Sony V1 & FX7 - UPDATE: 24P in NTSC Model!

If the Sony does have true 24P, Ott have done one of the worsta PR mistake I could think of.

"When you edit in 24-frame, the concept is that you're going to transfer this to film. But what we're finding is, a high percentage of users aren't bothering to go to film -- they go right to video. So what's nice is you don't have to go through this process, the extra mechanics of taking it from 60i to 24p look, to true 24p, or whatever you want to call that 24-frame look. You don't have to go through all those processes. You can edit it in the 60i mode, using existing technology.
"

At least there is hope for the European model.
 
Thanks, Barry. I'm still very much in lust with my DVX 100b and your book. The way I feel, if a genie pops out of a bottle and grants me one camera wish, it'll be the VariCam. Something about how "Matsushita" just rolls off my lips...

Mmmmmm. Mattttssssuuuuuushiiiiiiitaaaaaaa!

HEY! Look how DVX User automatically adds an asterisk to any word it deems inappropriate! It didn't like the "****" in MatsuSHITa! COOL!
 
This is so bizarre. Everyone praises the CineAltas for their 24p but Sony seems to be having so many issues on the consumer level. Statements like the one Swede and Barry posted make it hard to tell whether its real 24p or not since the guy clearly has no idea what he's talking about. It reminds me of when I was doing some shooting with the Z1 for a documentary and, when I told the guy in charge that I was partial to Panasonic because of it's 24p, he said, "why do you want to pay more money for flicker?" Two years ago in school I had a professor, by far the stupidest one I have ever had, who said he didn't like 24p motion from the DVX because, "It looks like it's trying to be film. It's not the same motion as film but it's trying." I really should check back with these guys and see if they're Sony PR people now.

When you edit in 24-frame, the concept is that you're going to transfer this to film. But what we're finding is, a high percentage of users aren't bothering to go to film -- they go right to video. So what's nice is you don't have to go through this process, the extra mechanics of taking it from 60i to 24p look, to true 24p, or whatever you want to call that 24-frame look. You don't have to go through all those processes. You can edit it in the 60i mode, using existing technology.
Click to expand...

Can someone send him the section in Barry's DVX book where it explains the difference between 24p and 24pA? I think this guy would really benafit.

I really don't get why this is so confusing. Why can't they either do the Pansonic/JVC route and say, "we're using progressive chips and true 24p motion," or be like Canon and say, "we're using interlaced chips for simulated 24p but the motioin is far better than before and now near identical to true 24p." It's not so hard.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...
If the frames start out progressive, then, as you said, an interlace signal is created by splitting the progressive frames into fields, with interlaced judder frames synthesized to bring the number up to 30. So there would be no need to combine interlaced fields to yield 24 fps and then either apply intelligent deinterlacing or simply throw out half the fields. All that would be necessary would be to discard the judder frames and then recombine the previously progressive frames. If progressive footage is consistently softer, then it sounds as if data are being discarded or something else odd is going on.
 
DavidBeier said:
I really don't get why this is so confusing. Why can't they either do the Pansonic/JVC route and say, "we're using progressive chips and true 24p motion," or be like Canon and say, "we're using interlaced chips for simulated 24p but the motioin is far better than before and now near identical to true 24p." It's not so hard.
Click to expand...

In a void where this is their only product, that would be not so hard, true. But Sony has other products and they probably have to try to toe an imaginary line. What about the thousands of FX1s and Z1s out there with CineFrame 24? If they acknowledge that 24p is "better", do they have furious existing customers?

What about XDCAM-HD? That's all interlaced-only stuff. Sure it claims "24p" but it's interlaced chips. If they say "progressive is better" do they jeopardize all their hoped-for XDCAM-HD sales?

They're behind an 8-ball, and I don't envy them their position. But I am still puzzled. There has never been a 24p camera that produces sharper footage in interlaced than in progressive! It's always the other way around. So what is Sony doing? Are they doing an XDCAM-HD type of thing where it's actually interlaced? Or is it something as simple as dropping the edge-enhancement whenever you go into progressive mode (sort of like what Panasonic does when you choose CineGamma). I should ask Simon to test that, if he still has the camera.

