New inexpensive Sony, 1920x1080 60p • 24Mbps

B

billh

Well-known member
SAN DIEGO, Jan. 31, 2011 – Sony today unveiled two new 16.2-megapixel Cyber-shot® digital still cameras that offer Full HD video shooting capability - Recording video at 60 progressive frames per second (1920x1080 60p • 24Mbps) - Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 4.8-144mm (27-810mm equiv.) F2.8(W) 5.6(T), Video output • HDMI • NTSC/ PAL
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020110sonyhx100vhx9v.asp
 
1080 60p for $450.....I am sure I will get one of these as well.
The 3D and Panorama 3D sounds interesting as well.
 
24Mbps 1080p60? thats 2.5x more compressed than 1080p24 at the same bitrate. So basically equivalent compression to 1080p24 at 9.6Mbps. Doesn't sound great. With the price of cameras like the GH1/2 so low, its hard to get excited about 1/2" video at such low bitrates and unknown quality, even if it comes in a 1080p60 wrapper.
 
nyvz said:
24Mbps 1080p60? thats 2.5x more compressed than 1080p24 at the same bitrate. So basically equivalent compression to 1080p24 at 9.6Mbps. Doesn't sound great. With the price of cameras like the GH1/2 so low, its hard to get excited about 1/2" video at such low bitrates and unknown quality, even if it comes in a 1080p60 wrapper.
Click to expand...

That is the same as the data rate on the AF100 at 1080/60p. Generally, there is much less difference between each frame (at 60p), so the codec doesn't have to work as hard... ensuring a good picture quality.
 
With a weight 215g, the HX9V looks like a great candidate for remote control helicopter use. Too bad the 720p is a throwaway at 30 fps and only 6Mbps of bitrate.
 
stockfuel said:
That is the same as the data rate on the AF100 at 1080/60p. Generally, there is much less difference between each frame (at 60p), so the codec doesn't have to work as hard... ensuring a good picture quality.
Click to expand...

You are right, I looked at the AF100 Brochure and here is what it says:

The PH mode was developed for AVCCAM by
Panasonic exclusively for high-quality
professional video production. This mode
boasts a maximum AVCHD bit rate of 24
Mbps (average: 21 Mbps) and records 1920
x 1080 full-HD images.
 
According to Barry's book, the AF100 "cheats" in variable frame rate (VFR) modes and records something more like 35 Mbps at 1080p x 60 fps. It gets away with this because a) when the recording is played back, it comes back under the 24 Mbps codec limit again (because it is being played back slower) and b) it doesn't record audio in variable frame modes so it also has extra bandwidth to play with for the video signal.

The "cheating" is why you need a faster class of SD card to record overcrank with the AF100.

Cheers, Hywel.
 
stockfuel said:
That is the same as the data rate on the AF100 at 1080/60p.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. The AF100 expands its data rate for higher frame rates. It runs about 35mbps when at 60p.

Generally, there is much less difference between each frame (at 60p), so the codec doesn't have to work as hard... ensuring a good picture quality.
Click to expand...
This does seem to be true, yes -- that you don't need to scale the bitrate by 2.5x in order to encode 2.5x as many frames, because the changes between frames are less.
 
Barry_Green said:
No it isn't. The AF100 expands its data rate for higher frame rates. It runs about 35mbps when at 60p.
Click to expand...

Therefore the A100 image quality (sensor size aside) will be significantly better then the inexpensive Sony - correct? Isn’t the GH2 17 Mbps at 720/60P?
What factors are involved in achieving high Mbps rates, and is this the main determiner of video image quality?
Thanks,
Bill
 
Well, there's no way to know for sure how they'll compare until you actually get both of 'em side by side and compare them. However, it would certainly be a reasonable assumption that the video from a $4700 professional video camera is going to be substantially superior to the video coming off of a, what, $600 stills camera?

High data rates are not in and of themselves an indicator of quality. For example, the 21mbps of AVCCAM is superior in visual fidelity to 35mbps of XDCAM-EX. The 24mbps of an AF100 is much superior to the 50mbps of a Canon 7D. The 24mbps of the GH2 is better than the 40mbps of a hacked GH13.

It's not just about the megabits, it's about how they're used. MPEG-4 > MPEG-2. Long-GoP can be more efficient than intraframe. IBP is way better than IPP. CABAC or CAVLC. There's all sorts of things that go into determining whether a codec is efficient or not, and how efficient it is.

In the simplest possible rule, look to the pricetag. The more expensive the product is, the more likely it is (LIKELY, not GUARANTEED) that they're using better hardware in there that makes for more efficient compression. The GH1 was horribly inefficient; you could occasionally get great results out of it, and occasionally awful results. The GH2 has a small bandwidth boost (24 instead of 17mbps) but the video is 10x better. It's just massively improved. It has better video encoding, it has a full IBP structure instead of the GH1/7D/5D/60D IPPP structure, etc. The AF100 is better still because it uses CAVLC instead of CABAC. And the amount of memory the compressor chip has available to it makes a difference.

