I still think a lot of this points to Sony releasing the V1 (US version) as a 60i/30p/24p unit. I think they can add 24p and will do so, to compete with JVC and Canon. As far as 50i/25p, not sure if that will be on the V1, since only the Z1 (not the A1) has 60i/50i capabilities. But maybe.
I don't know if the FX7 will offer 24p, Steve, but I feel like the US version of the V1 will. Call it an educated gut feeling.
. . . That's the V1e you're referring to, I saw footage from the V1. I can't really say anything else, because I'm bound by NDA stuff. But the footage was incredible.Gee, Heath, just how "educated" is that "gut feeling" about 24p in the V1?

Health,
When I was talking about the V1 footage, I was agreeing with you that the IBC footage was as bad as you said it was. I understand that you’ve seen other footage that you aren’t allowed to talk about.

Bob Zimmerman,
That is a very hard choice to make and Panasonic would indeed make it worse if they joined the mix. The XH-G1 having all of the controls on the outside of the body is a very good idea because it allows you to make changes without having to use a menu but with the V1 having a smaller body and the potential to outshine all of the other HDV camcorders during day shooting is a deciding factor for me if I were to choose between the 2 camcorders.

Gee, Heath, just how "educated" is that "gut feeling" about 24p in the V1?

I wouldn't want to question Heath's education :-) But in fact, I just saw some of that same footage myself and it's very impressive. Like Heath, that's all I can say, however I believe that others will have a chance to see it and draw their own conclusions before too long...

Health,
When I was talking about the V1 footage, I was agreeing with you that the IBC footage was as bad as you said it was. I understand that you’ve seen other footage that you aren’t allowed to talk about.

Bob Zimmerman,
That is a very hard choice to make and Panasonic would indeed make it worse if they joined the mix. The XH-G1 having all of the controls on the outside of the body is a very good idea because it allows you to make changes without having to use a menu but with the V1 having a smaller body and the potential to outshine all of the other HDV camcorders during day shooting is a deciding factor for me if I were to choose between the 2 camcorders.

I think the smaller body will be nice. I've been close to buying the DVX 100b a few times in the last couple of weeks, but I just can't pull the trigger. It's a great camera, but I really want 16:9. So I'm going to take a close look at these two camera. But the Sony if it really looks as good has people are saying, 16:9, 24p,etc, it might do the job. So might the Canon too.

Time will tell.....soon I hope.

I wouldn't want to question Heath's education :-) But in fact, I just saw some of that same footage myself and it's very impressive. Like Heath, that's all I can say, however I believe that others will have a chance to see it and draw their own conclusions before too long...

I wish you could say more too, but don't!!!

Bob...I've seen it too. Pretty smashing stuff, especially once the story behind it is told.
I'm *sure* it will be available on DVInfo.net soon

Spot everyone who has seen it says the same thing. There sure is alot of second guessing about it too.

I must have missed Lawrence Bansbach post before I wrote mine but it’s true that Heath McKnight, Douglas Spotted Eagle and Boyd Ostroff can’t reveal to many specifics such as rather the V1 has 24p or not unless they don’t ever want to receive any insider information ever again.

Sorry we can't, and thanks for calling me Heath instead of Health. (wink)

heath

I have a "feeling" that we don't have much longer to wait anyway.

I have a "feeling" we're torturing everyone!

hwm

I hope it is worth the wait.

Actually it was a Sony technician who couldn't speak English, so he showed me a page from his flipbook and let me photograph it with my mobile. I just copied what I read from the page.

One other thing that strike me is that although in their single CMOS chip HC-3 camcorder they use a 2mp clearVid sensor in their more expensive camcorder they use a 1.2mp (again clearVid) although progessive and of course triple. Is that because the CMOS are still quite expensive or that the data from the 2mp will be difficult to proccess? (Lets not forget that Panasonic in their true progressive HVX 200 uses an almost SD resolution sensor).

