Joe Bogacz's comments regarding Sony HDV

Rainer Hoffmann · September 19th, 2004, 09:03 AM

Peter,

there is a lot of truth in what you say. On the other hand, it's much easier to design a fast lens for a 1/3" chip than for 35mm film in the case of a still lens. This is simply because the maximum aperture is defined as

fmax = d/fL

where

fmax is the maximum aperture,
d is the effective lens diameter (this is NOT the diameter of the front lens!)
and fL is the focal Length of the lens.

Here is an example: if the focal lenght of your lens is 100mm and the effective diameter is 50mm then

fmax = 50/100 = 1:2, or f2

Now, since a focal length of 10mm on 1/3" camcorder equals roughly a 75mm lens for a 35mm still camera, you can easily see, how big your still camera lens will get if you want the same maximum aperture as the camcorder lens has. That means more glass and more $$$.

Bill Ravens · September 19th, 2004, 10:38 AM

A comment from Benoit Ambry, if it's true...

"You might get a little more than 19 Mb/s but HDV is like DVD. Both are using Main Profile (MP@H14) and this profile supports only 4:2:0.
Lot of pixels, but few color. H14 is also limited to 1440 pixels per line.

On top of it the sony camcorder has a very weird pixel aspect ratio (2:1). Then they are stretching the CCD grab on a 1440 by 1080 frame (this is the maximum resolution of H14 level.) I suppose that this is going to be seen as an anamorphic picture by the different softwares. So not only you'll get little color, but also something stretched twice. That ends up beeing 1 color every 5.3 pixels. It will look good on a TV but I'm not sure keying and editing will be very easy.

Alfonso LeFeusch · September 19th, 2004, 05:57 PM

I don't know. The XL2 looks way better to me than these HDV cams. I've seen both on the monitor and the DVX is sharp but the colors are dull and the depth looks far more like video where as the XL2 looks like film. I might be crazy, but the XL2 looks beautiful and the DVX just doesn't. Not to mention the XL2's features, which blow the DVX out of the water.

Anyone agree?

Jonathan Noone · September 19th, 2004, 06:02 PM

I do agree.

Part of the reason I bought the XL1s for our business is that the Sony stuff all screams DV CAMERA. With Canon (IMHO) they fall somewhere between a broadcast rig and DV in having a more natural look. I find Sony a little harsh at the best of times.

However I am keen to see the real world results of this new Sony cam both in HD and when shot in SD.

Best

Jonathan

Barry Green · September 19th, 2004, 09:05 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Evan Fisher : Is this why the colorspace is different HD being 4:4:4:, HDV being 4:2:0? -->>>
You'd have to define what you mean by HD, and where are you getting 4:4:4 HD?

HDV is a recording format. HD = high definition, as a broadcastable picture configuration. There are several ways to record HD information, HDV is one way. HDCAM is another way, which records 1440 x 1080 at about 3:1:1 color sampling. DVCPROHD is another way to record HD, which gives you about 960x720 with about 4:2:2 color sampling.

HDCAM SR is the newest way to record HD, which is MPEG-4 compression on either a 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 signal.

Kevin Dooley · November 13th, 2004, 09:30 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Alfonso LeFeusch : I don't know. The XL2 looks way better to me than these HDV cams. I've seen both on the monitor and the DVX is sharp but the colors are dull and the depth looks far more like video where as the XL2 looks like film. I might be crazy, but the XL2 looks beautiful and the DVX just doesn't. Not to mention the XL2's features, which blow the DVX out of the water.

Anyone agree? -->>>

Maybe I'm confused, but the DVX isn't an HDV camera... And while the XL2 does have a beautif picture, it's only a fraction the size of the picture of the FX1. I know that shear resoultion is not the end all, be all of picture quality, but "dull colors" can usually (to some degree) be fixed in post. I'd say the XL2's main advantage of Sony's current offerings (both the FX1 and Z1) are the fact that it provides *TRUE* progressive scan...which many of us have gotten used to the look of...and the interchangable lenses.

I am a tried and true Canon user and have been using the XL1s exclusively since it came out. I was floored when I heard the announcement of the XL2, but I wasn't in a position to buy a new camera. Shortly thereafter Sony comes along with a viable HDV camera...and I'm still not in a position to buy a camera. When I am, hopefully Canon will at least have some kind of HDV answer for me to consider (is a GL3 a possibility for NAB perhaps?)

