Official Sony NEX-VG10 Thread

[steventimothy]

Perhaps some people have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed today...

Someone got up on the troll-y, derp-y side of bed today

There's so many logical people on this forum that to see the inverse was... a little weird.

 

[stip]

From a Sony point of view they had to cut some features as it's a consumer line product at only 2000$. There aren't a lot of alternatives to framerates. Which brings me back to the actual target group for it, it'll be interesting to see how it sells.

 

[Noel Evans]

From a Sony point of view they had to cut some features as it's a consumer line product at only 2000$.

Good point.

 

[steventimothy]

From a Sony point of view they had to cut some features as it's a consumer line product at only 2000$. There aren't a lot of alternatives to framerates. Which brings me back to the actual target group for it, it'll be interesting to see how it sells.

Exactly, there's nothing wrong with the camera, it's the price I find a challenge. However, time will tell whether they lined up their supply/demand curves properly.

 

[Curtis_Rhoads]

What I find funny, is how they're achieving the 60i. The sensor is being read at 30p, and then written as 60i. Why not just write the 30p. It's not that much harder, and would silence quite a few people.

 

[CMcMahon]

I just looked. Nope, didn't see it. (I am referring to highly complex, detailed footage shot in 1080i/60 AVCHD at 17 Mbps and rendered to 1080p/30 MPEG-2 Blu-Ray, played on a Dell Ultrasharp U2711 monitor.)

Here's an action sports video (read: lots of fast movement, lots of fast panning) I finished up yesterday. Click the HD button to view it at a higher quality.



Some of the clips were shot 720p60 with a HMC40 (3x 1/4" CMOS, AVCHD), with a 1/120 shutter, and the remainder of the clips were shot 1080i60 with a FX7 (3x 1/4" CMOS, HDV), also with a 1/120 (or maybe it was 1/125?).

All of the clips were ran through Cineform Neoscene, and were left in their original format (720p60 or 1080i60).

The HMC40 clips have every other frame dropped, while the FX7 clips have been deinterlaced. The video was exported to a 720p30 Cineform file as a permanent backup, with a 720p30 H.264 video (10Mbps bitrate) as the final product. Vimeo recompressed to... whatever it recompresses it to.

I sure as hell can see the difference between the two, in all three versions. Granted, you can only see this one, but, like I said, the problem is still there: the HMC40 clips are noticeably sharper, since they frames come from the original source, rather than having been interpolated from a pair of frames.

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

From a Sony point of view they had to cut some features as it's a consumer line product at only 2000$. There aren't a lot of alternatives to framerates. Which brings me back to the actual target group for it, it'll be interesting to see how it sells.

Since it's limited to shooting interlaced video only, it's way overpriced @ $2K US.

For example, a hacked GH1 is a far better value, if it weren't for its lack of a $0.05 US headphone jack. ;-)

IMHO, the real shame will be Sony selling these cams to consumers (non-prosumer/pro) customers who don't use its ability to change lenses. I'll bet lots of consumers will get convinced by Sony's marketing, retail salespeople, and blogger misinformation that it's a valuable feature. Later they'll realize they don't need it, or can't figure it out, or resent it's hard to focus, and don't use it. Just like so many DSLR users who rarely if ever change lenses. The shame being that this new Sony costs more than most DSLRs. What a waste.

 

[Razz16mm]

Sony is a broadcast videocentric company. Quite frankly many people who will love a camera like the NEX-VG10 could care less about 24p and if they did notice any difference between that and 30p, would prefer the smoother motion of the higher frame rate anyway. They will have no pretensions about "cinematic" qualities.

 

[studio1972]

:grin::grin::grin:

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

... Hopefully, Sony will wise up before its release this Fall. ...

Personally I'd be very, very pleasantly surprised if Sony releases _this_ cam with anything other than 60i or 50i. Likewise, that they'd later release a "free" firmware update to add 24p, 25p, 30p, 50p or 60p. Free as in less than $50 US.

Repeat: I'd be pleasantly surprised. And I highly doubt they'll do it. After all, this is Sony we're talking about.

Instead, I expect they'll offer a more expensive model (as in at least a few hundred $ more expensive) with progressive recording, but it'll be a different cam, not this one. That's much more typical and makes more sense, especially in the "consumer" space.

All of which is pointless except for the headphone jack, and especially given the price/performance advantages of other cams already available, let alone the expected competitive products likely to be announced between now and the end of this year.

