http://www.sonybiz.net/cgi-bin/bvisapi.dll/templates/std_page.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0202577295.1157648932@@@@&BV_EngineID=daddhjdeldfgbemgcfkmcfjfdhk.0&OID=193623

and

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6369628.html?display=Breaking+News

Details:

http://www.sonybiz.net/cgi-bin/bvisapi.dll/includes/changeProduct.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0202577295.1157648932@@@@&BV_EngineID=daddhjdeldfgbemgcfkmcfjfdhk.0&KEY=TEMP-HVR-V1E

heath

Can shoot 25p !!!!!!!!!

4% slowdown to get 24p !!!

wow shock !!

Its great... a new camera... that's better for us... better and better cameras keep coming... soon every kid in America can make a movie...

Now that doesn't mean it'll be a good movie... :)

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

Its set, the HVR-V1E VS. Canon XH. Hope Canon ate there wheaties. Good job Sony

so, is this just a "pro" version of the FX-7 (with different electronics to do the 50i/25p, XLR, etc.) but with same sensors?

3 CMOS. Dunno about a US version, but I'm sure there will be some sort of news about a potential one.

heath

SWEET! I'm dying to know what the lux rating is. I didn't see it...

SWEET! I'm dying to know what the lux rating is. I didn't see it...Will be 4lux, same as FX7.
BY the way, in this file:
http://www.sonybiz.net/images/product/X/HVR-V1E(brch).pdf

it says on the prog scan thing :
"The 25p signal is recorded as a 50i signal by dividing each frame into two fields. This allows the 25p progressive footage captured by the camcorder to be played back or fed to an editing suite using existing Sony equipment".

So.... are we talking about an in-camera de-interlacer here?? Hmm. Not sure quite what Sony have done. sounds *maybe* like a bit of a fudge to me, but i think we need more info on that.

So.... are we talking about an in-camera de-interlacer here?? Hmm. Not sure quite what Sony have done. sounds *maybe* like a bit of a fudge to me, but i think we need more info on that.

Negative, the chips are apparently true progressive scan CMOS. It just happens to be recorded on a 50i stream for compatibility. According to that Sony product page:

"Compatible with existing HDV equipment & software
Because the HVR-V1E's 25p scan signal is recorded as a 50i signal (by dividing each frame into two fields) it can be played back or fed to an editing suite using the thousands of Sony professional HDV equipment already in use throughout the world. Existing HDV nonlinear software can edit this 25p scan content and output the final master as:

1. A sequence of still images at 25 fps, for film out
2. A 25fps YUV (uncompressed) HD file, for output to Cinealta products
3. A 25fps SD MPEG2 file, for the highest quality DVD mastering possible
4. A 50i HDV file, for creating an HDV edit master
5. A 50i YUV (uncompressed) HD or SD file, for outputting to Digital Betacam or HDCAM for broadcast"

I think the DVX and XL2 do the same thing, i.e. record a 24P signal onto a 60i stream. But it is true progressive scan.

Yep thanks Tim. After i'd re-read the sony blurb I too came to a similar conclusion that it IS capturing in true-prog-scan but has to chop each frame up and store as interlaced for backwards compatability reasons.

- thanks

Wouldn't 30p be more likely for the NTSC version? Assuming they're going to to use the same progressive-frame-divided-in-two type thing, I would expect this to be something more like the original Canon Elura, which had a 30p mode recorded within an interlaced signal.

Switchable PAL / NTSC ! same as Z1 - excellent stuff.

Also has Hypergain (i guess it will be up to +36dB), and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Absolutely the HDV equivalent version of the PD170 and i'd think will be standard issue by media & broadcast companies in the future.

Very cool! But since they say the Z1 will still be their "flagship" product, I wonder what features this new camera is missing?

As usually , sony is playing the same old game.
take the prosumer cam , paint it in black, add xlr input et voila !
no mention of HD-SDI output, same resolution as the good old FX1 or FX7.
We were waiting a bit better from Sony...
Now you can tell "You dreamed it, Canon has done it"

-Will be 4lux, same as FX7.-

Perhaps its low light capacity is a tad worse?

