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

John Trent said:
...
The Canon XL-H1 LINE-DOUBLES in frame mode -- accept it. Most people who've seen both Canon and Sony Cineframe (30P &25P) say THEY LOOK THE SAME -- accept it. If your satisfied with it, great. But IT IS LINE-DOUBLED PIXEL-SHIFTING FUDGING
....
Click to expand...

John -

I'm afraid your information is very inaccurate. Elton's test and other examples available on the Web confirm it. First of all, Canon's F mode is closely guarded secret and nobody explained officially how it works, so I have no idea where your confidence comes from and I don't accept it. Progressive images produced by XL-H1 are just too good to be deinterlaced or approximated. I tried the best software deinterlacers and pushed them to the limits. In some situations they just fail because it's very difficult to deal with time displacements between the fields. So far I have not seen such problems in XL-H1 F-mode footage.

I think Canon employs phase shift for clocking their CCDs, possibly scanning the signal in two parallel sweeps instead of one like in technically true progressive scan process. Because of that some extra filtering is required, but the results are so close to progressive scan I really doubt people watching the movies made with XL-H1 or HVX200 on their large LCD, plasma screens or in theater will ever tell the difference. Surely, they will notice the difference in resolution, but not in cadence.

As far as overall image quality and artifacts are concerned, all properly conducted tests proved Canon XL-H1 is only surpassed by +$20k CineAlta. Resistance to artifacts has always been strong side of Canon camcorders. Some time ago I did extensive comparisons between XL1 and DVX100, and then with XL2 and in some situations when pushed to the limits, especially on high contrast edges DVX suffered from discreet artifacts, while Canons were still holding very well with much smoother lines.

Again, I am not saying DVX100 or HVX200 are bad products or that I don't like them, so please folks, don't put those words in my mouth. All I'm saying is Canon has the edge.

I think we can rest assured XH-A1 and G1 will not disappoint. Quite the opposite, I believe.
 
Last edited:
rawfa said:
Also the Z1 seems a bit more overexposed. The image control is different. You can't simply try to set them the way in one camera and the other.
Click to expand...

As you can tell, I ran outside for just a few minutes to get a shot. I tried to get both cameras somewhat matched...but when I went back into the studio to capture the clips, I looked at the Z1's gain switch and realized it was on 6 dB, so that explains the exposure difference.

You're right, it's no simple thing to match the cameras. When playing around with the Z1 it made me realize how much more control I had over the image with the H1, and how much simpler it was to access the needed functions.

I'm sure CF 25 can look maybe a smidge better, but the camera simply stretches the 960x1080 CCD image so much to record the HDV, and then you have the fact that it isn't doing anything other than field doubling.

The Canon is obviously going a little further. I think it's due to these factors:

--Higher resolution CCD
--Better DSP
--Sharper lens
--(speculation)Smart deinterlacing that retains some added res...or...
--(speculation) Phase clocked CCD that gives it some temporal advantages in dealing with an interlaced sensor.

On the Texas HD shootout they had to tilt setting all around to try and reach the same image on different cameras. If I had access to a H1E I'd like to the a test like this because i feel the FX1E has a decent CF25...but the image control sucks. For what I've seen the H1 seems to have a wider dynamic range and amazing image control, hence resulting in a much more film like image.
Click to expand...

I'm spoiled by the H1's image control. It makes a huge difference.

What I can say on the FX1/Z1's deffence is that they are the most noise free cameras I've ver worked with...which is good for people who shoot a lot of run and gun stuff under uncontroled lightinig situations.
Click to expand...

True, true...but the H1 is pretty close. A funny benefit of these interlace cameras is that they are simply cleaner due to the added sensitivity inherent in an interlace sensor.

It'll be interesting to see how the V1U fares in general. I hope it offers more image control than the Z1.
 
Last edited:
Bogdan said:
Progressive images produced by XL-H1 are just too good to be deinterlaced or approximated. I tried the best software deinterlacers and pushed them to the limits. In some situations they just fail because it's very difficult to deal with time displacements between the fields. So far I have not seen such problems in XL-H1 F-mode footage.
Click to expand...

