7D 7D, 5D vs. new SONY NEX VG1O ??

[Barry_Green]

Barry, I think this all the time!!! ALL THE TIME!!!! PEOPLE, these cameras are AWESOME!!!! Just think back to where we started and if your new to the game google digibeta lol.... WE ARE LUCKY to have the ability to b**ch and moan about these cameras!

Seriously -- if this had hit three years ago, it would have been game/set/match for everyone. But today, it's being marginalized because it's consumer-only and it's going up against the likes of the GH13 (for half the price) or the AF100 (with all the pro features and optimized for no aliasing/moire etc).

But if it'd come out before the DSLRs, it'd probably own the category. As it is, I think it's too little too late (for the filmmaker crowd), because it doesn't offer 24p or pro features. Still, I think there'll be a market for it. I mean, I thought HDV was a lousy format for pros to shoot on, but there's lots more shooters out there than pros, and the HDV format did pretty well among consumers for the last few years.

 

[Barry_Green]

I still don't like being locked in at 60fps, interlaced OR progressive. Why didn't they give us more options?

Because it's not made for you! It's made for handycam tourists. It's a handycam. It is not made for filmmakers or professionals.

The surest path to frustration is to try to use a product for a purpose other than that for which it was designed.

 

[Erich Ocean]

All HDMI output on every camera is before compression, that I know of. I don't know every camera intimately, obviously, but I can't think of one that sends a compressed-and-then-decompressed output to its HDMI (except for playback, of course).

DSLRs do it after compression. It makes no sense to hook up a Ki Pro to the HDMI output of a DSLR.

 

[Barry_Green]

The problem with me is, I need a camera AS GOOD as the upcoming Scarlet (if it ever comes out), and in a price range under the cost of a new RED-One, right now, not 5 years down the line.

Do you also want a 40GHz CPU and a teleportation machine to go with it?

So, my search goes on, just like it has for the last 2 years.

And may go on for another two. If what you want doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. Might want to revisit your budget. Or look at getting a used Red One.

Or, if you like the Scarlet, see if the SI2K will fit the bill. Or ditch video entirely and go with a Super16 or Ultra16 movie camera. I just bought a CP GSMO off ebay for $1250. Yes, an Ultra16 widescreen 16mm motion picture camera, for less than the cost of a GH1.

 

[Barry_Green]

DSLRs do it after compression.

No they don't. The system doesn't process h.264 long-GoP compression, and then uncompress it and display it. This I (95%) guarantee you.

It makes no sense to hook up a Ki Pro to the HDMI output of a DSLR.

I agree, but for different reasons.

 

[Erich Ocean]

No they don't. The system doesn't process h.264 long-GoP compression, and then uncompress it and display it. This I (95%) guarantee you.

I agree. What I'm trying to convey is that DSLR do not push the image pre-compression to the HDMI port. They monkey with it -- downscaling, whatever -- before it goes out. No DSLR outputs 1080p 422 video off the sensor, before the compressor, on the HDMI port (with our without overlays).

I suspect we agree, there's just no established terminology to describe what the DSLRs are doing to the image. What they're definitely *not* doing is what a camcorder does.

 

[Barry_Green]

I'll agree with that. When I say "pre-compression" I mean that the compressed recording format is not applied to it.

But what the DSLR outputs is clearly not a regular/standard/proper 1920x1080 4:2:2 signal. It may not have undergone h.264 compression, but it's not pristine.

 

[Rakesh Jacob]

Just my 2 pennys: It's definitely a step in the right direction! The form factor of the DSLR has been killing me, sure I got used to it, but man it would be great not to feel like Jimmy Olsen anymore! Yes they went consumer first, BUT I think that's a good thing because consumers are whiney babies (I mean so are filmmakers but there's not as many of us) And whiney babies get what they want, so they are gonna make sure this thing is rock solid. This is going to translate to a better product for us. I mean all they have to do is add 24p and some audio ins to get the ball rolling! It's gonna happen sooner than later. And Sony is a big dog in the camcorder game so they are gonna push the market forward with this thing.
Boy if this thing would have come out before the vDSLRs, I would have sold both my wife's kidneys for it. It is cute and I can't wait to use a proper video camera again, I feel like freaking journalism student everytime I'm out shooting

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

Because it's not made for you! It's made for handycam tourists. It's a handycam. It is not made for filmmakers or professionals.

