After warching 2 hours of V1 media via HDMI into my Sony 50" A10 RP-HDTV -- I've only got one word for the V1 -- WOW!

One example. Took camera into a Tony Roma's and shot a 90+ year old woman from about 35-feet in Full Auto. Her white hair was totally real. Liver spots. Puffy features.

Then my wife noticed that there was a glistening tear on the edge of her eye!

At least as good as anything I see on Discovery HD.

How do you think it compares to the FX1/Z1? Noticeably better? A worthwhile replacement, especially if blowing it up to film?

I know it may be hard, not seeing the same footage on the same screen but I have the idea that you know! Any comments would be great!

I recently had a V1 in the UK on loan from Sony for a few days so I could review/test it.

I found the image quality in interlaced about the same as Z1, in progressive it looked a little soft.

Compared to JVC GY-HD111 I found the JVC retained detail on wide shots much better than the V1, better resolution and contrast too.

However, the V1 I had was a pre-production model so there is a tiny chance it was not tuned to perfection.

Also, I've spent a long time tweaking the settings in the JVC and it is a lot easier to get a decent image from it because of the manual lens, aperture ring etc and the general way the JVC works like a proper camera.

Can't say I was blown away by it.

Not taking anything away from the V1, but it is only £3,295.

I personally think there is still room for another Sony camera. Sony UK say the next step up from a Z1/V1 is XDCAM HD, but this is a jump from £3,295 to £12,095. I think Sony should bring out a camera half way between those prices of say around £6,000 with an 1/3rd inch interchangeable manual focus lens system like the JVC. I think this would give improved image quality over the Z1/V1, but not quite as good as XDCAM HD, but every bit as good as JVC ProHD series.

Have I gone off topic here? sorry about that.

I don't know that I want detailed liver spot shots!

I read Nigel's review, also Spot's. From the few skydiving clips I've seen, I will honestly say I'm not blown away by the V1U, and to be fair, the clips from the Canon XH-A1 from the IBC are completely underwhelming.

I have NO DOUBT that Steve's video inside Tony Roma offers a more insightful clue to the V1U's performance than what I've seen from it. But here's the red flag. I was expecting this comment, and it happened.
After warching 2 hours of V1 media via HDMI into my Sony 50" A10 RP-HDTV

The problem I have with that, is that for many the V1 is the first opportunity at viewing HDMI output from a HDV cam, likely with a recent large screen HDTV display. I think it should be acknowledged that these TV types fundamentally excel at displaying HDTV formats, better than digital computer monitors, they have better scalers, better deinterlacers, true ATSC timings, not to mention a beautiful large and bright display.

Anecdote:

I took some Z1U footage I shot in Alaska last summer, authored the native m2t into the HD-DVD format. I popped the disk into a Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD player connected via HDMI to a 42 inch 1080p LCD HDTV at Best Buy. Within a few seconds, there gathered a small cadre of curious patrons observing the display. What were they thinking? Only they know, but my judgment was that the programming was as successful at captivating the attention for a few minutes as the 1080p HD-DVD demo disk that I had just removed. As good as anything I've seen on Discovery-HD? Honestly not but I'd require some AC Nielsen data before accepting that liver spots and puffy features inside Tony Roma will equal the spectacle of mating water buffalo in the Serengeti. And I don't require that in any case. All I really want, is to see some actual clips that do justice. The eyes have it.

Yeah lets see some of that 2 hours worth of footage so I can be the judge if it looks good or not to me.

V1 is available for firm order at GBP2,950 (INCLUDES VAT) in the UK Nigel if you search around reputable dealers.. In fact using the dealer that advertises at the top of your own site (!), the price gap between 111E and V1 is £1,050 and not the "£650" that you started in your review.

But anyway.... i read your review and was wondeing why there was no comment at all about low-light footage etc? I personally would have liked to have seen more detailed feedback on the machine and its capablities.

No offence at all, but the first 50% of the review seemed almost exclusively a talk about competitors and a rehash of information which is already known!

Anyway, it was useful input i thought at this early pre-sales date.

Stu

To be honest I felt the need to give a bit of input as to the competition and background, considering this is Sony's first budget progressive scan camcorder.

I didn't go into low-light on it (and never have on other cams) simply because I personally don't film bats in caves ;)

I know where you are coming from, but people get a bit too hung up on low light. Images always look best when lit.

Just for you, the V1 has much better low-light capabilities than an F350 XDCAM HD, and is only a tad worse than Z1, about half a stop at the most from what I could gather.

There is no re-hash in that review, it is all my own wording, I don't do cut/paste press-releases, but people do want to know those things and I've had a ton of emails from folk who have read it who were pleased with what they described as an informative review.

Each to their own though. Some people will like it, others won't. There will be a ton of V1 reviews over the months, mine is simply one tiny little take on it.