Any comments



PS Since I'm a new member if someone can tell how to upload a jpeg file I can post the pic of the specs from my mobile

Bloody great, good one, most excellent. I'll trust that rumour ;).

The HC3 is not that great, apart from bent/rotated pixels, technically, the colour resolution is less than 4:2:0 at 2mp. So, I suspect a lot more interpolation all around. So, the V1 has the chance to offer more accurate pixels and colours, and more sensitivity/latitude per pixel. So, the drop to 1/4 does not matter as much, but 1/3inch is still preferable.

I think for various news/current affairs and journalistic endeavours this is goign to be great. In the past, stations have bought vx1000's by the truck load, and I suspect that Z1 might have dinted that opportunity a bit for this camera, but it is possible. Even the national broadcaster over here, cash strapped, has been using cheap Sony 3 chips for it's leading "4 corners" program (and it shows).

I see they are dropping that switchable PAL/NTSC shooting mode, probably because it is only relevant to some, particularly NTSC markets. I suggested that for the Z1 when they were asking the public for submissions on features. But I have a different idea now, hard disks work so fast you could save multiple versions at once. The next Z2, could save a progressive and non progressive version, or better a 50p/60p version with adjusted timing that allowed the same 60p footage to be sued relatively smoothly in both 50 and 60p formats. Now news shot in 60p could be in both NTSC and Pal markets, and 25p 180 degree shutter version telecined to film at 24fps. Hard disk definitely have the capacity and upto 50mb/s Mpeg2 (XDCAM) can be used. This could be selected rather than a normal mode, if you thought you might need it.

"Its a very clean highres video, but it still feels like video." from the other site with the V1 clips.

I swear the next time I hear a comment like this I'll ... . It should like 'HD video' because that's what the vast majority of shooters want.

This "film look" focus has gone too far. Why would anyone want the look of "film" when they can have the "through the window into reality" look of HD.

There are only two problems with the Sony. (1) it, as you would expect, has a Sony "look." Why should anyone expect otherwise. Sony sells more pro cameras than anyone else -- so they must be doing something right.

(2) It's not 60p. I'm not revealing anything here. :)

But, the CMOS/EIP engine I believe is fully capable of generating 1080p60. Europe want's 1080p50 and it -- and we -- will get 1080p as soon as there is an MPEG-2 encoder and a recording system. Gee -- Sony is developing a tiny Blu-ray camcorder. Anyone want to bet on a Z3 in NAB 2008.

The last few years the "indie-film" folks have dominated the video world. Now the focus is going to swing back to the broadcasters. Think of NAB before the DVX-100.

Most of all think HD news!

<This "film look" focus has gone too far. Why would anyone want the look of "film" when they can have the "through the window into reality" look of HD.>

Couldn't agree more. ITs a bit like using modern technology to make a car that looks and drives like one from the 1930's!!!! The pressure for 24p was as much to transfer to film for theatre viewing which then became a look all of its own ( trapped in the past). When theatres move to full digital projection this will be unnessesary and hopefully we can move on to real smooth well shot features with modern technology. Can't wait for 60p for nice smooth progressive images. Let the viewer choose if they want to see stuttery images( put an "Old Film Look " in the players). SHot angles, depth of field for dramatic effect etc are still essential for dramatic effect it just doesn't have to stutter.

Ron Evans

If you shoot a camera that is 60i or 50i, it has that video look, less so with 50i and esp. with CineFrame 30 or 25 on. And also, 24p is only one part of a film look. You also have lighting, depth of field, movement friendly to films, shutter, etc.

heath

I think in terms of more of a electronic look or natural look. Digital still cameras do not use film but yet can have a very natural look to them. My biggest problem with SONY HDV cameras so far isn't so much that they are interlaced but that the image looks very electronic compared to other HDV cameras. I realize this is still video at the end of the day but to me the whole point of HD is a realistic natural view of the world and not yet another electronic view of the world just with higher detail. It has nothing to do with a "film" look for me but just a clean natural image. I could care less if it looks like film and in fact do not want it to since film has it's own imperfections.

