So is it safe to assume the US version will have 24p?

Stu that's the "e" model you're talking about. So the american "u" model probably shoots 24p!

That's not automatic. Putting 25p into 50i is EZ, but 24p into 60i using the one frame into two fields approach doesn't work.

CineAlta uses 24p into 48i.

They're not. They're 4:3 960x1080. They get uprezzed to 1920x1080 for internal processing. Then the image gets scaled down to 1440x1080 for recording.

Berry are you sure? That would require a 2X horizontal scale to get to 1920. Not only would that cause a huge quality loss -- of what value is a 1920 image than is than decimated back to 1440 for encoding?

Oh, ClearVid. Joy.

Why do I get the nasty feeling Sony are just swapping one bit of video snakoil, faked progressive modes, for another, the clearvid 45 degree rotation scam.

Let me take a wild guess that while resolution measured strictly on the vertical and horizontal axes will be reasonable for a camera of this type, real world performance will be significantly worse due to the poor resolution on the diagonals.

OK here's the good bit - the camera has an HDMI output - this will feed out from the camera head before the HDV compression. Blackmagic have just announced new HDMI capture cards

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/.

You do the math!

And yes, there is HDMI output:


HDMI is NOT HD-SDI output!

Berry are you sure? That would require a 2X horizontal scale to get to 1920. Not only would that cause a huge quality loss -- of what value is a 1920 image than is than decimated back to 1440 for encoding?

I think this is the coupling of two correct statements into something not fully true.

Sony's DSP has always been CAPABLE of 1920x1080 processing. That's why the A1 could use higher rez CMOS chips.

So yes, the DSP can work at up to 1920, but I don't think that proves the 960 is uprezzed to 1920.

More interesting -- the DSP can run at 1080p.

Which certainly indicates that the CMOS chips can drive a full frame of 1080 lines into the DSP at 25Hz. Which means the CCDs must be able to run at 25p and 50i.

Which means the USA model will do 30p and 60i.

The two Sony sites are not running now, so I had to find the PDF. So I can't find the statement that it can switch between Region 50 and 60.

USA news is under wraps for a bit longer.



Once again no EDIT button present.

That's not automatic. Putting 25p into 50i is EZ, but 24p into 60i using the one-frame-into-two-fields approach doesn't work.

That's why CineAlta uses 24p into 48i.

This requires a CCD that can run at 50Hz/60Hz in interlace mode and then at 25Hz/30Hz in progressive mode.

To get 24p, the entire video system nust be able to be clocked at 30p/60i and at 24p. I doubt that will be the case, but if it is done then two more things must be done.

Pulldown must be used to get the 24p into 60i.

And, then NLE must remove the pulldown to get back to 24fps.

Bottom-line -- this would require a very different USA model. I don't think Sony will go this way. They never have.

If the model could be switched into Region 50, then one could shoot at 25p. But, in the USA that requires a different infrastructure. Possible, but not simple.



Sorry -- once again no EDIT button.

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

HDMI is NOT HD-SDI output!

Yes that's obvious even to non techie people like me, but it's better coming out HDMI from the camera head rather than going to tape as you avoid the HDV compression.

Actually this camera doesn't look that promising. However, I MIGHT get a chance to test it soon and post results. So be patient...

Yes that's obvious even to non techie people like me, but it's better coming out HDMI from the camera head rather than going to tape as you avoid the HDV compression.

If you are really worried about compression and carry a computer around. :)

For the projects this camcorder -- with 1/4 CMOS chips -- are likely to shoot -- trying to record via HDMI doesn't really makes sense IMHO.

Reading the BM site it's interesting that they promote the capture and editing at 1920x1080 because it's not "compressed" HDV at "only 1440x1080."

But if they are capturing an HDV tape -- then this is nonsense. Worse, the computer is wasting time processing pixels that aren't carrying any information.

The MOST interesting thing is the notion of capturing from a settop box. So does that mean we can copy HD programs? Can we capture HD DVDs?

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

The card will not capture HDCP protected material, it's exactly what the spec is designed to prevent.

So no, you will not be able to capture and reencode protected Blu-ray/HDDVD titles.

If the output from the chips was so much better than the compression format was able to record, capturing HDMI would seem to be a good idea. At this stage, and with ClearVid again rearing its ugly head, its like buying laser alarms to protect a cubic zirconia.

I'm with Yasser, 25p seems like a massive step in the right direction but actually the camera is looking like a damp squib.