I'm sure Simon Wyndham will be posting his findings here soon as he has the same camcorder I had on loan from Sony UK. I suspect he will be compairing it with his Sony XDCAM.

I personally think there is still room for another Sony camera. Sony UK say the next step up from a Z1/V1 is XDCAM HD, but this is a jump from £3,295 to £12,095. I think Sony should bring out a camera half way between those prices of say around £6,000 with an 1/3rd inch interchangeable manual focus lens system like the JVC. I think this would give improved image quality over the Z1/V1, but not quite as good as XDCAM HD, but every bit as good as JVC ProHD series.

Personally I agree with Nigel. I currently own a Sony HD camera, and I love the format. Althought the V1 appears to be an exciting step in the right direction, I am becoming frustrated with built in lenses. For me, my next camera will have an interchangeable lens system like the JVC or Canon but not cost as much as XDCAM HD.

Stu

I didn't go into low-light on it (and never have on other cams) simply because I personally don't film bats in caves ;)

I know where you are coming from, but people get a bit too hung up on low light. Images always look best when lit.



As someone who has used small format cameras for documentary production, where one can be at the mercy of the available light, I do find it an important characteristic and should be noted in any serious review.

What I need to know is how much I can ride the gain on these new cameras. Steve Mullen's comment that under 100w light and 12 dB of gain the V1 renders the image like the human was priceless. Screen grabs would also be gratefully received.

I've read countless posts, on this board and others like it, from the WEVA crowd who also find low-light an important factor when choosing a camera.

Its not a trivial issue and you must realise that it is not possible to set up 3 point lighting when interviewing a junkie in a sink estate....:)

TT

Nigel I thought your review was very good. A lot of people here on DVinfo forget that not everybody out there in the world has been following HD cameras for the last few years like some odd cult like we have. There is a lot of back history that needs to be told. If you left all of it out then some new person would be more confused trying to figure out what you were talking about. They would end up having more questions then what your review would have answered for them.

Its not a trivial issue and you must realise that it is not possible to set up 3 point lighting when interviewing a junkie in a sink estate....:)

TT

Now that's funny ;)

I personally didn't whack up the gain on the V1, but another guy in the UK (Simon Wyndham) who has the V1 for testing/review has put the gain up and I'm sure he told me it held up just fine.

From my Z1 days I found you could gain up a bit and the image quality did not suffer, I think the new Sony CMOS technology holds up even better and is supposed to be indistinguishable from zero gain; within reason.

I'll bare in mind low-light capabilities for the future.

I read Nigel's review. Now I've somehow by default become a Sony regular. It just seems that whenever I needed or wanted a piece of equipment, Sony had the right combination of features to fit my needs. You see, I am not earning a living from these things, its an avocation for me. I suppose I'm the ultimate Sony consumer. I have an FX1. This year, when we first heard about the Canon new offerings, there was a fresh look. Sony now counters with a camera that meets a lot of different needs, and that old consumer "need to have" blood began to boil...

Nigel's review was a breath of fresh air. It was honest, candid, and certainly gave me pause as to whether moving there to V1 or to a Canon will really gain much. The jury is still out on that, but Nigel's review is greatly appreciated..

Thanks Chris

We are all individual and different camcorders suit different requirements and people.

As you know (after reading my review) I used to own two Z1 camcorders and was very happy with them, then I read an article that convinced me I should be shooting progressive hence my selling them.

It was only because I have been using the JVCs a lot recently that I could easily see that I preferred the quality and characteristics of the JVC, but I would never tell anyone to buy the JVC Gy-HD111 over the Sony Z1. It depends on the application it is being used; the right tool for the job.

Personally I find servo-focus lenses very difficult to use and much prefer a full manual lens such as the one found on the JVC.

I'm a big Sony fan too, in fact I currently have on loan from Sony UK an XDCAM HD F350 model, which I'm putting through its paces over the weekend just for my own personal use. If the F350 is a jump up from the JVC I'll be selling off the JVC gear and buying an F350 instead. Then the V1 in 1080p mode would make a great second camera to this.

I believe that all the semi-professional/high-end prosumer cameras ranging from £3500 to £5700 i.e. the JVC GY-HD111, Canon XL H1, Panasonic HVX200 and Sony Z1 and V1 are all pretty much the same with little between them in the right hands so I'd say go for the camera that suits your needs. If you like servo-focus auto focus then the JVC is out, if you like solid state the Panny is the only option, if you shoot wildlife then interchangeable lenses is a must so the Panny and Sony cams are out; see where I'm going here.

I would really love to see Sony bring out a Sony GY-HD111 though ;) They would then have every corner covered, kind of like BMW having every area of the car market covered with a 1 series, 2 series, 3 series, 5 series, 6 series and a 7 series. Sony need a 5 series for £6,000 then there will be no stopping them.