With that said what little footage I have seen from this new SONY camera looks much more natural than the FX1 ever did. I have only seen that one shot from DVXuser but it looked very natural to me so far. It is hard to tell with one shot but so far I am impressed with the camera and I may even consider getting one. That is a lot coming from me who usually hates SONY cameras and wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole.

I sometimes feel that way with JVC, but I feel there new HD cameras are pretty cool. But I disagree about your views on Sony--I feel it captures colors better than any of the other HDV (or DV) cameras, esp. the HVX. And I don't quite understand what you mean by an "electronic" look.

heath

Heath, I am far from the only person who has ever mentioned this. I for one have always felt that Canon cameras had a much more natural look to them. I'm not talking about just color here but a general way the image looks overall. From a compositing point of view one of the things to me that makes video look electronic is the fake sharpening of the video. Yes you can turn if down on newer cameras but turning it down on the SONY HDV makes some very blurry looking video. Other HDV cameras do not have as much of a problem in this area. If they do in their default sharpness it can be turned down without the video getting too soft.

The reason I say only plays a small part if because you could shoot BW and to me it would still look electronic. Some people really like that look because it is what they are used to. I prefer not to like it all that much and that is my right. I have a friend who shoots with SONY DSR-500 cameras who swears by them that they will blow away any HD footage. They do look good but to me they still look electronic.

To me the SONY HC1 and the new V1 finally break away from that certain type of look and so far I like it. The HC1 which I bought for my wife for vacations looks much more natural thatn I would have expected. It isn't perfect but if you try really hard it does look very natural to me. The FX1 does not even look close to natual to me. It can look good but it has this certain quality to it that is really hard to describe. You either see it or you don't.

Once FCP updates for the Canon 24f, I'll show some clips of the Canon XL H1 in 24f and Sony Z1 in CF25. They are nearly identical, with the edge going to Sony for overall look, color, etc. The Sony's lens is much better than the Canon's stock lens, and as a former owner of the XL1 (for 4+ years), I've never been a fan of the stock lenses. I talk about it 5 years ago in this interview:

http://www.indieclub.com/q&a/skyefalling.asp

heath

Clearly we have two different views on what good quality is. I am not saying that you are wrong but that I view things a certain way. Am I the only one? no. Are you the only one? I'm sure that isn't the case either.

I can however find a lot of people who happen to think the H1 is much better looking than the FX1. They may or may not be wrong but based on their view of quality they are right and that is all that matters.

If you prefer the look of the FX1 then hey congrats to you and your camera.

All I was trying to say earlier is that I personally do not like the look of the SONY's. I however like what I have seen so far from the V1 which is saying a lot for me. The last time I checked I have every right to say I do not like a certain camera compared to another. I do not understand why you are so defensive about the FX1.

I have also seen a lot of footage for all of the cameras and really compared shots from the shootout that was done in Texas. I can tell you when comparing the images shot side by side of the two models and the shots across the lake that I prefer the Canon over the SONY in every shot.

I'm not even sure how we got to this point. All I was stating was that so far I really like what I see with the V1. End of story.

Thomas,

Me giving you my opinion isn't try to stop your freedoms to say what you want. I specifically asked what an "electronic look" is, and you have yet to answer it. I gave you my opinion on what I think of the XL1, XL H1 and more. You're giving back your thoughts, but somehow trying to hint that I'm not allowing you to. All I am doing is disagreeing that Sony is lesser than other cameras. The JVC HD10, yes, but I feel each sub-$10,000 HD/HDV camera is very good, with Sony being my favorite. Even if it doesn't shoot 24p.

Here at DVInfo, we try not to get into equipment/platform debates, because they are counter-productive.