Giroud,

I disagree. Canon doesn't offer true progressive 1920x1080 like Sony does. As I've said before, cameras come and cameras go, but most of us like a specific brand and stand by and defend it. But it still comes down to the shooter.

And yes, there is HDMI output:

http://www.sonybiz.net/cgi-bin/bvisapi.dll/templates/neutral_content_product.jsp?OID=193394&section=0&subsection=2&BV_SessionID=@@@@0202577295.1157648932@@@@&BV_EngineID=daddhjdeldfgbemgcfkmcfjfdhk.0

Though it says, "HDMI Output For direct interface with HD ready consumer displays."

heath

Looks like Sony is turning its back on wedding and event videographers who need good lowlight sensitivity. The FX-1 and Z1 were already a step back from the PD-170/VX-2100, and now these new cams appear to be taking yet another step back. Granted, in practice, these new cams may perform better than the 4 lux rating would indicate, but I doubt it, I don't see how 1/4 sensors could perform better than 4 lux.

Now you can tell "You dreamed it, Canon has done it"

Exactly - at the price point mentioned in one of the articles above (4,600 euros) it seems the Canon A1 should provide more (and more professional, at least with regards to image adjustment)features, with at least equivalent quality, at a lower price point.

I wonder if Sony has eliminated the rolling shutter CMOS issue? It really produces some weird visual artifacts when the camera is moving, and while it might be fine for a primarily consumer camera I wouldn't find it acceptable on something intended as a professional tool.

Evan and Giroud,

As we've said on this forum countless times, until someone (esp. you) can test it and write up a proper review of the camera, including pros and cons, one can't automatically declare a camera good or not.

No one knew the HD10 would have issues all around, nor did anyone know that Sony, JVC and Canon would put out better-than-expected HDV cameras. Not until we tested them.

heath

As we've said on this forum countless times, until someone (esp. you) can test it and write up a proper review of the camera, including pros and cons, one can't automatically declare a camera good or not.Absolutely agree with Heath. You can only make preliminary judgments from basic specs. Its FAR too early to say its great or its bad. Sony know their markets, and within their own constraints on being careful to keep a balanced product line-up (technically speaking) i'm sure they'll make sure it delivers the goods. VX2100 etc was a special low-light machine for sure, and we may not see a 1lux rated low-light HDV machine EVER from any manufacturer. A lot of people to me do seem very entrenched in defending equipment they already own and part of that can be being rather negative about new equipment!

what is the usa price?

VX2100 etc was a special low-light machine for sure, and we may not see a 1lux rated low-light HDV machine EVER from any manufacturer. A lot of people to me do seem very entrenched in defending equipment they already own and part of that can be being rather negative about new equipment!

I, for one, own two FX1s and am very loyal to Sony. I am disappointed in the low-light ability as it is something that is very necessary for my work. And while we may not see a 1 lux rated HDV camera, there is certainly no need to for the lux rating to become WORSE. Even if CMOS chips are used, maybe if they utilized a bigger lens maybe the lux could atleast remained the same! I don't think that's too much to ask. I want this camera!

Just my 2 cents :-)

there is certainly no need to for the lux rating to become WORSE.Fair points Beth, but remember these lux ratings are quote to the nearest integer, and 8 lux (Sony's own Japanese lux rating) by my calculations is equivalent to about 3.5lux rating. (as the 8lux could be anywhere from 7.6 to 8.4 in actuality etc, and also i don't know the exact'exchange-rate')
Another site has quoted 4lux so to an INTEGER it may be 4lux.

Remember that the FX1 may be actually 3.4lux and so that is quoted as "3 lux" to the nearest integer. Well, the FX7/V1 could(i.m not saying it IS, i'm saying COULD) actually be 3.6lux and this will therefore be quoted as "4 lux". basic maths. So to 1 decimal place, the lux ratings could be 0.2 lux apart or even closer.

