I think the only people "offended" by your remarks Bill are those with unrealistic expectations.

Hopefully we have firmly established that this camcorder is a *consumer* product.

Let's proceed by keeping that concept firmly in mind and
also by keeping delicate sensibilities in check. Thanks all,

At the $2k price point, it's definitely "high end" consumer, but the lines get blurry, and it's only going to get worse...

With many of the "consumer" cameras being very capable of full HD images and some with manual controls to varying degrees, it's not so much the camera makes the "pro", but the "pro" making the camera - each new "tool" has it's own set of possibilities, the fact this is the first interchangeable lens video camera at this price point is enough in and of itself to make the product unique and interesting... what else it can or can't do will have to wait for some production units to get into hands that can play with them!


On that "lux" issue, reviewing the specs page on sonystyle I noticed that the rating is with the stock 18-200 lens, which is pretty slow by any measure (f3.5-6.3, I've got the "A" version of this lens, and yep, it's not great in low light). Even the CX550V is f1.8 wide open and closes to about that 3.5 IIRC in full zoom, so you're talking a couple stops loss before you even get to the sensor end of the equation... Now if you could put an adapter on it and mount a nice f1.2 or 1.4 lens, I'd expect a different story.

I'll admit to being puzzled by the entire NEX concept when the 3/5 hit the streets, and this one will have me scratching my head for a while too. I've been expecting this melding of photo and video and playing with various "hybrid" cameras in expectation, and the one thing I notice is that this new camera has all of the things coming from the photo side of the bloodline (HDR, Anti motion blur, Twilight mode, high burst rate), but in a video camera oriented platform. Again, I'm reminded of a platypus - it looks kinda like a duck, walks a bit like a duck, but it's not a duck... no wonder it's a tough one to wrap one's head around!

I have a tough time seeing "soccer mom Suzy" or "Uncle Bob cam" being able to make sense of this, so it sort of rises above the "consumer" realm, yet it's obviously not in a "pro" package (although the handle was a nice touch <wink>).

I can remember when I bought my VX2000 and my FX1 that they were called consumer cameras too. They were high end consumers cameras that we adapted as best we could to our indie film style with XLR adapters and extenders, etc., etc.

Quote: I know "30p and 24p" are the mantra, but not everyone cares for the stutter that comes with slower frame rates - I'd rather see 60p or overcranking.

For me, at least, the mantra is simply "Just say no to freakin' interlace!!". I love the 720P60 on my $1800 HMC40.

Dave, I agree with you that the Lux rating is being severely affected by the kit lens. Putting a nice, wide-aperture prime on their would be a whole different story.

It's like when the GH1 was released - one site did their review with the f/4 kit lens and then said it was a terrible camera for use in lowlight, without mentioning the fact that a f/1.7 or f/1.4 would make a huge improvement.

Sony Australia released this interesting demo/promo YouTube - Sony unveils hybrid Handycam camcorder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxJiJH1YsrQ&feature=player_embedded)

Dan

One thing that confuses me in the discussion is that people say it is interlaced. On dpreview they state: "*Image Sensor Captured at 30p (29.97p), Recorded in AVCHD 60i (59.94i) format" in the specs.

To me, that sounds like 30p in a 60i wrapper. A stupid detour and potentially a loss of resolution (stronger filtering to prevent interline flicker), but still comparatively easy to remove in post. Or did I miss something here?

In my opinion, one of the biggest chance they missed was to put in sensor based image stabilisation like in their top-range still cams. That would have been amazing - using adapted glass (like FD lenses) with a body-based OIS.

Maybe they are using this release to get market feedback about what to put on the "pro" version.

This type of camera design is a can of worms. Discussion about the AF-100 on another forum have been pretty heated regarding the need for "video" features like motor driven servo lenses as opposed to a "cine" design. The cine design is a lot easier, here is your body, there you go. But I suspect they want the sales from the video crowd as well. And lets be honest, outisde of controlled lighting situations, how many want to try to film using manual iris, focus and Zoom? Or use a prime lens to shoot an outdoor TV show or event?...

These types of cameras might offer a great look, but we still have to use them and if they do not offer the functionality to get the shots then they will just be a novelty for many.

I do not get the 60i thing in this day and age on a $2,000 camera. HD is progressive in my mind. SD had to be progressive due to the delivery method. HD is not bound by interlaced delivery. Just seems like holding on to the past when the industry has moved on. Besides, a cine style camera outputting an interlaced signal is a clash of two worlds in my mind.

