Questions about V1U

[Brandon Freeman]

A few questions from a potential V1U buyer down the line...

I understand that the CMOS chips are different than CCD chips, but does the V1U have the same basic DOF as the Z1U, or do the smaller 1/4" chips have an even deeper DOF?

Rolling shutter with progressive...how bad is it? I really don't like the idea of objects bending in sharp motion, as I like my films to occasionally have a bit of that "24" camera motion, and it would seem that bending movement would be frustrating to watch. (I read about this in Adam Wilt's review, I think.)

Thanks.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

The DOF on the V1 "seems" similar to that of the Z1.

I don't think the rolling shutter is an issue at all until faster than 1/250 shutter. Even then, it's nothing like you see on a cell phone or other low-end CMOS device. The shutter on the V1 reads multiple pixels simultaneously and has a fast processor.

[Brandon Freeman]

By "seems" to be similar to the Z1U do you mean that you have achieved pretty decent blurred background shots (I would think the 20x zoom would probably help even more with that).

Secondly, a new question, one I should have put in before -- when filming in 24p in HDV, how does the camera actually encode to tape? Is it actually encoded in a 60i HDV stream, or are there simply flags within the stream to identify which frames need duplication for a 60i signal -- in other words, can I capture an actual 24p file straight onto my Vegas 7.0 timeline, or will the compression further suffer by pulldown artifacts?

This is the biggest deciding factor between the V1U and the XH-A1 at the moment.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Brandon Freeman

By "seems" to be similar to the Z1U do you mean that you have achieved pretty decent blurred background shots (I would think the 20x zoom would probably help even more with that).

Here's a snapshot from a casual shot through the window with my V1E; you can see there is a couple of "planes" I could easily get into focus while blurring the others:

[Marcus Marchesseault]

The V1 records in a 60i timeline. I know it can be directly imported into Vegas, but I don't know the internal workings.

[Brandon Freeman]

Thanks everyone for your honesty and opinions -- however, I just learned of the new XDCAM EX for under $8k that's coming out this fall. This will be the unit I will wait for.

This is a wonderful community, and I value it greatly!

[Craig Seeman]

Worthy of a new topic. It's a 1/2" chip camera about the size of a PD-170 maybe. Records to solid state media (not xdcam discs directly though).

Originally Posted by Brandon Freeman

Thanks everyone for your honesty and opinions -- however, I just learned of the new XDCAM EX for under $8k that's coming out this fall. This will be the unit I will wait for.

This is a wonderful community, and I value it greatly!

[Greg Quinn]

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

Worthy of a new topic. It's a 1/2" chip camera about the size of a PD-170 maybe. Records to solid state media (not xdcam discs directly though).

I agree entirely, the EX will be the indie cinematographer's dream camera, an affordable version of an XDCam. Be interesting to see whether this gets Discovery Channel's 100% acquisition approval like the 350. I would agree in holding off purchase of a V1U, unless it specifically fits your requirements, but the timeline for it could slip.

[Marcus Marchesseault]

The EX looks very interesting. It may be 4x the camera at only twice the price. Of course, it is still twice the price. Don't forget that flash is also still very expensive.

It looks like the camera I've been saying someone should make - a small form camera with full-size chips. If Sony truly goes with a standardized memory format and doesn't try to start up another proprietary format, they will have a winner on their hands. Flash will eventually fall dramatically in price (if in a standard format) and a camera like this will be amazing and relatively affordable.

I still haven't found anything regarding the type of chips used. I'm guessing CCD as I haven't seen any Sony cameras with 1/2" CMOS.

[Vaughan Wood]

I just ordered one today!....True! Their first real order!

I had a credit at a Melbourne agent as I won the door prize at the Sony road show last year, an A1, but I put it in credit as I was deciding which cameras to buy, (our business is mainly events - 2 camera - VX 2000's - concerts and weddings).

But the FX 7 I bought last year just does not cut it well enough for me for dark reception or concert work, so I'll hang off getting a second camera and we'll probably end up with two EX's ....they look like a major step up - if Sony deliver!

Cheers Vaughan

[Mikko Lopponen]

I personally am bothered by the cmos rolling shutter on the a1/hc1 cameras. I don't know if the readout speed is faster on the V1, but I read a lengthy complain in another forum about it. That's the only complaint I've read though, but that doesn't tell me much as people don't seem to complain about it in other cameras anyway. It's definitely a no-no for that "24" look you're looking. Especially in a city with a high shutter speed, it would be terrible.

