Sony V1 & FX7 - UPDATE: 24P in NTSC Model!
- Thread starter mikkowilson
- Start date
SergejIvanovits
Well-known member
The only comparison test which could matter is the "show me the best you can do with your camcorder" test.
Those shootouts was just waisting the time. To try to make one camcorder act like it was an other one, to use so much time to adjust a Sony or Canon to act like a ... what ever camcorder, it is just not right. I mean one of the DP's job is to have control over the light both outside of the camera and inside of the camera.
Only a tourist with his palmcorder has to accept the given lightnings situation.
Those shootouts was just waisting the time. To try to make one camcorder act like it was an other one, to use so much time to adjust a Sony or Canon to act like a ... what ever camcorder, it is just not right. I mean one of the DP's job is to have control over the light both outside of the camera and inside of the camera.
Only a tourist with his palmcorder has to accept the given lightnings situation.
Hmmm...I like that idea. "Show me the best you can do with your camcorder" test...
Then again, different people would define "best" differetnly. For some, a scene would be better off with more contrast, while othersw would have preferred a warmer tone, and so on, and so forth!
Then again, different people would define "best" differetnly. For some, a scene would be better off with more contrast, while othersw would have preferred a warmer tone, and so on, and so forth!
SergejIvanovits
Well-known member
If you are in the news business than broadcasters know what the best is... if you are in the art, film, movie business than you can have many different look ( I'm not talking about CC ) but everyone can get an idea what the best your camcorder can do if you are making the "show me the best... " test.
Last edited:
I disagree. There will probably be significant overlap. Both have 24p, which appeals to indie filmmakers. If the image is as good as initial reports claim, I expect the V1u will also be popular with TV DPs as a "B" camera (as is the Z1, HD-100, and HVX200).BennisHahn said:
NewYorkLion
Well-known member
SergejIvanovits said:
umm, yeah that's just a little bit of a mis-statement there. As a professional cam op, who shoots mostly docs and run and gun. I very often have to accept a given lighting situation.
That being said, I don't call my self a DP, nor would I agree with alot of the guys who say they are DPs, but that is an entirely different thread isnt it?
Barry_Green said:
But the FX1 is interlaced, so that means it does a vertical pic twice. i.e, 960, and then another 960, giving a total of 1920x1080?
If thats the case (as i understand) then the fx1 theoretically still has higher resolution because it overall vertical resolution is higher as a summation of two seperate passes. The V1 on the other hand does a single "progressive" capture of 960 and then interpolates to 1440? Then whats the benefit over the FX1 since it could already get 960 by losing one field?
Aaargh, something isnt right with my logic there. Anyone is welcome to correct me.
Barry_Green
Moderator
960 is horizontal, and has nothing to do with vertical or interlacing.
1080 is vertical.
In interlaced, one 1440x540 field is pulled, then another 1440x540 field is pulled. The even lines are scanned, and then the odd lines. You never have one "frame" with both even and odd lines at the same time, you have two separate "fields", one that contains even, one that contains odd. The combined effect of them is to deliver an image with about 700 lines of vertical resolution.
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.
1080 is vertical.
In interlaced, one 1440x540 field is pulled, then another 1440x540 field is pulled. The even lines are scanned, and then the odd lines. You never have one "frame" with both even and odd lines at the same time, you have two separate "fields", one that contains even, one that contains odd. The combined effect of them is to deliver an image with about 700 lines of vertical resolution.
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.
MovieSwede
Well-known member
Its 1440 due to Interpolation. A little different from pixelshift. But hey if it works that good, its okay with me.
Brings me wonder. If Sony managed to make a codec that supported 960*1080 4:4:4 and let us do the same interpolation in post. We had a very intresting camera.
Brings me wonder. If Sony managed to make a codec that supported 960*1080 4:4:4 and let us do the same interpolation in post. We had a very intresting camera.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The FX1 uses spatial offset ("pixel shift") on the horizontal axis. Just like the XHL1 does, just like the HVX does (except the HVX is both horizontal and vertical); just like most every camera does.
The V1U is different, it has 960x1080 as well but it uses a different method to get 960 up to 1920. The pixels are diagonal, for one thing, and Sony refers to it as an "interpolation" process.
The V1U is different, it has 960x1080 as well but it uses a different method to get 960 up to 1920. The pixels are diagonal, for one thing, and Sony refers to it as an "interpolation" process.
According a post by esp, No. 17 in this thread, Sony claims 800 lines for the V1 vs. 650 for the Z1. Although no manufacturer is above hyping a product by citing results of tests optimized to yield inflated figures, I doubt Sony would intentionally do so at the Z1's expense. Is it possible that V1 is actually capable of a higher-resolution image than the Z1? If so, I can only imagine what a third-inch ClearVid chip will do.Barry_Green said:
Barry_Green
Moderator
We'll find out.