The surest path to frustration is to try to use a product for a purpose other than that for which it was designed.

Exactly.

Wrong design choice that simply ignores a huge user base.

 

[stoneinapond]

.... that simply ignores a huge user base.

Don't kid yourself.

 

[dcloud]

im somehow expecting panasonic to come up with something similar except it has a 24p... wrapped in 60i.. LOL

So if panny releases something similar to the vg10 but with 24p on 60i, 60p, (basically same as a tm700) would you guys prefer it over af100?
now if someone hacked that to do 24p native now thats a killer!

 

[Moses Chisel]

just been looking at the specs....


f (35mm conversion): Camera mode (mm) 32.4 - 360
f (35mm conversion): Memory mode (mm) 3:2 Mode ; 27 – 300 / 16:9 Mode; 32.4 - 360

which looks to me like a 1.5x crop in stills mode and a 1.8x in movie mode


I wonder if it using less chip area for movie?

=bad news for fast wide glass

 

[Ben_B]

just been looking at the specs....


f (35mm conversion): Camera mode (mm) 32.4 - 360
f (35mm conversion): Memory mode (mm) 3:2 Mode ; 27 – 300 / 16:9 Mode; 32.4 - 360

which looks to me like a 1.5x crop in stills mode and a 1.8x in movie mode


I wonder if it using less chip area for movie?

=bad news for fast wide glass

It must crop the top and bottom for movie. In any case with an APS-C sensor the crop factor is...non-existent, 1x, vs 35mm motion picture film, which is what any person in the industry will compare it to. This phenomenon of comparing things to 35mm full frame photography is a recent thing and really doesn't make much sense, given that the only camera out there that shoots worthwhile video with that frame size is the 5D, and that professional motion picture film cameras shoot with what you would call a crop factor. If you read in American Cinematographer that a DP used a 24mm lens on film, that lens will have the same FOV on your 7D or your VG10 as it did for that DP.

 

[Lammy]

The pal version of SONY NEX VG1O be 25p no pull down?

 

[Moses Chisel]

Well I,m aware of those things except a 1.5x 3:2 cropped to 16:9 would give 1.57x

yet the specs are saying 1.8x ...

It must crop the top and bottom for movie. In any case with an APS-C sensor the crop factor is...non-existent, 1x, vs 35mm motion picture film, which is what any person in the industry will compare it to. This phenomenon of comparing things to 35mm full frame photography is a recent thing and really doesn't make much sense, given that the only camera out there that shoots worthwhile video with that frame size is the 5D, and that professional motion picture film cameras shoot with what you would call a crop factor. If you read in American Cinematographer that a DP used a 24mm lens on film, that lens will have the same FOV on your 7D or your VG10 as it did for that DP.

 

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

I also would not be surprised if this is closely followed by a pro model with 24p and xlr's. This seems to be the way sony does things. If you want 24p you must be pro and can pay a bit more.

Not everyone welcomed the PsF standard, however. Some industry observers maintained that native 24p processing would have been a better and cleaner choice. Charles Poynton, an authority in digital television, made the following remark in his book: "Proponents of [PsF] scheme claim compatibility with interlaced processing and recording equipment, a dubious objective in my view."[1] William F. Schreiber, former Director of the Advanced Television Research Program at IT, suspected that the continued advocacy of interlaced equipment originated from consumer electronics companies that were trying to get back the substantial investments they had made in obsolete technology.

That's a very disgusting way of doing business.

 

[Snapper123]

I just honestly think that any camera that cannot be compatible, easily, with digital projectors is just a waste. Anyone with any knack of talent should have the realistic dream of doing film tours and per-day cinema showings, but without a camera that adopts compatible formats, resolutions, and frame rates, that dream is pretty much busted for the people who do have the talent to create films that overwise "look" like cinema films. We seem to be still stuck in the age where only Dogme-95 and Shaky Cam films can be passed off as "hey, yeah, we can show this stuff in the cinema's, the processing flaws will even make it better."

