Sony announces HVR-V1u, 1080p, 24p, 30p, 60i

Oooh, very interesting! They actually put 24p in there... and with the optional hard disk recorder it gets over most of my objections to HDV (no tape dropout, no deck incompatibilities, all that stuff).

Gotta love the comparison shot on their site where they show V1 against HVX against XLH1; not so much in that it shows the V1 looking better (because, seriously, did anyone expect that Sony's marketing would show anything where their own product DIDN'T look better?) but they show the HVX next to the XLH1 and they specifically mention the pixel count, but... doesn't the HVX shot look equally (if not more) detailed and less noisy than the XLH1 shot? Heh.

Of course, they're really pushing the 1920x1080 aspect as if that was something special; it takes a careful reading to realize that they're not disclosing the pixel chip count (Mikko was told 960x1080, but you won't see that in their specs, although they do print 1,037,000 which = 960x1080). They also, if you read carefully, mention the word "interpolation". But you don't get that impression from the marketing, it's all "1920x1080" this, and "1920x1080" that (which is the same method that Canon and Panasonic use; the chips are sampled into a 1920x1080 matrix and processed internally at 1920x1080). Oh well. At least they're finally on the Progressive bandwagon!

Anyway, congrats to Sony for producing this product, it goes a long way towards putting them back in "the game" and it looks like those who had already written their Canon XHA1 deposit checks may now have to think twice! Even then it's still not a clear choice; 3999 Canon 1080/24F, or 4800 Sony 1080/24p, Canon = interlaced chips but 1/3" CCD, Sony = progressive chips but 1/4" but CMOS. Sony + HD recorder = 6600, which puts it in HVX territory but no variable frame rates, no 720p mode, no DVCPRO50, no 4:2:2, but it can record 4 hours tapelessly vs. 10 minutes per card... compressed audio vs. uncompressed... frame-discrete but short recording times vs. long-GOP but long recording times...

... very interesting. Things just got stirred up in a big way.
 
Last edited:
Heath McKnight said:
Might be a mistake in the press release, because the second link says 24p, 30p and 60i.
Click to expand...
They're saying the sensor scans at 60p, and that internal processing is done at 60p. But you can't do anything with that, it can't output 60p in any way; the analog and digital outputs are all 60i all the time. It's the same thing the HVX does, and the same as the HD100 does; they can all scan their chips at 60p but the V1 can't output the 60p signal, it can only output 60i (as the HVX does when in 1080 mode); the HVX can output 60p in 720 mode, and the HD100 can output 60p in analog HD or also in 480.
 
I had lost all faith in Sony across the board although the inclusion of progressive shooting modes gains them a little respect back I am still wondering who is running things over there and do they not look at the people next door before they make a decision.
 
Looks like they were listening this time. I'm still curious on a few things, like manual zoom or servo only? What's the focus control like? Things like that. But it looks like they're trying hard this time, and that's very encouraging.
 
I want to know about their image control options (knee, gamma, matrix, etc). If it's as good as cinematone it sucks like linda lovelace.

Barry, where did you see the comparison?!
 
Barry_Green said:
but you won't see that in their specs, although they do print 1,037,000 which = 960x1080. They also, if you read carefully, mention the word "interpolation". But you don't get that impression from the marketing, it's all "1920x1080" this, and "1920x1080" that
Click to expand...
Huh!.. :huh:

it isn't what i could find there:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/devices.html

960x1080 vs 960x540.. we know it hurts but this was their decision.. and the test comparision speaks for itself.. at least in europe, it is sony who rules :crybaby: but rules..

and following the sample it will rule and rule.. i'm sorry barry and so on but this is only a real and cruel truth..
 
On that very page, look at the graphic for input/output in the middle right side. It shows that the clearvid sensors go through a "Sony original interpolation process" and are then rendered as 1920x1080. Then once DSP processing is done it goes through a "resolution conversion process" to become 1440x1080x4:2:2 for analog output (and presumably HDMI output?), or 1440x1080x4:2:0 for HDV output. Regarding 960x1080, that's what they told Mikko Wilson, although you won't find those numbers anywhere on their specifications page on their website. But you do find 1,037,000 pixels on the chips listed, and 1,037,000 = 960 x 1080.