So again, what this illustrates is that you cannot jump to conclusions based on integer lux ratings especially as Sony tend to quote only in the Japanese-scale lux, which they have done as they usually do in the spec sheet for this new cam. Plus it uses CMOS which has better dynamic range etc than CCD's.

All these factors mean that it really is too early to be disappointed, or happy, depending on your point of view.

Fair points Beth, but remember these lux ratings are quote to the nearest integer, and 8 luces (Sony's own Japanese lux rating) by my calculations is equivalent to about 3.5lux rating. Another site has quoted 4lux so to an INTEGER it may be 4lux.

Remember that the FX1 may be actually 3.4lux and so that is quoted as "3 lux" to the nearest integer. Well, the FX7/V1 could(i.m not saying it IS, i'm saying COULD) actually be 3.6lux and this will therefore be quoted as "4 lux". basic maths. So to 1 decimal place, the lux ratings could be 0.2 lux apart or even closer.

So again, what this illustrates is that you cannot jump to conclusions based on integer lux ratings especially as Sony tend to quote only in the Japanese-scale lux, which they have done as they usually do in the spec sheet for this new cam. Plus it uses CMOS which has better dynamci range etc than CCD's.

All these factors mean that it really is too early to be disappointed, or happy, depending on your point of view.

I wholeheartedly agree. And my stance has always been that I will wait and see. And regardless, if I can manipulate it so that the low-light abilities stay the same, I will be thrilled. I'm just debating ;-)

looks like the Sony A1 only bigger

Thanks Stu for the reply. And everyone, calm down. We're only in the know on European and Japanese versions. No word on USA versions, or the lux rating (I believe the numbers are different in Japan and Europe).

But remember, more light IS indeed needed for ALL brands of HDV cameras. I've done countless setups with the DVX100a and the HD10, FX1, Z1, HD100 and XL H1, and each time, I needed to open the iris more than the DVX (Open vs. F2.4). That's how it works with different types of formats (DV vs. HDV, etc.).

heath

It's basically like the Z1 and the PD170 mixed together, I think. Small-form. And the tape transport's on the left, still. Like the first VX1000, if I'm not mistaken (and the FX1/Z1).

hwm

Yes its about the size of a PD170, but more modern smoothed lines. I noticed that the XLR unit is different from the one on the A1 and PD170 etc. It look smaller, less bulky, obviously a new design, and it has rotary dials to change levels i think. Certainly rotary dials of some sort.

I think the XLR unit was due for an overhaul - it was definitely starting to look bulky and square-edged on the A1 etc.

At least visually, it looks very coherent.
It's also got some sort of "crash review" feature which replays the last segment filmed at one-touch.
OIS stabilisation has 4 user-selectable levels.

Being the same size as the PD-170 will appeal to many over the FZ and Z1. Where did someone see the chips were 1920x1080 instead of 1440x1080?

I will like to see more on this camera,,,looks good and I really wanted a smaller size. Canon has a choice to make. Hopefully we see a price war!!

Black stretch? Did I miss the info?

Hopefully we see a price war!!

I second that!

And the tape transport's on the left, still. Like the first VX1000, if I'm not mistaken (and the FX1/Z1).

That looks more like an LCD screen on the left. Remember, it doesn't have the screen on the handle like the FX1 and Z1 so it seems like that would have to be on the left....

This new camera looks very cool. With the new Canons coming out as well there is some serious choice in the market now!

What do people make of this bit though?
"and has 4 times high speed scanning capability enabling "Smooth Slow Rec" function."

This sounds great about the progressive scan feature but there is one problem with it. It is great that any deck or camera should be able to play this format. Canon's 25F still has one key advantage however.

progressive 4:2:0 sampling.

Since the 25P frames are placed in a 50i stream that means they use the interlaced form of encoding which can really mess up the chroma. With interlaced video the chroma alternates every other line. Progressive 4:2:0 uses clean 2x2 pixel blocks for the chroma. 25F on the Canon cameras uses a true progressive mpeg-2 encoding structure which is why it doesn't play on other devices. The chroma detail is much higher quality however.