Interesting you should say that. I've tried deinterlacing of all sorts and was never able to match the quality and consistency of the F modes.

I think you're on to something with the phase clocked CCD theory.
 
I also heard a theory of phase inverting of the green CCD which would render progressive scan with each field, but carrying half of the resolution. Then the Digic processor would merge it with the second field. Well, it's possible, but I think there much more than just that involved with the process. This method still results with time displacement of 1/48, 1/50 or 1/60s depending on frame rate and I just find it kinda hard to believe they do such smart deinterlacing real time in the camera.

For now I can't wait to grab XH-A1 :) That baby will rock everyone who does not need uncompressed HD-SDI.
 
Elton you da man! Its great to see someone finally get off their butt and show something rather than theorize about it.

Thanks a bunch. That comparison should put Canon critics to rest. :)
 
Elton,

I'm happy I inspired you to prove me wrong.:) I think the Sony could have been set up a little better but there is no doubt to anyone with eyes that the Canon smokes the Sony. Hands down. Unequivocally.

I still kinda think it's voodoo fudging...but of the very best kind. Wilt does say the Canon maintains it's 800 horizonal resolution. It's larger pixel count helps. It still looks a little soft to me, with CA, and it looks sort of interlaced on the red curb lines. But I admit I'm nit-picking, and I doubt I'll see better. I'd love to see the same shots interlaced and f'd (you know what I mean) to see the difference. Please, could you do this. I really haven't seen tests like this. Thank you.

Bogdan, I apologize, I was wrong. Mine eyes have seen the light.

Now I understand what all the XH-A1 excitement is about. The only thing keeping me from saying I'll buy one is RELIABILITY. I've read many a post and have friends that have XL/GL series horror stories. So, I'm a little nervous and gunshy, but otherwise it's a go.

I still think "Lovespring International" looks bad.

Elton, seriously, thank you for taking the time to do the test and post it. I need to make a camera choice soon and you've saved me from spending money on a FX1E. Whatever I do, your help has ensured my future films will look better, and for that you have my eternal gratitude.

Peace.
 
I just had my sister look at the comparison pictures. Her comment, "Well...it's obvious the top picture sucks compared to the other one." I guess that says it all.
 
I find it funny how Sony once claimed that they will not be producing 24p cameras because independent film making was not the field of videographers that the wanted to target. Now with JVC, Panasonic and Canon, they're cowering.
 
John Trent said:
Elton,

I'm happy I inspired you to prove me wrong.:) I think the Sony could have been set up a little better but there is no doubt to anyone with eyes that the Canon smokes the Sony. Hands down. Unequivocally.
Click to expand...

:) Btw, I hope you don't think I was trying to embarrass you. I just didn't believe that Sony CF and Canon F were all that close in actual quality. I've seen all the shootouts and whatnot, but because I had access to a Z1U at work, I decided to get to the bottom of it and see it with my own eyes.

I still kinda think it's voodoo fudging...but of the very best kind. Wilt does say the Canon maintains it's 800 horizonal resolution. It's larger pixel count helps.
Click to expand...

Sublime voodoo fudging. ;)

It still looks a little soft to me, with CA, and it looks sort of interlaced on the red curb lines.
Click to expand...

SOFT??!! What the...?!!

CA...there's maybe a hair of it, and yes, the stock lens does show some here and there. It goes with the territory.

Interlaced curb lines? Yeah, there's some teeny weeny twitter of sorts going on...but that's something you really have to be looking for. Also, it's fairly adressable in post with a good anti-aliaser.

But I admit I'm nit-picking, and I doubt I'll see better. I'd love to see the same shots interlaced and f'd (you know what I mean) to see the difference. Please, could you do this. I really haven't seen tests like this. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I'll try to in the near future.

Now I understand what all the XH-A1 excitement is about. The only thing keeping me from saying I'll buy one is RELIABILITY. I've read many a post and have friends that have XL/GL series horror stories. So, I'm a little nervous and gunshy, but otherwise it's a go.
Click to expand...