Tzedekh said:
The numbers and differences I posted earlier were copied from a flipbook of a Sony engineer that was kind enough to let me read on the floor of the Sony booth at IBC.
There is no direct analogy between resolution and sensor size. For example there still cameras that sport 6MP sensors which are smaller than 1/4inch. The difference is in the low light capabilities (bigger sensor with same no of pixels means bigger pixels and thus better low light perfomance) and in the DOF.
The difference between the V1 and the Z1 is not the size of the sensor but the pixel shape. Z1 uses 960X1080 rectangular pixels while V1 uses 960X1080 square ones.
One other thing, is that Sony's V1 utilizes double pixels (960X1080) than Panasonic's HVX (960X540) in their effort to produce a progressive frame - albeit and a different interpolation - it is reasonable that they may produce a sharper image.
Understood. In fact, "bigger sensor with same no of pixels means bigger pixels and thus better low light perfomance" holds only if the design and materials are the same. So, assuming the same basic design and materials but increased chip size, theoretically either the resolution can increase (more pixels at the same pixel size) or the light sensitivity can improve (larger pixels), or both can improve (somewhat larger pixels and more of them).esp said:
Yes, that much is obvious. For us, one of the biggest reasons for wanting larger chip size (low-cost 2/3 chip is ideal!) is due to our ever-increasing apetite for shallower DOF. The V1's 1/4 chip size basically "increases" DOF even further, which is a step backward.
In any event, there is a likelihood that if the image is that much better than the Z1, the V1 might still be a killer true-progressive camera. The cheapest true-progressive of the lot.
In any event, there is a likelihood that if the image is that much better than the Z1, the V1 might still be a killer true-progressive camera. The cheapest true-progressive of the lot.
Hugh DiMauro
Well-known member
Someting Troubles Me Here
Someting Troubles Me Here
In the following link, Sony's Bob Ott describes the V1's 24p in a way that confuses me as compared to my understanding of the DVX 100b's 24p. Is there a difference? And if so, what are the pros and cons?
http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=67635
And here is an excerpt from a VI review:
The biggest feature you pay for with the extra $1,300--the V1U will run $4,800 when it ships in December--is progressive-scan support. That's for 1080 24p recording, however, not 720p or 1080p; like the FX7, the V1U records HDV 1080i footage.
Now I'm confused as hell.
Someting Troubles Me Here
In the following link, Sony's Bob Ott describes the V1's 24p in a way that confuses me as compared to my understanding of the DVX 100b's 24p. Is there a difference? And if so, what are the pros and cons?
http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=67635
And here is an excerpt from a VI review:
The biggest feature you pay for with the extra $1,300--the V1U will run $4,800 when it ships in December--is progressive-scan support. That's for 1080 24p recording, however, not 720p or 1080p; like the FX7, the V1U records HDV 1080i footage.
Now I'm confused as hell.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
There's confusion regarding this. Part of the confusion is the way he chose his words. What he's saying is that it doesn't do 720p at all. Secondly, he's saying that while it scans progressively, it does not record progressive frames. It only records an interlaced 60i data stream. So the progressive footage gets split into fields and some fields get duplicated, in order to pad a 24-frame progressive sequence into becoming a 60-field interlaced sequence.
The DVX, XL2, and other 24p cameras can do the same thing; recording their 24p images within a 60i data stream.
So that part's not worrisome. Some other things Mr. Ott has said have been worrisome; he said that the "big difference" between CineFrame 24 and real 24p is primarily just the shutter speeds you can select(!) I'd like to chalk that up to him maybe not understanding the technology or something, but now on DVInfo.net Simon Wyndham has posted progressive & interlace footage showing that the Sony's progressive is noticeably softer/lower res than its interlaced footage. That's not a positive sign.
I still think they are doing genuine progressive, but frankly I wouldn't put it past 'em for them to be doing some manner of 24F processing either. I won't know for sure until I get my hands on it.
The DVX, XL2, and other 24p cameras can do the same thing; recording their 24p images within a 60i data stream.
So that part's not worrisome. Some other things Mr. Ott has said have been worrisome; he said that the "big difference" between CineFrame 24 and real 24p is primarily just the shutter speeds you can select(!) I'd like to chalk that up to him maybe not understanding the technology or something, but now on DVInfo.net Simon Wyndham has posted progressive & interlace footage showing that the Sony's progressive is noticeably softer/lower res than its interlaced footage. That's not a positive sign.
I still think they are doing genuine progressive, but frankly I wouldn't put it past 'em for them to be doing some manner of 24F processing either. I won't know for sure until I get my hands on it.