I'm sure this may not be a big deal to some people but if you plan on keying you may be better off with the Canon form of progressive mpeg-2. Now perhaps if you are using live uncompressed this will not be an issue since you bypass the encoder anyways. Of course the uncompressed output may be limited to 4:2:0 just like it is on the XDCAM HD cameras.

The one advantge that the SONY does have with it's flavor of 25P however is that it will work in any current NLE with no problems at all. Since it sits in a 50i HDV stream it will edit just like 50i HDV. This makes it very easy to deal with and it should have very high luma quality at least.

Even with 25P however I would wait to see what the video looks like. While it may be progressive scan it may still have that over electronic look to it and some may still prefer the look of the Canon cameras. Since SONY is using cmos I would think it would at least look more natural than the FX1.

So.... are we talking about an in-camera de-interlacer here?? Hmm. Not sure quite what Sony have done. sounds *maybe* like a bit of a fudge to me, but i think we need more info on that.

No? They just have a progressive frame and they encode it into the hdv stream. There's nothing interlaced anywhere.

Being the same size as the PD-170 will appeal to many over the FZ and Z1. Where did someone see the chips were 1920x1080 instead of 1440x1080?

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.

4:2:2 HDV?? That can't be right, can it?

If I were to make a choice between this and the Z1u, then it would have to be HVR-V1 and I earnestly don’t see why someone would choose the Z1u over this. I’d even get this over the XH-G1 but that would still be a very hard choice to make. The 3 CMOS chips should allow for a much better picture than all of the other HDV camcorders as long as there is lots of lighting.

It evidently uses the same slo-mo recording as the Sony HC3 does. Gives you three seconds of true slo motion by recording at a faster tape speed, I think.

Since the data being written to tape is digital (just binary 1's and 0's), speeding up the tape shouldn't change the video speed during recording. I suspect something else must be going on there...

Yeah, you're right. It's probably just scanning the frame at a faster rate. And I see where, unlike the HC3's three second slow mo, this is supposed to give you 24 seconds of useful footage.

Yeah, you're right. It's probably just scanning the frame at a faster rate. And I see where, unlike the HC3's three second slow mo, this is supposed to give you 24 seconds of useful footage.

probably works the same as the HC3 by utilizing a memory buffer in the camera (the buffer in the HVR-V1e is larger than the HC3 as noted above) to capture at a much higher frame rate then writes out to tape at the specified speed

If I were to make a choice between this and the Z1u, then it would have to be HVR-V1 and I earnestly don’t see why someone would choose the Z1u over this. I’d even get this over the XH-G1 but that would still be a very hard choice to make. The 3 CMOS chips should allow for a much better picture than all of the other HDV camcorders as long as there is lots of lighting.

it will be interesting to see how the image quality compares to the new Canon models G1/A1- if the sensors in the V1 are similar to the FX7, then the pixels are still stretched/shifted to get to 1440x1080 resolution for writing to tape (whereas the Canon is native)

4:2:2 HDV?? That can't be right, can it?
It's not. The V1 processes the signal internally at 4:2:2 1920x1080, but what gets recorded on the tape is standard HDV, so it gets downrezzed to 1440x1080 and chroma gets subsampled to 4:2:0 before being recorded.

It evidently uses the same slo-mo recording as the Sony HC3 does. Gives you three seconds of true slo motion by recording at a faster tape speed, I think.
Well, not exactly. It cuts the resolution of the frames to 1/4, so it's 240 lines of res. 4x as fast sampling, 1/4 as much resolution, so it all nets out the same. The motion is sampled at 4x as much temporally, but into a matrix that's 1/4 as large spatially.

Here's an example of what the feature looks like on the HC3.
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/The-Quality-of-Sony-HC3-Slow-Motion-Video.htm

The V1 reportedly uses the same technique but doubles the size of the memory buffer so that lets it record longer.

It's not. The V1 processes the signal internally at 4:2:2 1920x1080, but what gets recorded on the tape is standard HDV, so it gets downrezzed to 1440x1080 and chroma gets subsampled to 4:2:0 before being recorded.

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...

I'm not sure, either. I'm curious about the white papers.

hwm