HVR-V1E vs. HVX 200 - does it make sense?

[Century Media]

title says it all

 

[Deparon]

:beer: I do not think so.....

 

[David Jimerson]

Too soon to tell. But that slo-mo footage from the V1 was spectacularly bad. If that's Sony's answer to variable frame rates, it's no contest.

 

[DavidBeier]

Definatly too soon though certain statments about it being a stop slower than the Z1 and looking softer than it did aren't really encouraging.

 

[liebkid]

Guys, forget it. Long ago I lost hope on Sony's consumer/ prosumer products division. All the footage from the V1 that I have seen so far is probably the worse stuff I have seen in years. To call it ridiculous would be an understatement. There is flare, chromatic aberrations loss of details on everything I've seen from standard 24p short clips, while, the slow motion clips, look (literally) worse than a VHS tape. A joke!

Plus, I am actually s*h*o*c*k*e*d that no one has yet noticed (or at least mentioned) on the parachute footage (that I am assuming everyone has already seen) what is THE most ridiculous performance flaw of this camera (or any camera I have seen to day that is allegedly to be taken "seriously); when shooting directly on extra bright subjects like on a bulb, flashlight or the sun, the brightness center point saturates the CMOSes and they display a dark spot in the center!!! ah, ah... that's what the 1/4 VGA CMOS that's built-in on my cell phone does also! And Sony claims "no smear unlike CCD technology"... yeah... "no smear "and" center dark spots on high brightness objects", that's what they should have stated. The V1 is a joke.

Unless we have only been looking at clips from a pre-production model not reflecting the final quality of the camera, comparing it to the HVX (with all its limitations and flaws) is a no-no. There is no contest here.

 

[tnle2]

I dunno, seems pretty competitive to me:

V1U advantages:

• Lower Cost. Street prices: V1U - $4300 + $5 tape, XH-A1 - $4000 + $5 tape, HVX200 - $5300 + $500 P2 card
• Easy and cost effective archiving (tapes), especially when dual recording to optional HVR-DR60 HDD recorder.
• Optional tapeless workflow with HVR-DR60 ($1500) 60GB (4.5 hrs) HDD. Uses the same batteries as the camera; highly integrated with the camera. Small, lightweight and built-in shock protection.
• CMOS Sensor. CMOS is probably the wave of future. See this: http://hdtv.videotechnology.com/HDTV-CMOSvsCCD.htm
• Smaller and lighter. Empty weights: V1U - 3.6 lbs, Z1U - 4.6 lbs, XH-A1: 4.6 lbs, HVX200 - 5.5 lbs
• CMOS uses less power. Power consumption (recording with LCD on): V1U - 6.8 W, Z1U - 8.0 W, XH-A1 - unknown, HVX200 - 12.0 W
• HDMI 1440 x 1080 4:2:2 uncompressed digital output. XH-A1 and HVX200 only has analog component out.
• Long Running Time (60 min with tape).
• 20X zoom range with emphasis on telephoto. 35mm equivalents: V1U - 37.4-748mm, XH-A1: 32.5-650mm, HVX200: 32.5-423mm. Depending on your subject you may or may not like the lens range towards telephoto. I would have preferred that it started wider.
• Compatibility with most 60i decks. Records 24P/30P on 60i using progressive segmented frame (PsF) method. I believe this is same method used by the DVX100, HVX200 and XL2.
• More shutter speeds. V1U in 24P mode: 1/3 to 1/10000 sec. XH-A1 in 24F mode: 1/4 to 1/15000 sec. HVX200 in 24P mode: 1/12 to 1/1000 sec.
• Histogram in the VF and LCD. Also zebra and peaking can be shown at the same time.
• High quality LCD monitor. Sony cameras usually have pretty good LCD monitors.

HVX200 advantages:

• Variable framerates
• Wider lens
• 1/3" chips
• DVCPRO-HD 4:2:2 codec
• P2 (if you're into that)
• 720P/60P
• 16 bit/48kHz Four Channel PCM audio
• Available now. XH-A1 due late October, V1U due in December

 

[DavidBeier]

A few things about those statements:

• Lower Cost. Street prices: V1U - $4300 + $5 tape, XH-A1 - $4000 + $5 tape, HVX200 - $5300 + $500 P2 card

Well, first I think we were more comparing quality but if you factor in an HDV deck, which any professional should use since it's madness to capture on your head, the price advantage isn't quite so dramatic.

• Optional tapeless workflow with HVR-DR60 ($1500) 60GB (4.5 hrs) HDD. Uses the same batteries as the camera; highly integrated with the camera. Small, lightweight and built-in shock protection.

