V1u review, article, footage, grabs

[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?

 

[tnle2]

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). 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.

 

[tnle2]

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.