I feel I make a pretty good educated guess with cameras and what I like. Everyday, I use the Z1, FX1 and DVX100a. In the past, I've shot with Hi8 (consumer and professional), VHS, SVHS, BetaSP, DVCPro (the cameras TV stations use), DV (XL1, all the Sony VX versions and PD versions, the GL1/2, the JVC DV pro cameras, etc.), the Sony F900 CineAlta, the XL H1, HD10, HD100, and the HVX100. I've also shot on 16mm three or four times, but was priced out of that market in the mid-1990s. Hence, my move to digital in 1997 with a camera purchase in 1999 (I borrowed a VX1000 before).

heath

I for one have always felt that Canon cameras had a much more natural look to them. I'm not talking about just color here but a general way the image looks overall. From a compositing point of view one of the things to me that makes video look electronic is the fake sharpening of the video.

On this point I agree completely. And you are correct about the edges. Somehow the Canon engineers "tune" the system so the edges are less sharply defined and more 3D.

It's also the colorimetry difference as Sony is cool and Canon warm.

Does Sony not "see" this? Of course. I suspect 3 things:

1) Sony established very early the use of 9300K as the color of white verses the NTSC use of 6500K. 9300K is quite cool. It has become the Sony standard for cameras and TVs.

2) Compared to the early RCA TVs, the Sony Trinitron's were more accurate. The RCA rendered skin as "healthy" which white folks loved. (I've watched color TV from the days of the very first RCA 12".) Sony's look was far more accurate. Japanese and whites looked as they really do look -- pale white. Less flattering, but more accurate.

3) Sony must design equipment that creates video that survives many generations. Canon is fudamentally making prosumer equipment. What looks good 1 generation down, won't look good 5 generations down. So Sony records very sharp edges knowing that they will survive.

4) Sony designs prosumer video so it can be intercut with their pro video. Canon has no such need. So Sony's pro look is exended down.

It would be great if the new Sony's have enough control to modify their look because I too think the FX1/Z1 look like DV with more pixels. But, if I'm correct, the market that Sony is aiming at are those that use BetaSP and XDCAM HD. These buyers will want the Sony look.

To this point, HD buyers have primarily individuals who worked on "film" type projects. Now we'll be seeing a massive move to HD by those who own tons of Sony equipment. I suspect the web posters will continue to reflect the views of the indie types because those in the broadcast industry aren't the type to have the time to be debating 24p.

It's amazing, my wife and I have been watching a 24 hour Korean narrative series. Like EVERY dramatic series shot in Asia, it was shot 60i. The story, not the frame rate is what matters IMHO.

That's one thing I agree with, Steve, 24p isn't what counts in telling a filmed narrative. It's several things, esp. the story.

heath

Steve,

"1) I'm confused totally. You demonstrated how 1M pixels can fill a 2Mpixel buffer"

I've explained how you can get 1080 vertical and 1920 horizontal resolution from only 1Mpixels. It is true that the processing has to be done natively in a 1080x1920 2Mpixel buffer, but you only have half that information from a sensor.

If diagonal pixels are used, then information wise you have a checkerboard. If you take the white squares and call them pixels, this is the physical data being put into the array. The checkerboard is related to the real array by using the only practical method to fill the black squares, add 4 triangles to each pixel and then they fill the space with a diamond pattern.

Because you have a checkerboard pattern of information you cannot physically fit the information in a smaller grid, you have a native 1080x1920 information set, just with half the data (but without half the light loss practically). How you get the other half of the data set, with 25% of each information coming from each of the 4 pixels that this light has come from I'm not sure. It could be a straight interpolation method, or some sort of deconvolution, however this data is synthetic, at least in information terms.

Again purely in information terms, the maximum horizontal and vertical resolution requires 2 sets of blocks from the board, as they are 1 pixel out of phase, so to speak.

Its,

* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * *

Being equivalent to,

******************

For purely horizontal resolution, and the same effect for vertical resolution.

Pixel shift can apply really well to this situation, more than half luma comes from green, a little less than half comes from red and blue combined, so if you shift the red/blue arrays such that the center of those pixels is on the black checkerboard points you could end up with a real 1080x1920 luma information containing picture.

Without pixel shift we have,

W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W

Its also easy to see when laid out like this why the resolution is half vertical * horizontal pixels.

