A friend from England sent me this link: http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=141


According to the tester, the V1 is great, but he thinks his JVC HD 111 is better.
I've read review on this forum of the V1, do you think we could arrange a comparison between the two, to see if this Brit is right?
Unless he works for JVC I personally don't see what I shouldnt' believe him!
Note that he doesn't trash the V1, far from it, but he says it's not as good as the JVC
Andrea

Note: The review is Nigel Cooper, and is a member on this board and is posting in another thread in this forum.

Sorry, I can you can tell I'm a rookie,
A.

Very interesting to hear a review comparing performances of three cameras-- discusses comparison briefly with the HVX200. Seems really unbiased.

I would like to know what sort of 19" HD monitor he is using. If it is the JVC CRT then the viewable area is closer to a 17" and at that size you really can't make decent resolution judgements with HD material. If it's a LCD or Plasma then it's progressive, so if viewing interlace material your not getting a true image.

If it's a LCD or Plasma then it's progressive, so if viewing interlace material your not getting a true image.

Those use bob-deinterlacing for interlaced material so actually you are getting the "true image". There's nothing lost.

A decent review, but I notice he made the common mistake of describing the HVX200 as shooting nearly uncompressed footage. It's true it's less compressed than HDV, but it's nowhere near uncompressed. Maybe after "Red" ships we'll see an end to this sort of misstatement, since everything else will look compressed by comparison. :-)

Note: The review is Nigel Cooper, and is a member on this board and is posting in another thread in this forum.

Here's a link to the related thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=76943

Those use bob-deinterlacing for interlaced material so actually you are getting the "true image". There's nothing lost.

The reverse is true -- see below:

"The colour saturation and contrast were about the same, only the overall sharpness of the 1080i was not there."

1) I would agree that the increased resolution I would expect from V1 progressive is not there. I suspect row-pair summation is used on all frames captured. This keeps light sensitivity and V. Rez. equal between interlace and progressive mode.

2) I'm not able to measure any difference in resolution between 24p, 30p, and 60i. However, the motion blur is much greater at 25p so I would expect it would seem less sharp.

3) Also, what's left-out in this review is the fact the JVC is feeding 720p into the monitors. The V1 is feeding 1080i50 into the monitors, even when in shooting 25p.

These may not treated the same by monitors. In particular, monitors that deinterlace by bobing toss out a field automatically turning Sony 25p into 540-lines verses JVC's 720p.

I'm sure Sony wasn't happy when I reported the FX1/Z1 produced a "hi-rez DV" look -- that was "too blue."

Well the V1 blows that comment away. The difference is like:

1) going to a fine grain emulsion

2) switching from Kodachrome to Ektachrome

Today we had bright white clouds and clear bright blue skies in LV. I found I could shoot just like I was using film with 10-stops of latitude. I could underexpose for a "dark" look or go for a "bleached" look.

Not only can you shoot as though you had film because of the extreme latitude -- colors are significantly less saturated and edge enhancement was nil. I'm calling this capability "virtual film." Note, this has nothing to do with 24p.

I did shoot lots of 24p today -- even got some minimal DOF -- but I can't say it looked like film that had been telecined using 2:3 pulldown. It looks just like JVC's 24p and 30p. We'll have to wait to see how it looks after pulldown is removed.

Why 24p with 1/48th shutter doesn't look like film with ANY low-cost video camera is a puzzle to me. I'd love to chat with Larry Thorpe about how CineAlta does it. Because obviously it can be done.

I may try a slower shutter-speed to add more motion blur.

How do you find the depth of field in comparison to a 1/3" chip camera? If it has 1/4" chips it ought to be deeper, but Sony's saying the angle of the chips provides the same imaging area as 1/3" chips...does that have anything to do with depth of field, or is that a processing thing? (I don't know if that question makes sense...if the imaging area is the same, does that mean the "virtual size" is the same and if so would the depth of field characteristics be the same? I'm guessing no because if so, then that 3.5mm lens would be super wide and apparently it's not.)

Steve, I was wondering if there was anything else feature-wise that you
may have found buried in the menu. Is there a clear-scan feature for
shooting monitors? How about the ability to change the shutter angle?

There's no clearscan option. But you can display the shutter in degrees rather than fractions of a second.

Why 24p with 1/48th shutter doesn't look like film with ANY low-cost video camera is a puzzle to me. I'd love to chat with Larry Thorpe about how CineAlta does it.

Depends on how it is set up. I've seen high end Cinealtas look like over edgey high def video. The only high def stuff I have seen that looks anything like film is with Alan Roberts settings where the detail is drastically reduced, or put into the minuses.

Full techie explanation here (Chris, these documents should be a sticky in the filmlook forum. The subject keeps coming up and I end up reposting the links)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp053.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp034.shtml

Regarding the V1 in general, I love it. I am astounded by its ability to handle high contrast situations, and for once the edge enhancement isn't intrusive on the default settings.

Thanks, Simon. I was afariad that the V1 would not have this feature. It's a
shame because many of us shoot industrial/educational videos as well as
24p type "film" projects, and clear scan is a nice option to have. My Z1U
does not have this either. It just means that if I want to do a shot with a CRT monitor in it I have to use my Sony D-30 Betacam which has clear-scan.
I know the HVX has synchro-scan, so why Sony wouldn't give us clear-scan
on the V1 is beyond me.

