Bob's Notes On the Sony EX-1 From DV Expo

[BobDiaz]

There's a great deal of interest in the video community regarding the new Sony PMW EX-1 HD Camera. The big questions from many is, should I get this camera rather than the Panasonic HVX-200? Forums like this one are an ideal place to share information. While I'm no expert on this camera, I'll tell you what I do know and address areas that I'm unsure about.

My 3 basic guidelines are:

(1) The perfect video camera does NOT exist. Every camera is a tradeoff between different things.

(2) Paper specification can only tell you so much; the real test is in a side by side comparison.

(3) Everyone has different views as to that is critical to them. Thus, what may be seen as minor to one person, may be major to another.

DATA RATES:

The Panasonic HVX-200 records at up to 100Mb/second in 1080,60i/30p and in 720,60p. For other modes, like 720,24P, the data rate is lower. I'm unaware of anyone reporting problems with compression noise with the HVX-200 data rates.

It is possible that someone might have a gripe that the HDPRO100 format does sub-sample the HD image. That is, 1920h x 1080v is recorded as 1280h x 1080v and 1280h x 720v is recorded as 960h x 720v. The key advantage to the HDPRO100 format is that every frame of video sits on its own and is not compressed with the other frames in an MPEG format.

The Sony EX-1 has lower data rates of 25Mb/s and 35 Mb/s. It does record the full HD resolutions of 1920h x 1080v and 1280h x 720v at the higher data rate of 35Mb/s. However, in order to do so at 35Mb/s, it must use MPEG-2, Long GOP compression.

This turns out to be both a blessing and a curse at the same time. Users of the Sony Z1 discovered that a very fast pan could overload the CODEC with too much data and generate compression noise blocks. The Z1 recorded a sub-sampled HD image (1440h x 1080v) to tape at 25Mb/s and while MPEG-2 does very well when the number of changes in the image aren't too great, it does fall apart when the number of changes are excessive.

Not all CODECs are equal, so some do a better job of compressing the data than others. The higher the recorded data rate, the less likely that compression noise could appear; even if you do a rapid pan and try to overload the CODEC.

You might assume that with a HQ mode of 35Mb/s, this is an increase of 1.4x the number of bits per second compared to 25Mb/s found on the Sony Z1. However, the horizontal recorded resolution also increases between the Z1 (and any other 1080 HDV camera) from 1440h at 25Mb/s to 1920h at 35Mb/s. This means that the horizontal data increases by a factor of 1.3333...x.

When we take into account the increased horizontal resolution of the HQ, 35Mb/s mode, the data rate only increases by 1.05x. While we do increase the recorded horizontal resolution in the HQ mode on the EX-1, we are not lowering the compression ratio very much compared to the 25Mb/s SP mode.

Does this matter? It all depends on what you are shooting and how good is the CODEC inside the EX-1. Unfortunately, I can't say if this is a big issue or not. We'll have to wait for feedback from users to know if the EX-1 has a problem with excessive motion or not.

The good news is that if your shoot at 1080, 24P, the amount of data you generate is about 80% that of 1080, 60i/30p. Also, if you shoot at 720, 60p, the amount of data generated is 89% of the 1080, 60i/30p mode. The higher progressive frame rate would be better for motion anyway. If you drop the frame rate to 720, 24P, the data rate would be only 36% of the highest mode.

The lower resolutions and frame rates are less likely to encounter compression noise due to overloading the CODEC with too much data. One interesting factor is that at 35Mb/s, the camera records in VBR (Variable Bit Rate) mode. Thus, if it needs the higher data rate, to avoid compression noise, the camera will take it, BUT if the higher data compression rate isn't needed, the camera will record at a lower data rate. Thus, with some shots, you may find you time is longer than 50 minutes per 16GB in HQ mode.


IMAGE QUALITY:

To me the images from the Sony Ex-1 looked very good. Of interest is the following WEB page:

http://www.genkosha.co.jp/vs/sp/200712/

I took parts from each image and placed them in an 800x600 image for you to see the differences. In the first image below, we see the Panasonic HVX-200 on top and the Sony EX-1 below. Both look good, but the Sony seems to be sharper, just look at the print on the bottle on the left of the image. However, when I look at the colors, the HVX-200's colors just looks richer.

EDIT ADDED; IMPORTANT: When I wrote this I failed to point out that the images for the HVX looked a bit off. Because I pulled someone else's work, I really don't know how much effort they took, if any, to make the HVX look proper. In retrospect, to me it looks like whoever generated the original images, did a poor job. So take the following images with a grain of salt

In the 720, 30p mode, the sharpness difference is not as much as the 1080p mode. However, the colors on the HVX are still richer than the EX-1.

