As mentioned, the Sony HX9v does excellent scaling from 16mp to HD. No moire and minimal aliasing.
My Canon 7d is 18mp and it does very bad scaling. I still love that camera and the lowlight it can achieve. What exactly makes the VG-20 to be worse?
FS100 vs AG20
- Thread starter jdv
- Start date
As mentioned, the Sony HX9v does excellent scaling from 16mp to HD. No moire and minimal aliasing.
My Canon 7d is 18mp and it does very bad scaling. I still love that camera and the lowlight it can achieve. What exactly makes the VG-20 to be worse?
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I'd say Canon might want to respond to the AF100 and the FS100, more than the VG20, but that's just a guess as the VG20 isn't out yet.
The Panasonic GH-2 also has a 16 Mpx high resolution sensor, but it shoots video with almost no moire or aliasing at all. It's also pretty good in low light, especially now with the high bit-rate hack. I see no reason why a new Sony camera can't do what a much cheaper Panasonic camera did 9 months ago.
I still hope that moire and aliasing have been taken care of with the VG20, otherwise I will ignore this camera just like I did with the VG10.
cuervo
Veteran
There is a thing called OLPF....In high-quality digital maging systems, optical low-pass filters (OLPF) are used to eliminate color Moire fringes. An OLPF cuts off the lens MTF above the sampling frequency of the imager resulting an overall MTF curve that approximates a step function in spatial domain. The thing about OLPF's is that they're optimized for either still imaging or video imaging. That's how higher megapixel sensors are made to work well with video cameras. The same OLPF that is applied to a video camera is not the same OLPF applied to a still camera. Which brings me back to my original statement, you can have a still camera or you can have a video camera. But, you can't have one that does both very well.
The Panasonic GH-2 does a pretty good job at both video and still photos ( only use RAW format for stills, as the GH-2 JPEG engine has problems ), but I think this is due to how the GH-2 down-samples the video image. Most still cameras use line skipping to down-sample, where it appears that the GH-2 does pixel-binning to bring things down to 1080 HD resolution.
But then it's useless as a still camera, which is how Sony is positioning the VG20, as a consumer camera that can do both video and stills. ( also means using a specialized video sensor, which Sony wants to keep for their higher end video cameras like the FS-100 )
NeedCreative
Well-known member
Sony claims they have minimized Moire and aliasing on the VG20; I'll believe it when I see it. (There aren't any great examples out there yet at full res). The FS100 is purpose built for video and even it can have luma moire on things like fine window screens and some mild aliasing. The VG20 is built off a stills chip which necessitates some kind of downsampling, line skipping, or something. Even if the processing is of high quality as with the GH2, you still have that OLPF issue to deal with so there's still a tradeoff in picture quality. And even if they somehow solved both of those issues, there's still a significant low light ability drop off because the S35 sensor in the F3 and FS100 uses 4X as much physical area to capture the light of one pixel. Physics wins there.
Combine these issues with the lack of a lot of professional features such as lack of XLR inputs, mini HDMI, and much more don't make me question at all the FS100 purchase (if we're comparing strictly against the VG20). It might be a viable option for a DSLR shooter however who is trying to minimize moire, aliasing, etc... IF indeed Sony has minimized those issues. They're used to needing external sound recorders and so forth anyway.
Combine these issues with the lack of a lot of professional features such as lack of XLR inputs, mini HDMI, and much more don't make me question at all the FS100 purchase (if we're comparing strictly against the VG20). It might be a viable option for a DSLR shooter however who is trying to minimize moire, aliasing, etc... IF indeed Sony has minimized those issues. They're used to needing external sound recorders and so forth anyway.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
Well, I suspect it would make for better VIDEO (as this is how the FS100 does it) but would make for worse STILLS. They want more megapixels for the stills people cause not many
stills shooters want a 2-3 megapixel camera.
Last edited:
The problem is that the VG20 is categorized as a camcorder. Who the hell cares about stills and RAW stills if I buy a videocamera! This the proof they don't want to kill the higher end cameras.