Chris, these documents should be a sticky in the filmlook forum. The subject keeps coming up and I end up reposting the links.That's what I needed to know... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=77028

Why 24p with 1/48th shutter doesn't look like film with ANY low-cost video camera is a puzzle to me.
The motion rendition looks exactly like film. Crank down the edge enhancement and shoot with a comparable depth of field and it will look identical to film motion rendition. I proved this by strapping a DVX and a 16mm film camera side by side and shooting the exact same scenes, then split-screening the footage. The motion is identical.

Here are a couple of examples of 24p footage that looks, I believe, very much like film. Before clicking the links, be aware that these are horror films (part of dvxuser's currently-running horrorfest) and as such you may see some R-rated content.
http://www.nrestudios.com/horror_mirror/TheSeeing-RichSpencer-rich_s.mov

http://www.nrestudios.com/horror_mirror/REKINDLED-jackstanley-markjohnson2.mov

http://www.nrestudios.com/horror_mirror/BloodyMary.mov

Actually, if anyone wants to see a DVX compared to film in the same production I heartily suggest getting hold of Incident At Loch Ness. This was shot mostly on a DVX100, but there are also S16mm shots intercut at some points, and aside from colour rendition, you'd be hard pressed to tell which was which.

Of course this would be different if ever a high def version was released.

The motion rendition looks exactly like film. Crank down the edge enhancement and shoot with a comparable depth of field and it will look identical to film motion rendition. I proved this by strapping a DVX and a 16mm film camera side by side and shooting the exact same scenes, then split-screening the footage. The motion is identical.


Sorry, but it doesn't. That's because a film shutter's "efficiency" (see Ansel Adam's "The Camera") IS different that a video camera's shutter's efficiency. And, the rolling shutter efficiency of a CMOS shutter IS different than a CCD shutter. Thus, the type of exposure with motion will be slightly different.

Moreover, with the V1 you simply can NOT get a minimal DOF (which would prevent "Background strobing" by putting the background out of focus). You can eliminate Foreground strobing by follow panning, but Background strobing will remain.

The only solution I've found is to use a 216-degree shutter which adds slightly more motion blur. This really is a key feature of the V1 -- non-integral shutter-speed changes.

Moreover, the amazing total clarity (even with Sharpness set to zero) of the V1, means an image has zero texture. (This is the whole point of HD -- a "look through a perectly clear window.") The better the HD camera, the less it will look like film. (Although the VERY fine grain 70mm film stocks can give the same look.)

The advantage of going to film is you can use a stock with grain to fix this. If you don't go to film, you'll have to add grain.

Could you fool an audience -- probably, which may be all that matters in the end.

Incident At Loch Ness.

Watch it, then comment. I have to go with barry on this one. All other factors are explained in the BBC documents that I linked to. The author of those has spent the last 20 years or so researching this very subject alone on the BBC's request, and since high def was invented way back when on his own accord.

The key to the motion differences is in the way detail frequencies are handled. Detail, and how it relates to the 'judder' is paramount.

The key to the motion differences is in the way detail frequencies are handled. Detail, and how it relates to the 'judder' is paramount.

Since "detail" has so many different parameters and you only get one V1 control called Sharpness (which has a very subtle effect) -- and no control over how much aliasing there is in ANY prosumer camera -- I'm certainly interested in the theory, but it won't do one much good in the real world.

Which, explains why Cine Altas are so expensive and require an engineer/DP to run. Also remember, the CineAlta is super-sampled for much less aliasing and more real detail.

Well, yes, you are correct that the lower end cameras do not have the same number of adjustments available. However you will notice that Alan has examined and created settings for the FX1/Z1, A1, and HVX200 as close as he can to the filmlook requirements.

Usually on the more basic cameras this involves reducing the 'sharpness' as it is called on the V1. Note that Sony seem to have cottoned on, and in the Cinema picture profile preset they have reduced this setting.

The better the HD camera, the less it will look like film.

Are you referring primarily to film grain here, or to other characteristics of film versus digital? Seems to me that if you had the same depth of field, dynamic range and motion characteristics, then having or not having film grain is arguably a minor issue. Perhaps future generations will come to expect motion pictures to be more like looking through a window and less like film...

Perhaps future generations will come to expect motion pictures to be more like looking through a window and less like film...

That's already the case because film has become nearly grainless. Frankly, for narrative I like grain which is why I like films prior 1980. So I would want grain added to any video. For me 24fps is not enough.

All

Check out this comment added to the dvuser.co.uk review by Nigel Cooper regarding the Progressive scan 'softness' etc that has been much discussed here :

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=141


"IMPORTANT NOTICE!
On Wednesday 18th October 2006 I was informed by Sony UK that the pre-production model of the V1 that I had for review was not of the same specification of the actual production models that will be sold here in the UK. Sony UK have just received this information directly from Japan. It turns out that the pro-production V1 that was loaned to me from Sony had an issue with the progressive scan mode. This issue caused the images to look a little bit soft compared to the interlaced mode. My review here states that in progressive it looks a little soft compared to interlaced and I even go so far as saying that the V1 lacks a little detail on wide shots and is a trifle soft in progressive when compared to the JVC GY-HD111E. Sony will be sending me a proper production model in the not too distant future so I can modify my review according to my new findings. In the meantime anyone reading this review should ignore any mention of softness or lack of details as it is almost certainly down to the faulty pre-production model I had."

What a relief!

Thanks for posting the info Stu.

TT