Sony's new HDV camera (does 1080/24p)

But I also read it uses 1/4" CCD's. WTF sony, it almost seemed like you had a winner there, and then you go and use smaller CCD's? No thanks. By the way, why is this in the HVX thread?
 
The following is from the actual Sony press release . . .

"The new [HVR-V1U] delivers true 24P progressive scan capture, and uses three of Sony’s ClearVid CMOS Sensor™ chips . . . Unlike "progressive-look" pictures interpolated from interlace scan camera systems, the HVR-V1U camcorder’s 3 ClearVid CMOS Sensor system natively captures progressive images at 24P, 30P or 60P, while maintaining full 1080 HDV resolution."

Where did you read it used 1/4" CCDs? The press release was conveniently silent on CCD size.
 
It doesn't use CCDs at all, it uses CMOS. And yes they're 1/4", they're 960x1080 using a diagonal pixel layout.

As for 60p, that's Sony's marketing for you. It does not record or output 60p. It scans its chips at 60p (the same as the HVX and JVC do) and it processes its internal signal at 1920x1080x60p (the same as the HVX does). The Canon (afaik) scans its chips into a 1920x1080x60i matrix too. But the way Sony presents it, they make it sound like they're doing something special, when it's nothing different than the others are already doing. The Sony is using some sort of pixel-shift technique to get its 960x1080 up to 1920x1080, then downrezzing to 1440x1080 for output. Again, the same as everyone else does.

The article got it wrong, because Sony's press release is worded in such a way that it's causing confusion. The V1 SCANS its chips at a 60p data rate, and processes internally at 1920x1080x60p, but it does not record 60p, it doesn't output 60p, it only records or outputs 60i (whether interlaced, or 24p embedded in 60i using 2:3, or 30p embedded in 60i).
 
scharky said:
But I also read it uses 1/4" CCD's. WTF sony, it almost seemed like you had a winner there, and then you go and use smaller CCD's? No thanks.
Click to expand...
«Further, because of Sony’s CMOS design, the photosensitive sites of these 1/4in. CMOS chips are identical in size to those of the 1/3in. CCDs used in the Z1.»

LINK
 
interesting link..

"Sony’s 16:9 1/4in. ClearVid CMOS chips deserve special note, because these wonders introduce a pixel grid that’s tilted 45 degrees, such that pixels that would ordinarily be square are diamond shaped. This makes possible a new zigzag-shaped co-siting of pixels that’s beyond the scope of this short description. Not a pixel-shifting technique, the configuration effectively multiplies the resolution of these 1/4in. chips."

hey barry and now?
 
And now what? They're employing some sort of spatial offset technique which they've named "Sony original interpolation Process". I don't see how that really changes anything; every company uses pixel shift or some variation of it (except JVC, and they get fixed-pattern noise because they don't use it).

I think the V1 probably looks every bit as good as the XHA1, or maybe better. I'd like to try it out. But I don't care for worrying about how they claim they're getting there; like I said, Sony themselves is showing a 1440x1080-derived XLH1 photo right next to a 960x540-derived HVX photo, and you can't tell much if any difference at all other than that the XLH1's version is noisier. Did having 3x as many pixels make a difference? No, and debating marketing statistics isn't going to make a difference either.

Instead, look at the footage. DSE posted some footage, go look at it. If you think it matches what you wanted, then the V1 is for you (regardless of whether it uses pixels on a diagonal axis with interpolation, or whatever else it does).

If the footage looks good, they've done their job. Doesn't matter how many pixels they take to get it, or what method they use to get it, as long as the results are consistently good.
 
I'm not so scared off by the pixel count as much as the physical size of the sensor, meaning, if you thought shallow DoF is hard to get with a 1/3" CCD then try it with a 1/4". Sure there isn't that much difference but enough to notice. Still think the A1 is the camera for me.
 
Interesting - I did a google search and it's also said that the camera is NATIVE 4:3 and NOT native 16:9. Expected to cost around $5800.