Yes, that is right, plus HDMI 1.3 will let you do upto 16 bit video at 4:4:4 SHD resolutions, or even more (not that we can expect any thing like this). I hear they are upgrading HDSDI, but seriously they should settle on HDMI as a common standard.

If this can be fed into a computer and compressed on the fly, then what about cineform?

Steve C, thanks for the Black magic link, would have been good as a news thread. I came to a sudden realisation the other day of a way to capture HDMI camera output for a few hundred dollars, but this makes that a bit irrelevant. I am thinking of getting something like this. It maybe hard to use this to capture field footage, but it is easier to use than making your own complete homemade camera.


Now about the camera, great. Finally P without JVC. I would guess they are goign to come out with 1/3inch models too. I would hope that they would include 35mb/s XDCAM HD like codec.

I wouldn't assume it's 24p in the US version. I always say, we'll believe it when the announcement is made!

heath

Can we run the hdmi out to sony's new little deck? And does that bypass the 4:2:0 chroma sampling to give us 4:2:2?

Really reaching here, I realize.... :-)

$4,800? Seems a little high.

Barry - are you saying the sensors are 1920x1080? or are they smaller, then scaled up to 1920x1080 and then down again? given that the still picture resolution is only 1.2MP, I'm guessing the native sensor resolution is not 1920x1080...

The native resolution is not 1920x1080. It's 960x1080. They say there are 1.03 million pixels in video mode, a few more for still mode.

The chips are 960x1080, they are scaled up to 1920x1080 for internal processing, and then scaled down to 1440x1080 for recording.

Berry are you sure? That would require a 2X horizontal scale to get to 1920. Not only would that cause a huge quality loss -- of what value is a 1920 image than is than decimated back to 1440 for encoding?
I can't explain why they did it, but that's what I'm reading in the various brochures and interviews.

It's probably the way the Z1/FX1 work as well, they also have 960x1080 chips but that's different, they employ spatial offset to read the chips, CMOS is a different pixel-based technology of course.

Let me take a wild guess that while resolution measured strictly on the vertical and horizontal axes will be reasonable for a camera of this type, real world performance will be significantly worse due to the poor resolution on the diagonals.
Anything we speculate on is nothing but speculation until real-world results are seen. Apparently Sony is willing to go on record to say that in bright light/sunny conditions this FX7/V1E will look noticeably sharper than the FX1/Z1U (but in dark conditions the situation reverses).

Sony's DSP has always been CAPABLE of 1920x1080 processing. That's why the A1 could use higher rez CMOS chips.

So yes, the DSP can work at up to 1920, but I don't think that proves the 960 is uprezzed to 1920.


Sony's marketing material says that all internal processing is done at 1920x1080x4:2:2. They also say elsewhere that the chips are 960x1080. And we know that the recording format is HDV, which is inherently 1440x1080x4:2:0.

So piecing all that together, the 960x1080 chips get uprezzed to 1920x1080 for all internal DSP processing, then scaled to 1440x1080 for recording.

The native resolution is not 1920x1080. It's 960x1080.
I assume with horizontal pixel shift?

Sony's marketing material says that all internal processing is done at 1920x1080x4:2:2. They also say elsewhere that the chips are 960x1080. And we know that the recording format is HDV, which is inherently 1440x1080x4:2:0.

So piecing all that together, the 960x1080 chips get uprezzed to 1920x1080 for all internal DSP processing, then scaled to 1440x1080 for recording.

Very similar to Panasonic's HVX200, which has a sensor size of 960x540, and shoots 960x720p and 1280x1080i.

heath

-- Deleted --

I can't explain why they did it, but that's what I'm reading in the various brochures and interviews.

I understand that is what Sony says, but we've been through the Japanese to English issues before. Let's wait until the USA announces.

An up-scale by 2X followed by a down-scale 1.5X makes so little sense -- and is so likely to cost quality -- that I think this sentence is in doubt.

Also, the V1 really seems to be an A1 replacement. Looked at this way, it's a great step forward. It fits much better with the Z1 in the PRO line. I would love one as the Z1 is too big and the A1 is too small. This one "is just right."

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

I assume with horizontal pixel shift?
Don't know, because CMOS is a different type of technology.

"pixel shift" is spatial offset, where the green CCD is offset 1/2 pixel, and then the sampler reads and builds a YUV signal off of those chips. The chips are analog and aren't read via RGB, they're read YUV, so each luminance pixel is composed of something like 60% green, 29% red, and 11% blue.

