Official Sony NEX-VG10 Thread

[Evro]

On the issue of 24p/25p - if the general public views your work as "juddery" then perhaps you're not approaching it properly... nobody says mainstream and blockbuster movies are juddery.
24p/25p is "primitive", yes, but it evokes an emotional response as long as you shoot within the technical limitations.

Paul, I understand & agree with you regarding the aesthetic/psychological effect that 24/25P has on the viewer, the problem we have shooting weddings however is that it is very difficult to enforce 24P camera pan timings as the action unfolding is usually too unpredictable - especially when going hand-held.

I shot in 25P for a whole year when I got my first DVX but I ended up switching back to 50i because it gave me more flexibility in post.

These days I shoot on HMC152 and am totally in love with 50P :2vrolijk_08:

 

[Rick Burnett]

Well there is a lot more to making a "Cinematic" look then just 24p. I am not saying that this little Sony has that "More", though. I wouldn't purchase an HD camera that did not have 24p, among other other frame rates, but I would be willing to bet that Sony has done enough market research to decide that the market segment they want to sell this camera too does not really give a rat's behind about 24p.

Haha, obviously I know that! But what I do know is when people shoot 30 or 60, it *looks* more like video. When everything you are using to seeing in 30 or 60 is news and sports, the motion of the image detracts from what people associate with art, and that is film.

To me, not using 24p is just making it harder for yourself to get a look the customer probably wants. Not to say I am SURE someone shooting at 30 or 60 could make a beautiful film, there are many talented people, I just think given the same quality shooter, 24p will look more cinematic and more awe inspiring to the family.

Just like being able to do some shallow DoF shots always brings out the awes since most home video cameras have a hard time doing that.

 

[Paul V Doherty]

Paul, I understand & agree with you regarding the aesthetic/psychological effect that 24/25P has on the viewer, the problem we have shooting weddings however is that it is very difficult to enforce 24P camera pan timings as the action unfolding is usually too unpredictable - especially when going hand-held.

I shot in 25P for a whole year when I got my first DVX but I ended up switching back to 50i because it gave me more flexibility in post.

These days I shoot on HMC152 and am totally in love with 50P :2vrolijk_08:

Ah, forgot you shoot weddings....
I probably wouldn't use 25p either, except maybe for those shots over which I had some degree of control such as during the professional photo shoot.
I believe the BBC shoots a lot of its material in 50i and selectively converts to 25p in post - Doctor Who being a prime example, and Top Gear.
They use high-end hardware deinterlacing technology, probably Snell & Wilcox.
You can occasionally see deinterlacing artifacts in Doctor Who, most often with fast movement it appears to have been shot with a 1/25 shutter and lacks the film-like 1/50 shutter - probably due to the deinterlacing algorithm failing to deal with ultra-fast motion between fields.
If you look at the on-set monitors on the "making of" segments of Doctor Who it sure appears to be 50i on the monitor....
This might have all changed since they went HD on the current season - same goes for Top Gear.
A LOT of BBC dramas appear to have the tell-tale signature of deinterlaced 50i: the appearance of 1/25 shutter on fast motion

 

[Rick Burnett]

It's funny you should mention Doctor Who. For YEARS watching Tom Baker episodes (70s/80s) I never knew why inside shots and outside shots looked so different. Then I found out everything outside was shot on film, everything inside was not and at a faster framerate. (I was like 7 when I started watching Dr Who).

 

[David G. Smith]

Haha, obviously I know that! But what I do know is when people shoot 30 or 60, it *looks* more like video. When everything you are using to seeing in 30 or 60 is news and sports, the motion of the image detracts from what people associate with art, and that is film.

To me, not using 24p is just making it harder for yourself to get a look the customer probably wants. Not to say I am SURE someone shooting at 30 or 60 could make a beautiful film, there are many talented people, I just think given the same quality shooter, 24p will look more cinematic and more awe inspiring to the family.

Just like being able to do some shallow DoF shots always brings out the awes since most home video cameras have a hard time doing that.

Oh I am with you on that. I just don't think that Sony consumer video designers really consider it essential. 24p, in the hands of point and shoot types, can reek havoc, visually because of the "Stutter" effect. I have not kept up with Sony cameras lately, do they have any consumer or pro-sumer cameras, besides the EX-1/3, that does real 24P?

Like I said I am glad that this camera is being introduced. My biggest concern, actually is the price. So, if I am not mistaken, it it is supposed to be $2000.00 and it is still a very consumer oriented product. That pretty much confirms that a Sony pro-sumer big sensor camera, with the proper bells and whistles we all want, is going to be approaching the AF-100 price point, if not more. I would be very surprised to see something from them, anytime soon, in the $3000.00 to $5000.00 range, that is pimped out enough for professional use. Lord knows that that big chip camera they showed at NAB is going to be approaching $10K. I was kind of hoping for a big chip PD-150/170 sized and styled camera (and priced.... I know, I am a dreamer!) with multiple formats/frame rates, XLR inputs and hooked up for E-mount system lenses. Well, I am not going to hold my breath for that.

