V1U Article with footage: Thoughts?

[Kholi]

http://www.uwdv.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=99

I'm particularly interested with this line:

True 24 and 30p in this camcorder, with no split resolution, no upsampled pixels or other electronic voodoo, it's a true progressive image with a 1920 x 1080 resolution at the imager. The physical imager is 960 x 1080, but by reading the pixels diagonally and combining pixel information (not upsampling/downsampling, but re-addressing pixels) the resolution on ingest is 1920 x 1080. The camera processes 1920 x 1080 in the 4:2:2 color sample scheme before processing for tape storage at 4:2:0, 1440 x 1080


Yeah... okay. So no "voodoo". But the physical imager is 960 x 1080. Someone want to tell me how this is "true" 1080p and not derived from some sort of pixel shifting?

Just as well... what difference does it make? It's still being chopped down to 1440x1080 once it hits tape.

[t-h-e-w-h-o]

http://www.uwdv.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=99

I'm particularly interested with this line:

True 24 and 30p in this camcorder, with no split resolution, no upsampled pixels or other electronic voodoo, it's a true progressive image with a 1920 x 1080 resolution at the imager. The physical imager is 960 x 1080, but by reading the pixels diagonally and combining pixel information (not upsampling/downsampling, but re-addressing pixels) the resolution on ingest is 1920 x 1080. The camera processes 1920 x 1080 in the 4:2:2 color sample scheme before processing for tape storage at 4:2:0, 1440 x 1080


Yeah... okay. So no "voodoo". But the physical imager is 960 x 1080. Someone want to tell me how this is "true" 1080p and not derived from some sort of pixel shifting?

Just as well... what difference does it make? It's still being chopped down to 1440x1080 once it hits tape.

it is "voodoo" if you ask me, but i sold my dvx and ordered one yesterday. So if you want me to get ya some footage samples when it comes in ill be happy to. Infact i think i will regardless. No matter what "voodoo" it is implementing, the footage still kicks the 100B'S ass.

[Kholi]

I was less than inspired by Douglas's footage. That HAS to be a product of file compression. There's no way that 108mb .m2t can be THE raw file.

I refuse to believe that.

[Sean Michael]

Check out the footage posted by Tony Tremble on DVInfo:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=82027

This is probably the most impressive footage from the V1 I've yet seen. The sunset shot displays CMOS's lack of smear.... Clip 2 really displays the reach of the lens (!).

I was disfavoring the V1, but these clips have put me squarely back into "undecided" territory.

The Canon XH A1 is a great choice for the indie filmmaker... but the V1U has some attractive features for the run & gun shooter (V1U is lighter, has a larger LCD screen, CMOS uses less power, etc.). It's a tough call, especially if Sony's 24p mode delivers as promised.

[Kholi]

Aren't all of those clips 50i streams? Where's the 24p streams?


ARe you interested in videography shooting or narrative? Personally, I have no use for Interlaced video. So I'm basically interested in the 24p stuff.

[Sean Michael]

Sadly, the V1E hs been affected by a 25p bug. They are calling it an "oil paint effect" or something like that. Supposedly Sony has halted shipment of the European cameras until they get it sorted.

We should know this week whether V1U units will be similarly affected. People are just now getting their cameras in the US.

I definitely want to use the 24p mode. I'm planning to shoot a travel doc in China next year. That's why the light weight, etc. of the V1U has been attractive. But I need to be convinced it's a viable...even preferable...alternative to the Canon A1.

[Kholi]

Sadly, the V1E hs been affected by a 25p bug. They are calling it an "oil paint effect" or something like that. Supposedly Sony has halted shipment of the European cameras until they get it sorted.

We should know this week whether V1U units will be similarly affected. People are just now getting their cameras in the US.

I definitely want to use the 24p mode. I'm planning to shoot a travel doc in China next year. That's why the light weight, etc. of the V1U has been attractive. But I need to be convinced it's a viable...even preferable...alternative to the Canon A1.

Yeah I've been over at DVinfo checking out the E footage. Less than impressive, especially in comparison to the current choices for Hi_Def shooting. But I suppose I should be waiting longer to actually pass judgement.

Waiting for some U footage now.

[Sean Michael]

BTW, I can't really answer the numbers questions you posed in your original post. However, it's my understanding that the V1U can output 1920 x 1080 in the 4:2:2 color sample scheme via its HDMI out ....using a tethered capture card. This could be very useful for narrative purposes.

But until we see actual V1U progressive footage, it's all just speculation. We should start seeing it this week!

[t-h-e-w-h-o]

Check out the footage posted by Tony Tremble on DVInfo:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=82027

This is probably the most impressive footage from the V1 I've yet seen. The sunset shot displays CMOS's lack of smear.... Clip 2 really displays the reach of the lens (!).

I was disfavoring the V1, but these clips have put me squarely back into "undecided" territory.