Whereas with CMOS you're talking about discrete pixel transfer, much more like starting with RGB in the first place. So it wouldn't necessarily be the same type of thing, it may be more of a conventional digital uprez.

But hey, this is new technology so we'll have to see what they have done. I would certainly expect that one of the chips would be offset from the others by 1/2 pixel, that's what they did in the FX1/Z1.

Very similar to Panasonic's HVX200, which has a sensor size of 960x540, and shoots 960x720p and 1280x1080i.

Sort of, but perhaps not. See the prior post. The HVX doesn't "shoot" 960x720 or 1280x1080, it scans its chips using spatial offset into a 1920x1080 matrix, and then downsamples it to the recording format (either 1280x1080 US or 1440x1080 EU, or 960x720, or 720x576 (EU) or 720x480 (US). But the spatial offset technique takes advantage of the way that CCDs are read as analog signals and processed into the YUV space.

CMOS isn't quite the same, it's a discrete digital pixel well. Each pixel in a CMOS chip is individually addressable (which is not possible in a CCD; a CCD is an analog device that outputs an analog signal).

So it's two different approaches. I don't know what to say about the end results until we see 'em side by side. Both units are claiming 1920x1080 internal signal processing, one does so from CCDs using spatial offset, the other does so through CMOS but I don't know how they get from 960x1080 up to 1920x1080; I would suspect it's a digital up-rez.

The card will not capture HDCP protected material, it's exactly what the spec is designed to prevent.

Yes, but. The BM mentions capture from settop box. Which means HDMI does not ITSELF protect media transfer. As I understand it, it simply ensures the receiving device performs a digital handshake. Which is performed by a chip.

The contents are protected by, if I remember right, "5C." Thus, the program orginator turns on various levels of protection. This is already the case with FireWire transfer to D-VHS.

Anything sent by PBS, for example, can't be prevented from being recorded. Supposedly anything sent via OTA is supposed to be able to be able to be copied. But, CBS fought hard to prevent this with HD. No matter the law, the state of the what comes out of a settop box sometimes works as it should and sometimes doesn't.

I assume the 5C is also handled by a chip. Probably, the HDMI chip. Much more on the AVSFORUM.

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

HDMI does not itself protect media transfer but HDCP does. This is manditory in all Blu-ray/HD-DVD players and is turned on for media that require it. If a HDCP device is connected to a non HDCP device when enabled the link will fail, no video data will be transfered, and the HDCP complient device will have to act on this. Usually the response to a non HDCP complient devices is to scale down, to say 540p and then not engage HDCP. A compromise for early HDTV buyers.

I cannot speak for US satellite, but in the UK the boxes' HDMI ports are protected by HDCP, this is not switched on for all channels/programming but when it is, the response to a non HDCP complient TV is just an error message and no picture.

5C may be a higher level of management but as far as HDCP it is either on or off, so a HDMI capture card by design of the HDCP protocol will not be much use recording protected content.

Barry,

"Anything we speculate on is nothing but speculation until real-world results are seen."

There is no spoon.

"Apparently Sony is willing to go on record to say that in bright light/sunny conditions this FX7/V1E will look noticeably sharper than the FX1/Z1U"

I have no doubt of this, but resolution is not the same thing as sharpness so this tells us nothing. To make an image look sharp, Sony increase the default value of the sharpening algorithm until it looks sharper. Job done. When moving from the HC1 to the HC3, clearvid delivered less total resolution. We can only assume the new colour pattern did not perform as well as expected to offset the fewer lit pixels and Sony responded by using more agressive sharpening. Clearly having made the statement Sony will increase the level of sharpening until it does look sharper regardless of actual resolution. The question I would want to make them answer is - 2 years on, why arn't they blowing the 1Mpixel resolution offerings clean away?

"Whereas with CMOS you're talking about discrete pixel transfer,"

CCD and CMOS both use discrete pixel transfer, and they both capture an analog quantity at the raw pixel level. The only practical difference for a modern camera is that CMOS is capable of fabbing an ADC on the same die as the sensor array, the CCD process cannot do this and the ADC must be attached as a seperate chip.

clearvid probably requires a significant amount of digital processing to get any sort of acceptable signal anyway. Taking the clearvid raster at face value, each pixel contains a contribution from several neighboring pixels as far as a conventional X/Y grid display device is concerned, it may well be that the deconvolution algorithm has been designed to output a full 1920x1080 image and this sets the resolution of the sensor array. I'm not sure it is even meaningful to quote 960x1080 as a resolution but it is certainly meaningful to remeber 1Mpixel as the overall amount of information being fed into the engine. I have failed to find any confirmation on the site of the number of pixels.