Where White = Red + Green + Blue. Full colour, but half the data is missing. A 1 Mpixel image in 2Mpixels worth of space.

With pixel shift we could have,

PGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPG
GPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGP
PGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPG
GPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGP

Where G = Green and P = Purple = Red + Blue, and the potential to extract additional luma resolution, assuming clever methods.

I am really in a bind here, as this camera is within my price range as a non professional, it has true 25p, which I want, and it is 1080 lines on paper, which I want.

The problem is it seems all half measures hidden by fakery.

To me the 20x zoom sounds like a gimmick and putting a 20x zoom in a camera of this size automatically implies a tiny sensor. 3 1/4inch sensors, over the single 1/3inch sensors of previous models. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where 3 sensors normally implies a 300% increase in silicon for very real picture improvements, this is just 70% more silicon for a whole lot more expense and complexity. I'm not convinced this is really a step forward, it seems like a 3 sensor product simply because the pro versions have always been 3 sensor. The HC3 is theoretically capable of 25/30p, Sony just chose not to output that, now the V1e is around 3 times the price of a HC3, but only has 70% (approx) more lit silicon.

Making a camera do p50/p60 would make a lot of sense if anything else supported it, I think this may well be where Sony is headed and there is real value there, the clearvid sensors can do this already, but adding 25p to a camcorder and reducing the sensor size does not make much sense to me. We are already at a massive disadvantage without a narrow depth of field and this is just going to make things worse. How about a single larger bayer sensor?

Pulling 1Mpixels off the silicon rather than 2Mpixels. Is it really that much more difficult? Is the decrease in pixel noise really worth halving the resolution?

I do notice one other corroborating argument to the diamond pixel theory. The HC3 sensor has 6 green pixels for every 8 total. Suggesting that were all the pixels the same colour, the resolution would increase to better than rez/6*8. Sony are claiming 800 lines vertical. (Looks around and sees eagles circling), another camcorder review site has measured the HC3 at 566 x 601 actual lines, suggesting the same sensor as a non mosaic could do better than 750x800 lines. I am really getting the feeling the FX7 and V1e use the same or a very similar sensor as the HC3 in a smaller fab process.

I am really in a bind here, as this camera is within my price range as a non professional, it has true 25p, which I want, and it is 1080 lines on paper, which I want.

The problem is it seems all half measures hidden by fakery.

To me the 20x zoom sounds like a gimmick and putting a 20x zoom in a camera of this size automatically implies a tiny sensor.

Making a camera do p50/p60 would make a lot of sense if anything else supported it, I think this may well be where Sony is headed and there is real value there, the clearvid sensors can do this already, but adding 25p to a camcorder and reducing the sensor size does not make much sense to me.

I've concluded you are totally correct about the FX1/V1 design.

However, I think you miss a marketing point. These are prosumer camcorders that replace the HC1/A1. The next step up is the Z1. The Sony pro group completely ignores the existence of their consumer division. The FX1 and Canon do not exit in their world view. For them, the only other real HDV camcorder comes from JVC. (A view I share.)

Everything inside the V1 is stage 1 of the next few years that will wind-up with 1080p camcorders. The HC3/A1 are not the way Sony plans to go. The HC3/FX7/V1 is the future. The number of pixels and chip size will increase as you wish over time. You'll have to wait for NAB 2007 or 2008.

And, yes 20X is crazy -- unless you are CNN in Iraq. I suspect one of the networks want this baby.

I suspect one of the networks want this baby.

And, maybe some locals. KLAS ch 8 in Las Vegas just went local news in HD this morning. Even before turning on HD, their pix was so much better than the other locals.
Now its wow!

Except for stored video, the street reporting is 16:9. I expect it is still SD. I assume they'll be buying XDCAM HD as CBS has gone this way.

They are the 11th station to go HD news.

Dr. Masaru Kanazawa, an engineer for the Japanese broadcaster NHK, which is developing U-HDTV, told the BBC that they are trying to bring even more realism to home viewing.