Don't see how this is an advantage over the HVX200 which already has numerous methods of tapeless workflow (at higher quality).

• CMOS Sensor. CMOS is probably the wave of future. See this: http://hdtv.videotechnology.com/HDTV-CMOSvsCCD.htm

Not really an argument. There are MANY flavors of CMOS (which, as a technology was for a long time considered inferior). If we have evidence the CMOS is producing a better image IN THIS CAMERA, then that's one thing but with a 1/4 chip and some questionable grabs, this statment is kind of silly. I fully believe digital will be the way of the future and one day take over from 35mm but I'm not gonna argue that an advatage of a crappy $300 mini-DV camera over a Panavision 35mm is that "digital is the way of the future."

• Compatibility with most 60i decks. Records 24P/30P on 60i using progressive segmented frame (PsF) method. I believe this is same method used by the DVX100, HVX200 and XL2.

Once again how is this a pro against the HVX200?

 

[alpi69]

How is the DoF on those 1/4 CMOS chips? Is it even worse than on the 1/3 CCDs chips? By worse I mean is everything sharp like on those small digicams?

 

[Tibby]

Well, first I think we were more comparing quality but if you factor in an HDV deck, which any professional should use since it's madness to capture on your head

Madness? Thats a bit of an overstatement. I've owned plenty of camcorders in my day. Consumer and professional. I've only had to replace tape heads twice.

I know were on DVXuser.com and the HVX is the preferred camera here, but tape based cameras do have the advantage of archiving.

Would you shoot a production on 35mm then throw away the negative after you've completed the film? Do you really want to archive your footage with DVD-R's and/or various hard drives?

I know I don't.

 

[Barry_Green]

How is the DoF on those 1/4 CMOS chips? Is it even worse than on the 1/3 CCDs chips? By worse I mean is everything sharp like on those small digicams?

We'll have to try it to know. Sony's making a claim that because of the diagonal orientation of the pixels, that they're getting nearly the same surface area. Same surface area would mean same field of view which would mean same DOF at the same focal length.

But I don't know if anyone's tried it against a comparable 1/3" to see if there's much difference.

 

[DavidBeier]

Notice my comparison was against several other 1/3" HD cameras, not just the HVX200. Some of the listed V1U advantages are against those other cameras.

Ahh but we were discussing just the camera vs the HVX. And, just for the record, both the HD100, XLH1, and no doubt the A1 can work with a portible hard disk like the firestore so I'm not sure what you mean about tapeless workflow.

How is the DoF on those 1/4 CMOS chips? Is it even worse than on the 1/3 CCDs chips? By worse I mean is everything sharp like on those small digicams?

Yes. Smaller imagers neccesitate shorter lenses and thus shallower DoF. Though I guess with the longer zoom you could arguably get just a shallow a DoF from the camera though you'll have to be farther away.

Madness? Thats a bit of an overstatement. I've owned plenty of camcorders in my day. Consumer and professional. I've only had to replace tape heads twice.

It's simply standard protocal for any profesional to have a deck, be it a cheapo mini-DV cam back in the DVX days and now unfortunatly something capible of HDV for most of the lower end HD cameras. One of the iron clad rules that every pro I know observes is WE DO NOT CAPTURE FROM OUR GOOD SHOOTING CAMERAS.

I know were on DVXuser.com and the HVX is the preferred camera here, but tape based cameras do have the advantage of archiving.

Tape has its pros and cons. They are different. I'm not denying that shooting tape is cheaper (if you're just gonna drop it off for the studio and never have to catpure yourself) and that archiving is easier but there are advantages to tapeless as well (no wasted time capturing, no footage issues because of dirty heads).

Would you shoot a production on 35mm then throw away the negative after you've completed the film?

That's a terrible analogy and you should know better. The data is identical no matter what you put it on not like a 35mm analogue signal where copying will always degrade in one shape or form. If you want to make an analogy to 35mm film, then the far better one would be comparing P2 to the film magazines. The data is what the film is and you can back it up anyway you want. I certainly hope you don't keep 500 SD memory cards lying around for ever picture you've ever taken on a digital camera.

Do you really want to archive your footage with DVD-R's and/or various hard drives?[/qutoe]

I do. Right now on my desk is a case of 15 DVDs from a ten minute promo video I did for a school. Each one is labeled with the footage it has on it and with the appropriate thumbnails so I can see what's there. I'm now going to shoot a recruitment video for the same school and it's quite nice that I can easily grab old footage that I'd like to use in this new video without having to sift through an hour long tape which not only wears it down and degrades the image (theoretically) but also slowly degrades my heads.