Reliability? I've heard of some issues with the GL's, but from personal experience...I totally abused the XL1 for nearly six years and it only needed minor maintenace. It was subjected to the dirt and dust of the desert on a nearly daily basis for years.

I have to say that the XL-H1 is built like a tank and I've had zero trouble. I believe Canon's build quality has dramatically improved, overall. I wouldn't hesitate at all on the new XH cams.

I still think "Lovespring International" looks bad.
Click to expand...

No doubt...and I don't think it's the camera's fault at all.

Elton, seriously, thank you for taking the time to do the test and post it. I need to make a camera choice soon and you've saved me from spending money on a FX1E. Whatever I do, your help has ensured my future films will look better, and for that you have my eternal gratitude.

Peace.
Click to expand...

:)
 
Last edited:
John Trent said:
I need to make a camera choice soon and you've saved me from spending money on a FX1E. Peace.
Click to expand...

Well you must remember the comparison was between "F" modes only. In normal interlaced modes, the resolution difference is "not" that pronounced. Besides, a person considering the FX1E would be mainly considering it due to eiether of the two reasons:

(1) Noise issues

(2) Price

And in that respect, the consideration is still valid. The FX1 has less noise, and its MUCH cheaper. With a proper de-interlacer (nattress) you should be able to get a very affordable good-looking 24p image.
 
I am unclear on the entire HDMI port thing. All I know is that you're supposed to be able to capture 4:2:2 to another codec if you go tethered and get better results.
 
What is there to be unclear about? The HDMI port allows you to output uncompressed HD (that bypasses HDV compression) out of the camera into a black-magic card.

Now, how it compares to HD-SDI is another question.
 
Elton said:
:) Btw, I hope you don't think I was trying to embarrass you. I just didn't believe that Sony CF and Canon F were all that close in actual quality. I've seen all the shootouts and whatnot, but because I had access to a Z1U at work, I decided to get to the bottom of it and see it with my own eyes.
Click to expand...

Your a class act, dude.

DVXuser, and boards like it (well, there are none as good as this board) are here for information, but a lot of information is mis-information and I believed it. Every camera has it's "group" and after being unimpressed with the hyped frame mode on the old Canons, I figured the nay-sayers were correct about 24f. What you did, is what I wish more, who have access to the gear would do, you went out and proved your point. I'm happy to be wrong, if I've learned what's right. Learning here, is what it's all about.

If I wasn't so adamant in my wrong-headedness, you may not have posted comparisons of Sony's CF and Canon's F. So, embarrass away. I'm sure, I wasn't the only one happy to be educated by your examples. So, thanks for getting to the bottom of this and letting us all see with our own eyes.:thumbup:

I hope when the Sony V1u comes out, you can get your hands on one and post comparisons between it's progressive and Canon's F modes. I'd really like to see those.

Dead pixels are at the top of the list of problems, friends and posters have gripped about concerning Canon (and JVC cams) -- far more so, than their Sony/Panasonic counterparts. Glad to hear you've never encountered the dread of the dead (pixel).
 
John Trent said:
I hope when the Sony V1u comes out, you can get your hands on one and post comparisons between it's progressive and Canon's F modes. I'd really like to see those.
Click to expand...

I'll give it a try when my local dealer gets both the V1u and the A1 in-stock.

Dead pixels are at the top of the list of problems, friends and posters have gripped about concerning Canon (and JVC cams) -- far more so, than their Sony/Panasonic counterparts. Glad to hear you've never encountered the dread of the dead (pixel).
Click to expand...

I've heard of more dead pixel cases with the JVC. With the XL-H1 I've only heard of one case, and it was replaced fairly quickly. As far as I can tell there really haven't been any horror stories to speak of about the camera.
 
Hot pixel visible at 0dB gain is a defect and subject to free service while on warranty. Higher gain settings or prolonged use in hot enviroment (like 90 degrees or more) may make some hot pixels visible. In such cases it's probably good idea to contact factory service and discuss the issue.
 
Last edited:
24p on both models?

24p on both models?

Does anyone know if the Consumer V1u will have the 24p feature or is that just on the pro model? :huh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top