960x1080 vs 960x540.. we know it hurts but this was their decision..
Click to expand...
Again, maybe it's a language barrier, but I don't follow what you're saying. What "hurts"? Sony shows pictures between the 960x1080 V1U, the 960x540 HVX, and the 1440x1080 XLH1. All three show about the same level of detail, can you point out how having 3x as many pixels (on the Canon) makes any real difference on the final picture or helps their final picture that they show?

The point is not to say that 960x1080 is bad. It's fine. The point is that people are all getting ga-ga over Sony's brochure saying 1920x1080 here, there, and everywhere, and it's not a 1920x1080 system. It's the same kind of system that Panasonic, JVC, and Canon are already using. Panasonic and Sony and Canon all scan their chipsets at 1920x1080; JVC scans its chipset at 1280x720x60p. There's nothing new going on here, other than how blatantly they're pushing "1920x1080" front and center, and hiding that their 1920x1080 gets "interpolated" from a 960x1080 chipset. So I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying "what's good for the goose and the gander and all that should be fully equally disclosed among all waterfowl."
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Again, maybe it's a language barrier, but I don't follow what you're saying. What "hurts"? Sony shows pictures between the 960x1080 V1U, the 960x540 HVX, and the 1440x1080 XLH1. All three show about the same level of detail, can you point out how having 3x as many pixels (on the Canon) makes any real difference on the final picture or helps their final picture that they show?
Click to expand...
i'm seeing a lot of differences in their sample.. and i just don't know why they're here when red is 4k.. i'm trying but i don't get it..

yes, maybe it is a language barrier.. i'm speaking the picture tongue and they are into other language..

will it be only a question of numbers?.. :grin:
 
Their pricing scheme makes no sense to me, what are they thinking they're offering for almost a thousand more dollars than the cannon?

True progressive? Ultimately digital indie filmmaking is about getting the best you can for the least money, because we had none.

That's what dvxuser used to be about before all the camera battle bs started.

A couple years ago the dvx was called expensive, now has money inflated so quickly that 4800 is the new 3800? I don't think so.

A lot of young people use these cameras, people that the extra grand is a big deal to, it's probably that single reason why the original dvx hit that sweet spot.

But now I feel like sony is pricing themselves slightly out the market.

If sony would smarten up and price this the same as the xh-a1 I can almost garentee that once it came out a single cannon would not leave the factory or wharehouse. But like this sony is essentially giving away thousands of sales. And for what? to protect the fx7? If that's the case it'd make more sense to just do away with the fx7 and translate all those sales into v1 sales, which at 3800-4000 they'd have no problem doing.

Or they could have the fx7 at 2999 and the v1 at 3900 and they'd immediately have the market in a stranglehold.

I'm sorry but I want to like this camera and I want to like sony but I'm just really confused.
 
I agree with you, ecking. I still think I'm going to go with the canon A1. It basicly offers everything that the sony offers (actualy the image control and resolution seems to be much better than sony's) for way less money. At the end of the day it's the image each camera produces that counts. Nobody is going to be watching a film made with the A1 and say "Amazing images...too bad it was not recorded with a CMOS, otherwise I would have liked it".
 
Last edited:
True. The A1 seems a better option at the moment. Cheaper, and with more resolution. At that price, what was Sony thinking?

Just a sigh of releif to finally see Sony getting into the progressive arena. Looks like they are listening, but apparently not enough. It'll take time...
 
agreed..

but worst than to be pro-sony is to be anti-sony.. (i was.. maybe i am yet.. :D)

c'mon people this is the new mini-cinealta.. it's a sony brand.. remember.. not a canon..

me likes high def canon but i hate the first footage available.. and this isn't the cinealta colorimeter.. those sony colors, well, are sony.. not anything else.. a blonde is a blonde not a brunnette..

still, see their sample on their website.. sony rules..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top