It is still a cool little camera. Things are sure getting interesting in the digital video camera world, that is for sure.

 

[Otis Grapsas]

Having seen 24p/25p/30p on analog displays that can actually display it perfectly well, I believe they all look quite similar. The motion is perfectly fluid in all these rates. I don't even notice the difference. This has also been the case for 24p on devices that can sync to a multiple of 24 (120hz) and do not insert interpolated frames. It is how the material should look.

Having seen real 50p/50i/60p/60i (not from a camera like this sony which is just progressive PsF at half the rate), on 50p/60p displays, the material ends up being 50p/60p on the modern TFT, and it has a sense of reality which doesn't look bad. It's realistic vs filmic but there is nothing annoying about it.

What is responsible for a lot of confusion is displaying material on devices that cannot handle it. 24p on 60p computer displays and TVs looks annoying because of judder. 25p on 30p TVs, 30p on 25p TVs, 24p/25p on 60hz pc displays, everything depicts motion incorrectly.

The funny part is when consumers start connecting the filmic look with the judder their incapable TV and computer displays produce with 24p material. Based on what I see on the market, about 90% of TVs and 99% of computers cannot display 24p properly. Only 120hz TVs, good CRT displays and film theaters can show 24p properly. Many people love 24p but since they aren't really seeing it at its proper form I don't know how to approach the subject

For compatibility purposes alone there are a few solutions:

1) All computer displays and TVs become capable of 120hz, so that they can handle both 30p and 24p. Such a display cannot cover europe for 25p/50p though. Pal material will look wrong.

2) Everything becomes 30p in broadcast. Even PAL zones. Computer display TFTs are already 60hz so 25p is already incompatible with computer displays. This will never happen.

3) TFTs and their control adjusts so that it can automatically detect the program type (not the signal type) and change the internal timing accordingly to support all rates. This is extremely hard to implement and there is room for a lot of problems.

4) TFTs and digital interfaces for video become compatible with 24/25/30p rates without any processing. This will take 600hz and it also covers 50i/60i deinterlacing to 50p/60p for keeping all the motion the camera captured. It's the simplest solution and it will provide universal support for everything, even high frame rates for sports and virtual reality. 600p, 300p, 200p, 150p, 120p, 100p, 75p, 60p, 50p, 40p, 30p, 25p, 24p, 20p, 15p, 12p, 10p, 8p, 6p, 5p, 4p, 3p, 2p, 1p. Chances are it will happen one day. Imagine the creative possibilities for setting the look of the film

 

[stip]

Whih brings me to a question I was wondering about...
my Canon 24p footage and renders judder on my monitor as Otis described it. But movie trailers, say on iTunes movie trailers, don't...can someone explain why, how do they render them for internet streaming?

 

[Otis Grapsas]

Which brings me to a question I was wondering about...
my Canon 24p footage and renders judder on my monitor as Otis described it. But movie trailers, say on iTunes movie trailers, don't...can someone explain why?

I think they are just very careful with the camera motion in hollywood films. I only notice it on very fast panning. The panning speed "recommendations" for HD are ridiculously slow. Not that anyone actually uses them.

 

[Paul V Doherty]

I think they are just very careful with the camera motion in hollywood films. I only notice it on very fast panning. The panning speed "recommendations" for HD are ridiculously slow. Not that anyone actually uses them.

7 seconds for an object to cross the frame, or a whip-pan.
Those are your only options for smooth 24p, and Hollywood generally sticks to them (well, they used to anyway, prior to the annoying "hand-held" Bourne-style trend).

I suspect many people don't actually understand why 24/25p conveys the impression of:

a) hyper-reality, dream-like state, being witness to a story unfolding - all mean the same thing

b) high-end production values

The answer to a) is relatively straightforward: 24/25p only conveys the bare minimum of temporal accuracy required to convice the brain that it is seeing continuous motion.
24p was chosen mainly for reasons of economics, i.e. film costs $$$, less film per shoot = less $$$.
The brain is extremely good at filling in the blanks when it comes to vision, and in the case of 24/25p the brain fills in for the percieved lack of temporal accuracy.
There is also somewhat of the primitive "telling stories around the campfire" element to 24/25p - the low temporal accuracy and flickering instinctively looks and feels right in the context of being told a story or being carried away by a fantastical narrative.
When we sit down to watch a film, we instinctively know we can disengage several parts of the brain: our sense of disbelief, and our sense of time - both are intimitaly entwined with the primitive part of the brain which responds to the flickering campfire/24/25p effect.