Looking at the B&H preorder page, it says the mount uses both the E mount and the A mount (Minolta), but the Sony Style spec page only lists the E mount. Guess we'll have to wait till review sites get one in their hands.

Edit:

Nevermind. Buried in another section of the Sony page is says:

Lens Compatibility : Sony E-mount lens, (A-mount lenses when used with LA-EA1 lens adaptor)

If it's truly 30p wrapped in 60i, then there are plenty of tools to convert to true 30p without loss of resolution. Sony converts it's 24p to 60i via it''s HDSDI output on the EX series. Plenty of software around to convert it back to full resolution 24p. I'm sure NeoScene will have no problem.

But for instant playback on both older and newer HDTVs, 60i is a good option. Let's wait for some tests.

and there are already adapters popping up for other lenses to be hooked onto that E mounting - should be interesting

Hi Ethan,

11 lux?? Surely that can't be right.

The lux and the frame rate were the first things I looked at too. Then I went to see if there were e-mount to eos adapters and there are, so fast lenses would lower the lux rating by 2.5 stops, but its still 60i. (You'd need two adapters to use manual focus lens unless its a third party lens with a eos mount like a Samyang, Tokina or Tamron.) I tend to think their marketing strategy is to get first adopters on the consumer version, then those same first adopters will trade up to the prosumer version that will surely come out within the next 3-4 months.

Since I haven't seen this link posted so far, thought I'd direct ya'll to the Vimeo HD promo piece for this camera

Beautiful Bali captured with the Sony NEX-VG10 Handycam camcorder on Vimeo

Looks pretty nice, even in what appears to be less than idea light, and I don't know why you wouldn't be able to convert to 24p or 30p in post, in fact I'm seeing some indication that the 60i is a wrapper and you really have "doubled" 30p... not sure exactly what that's all about.

The one question I'm curious about is whether this thing can do "dual shot" like the other Sony consumer cams, where they can sneak off stills while shooting uninteruppted video... I think it's safe to say the NEX sensor is getting good results for stills, and so this camera definitely should be able to do double duty better than any previous video camera.

The one question I'm curious about is whether this thing can do "dual shot" like the other Sony consumer cams, where they can sneak off stills while shooting uninteruppted video... I think it's safe to say the NEX sensor is getting good results for stills, and so this camera definitely should be able to do double duty better than any previous video camera.This question is the same one I've been wondering about all day. Hope we can get a answer soon. I would imagine that it wouldn't interrupt it as the canon dslr mirrors have to flip to take the picture and since this cam has no mirror no interruption is needed. I hope we get a answer prior to release.

So we only get ISO in Still mode and we have to go back to using arbitrary gain numbers to change sensitivity in video mode? No thanks.

A niggle but there is nothing arbitrary about gain as pertains to video. A sensor has an inherent sensitivity (regardless of whether you adjust gain using ISO or decibels) and anything higher than it's native sensitivity adds gain.

Another niggle: the Minimum Illumination spec, in my humble opinion, needs to go away. It references NOTHING. Old school sensitivity ratings, like those found on broadcast cameras that state f-stop at a given luminance are FAR more accurate and useful for comparing cameras.

f13 @ 2000lux for example.

The minimum illumination spec "references" the least amount of light that produces a "useable" image. VERY open to interpretation.

Interesting development on the camera though. Once they start shipping it will be interesting to see how people use it, to it's strengths AND against it's weaknesses.

Well, that lasted a day.

A not so random thought: There have been a number of discussions about "who will build the Pentax K1000 or Digital Bolex of video cameras". Something well built, relatively inexpensive, manual operation with few frills type camera.

I've even participated in a discussion here: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/area-51/122113-who-will-make-pentax-k1000-hd-video-cameras.html

It occurred to me that we're looking at that camera. Thoughts?

No 24p? Who do they think they are making this for? What Market? Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm missing something. I'm sure somebody will point out some sort of niche market for this, but seriously, does this appeal to anybody here?

Could be... I myself suspect we are looking at a fundamental change in the market - the consumer is probably more and more served by what their cell phone can do, or maybe the cheap Flip type cams...

For a more "serious" shooter, I think we may see a collection of lenses, bodies for various purposes, adapters and related accessories for various tasks. Sort of a modular camera system, if you will.