The Nikon D90 uses 14mbps of MJPG. The GH2's 17mbps is infinitely superior to what the D90 can do... the D90's MJPG is intraframe-only, the GH2 uses interframe long-GoP, which lets it get a great deal of efficiency by only compressing the changes between frames, not the entirety of each and every frame. You might not think that 17mbps is that much better than the D90's 14mbps, but it really, really is.

So you cannot ever judge bitrate from one product to another, unless you know the whole story. The only time bitrate can be used is when all other factors are equal. In an HMC150, you have your choice of 13mbps HG mode or 17mbps HA mode. In that comparison, you can definitively say that 17mbps is better than 13mbps, because they're all the same codec compressing all the same data, the only thing different is the bitrate, and so in that case, more bitrate = better footage. Or, in the EX1, it has 25mbps mode and 35mbps mode, and unquestionably the 35mbps mode is superior to the 25mbps mode. However, the 17mbps HA mode of AVCCAM is about equivalent to the 35mbps mode of the XDCAM-EX camera.

So be careful with bitrates. They are only one factor in determining codec quality, and they are usually not the most important factor.
 
Good post Barry. I read about this new camera today and came here to get the skinny. Looks like I came to the right place.
 
Also note the sensor size here guys. NOT that DOF is EVERYTHING....not going there. But...do note that. I'm sure I'll prob buy this cam, cuz...compact cams and me have "a thing". (Geez...I really need to cut back) :)

I'm interested to know if there is manual control over video. Before anyone "scoffs"....bear in mind that one of it's competitors (not superzoom...but compact wondercam...LX5) IS IN FACT FULL MANUAL CONTROL. (Shutter, ISO, Aperture) So...I wonder if this one is too? Interesting.
 
Barry_Green said:
In the simplest possible rule, look to the pricetag. The more expensive the product is, the more likely it is (LIKELY, not GUARANTEED) that they're using better hardware
Click to expand...

I agree with what Barry says, but one nice thing about consumer products is that you get more bang for your buck.

For every "digital cinema" camera you sell, you will sell ten news cameras.
For every ten news cameras you sell, you will sell ten prosumer cameras.
For every ten prosumer cameras you sell, you will sell ten consumer cameras.

The reason a piece of hardware cost more than the metal and plastic it's made of is the R&D.
Now R&D is often millions of dollars per product, but it is a one time cost per product. Once you turn the blueprints to the factory, you can just start stamping them out. The more you sell, the more the factory cost per unit approaches the cost of materials. There are some electronic parts that are just a few dollars. For example, the main ARM processors that go into smart phones I hear are about $20 a piece. Each chip has millions of transistors. R&D was millions of dollars. But they're stamping out millions of them.

When I took up the drums, I found that a good drum set costs as much as a used car. Now which is more complicated? A car or a drum set? I could buy a netbook for the price of one crash cymbal. It's because a lot more people buy cars and computers than drum sets.

So, yes, a $4000 camera is certainly better than a $400 one, but not necessarily 10 times better, so don't be ashamed to buy one.
 
Barry, Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my question with this explanation.

The AF100 is 21Mbps AVCCAM (AVCHD is AVCCAM) - correct? I could quickly see the difference in quality between my hacked GH13 and the GH2, but comparing the differences between the GH2 and EX1R was not as easy. What I did notice was the Blu-ray quality between the GH2 and the EX1R on a 60 inch Sony. I only did one comparison, but finally the GH2 Blu-ray was as good as the high def video programs I see. This both amazed and delighted me.

Now I really want to read your book! Is it available for purchase yet?

Bill
 
I’m not ashamed to buy one. I bought a couple of cheap cameras that also took video, and this is what introduced me to your fascinating video world. But like with still cameras and lenses, I like to know the differences between them in quality. The two main advantages I find with the consumer cameras is light weight and size, and the fact that no one even notices them when you are using one. That is decidedly not the case if I am using the Sony EX1R or D3s with large lenses.

I’ve never lost the love of telling a story with photos that I developed as a newspaper photographer in the 60s/70s. You can imagine the excitement I felt when I “discovered” video with these inexpensive cameras - remembering clips and sequencing them in my mind helps keep aging neurons active too. Of course the lack of image quality soon led me on a search for better cameras. I found the SLRs like the 5D hopelessly difficult to use for video, and tried several video cameras before settling on the EX1R. I love the camera, but would love to find something as good (preferably better) in a smaller, lighter package.


combatentropy said:
I agree with what Barry says, but one nice thing about consumer products is that you get more bang for your buck.

For every "digital cinema" camera you sell, you will sell ten news cameras.
For every ten news cameras you sell, you will sell ten prosumer cameras.
For every ten prosumer cameras you sell, you will sell ten consumer cameras.