The answer to b) used to be straightforward prior to the mass-marketing of cheap 24/25p systems.
Prior to 24/25p video, the only way to capture that magical 24/25p motion rendition, exposure latitude and colour depth was to shoot on film - a highly expensive enterprise.
Naturally this meant projects shot on film tended towards the high-end of the production market, and the low-end was served by video production.
That is why soapies (until recently) were always associated with the cheap "video look" and high-end drama such as NCIS or whatever always looked slick and had better writers, better actors, better everything because the money was there - same applies for music videos and at the very top of the food chain, Hollywood movies.
That's changing now - I notice more and more of the long-running institutional soapies are flirting with 24/25p, yet they somehow still look "cheap" because all they have done is switched their cameras over to the 24/25p setting.... the scripts are still cheap, the sets and costumes are still cheap, the actors are still cheap, and the lighting is still done mainly by TV technicians and not by high-end film craftspeople - most of the time they don't even bother to use film-gamma and colour grading either, so they still have horrible burn-outs and colour rendition, but at least it's 24/25p now, so it MUST be good!
I can see this causing confusion for viewers and casual users of cheap 24/25p camcorders - they instinctively recognise that something has changed about their favourite cheap and nasty soapies and their own home movies, but they can't quite put their finger on it, and it all still oozes "cheap".
I hope it doesn't mar or ruin the 24/25p allure as the accepted standard for percieved "class" and "quality" production.

24/25p is not a fetish, a fad or a longing for obsolete technology.
It is a "look" which triggers an almost universal response in the general population.
Sure, film and video measurebators will wax lyrical on the technological flaws and how much we've moved on in the 21st Century, but frankly Joe Public doesn't give a rat's about all that verbacious self-serving snobbery.
All that Joe Public sees is that when he watches a film he knows he's being told a story and to suspend belief and be carried off to the magical land of movies, and a BIG part of that is the 24/25p motion rendition and colour rendition.

If the news was shot 24/25p with colour grading, most people would assume they had accidentally tuned in to NCIS or Spooks or something.
People simply know and understand in their gut that 24/25p means FANTASY, disengage brain, enjoy whatever it is that's about to be on the screen.
No amount of 24/25p bashing and whingeing is going to change that.

OK, rant over - thanks for your time! rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[Jason Ramsey]

sorry if I'm repeating stuff already posted in this thread... have only skimmed...

Obviously a camera without 24p is not going to be terribly popular amongst this filmmaking oriented community. That's not to say that 60i is not a very valid option for some work, and that it won't appeal to some specifically for that reasons. However, I'm left wondering why one might potentially cut out additional sales on a product by not having what has pretty much become a standard option on cameras from the 700 dollar ones up to the 200k dollar ones.

If DSLR's only shot 60i, for example there would never have been a "DSLR Revolution" and a large reason for the popularity of those cameras was its adoption by the micro and no budget filmmakers... Seems a bit odd to leave out that demographic when considering your potential purchasers.... But, maybe I am wrong... maybe the 24p wanting filmmaking DSLR users only make up a small portion of overall sales... Doesn't seem like it though... But, then I spend all my time on filmmaking websites

It is a "look" which triggers an almost universal response in the general population.

I agree completely... The average consumer may not have a conscious awareness of viewing 24p vs 60i, but their brains immediately recognize the difference and they have all sorts of ingrained sensory memory and emotional responses associated with the different presentations...

anyways... not having 24p in their camera seems counterproductive... especially if it is not an expensive purpose specific piece of gear... It is a mass marketed product... seems counter-productive from a business standpoint to chop off what seems (to me) a sizable portion of potential purchasers by not including a very (today) basic feature.

Laer,
Jason

 

[Barry_Green]

However, I'm left wondering why one might potentially cut out additional sales on a product by not having what has pretty much become a standard option on cameras from the 700 dollar ones up to the 200k dollar ones.

Only conclusion I can come to is that Sony just doesn't "get" what we like about 24p and wishes it would go away. I mean, even after learning their lesson about CineFrame 24 and finally putting "real" 24p on the EX1 and V1U, they introduced their PDW700 $30,000 camcorder -- as a 60i model. No 24p. IIRC they did introduce a software patch later that added 24p to it.

anyways... not having 24p in their camera seems counterproductive...

Agreed, but they just don't seem to see it that way, and as such, I'm really not surprised that this model doesn't have it. Disappointed, yes -- because it could have been awesome (well, it'd need manual controls too). But not surprised.

 

[stip]

Only conclusion I can come to is that Sony just doesn't "get" what we like about 24p and wishes it would go away.

