Sony reveals 1st NXCAM camcorder: HXR-NX5U

I may start shooting professionally this year. I'm seriously considering getting into doing video-centric websites, and if I do, that will involve putting 720 line HD video on the web (as well as SD). If I do decide to get into that, I'll probably be extremely interested in getting a 150, especially if used prices on them get hit as hard as I think they will over the next few months. I'm really expecting that it won't be that difficult to find a 150 for under $2500 this summer. Of course, I could be wrong. If prices on the 150 stay where they are at, I'd almost assuredly opt to spend a little more for the NX5U (assuming Canon lays an egg - which is highly unlikely). Aside from higher resolution imaging with the NX5U (which would be a plus on occasion - like shooting high shutter speed video streams to cherry pick stills from, for putting on the web), it also uses the old Sony NPF batteries that are a whale of a lot less expensive than the new proprietary Panny batteries (and I already have a couple of the 970s), and has that nice 128GB recording module available for cheaper than SDHC (per GB) after the rebate.

What I'm really hoping is for Canon to surprise us with a cam that uses their own 1/2.6" CMOS chips, essentially chips from the HF-S cams redesigned for 3 chip imaging, and offering 32Mbps AVC encoding (in addition to AVCHD). I don't think that is as far fetched as it might seem at a glance. Stepping away from 1/3" imaging chips sure isn't likely for Canon, but I'm not so sure they would not at least consider it. Offering the option of 32Mbps AVC encoding, rather than staying entirely and strictly within AVCHD specs for the cam, isn't that bold when you stop and think about it. It's only a minor variance from the AVCHD spec, and there's enough overhead with class-6 SDHC that it just wouldn't be a big deal technically either (no need for using anything but what is very common media nowadays anyway). I think of it as roughly akin to how Canon stepped slightly outside the line by offering native 24p MPEG-2 video encoding (that was otherwise HDV) in their HDV cams. If Canon does both those things, and brings out the XH-A1-like version of the cam at under $4k, sales of both the HMC150 and the NX5U would probably get thumped pretty hard.
 
I'd actually be mildly surprised if Canon doesn't offer 32Mbps AVC recording (that is otherwise the same as AVCHD) as an option. Canon seems to always offer some (not-entirely) "minor" innovation with their new products that indeed has a substantial benefit, yet isn't particularly risky (as far as pushing technology beyond what is essentially pretty mainstream). 32Mbps AVC just strikes me as exactly the sort of (not-all-that) "bold" thing Canon would do.
 
ATL Media Group said:
I'd bet it was the P2 workflow that they based this decision on.
Click to expand...
Wait -- so you're okay with the idea that there are other factors besides pixel count, that someone might base their decision on? :D

That's all I'm getting at. There are a lot of products out there, a lot of different products that meet different needs, and just because a product may not meet YOUR particular needs, doesn't mean that it's a dog of a product that only a fool would buy, etc. It just means that that particular product isn't aimed at you.
 
Barry_Green said:
Wait -- so you're okay with the idea that there are other factors besides pixel count, that someone might base their decision on? :D

That's all I'm getting at. There are a lot of products out there, a lot of different products that meet different needs, and just because a product may not meet YOUR particular needs, doesn't mean that it's a dog of a product that only a fool would buy, etc. It just means that that particular product isn't aimed at you.
Click to expand...

It met my needs as an owner of an HMC150. :happy:

Yes... I KNOW there are other determining factors besides pixel count. Otherwise I'd sell my HMC150's and get a couple of HMC40's. =)

I'm saying if everything else is equal, then the cam with the higher pixel count would win. I'd like multiple SD slots, and the external memory module like the NX5 has on my next Panny.

Now get crackin' and make it happen... heh
 
ATL Media Group said:
I'm saying if everything else is equal, then the cam with the higher pixel count would win. I'd like multiple SD slots, and the external memory module like the NX5 has on my next Panny.
Click to expand...
Right, but the point is -- everything else never is equal. The differing pixel counts are one way the manufacturers make their products have their distinctive look.

People used to gripe about the low-res sensors in the HVX200, and how if it just had the 1440x1080 of the Canon then everything would be wonderful. But what they don't get is: if the HVX200 had the same kind of sensors the Canon had, then it would have had the same limitations the Canon had. No 720p mode. No variable frame rates. No in-camera slow motion.

These engineering choices are made for a reason. The people who engineer these products aren't dumb, they're the best engineers in the world, working for the biggest camera manufacturers on the globe.
 
Everything is there for a reson.

The interlaced chips are there to offer 2x the vertical resolution without a loss in low light. A 960x1080i camera has an effective pixel size equal to that of a 960x540 progressive camera.

Limited resolution progressive serves a purpose also. Would you want a HVX with 1920x1080 sensors when you would sacrifice 75% of the effective pixel size in the process? All other things being equal, a CCD pixel size 4x smaller is -2 stops in latitude. Lower max photons per pixel and also higher noise due to higher frequencies. The 1280x1080 progressive mode would not be able to use the horizontal resolution anyway. The 960x540 CCDs provide a pixel area that is similar to that of a 1920x1080 native 2/3" ccd and a dSLR.

