V1U for indie film?

T

TommyAF

Member
I'm starting production on my first independent film next month, and I was all set to buy the V1U and hard drive for it, but now I'm second guessing after seeing this.

Elton said:
Actually, I think you can go wrong. Unless that oil paint effect has been eradicated on the V1U it doesn't make sense to buy it for 24p purposes. It looks pretty bad.
Click to expand...

What is this oil paint effect and is it a common problem? If I can't use the 24p feature effectively that pretty much kills the camera for me, but I haven't seen any issues on any of the footage I've watched on here. Ugh why does this have to be so complicated, someone familliar with the camera please chime in here :undecided
 
fine by me

fine by me

Just bought the camera and it looks great to me. no $4000 camera is going to do everything that you need it to. The reason i got it is bc i wanted the Sony HDV but also the Panasonic 24p. When this came out it seemed easy.
yours, jim
 
gnomebard said:
Just bought the camera and it looks great to me. no $4000 camera is going to do everything that you need it to. The reason i got it is bc i wanted the Sony HDV but also the Panasonic 24p. When this came out it seemed easy.
yours, jim
Click to expand...

So you've shot 24p footage and there aren't any issues?
 
A question about this Oil Paint Effect. The only place where this comes up is a few times here at this forum, and then quite a bit at the DVINFO forums. But of all the other reviews I have read, no one mentions it, and everybody seems really impressed by the image quality.

And over on DVinfo, it seems many people think the oil paint effect is overblown. It seems that there are a few folks who really dislike it, says it's horrible etc, and others who say it's nothing, hard to see(in NTSC models), and it's a great camera. Even Adam Wilt gave it a good review.

And now, they try and avoid the topic it seems on DVinfo because they say a it's a case closed, this has been discussed enough already topic. I am confused. Barry at one point said he knew someone who was going to really look into this camera, some engineer? Something to that effect. Did this ever happen? I was so excited when this camera was first announced, and initial reviews seemed so positive. But is it really that crippled with this "oil paint" effect? I am on a way limited budget(baby on the way) so I can't even spend the moola to rent it and check it out for my self. I come to these 'boards and forums to try and edjumicate myself about these cameras so I can make a smart buying decision. And this camera has me stumped. is it really that bad? Or is it really that great?

Thanks,
 
What I would guess at is that the effects aren't present in 90-97% of all cases where 24p is enabled, or it isn't noticeable enough. But when it does occur the effects are so obvious as to be annoying, and people have taken the error somewhat out of proportion. I've taken a look at some stuff posted on DVinfo and I personally have trouble seeing messed up portions of the image unless I carefully pay attention. But what it comes down to is when you just forked out $4000 for a camera you want it to work perfectly 100% of the time. No one wants to take the chance that the oil paint effect will screw up an irreplacable shot or messed up a client's video. That's why I think people are turning away from the V1 inspite of the fact that everything else is well put together.
 
Adam Wilt gave it a good review but I asked him about the oil paint effect, and he said "what oil paint effect?" I described it, he tried it, and he said something like "whoa -- how did I miss that?!?" He said he would do a follow-up article about it.

I am on a way limited budget(baby on the way) so I can't even spend the moola to rent it and check it out for my self.
Click to expand...
If you're on a limited budget, and you're already willing to accept HDV, why wouldn't you be looking at the Canon XHA1 instead? With the new $250 rebate, it's about $1,000 less than the V1U.
 
I know I shouldn't be thinking this, but the whole 24f/20% loss of vertical (is that right?) resolution bugs me. In theory, the Sony HVR-V1U should be a great 1080/24P cam...except for that blasted mysterious "oil paint" effect. yes it's more money than the A1, but it's cheaper than the HVX 200. Plus I love the whole add on hard drive that was designed to work with the V1U. Again, I would have to save and wait to get it down the road, but it's cool. The Canon and Firestore option just doesn't seems as elegant.

I'm just bitching here, I realize, but it would be great if they could take the CMOS from the Canon HV20, and fit three of them in the A1. True 24p in a canon.

In any case, thanks for the reply, Barry. I look forward to Adam Wilts update on the V1U.
 