What monitor do you use Nigel? I don't belive you can really compare HD cameras on a 19" monitor. Try looking at the difference on a 30" CRT or larger plasma and then you will really see what's good and what's not. I have tried to use a JVC 19' HD CRT and everything looks fine, no artifacts, very little grain. Then look at the same feed on a 40" plasma and all the grain, mosquito noise, differnces in sharpness soft focus etc LEAP out at you. One of the key issues with HD is that most viewers are going to be using a big screen and big screens are very unforgiving.

You have a point Alister.

I am using a JVC 19" CRT, also a Sony 28" regular TV CRT and a Samsung HD LCD 18".

In about 3 weeks I'll be able to check using a Sony 46" 1920x1080 LCD screen, which I'm buying.

To be honest Alister, I generally do comparisons on this sort of equipment as it is what the masses use. That will all change over the next few years of course once people start splashing out on expensive 20" LCD and Plasma High-Def television sets.

I can see enough differences using my existing monitors and even on my Apple 23" Cinema LCD display.

It will be interesting to see what other differences I can spot once I take delivery of this huge 46" Sony LCD affair.

I also have a really decent DLP projector with an 7' screen in my living room, not sure what that will throw up if I start plugging camcorders and decks into it. I know that my old DVCAM shot DVDs fall apart on a screen that big, they just look soft and out of focus. It will be great to view some HD footage on my home cinema set up.

Oh, totally loved your XDCAM HD lens (SD/HD) comparison; very interesting, I'd like to know what Canon came back to you with on that front.

I remember going to an event to show a umatic tape on a video projector for the first time.. Yuk it looked terrible.

I think the masses will be using bigger screens very soon in Europe. In the US a 40" screen or bigger is becomming common. You only have to look at what the high street stores are selling this year compared to last. A year a go I would have said that a 27" TV was the norm, I think now 32" is normal. Infact it's hard to get a flat panel less than 32". Anyway this is all going off topic. I havn't heard back from Canon yet. One final comment from a recent HD shoot was that on a 19" JVC all my interviews look perfect, sharp and in focus, but on a 32" LCD you could see that in some cases I had the interviewees ears in focus but not thier eyes, it looks really distracting. I have to confess that despite having been shooting HD since 2003 I am still finding new issues all the time, it's just not as clear cut as SD. Thanks for the review by the way. Have fun with the XDCAM.

Sorry folks for going off topic!

Then look at the same feed on a 40" plasma and all the grain, mosquito noise, differnces in sharpness soft focus etc LEAP out at you. One of the key issues with HD is that most viewers are going to be using a big screen and big screens are very unforgiving.

Well said. We feed our 12' screen with a projector, and have an SXRD 50" from which we view most everything. Testing a 1080 camcorder on any monitor smaller than 46" is inaccurate and involves scaling. For accurate near pixel-for pixel display, you need to have approx 50" to 60" in the 1080 world. Even then, you might have some weirdness due to picture processing.
For 720, you need 46" for the closest view to original. CRT isn't gonna cut it overall, not for straight comparisons, IMO.

How do you think it compares to the FX1/Z1? Noticeably better? A worthwhile replacement, especially if blowing it up to film?


I'm at a loss to understand how people start comparing right-way. First, the V1 is not a Z1 replacement. That's been made clear from day 1. It's also not an A1 replacement -- it's much heavier. There will be a relacement for the Z1 -- the Z2.

The JVC is a totally different animal in everyway. I never once thought about comparing it. If you want a shoulder carried camera with interchangeable lens you are going to have to go with XDCAM HD or the JVC.

I haven't looked at the 24p and 30p video yet because if I have a 60i camera that's what I want shoot. Likewise, once I'm able to look at a 60p with a JVC I'm sure not interested in seeing how the JVC looks at 30p. I've seen enough low-temporal rate video to last a lifetime!

And when I said Discovery -- that was a clue to the fact that the HD was 60i shot with HDCAM cameras. None of it is 24p. There are rules about how much film can even be included because it looks so bad. The HD networks that will buy what you shoot -- other than ESPN stringers -- all want 60i.

And with digital projection coming so fast along with HD DVDs -- I think the question of going to film will go away fast for anyone looking at under $5000 camcorders.

It's great Sony included 24p because for those who want a Sony -- they can now get 24p. You'll have to wait for a review of someone who likes 24p to see if it meets their needs. (And, when the 24p edting tools arrive.)

However, I did shoot both 24p and 30p so I'll watch them tonight.

Yes, the monitor makes a huge difference. Last year, 50% of the HDTVs tested could not display more than 540-lines! One of mine "bobs" and looked terrible on rez. tests. I chose my Sony 50-inch (seen from about 7 feet) A10 because it deinterlaces all 1080-lines. Both monitors have HDMI inputs and I suspect that certainly helps.