Minimum illumination may be way off with this camera, as the lens will make a huge difference, and depending on the gain in video mode (which you won't see in still mode), there may be a lot of variability.

On the dual mode, I think that since there's only one media slot, and no internal recording media, it may be too much to hope for being able to shoot a still while shooting video - at the very least the resolution would have to come down some on one or the other - on the CX550V when recording 24mbps, you can't shoot stills at all, it's locked out unless you drop to 17mbps.

I really wish there were a way to get hands on one of these and see what it really does and doesn't have, the suspense is killin' me! And there are other announcements coming from the still camera side of the equation still to come before too long... Sony lab rats have apparently been very busy with new video toys.

Niche market??? Broadcast. As a B-cam. Or A-cam on lesser channels/programs.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I render out to 24p in post... I really would rather have more data at the intake side of the equation, more to work with downstream. Now 60p WOULD be rather nice...

I think the more interesting question is why a modern camera would need a format dictated by technology choices nearly a century old... I no longer have a floppy on my computer after all, and all my data isn't crammed onto a 30Mb hard disk...

I understand there's a "cachet" to trying to mimic "film", but there's a lot more to it than one simple camera spec! In case no one noticed, DoF on this camera looks pretty good, and IMO THAT probably speaks "film" to the average viewer more than 24p...

Oh, and if the low light is acceptable, at this price, I'll be on it for an SLR replacement that does good video without artifacts (presuming it's as clean as it looks image wise), and good stills (or one could always pick up a NEX5 or NEX7 or whatever for dedicated still work).

Now, I think we have to wait for the raw .mts footage coming out of the production camera and put it through some NLEs to see if it's truly interlaced or progressive segmented frames. If it's actually PsFs in either 60i or 50i wrap, this will be the "in" camera for the cinema look crowd. Unfortunately for some casual users, this also means the videos played back on their large screen LCDs or plasmas will be compromised by the halving of the input's temporal resolution. Either way, you win some, you lose some.

I'd like to know more about the audio capabilites. I read elsewhere that it only has AGC with no manual levels. I don't know the source of this information but if correct, it will be a serious disadvantage - because it means that other than the form factor it is actually a step backwards from the GH1/7d which offer 24p & 60p as well as having more lenses and adaptors available.

The other important thing I can't wait to see a review of is the aliasing/moire - it was reported to be very bad on the NEX3/5 which have the same sensor, so lets hope they've improved it for this camera.

On that "lux" issue, reviewing the specs page on sonystyle I noticed that the rating is with the stock 18-200 lens, which is pretty slow by any measure (f3.5-6.3, I've got the "A" version of this lens, and yep, it's not great in low light).


I'm not sure if I agree with the emphasis here. It's true that f/3.5-6.3 seems like it would be very slow and not great in low light if you look only at the f-number in isolation. But that would be a mistake because low light performance does not depend on the intensity of light, but on the total amount of light falling on the sensor. The total is a combination of intensity and area. A high intensity over a small area is the same amount of light as a low intensity over a large area.

For example, 1/4" and 1/3" video cameras are often 2-3 stops faster than this one, let's say f/1.6-2.8. Going from f/2 to f/5.6 is three stops, which means the intensity of light is *eight* times lower. That's a huge difference. But the sensor is *twenty* times larger. So there is actually more than twice as much light falling on it. We should also consider that a typical 1/3" in this price range will have *three* sensors, which means that a single-sensor camera would have to get over a stop more light just to break even.

...there is nothing arbitrary about gain as pertains to video.

Agreed. It is ISO, not gain, that is arbitrary. The official ISO sensitivity spec is so loose that manufacturers can do anything they want with the gain, image processing, etc. and then call it whatever ISO they feel like and still be fully within spec. That's why ISO 80 on one camera gives you the exact same highlight headroom as ISO 250 on another. The spec is not very useful, and in fact I think it misleads operators into thinking there is going to be some sort of consistency from camera to camera (there isn't).

Personally, I think it would be a lot more clear if still camera manufacturers stopped calling it "ISO" (which implies that there is some sort of standardization when there in fact is not) and just call it "gain" like the video manufacturers (they are the exact same thing in reality anyway). At least until such time as they do start using some sort of useful standard, such as raw saturation based ISO rating (itself a small subset of the possible methods of ISO sensitivity standardization).

Perhaps gain could be considered as an amplification of the sensor signal before recording, whereas an increasing the ISO could be some thing that is applied in post to the recorded RAW as per the RED.