I think the current entire field of sub-$2000 camcorders is completely geared for Youtube, Online standard definition "sized" videos, Cable Television, DVD, ect ect, and anyone with any knack of talent would find those outlets to be incredibly insulting and stupid. Just like with 8MM film which is about equal to 720P or 1080P resolution size, people should be able to make indie films without technical flaws such as aliasing and quality loss. That's why I'd be up for using 8mm or 16mm film even nowadays, it's simply a perfect medium that would convert to 2K digitally without flaw. Sadly, the big downfall is that it's slightly even more expensive than today's camcorders, from what I gather. But I really am considering 8mm if the camera companies don't come out with a 100% perfect sub-$1000 1080P camcorder without aliasing in a month. It'd be different if we were judging 4K cameras, but 1080P is a awfully small resolution size (incredibly behind the times and technology, like it or not), and since it's very small, the camera companies should be at least doing perfect for the formats and camera options.

Just, there is no 1080P sub-$1000 camcorder that all around is useable for cinema films, from what it seems, and that should have been invented way back in 2006. The technology has existed for years, but is spread out in dozens incredibly flawed camera companies and models, simply because no camera company wants to make the "perfect 1080P camera" simply because it'd make their previous models absolete. No one wants to re-invent 1080P and Digital in a time where everyone and their mother has invested in sucky cameras of the past 4 years. It sucks. No one cares what would have been the standard 3 years ago, this is 2010, which is about 2020 on a technology level. (Ask anyone from the camera companies, they know that their abilities are 10X more advanced that the cameras they are putting out. It's obvious in the perfect $10,000 models they sell.)

I mean seriously, Red One, Arri, and all them cameras are out there. None of them are worth over $5,000. So why can't Canon loose a tiny drop of money, be the next Henry Ford, and make us all some $1,000 2K Progressive NO aliasing cameras? They'd become a king. Same for whatever company in question. Sony. Panasonic. Whomever does this first will be an eternal king. And the technology has existed for about a decade. It's even cheap to make. So why not? It's simply because they don't want their previous models to all be discarded. But another 1982 has to happen again, companies were brave back then, now, they are afraid of loosing a dime even though they make billions of dollars. It's just complete stupidity that hurts everyone.

Basically, even 1080P is sticking around only because Youtube supports it. Otherwise, 2K would be the current standard, I believe. Possibly even 3K. Either the camera companies need to get better sensors (as Canon has horrible sensors I believe) and keep to 1080P, or they need to stick with the current sensors and jack up the resolution to 3K. Both of these options would produce excellent results quite equally, when all is said and done. But both are as equally expensive for the companies, so it probably will not happen.

 

[Ben_B]

Basically, even 1080P is sticking around only because Youtube supports it. Otherwise, 2K would be the current standard, I believe. Possibly even 3K. Either the camera companies need to get better sensors (as Canon has horrible sensors I believe) and keep to 1080P, or they need to stick with the current sensors and jack up the resolution to 3K. Both of these options would produce excellent results quite equally, when all is said and done. But both are as equally expensive for the companies, so it probably will not happen.

Constantly striving towards increasing resolution is a fools errand IMO. We're very close to hitting the threshold of pixel density that can be perceived by the human eye anyway! We already hit in in smaller screens like the iPhone 4's. Are you really sitting only 5' away from your 40" TV? If you're sitting further away you're actually not even seeing the full 1080P! With 4K you'd have to sit 3 times closer! 1.6 feet! Constantly increasing resolution is a waste of time because, at least in the short (until we get crazy holography and VR type stuff) term it's not going to solve the problem that you can't fit a 20 foot screen in your house so you can fully enjoy your 4K video at a comfortable (or not with a screen that large) 10 foot viewing distance. So you move further back because 10 feet is too close...and then you don't need a 4k anymore. See the issue?

1080P basically has us in our happy place already....doesn't need to be much higher, except for going to the IMAX...but at that point I'd prefer 70mm film to any digital anyday anyway.