 

[CMcMahon]

Sony is a broadcast videocentric company. Quite frankly many people who will love a camera like the NEX-VG10 could care less about 24p and if they did notice any difference between that and 30p, would prefer the smoother motion of the higher frame rate anyway. They will have no pretensions about "cinematic" qualities.

If that's true, then what's the point of the APS-whatever sensor and the interchangeable lenses? If you don't have any pretensions about cinematic qualities, why spend $2000 on this camcorder when you could get what you need for far less?

 

[shaocaholica]

Sony is a broadcast videocentric company. Quite frankly many people who will love a camera like the NEX-VG10 could care less about 24p and if they did notice any difference between that and 30p, would prefer the smoother motion of the higher frame rate anyway. They will have no pretensions about "cinematic" qualities.

So what about all the -other- 24p Sony cams? How do you explain those? How to you explain Sony's presence in the film industry? They certainly have more presence in film than Canon.

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

... If you mount a common 50mm lens to a m43 camera you have a FOV of a 100mm lens; 24mm gets you a 48mm lens, etc. This can be problematic and does limit your choices. APS-C offers the best flexibility and selection relative to these short FFD mounts. ...

The link I provided to Barry's comment addresses this point clearly. Here it is again:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2005971&postcount=105

The important comparison for folks shooting motion pictures (as opposed to digital stills) is that a GH1 has a ~1.18 crop factor compared to the most common 35mm motion picture film format, not 2.0x.

If APC is ~1.0 crop, then the "0.18" difference between it and the GH1 -- relative to the visual language of 35mm motion picture film -- is real but typically insignificant

 

[Steve Castle]

Personally I'd be very, very pleasantly surprised if Sony releases _this_ cam with anything other than 60i or 50i. Likewise, that they'd later release a "free" firmware update to add 24p, 25p, 30p, 50p or 60p. Free as in less than $50 US.

Repeat: I'd be pleasantly surprised. And I highly doubt they'll do it. After all, this is Sony we're talking about.

Instead, I expect they'll offer a more expensive model (as in at least a few hundred $ more expensive) with progressive recording, but it'll be a different cam, not this one. That's much more typical and makes more sense, especially in the "consumer" space.

All of which is pointless except for the headphone jack, and especially given the price/performance advantages of other cams already available, let alone the expected competitive products likely to be announced between now and the end of this year.

This camera is likely not going to be a big-NEX5 with just a mic input.

There are fundamental differences between a video-centric device and a photo-centric device in how the sensor is packaged. This camera, and Panasonic's AG-AG100, should go a long way to reducing the two major complaints of dSLR video quality; aliasing and rolling-shutter artifacts. Aliasing artifacts are due to line-skipping, to reduce resolution of the native sensor to video resolution. Obviously, the most ideal way to avoid aliasing is capturing the entire sensor resolution, but that isn't possible with every sensor. Another way is via pixel-binning, which is every difficult with CMOS sensor.

However, the design of the anti-aliasing filter makes a huge impact. Cameras like the GH1, T2i, 7D, and any other dSLR have still image quality as their first priority. Hence the optical low-pass filter is designed for full resolution image acquisition. When we talk about a device such as this that will be video-centric the aa filter can be designed with line-skipping in mind and be more aggressive. The flip-side is that the still-image acquisition should be much softer (but that's not a concern for a camera like this).

In terms of rolling-shutter, there are ways of influencing the reduction of skew even with he same sensor. Every CMOS senor has a native clock speed, and unlike a CCD sensor, A/D conversion, signal processing, etc are done within the sensor itself (Sony uses column-parallel A/D conversion) The data is then passed to the DSP. Unlike the NEX5, this camera likely has a different or modified DSP then whats in the highly compact NEX5, in addition the native clock speed may be modified to reduce rolling-shutter while sacrificing SNR characteristic for the sake of video acquisition (something they may not want to do on a dSLR).

Now, I don't know what Sony has done to this camera, but my point is that there is a fundamentally different approach that can be taken with a video-centric camera. So a device like this has a very large advantage over dSLR video even though it has the same sensor.

...which again is why its disappointing that this camera is hobbled by being interlace only.

 

[Steve Castle]

The link I provided to Barry's comment addresses this point clearly. Here it is again:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=2005971&postcount=105

The important comparison for folks shooting motion pictures (as opposed to digital stills) is that a GH1 has a ~1.18 crop factor compared to the most common 35mm motion picture film format, not 2.0x.

If APC is ~1.0 crop, then the "0.18" difference between it and the GH1 -- relative to the visual language of 35mm motion picture film -- is real but typically insignificant

Again, my point is in reference to mounting SLR and Rangefinder lenses on these short-FFD mounts. Crop factor isn't an issue if you use a m43 lens that is designed for that FOV, but the appeal of a mount with a short FFD is that you can put on pretty much any lens.