I suppose calling it a higher ISO, rather than gain is less confusing to stills photographers and it looks more impressive for marketing..

Daniels hit the nail on the head as regards sensitivity. With the stock lens, you are likely to get performance not too different to a conventional 1/3" camera - similar low light capability, similar depth of field, similar zoom range etc. It's because making an 11x zoom reasonably small and economical is not possible except at smaller apertures.

The big difference here is that you can take that lens off and replace it with a prime or small range zoom, which it should be possible to make with a fairly large max aperture. And that will give the possibility of cinematic depth of field and very high sensitivity.

As far as the progressive/interlace matter goes, I look at it from the other side to most on this board. This is a consumer camera (albeit an expensive one) and I would have thought 25p/30p would not be so good for this market - I can see a lot of complaints about "my videos jerky!" It does look as if it is what hs been described as "25p in a 1080/i25 wrapper" - which is more properly described as 1080psf/25. Again, that means it is exactly the same as films (or 25p video) shown on broadcast TV, and hence compatability with domestic equipment it's likely to be shown on. It is also possible to seamlessly and losslessly reconstruct the original 25p from it.

The real question people should then be asking is why ONLY 25p (even if as psf)? Why not 1080ps/25 AND 1080i/25? (Incidentally, "1080/50i" is old terminology - "50i" shuld now be replaced by "i25") It's only a theory, but MAYBE, just maybe, it could be because they can read out the entire chip prior to downconversion at 25Hz, but not at 50Hz? Doing that, rather than the arrangement used in most current DSLRs would be a huge step forward since it should take away many of the aliasing problems and give far better sensitiivity. Just a thought.....

David,
Surely the depth of field is more a factor of the chip size, rsther than the lens itself (OK, there's a perceived less DoF with a wide angle compare to a telephoto...) but I can't see why there will be a difference between the stock lens and others...

Robin - it's both, chip size and lens. Yes, dof is a factor of chip size - if you keep the aperture and angle of view constant. If you increase the dimensions of the chip by 4x (the area by 16x), you will get exactly the same dof if you decrease the relative aperture by 4 stops at the same time. (Assuming a focal length to give the same angle of view.)

As far as sensitivity goes, then obviously f8 will be a disadvantage compared to f2 - but (all else equal) a chip with 16x the area should exactly compensate. This is exactly the point Daniel Browning is making a few posts earlier.

Practically, the designers seem to be allowing the lens to ramp (have a much lower max aperture when zoomed in). All I've said above assumes a small aperture throughout the range, so it should show sensitivity improvements over a comparable 1/3" camera at the wide end of the zoom, if not at the tight end.

David,
Surely the depth of field is more a factor of the chip size, rsther than the lens itself (OK, there's a perceived less DoF with a wide angle compare to a telephoto...) but I can't see why there will be a difference between the stock lens and others...

Different lenses & with a wider aperture have a huge effect on the DoF. You can check this with a simple test by flicking your camcorder into AV/aperture priotity mode, zooming in and focusing on an object then, stepping through the aperture range. Even with small-chipped cameras you will notice a change in the DoF. Do it on a full-frame camera with a f/1.4 lens and you'll notice a huge variation as the image goes from knife-sharp all over to a very thin focal plane. Even going from f/3.5 to f/1.8 you will notice a huge difference on DSLR's.

The focal length is a part of it too... a lens at f/2.8 & 200mm will have a shallower dof than one at f/2.8 & 28mm. But the biggest factors are the sensor size & maximm aperture of the lens used.

Regarding the sensitivity, one other note is that this camera will likely have a much cleaner image when gain is added than camcorder's with smaller chips. With the DSLR's it is not uncommon to shoot at or upwards or ISO 800 and get a usable image. You can effectively use ISO as one of your variables, so if you want to keep the aperture closed down a bit, you can bump the ISO upwards to compensate. With most camcorders, you would only use gain as a last-resort, but with this thing you will be able to play around with it alot more freely.

I just hope that Sony has added a visual audio level monitor meter in the viewfinder.
This is something that is seriously lacking in my SR11 right now.

If you download the video file on Vimeo or the Sample test shot of the NEX-5 From D-Preview I can’t see the interlacing at 100%?

Footage from the NEX-5 reports back as “Video Tracks:
H.264, 1920 × 1080, 25 fps, 36.20 Mbps”

As the NEX-VG10 uses the same chip what gives?

