Sony announces HVR-V1u, 1080p, 24p, 30p, 60i

[Elton]

This camera seems quite promising, even with the lack of a full raster sensor. I am very intrigued by the ability of CMOS sensors to hold extreme highlights without smear...at least theoretically. What bums me out a little is the fact that Sony went with 1/4" chips. It's too bad that they are actually providing progressive images, but at the same time making it even harder to get selective focus.

It's hard enough to pull off dramatic, shallow DOF with 1/3" cameras. Now you've got an even harder job with this camera.

One step up...two steps back.

 

[filmmaker1977]

Red will only be for a small % of people. Not everyone will like sony, Canon panny or JVC etc. But I would not call any of these companies mafia,,,,,

for sure.. but sometimes, they seem to be.. at least, crossing their interests from my eyes.. their product don't present what they can deliver.. why will it be?

as i said, call it what you wish.. by now, i'm out from this public debate.. think what you wish..

 

[filmmaker1977]

This discussion should probably have moved to private messages, but it's symptomatic of something that's been happening on the boards and something that happens every time a new camcorder is introduced.

check your pm box please..

 

[John Trent]

filmmaker1977,

I'm a strong believer in free speech. I was banned (permanently, I guess) over at dvinfo for defending somebody's right to ask a negative question about a jvc camera. But you've had your say -- now cool down before you ruin a good thing for yourself, here. At least you've been warned. I got kicked out with NO WARNING and NO EXPLANATION. DVXUSER is a lot better concerning free speech. So -- be cool.

NOW, HERE'S A BIG HONKIN' QUESTION: if 1080i taxes the HDV compression codec and creates artifacts, and if shooting cineframe or canon's f mode reduces artifacts (because it's asking less of the compression), won't 1080P be harder on the compression AND CREATE MORE HDV ARTIFACTS?

Makes sense to me. Has anybody whose actually seen the footage (not web stuff -- real stuff, fresh from the cam) seen any increase in artifact problems? I'm really curious about this.

Peace.

 

[filmmaker1977]

filmmaker1977,

I'm a strong believer in free speech. I was banned (permanently, I guess) over at dvinfo for defending somebody's right to ask a negative question about a jvc camera. But you've had your say. At least you've been warned. I got kicked out with NO WARNING and NO EXPLANATION. DVXUSER is a lot better concerning free speech.

Peace.

agreed.. :thumbup: but because there is an open public forum where i could post all what i could and i stand.. and another one where the privacy takes place, by now this kind of comments will just be at pm box.. sorry..

edit
once again, barry check your pm box for my new pm answering now to your reply.. thx

 

[Elton]

filmmaker1977, NOW, HERE'S A BIG HONKIN' QUESTION: if 1080i taxes the HDV compression codec and creates artifacts, and if shooting cineframe or canon's f mode reduces artifacts (because it's asking less of the compression), won't 1080P be harder on the compression AND CREATE MORE HDV ARTIFACTS?

If you mean 1080p as in 24 or 30p, it should be more artifact resilient than 1080i 60. Canon's 1080 progressive encoding is actually more artifact resistent due to the efficiency of progressive encoding. If Sony's progressive encoding uses all the bandwidth for progressive frames only it should technically look better in challenging scenes.

 

[ecking]

If you look at how Sony prices things, they offer the Z1 for sale at $6000 and you can pick it up at B&H for $4200 or so. I'm guessing we'll be able to pick this camera up for the price of the DVX100b or less.

If that is true sign me on....in blood.

But I'm looking at making a purchase soon as in the next 3-4 months and even if the price were around there eventually I'm worry it'll take too long to get there.

 

[rawfa]

for sure.. but sometimes, they seem to be.. at least, crossing their interests from my eyes.. their product don't present what they can deliver.. why will it be?

as i said, call it what you wish.. by now, i'm out from this public debate.. think what you wish..

All companies operate like this...even though some are more discreet than others. I'm 100% sure that all these big companies are way way ahead of what we all think (it's what they get payed for). But if they put everything on the table at once they'll lose years of upgrades and new products. It's how the industry works.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

FWIW:

If someone said, "Give me your old VX2000, your old DVX100, plus, $1,000, and I'll give you a brand new Sony V1," I would jump at the chance to have such a cool little camera! I really need/want a small, inexpensive, native 16:9 24P camera for stunt camera work. My first choice would be an HVX200, but, for the money, the V1 would be a great value. Also, 1/4" sensors would actually help in certain applications, for example, having that increased depth-of-field for shooting miniatures.

 

[filmmaker1977]

All companies operate like this...even though some are more discreet than others. I'm 100% sure that all these big companies are way way ahead of what we all think (it's what they get payed for). But if they put everything on the table at once they'll lose years of upgrades and new products. It's how the industry works.

yeah.. that's why i said about them what i said.

 

[John Trent]

If you mean 1080p as in 24 or 30p, it should be more artifact resilient than 1080i 60. Canon's 1080 progressive encoding is actually more artifact resistent due to the efficiency of progressive encoding. If Sony's progressive encoding uses all the bandwidth for progressive frames only it should technically look better in challenging scenes.

Canon: 800x700+ (H & V resolution)

Canon f mode: 800x540 (figures courtesy of Adam Wilt)

Your dropping 160+ lines of resolution. Not a lot, but this is line-doubling with some voodoo, and it makes it easier on HDV compression. True progressive doesn't drop resolution. It either scans it all at one time or stitches it together (or so I've read). Either way it would seem to me to be a bear on HDV compression and increase artifacts. Wouldn't it?