Like clearvid, pixel shift is just another sort of compromise obscured by a snakeoil explanation. While the salesman's interpretation seems to gain the amount of overall information read from the device in proportion to the number of overlapping zones created, the amount of real data hasn't changed. 3 x 1Mpixel sensors have enough information to produce a 1Mpixel image at 4:4:4. Moving the green sensor does not increase the total amount of information coming from the device, so to take advantage of those half or quarter pixel overlaps to get a higher luma resolution you have to make assumptions about the way the colourspace behaves, which reduces the accuracy and resolution of the colour. In the best digital case this gets you a picture that does visually look sharper and actually has higher resolution, but may not be as good for things like chroma key, in the worst analog case this just gets you colour fringing.

clearvid and pixel shift are performance tradeoffs wrapped in snakeoil explanations. In this case a pixel shift would be genuinly useful, in that noone uses high resolution colour information, and the camera doesn't record it anyway, but clearvid desperatly needs increased resolution on the diagonals which could be achieved by placing the center of the green pixels at the middle of the cross of the other two colours. Equivalent to a movement of half a pixel in both directions on a normal system.

Blackmagic has announced a cross-platform expansion card that enables capture from HDMI enabled camcorders, and output/monitoring via HDMI.

Guess which company just released two HDV camcorders that sport shiny new HDMI output ports? I'll give you a hint...the manufacturer's name starts with an "S" and it ryhmes with "pony"...

Now, we still don't know if the HDR-FX7 and HVR-V1E camcorders output HDMI before HDV compression. But if I had to speculate randomly at this point, I'd guess that Sony got it right and spits out a beautiful uncompressed image from the HDMI port. I seriously doubt that this oh-so-conveniently-timed announcement is just coincidence.
"With Intensity, you can now capture and playback full resolution HDTV uncompressed video...Totally eliminate HDV & DV compression quality problems, and render much cleaner graphics while retaining deeper color and image detail. If you need lower data rate editing, you can also select from a range of professional compressed video capture modes."
Folks, it sounds to me like you can HDMI tether a camcorder to your PC or MAC with the Blackmagic card installed, and ingest straight-up uncompressed HD. Nifty.

The new card is scheduled to be available October 15th and will cost you around $250.

I also read this camera has a 60 GB internal hardrive. But it still has tape right?

If this camera ends up really having 24p here and is not priced at $5,800 it will be a good seller.
I'd like to see it under $4,000

Why would anyone want this camera instead of the Canon A1?

CMOS sensors may give a more organic look to the images, but the Canon seems to have this beat - academicaly speaking, in terms of manual controls, specs, etc.

So, am I missing something?

K.

Why would anyone want this camera instead of the Canon A1?

CMOS sensors may give a more organic look to the images, but the Canon seems to have this beat - academicaly speaking, in terms of manual controls, specs, etc.

So, am I missing something?

K.
Canon isn't true progressive, CMOS in some ways seems to be superior to CCD, as far as I can tell the V1e has total manual controls.

heath

I also read this camera has a 60 GB internal hardrive. But it still has tape right?

If this camera ends up really having 24p here and is not priced at $5,800 it will be a good seller.
I'd like to see it under $4,000

I still think the American version will have 24p and 30p, because of the CMOS chips and true progressive recording. (And the fact that HDV now includes 24p in the spec, and all the other sub-$10,000 HDV and HD cameras are 24p/f.)

As for the Sony drive, yes, you can still record to tape as a back-up while recording to disk. A 60 gb drive can hold a whole heckuva lot of HDV footage.

heath

I'm sure I've seen enough posts about 24p vs 24f which indicate the difference is imperceptible; especially by Chris who's gone to great pains to eliminate any misinformation or misconception about it, so that's a moot point I think.

The main thing I see is the image of the Sony CMOS vs the Canon CCD; the Sony is not native 1440 x 1080 whearas the Canon is native 1440 x 1080.

I'd like to see a comparision chart between the two and of course, we'll all need to see actual footage to make a real comparison. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say!

K.

I've used the Canon XL H1 on many occasions and the "f" does indeed look like progressive. My point was that this is the first Sony sub-$10,000 HD(V) progressive-scan camera.