September 19th, 2004, 09:03 AM	#16
Rainer Hoffmann Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Syke, Germany Posts: 249	Peter, there is a lot of truth in what you say. On the other hand, it's much easier to design a fast lens for a 1/3" chip than for 35mm film in the case of a still lens. This is simply because the maximum aperture is defined as fmax = d/fL where fmax is the maximum aperture, d is the effective lens diameter (this is NOT the diameter of the front lens!) and fL is the focal Length of the lens. Here is an example: if the focal lenght of your lens is 100mm and the effective diameter is 50mm then fmax = 50/100 = 1:2, or f2 Now, since a focal length of 10mm on 1/3" camcorder equals roughly a 75mm lens for a 35mm still camera, you can easily see, how big your still camera lens will get if you want the same maximum aperture as the camcorder lens has. That means more glass and more $$$. __________________ Keep rolling Rainer

September 19th, 2004, 10:38 AM	#17
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Interesting observation from developer at DVRack A comment from Benoit Ambry, if it's true... "You might get a little more than 19 Mb/s but HDV is like DVD. Both are using Main Profile (MP@H14) and this profile supports only 4:2:0. Lot of pixels, but few color. H14 is also limited to 1440 pixels per line. On top of it the sony camcorder has a very weird pixel aspect ratio (2:1). Then they are stretching the CCD grab on a 1440 by 1080 frame (this is the maximum resolution of H14 level.) I suppose that this is going to be seen as an anamorphic picture by the different softwares. So not only you'll get little color, but also something stretched twice. That ends up beeing 1 color every 5.3 pixels. It will look good on a TV but I'm not sure keying and editing will be very easy.

September 19th, 2004, 05:57 PM	#18
Alfonso LeFeusch New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Los Angeles, Ca Posts: 5	Are my eyes messed up? I don't know. The XL2 looks way better to me than these HDV cams. I've seen both on the monitor and the DVX is sharp but the colors are dull and the depth looks far more like video where as the XL2 looks like film. I might be crazy, but the XL2 looks beautiful and the DVX just doesn't. Not to mention the XL2's features, which blow the DVX out of the water. Anyone agree?

November 13th, 2004, 09:30 AM	#21
Kevin Dooley Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fort Worth, TX Posts: 414	Re: Are my eyes messed up? <<<-- Originally posted by Alfonso LeFeusch : I don't know. The XL2 looks way better to me than these HDV cams. I've seen both on the monitor and the DVX is sharp but the colors are dull and the depth looks far more like video where as the XL2 looks like film. I might be crazy, but the XL2 looks beautiful and the DVX just doesn't. Not to mention the XL2's features, which blow the DVX out of the water. Anyone agree? -->>> Maybe I'm confused, but the DVX isn't an HDV camera... And while the XL2 does have a beautif picture, it's only a fraction the size of the picture of the FX1. I know that shear resoultion is not the end all, be all of picture quality, but "dull colors" can usually (to some degree) be fixed in post. I'd say the XL2's main advantage of Sony's current offerings (both the FX1 and Z1) are the fact that it provides TRUE progressive scan...which many of us have gotten used to the look of...and the interchangable lenses. I am a tried and true Canon user and have been using the XL1s exclusively since it came out. I was floored when I heard the announcement of the XL2, but I wasn't in a position to buy a new camera. Shortly thereafter Sony comes along with a viable HDV camera...and I'm still not in a position to buy a camera. When I am, hopefully Canon will at least have some kind of HDV answer for me to consider (is a GL3 a possibility for NAB perhaps?)

September 19th, 2004, 06:02 PM	#19
Jonathan Noone Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 35	I do agree. Part of the reason I bought the XL1s for our business is that the Sony stuff all screams DV CAMERA. With Canon (IMHO) they fall somewhere between a broadcast rig and DV in having a more natural look. I find Sony a little harsh at the best of times. However I am keen to see the real world results of this new Sony cam both in HD and when shot in SD. Best Jonathan

September 19th, 2004, 09:05 PM	#20
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Evan Fisher : Is this why the colorspace is different HD being 4:4:4:, HDV being 4:2:0? -->>> You'd have to define what you mean by HD, and where are you getting 4:4:4 HD? HDV is a recording format. HD = high definition, as a broadcastable picture configuration. There are several ways to record HD information, HDV is one way. HDCAM is another way, which records 1440 x 1080 at about 3:1:1 color sampling. DVCPROHD is another way to record HD, which gives you about 960x720 with about 4:2:2 color sampling. HDCAM SR is the newest way to record HD, which is MPEG-4 compression on either a 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 signal.