LOW LIGHT PERFORMANCE:

The specification sheet for the EX-1 says, 0.14 lux. However most people miss the fact that the long shutter must be used or an exposure time of 1.07 seconds. OK, for a still shot, but not OK for anything with movement.

If we take into account an exposure like 1/24 of a second, the minimum illumination would be, 3.6 lux. This is slightly above the HVX's specification of 3 lux. However, this is where a paper specification can be misleading.

To me the EX-1's image noise seems less at +18dB of gain than the HXV appeared at +12dB of gain. I could be wrong about this, because I was not able to do a side by side comparison. Until someone does a side by side test, my best guess is that the EX-1 may do slightly better in very low lighting conditions.

In trying to point the camera to a dark area in the booth, the image still looked OK at +18dB of gain. It had a lot of noise, but was still useable; still some may limit the gain to +12 or even +6 dB gain.


IN CLOSING:

There's so much more I could say about the camera, but it's getting late and I've written almost 3 pares of comments on my word processor.

Let me just close by saying, that the EX-1 camera appears to be very interesting in terms of what it has to offer. Should someone get it instead of the Panasonic HVX-200? That's not so easy to answer, we already know the weak and strong point of the HVX, but the EX-1 is yet to be fully tested in the field. So, for now, the jury is out on that issue...


Bob Diaz

 

[harddrive]

Both look good, but the Sony seems to be sharper, just look at the print on the bottle on the left of the image. However, when I look at the colors, the HVX-200's colors just looks richer.

My own feeling is that they are remarkably consistent in terms of colour rendition, but the HVX is just a bit more saturated. (And with more obvious noise.) I suspect the saturation difference could be easily changed to make them more similar. From what I've seen so far, if I was choosing between the two on the basis of still images, it's a one-horse race, to the extent that these comparisons remind me of the HD v SD comparisons when the Z1 first emerged. That's before we even start to compare low light performance, and I've seen first hand how vastly better the Ex is here.

But OK - we're not buying still cameras, add movement and a lot of other factors come into play, and I'm keeping an open mind over those at the moment.

 

[Stevet]

LOL, Wow... Bob, you're joking, even the "untrained eye" knows the HVX200 comparison shot you posted (we've all seen these images) shows the HVX200 images were way over saturated.

LOL... On top of that, just look at the noise an compression artifacts on the HVX200 1080P shot.

I can't believe you posted these samples. This makes the HVX200 look horrible.
I would of liked to of seen a comparison example from the HVX200 that doesn't look this bad, this over saturated with blown out highlights.
Also, look how nasty the artificial sharpening looks. Take a look at the HVX200's yellow and white ball.

 

[BobDiaz]

One of the problems with the photos is that I'm taking someone else's work without knowing what they did. Did they bother to properly adjust the cameras OR did they just shoot at default settings? I really don't know for sure. Given that I've seen better images from the HVX, I tend to think that maybe the photos are at default settings or at least not adjusted properly. I forgot to point that out when I wrote up the comments on the photos.

One other thing, people are looking at the images about 2 feet from the monitor. To be the equivalent of watching an HDTV, one should sit back about 3 or 4 feet from their computer monitor.

It is a fact that the Sony EX-1 has the full 1920x1080 image sensor, roughly 2MP. However the HVX-200 has 0.5MP image sensors, but because of the offset, it's like having a 1MP image sensor. When the HVX-200 was compared to the Canon H1 (1440x1080i image sensor), the Canon was sharper. However, sharpness is NOT the only parameter that makes for a good image.


To me the strong point for the HVX-200 is the 720p mode. While the HVX lacks the sharpness for a true 1080 resolution, it appears good enough for 720 and given that over cranking and under cranking are only possible in 720 mode, there's a lot of incentive for picking 720 mode.


I have to go to work now, but after work, I'll post some of the better photos I'm found taken from the HVX-200.


Bob Diaz

 

[Stevet]

One of the problems with the photos is that I'm taking someone else's work without knowing what they did. Did they bother to properly adjust the cameras OR did they just shoot at default settings?
Bob Diaz

Bob sorry about my hasty post.
You are absolutely correct!

That's why I mentioned I would not of used this comparison.

We've all seen the HVX200 produce some nice footage.
It's possible that there was to much sharpening that actually made the image to harsh and enhance the noise.