By all rights, the footage should not get any softer when going to progressive. It should instead get sharper.
 
Barry, thank you for being exceptionally straightforward

Barry, thank you for being exceptionally straightforward

Barry_Green said:
... There has never been a 24p camera that produces sharper footage in interlaced than in progressive! It's always the other way around...
By all rights, the footage should not get any softer when going to progressive. It should instead get sharper.
Click to expand...

This is great news.

Isn't it equally true that all else being equal, 1080 will always be sharper (higher resolution) than 720?
 
Well, that's a much broader question. How are all other things equal? If we're talking about shooting on the same camera through the same lens at the same frame rate, then 1080/30p will be higher res than 720/30p and 1080/24p will be higher res than 720/24p.

But where the debate comes in is when we go to 60. Because there isn't a 1080/60p yet, but there is a 720/60p. So you have to compare 1080/60i vs. 720/60p, and there's a whole lot more room for debate there. 720/60p just looks better than 1080/60i in any high-motion sequence. On static/drama type shots, 1080/60i can look just fine. But for sports 720/60p just looks better.

Once there's a 1080/60p (which is probably years in the future) then the debate between 720 and 1080 goes away; obviously 1080 would be better at that point. At the same progressive frame rate, more pixels = better. But when you have to go to interlacing to get the motion sampling higher (i.e., 1080/60i) the results aren't as good, and 720/60p holds an advantage there for many viewers.
 
Jack_Felis said:
I hate those comparisons like that, the ones that are ridiculously false. I especially hate the HD vs. SD videos played on TV's in stores to show the difference between them, the SD is obviously way out of focus yet the HD is crystal clear, it's just so faked!
Click to expand...

It's like when they showcase the quality of Monster Cable Component cable next to a standard cheapo composite cable to show how much better Monster Cable is. Gimmie 2 more of those cheapo composite cords and hook me in to the component and then lets try it again.
 
Isn't it equally true that all else being equal, 1080 will always be sharper (higher resolution) than 720?
Click to expand...

If both were interlaced or both were progressive. yes... unfortunately the people who designed HD decided to go for a mix of interlaced and progressive modes. If you're doing a transfer from film then you only have 24fps progressive footage anyway so 1080i is almost always going to deliver more resolution, but from video it's more of a tossup: effectively it's 1280x720 at 60Hz vs 1920 (or 1440 anamorphic) x 540 at 60Hz.

The interlacing is particularly problematic now that so many TVs are progressive scan rather than CRTs, and can't handle interlaced footage natively.
 
They could in theory build a HVX200a with 1080P 60FPS.

It already handle that in camera, but it isnt compatible with DVCPROHD standard. But if they place that in the 60i stream where 2 seconds is 1 real second. Then you correct it in post. Sound is another issue.

And it aint fun with 2gb/min on the p2 card.
 
But first HVX would need to be 1080p camera. For now, it's 720p and 1080 is interpolated by the image processor. 720p is its native mode.

We will have to wait a little for true 1080p 24, 25 and 30fps in this price range, let alone higher frame rates. Even $25k Sony F350 does not go above 30fps with full 1080p resolution.
 
Bogdan said:
But first HVX would need to be 1080p camera. For now, it's 720p and 1080 is interpolated by the image processor. 720p is its native mode.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. 1080 looks better than 720. Its native mode is 1080, 720 is made by downrezzing its 1080 image.
 
Barry_Green said:
You're wrong. 1080 looks better than 720. Its native mode is 1080, 720 is made by downrezzing its 1080 image.
Click to expand...

Well, the last time I visited Panasonic's website, they called 720p HVX's native mode :) I agree, 1080 looks slightly better than 720p (by saying 720p was native mode I didn't mean something different), but it's far from what we should expect from 1080p camera. HVX is a great cam, but imho it should be called what it really is and it's not 1080p camera. It's capable of recording 1080p, but does not capture that resolution.
 
i wasn't sure reading the specs on the sony site but will their 24p mode have their famous GAIN capabilities as well?
 
Bogdan said:
Well, the last time I visited Panasonic's website, they called 720p HVX's native mode :) I agree, 1080 looks slightly better than 720p (by saying 720p was native mode I didn't mean something different), but it's far from what we should expect from 1080p camera. HVX is a great cam, but imho it should be called what it really is and it's not 1080p camera. It's capable of recording 1080p, but does not capture that resolution.
Click to expand...

Well by that standard, HVX200 is as much a 1080P cam as DVX100 and XL2 is a 480P/576P cam. They all record to a interlace signal. But they can all extract a true progressive footage in post.

With the new Sony it is different, it cant extract a true progressive footage in post.

EDIT Sorry missread you, but the capture is 1080P because thats how it works interanally in the cam. Or else the XL1 wouldnt be a SD cam.
 
Bogdan said:
Well, the last time I visited Panasonic's website, they called 720p HVX's native mode :) I agree, 1080 looks slightly better than 720p (by saying 720p was native mode I didn't mean something different), but it's far from what we should expect from 1080p camera. HVX is a great cam, but imho it should be called what it really is and it's not 1080p camera. It's capable of recording 1080p, but does not capture that resolution.
Click to expand...

What's true resolution? No camera is capible of capturing a full 1920x1080 lines that I know of. In progressive mode, the XLH1 and Z1 can't capture as much resolution as a strong 720p camera like the Varicam. Even in 1080i they aren't able to capture the full 1000 vertical lines that a 1080p big boy like the CineAlta or Genisis can. All of the cameras 1080 modes is not the best 1080p. I think we all know this. The HVX200 on the other hand displays more detail in 1080p mode (about 20% by most conervative estimates), has much less compression, and does all its processing in a 1920x1080 signal. Hence, a 1080p designation. I'm not saying I think the 1080p performance is great. I think of it more as a 720p camera myself but if you're going to quibble over the term with the HVX200 you might as well do so with all the other cams under 100k.
 
Just look at the facts.

HVX200 produce more detail in 1080P mode than in 720P mode. So by my calculations it produce a better image than "luma 960*720 chroma 480*720".

Of course thats will make it better than the varicam?. Is it better? No. Why? because image is more then techspecs.
 
DavidBeier said:
What's true resolution? No camera is capible of capturing a full 1920x1080 lines that I know of. In progressive mode, the XLH1 and Z1 can't capture as much resolution as a strong 720p camera like the Varicam.
Click to expand...

My point wasn't 1920x1080 but rather marketing standards. I don't like advertising campaigns of some companies trying to convince the masses their products belong to certain group e.g. 1080p class while in fact they don't. FX1, Z1, V1, XL-H1, XH-A1, XH-G1, HVX200, GY-HD100 and 110 are all HD camcorders, but none of them has right to be called 1080p.

I never said XL-H1 was 1080p cam. Canon advertises it as 1080i-resolution camera. At least they are honest. They give us progressive-like F mode without telling us it's 1080p. They included native HDV2 resolution (1440x1080i) CCDs and the camera delivers what it promises.

OK, you may claim HVX is 1080p camera. Thinking this way, JVC GY-HD 100 could be also 1080p because it produces slightly sharper images than HVX200 and only things it needs to be advertised as that is higher sampling frequency and 1080p recording capability.

In my humble opinion, Canon and JVC are the only two companies of the bunch honest about their products. Canon advertises H1, A1 and G1 as 1080i resolution cams and includes native HDV2 resolution (1440x1080i) sensors. JVC advertises HD-GY100 cameras as 720p and includes native HDV1 resolution (1280x720p) sensors. I know, color space and codec is important, but no codec in this world can turn HVX200 into 1080p camera.

If HVX200 were able to sample signal from its 960x540 CCDs with high enough frequency, encode it and then record it to P2, it could even be 4k camcorder and I'm sure, that "4k" mode would look slightly better than 1080p :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top