Also, to my eye, 30f and 24f in the Canon HDV camera(s) looks a lot like Sony's 60i/CineFrame 30 and, believe it or not, 50i/CF25.

heath

I wonder how long before we get some USA news on the V1e?

I'm on a waiting list for the Canon A1, but I want to see more on the Sony and the Canon.

Bob,

My guess would be in the next month or so. I'm thinking back to Canon's showing of the XL H1 at 2005's IBC, then within a couple of weeks, the XL H1 make its big announcement. Then again, that's Canon.

heath

Since they already announce it over there, why wait? I don't know either!

Because it was IBC and they want to make a big splash in America? Or something. I honestly have no clue.

heath

The FX7 already has a US retail price of $3,499.00.
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?ProductSKU=HDRFX7&Dept=cameras&CategoryName=dcc_DICamcorders_HighDefinitionVideo
This would mean that the retail price for the V1 is anywhere from 4,000 to 4,500 dollars.

Once it does come to America, NASA might buy one to fly up to the space station to replace the Z1 already up there.

Has anyone been or going to IBC today to have a first hand look at the V1?, I would be interested in some 'hands on' and some more info as to what's in or missing from the menu (Black Stretch, full scan, timecode etc.) Shame i'm busy or I would have jumped on the plane myself.
Can we get up a section for the FX7/V1 soon as this is going to be a long thread!

Cheers

Once it does come to America, NASA might buy one to fly up to the space station to replace the Z1 already up there.Aha ! didn't know that - very interesting. thanks for that snippet of info.

I'm just guessing that Jack is indulging in a little wishful thinking here and not reporting an actual news story...

I'm just guessing that Jack is indulging in a little wishful thinking here and not reporting an actual news story...

He certainly is! These are step-down models from the Z1/FX1 and step-up models from the HC1/HC3/A1.

I have no idea why any anyone on either of the threads is comparing the new camcorders to their FX1 or Z1. They don't really compare to any of the Canons either.

They give Sony a lower priced 3 chip HDV camcorder that has much less bulk. They fill the class Sony has always had below their top consumer and pro (PD170) models. The hallmark of these models has always been medium size, light weight, with poorer (but not poor) low-light performance.

What's new is the technology. IF the V1's DSP is, as claimed by Sony, "1920x1080p" then it's reasonable to assume that this chip is getting 3 million pixels EITHER 25 or 30 OR 50 or 60 times each second from the CMOS chips. This fills half of the 6 million cells in the DSP's memory (3x1920x1080).

This raises 2 questions:

1) Does the "p" refer to the CAPABILITY to run in progressive mode for 1920x1080/25p and 1920x1080/30p? If so, when running at 50i and 60i the DSP is running at 1920x1080/50i or 1920x1080/60i.

Or, is Sony claiming that the chips and DSP are ALWAYS running in progressive mode at 50Hz or 60Hz? I raise this question because if the "p" refers only to the CAPABILITY to operate at 25Hz and 30Hz, then I doubt we'll see 24p -- as that requires a different clock rate for everything.

However, if the chips and DSP are always running at 50p or 60p -- then 24p can be obtained easily. No clock rate change is needed -- just the addition of pull-down. 24 frames can be selected using a 2:3:2:3 cadence from 60p. Thus, every 5 frames yields 2 frames. (25p and 30p use a 2:1 cadence, where every 2 frames yield 1 frame.)

However, these 2 frames are carried in 4 fields, and there are 60 fields every second. Thus, within every 12 fields, either an upper or lower set of lines from a 24p frame is carried. This is a long-way of saying that 2:3:2:3 pulldown is used to covert 24p to 60i. This 60i looks just like film converted to video. And, reverse pull-down can be used to obtain 24p for editing.


2) Are the unfilled 1 million cells along the horizontal axis? Or, along the vertical axis? In other words, what's the chip's resolution aspect-ratio?

Everyone has assumed the CMOS are 960x1080. However, they could be 1920x540? Either is 1 million pixels. In the former case, then HOW do the missing 960-columns get filled? In the latter, how do the missing 540-rows get filled?

Some claim the 960 must be "scaled" to 1920. I doubt this. Given the diagonal pattern, it's possible the "intermediate" upper or lower (or both) CMOS elements are used to fill the missing columns. Since every VIDEO ROW has a similar pattern, the DSP may be able to obtain 1920 with no scaling. However, this type of interpolation will NOT yield the resolution that a would come from a 1920-wide CCD. In fact, effective resolution might be lower than from a 960-wide CCD or a single higher-rez CMOS. Hopefully, it will be equal.