 

[Elton]

It either scans it all at one time or stitches it together (or so I've read). Either way it would seem to me to be a bear on HDV compression and increase artifacts. Wouldn't it?

All I can tell you is that with the XL-H1, extremely challenging scenes that can break the codec--to some degree--in 1080i are often less artifacted when shot in the F modes, which are actual progressive recordings/encodings.

I would imagine that Sony's encoder would work similarly. But we'll see when the camera gets put through some tests in the coming months.

 

[Hideaki Anno]

I would imagine that Sony's encoder would work similarly. But we'll see when the camera gets put through some tests in the coming months.

Canon Xl H1 encoder did a great job, and considering that this one is progressive I think it will do a better job.

 

[Fugitive]

doesn't the HVX shot look equally (if not more) detailed and less noisy than the XLH1 shot? Heh.

Less noisy, yup. equally detailed...hmmm. I keep noticing the edge of the wall right next to the window (right side). The ridges of the brickes are rather evident on the Canon. On the HVX, its kind of a blurred straight vertical line. But then again, not surprising at all given the higher resolution of the canon.

What surprises me more actually is that even the Sony retains those details on the ridges of the brick-wall (where its resolution is suppossedly very near that of the HVX). Could this be Sony's picture manipulation? I dont know. But taking the picture at face value, the HVX does seem to lose out on detail compared to the V1.

(I think I dont have to mention that I am not trolling, do I? All in the name of objective discussion as a film-maker)

 

[Barry_Green]

the HVX does seem to lose out on detail compared to the V1.

I would expect nothing less coming from Sony's own website. If it showed the HVX beating it, they wouldn't show that picture, would they? They also show the V1 beating the XLH1.

 

[filmmaker1977]

I would expect nothing less coming from Sony's own website. If it showed the HVX beating it, they wouldn't show that picture, would they?

you're right!.. of course, they wouldn't.. rogar-Dum(DBG):

otherwise, because they dare to publish this comparision it is a good sign pro-v1..

and v1 is coming one year after hvx, it's acceptable that will show better results.

They also show the V1 beating the XLH1.

yeah.. that's more interesting yet.. because of the upcoming a1/g1.. aside the HD-SDI embedded option, my bet is v1 will be better than the canons:

800/700 vertical lines against 540 in progressive or f mode_s..

 

[MovieSwede]

Yes but there is more to good image than resolution. We have color, latitude, low light, DOF, compression artifacts, skin tones etc

So the qouestion will be does the Sony produce a 1000$ better picture?

 

[Mack Fisher]

I really how the CMOS gets rid of vertical streaking. I dont know if the CMOS has better light sensitivity because it seems like everything I have read told me that the CCD beats the CMOS, also take into account it is a 1/3CCD vs a 1/4CMOS that is what kills it for me. If it was equal I would definently pick this camera up but I dont wanna downgrade in sensor size for 1000$ because 24p means nothing to me.

 

[filmmaker1977]

Yes but there is more to good image than resolution. We have color, latitude, low light, DOF, compression artifacts, skin tones etc

So the qouestion will be does the Sony produce a 1000$ better picture?

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=699003&postcount=49

"In the progressive system the entire 960x1080 chip is scanned at once using an interpolation method to make it into 1920x1080. It will probably also have a vertical resolution of around 700 lines, all the HD cameras appear to be in the ballpark of 700 lines. The difference is, when the FX1 tries to simulate progressive scan it drops in resolution to around 540 lines, but the V1 shouldn't drop at all since it's inherently progressive."

 

[Bogdan]

...

Anyway, congrats to Sony for producing this product, it goes a long way towards putting them back in "the game" and it looks like those who had already written their Canon XHA1 deposit checks may now have to think twice!

...

I agree, it's nice move by Sony, but it did not make me think twice about Canon XH-A1. I have pre-ordered Canon today

The spec on Sony's website leaves no doubt they employ 960x1080 sensors. 45 degrees photodiodes rotation in ClearVid sensors produces effect similar to pixel shift, but Canon's advantage starts with 1440x1080 pixels on each sensor and ends with progressive compression in HDV mode. Canon's F mode is not truly progressive technically speaking, but who cares if it produces best quality images one can get below $20k. It's a fact based on already existing technology (XL-H1), not on company ads. I don't think Sony's going to change that with V1, but I'm happy we have more options coming up.

CMOS vs CCD issue grabbed so much of our attention and we should thank marketing wizards for that. Of course, CMOS is taking ground from CCD technology slowly but it is not because of final image quality. The reasons are very practical: lower energy consumption and easier integration with A/D circuits. Hmmm, even with that, Sony V1 and Canon G1/A1 offer similar battery life so there we go with another reason why we should not let tech stuff play with our minds so much but rather pay more attention to bottom line.

I think we all have to realize one fact: currently and in the near future nobody will offer full quality, true 1920x1080 or 1440x1080 progressive resolution camcorder below $20k. Good thing is we get closer and closer for much less than XDCAM HD, for example. Canon's H1/G1/A1 camcorders will have the edge in the class for some time.

And of course, we should trust in company ads much less. Sony and above all, Panasonic, know how to trick us, while Canon delivers best-in-class results.