It could also be the other way around...they do exactely get what we like about 24p, and that's the reason they didn't imply it to this consumer cam.

We are the costumers that are willing to spend much more money on a product if it has certain features.

I do understand that Sony had to cut some features for this consumer line camera that would have attract many prosumers otherwise- I just don't understand why they wanted the VG10 to be a consumer line product.

 

[Jason Ramsey]

But that doesn't seem to be the case when we see just how many "we" have bought sub 2k dslr's that shoot 24p...

large sensor, 24p, and consumer price tags seem to get this bunch very excited... remove one, and people get upset

The trend has been 24p availability in ever less-expensive products, and when you throw large sensor into the mix, people start getting really excited...

To my eyes, b/c it is a consumer product it makes *more* sense to include 24p b/c you will reach a larger audience if you do... doens't have to be one or the other... just, both... Now, if you are making a 30k dollar purpose specific product targeted at a specific audience then not including 24p, for example would maybe not be such a big deal

 

[stip]

To my eyes, b/c it is a consumer product it makes *more* sense to include 24p b/c you will reach a larger audience if you do

I completely agree, I'm just desperately trying to understand why Sony will release this camera the way they do. Since the announcement I haven't been able to make much sense of it but maybe sales will prove me wrong.

 

[Otis Grapsas]

30p/60i does look better on the majority of computer monitors and tvs. That could be a part of the Sony decision. But it would be easy to offer 24p for those who need it.

 

[Paul V Doherty]

Buy the PAL version and either conform the 25p to 24p or wrap the 25p in a 60i container.
Within Temptation's "Black Symphony" Blu-Ray is 25p wrapped in 60i.....
Sony can blow their 30p/60i... there is nothing stopping anyone from buying the 25p model.
People bought PAL DVX's back in the day to avoid pulldown and get those extra 96 lines of resolution.
The hassles with viewing PAL in NTSC-land are almost nil in the age of flatscreen TV's, and you will probably be editing it as native 25p on a NLE anyway

 

[vanvideo]

Man, I've never seen such consternation over a lack of 24P. I normally shoot with my HPX500 in 1080i60 or 720p30. The VG10's capture rate will be just fine to me. I think it might make a good b-camera for my local TV commercials. And yes, I'd shoot my own film projects with it, too.

What I'm really interested in is the better DoF this camera will offer. That's far more of an issue to me than the frame rate. I've considered getting a used HVX200 with some kind of 35mm adapter as a b-cam, but this might fit the bill nicely. It'd be a cheaper alternative.

Quit worrying about 24P or 60i. Just go out and shoot some amazing video. If you can't, don't blame this camera.

 

[Rick Burnett]

No, I blame it on the camera It's my money and I want what I want! hehe.

 

[David G. Smith]

Man, I've never seen such consternation over a lack of 24P. I normally shoot with my HPX500 in 1080i60 or 720p30. The VG10's capture rate will be just fine to me. I think it might make a good b-camera for my local TV commercials. And yes, I'd shoot my own film projects with it, too.

What I'm really interested in is the better DoF this camera will offer. That's far more of an issue to me than the frame rate. I've considered getting a used HVX200 with some kind of 35mm adapter as a b-cam, but this might fit the bill nicely. It'd be a cheaper alternative.

Quit worrying about 24P or 60i. Just go out and shoot some amazing video. If you can't, don't blame this camera.

I do agree with you... however, this is DVXUSER after all.... 24P, for the masses, did kind of start it all ya know? (Of course the DVX-100 had much more going for it than JUST 24P).

 

[vanvideo]

I do agree with you... however, this is DVXUSER after all.... 24P, for the masses, did kind of start it all ya know? (Of course the DVX-100 had much more going for it than JUST 24P).

True enough, but I do wish the forum members would better appreciate what the VG10 offers, not what it doesn't.

Consider:

Great depth of field control, the holy grail of videography. I've always shot with 2/3" chip cams, and as far as controlling DoF, this little camera should put them all to shame. As a 20+ year veteran videographer, I see this as a tremendous tool. You want a real "film look" to your projects? Narrow that DoF.

A sensor that big, on such a little camera? Wow.
Personally, I've never been a fan of DSLRs as video cameras. I like my video cameras to be video cameras. This cam should fill that niche.

Interchangeable lenses, both zooms and primes. Oh, the possibilities!

AVCHD at 24mbs. (Actually, I have no idea what this means, but I think it's better than HDV.)

HDMI output.

Cheap media storage.

Almost everything I shoot goes directly to broadcast. Trust me, 1080/60i is an accepted format. And besides, can't the frame rates be changed with a software update? If not from Sony, perhaps an outside vendor? Just askin'.

All this, for $2,000.


Of course, we really won't know more until the camera is actually released. I say we withhold judgement until we get some real-world experience.