If the DSP and chips are always running at 50Hz or 60Hz -- and the 6 million cell buffer DSP is being filled with progressive images, how are 50i and 60i obtained? In these cases, only 540-rows are output by the DSP at 50Hz or 60Hz -- as fields -- that have 1440-columns. Odd- and even-rows are output alternately.

To output 24p, 25p, or 30p -- pulldown (2:3, 2:1, 2:1) is used to output 540-rows by the DSP at 50Hz or 60Hz -- as fields -- that have 1440-columns. When these fields are viewed as frames, they will have 1080-lines with no interlace artifacts.

Thus, if I'm correct, the V1 offers technology that supports both interlace and progressive using interlace HDV as carrier. And, it will be the first Sony HDV camcorder to offer progressive with no loss of vertical resolution. This is made possible by the ability of CMOS chips to be read-out at very high-speed.

The Sony V1 is a perfect replacement for the Canon GL2 and the Canon XH-G1 is the perfect replacement for the Sony Z1. Both companies need to stop replacing each other’s camcorders and start replacing their own.
This is not funny by the way.

One thing I noticed, Sony are making a big thing about being shorter/ smaller than the Z1, but the battery in the pic of the V1 sticks out a long way v being recessed on the Z1.

clearvid and pixel shift are performance tradeoffs wrapped in snakeoil explanations. In this case a pixel shift would be genuinly useful, in that noone uses high resolution colour information, and the camera doesn't record it anyway, but clearvid desperatly needs increased resolution on the diagonals which could be achieved by placing the center of the green pixels at the middle of the cross of the other two colours. Equivalent to a movement of half a pixel in both directions on a normal system.

I saw a Sony page listing clearvid cameras, including the HC1. So, maybe they have redefined clearvid to mean the cmos technology in general now, and not specifically the tilted pixel sort. If this is the case the V1 might not be a loss and have proper regular pixels.

Steve,

"Everyone has assumed the CMOS are 960x1080. However, they could be 1920x540? Either is 1 million pixels."

I specifically did not assume this and pointed out that I couldn't see on the Sony site any claims to support this. I have also stated that assuming a resolution of 960x1080 is not meaningful for the clearvid system, and the answer is no, a clearvid with a resolution of 960x1080 does not have 1 million pixels, neither does one at 1920x540, not even close.

Ive worked through some simple but very dull geometry and anyone who expects me to explain it better plug up their ears to stop their brain escaping. For now I'll just tell you the results.

A clearvid sensor with square pixels at 45 degrees and a resolution of 1920x1080 will have an aspect ratio of 16:9 and a pixel count of (1920 x 1080) / 2. Yes you read that right, divided by two. This is where the 1Mpixel value comes from and this is why internally the DSP works at full 1920x1080 resolution - it is the native horizontal and vertical resolution of the sensor.

As Ive allready said, I would expect the green to be pixel shifted by half a pixel in both directions diagonally, or a 'full clearvid pixel' horizontally or vertically (actually half a diagonal pixel, which amounts to the same thing). This way it may be possible to teese back some of the lost diagonal luma resolution at the expense of reduced colour resolution. This would be a good trade off under the circumstances.


Wayne,

All the signs point to the camera having the twisted pixel structure. If the page lists HC1 as having clearvid, may I suggest this is most likley a mistake or a misinterpretation.

If the chips were 1920x1080 and tilted I would think SONY would want to claim 2 Mpixels. It might not look like 2 Mpixels in the final image but they really could get by trying to claim it has that many pixels. From a certain point of view they would be telling the truth and it would make the specs that much more impressive to sell. If they say 1Mpixel I would think it really means each chip only really has 1Mpixels or else knowing SONY they would exploit the heck out of the fudged number game.

I'm not if this is the case with cmos chips but in the JVC there was the issue of not being able to handle that many pixels due to heat which is why they had to do the split screen thing. Would a 3 chip cmos camera suffer from the same issues and not be able to do 1920x1080p even if they really wanted to? Since the chips are 1/4" (I think) they are even smaller than 1/3" which could make the problem even worse. I do know cmos uses less eneragy so maybe this isn't even an issue here. If it is an issue however I would think the chips would have to be either 960x1080 or 1920x540. Any resolution above that at 25p could cause the heat issue.