The reviewer should of just "thrown in the towel" for detail and sharpness and just rendered out a smoother HVX200 image. We all know the HVX200 does not offer high rez, but a lot of users are sure capable of making cinematic stuff.

 

[harddrive]

One of the problems with the photos is that I'm taking someone else's work without knowing what they did. Did they bother to properly adjust the cameras OR did they just shoot at default settings? I really don't know for sure. Given that I've seen better images from the HVX, I tend to think that maybe the photos are at default settings or at least not adjusted properly.

But they seem to show that relative to the EX the HVX is not only much softer, but has more edge enhancement added as well! Even if we accept that the HVX may be better off with less detail, surely that is only going to make it even softer looking by comparison?

From various aspects of the comparison photos it looks to me as if someone has taken a lot of trouble to provide as accurate a comparison as possible, and to then look at the images, note that the EX looks far better than the HVX, and then to draw the conclusion that "In retrospect, to me it looks like whoever generated the original images, did a poor job. So take the following images with a grain of salt" seems very presumptive, and likely downright unfair.

It comes across that you have already decided that the HVX image MUST be better, and because it undeniably isn't, the messenger must be blamed - they can't have done the tests very well. That could be true, but until there is evidence to support it, it seems an unfair assumption.

 

[Stevet]

I agree with harddrive.

We all know that the HVX200 can produce nice footage. That's quite obvious by just looking at all the great work that's been displayed here.

Also, I believe everyone knows where the HVX200 excels and where it comes short. In fact, this knowledge is what makes the skilled users get
the best from their cameras.

Unfortunately, image detail and noise have been less than adequate. What the HVX200 brought to the table is its feature list as a mini varicam.
It really was the break through in sub $10K technology.

Let's face it, things are going to get real hot in the next three years.
First the HVX200, and now the EX1 have pushed the innovations even quicker.

 

[3xm]

competition is good! It forces both companies to give us better products. While I stopped being a fan of Sony Camcorders long ago, I am still glad that they appear to finally come up with something worth competing with the HVX/XL-H1.

 

[BobDiaz]

Harddrive,

First, there's no way that the HVX's three 920x540 1/3" CCDs can match the sharpness of the the EX's three 1920x1080 1/2" CMOS sensors. So as for sharpness, I believe we all agree that the EX wins that round.

The issue was was bringing up was not related to sharpness, but to the image noise in the HVX. If you look at the red in the toy car on the 1080 HVX image, the noise level is higher than what I'd expect for the HVX.

The photos, shown below are cropped from a 1080, 24P shot, while you can see they could be sharper (a limitation of the HVX) but, the colors are very good and there's no noise in the image.

My guess is that whoever shot the comparison photos, may have tried to sharpen up the HVX a bit too much and got the noise in the image.

As far as image quality, IF THE HVX IS SET CORRECTLY, it can produce beautiful images. I've seen enough images and there are enough people on the forum to back up that statement.

In the case of the Sony EX-1, everything I've seen so far looks very good also. It may well be that the EX-1 is a bit more forgiving than the HVX when it comes to settings. However, that remains to be tested under controlled conditions.


Bob Diaz

 

[Barry_Green]

Besides, we've been down this road before. When the XL2 came out it was sharper than the DVX; DVX still made what a lot of people thought was a better-looking picture overall and it was less expensive and much more widely adopted; probably outsold the XL2 by a factor of at least 20 to 1.

Then the XLH1 came out and it was sharper (in 60i mode, at least) than the HVX, and certain people jumped on it. But the HVX still produced lovely-enough pictures and at a lower price point, and the HVX outsold the XLH1 by an order of maybe 50 to 1.

Now we have the EX1, which looks to do more of the same -- sharper clearer pictures at a higher price tag. And I predict that everyone who was tempted by the XL2, and everyone who was tempted by the XLH1, will also be falling in love with the EX1 for all the same reasons that they chose the XLH1 and XL2 before. And they'll still be mystified as to why the mass market continues to buy the HVX and puts up with (what they consider) softer, grainier pictures... But they will. The HVX makes lovely filmlike footage, is less expensive, and has an established workflow. The parallels to the prior camera introductions are strikingly similar. Whether the EX1 outsells the HVX, or the HVX outsells the EX1, should be irrelevant; the question is whether the product you buy does what you want, and if someone else buys something else that should be okay.