The Canon XH A1 is a great choice for the indie filmmaker... but the V1U has some attractive features for the run & gun shooter (V1U is lighter, has a larger LCD screen, CMOS uses less power, etc.). It's a tough call, especially if Sony's 24p mode delivers as promised.

any ideas as to if the v1 has "scene file settings" simaler to the dvx? I want to be able to drop the v1 into completely manual mode. Do you know if it allows to be as manual as the dvx100b was? I dont like auto iris/whitebalance etc

[Kholi]

BTW, I can't really answer the numbers questions you posed in your original post. However, it's my understanding that the V1U can output 1920 x 1080 in the 4:2:2 color sample scheme via its HDMI out ....using a tethered capture card. This could be very useful for narrative purposes.

But until we see actual V1U progressive footage, it's all just speculation. We should start seeing it this week!

Yeah you can capture 4:2:2 1920x1080 because it's that resolution at the imager. That I know and that adds some nice options in conjunction with Blackmagics HDMI card (250.00... smokin deal, man).

What I don't get is how he says there's no "Voodoo" going on.

[t-h-e-w-h-o]

rumor has it there is no "24P" bug in the usa models. The footage from the cam looks simply amazing, i dare say better than some footage ive seen from the hvx's 720P. Its just too bad the only currently NLE to support 1080P at 23.976fps is sony vegas. DUR! :/

However, i am on the phone with adobe premier developers as i type. (on hold now) but hopefully i can shed some light to premier being as its my NLE of choice. Or FCP would be nice as well.

[Kholi]

rumor has it there is no "24P" bug in the usa models. The footage from the cam looks simply amazing, i dare say better than some footage ive seen from the hvx's 720P. Its just too bad the only currently NLE to support 1080P at 23.976fps is sony vegas. DUR! :/

However, i am on the phone with adobe premier developers as i type. (on hold now) but hopefully i can shed some light to premier being as its my NLE of choice. Or FCP would be nice as well.
Please point me to 24p footage. I see none at all. And moving footage as well, if there is any.

[t-h-e-w-h-o]

Please point me to 24p footage. I see none at all. And moving footage as well, if there is any.

i havent seen any 24P footage, but i assume it looks just as good as that 50i footage posted in the first post of this thread.

[Kholi]

i havent seen any 24P footage, but i assume it looks just as good as that 50i footage posted in the first post of this thread.

Ought not to assume that at all. I thought there was some 24p footage floating around from the sound of your post.

Definitely won't form too much of an opinion until I see some more footage with moving subjects. Heck, some cars or something.

[t-h-e-w-h-o]

Ought not to assume that at all. I thought there was some 24p footage floating around from the sound of your post.

Definitely won't form too much of an opinion until I see some more footage with moving subjects. Heck, some cars or something.

good point. ill do my best to post some footage here when i find it. I have also put the 3 links that were on rapidshare hosts onto dvxhost so people dont have to wait any time to download them.

1. http://www.dvxhost.com/temp/Sunset.mov

the others are still uploading.

[Kholi]

good point. ill do my best to post some footage here when i find it. I have also put the 3 links that were on rapidshare hosts onto dvxhost so people dont have to wait any time to download them.

1. http://www.dvxhost.com/temp/Sunset.mov

the others are still uploading.

I have all of those clips. They're just static shots that show not much more than color rendition. Also, they aren't raw clips. Can't expect too much I guess-- but birds flying over water don't show the camera's potential.

I do notice a lack of noise... but I'm confident that in the same situation with the settings tuned in the HVX the image would be just as clean.

This was a comment made in response to you saying that these clips show better results (To you) than the HVX's 720p. I personally think that's not true.

HVX falls short in darks... this sorta scene is a piece of cake. And it could've been in smooth slow-mo. =)

[t-h-e-w-h-o]

I have all of those clips. They're just static shots that show not much more than color rendition. Also, they aren't raw clips. Can't expect too much I guess-- but birds flying over water don't show the camera's potential.

I do notice a lack of noise... but I'm confident that in the same situation with the settings tuned in the HVX the image would be just as clean.

This was a comment made in response to you saying that these clips show better results (To you) than the HVX's 720p. I personally think that's not true.

HVX falls short in darks... this sorta scene is a piece of cake. And it could've been in smooth slow-mo. =)

when you say "super slow-mo" are you refering to the slow-mo option on the v1u? If so, according to everyone else, the "slow mo" feature records at a lower resolution, if that were the case that footage would look much worse.

Also, there is 24P footage around of a guy in a parachute. Seen that yet?

[Kholi]

when you say "super slow-mo" are you refering to the slow-mo option on the v1u? If so, according to everyone else, the "slow mo" feature records at a lower resolution, if that were the case that footage would look much worse.

Also, there is 24P footage around of a guy in a parachute. Seen that yet?

I was referring to the "clean" slow-mo achievable with the HVX in comparison to the hoop-la that the V1u does.