The problem is that the 2.0x crop factor reduces your selection of lenses relative to your desired FOV being that most lenses are designed for APS-C or FF.

 

[Peter J. DeCrescenzo]

Hi Steve: There is no "2.0x crop factor" or significant reduction of FOV or selection of lenses, for GH1 users relative to the most common 35mm motion picture film format. Again, the GH1's crop factor relative to 35mm motion picture film is ~1.18, not 2.0x.

One of us is missing Barry's point, and I'm pretty sure it's not me. But I could be wrong. Please advise.

 

[e-steve]

This thread turned a little ugly once the tone changed to insulting the members of this community. I guess you'd have to expect that DVXUSER members might have a tendency to prefer cameras that shoot 24p... since that's what started this whole thing to begin with, no?

It does seem like this camera's demographic would benefit from more framerate options, XLR input, etc - it would surely be a hit if it had just a few more features, but we can't say for sure what will change when the camera is released.

I think it can be productive to discuss the features we feel are missing for our tastes, because you never know who will be reading this thread and how it can affect upcoming product launches.

 

[skatethrasher]

Obviously the goal with Sony is to feed off of the people who say, "wow, DSLRs produce great quality video!" Sony says, "lets put a DSLR sensor inside of the camcorder and have our own proprietary lenses on front, and boom! Selling a 2 grand camera AND lenses! $$$"

What I don't understand is that if this camera is targeted to a regular dude who might wanna film his kids, and enjoys being a "hobbyist" in his free time (or a person who "says dslrs have great video quality... but I would rather have a camcorder design"), would want a CMOS sensor in the camera, infamous for the Flash issues and "Jello effect." I have a cell phone that films with a major Jello Effect too, but its obviously not designed to be a camcorder. This is, so why have people pay 2 grand+, for a video that the person will see as "Jello like?" They're probably not doing research on CMOS vs CCD.

 

[dop16mm]

One of us is missing Barry's point, and I'm pretty sure it's not me. But I could be wrong. Please advise.[/QUOTE]

This whole crop factor thing is moot relative to motion picture 35mm, which is fine if these little cams show up as b or c cams on major shoots with a PL adapter ready to take a fancy lens from the rental case.

But the fact is most of the rest of us are kitting up with vintage manual primes that don't go much wider than 28mm. That is fine for medium and portrait lenths, but there is no option for wide. Those of us who are quibbling about whether $2000 is too much for a cam like this certainly don't have $20,000 for a 14mm cooke s4. That is the primary reason why I think the indie crowd is clamoring for full frame sensors. It is not just about super shallow dof, but rather proper implementation of the lenses most of us will be using.

Unless Sony and Panasonic can leverage leica/ziess to produce prime lens sets for these cams at less than 10% of the hollywood price point, their usefulness on a mass scale will be limited. Even a set of short zooms, like the zeiss variable primes, three lenses to rule them all, never really took hold on pro sets but would work for this type of system. The kit lens could be the standard range. An optional ultra wide range, and telephoto.

canon may be late to the game when they release a video style form factor, but you can bet that when they do they'll have proper lenses for it.

18-200, f3.5-6.3 are you kidding me??? A video lens shouldn't drift more than one stop over its range, constant being Ideal. A 2.8/4 split could work if 2.8 was constant for a range of say 18-50, as that is were most interiors would be.

 

[Steve Castle]

Hi Steve: There is no "2.0x crop factor" or significant reduction of FOV or selection of lenses, for GH1 users relative to the most common 35mm motion picture film format. Again, the GH1's crop factor relative to 35mm motion picture film is ~1.18, not 2.0x.

One of us is missing Barry's point, and I'm pretty sure it's not me. But I could be wrong. Please advise.

I understand what you are trying to say, and I'm a big fan of the m43 system (look at my post history). I neither have a problem with the format nor the DOF. We're on the same page here.

However, it is 2.0x crop factor in terms of the lenses that are being adapted. I understand that compared to s35 its ~1.18x, but the lenses which I'm referring to (being rangefinder and SLR lenses) are designed for FF35. Relative to the image circle being projected by these lenses its crop 2.0x.

Which again goes back to my point, I lot of the great SLR/rangefinder lenses are in the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 80mm range. These are focal lengths based on film cameras, but they can be problematic when adapting them to a m43 camera. In this case, an APS-C sized sensor is much easier to deal with when adapting lenses (which is a major draw of these short FFD mounts).