So NOBODY IS SAYING that the HVX is sharper than an EX1. Not gonna argue that for a moment. But just like with the prior examples, there are redeeming factors to each unit that are going to appeal to specific buyers. That should be okay with everyone. Those who clamor for the EX1 to be "an HVX killer" are just likely to be disappointed. As to WHY they'd want a particular product to be killed off, I guess that's the real question.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I want it all!

Great images at Great prices!

 

[Barry_Green]

You can have that. It just depends on your definition of "great". Some people think the Red One represents great images at a great price. Others think the HV20 meets that mark. So... how great is great?

 

[David Jimerson]

First the HVX200, and now the EX1 have pushed the innovations even quicker.

Now, come on. Let's be fair here.

The EX1 has a sharper image, as you would expect. Some people are going to love it, no question. Might even be a dream come true camera for some.

But other than the interesting focus ring, what's "innovative" about the EX1? It looks, feature-wise, to be a straight-up copy of the HVX, just with Sony codec and memory implementation and a minor variation here and there.

 

[ESTEBEVERDE]

You can have that. It just depends on your definition of "great". Some people think the Red One represents great images at a great price. Others think the HV20 meets that mark. So... how great is great?

Exactly! :beer:

 

[Digigenic]

Now, come on. Let's be fair here.

.... other than the interesting focus ring, what's "innovative" about the EX1? It looks, feature-wise, to be a straight-up copy of the HVX, just with Sony codec and memory implementation and a minor variation here and there.

Well, there are more differences to note.
One in particular is the sensor design in the EX1, IMHO, it is noticably more advanced.
But of course, when fully explored it too can have its disadvantages.

At any rate, copying/sharing applies across the line for all cameras in a competing class.
Which is why I sometimes refer to the big four (Sony, Panasonic, JVC, Canon) as an oligarchy. Being responsive, yet considerate of eachother, it appears as if they market their video cameras in complete collusion with one another.
Sometimes it's fun to speculate what _______(insert any of those four camera manufacturer's name) will announce or release to 'defeat' their competitor, but you only need to see it all cycle around so many times before the pattern of a manufactured echo becomes apparent.

I'm not trying to discredit the unique value and functionality an owner may feel for their camera systems, because I have my preferences too.
But, in reality I think it's unreasonable for people to seek out an 'end-all' solution to surface among these particular manufacturers at this time.
They have much more to gain working with one another than against one another.
It's debatable whether or not consumers stand to gain anything signficant in this relationship.

 

[tnle2]

Now, come on. Let's be fair here.

But other than the interesting focus ring, what's "innovative" about the EX1? It looks, feature-wise, to be a straight-up copy of the HVX, just with Sony codec and memory implementation and a minor variation here and there.

I disagree. I don't see how it can be a copy. If would be unfair to call it a copy. The only unique things in common are the overcrank/undercrank ability, sideways battery mount and a form of solid state recording. In terms of being a camera (that is, ignoring the recording and storage formats), it improves on the HVX200 in almost every way:

• Fully manual focus ring with hard stops, with AF and optical image stabilization (AFAIK, until now, no fully manual lens had AF and OIS).
• Iris ring like an ENG lens
• 14X lens instead of 13X and by all accounts a very good lens with minimal CA and breathing
• Larger 1/2" chips for more sensitivity and shallower DOF WRT 1/3"
• High-resolution 640x480 LCD for critical focus
• LCD placed forward for better viewing
• Variable Frames Rates, but adjustable in 1 frame increments over the entire range
• Histogram Display
• Depth-of-Field Indicator
• Brightness-Level Display (in addition to two-levels of Zebras)
• Expanded focus check while recording
• Slow shutter function
• Rotary Grip
• HD-SDI out

Again, I didn't mention anything about image quality, CODEC, or recording media which is always up for debate. I'm just talking about it being a camera and the operator interfaces. So in that regard, the EX1 arguably has many innovations over the HVX200, which is understandable since the HVX200 is a two-year old camera.

And to be fair to the HVX200, it was a very innovative camera for its time and no doubt it pushed Sony to included some of the same features while at the same time improving them. If Panasonic comes out with another camera that includes some of EX1's good features while also improving them too, then I wouldn't call them copying Sony either. They're all just trying to make better cameras for us to use. So we should be encouraging these competitive developments instead of denigrating them as copies.

 

[David Jimerson]

I disagree. I don't see how it can be a copy. If would be unfair to call it a copy. The only unique things in common are the sideways battery mount and a form of solid state recording.

I wasn't talking about copying the physical form.

And yes, there are slight improvements here and there (I did mention the focus ring specifically, and "variations") as well . . .