This whole issue of "true" 24p is highly misleading. Canon made a serious mistake in calling their 24fps mode 24F instead of 24p because then people automatically think there's something "wrong" with it. Don't look at the theoretical specs, look at the result. Yes, you do lose some resolution, but I assure you when you look at 1080 footage on 24F, you be hard pressed to tell where those resolution went. Sony made a big deal about their camera being the only one that scans 1080p natively, but put those two cameras together and I guarantee you'll have a hard time telling which one has less resolution.

We should sent a petition or something asking Canon to rename 24F to 24p.
 
I guess my feelings about 24f/24p/1080p etc. come from my wish to have a movie play on a big screen in a festival or something - either as a film out or via digital projection. Biggest bang for the buck is what it comes down to. Highest resolution and best possible image for the right price. The A1 may just fit the bill, but so might the Sony V1U if it's workable. Heck, even the Canon HV20 might fit the bill. I just read that the A1 has a 20% drop in vertical resolution and it makes me wonder. Seeing it on a big screen TV, I'm sure I wouldn't see the lower res. seeing it blown up on a movie screen, that lower resolution starts to show up. I know it's so limited in image manipulation, etc, but even the HV20 has a full 1080p res.
 
Darth Bunnykins said:
I know it's so limited in image manipulation, etc, but even the HV20 has a full 1080p res.
Click to expand...
Nope. The HV20 uses a Bayer pattern to interpret color information so it offers no where near full 1080p res. With a slightly bigger chip it's probably comparable to the A1 or most other HDV cam but you're not getting full res with any of these cameras. Barry explains it better here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=86068&page=2&highlight=raster

Like I said, don't believe everything the press release tells you. It's like Sony claming that the V1U records image at 4:2:2. It certainly does, but not in HDV compression. All of these cameras, from the V1U, the HVX and the A1/H1 all uses pixel shifting to achieve HD res, so you're never going to the full 1080 lines. You're looking at something like the Varicam or the CineAlta for that.
 
Heck, even Varicam & CineAlta only get you full horizontal res. The vertical res on those is a cheat (960X720 for Varicam & 1440X1080 for CineAlta with onboard HDCAM... unless you're recording to an external HDCAM SR deck... that would get you full raster.)
 
Doesn't the F950 record full?

Also, I thought the Canon's didn't use pixel shift, but did have 1440x1080 chips? (Well, maybe that isn't full res, but close - you get the idea. And no, I don't think the Canon is the same as a F950!)
 
All 3-chip cameras use "pixel shift" (aka Spatial Offset); I think only the JVC HD100 series doesn't, and in their case you end up with the fixed-pattern noise that spatial offset helps eliminate.

The Canons use it to go from 1440 to 1920 internally (and through HDMI); it gets downconverted back to 1440 for recording.
 
jade8472 said:
This whole issue of "true" 24p is highly misleading. Canon made a serious mistake in calling their 24fps mode 24F instead of 24p because then people automatically think there's something "wrong" with it. ...We should sent a petition or something asking Canon to rename 24F to 24p.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this notion simply because it's truth-in-advertising--even if it has cost a lot of sales in the short term. I respect Canon for calling it what it is, even though we all know that the results are basically progressive.

They can call the HV20 "24p" because it truly scans progressive off the chip. And I believe they had to purchase a license from that outfit that somehow has a patent on the label "24p".
 
I'm with Elton 100% on this one. Canon did the right thing to call it what it is, especially because knowing that it's 24F saves confusion further down the road. For example, the Sony V1U records 1080/24p and plays back HDV 1080/24p, but it won't play back Canon's 1080/24F. Did we need to know that distinction? HECK YES. That makes a difference.

The Sony cams will be able to play back HV20's 24p (AFAIK) because it uses a different recording system. 24F refers to the way they create the footage, but it also refers to the way they record it. Canon uses a different, IMO superior, but incompatible way to record 24F and 30F. The fact that they spell out that distinction is important. And accurate.
 
At a recent Expo in my town someone asked the Canon rep about this and he said something to the extent that they didn't want to call it 24p because of what Elton and Barry say - it isn't 24p, even if hardly anyone can tell the difference visually, and they didn't want to end up with legal issues resulting from it.

But I agree, I stared at quite a bit of footage and stills on some pretty good monitors and I couldn't see a single thing to indicate to me it wasn't progressive.

I believe when the Canon 24f footage is captured in FCP, the program sees it as 1080/24p, without having to do anything special.

Thanks for clarifying Canon's 1440 to 1920 shift Barry.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top