"When we designed HDTV 40 years ago our target was to make people feel like they were watching the real object. Our target now is to make people feel that they are in the scene," he said.

That's a great statement of the look of HD, "to make people feel like they were watching the real object."

PS: I'm seeing some local coverage on KLAS that sure looks like HD.

And, yes 20X is crazy -- unless you are CNN in Iraq. I suspect one of the networks want this baby.

I think there are plenty of people who will be attracted by the 20x zoom. I know that nature/wildlife photographers liked the GL2 for its 20x lens. I shoot performances at about 100' from the stage. With my Z1 I'm using the Century 1.6x telephoto which is a big, heavy, expensive beast. Even with it I'm getting the 35mm equivalent of 640mm. The FX7 is equivalent to about 750mm which would be great for that application.

And, yes 20X is crazy -- unless you are CNN in Iraq. I suspect one of the networks want this baby.

Or if you're a skydiving judge that needs to see exactly what's happening at 12k altitude from the ground (HDV caused an upset in the world skydiving championships this year, showing a turned point wasn't touched even though the judges eyes thought it had been, based on binoculars).

Also is quite valuable for long sunset shots for filled frame...among a few other things that I can't talk about until the Sony announcement is made.
Be watching here for some downloadable footage soon.

I think there are plenty of people who will be attracted by the 20x zoom. ...... The FX7 is equivalent to about 750mm which would be great for that application.I agree - lots of people will find this 750mm useful, and to be able to get it without using a 1.7x or 2.0x telephoto convertor lens & their associated image degradation/softening/distortion is absolutely a good thing.

Obviously caveat being the user really needs to use a good quality tripod or other support of course.

As i said earlier (or was it another thread - not sure) I think Sony likely have a plan to make another 3CMOS machine that will use 1/3rdin. CMOS sensors and so to make THAT new machine (if/when it appears) a viable and saleable commodity with a USP (Unique Selling Point), they needed the FX7/VX1 to have smaller sensors to 'make room'. - Just my theory on that.

ps. Heath - I just enjoyed reading that SkyeFalling interview. Interesting stuff and useful practical advice.

The DV look is over rated. The truth is it is a limited compared to the human eye, cut down, that looks sensationalised. Film is different because it has more latitude/sensitivity, is better, not perfect, as it is only closer to the human eye. Modern technologies, has driven a performance closer to the human eye, and cmos seems closer to film

With higher performance, and greater bit depth, you can tune your look post to be a number of things, even DV. Maybe it is better to start this way?

Did I understand this correctly? The sensors in the new HVR-V1U camera are 4:3 and not 16:9???

Does that mean the following...?

HDR-HC1 - 4:3 sensors
HVR-A1U - 4:3 sensors
HDR-HC3 - ??? sensors
HDR-FX1 - 16:9 sensors
HDR-FX7 - 4:3 sensors
HVR-Z1U - 16:9 sensors
HVR-V1U - 4:3 sensors

Cause that would be a serious dissapointment. I was holding out for a Sony camera that would finally have 24P/XLR/16:9 sensors... I thought I was definately going to get that in the V1U but now... no?

Also if I am incorrect on any of the above information could you help me correct it? I'm trying to keep a database of that before I make my purchase.

Thank you!!

what if they could make a 4:3 sensor on a V1 look better than a 16:9 sensor on a FX1?

Hmm. I suppose that would be okay.
I really don't know though.

What are the advantages and disadvantages? I always assumed that if the camera only had 4:3 sensors and you were creating a 16:9 image that it would need to interpolate/process/etc/etc to achieve that aspect ratio, thus a substantial decrease in resolution.

But I really don't know much about how signals are processed. I leave that to the tech-ies here ;)

same here. I hope they come out with something good "soon" "anytime now"

Hopefully it's not a "is that what we were waiting for?"