I could understand Sony’s film on Vimeo being de-interlaced but not the raw sample from the NEX-5 on dpreview.

Am I missing something here?

Reference:
Beautiful Bali captured with the Sony NEX-VG10 Handycam camcorder on Vimeo – 1.13GB
Sony NEX-3 & NEX-5 Review: 12. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/page12.asp) -92MB

Cheers, James

I suppose calling it a higher ISO, rather than gain is less confusing to stills photographers and it looks more impressive for marketing..

That's probably it.

Perhaps gain could be considered as an amplification of the sensor signal before recording, whereas an increasing the ISO could be some thing that is applied in post to the recorded RAW as per the RED.


That would be one possibility. The bigger problem in my mind is the sorry state of the implementation of gain in almost all raw cameras, which use one or more of:


Idiot gain
Numpty analog gain
Useful analog gain
Metadata gain


Idiot gain is digital amplification applied to the raw file in-camera. It causes clipped highlights, larger files, increased quantization error (for non-integer gain factors), and slightly increased post-processing requirements. There is no excuse for ever using it in a raw camera, yet most manufacturers do it.

Numpty analog gain is the kind that does not reduce noise (as a ratio to signal -- not in absolute terms). In order to have any use whatsoever, the analog gain must reduce either quantization error, late state read noise (e.g. ADC self-noise), or some other noise source. If there is no reduction, then it would be the same as using idiot gain and therefore harmful to the image.

Useful analog gain, in contrast, does reduce the noise ratio. This does not always make it the right choice, since it still clips one stop of highlights for every one stop increase in gain, but at least it has a benefit. Ideally, all of the noise sources (e.g. self-noise of the ADC) would be reduced to a level that it does not contribute to the total read noise at all. Then there is no reason to ever use analog gain (with its attendant loss in highlight headroom). But in most cameras, that is not achieved (probably for a good engineering reason). The next best thing is to offer the ability to eleminiate the contribution of late stage read noise by feeding the late stage electronics with a stronger signal.

For example, here are two images with the exact same exposure and brightness, one that has linear digital gain (applied in post) and the other that has useful analog gain:

http://thebrownings.name/images/2009-07-29-iso-compare/IMG_7278_500_raw_therapee_crop.png

http://thebrownings.name/images/2009-07-29-iso-compare/IMG_7281_500_raw_therapee_crop.png

In that particular case (5D2 ISO 1600 vs 100), there is a very nice reduction in noise, but the cost is 4 stops of blown highlights. The ISO 100 shot could be processed to preserve those highlights (rather than clip them as in the example) with nonlinear digital gain if desired.

The noise-vs-headroom balancing act is the same one that sound engineers do when choosing the gain level on their mixer if the ADC (or another component) has high self-noise.

Metadata gain is when the data from the sensor is left as-is until post production.

Most digital cameras offer a mix of all four types of gain. For example, on my 5D2:


Idiot gain at f/2.8 or faster f-numbers (compensation for sensor angle of response).
Metadata gain any time Highlight Tone Priority is used.
ISO 50: metadata gain
ISO 125: idiot gain
ISO 160: useful and idiot gain
ISO 200: useful gain
ISO 250: useful and idiot gain
ISO 320+HTP: useful, idiot, and metadata gain.
[...]
ISO 2000: useful and idiot gain
ISO 2500: useful, numpty, and idiot gain


It would be much better if manufacturers got rid of idiot and numpty gain alltogether. They never have any useful purpose in a raw camera. Then the only choice would be between useful analog gain and metadata gain. Ideally, the user would have full control over which type to use, so that it would be possible to shoot ISO 6400 using only metadata gain, analog gain, or a combination of both. Of course, the camera would choose the most sensible option by default to make it easy to use.

In non-raw cameras (i.e. most video cameras), the possible gain implementation types are far less varied:


Linear digital or analog gain
Non-linear digital gain


I can measure raw files to determine what types of gains are used, but it's not possible to do that with non-raw cameras, so I'm not sure what my XH-A1 is using, for example.

One big difference between raw/non-raw is that after useful analog gain has been exhausted, digital gain is no longer a bad option. Non-linear gain does the same job as linear gain on the midtones, but preserves highlights through tonal compression (also tending to reduce contrast). The video cameras I've used only expose this type of feature through settings such as gamma, knee, etc., but it can also be implemented directly as a gain control.