BUT If they had the same sensor wouldn't be better for them to sell 1000 VG20 for $1,5k instead of 100 fs100 for $5k? I guess I'll never understand economics
If the processing is done right, 4 small pixels can be addressed the same as one big pixel, with minimal difference in image quality. Also the firmware does not have to address the chip in the same manner for video as it does for stills. I don't know how the magic works inside these things, but they seem to get better every year. I intend to wait and see. there is no reason to assume that in won't be at least as good as a GH2, as the design is a year newer. The video quality could be every bit as good as the FS100, but that shouldn't matter, as they are made for different markets. We live in a vacuum on these boards and think that the big players should cater to our whims, but it doesn't work that way.
The vg20 is a high end consumer cam, and should perform as such. The FS100 has many features that are appropriate to its price point, and those that need it will buy into it. I like many here work with minimal resources and try to make the most of a small investment. If the quality falls within the ubiquitous realm of good enough, it may make it into to my kit. I have no doubt that it will be better than the current canon's as the tech is 3 years newer. It shouldn't cost several thousand to move up to a model with xlr, but it does. So you make a choice based on your own economics and what you do. If you've already bought into something else, you shouldn't need to defend it, just use the best you can until it is no longer useful, more than paid for itself, or you can afford to move on.
I appreciate the fact that we can now achieve 90% performance for 10% of the price, but there will always be times when that extra 10% is justified, and if the budget is there then go for it.
The vg20 is a high end consumer cam, and should perform as such. The FS100 has many features that are appropriate to its price point, and those that need it will buy into it. I like many here work with minimal resources and try to make the most of a small investment. If the quality falls within the ubiquitous realm of good enough, it may make it into to my kit. I have no doubt that it will be better than the current canon's as the tech is 3 years newer. It shouldn't cost several thousand to move up to a model with xlr, but it does. So you make a choice based on your own economics and what you do. If you've already bought into something else, you shouldn't need to defend it, just use the best you can until it is no longer useful, more than paid for itself, or you can afford to move on.
I appreciate the fact that we can now achieve 90% performance for 10% of the price, but there will always be times when that extra 10% is justified, and if the budget is there then go for it.
From reading what Sony has to say about VG20, it's obvious that the image quality has been improved over VG10. And could really only mean that the aliasing issue has been resolved or minimized. Here's a couple of quotes:
"Best-ever Full HD video image quality, audio and ergonomics"
"With refined ergonomics, improved imaging quality and upgraded sound, it provides several enhancements over the acclaimed NEX-VG10E"
http://presscentre.sony.eu/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=6938&NewsAreaID=2
"Best-ever Full HD video image quality, audio and ergonomics"
"With refined ergonomics, improved imaging quality and upgraded sound, it provides several enhancements over the acclaimed NEX-VG10E"
http://presscentre.sony.eu/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=6938&NewsAreaID=2
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I appreciate the fact that the VG20 is newer tech than the Canons. However, it has come out basically at the same time as the FS 100. One has to think, if doing things the VG 20 'way'
(16MP chip, to get better stills) was every bit as good as the 'FS 100' way (3.4 MP chip made expressly for motion) why Sony wouldn't have just made one chip and put it in both the VG20
and the FS 100?? I mean, they put the same chip in the FS 100 as they did in the F3 right? The processing isn't the same, and the F3 has a better image, but they use the same chip right?
So, my conclusion, (and this is only my opinion) is that there is something about the VG 20 chip that makes it better for stills and not quite as good for motion. If it were better
for stills and just as good at motion, why would they put it in their lower end camera and not the higher end one? Again, my guess is that although they position the VG 20 as a
'camcorder' they position it as a 'convergence' camcorder which does stills. If you can get just as good video from a still chip, why not just put the still chip in all the
video cameras and save money? If the GH2 chip from Panasonic is so good why not put that in their AF100? I don't know the answers, but I figure there MUST be some reason
they don't put the stills chips in the video cameras, even though many are saying they are just as good. Of course, maybe I am wrong, and it is just a ploy by the camera
makers to try to get some people to pay more money....
That being said, I think you are on to the same thing the HDSLR crowd is. When you can get very good performance for much less price, many will choose the lesser price.
I totally get that and agree.....I mean after all if it were just about image I'd have bought an F3 not an FS100.....or maybe a Epic, or an Alexa. Your point is, we first
look at our BUDGET, what we can spend on a camera, then try to buy the best one we can at that price point. And that, I agree with you on.