Lastly, unless you are watching HD so it fills most of your field of vision (about 30%) you really aren't watching HD -- simply higher rez. TV.

My real point is that ClearVid CMOS really works!

thanks Steve,Spot and Nigel....

All of these reports are just adding different views/perspectives and that is what we need to see.

Not having a HD camera of my own but looking forward to going to HD from my PD170, I just didn't want to purchase a V1, the PD170 replacement, and have it end up being nothing more than just a wide screen version of the PD170.

So to many of us the V1 seems like a very very nice HD camera that I plan on purchasing based upon these user reports...

Thanks for taking the time out and telling us how the camera is performing in your experience as HD material producers.....

Please keep it up guys... :-)

Also, as to Lux testing... I chose the PD170 due to its low lux performance because I mainly shoot underwater without lamps... the PD170 actually see's much better in low light situations than most of our human eyes... so much infact that I have had on several shoots where some complained that the video looked much better than what the divers actually saw while diving with me.

I know the V1 wont match the PD170 in lux ratings, but I'd at least like to see the V1 show the dark portions of the video as true black versus a dark noisy image... at least I hope that the V1 would show this situation more natural and not boosted into showing noise..

I'm at a loss to understand how people start comparing right-way. First, the V1 is not a Z1 replacement. That's been made clear from day 1. It's also not an A1 replacement -- it's much heavier. There will be a relacement for the Z1 -- the Z2.



I think it makes perfect sense since these are the 2nd generation Sony HD cams. Who cares if Sony has labeled them as the replacement of Joe & Shmoe?

Besides they're CMOS and people want to know how they fare with CCDs.

I think it makes perfect sense since these are the 2nd generation Sony HD cams. Who cares if Sony has labeled them as the replacement of Joe & Shmoe?

Besides they're CMOS and people want to know how they fare with CCDs.

The point is Sony DID NOT NAME THEM AS REPLACEMENTS!

You can only compare 2nd generations in the same price category. The Z2 isn't here. If you are a Z2 category buyer, you are going to wait for the Z2 no matter how good the V1 because you are right to expect the Z2 will be even better.

A real comparison of CMOS vs CCD can only be done with cameras in the same price category and with both cameras in your hands.

Having said this, the latitude and color fidelity are amazing. I think CCDs are now legacy technology.

For those interested in 24p -- today I used CINETONE and CINE GAMMA1 at 24p to shoot ordinary events like people walking and smoking. Hopefully, Liquid will auto-sense cadence and remove the pulldown. But, it will be interesting to see how the "filmlook" looks.

The B&W setting looks very interesting and so does 6 sec slo-mo. I had golfers asking for my business card. They think "HD" slo-mo is just what they need!

50 golfers x $100 -- just might work!

Steve,

I'd be very interested in how Liquid handles the footage. Although I have more experience with FCP, I recently bought Liquid to use on a small documentary, and I have been very impressed.

If it can detect the pull down, I won’t have to upgrade software.

Also, if there is any chance you could post some of your “ordinary” people footage, I’d greatly appreciate it. I think the V1 would work great for an independent film I’m planning. Unlike most people, I plan on using deep depth of field to fit the style of the film. This camera looks like it might be the right tool.

Keep up the good work.

-Kris

If it can detect the pull down, I won’t have to upgrade software.

I'll check this next week. I think it will. And, I'm happy you too find Liquid a great NLE.

The only way I distribute HD video is via something that will let it be played on a large HQ HDTV. That means red-laser using VC1 or Blu-ray using MPEG-2.

Steve, how does the footage look you shot with the V1?

One further question for Nigel Cooper is whether he has any comment after his experiences as regards the cameras highlight handling capabilities, it's dynamic range? Theory would predict it's CMOS sensor should well outperform CCD based cameras in this respect, and I'm starting to read reports that in this respect it doesn't disappoint.

David, yes I found the V1 did handle highlighted areas a little better than the Z1 does. I shot a few clips on the V1 that were about a stop overexposed (accidently), but the parts that would have looked a little burned out on the Z1 looked sort of okay on the V1; not massively so, but noticable.

Somebody I know also said the V1 looked like it handled highlights better than his XDCAM camcorder, he emailed me two still examples and I was a little shocked at the results, so much so that I had to ask him if he was pulling my leg and had switched the images.

yes. any footage you could post would be great steve!

the viewfinder on the V1 is color or black & white?

the viewfinder on the V1 is color or black & white?I believe it's color but switchable to black&white.
- High-res too at 250,000pixels. LCD screen is 213,000pixels (ish).

yes lets see some new V1 footage. I can't say I'd buy a V1 with what I have seen so far. The slow mo stuff looks really bad. On my computer it does anyway. The other stuff is ok. I guess for what was shot it was really good, but lets see some other stuff.