The readout speed on the hc1 is about 1/60. I guess I'll have to track one v1 down and see if the readout speed would be enough.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Mikko Lopponen

I don't know if the readout speed is faster on the V1, but I read a lengthy complain in another forum about it. That's the only complaint I've read though, but that doesn't tell me much as people don't seem to complain about it in other cameras anyway. It's definitely a no-no for that "24" look you're looking. Especially in a city with a high shutter speed, it would be terrible.

Unless you shoot a spinning fan you'll never see it. There's none -- even shooting high-speed traffic. And, you should never use more than 1/120 under ANY condition when shooting video -- unless you want a Saving Private Ryan look -- which has already been used. Why would you want to copy it.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

Unless you shoot a spinning fan you'll never see it. There's none -- even shooting high-speed traffic. And, you should never use more than 1/120 under ANY condition when shooting video -- unless you want a Saving Private Ryan look -- which has already been used. Why would you want to copy it.

Not quite.

Rolling shutter can be seen at any speed over 1/60 in a variety of situations, particularly that where the camera is moving fast over a horizonal line or near horizontal line. In some very rare instances, rolling shutter can be seen even at 1/60.
Image One shows the subject with nothing of substance in the background.
Image Two shows a semi-horizontal skyline, same subject, less than 3 seconds later. Rolling shutter is *very* apparent in the video, and visible in the still frame grab I just captured using PRT SC.
Additionally, high shutter speeds are of course, very common in many forms of video production, such as when slow motion is the end goal, to name but one of several reasons one would use high shutter speeds.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Image Two shows a semi-horizontal skyline, same subject, less than 3 seconds later. Rolling shutter is *very* apparent in the video, and visible in the still frame grab I just captured using PRT SC.

There's nothing seriously wrong with the area marked by yellow.

Moreover, no one in an audience is going to be looking at the upper corner of such dramatic footage. Eyes automatically focus on the falling person.

You are confusing what you see in post with what an audience sees. By your logic, filmmakers would not use any footage that had background strobbing. But, they do use such footage because they understand that while THEY see it, the audience will NOT because the camera person tracked the Subject.

Thus, the issue is not does a camera record an artifact, but is it relevant to story telling process. Which is why I said if you aim the camera at a fan you will see it. The fan has become the SUBJECT.

Keeping shutter-speed between 1/30th and 1/120th assures motion will be rendred naturally. Anything slower and not only is motion unnatural -- the increased blur cuts detail resolution. Anything faster than 1/120th and there is not enough motion blur to connect frames into a smooth series.

As a I said, you are free to break these rules if you are creating an FX like the SPR look. Slo-mo is another FX.

[Paul Kepen]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Not quite.

Rolling shutter can be seen at any speed over 1/60 in a variety of situations, particularly that where the camera is moving fast over a horizonal line or near horizontal line. In some very rare instances, rolling shutter can be seen even at 1/60.
Image One shows the subject with nothing of substance in the background.
Image Two shows a semi-horizontal skyline, same subject, less than 3 seconds later. Rolling shutter is *very* apparent in the video, and visible in the still frame grab I just captured using PRT SC.
Additionally, high shutter speeds are of course, very common in many forms of video production, such as when slow motion is the end goal, to name but one of several reasons one would use high shutter speeds.

Okay, rolling shutter is 'very apparent'. Well its not very apparent to me? What am I suppose to see?? The only thing I see is the horizon line is not straight (and that is out of the yellow band area that is marked). That could be the result of using a wide angle lens with some distortion. Is that the effect of the rolling shutter here? The horizon line is arced slightly, just like any wide angle lens over 24mm or less on a 35 SLR? I assume this was with just the normal lens - no wide adapter lens? If so, yes it is distorted, but I agree, its not bad enough, that in a moving video, you would say "oh my gosh look at the distortion from the rolling shutter. If I am not looking or 'seeing' the right things here - please explain what I should be looking for. No disrespect ment, and as always, on small snap shots downloaded over the internet - it is not always easy to see what was clearly obvious to the one looking at the original footage. Thanks - PK