how they are getting it. What it does make a difference in is resolution. Having an interlaced CCD creat a fake progressive mode costs you 1/2 your vertical resolution like it did with the Z1 and XLH1 (according to some reports). It would also affect things like how good the camera can pull of its in camera slow motion. Besides, the fact that Sony keeps claiming it's a progressive camera would make it rather unfortunate if it wasn't.

Just like all other cams do these days: scanning the chips and go in the magic voodoo box to filter, shape, sharpen, crossconvert, amplify etc. What you see is what you get.

Could you elaborate on this further? I'm not quite sure what you mean. I've already spoken on this thread on why I think the film look is important to get in camera and not just something that you can put some magic filter on in post. To use an admittedly extreme example, take the FX1. With a reported five and half stops of lattitude, you simply aren't going to be able to come close to the film gamma curve no matter how much you tinker with stuff, not when all your highlights are pure whites and all your shadows are pure black. You can't magically make that come back. I've shot with that camera and worked with footage from it and it's not so easy to suddenly get the look you want without the lattitude you need and the harsh HDV compression. I simply don't find the film look so easy achieve as people on this thread seem to think it is. I look at stuff that gifted students shot on a DVX100 and it looks like film to my eye. I then look at films shot on some sony video cameras like Open Water or Bamboozled and they just screem video to me. These are films with more cash and professional CCing systems than many of us have access to.

Keep in mind that I'm not passing judgment on the V1u since I haven't seen it operate yet.




I've just put the following notice on my review of the Sony V1 UK PAL version. Turns out the pre-preduction model had a glitch that was causing progressive to look soft, apparently it is sorted on the production models that will be shipping in the UK next month.

IMPORTANT NOTICE!
On Wednesday 18th October 2006 I was informed by Sony UK that the pre-production model of the V1 that I had for review was not of the same specification of the actual production models that will be sold here in the UK. Sony UK have just received this information directly from Japan. It turns out that the pro-production V1 that was loaned to me from Sony had an issue with the progressive scan mode. This issue caused the images to look a little bit soft compared to the interlaced mode. My review here states that in progressive it looks a little soft compared to interlaced and I even go so far as saying that the V1 lacks a little detail on wide shots and is a trifle soft in progressive when compared to the JVC GY-HD111E. Sony will be sending me a proper production model in the not too distant future so I can modify my review according to my new findings. In the meantime anyone reading this review should ignore any mention of softness or lack of details as it is almost certainly down to the faulty pre-production model I had.

Nigel, does this strike you as odd? I mean, for a progressive camera with native progressive chips, doesn't it seem weird that at this late phase in the game they are having issues with progressive images? Why would the native mode the camera outputs in have issues yet the interlaced mode be fine? The HVX200 has some alaising issues in 480 60i because it's a progressive camera and it has an interlaced glitch in SD. Doesn't it seem weird from native progressive camera to have proglems with shooting progressivly?

[John Froton]

Sony's V1 cam doesn't literaly shoot progressively. It's just a new marketing term where they've merged the words "professional" and "aggressive" to describe their new interlaced system that shoots video in a "pro-gressively" fashion :)

........... oh God wouldn't that suck if that were true :(

[xray]

@ david
I always needed to pay big time for Davinci CC on S16 shootings, so its a normal procedure to CC the material offline and not during the shoot. But with Voodoobox magic I mean all the electronic filtering etc. that is done inside the camera the HVX included. Even reading the CCD's is a voodooproces itself, reading high res from low res chips.

@john
The 25p shot with a Sony A1 (CMOS 1 chip 1/3") is looking fine (for a small video cam) and keeps up with the resolution.

[Thanasis Grigoropoulos]

New review for VIE from Showreel:

http://www.showreel.org/memberarea/article.php?218

Not a lot of new info, though...

[NorthernFilmMaker]

No Zim
I already have 2 XL-H1's in my equipment cage, and 2 buddies who own one each that I can use if ever needed. So an A1/G1 would be no more useful to me then a "behind-the-scenes" camera. And for that I have a DVX100a in the cage.

My next camera will be a tapeless camera. And it "MUST" produce a motion picture image "BETTER" then a Canon XL-H1. Not to many digital cinema cameras can do that today as it is, so for now.....I'm Good.


You "MUST" be talking about the XDCam F350