Sorry Sony, you're a day late and a dollar short if this is correct.
 
carlone said:
Interesting - I did a google search and it's also said that the camera is NATIVE 4:3 and NOT native 16:9. Expected to cost around $5800.

Sorry Sony, you're a day late and a dollar short if this is correct.
Click to expand...

Uhhh... it says EVERYWHERE the CMOS chips are 16X9 and the MSRP is $4799



ash =o)
 
" I must say the 24p look of this camera is remarkable. It's the closest to full HDTV I've seen this 25mbit/s HDV format get. That's helped along tremendously by its CMOS sensors, instead of the CCDs of previous HDV camcorders from Sony and others. These refined CMOS sensors give the camera better interpolation, higher dynamic range and increased perceived resolution, too. It's all good."

I wouldn't worry about quarter of an inch sensors. Sounds like Sony have done a great job here. Superior Sony build quality, and an improvement over the already massively popular ZU1. Think this camera is going to sell absolute bucket loads.
 
AshG said:
Uhhh... it says EVERYWHERE the CMOS chips are 16X9 and the MSRP is $4799
Click to expand...

I stand corrected (I guess)
This site mentions that it's "expected" to cost around $5600

http://www.digitalcamcordernews.com/posts/2006/09/442-sony-hvr-v1e-hd-digita

Whatever the cost it will certainly entice sony users who bought into the HDV format to upgrade (and it's definatly an upgrade).
If it's priced at $4700 I'd have to say that it could take a bite into the HVX market (or maybe panasonic will announce cheaper P2 cards to offset this potential loss in market share).
 
Last edited:
drameddie said:
Can even attach a hard drive to it:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/sony-intros-hvrv1u-hdv-pro-camcorder-filmmakers-ogle-its-24pness-201756.php

With these new camcorders coming out, I wonder if a new DVX is about to come out after September 30th.
Click to expand...

Is there a specific place where you can attach a hard-drive to it? Or is it just stating that you can use a Firestore or something like every other camera.

As far as I knew you needed some kinda controller to record to a Hard-Drive.

On to the issue--

I'm late on a release date: When is the V1 hitting US shelves again?? Last I read it wasn't any time soon.
 
It'll be out in December.

As for hard disk, it's firewire like any other. The news is that Sony has introduced their own firestore type of device that integrates with the camera and sends feedback like hard drive status onto the camera's LCD. And it's tiny, it uses a 1.8" drive instead of the larger 2.5" drives everyone else uses.

But no, there's no magical port or anything, it's the same kind of firewire streaming that all DV and HDV cameras support.
 
Barry_Green said:
It'll be out in December.

As for hard disk, it's firewire like any other. The news is that Sony has introduced their own firestore type of device that integrates with the camera and sends feedback like hard drive status onto the camera's LCD. And it's tiny, it uses a 1.8" drive instead of the larger 2.5" drives everyone else uses.

But no, there's no magical port or anything, it's the same kind of firewire streaming that all DV and HDV cameras support.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought, on the storage device. Not so excited. HOWEVER--

HDMI out. I noticed on another board, Barry, that you mentioned uncompressed HDMI out from the camera. How "uncompressed" can you idealize that it is? I know that I'm all up for going tethered on a shoot, and so the XH-A1's Analog out and a Kona/AJA card was right up my alley.

HDMI > HDSDI converted + Kona/AJA sounds just as nice, to me. HDMI is a digital signal, should it yield better results "theoretically" than an Analog Signal? Even when being converted?
 
Kholi said:
uncompressed HDMI out from the camera. How "uncompressed" can you idealize that it is? ... HDMI is a digital signal, should it yield better results "theoretically" than an Analog Signal? Even when being converted?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm thinking about it like this: SDI is a digital signal transfer device, and so is firewire. SDI is used on big decks and such, and is expensive; firewire is dirt cheap. I wonder if HDMI won't be the "firewire" equivalent to HD-SDI? It sure seems like it would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top