IBC: Sony announces HVR-V1e

[Heath McKnight]

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

[Thomas Smet]

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.

[Heath McKnight]

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

[Thomas Smet]

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.

[Heath McKnight]

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

[Thomas Smet]

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.

[Heath McKnight]

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

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

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.

[Heath McKnight]

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

[Marvin Emms]

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.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Marvin Emms

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.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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.

[Steve Mullen]

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.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

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.