And yes, I've seen the parachuter. Only thing neat about that is that DSE actually put the sun in the frame. Other than that.... it's like ... "oh... so?". In other words, there wasn't enough in frame for me to really see what it was about.

[Sean Michael]

Yeah, the "smooth slow motion" of the Sony is disappointing. You lose so much resolution in the process, there's no point. I guess we'll have to wait for the next generation for a full-res slow mo (or shoot 60p on an HVX).

The HVX is a great camera, but quite different. If it could capture those HD images on tape, I would've already bought one. The Sony is relatively compact, lightweight, and records to cheap tape instead of expensive P2 cards.

I have a Sony HC3 consumer cam (1 CMOS chip). The images it produces in good light are pretty amazing..I daresay HD cable broadcast quality under the right conditions. One would expect the 3 CMOS V1U to provide a leap in performance. But the proof will come in the footage. I'll reserve judgment until we can see it being used in the real world.

[Kholi]

Yeah, the "smooth slow motion" of the Sony is disappointing. You lose so much resolution in the process, there's no point. I guess we'll have to wait for the next generation for a full-res slow mo (or shoot 60p on an HVX).

The HVX is a great camera, but quite different. If it could capture those HD images on tape, I would've already bought one. The Sony is relatively compact, lightweight, and records to cheap tape instead of expensive P2 cards.

I have a Sony HC3 consumer cam (1 CMOS chip). The images it produces in good light are pretty amazing..I daresay HD cable broadcast quality under the right conditions. One would expect the 3 CMOS V1U to provide a leap in performance. But the proof will come in the footage. I'll reserve judgment until we can see it being used in the real world.

That's what I'm thinking. If the HV10 And HC3 produce such AMAZING FREAKING images then the V1u better leap clean over it. Seriously. That's probably an ill way of thinking but that's what I would expect.

I personally think the HV10 walks all over the HC3, but both create stellar images. I'd dare say that I'm more impressed with the HV10's image than the XH-A1/H1's... but I haven't seen enough 30 or 60 from the A1/H1 to judge that.

In fact... I think it might be time I buy an HV10 lol.

[t-h-e-w-h-o]

man, we need 24P footage, then im sold.

[anthony jackson]

How much do the HVR-V1U cost

[Sean Michael]

$4199 at B&H.

[anthony jackson]

Is it real 24p

[Barry_Green]

Yeah... okay. So no "voodoo". But the physical imager is 960 x 1080. Someone want to tell me how this is "true" 1080p and not derived from some sort of pixel shifting?
There's another thread on DVInfo that you may want to read, which takes that notion to task.

Suffice it to say that not even Sony themselves claim it's a "true" 1920x1080. Their own brochure says that it's 960x1080, which goes through a (here I'll use Sony's own words): "Sony Original Interpolation Process" to become 1920x1080. And then all processing is done at 1920x1080, and then the final recording goes through a (again, Sony's words): "Resolution Conversion Process" to become 1440x1080.

[Barry_Green]

I was less than inspired by Douglas's footage. That HAS to be a product of file compression. There's no way that 108mb .m2t can be THE raw file.

I refuse to believe that.
I belive that DSE has said he'll never post un-watermarked footage again, so IINM that footage isn't raw, it's been recompressed at least once? I may be mistaken though.

[Barry_Green]

Aren't all of those clips 50i streams? Where's the 24p streams?
The Sony doesn't produce 24p streams, it produces 60i streams. If you want to see raw camera-original untouched footage, it's going to be a 60i data stream with 24p embedded in it using a 2-3 pulldown system.

[Barry_Green]

Yeah you can capture 4:2:2 1920x1080 because it's that resolution at the imager.
No it isn't, it's 960x1080 at the imager.

In the internal DSP processing, it's 1920x1080 @ 4:2:2; same as the HVX and I believe the Canon does that same process.

What I don't get is how he says there's no "Voodoo" going on.
I disagree with his choice of words -- if "pixel shift" is "voodoo", then certainly "Sony Original Interpolation Process" must also be voodoo. But what it certainly isn't is a 1920x1080 chip.

[Kholi]

Thanks, Barry. I wonder why people keep saying TRUE 1080p.

[Barry_Green]

Is it real 24p
From all accounts, yes it should be legitimate actual progressive scan at 24hz, so "real" 24p.

The only camera that does "fake 24p" that's actually bad is the Sony FX1/Z1. Any other "real" or "fake" 24p all looks good. Of course, I say that without actually having seen the Sony's 24p, but from the specs it sounds like they're doing it properly this time.

[Emanuel]

Their own brochure says that it's 960x1080, which goes through a (here I'll use Sony's own words): "Sony Original Interpolation Process" to become 1920x1080. And then all processing is done at 1920x1080, and then the final recording goes through a (again, Sony's words): "Resolution Conversion Process" to become 1440x1080.LOL

Barry's humor. :thumbup: