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

Bogdan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yet it is used by pros in that class for that reason. The 1440 shot on the 1080p CineAlta used the HVX200 for a variety of shots and noted that they matched up quite nicely with the proper settings. Several big films have also used it. The bottom line is that many pros are using it with other 1080p cams and I havn't been hearing any complaints.

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.
Click to expand...

And no doubt JVC WOULD call it a 1080p camera if it actually outputted in 1080p mode. As it stands though, it doesn't.

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.
Click to expand...

Once again, people who probably know a lot more about cameras and probably make a lot more money than you do disagree. It seems many are more interested than the image than in resolution charts. In their case, having a clean 1080p image that looks good to them and is in the mild DVCProHD codec is more important than one with a bit more detail but in subpar HDV compression especially with many NLEs not supporting things like 24f. Once again, to most resolution charts don't mean a lot.

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 :)[/quote]

Less compressed but I doubt you'd get more resolved detail. You do get a bit more detail in 1080p. First off, read the article on how pixel shifting works because it's quite a bit more than just sampling the 960x540 CCDs and can in fact add resolution to the image (theoretically up to 1440x810). Second, I think your logic is just plain off. If you went ahead and just sampled the Canon at 720 (if there were some 720i signal) then it wouldn't be all that higher rez than a decent 720p camera. The mighty XL1 did pixel shifting and didn't even have full 720x480 CCDs. I certainly don't fault Canon for saying it was an SD camera. The bottom line is that, despite how the resolution was achieved, it looked acceptible to many in full 720x480 resolution and that's what it produced.
 
Maybe my understanding is too technical and by the numbers.

I know HVX's images are mixed with CineAlta and that people like them. I like them too and I never claimed HVX should stay away from projects shot primarily on much more expensive equipment.

If the industry accepts less technical standards, than what can I do about that except for not buying certain equipment and saying I disagree?

Some 4 or 6-cylinder cars perform almost like some 8-cylinder cars, but it does not make them 8-cylinder cars :)

I know very well how pixel shift works and I know its worst limitation in handling of images with dominant primary colors. I've seen it so many times in XL1 (which I owned and liked very much despite that). I've seen it in HVX footage also. Nothing can be done about that when there is simply not enough resolution in each sensor. When images contain mix of all primary colors, pixel shift helps significantly to increase the resolution, but 50% is only theoretical maximum. In reality, it's a dynamic process and results depend on balance of the primary colors and their levels. In worst case scenario, pixel shift gains 0% increase of resolution.

Pixel shift may take you 1 step further (OK, maybe 1.2 steps with milder compression), but not 2 steps. That 1 step took XL1 and XL1s with sub-DV resolution sensors up to DV standard and it takes HVX from 960x540 to 720p. Fact that 1080p mode looks better than 720p is primarily the result of higher sampling frequency in conjunction with more detailed approximation algorithm applied by the image processor. Practical advantages of horizontal and vertical pixel shift with 960x540 sensors above 720p level are minimal.

Edit: some last moment changes to minimize the risk of misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
You're right that the results of shifting aren't always consistant but, at the end of the day, it can come up with something greater than 720p (theoretically) and hence it calls its better mode 1080p because it is recorded in the 1080p file format and does all calculations at that resolution. I repeat, plenty of pros consider it 1080p for those reasons and have no issues with how it's been marketed. The Canon doesn't measure up to the best 60i can do and the HVX200 doesn't measure up to the best 1080p can do. Once again, when talking about resolved detail, even in 108060i the canon barely manages any more resolution than a good 720p camera but it's still called 1080i. Hell, the Sony can't even manage that. The format is refering to the process and how it's stored. I'm sorry so many people seemed to be under the impression that this thing had 1920x1080 CCDs but if you really thought that then I don't think your expectations where realistic in the least. It outputs 1080p, hence it's capible of 1080p. It's a format issue not a number grinding one. All the HD cameras are listed by their output capabilities not their resolved detail numbers or CCDs. The few times the CCD specs are included are only as a bragging right when they are actually full rez. And once again, I'm sure if JVC decides to go ahead and use pixel shifting or just plain uprez in their next camera, even if it has the same sized chips, I don't think anyone will complain when they lable it 1080p.
 
Bogdan said:
In my humble opinion, Canon and JVC are the only two companies of the bunch honest about their products.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. Actually, they were my first option after my former HVX interest and before the Silicon Imaging announcement and my RED ONE commitment.

