Adam Wilt takes a look at the Sony V1U

240 fps!!!! Cool!, but I wish they didn't upconvert them in camera. It would be fun to mess around with the raw pixel count before uprez. Too bad it's only 3-6-12 seconds worth. It looks like it has potential but the 4lux kinda sucks, especially when the main feature on the PD150/170's was their low light capability.

The CMOS sensor allows scanning from a reduced area at higher than normal speeds. The V1 exploits this with Smooth Slow Recording: the camera captures 3 seconds of 640 x 360 pixel video (or 6 or 12 seconds of 512 x 320 pixel video) to an internal memory buffer at 240 fps, for a 4x slow-mo. It then up-converts these small pix to DV(CAM) or HDV depending on format settings, and records them to tape. The resulting clips are a bit soft and show some compression artifacts. Although they won't intercut cleanly with full-res material, they're perfectly suited for motion analysis work-the system's symbology for Smooth Slow Recording shows a stylized golfer, the target market for the many low-res, high-speed shooting schemes available on various camcorders.
 
I have a Sony HC3 with "Smooth Slow Recording." It's pretty much a gimmick. Yes, the slow-mo is cool, but there's a massive loss of resolution. Maybe it's useful for golfers, but not for broadcast.
 
I had a chance to play with a V1 briefly and look at some slow motion footage and it's not as awful as people are saying. Yes, it lowers the res, that is for certain, down to about SD resolution, but when ressing it up, it's not horribly noticeable, only mildly so. So it all depends on what you are hoping to use that slow motion for. If you're looking to go 1080p out to a plasma monitor, or project it in a theater, yes, it will suffer. But for most uses, it's quite nice.

As to the camera, I found the balance and size of it were excellent, and the 20x zoom lens very nice. I was also impressed with the digital zoom to 30x on there. It's very difficult to tell that it's interpolated. And having an HDMI output sweetens the deal.

The only area where I noticed a lag was in the low light, very low light, where a fine noise was apparent. I didn't notice the "oil paint" effect, but again, I didn't use the camera a lot, and didn't look for it. I also admit that Sony's proprietary accessories and workflow is a pain in the rear.

All in all, I prefer the Canon A1, but not by a million miles. I'm not sure why the V1 is being so quickly discounted by so many, without giving it credit for what it actually can do, which is quite a bit actually.
 
This isn't about slow motion. If you raise the gain it lowers the overall resolution. In progressive it shows "substantial softening" going from 800 lines down to 600 at 6dB gain and 540 LINES OR LESS at 9dB and above. Both H and V resolution are affected.
 
From the explaination provided by the V1 engineer it seems like the softening effect is similar to the A1's Noise Reduction 1 and 2 features, except that it's automatic and can't be turned off.
 
true, the decrease in resolution is a side effect in order to achive NR.

about gain and resolution loss: when shooting in 24p with any camera, why would you want gain in the first place (unless you are doing a doc)? we all know by now that 24p isn't a point and shoot function. when shooting 24p for a narrative, you'd expect to be lighting low-light situations anyway, as supposed to flicking a switch. right?

being able to shoot 1080p24 to tape is quite something (even if NLE's are still catching up). i think this cam's biggest issue is the rolling shutter which i'm sure contributes to the oil paint effect that is sommetimes visible and it's 1/4" chips. all those pixels on such a small chip!
 
janusz said:
...when shooting 24p for a narrative, you'd expect to be lighting low-light situations anyway, as supposed to flicking a switch. right?
Click to expand...
Which was my point from before. I completely agree with you.

janusz said:
and it's 1/4" chips. all those pixels on such a small chip!
Click to expand...
Sony's argument is that the chips are rotated, thus you get more pixel area, equal to 1/3" chips. The other benefit (I wasn't able to test) about the argument for chip rotation is that you're less susecptable to vertical smearing, and other digital artifacting.
 
Chip rotation has nothing to do with vertical smearing, instead it's the nature of CMOS chips that prevents vertical smearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top