 

[db20]

Personally i think the canon XH A1 will be more of a threat to the hvx200 sales then the Sony Hvr-V1e. So far (its still to early to make conclusions though) i've been alot more impressed with the XH A1 24f then the Sony Hvr-v1e 24p footage.

 

[Flash Beaver]

Well it may make sense to a lot of people to go Sony or HDV for that matter, but certainly not here. This is just my opinion based on (sometimes painful) experience out here in the woods. So I'll just address a couple of posted advantages on this topic and give you my take. It might not be agreeable to a lot of people, but then again, it is my opinion....

V1U advantages:

• Lower Cost. Street prices: V1U - $4300 + $5 tape, XH-A1 - $4000 + $5 tape, HVX200 - $5300 + $500 P2 card

Well maybe for those that like HDV if you're into that, sure $4300 sounds great, but I was happy to get away from tape and never look back so the only way I see this camera is $4300 + $1600 for $5,900 still cheaper but I sure love being able to edit my DVCPRO HD footage on a my refurb powerbook with no hangups.

And once again you get to blow $6,000 for a camera with what appears as a fair bit of CA, heavy compression and 4:2:0 colorspace which is a real ***** for the mattework and layering jobs I've been working with. Thanks but no thanks....

• Easy and cost effective archiving (tapes), especially when dual recording to optional HVR-DR60 HDD recorder.

I dump right to two 250G caviar drives straight from P2 store. I conisitently secure those drives for $150.00 a pair so I get a working drive for 720/30pn that's roughly 480 minutes or 8 hours with a backup. At $18.75 per hour with a backup, that beats 1 Sony Master tape for HDV @ $19.99

I have a set of modified enclosures that let my drives run hard and happy and no need for any kind of playback device, dedicated or camera.

• Optional tapeless workflow with HVR-DR60 ($1500) 60GB (4.5 hrs) HDD. Uses the same batteries as the camera; highly integrated with the camera. Small, lightweight and built-in shock protection.

Hey let it record in a format thats not HDV and maybe this would actually be cool, but otherwise this just doesn't work for me.

• Smaller and lighter. Empty weights: V1U - 3.6 lbs, Z1U - 4.6 lbs, XH-A1: 4.6 lbs, HVX200 - 5.5 lbs

I use my Tortlerig or a tripod with the exception of the fast shot here and there. The only handycam configuration I would give the time of day for lightweight is the HVR-A1U, and while being HDV and having a few erogonomic issues, is a gem of camera. So the weight here just doesn't count for this little beaver.

:bath:

And that's pretty much the way it goes on our end. Going from the HVX200 back to Sony setup, for me, would be like dropping an In-N-Out 4x4 with grilled onions for a lukewarm Quarter Pounder with cheese, just to save a buck or two, and wind up doing the Ronald McDonald two-step later on. Thanks but no thanks!

Maybe this Sony is going to be a GREAT choice for many but certainly not at this beaver dam....

Show me a Sony A2U with progressive modes and I'll buy a couple up for shooting on the rivers with it, otherwise don't come knockin' at my door Sony. Just my take on it.

 

[Flash Beaver]

It's simply standard protocal for any profesional to have a deck, be it a cheapo mini-DV cam back in the DVX days and now unfortunatly something capible of HDV for most of the lower end HD cameras. One of the iron clad rules that every pro I know observes is WE DO NOT CAPTURE FROM OUR GOOD SHOOTING CAMERAS.

Here, here To that Mr. Beier!!! :thumbup:

 

[tnle2]

Barry, I'm pretty sure the V1U has a 1/4" optical system for 1/4" sized sensors. I think the claim about the pixel surface area being the same as a 1/3" chip is just for light sensitivity. I can't remember where I read that and it was vague so I'm not sure what they were talking about. But based on the lens specs, the 35mm multiplier for the V1U is 9.6 while for the XH-A1 it is 7.2, which is typical for a 1/3" sensor.

To compare the DOF between 1/4" and 1/3" sensors I did some calculations:

Assuming you had this shot setup:

• FOV: 100mm lens (in 35mm terms)
• Aperture: f/2
• Distance to subject: 5 feet

The DOF would be:

1/4" sensor:

• Actual focal length: 10.4mm
• Circle of Confusion: 0.003
• Near focus distance: 4' 7.4"
• Far focus distance: 5' 5.5"
• Depth of field: 0' 10.1"

1/3" sensor:

• Actual focal length: 13.9mm
• Circle of Confusion: 0.004
• Near focus distance: 4' 8.5"
• Far focus distance: 5' 4"
• Depth of field: 0' 7.5"

Super35mm Cine:

• Actual focal length: 68mm
• Circle of Confusion: 0.019
• Near focus distance: 4' 11.3"
• Far focus distance: 5' 0.7"
• Depth of field: 0' 1.4"

Obviously the 1/4" sensor will have deeper DOF than a 1/3" sensor but at this subject distance and aperture, it is only about 35% more. Compare to Super35, the 1/3" sensor is about 535% more. The difference in DOF between 1/4" and 1/3" isn't as great as some alarmists would lead you to believe.