But slight "improvements" do not "innovations" make, especially if you're just talking about 14x vs. 13x zoom. And the HVX does indeed have some of the things you mention in your list, and a number of things the EX1 doesn't do. They're both very full-featured cameras.

An "innovation" breaks new ground. Yes, yes; half-inch chips; nifty focus ring. Cool things for the sub-$10K market which haven't been seen before.

But the list of the HVX's firsts in that market is quite lengthy. The EX1, not so much. For a company whose slogan is "where others imitate, Sony innovates," the EX1 sure looks like a rather specific imitation to me.

Which, on the whole, doesn't even mean that it can't be an objectively "better" camera, if there were such a thing, and obviously, some people find it preferable. But also, objectively speaking, to try to compare its level of innovation with the HVX's is like starting on third and thinking you hit a triple.

That's all I'm saying.

Now, what the EX1 DOES do is add another camera to the sub-$10K market with a similar feature set to the HVX, which did not exist until the EX1 -- and it drives forward competition, which can only be a good thing,

 

[Stevet]

I hear where you're coming form David, I guess it depends on the individual.

I'm considering 1/2" more than slight, but you are right, regardless, the additons to the EX1 is going to make everyone step up further.

We're all thinking Panasonic, but let's not forget JVC. I would not be surprised if they "threw out a hand of aces"

I know a lot of people may say, wait, what about their HD250 and so on, well, I believe things have now changed in this sub-10K market (Which you just mentioned).

Even companies such as Cineform are "lighting the spark" with talk of their
sub $2K portable Cineform recorder. Speaking of which, I wish Sony or Panasonic would "bite the bullet" and offer this codec as an internal capture solution.

Sorry for the run of corny cliches. LOL

 

[harddrive]

Now, come on. Let's be fair here.

But other than the interesting focus ring, what's "innovative" about the EX1? It looks, feature-wise, to be a straight-up copy of the HVX, just with Sony codec and memory implementation and a minor variation here and there.

Minor variation!? Totally ignoring any image considerations, it's unique (AFAIK) in bringing true manual features to a non-interchangeable lens, which now seems so obvious that you wonder why it wasn't done before. Why has the choice had to be manual interchangeable lenses OR servo fixed?

Implementing 1/2" chips in a form factor that has hitherto been associated with 1/3" or smaller I would also call highly innovative.

I don't think anyone is saying the HVX is bad, just that at least still frames from the EX are very much better, and I don't think any amount of tweaking is going to change that. I was struck by how good *both* seemed in the colourimetry sense in Bobs first pictures, and indeed how similar in that respect. The big difference was the better sharpness of the EX, and especially that it seemed achieved with LESS edginess!

But what will JVC do indeed. Until the HD100 came out, I rated them as a poor also ran to Panasonic and Sony - but the HD100 redefined what ergonomics people could expect in a camera of this price (an area the EX can easily be criticised in), and the 200 series (with 50/60fps support, etc) consolidated the range. If they keep up the pace, the next generation could be very interesting indeed.

 

[tnle2]

I also understand what you are saying David and I definitely agree that the HVX200 introduced unheard of features for its price point at its time. Panasonic was no doubt "Slightly Ahead of It's Time" with that camera. The DVX100 was also a big game changer with 24P, a wide lens and things like zoom and focus scales in the VF.

I guess I have a different opinion as to what's important in a camera. What you consider "nifty" and "slight improvements," I consider huge leaps in my ability to operate these prosumer cameras. In my opinion (and I think most people agree), all of these cameras from Sony, Panasonic, Canon and JVC shoot VERY good pictures 95% of the time. So then what should matter is how the camera allows me to operate it quickly and efficiently and any extra specialized features needed to shoot that last remaining 5%.

To a camera operator, the three most important things they need to get right are focus, exposure and white balance. The EX1 addresses the first two in major ways with repeatable manual focus, a very high resolution LCD to check focus, and numerous exposure indicators. It also has specialized features like slow shutter that enables you to do specialized things like time-lapse at night. These little features may not generate big headlines, but they are precisely what is needed by operators to get the shots.

I guess my problem is with political statements about companies like who is more "innovative" than the other or like whether one product is a straight-up a copy of another. These statements tend to be inflammatory because they put one product down based on political reasons. All this does is further brand wars on internet forums instead of constructive discussions about the practical merits or weaknesses of the equipment. Since you're a moderator of this forum, I would think you would want to avoid such inflammatory comments.