I always assumed that if the camera only had 4:3 sensors and you were creating a 16:9 image that it would need to interpolate/process/etc/etc to achieve that aspect ratio

I don't think that's true at all. Why should you even care what shape the CCD is? What's significant is the size and resolution of the area which is being used. The XL2 has a 4:3 sensor and so does the PDX-10. Both cameras shoot native 16:9 at full resolution. They just don't use the space above and below the 16:9 frame. But the area inside the frame has enough pixels to produce a full quality image.

Okay :)

I'm really not trying to dispute things, I was just giving my own naive impression of it all and trying to piece things together. I really don't even have an opinion.... that's how naive I am about these sorts of details.

From what I thought I read though, I thought it was basically dropping pixel information that your CCD is capturing thus throwing away resolution. I'm not saying the result would be BAD either, it could be perfectly great. It was just my understanding of how the sensors work.

I thought that was also the reason why everyone said that the 16:9 mode in cheap 4:3 handycams were so terrible, because it was essentially just covering up the image it was capturing with black borders and decreasing resolution. I figured this was kind of the same thing. Is there a difference?

Still though, there must be advantages to having 16:9 sensor, no?

All that matters is how it looks to your eye and not anything else.

Did I understand this correctly? The sensors in the new HVR-V1U camera are 4:3 and not 16:9???
!

And why would the sensor aspect ratio make any difference to you?

Do you care what shape the LSI MPEG-2 encoder chip is?

I thought that was also the reason why everyone said that the 16:9 mode in cheap 4:3 handycams were so terrible, because it was essentially just covering up the image it was capturing with black borders and decreasing resolution. I figured this was kind of the same thing. Is there a difference?

The concept is the same, but the difference is the total pixel count on the chip. On the VX-2100 for example there are only 720x480 pixels. So to get a 16:9 image you have to sample a 720x360 area on the chip. That leads to quality problems, because on playback you need to stretch it back to 854x480 (a bit of an oversimplification, but good enough to this discussion).

However on the PDX-10 you're starting with a 4:3 chip that has 1152x864 pixels so it uses about 1152x648 of them when sampling a 16:9 image. This gives you more than enough data to create the final 854x480 end result. Now these are both standard definition cameras, but the same principles apply with high definition.

I don't know that there's any inherent advantage to using chips that are physically shaped in the 16:9 ratio, other than the fact that it's a little more elegant design I suppose. As I said above, all you should care about is the size of the target area and how many pixels it contains. Anything above or below that area is irrelevant.

The DV look is over rated.

No one is after a "DV look." In fact, given the number of "looks" from DV camcorders, there is no single DV look -- unless you mean the look of inexpensive SD.

IMHO the much of "film look" drive was to get away from the look of SD. Now there is a new look -- HD. Unfortunately, many if not most of those who wanted/want a "film look" had/have never seen good HD. Even those who now shoot HDV are still not watching it on a huge screen so they still don't get it.

There is a Sony look however as there are Canon and Panasonic looks. This is true in HD as it was in SD.

No one is after a "DV look."

Obviously you haven't seen Soderbergh's "Full Frontal"

;-)

Obviously you haven't seen Soderbergh's "Full Frontal"

;-)

Not interested in indie films so of course I didn't see it. Why waste time seeing indie or Hollywood c**p when I can see great films from 1970 to 1990 in HD. As well as the best films from the last 75 years on TCM or AMC. IMHO there hasn't been a great film made in the last decade.

Didn't Canon and Apple sponsor "Full Frontal?" :)

Cause that would be a serious dissapointment. I was holding out for a Sony camera that would finally have 24P/XLR/16:9 sensors... I thought I was definately going to get that in the V1U but now... no?



The reason why the V1/FX7 and the previous HC1/A1, HC3 sport a 4:3 sensor instead of a 16:9 has to do with their ability to shoot high resolution still images and is not a indication of inferior quality. If you see on your list the 16:9 camcorders are the only ones who don't have still picture taking capability.

The reason why the V1/FX7 and the previous HC1/A1, HC3 sport a 4:3 sensor instead of a 16:9 has to do with their ability to shoot high resolution still images and is not a indication of inferior quality.