 

[flinty]

I just honestly think that any camera that cannot be compatible, easily, with digital projectors is just a waste. Anyone with any knack of talent should have the realistic dream of doing film tours and per-day cinema showings, but without a camera that adopts compatible formats, resolutions, and frame rates, that dream is pretty much busted for the people who do have the talent to create films that overwise "look" like cinema films. We seem to be still stuck in the age where only Dogme-95 and Shaky Cam films can be passed off as "hey, yeah, we can show this stuff in the cinema's, the processing flaws will even make it better."

I think the current entire field of sub-$2000 camcorders is completely geared for Youtube, Online standard definition "sized" videos, Cable Television, DVD, ect ect, and anyone with any knack of talent would find those outlets to be incredibly insulting and stupid. Just like with 8MM film which is about equal to 720P or 1080P resolution size, people should be able to make indie films without technical flaws such as aliasing and quality loss. That's why I'd be up for using 8mm or 16mm film even nowadays, it's simply a perfect medium that would convert to 2K digitally without flaw. Sadly, the big downfall is that it's slightly even more expensive than today's camcorders, from what I gather. But I really am considering 8mm if the camera companies don't come out with a 100% perfect sub-$1000 1080P camcorder without aliasing in a month. It'd be different if we were judging 4K cameras, but 1080P is a awfully small resolution size (incredibly behind the times and technology, like it or not), and since it's very small, the camera companies should be at least doing perfect for the formats and camera options.

Just, there is no 1080P sub-$1000 camcorder that all around is useable for cinema films, from what it seems, and that should have been invented way back in 2006. The technology has existed for years, but is spread out in dozens incredibly flawed camera companies and models, simply because no camera company wants to make the "perfect 1080P camera" simply because it'd make their previous models absolete. No one wants to re-invent 1080P and Digital in a time where everyone and their mother has invested in sucky cameras of the past 4 years. It sucks. No one cares what would have been the standard 3 years ago, this is 2010, which is about 2020 on a technology level. (Ask anyone from the camera companies, they know that their abilities are 10X more advanced that the cameras they are putting out. It's obvious in the perfect $10,000 models they sell.)

I mean seriously, Red One, Arri, and all them cameras are out there. None of them are worth over $5,000. So why can't Canon loose a tiny drop of money, be the next Henry Ford, and make us all some $1,000 2K Progressive NO aliasing cameras? They'd become a king. Same for whatever company in question. Sony. Panasonic. Whomever does this first will be an eternal king. And the technology has existed for about a decade. It's even cheap to make. So why not? It's simply because they don't want their previous models to all be discarded. But another 1982 has to happen again, companies were brave back then, now, they are afraid of loosing a dime even though they make billions of dollars. It's just complete stupidity that hurts everyone.

Basically, even 1080P is sticking around only because Youtube supports it. Otherwise, 2K would be the current standard, I believe. Possibly even 3K. Either the camera companies need to get better sensors (as Canon has horrible sensors I believe) and keep to 1080P, or they need to stick with the current sensors and jack up the resolution to 3K. Both of these options would produce excellent results quite equally, when all is said and done. But both are as equally expensive for the companies, so it probably will not happen.

So you are saying 8mm film can equal 1920P 2k video resolution rogar-BigGrin(DBG) have another look at the HD tranfered film in the film section ,still only mini dv resolution .

 

[G.P.]

ok before all of you attack each other with charts and specs and selling grandmothers...

There is a reason why they didn't add 24p and xlr's ... Its because they are already making a 4/3's PRO model that does 50Mbit/s, 24p, and xlrs with a slightly bigger body.

You just have to wait for it to come out... So before all of you shoot down the handycam, the real thing this little handycam is showing us is that they already are doing it and WILL have what we want very shortly.

They are not using this for consumer only, its just easier to come up with a consumer spec camera than a pro, so the consumer version came out first. It takes more developmental time, money and knowhow to please the pro world, so it takes longer to produce a pro product.

The fact that this camera came out already show's you the pro model wont be but a season or 2 behind it.

So don't sell your grandma just yet, don't hit yourselves over the head with resolution charts and graphs, and please don't start with the insane numbers of price vs. image quality vs. interlaced vs. film vs. lens vs. what you already own...

It will be here shortly, put your grandma in a safe place for now but boy when the new cameras come out be ready to sell!