DISCLAIMER: These DOF calculations are only for the typical medium close up shot setup I described. DOF does not change linearly so you'd have to do the calculations again if you wanted to check another setup. Also feel free to re-check my calculations--it's always possible I made a mistake.

 

[harddrive]

Sony's making a claim that because of the diagonal orientation of the pixels, that they're getting nearly the same surface area. Same surface area would mean same field of view which would mean same DOF at the same focal length.

The claim that Sony are actually making is that EACH PIXEL is the same surface area as on a previous 1/3" chip - the implication being that more area is being given to active usage, less to the inter-pixel bands. The diagonal orientation is another matter entirely, and I believe the reasoning is to bring the axes of maximum resolution to be H/V, rather than on the diagonal, and to couple it with horizontal pixel shift. An extension of Panasonics double pixel shift if you like.

The surface area of the entire chip is indeed less than on a 1/3" model (otherwise it would itself be 1/3"!) with all the DOF implications that implies - you can't change the laws of physics. In practice, I'd tend to go along with what Tim says above - DOF will be greater, but not vastly so.

The most interesting thing about this camera to me are the CMOS chips. Up until now, CMOS has had many attractions potentially, but has equally had serious drawbacks to be overcome. All the indicators now seem to be that technology has moved to the extent that CMOS is now fully viable, and we can expect CCD to go the way of the CRT. That is increasingly likely to apply to professional cameras, not just pro/consumer models.

In terms of a comparison with the HVX200, I'd expect it to show far better latitude and highlight handling as a result - whilst using much less power. The HVX will still maintain it's unique ability to do variable frame rates though.

 

[THoff]

... the brightness center point saturates the CMOSes and they display a dark spot in the center ...

True, but you have to admit the dark spot is alot easier to deal with in post than vertical smear.

 

[Flash Beaver]

In terms of a comparison with the HVX200, I'd expect it to show far better latitude and highlight handling as a result - whilst using much less power. The HVX will still maintain it's unique ability to do variable frame rates though.

Hey there Harddrive,

The single chip CMOS camera I worked with did in fact have a lot more latitude especially in the outdoors, and it turned out that I could go a very long way with some very minimal ND filtering.

When I shot two Sony's against each other the Cmos A1U really gave the Z1U a wicked run for the money outdoors. Thats why we were hooked on this camera. Of course inside the Z1U with three chips reversed that but the A1U still held in there.

An HVX-xxx with big fat CMOS sensors, done right, would be just great and so would the reduced power needs you might get as well. Maybe if its good enough for the RED it would be good enough for the HVX.

 

[Kholi]

Well maybe for those that like HDV if you're into that, sure $4300 sounds great, but I was happy to get away from tape and never look back so the only way I see this camera is $4300 + $1600 for $5,900 still cheaper but I sure love being able to edit my DVCPRO HD footage on a my refurb powerbook with no hangups.

And once again you get to blow $6,000 for a camera with what appears as a fair bit of CA, heavy compression and 4:2:0 colorspace which is a real ***** for the mattework and layering jobs I've been working with. Thanks but no thanks....

I have a question here: I notice that people are gung-ho about the DVCpro HD capture. 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0. But, from what I've seen, the DVCpro HD footage breaks down a lot easier than the 4:2:0 coming from the XH G1. Don't ask me about Sony's V1u... the footage I saw didn't excite me enough and the HDMI has become a bit of a "meh" point.

Do you think that the DVCpro HD footage breaks down quickly? I'll invite you to check out DVinfo for G1 footage shot on the fly and mess with it; it holds up extremely well, especially for unprepared footage.

I do have raw p2 footage on my G5 and I've compared how easy it is to destroy it in Final Cut just by trying to increase the saturation or drive contrast.

 

[DavidBeier]

^
No idea what you are talking about there Kholi. I've messed with HD100 HDV, Z1 HDV, and HVX200 DCProHD and the DVCPro holds up FAR better when CCing. It's not even a contest. I really can't see any logical reason why a 25mbs codec with interframe encoding and half the color space would hold up better than a 100mbs one. The only thing which would theoeticallly be better is the higher horizontal sampling (1440 for HDV over 1280 for DVCPro).