As video and stills cameras get closer together I hope they bring the best of both worlds (metadata and nonlinear digital gain) instead the worst (numpty and idiot gain).

For those who care:
ISO (International Standards Organization) ratings "evolved" (I'm going to hear from the non-North Americans on that one...) from the ASA (American Standards Association) ratings for film, which measured the sensitivity to light.

Film was sensitive to light due to the formulation of the light reactive particles in it's emulsion. The larger the particles, the more receptive to light they were (higher ASA/ISO) but creating a grainier image. As well, in chemical processing, one could "push" the exposure higher by developing longer or at higher temperatures. This affected the contrast of the images on the film as well as the overall exposure.

It's best to think of video as being more akin to colour positive film (slides) than colour negative film (prints) due to the extra step available to "correct" or "enhance" exposure in the printing process associated with colour negative film. Although a RAW workflow does begin to approximate a colour negative work flow.

Why ISO in digital video/cinema? For folks USED to working with motion picture film, the analogous nature of calling sensitivity an ISO rating allows for a more seamless transition. For people that use light meters for exposure and calculating contrast ratings, it's a no-brainer.

When one changes the ISO setting on a digital video/cinema camera, one is NOT inherently changing the sensitivity of the sensor assembly - one is adjusting the electronic processing that is done to the image. Or conversely, when one RATES a RED ONE at a certain ISO, one is making a learned call on how much one wants to protect highlights.

It isn't magic - higher ISO means more gain. More gain means more noise. Film OR video. HOWEVER, just like in film, sensor size and technological wizardry CAN VASTLY affect grain signature at a given sensitivity. ISO 400 film in a medium format (120 film for example) shows MUCH less grain than ISO 400 in 35mm (or 110 film or Kodak Disc for those who remember those...) as the individual particles are smaller COMPARED TO THE OVERALL FRAME SIZE.

The interesting thing is just how well some dSLRs with video capability handle increased sensitivity. I hear of Canon 5D and 7D cameras being exposed at ISO's that stagger me, with little discernible noise. Even on video cameras, gain has changed dramatically (but not AS much...) - I remember when choosing to add gain while shooting really was a risky move in production (not so much in news...). Now 6 - 12dB of gain is negligible in all but the highest of standards environments (I'm think National Geographic and the like).

Someone want to help me down off this soapbox?

If you download the video file on Vimeo or the Sample test shot of the NEX-5 From D-Preview I can’t see the interlacing at 100%?

Footage from the NEX-5 reports back as “Video Tracks:
H.264, 1920 × 1080, 25 fps, 36.20 Mbps”

As the NEX-VG10 uses the same chip what gives?

I could understand Sony’s film on Vimeo being de-interlaced but not the raw sample from the NEX-5 on dpreview.

Am I missing something here?

Cheers, James

I'm really thinking, from the bits I have read, that the camera is recording progressive frames (30p) and dividing each frame into 2 fields for 60i output.
One clue I noticed was in some of the sample footage where a bird was flying across the frame very quickly. It had the distinct juddering motion that I associate with 30p. It definitely did not look like the motion rendering you see with 60i. This was Flash for web, so it may have been some sort of encoding artifact, but it looked exactly like 30p motion to me.
If this is true, you could do a simple deinterlace in post and end up with a pure 30p file.

So in response to all this news about the camera. Looking at the features, I am ready to buy another camera, and was wondering what you guys thought between the Sony FX1000 and the new Sony VG10. I know of shooting capabilities and love that the FX1000 shoots at 30p and 24p. Your thoughts?

I'm really thinking, from the bits I have read, that the camera is recording progressive frames (30p) and dividing each frame into 2 fields for 60i output.
Yes - this is what is properly called psf - "progressive, segmented frame". Exactly how films have always been shown on TV.
If this is true, you could do a simple deinterlace in post and end up with a pure 30p file.
"De-interlace" is a specific term and it's exactly what you'd NOT do on 1080psf. To go between psf and p is a straightforward matter of reordering lines (shuffling 1,3,5,7 etc and 2,4,6,8 etc to become 1,2,3,4,5,etc) - the actual data doesn't get altered at all.

De-interlacing involves forming frames from fields, and involves such things as interpolation. Key difference is the data DOES get altered.

Kristian
That's a tough question.
My first thought is that you are comparing a real camera (FX 1000) about which everything is known, to a somewhat theoretical camera (NEX VG)- although we do have the Sony supplied specs, and some sample footage.