If we ignore the exact V1 CMOS resolution until Sony makes their announcement -- the CMOS is about 1000x1000.

In the case of the Z1, its 960x1080 pixels are "wide" so they can be spread over a 16:9 area. I guess that means they are twice as wide as they are tall. If so, their pixel aspect-ratio is 2:1.

ClearVid has square pixels -- if the drawings are to be believed. Given the chips have about 1000x1000 pixels, that would seem to mean the CMOS chip itself is nearly square.

So, we have a nearly square sensor onto which a 16:9 rectangular image is projected.

Think of it as 1000 wide and 1000 high while an HDCAM chip is 2000 wide and 1000 high. The latter is 16:9 so the former must be 8:9. This not 4:3 either.

The published pix of the ClearVid sensor shows it to be 16:9, not 8:9 or 4:3. (Although this pix may not be of the V1 chips.)

Note, that I'm not talking about the fact the pixels are diamonds. However, as I understand it, the diamonds make it possible to squeeze pixels even closer together, thus likely making taller pixels.

IMHO there hasn't been a great film made in the last decade.

Sounds like you need to look further afield than just American output!

In truth, there haven't been many 'great' films made, ever, in any decade.

But to ignore the last decade seems a tad stubborn, as would ignoring indie films -- even reaching back to the pre1995 films, some of the best were independent productions.

I've watched thousands and thousands of films over the years, and the ratio of dreck to cream has always been in favour of dreck -- but there have been films as good as any in the last decade, and there have been some great indies. And World Cinema has never offered better opportunities ...

It's a big old world out there -- plenty of good stuff to go around!

GB

In truth, there haven't been many 'great' films made, ever, in any decade.

But to ignore the last decade seems a tad stubborn, as would ignoring indie films -- even reaching back to the pre1995 films, some of the best were independent productions.


I agree that some pre 1995 "indies" were great. Then "indie" became a marketing term as did "Shot on DV!" and is "World Cinema" now. There's nothing new about cinema from other countries. I've seen most every film that came into the USA from the late-50's -- long before it became "fashionable" to import "ethnic" films.

Unfortunately -- and this is really OT -- filmmakers world-wide have learned to copy (because via DVD they can see everything) what "sells" and so no matter the country of origin, they are copies of the last big success.

Most adults have stopped going to movies and with home theaters and HD -- even fewer will go in the future. That means no matter the country of origin, films have been and are being made for teens. Which in turn means those who are under 30 have primarily seen only "teen" movies -- so unless they have taken many film history classes -- they make copies of what they've seen. This is how both music and film have become worse over time.

It's the reverse of what happended after WW2, when a few great films from Italy led others in Europe, India, and Japan to make wonderful films. By the `60's and `70's the USA joined the ranks of great filmmakers -- and then the Chinese. Then it was over. Suddenly film and music became fast food for the eyes and ears.

Fast food isn't any better at 24p than it is at 60i.

In the case of the Z1, its 960x1080 pixels are "wide" so they can be spread over a 16:9 area. I guess that means they are twice as wide as they are tall. If so, their pixel aspect-ratio is 2:1.

ClearVid has square pixels -- if the drawings are to be believed. Given the chips have about 1000x1000 pixels, that would seem to mean the CMOS chip itself is nearly square.

Think of it as 1000 wide and 1000 high while an HDCAM chip is 2000 wide and 1000 high. The latter is 16:9 so the former must be 8:9. This not 4:3 either.

Note, that I'm not talking about the fact the pixels are diamonds. However, as I understand it, the diamonds make it possible to squeeze pixels even closer together, thus likely making taller pixels.


http://www.hdvinfo.net/articles/sony/firstlookv1u.php

If you take a look at the V1U announcement above you will see that it clearly states the pixel number as 1080X960 which means that you were right claiming the chip being 9:8 (I think thats the right way and not 8:9, since the latter calculates to a totally different number and traditionally the industry uses frame size ratios with the bigger side being on top).

My question, how are you certain that the pixels are square and not wide like the Z1?