Bogdan said:
(...) 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 :)
Click to expand...
Very honest post, my congrats and :dankk2:
 
That Shock protection feature can either be a saving grace or a nightmare to a run-and-gun filmer. Sure it will dock its heads and brace for impact, thereby stopping recording and saving camera. but how is this helpful to any snowboard/skateboard/extreme sports filmer who is following behind someone at high speeds and the internal trigger is set off by either a jump or sudden drop movement? Boom camera turns off, recording stops.

Good sounding idea but if not implemented properly. could be hell
 
I think it won't be that sensitive to dock the drum at this range of accelerations. Even skiing or snowboarding, forces that act on cameras people hold in hands are not that extreme, unless one really crashes or the cam is attached to the board.

I hope it's designed for hard impacts, when G forces are many times bigger due to sudden deceleration. It may also happen when the camera is hard framed to a bicycle or a truck, for example. Held in human hands, most likely shock protection will never engage. Anyway, who will dare to drop the camera on the floor to test it? :)
 
Last edited:
It's not their job, but... sometimes some of them are so eager to sell Sony or Pana products it almost feels as if they worked for them, so maybe they should do that from time to time to convince customers...

One thing they rarely forget is "resolution drop" in Canon's F mode, despite the fact it's the sweetest "resolution drop" one can buy currently below $20k.
 
Bogdan said:
One thing they rarely forget is "resolution drop" in Canon's F mode, despite the fact it's the sweetest "resolution drop" one can buy currently below $20k.
Click to expand...

Sweetest resolution drop indeed. Here's a real world comparison of 1080i and 24F, and the perceivable res drop. And believe me, it's very tough to perceive a difference in actual motion material. Whatever 24F loses in static images, it makes up for in filmic motion and progressive rendering.

1080i:
Sisters1080i.jpg


24F:
Sisters24F.jpg


Damn, I love the DIGIC processing. :) More 24F:
SisPic1.jpg

SisPic4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Beautiful images - thanks again Elton.

Dynamic range is impressive. At such a high contrasts, even DSLR cameras would be pushed to the limit.
 
Thanks Bogdan :)

Noise in the images? Of course there's some--it's a friggin' 1/3" 1.67 MP sensor!

btw, yes, I did overexpose slightly on one of the girls faces as the sun was hitting her directly in late afternoon. The dynamic range of the camera is pretty dang good for how dense the sensor is.
 
Plus the noise is perceived completely different way in motion than in static frames. In other words, it's less visible and more natural, like a film grain.
For clean, less organic look, there's always -3dB gain waiting to be dialed.

HVR-V1 is very nice move by Sony, but imo, 1/4" sensor size is a step in wrong direction. Such nice DOF effect as seen in Elton's examples will not be easy to achieve with V1 or FX7. Personally, I'd prefer Sony to include 1/3" sensors and larger lens even if the price jumped from $4.2k to $5.2k. Well, they have decided to go for more cost effective solution.
 
Last edited:
You're exactly right about perceiving the noise differently in motion clips vs. static images.

I have a clip from that shoot posted over at DVInfo.net in the XL-H1 sample clips section. It's actually a tethered SDI shot captured to Sheer and transcoded to PhotoJPEG QT for cross-platform purposes. Slower pc's might not play it full motion, but faster macs/pc's should be able to handle it.
 
Hey Elton, what is your name on dvinfo? I'm going to look for the clip. The grabs look amazing. Even the noise it has is not bad...it reminds me more of film grain than actual digital noise. I'm SO freaking excited about getting the A1!
 
On the noise topic, as well about your pics Barlow, I agree with all these last posts.

EDIT -- Rafa, é Barlow Elton.

1 Abraço,
Emanuel
 
I've still been testing the viability of lugging a G5 around. It's definitely workable for crewed shoots, but it's a PITA for one dude. ;-) Hopefully this CineForm/laptop express card thing happens. That will make a huge difference. It's quite reassuring to roll HDV tape while also recording nearly lossless SDI/analog output.

I did run some tape simultaneously so I'll post an m2t in a day or two. You'd be surprised how close in perceivable quality the HDV is. Skin tones and overall resolution are slightly improved with SDI, but it's the kind of thing that nobody but the most anal could ever care about. Also, there is definitely more latitude for cc with SDI 4:2:2, but in almost all cases the HDV is quite workable.

Greenscreen work, however, is where it makes a BIG difference. Not enough that you can't pull quality keys from HDV (if you know what you're doing) but it's super-easy to pull a really clean key from a nearly uncompressed 4:2:2 capture.
 
The footage looks great, Elton. Now stop teasing me because the A1 won't be available until mid november.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top