FX 1000- if you love the camera, have the post production workflow for it, and it does what you need, how can you go wrong. On the other hand, HDV is kind of yesterday's format, and 1/3" chips are looking pretty tiny these days.

NEX VG- Full raster 1920x1080 24 mbs AVCHD with a 1" chip (10X the surface area of a 1/3" chip), probably a good lens, smaller & lighter (2.5lb with lens vs 5lb), no servo zoom, but ability to change lenses and will possibly at some point be adaptable to existing 35mm Canon, Nikon, etc. lenses. Looks like it has a fair amount of manual control. Probably an excellent still camera as well. Could be the real game changer in small HD videocameras- the new paradigm.

Myself... I preordered one yesterday :-)

De-interlacing involves forming frames from fields, and involves such things as interpolation. Key difference is the data DOES get altered.

I appreciate the detailed reply.
I had assumed, inutitively, that if you did a simple (non interpolated) deinterlace, the two artificially seperated fields would be put back together into the original frame.
Like many things, it's apparently more complicated than it would appear at first glance :(

Different lenses & with a wider aperture have a huge effect on the DoF. You can check this with a simple test by flicking your camcorder into AV/aperture priotity mode, zooming in and focusing on an object then, stepping through the aperture range. Even with small-chipped cameras you will notice a change in the DoF.
That's all correct, but I think you're missing the point of what Daniel and I are implying. The example you give is correct in that FOR A GIVEN CHIP SIZE dof will change with aperture, no question about it.

But what Daniel and I are saying is that for the same angle of view, the same dof can be achieved with a variety of chip/aperture combinations. So if a particular dof look is achieved at (say) f2 with a 1/3" chip, the exact same dof can also be got at f4 with a 2/3" lens, and also at f 8 with a chip size of 4/3"!
You can effectively use ISO as one of your variables, so if you want to keep the aperture closed down a bit, you can bump the ISO upwards to compensate.
Yes again, and that's the other part of what we're saying. Taking the example above, a 2/3" chip should be two stops more sensitive than a 1/3" chip, so f4 with a 2/3" chip will give the same results exposure wise as f2 and the 1/3" chip. Convienient, eh?

Optically the focal length for the 2/3" case will twice that for the 1/3" chip to give the same angle of view. If we assume simple lenses, and (say) 10mm for the 1/3" case, 20mm for the 2/3" it works out that the lens diameter will be the same in each case, by definition. Practically, for a given chip technology, the ONLY way to improve the sensitivity is to increase the lens diameter - the chip size is irrelevant.

Of course, in practice it's impossible to get much better than about f1.4 (approx), even in a prime lens, and regardless of chip size. If we were to compare f1.4 lenses on both 1/3" and 2/3" chips, the latter would be more sensitive - but it also follows that for the 2/3" case the lens would have twice the focal length, and hence twice the diameter to maintain the f stop.

I had assumed, inutitively, that if you did a simple (non interpolated) deinterlace, the two artificially seperated fields would be put back together into the original frame.
I think you've got it right in your head, it's just the use of the word "de-interlace" to describe reconstructing p from psf that I disagree with. It may sound pedantic, but "de-interlace" means something quite specific and not at all what's involved here. Start referring to de-interlacing, and that's exactly what some people will start doing, and not like the results......!

Thanks Robert. You are totally correct, we really don't know much about this camera other than the specs Sony has posted on their site. But like you said HDV is a thing of yesterday now. And why spend $3199 on a camera when $2000 seems more attractive. Knowing that there WILL be a big brother to this model (hoping for progressive) just makes me more excited. Also a simple Beechtek always handles the situation with XLR inputs. Maybe I will join you in placing a preorder for this model :-)

Kristian
All is not lost re 30p. Apparently the NEX VG actually records progressive frames and then divides them into interlaced fields. So, even in the interlaced wrapper it should look like 30p and be free of interlace artifacts.
There is discussion as to how you could reassemble the fields into true 30p in post if needed.
It's kind of ironic that in the early days we had pseudo 30p/24p, this time around we have pseudo 60i.

Hmmm... not so sure about this one. I'm not impressed with NEX-5 video, and this has the same sensor and image processor... at $2k? Really?? For what, a headphone jack and horizontal grip? oh, Sony... *sigh*

I haven't seen anything in the demo footage that I can't get at least as good, if not better, with a hacked GH1 for half the price. And with the GH1, I'd get 60p & 24p & raw stills.

