Adam Wilt's V1 review is online at DV.com

[Chris Hurd]

The link is: First Look: Sony HVR-V1 24p HDV Camera by Adam Wilt.

Free registration with DV.com is required to view it.

[Tom Roper]

The active area consists of 1080 staggered rows of 960 photosites each. It's as if the even rows were pixel-shifted compared to the odd rows. Each row, however, is sampled 1920 times: each photosite is sampled by itself and a sample is taken in between photosites, combining information from the two photosites on either side and the ones immediately above and below. In essence, each scan line comprises two sets of interleaved sample types: 960 pin-sharp samples and 960 more diffuse samples averaging the four surrounding photosites. Sony claims that this gives the V1 full 1920 x 1080 resolution.

The question I'd like answered, is how do they state in the owners manual (for FX7) that the max sensor is 1440x810 (for still pics) 1.16mp (less for video) yet they are sampling video on the same chip at 1080 rows???

[Tom Roper]

The other question mark is about the rows being scanned 1920 times, meaning each pixel is scanned twice. There would be no need for that double scan unless the dynamic state of the pixels was expected to change after the first scan. Put another way, this is very much like interlaced scanning, except the first scan being sharp, the second fuzzy as Adam explains.

I am not convinced this sensor is 960x1080, promo info notwithstanding. It simply can't be if the sensor specs for the FX7 are germaine to the V1U.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

TI am not convinced this sensor is 960x1080, promo info notwithstanding. It simply can't be if the sensor specs for the FX7 are germaine to the V1U.

You are assuming Adam is exlaining it correctly. My explanation in HDV@Work is different and I think is more accurate. TheFX7 and V1 are the same and are 960x1080.

[Tony Tremble]

I found the article very disappointing. Little more information than is already in the public domain. A "me to" article if there ever was one.

Res chart information could easily been posted with caveats that was a pre-production model etc etc.

One interesting point of note though was the reference to the Cineframe Matrix (3d LUT) unfortunately it looks like it's not able to be modified.

TT

[Chris Hurd]

There isn't very much deep diving a reviewer can do with a pre-production MT sample. Any journalist worth his or her salt knows this going in. That's why articles of this kind that are published before the camera is released will never include such things as res charts, etc. That's Journalism 101 for any industry trade publication.

[Tom Roper]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

You are assuming Adam is exlaining it correctly. My explanation in HDV@Work is different and I think is more accurate. TheFX7 and V1 are the same and are 960x1080.

Agreed but what your explanation doesn't account for is what's stated in the specs in the FX7 manual, which is not pre-production. Steve, I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm trying not to assume anything.

I thought Adam's article was excellent, as was Simon's and yours. But like the mystery in the beginning about the HVX200, this one's not adding up for me.

[Tony Tremble]

Tom

Do you have a link to the FX7 manual? I've seen several references to it but have not found it yet.

Cheers

TT

[Tom Roper]

I don't know where that link was but I can email the pdf to you?

[Steve Mullen]

Chris totally correct. Adam wouldn't post numbers on a prototype nor would I. The only numbers I used are from DSE because I know he would test it correctly. And, then only because they matched what Sony was publically saying.

Also, I'm not sure my explanation is correct either! I'm leaving for Asia tonight and haven't had time to really get into Adam's story.

However, I am reasonably sure he is wrong about the rez differences between P and I. I found NO difference -- which is what led me to a different explanation of HOW it works.

I think Sony's explanation leaves a lot OUT while my explanation, which tries to describe every detail, has to be taken as "speculation" until confirmed by Sony.

By the way, this week's HDV@Work is on the V1's lattitude.

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/newsletters/

The one before is on 3ClearVid and the one before that is on CMOS. Please read them in order unless you are a CMOS guru. :)

[Tom Roper]

Imager Device
4.5mm (1/4 type) 3CMOS sensor
Recording Pixels (HDV/DV16:9 still recording):
Max. 1.20 Mega (1440 x 810) pixels – note 2
Gross: Approx. 1, 120,000 pixels
Effective (movie, 4:3);
778,000 pixels
Effective (movie, 16:9):
1,037,000 pixels
Effective (still, 4:3):
778,000 pixels
Effective (still, 16:9):
1,037,000 pixels

note 2:
The unique pixel array of Sony’s ClearVid Sensor and image processing system (new Enhanced Imaging Processor) allows for still image resolution equivalent to twice that of the image sensor’s effective pixel count.

[Tom Roper]

1280 horizontal seems as likely as 960...

[Chris Barcellos]

Thanks to Steve Mullen for the three articles on CMOS technology, and applications in the V1... Really sheads a light on things...

[Tom Roper]

...allows for still image resolution equivalent to twice that of the image sensor’s effective pixel count.

If we accept that, then by extension that's 2.4mp for a resultant still image size of 2065H x 1162V. If the enhanced processing works the same way for video, you'd be picking up about one interpolated sample for every 2 real ones in both directions, horizontal and vertical, which makes more sense to me that Sony would try to do that than to have full resolution in one direction, and all the interpolation in the other.

Best Guess? 1280 x 810

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

1280 horizontal seems as likely as 960...

Sony has confirmed 960x1080.