Last edited:
What I am trying to get at, and it is all speculation on all fronts, is that the mp numbers are marketing bs. There has been much speculation that the famous f3 chip is not really 3.4 mp pixels but rather photosites which can also be called pixels. These photo sites are made up of 4 actual on silicone pixels in a diagonal rgbg pattern. This results in a 16x9 effective area of roughly 14mp on a 16mp 3x2 chip. You need this much detail to get true 10 bit 444 color space that the f3 is capable of.
Now there is no question that the $15k F3 has better processing than the $5K fs100 which is likely better again than the $1500 vg20, but the differences are much closer than they were just a few years ago. This is as big of a watershed as when the original vx1000 mini dv, put a lot of $50,000 betacams out of work because the average end viewer could not tell the difference. Now of course productions with money will use higher end equipment, because it is more appropriate to the work conditions, but there is no reason why an indie filmmaker with talent and no money need to step up to the next level, and still be able to produce a product that is more than watchable.
rant aside it may very well be the same chip design, but we will never know because sony won't tell us. 16mp plays in the consumer market, 3.4 for pro video. The true video only cams probably have the olpf to go with it, among other things, but panasonic managed to work some mojo with the GH2 chip, and I have no doubt that if they really want to take the consumer convergence market, sony has the resources to do it.
Now there is no question that the $15k F3 has better processing than the $5K fs100 which is likely better again than the $1500 vg20, but the differences are much closer than they were just a few years ago. This is as big of a watershed as when the original vx1000 mini dv, put a lot of $50,000 betacams out of work because the average end viewer could not tell the difference. Now of course productions with money will use higher end equipment, because it is more appropriate to the work conditions, but there is no reason why an indie filmmaker with talent and no money need to step up to the next level, and still be able to produce a product that is more than watchable.
rant aside it may very well be the same chip design, but we will never know because sony won't tell us. 16mp plays in the consumer market, 3.4 for pro video. The true video only cams probably have the olpf to go with it, among other things, but panasonic managed to work some mojo with the GH2 chip, and I have no doubt that if they really want to take the consumer convergence market, sony has the resources to do it.
PabloOzzy
Active member
Its such an interesting time now - the FS100 is amazing, the F3 is breathtaking however costs $14kish and will soon have MASSIVE competition from the Red Epic-S model which should cost about the same and offer a world class of difference. Then back to earth for the budget constrained and you have the A77, brand new Nikons using Sony sensors to be announced in September (will they get it right this time?) and they better as Canon is strongly rumoured to be announcing the 5Dmk3 in September shipping October.
Honestly Im not touching my credit card until Christmas time when the dust has settled. I will rent whatever I need up till then that my trusty T2i cant handle.
Also I downloaded the raw A77 60p mts files via dp review - converted them with cineform to 24p and honestly the quality of the slow motion was outstanding. I could not fault it for the price on this cam! LOVE to see how it handles low light compared to the FS100.
Honestly Im not touching my credit card until Christmas time when the dust has settled. I will rent whatever I need up till then that my trusty T2i cant handle.
Also I downloaded the raw A77 60p mts files via dp review - converted them with cineform to 24p and honestly the quality of the slow motion was outstanding. I could not fault it for the price on this cam! LOVE to see how it handles low light compared to the FS100.
The GH2, FS100, F3, A77, NEX7, NEX5, AF100, and potentially the VG20 for starters. Two companies - Sony and Sam Yang - have also introduced nearly a dozen low cost lenses in the last year alone.
Besides that though, no reason at all.
PabloOzzy
Active member
I dont think canon will respond as such - I think they really follow their own course with not much more than a sideways glance at the competition. Im really hoping however they do release a killer 5Dmk3 and even better something that takes on the FS100 with more 'PRO' for less 'DOUGH' (hey that could be their slogan). Canon are uniquely placed to hammer the FS100 or even the F3 for that matter as unlike sony they dont have a multitude of sticky fingers in so many sticky pies. Canon dont have to worry about the F65 being cannibalised by the F3 or the F3 by the FS100 or the FS100 by the VG20 / A77. Of course I dont expect anything that revolutionary...canons 'response' years after the EX1 was nothing other than a 'here we are' catch up release. Who knows...maybe this time...;-)