The tiny pixel size of cameras like the HMC40 makes them far inferior to a camera like the HVX in everything except test chart performance. 2megapixels on 1/4.1" sensor compared to 0.5megapixels on 1/3" sensor. About 7x smaller pixels compared to the HVX I believe. Even a change of 2x can mean a full stop of dynamic range. The output is clearly consumer IMHO in dynamic range when you compare with the more expensive cameras with the larger pixels and you sacrifice motion quality (rolling shutter) for the extra resolution.

An what is resolution good for if you only need DVDs and sd broadcast? It is lost in the downsampling, and all that remains is the disadvantages vs the large pixel ccd camera.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
The tiny pixel size of cameras like the HMC40 makes them far inferior to a camera like the HVX in everything except test chart performance.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Never mind the test charts. Let's go to a beach where there's lotsa hot babes in bikinis. You bring your HVX and I'll bring my HMC40. We'll see who comes back with better looking 1080p footage, when viewed on a 70" 1080p HDTV.
 
Yes, that's the typical situation where an affordable camcorder should perform:)

But there will a lot more blown highlights and the contrast would be very high in general.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
An what is resolution good for if you only need DVDs and sd broadcast? It is lost in the downsampling, and all that remains is the disadvantages vs the large pixel ccd camera.
Click to expand...

That is why we are having this discussion. We don't just deliver DVDs and SD broadcast.

I'm talking about the highest quality image for the money on Blu-Ray to a 42" and up 1080P TV.

If we were only concerned with SD then why even debate anything over 720?
 
Robert M Wright said:
Uh huh. Never mind the test charts. Let's go to a beach where there's lotsa hot babes in bikinis. You bring your HVX and I'll bring my HMC40. We'll see who comes back with better looking 1080p footage, when viewed on a 70" 1080p HDTV.
Click to expand...

I want to see who keys out the bikini the best... teehee
 
If you want to get the best quality, you can't ignore pixel quality. It's part of the deal and it has to balance against resolution. Or you will end up with a camera that hates highlights and has nothing in its shadows.

If you do run a digital filter to check what's above 600 lines PPH on an excellent bluray release, you will see that there is not much there. Absolutely nothing in 90% of the shots probably and in 10% an occational line will pass the filter in a very small part of the frame. You will see lots of material passing the filter only on animation titles and synthetic frames.
 
I'm looking forward to springtime ...and summer! It's tough to find hotties in bikinis at the beach this time of year in Minnesnowta! :cry:
 
Otis Grapsas said:
If you do run a digital filter to check what's above 600 lines PPH on an excellent bluray release, you will see that there is not much there. Absolutely nothing in 90% of the shots probably and in 10% an occational line will pass the filter in a very small part of the frame. You will see lots of material passing the filter only on animation titles and synthetic frames.
Click to expand...

This is true; many retail blu-ray titles have been low passed or filtered

But that's no reason to "dumb down" your own productions. If you have the actual resolved detail and resolution, you may as well use it
 
Robert M Wright said:
Are we talking lines per picture height of the letterboxed images? Most major motion picture releases aren't 16x9.
Click to expand...

No, on the 1920x1080 frame. So a 600 lines image would be 1066x600 but no filter stops that fast, so the filter would still pass a little more detail, to 700-720 lines perhaps. I set an MTF of 50% at 600 lines for this test.

If 600lines is considered commercially acceptable for very expensive productions, how much resolution do we really need on a camcorder? Especially when we know lens quality, focus and DOF, motion, compression etc will limit it anyway? Theater releases are even softer due to the release printing processes. We know that every increase in resolution reduces our dynamic range. The dynamic range is something everyone will enjoy regardless of the delivery resolution, his visual capabilities, the distance from the tv/screen, etc. That's why the low resolution camcorders are here to stay, for 1/4" and 1/3" at least.

Out of topic aren't we.
 
Otis Grapsas said:
No, on the 1920x1080 frame. So a 600 lines image would be 1066x600 but no filter stops that fast, so the filter would still pass a little more detail, to 700-720 lines perhaps. I set an MTF of 50% at 600 lines for this test.

If 600lines is considered commercially acceptable for very expensive productions, how much resolution do we really need on a camcorder? Especially when we know lens quality, focus and DOF, motion, compression etc will limit it anyway? Theater releases are even softer due to the release printing processes. We know that every increase in resolution reduces our dynamic range. The dynamic range is something everyone will enjoy regardless of the delivery resolution, his visual capabilities, the distance from the tv/screen, etc. That's why the low resolution camcorders are here to stay, for 1/4" and 1/3" at least.

Out of topic aren't we.
Click to expand...

Very good post! Resolution is more of a nerd thing really I think, like MHz for computers or BHP for cars. Not really a very good indication of how good the camera is over all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top