>> If it's actually PsFs in either 60i or 50i wrap

Y'know, maybe it is - I may have to retract my earlier posts. It would be a first for a sub $2000 Sony vidocam to be "pseudo 60i", but this sensor is a new ballgame and having a slower readout for it does make some sense.

If so, yes, it will be trivial to extract 25P or 30P from the wrapper.

Also, if it's true, the shoe is finally on the other foot- us guys who like the motion rendering of 60i will be whining about being stuck with 30p motion- hands wringing..."why, oh why couldn't they give us TRUE 60i".
I can hear it already :)
Getting back to the "deinterlacing" issue. Among all the algorithms for deinterlacing we have on board, isn't there the facility to do simple, non interpretetive deinterlace- where it just puts the two fields together in a frame without altering the data? Seems like that would do the trick to reconstitute the original 30p as it was shot, if in fact it actually was shot that way.

Thanks again Robert. Quick question how much recording time do you think a 32 GB Memory Stick Pro-HG will handle on this camera?

Also, if it's true, the shoe is finally on the other foot- us guys who like the motion rendering of 60i will be whining about being stuck with 30p motion- hands wringing..."why, oh why couldn't they give us TRUE 60i".
I can hear it already :)
.

Yes I agree Robert. Of no interest to me almost the exact opposite of what I want for stage stuff. I want large depth of field, smooth motion and low light performance. It appears to have none of these features!!!

Ron Evans

While so many are looking at this camera for what it isn't, I am impressed for what it is. Like all of you, I would not throw away my pro cam and replace it with this little guy. But I see this camera as a way to get certain shots that my 1/3" sensor pro cam can't. I see the new Sony as a way to capture b-roll quickly, even on the run, in a small, highly capable and relatively affordable price.

My business and workflow demand a fast pace with short dwell time at locations. Businesses want video but they don't want video to be an all-day or even hours long production. With a crew of as few as two, One can be shooting the main video while a camera operator / PA / grip / whatever is out shooting quick snips with a small camera. Or my PA can be unpacking or packing gear while I'm grabbing shots in the lobby, outside, the office space, etc. At most, I'm using a light and small tripod. And a small camera that has some creative abilities of an APS-C sized sensor and relatively long lens. (Indeed, the combo exactly matches that of my Nikon SLR and zoom lens. I already "see" in that focal length range.) Also, pros are already seeing that AVCHD is no longer a consumer file format. I'm comfortable with the limitations of AVCHD and those limitations are not in image quality but in processing requirements that push my computer to its limits. Finally, a b-roll camera will not be the one responsible for recording sound so one that can just record vocal notes, for me, is sufficient. However, I've also recorded sound with other AVCHD consumer cams with 1/4 inch TRS sockets using pro audio gear and I would challenge anyone to tell me that it didn't pass through an XLR socket on a camera.

While many are bemoaning the "shortcomings" of this neat little cam, I'm betting pros will see its virtues and, as important, buy and use it.

Dave

Ron wrote: "Yes I agree Robert. Of no interest to me almost the exact opposite of what I want for stage stuff. I want large depth of field, smooth motion and low light performance. It appears to have none of these features!!!"

Well, maybe, maybe not.

I say this as the one who started the questions about the low-light capabilities and asked if it was lens design or what? I think we just do not yet know enough about this product and its accessories.

The specs given us for the stock lens have all the downsides that Ron listed. But it seems that there are two other lenses made specifically for this unit. Would one of those lenses work better for multi-cam event and stage productions? How about the lenses you can use with adapters?

For example, a number of different lenses are listed at the end of credits at the end of that "Beautiful Bali" video. The shots of the dancer in the temple indicate considerable low light capability with whatever lens was used for that shot. However, it also seemed to me to have a shallow, "filmic" depth of field, too. The whole piece was done in that style.

Is that because the video makers chose that style or because that's how this camera works with everything? If the latter, then this camera is absolutely out of the question for me, too. Maybe Sony made this thing to be THE camera for the indie film makers and the other folks who really like the film look and film-type shooting styles?

Maybe. Maybe not.

I think Sony put out just enough info to get us talking. We certainly are doing that.

Thanks again Robert. Quick question how much recording time do you think a 32 GB Memory Stick Pro-HG will handle on this camera?

Same as other Sony AVCHD cams like the NX5/AX2000 and CX5xx which shoot 24Mbps AVCHD, about 2½ hours.