The reason a piece of hardware cost more than the metal and plastic it's made of is the R&D.
Now R&D is often millions of dollars per product, but it is a one time cost per product. Once you turn the blueprints to the factory, you can just start stamping them out. The more you sell, the more the factory cost per unit approaches the cost of materials. There are some electronic parts that are just a few dollars. For example, the main ARM processors that go into smart phones I hear are about $20 a piece. Each chip has millions of transistors. R&D was millions of dollars. But they're stamping out millions of them.

When I took up the drums, I found that a good drum set costs as much as a used car. Now which is more complicated? A car or a drum set? I could buy a netbook for the price of one crash cymbal. It's because a lot more people buy cars and computers than drum sets.

So, yes, a $4000 camera is certainly better than a $400 one, but not necessarily 10 times better, so don't be ashamed to buy one.
Click to expand...
 
So, yes, a $4000 camera is certainly better than a $400 one, but not necessarily 10 times better, so don't be ashamed to buy one.
Click to expand...
Indeed....there is NO CHANCE that the IQ is 10 times better. It's probably not 2 times better. (No judgement here....I'm just saying that the newer compact cams are better all the time). Here's an example of what is reasonable to expect from the Sony camera. This is some footy from the Canon S95. No color correction, nothing fancy, just me watching the sunset with my daughter. The BEST thing about this class of camera is that you can have it "on your person" at all times. My Canon S95 is my car and I only take it out to charge it. This is one those occasions when I used it. (BTW, if you saw it on a 50inch plasma...it would really freak you out...the quality was COMPLETELY unexpected)


Here's one that is also from the S95 that has some color correction. (Not shot by me)


The point is: Sony has a compact cam that has some strong specs for it category. These vids above are just 2 examples of why to get excited. The IQ on these cameras is CLOSING FAST. Would I compare these cameras to the AF100? Sure! Just like a wagon and an F-15 Jet Fighter....they can both transport a person from one place to another. :) If I have a choice, and I want to shoot somthing professional TRUST ME....I don't reach for the S95. Even compared to my T2i, trying to get something professional out of a compact camera is NOT FUN...and WAY TOO MUCH WORK. Compared to the AF100?....uh....ya.....no comparison....PERIOD. That said....if that's your thought process, (can the S95/LX5/new Sony ~REPLACE~ the AF100) that's your fault for poorly comparing this category of cam. THE TRUE COMPARISON for this category of camera is this:

Which looks better?

  1. The video above with my daughter...or
  2. No video...because my AF100 doesn't fit in my pocket

NOW WE'RE TALKING!!! :) That's ***obviously*** not a criticism....it's a categorization. They have different purposes. BOTTOM LINE: Someone please purchase this camera when it comes out...stick it in your pocket when you walk out the door (when you can't take another camera)....shoot some properly framed footy...post...and show us the way! These cams are so much fun....especially when you can't carry another one with you. I call it: Pocket Cinematography....AKA....lots of fun! Way to go Sony! I look forward to seeing your offering!

ps....When you can choose and you are shooting something professional....use the AF100, or some other full-fledged professional camera. :)
 
Last edited:
This is shot with GH2 and the 14-140 Lumix as a test to show a client.
I was going to get the AF100 but instead I have ordered another GH2.

I sat with this client for hours looking at all the AF100 footage
we could find. In the past we shot many of his shows with the HVX200.
I could not find any good GH2 interview clips. I did find people shots on the GH2
but they were usually shakey because they were handheld.
So I did the test for him so we could decide if the GH2 was going to cut it.
He wants to use the GH2 instead of the AF100. I am not getting paid
any less than I do shooting HVX200 for him. He just said the quality
of the GH2 blows him away. Download the 1080p and take a look at it.

I have a plan to record Audio with a two Zooms and I have tested
using a cable that goes from the Zoom to the GH2 and it sounds good.
My audio guy will be recording all the audio to his digital recorder as well.
If the GH2 audio hits a glitch I will have a back-up.

 
Last edited:
Why is anyone comparing this to any sort of prosumer camera with removable lens? Lots of people out there like having a camera they can just point and shoot something without worrying about DOF or much else. With all my pro gear, my favorite camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 I bought over 2 years ago for 225.00. It even shoots raw stills and has manual color balance available. Best 225.00 I ever spent on still/video equipment. Offers up to 720x30p video in Mjeg instead of AVC. Been banged up, dropped, rained on...and it's still kicking.
It is definitely not pro. but it is fun.
 
1080/60p is expected to propagate throughout the entire Sony range from point-and-shoots, mirrorless cameras, to dSLRs. The rumor is that the A77/A770 is expected to be 1080p/60. And It shouldn't just be Sony, I would expect 1080p/60 to become a standard feature on many cameras from many brands in the coming year.

Image sensors and ISP(Image signal processors) these days are so fast and run so cool that it really is inevitable. We're really coming to a point where even higher resolutions and even higher frame rates are possible. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 120 fps camera (at maybe 720p) coming out in the next year or two.

Obviously, this camera is not going to compete against the dSLRs in terms of IQ, much less the AF100, but we have to come to expect some bullet-point features like 1080/60p, HDR, and 3D to become a common place feature on even inexpensive cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top