|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 20th, 2007, 07:27 AM | #16 | |
Regular Crew
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hungary / Europe
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
i tried but same error ... :(
__________________
Robert Batta my stock video portfolio : https://www.pond5.com/artist/skysuta Pond5 – the world’s first web-based stock footage marketplace – |
|
July 20th, 2007, 08:35 AM | #17 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
|
About the only new info in that entire video is that the camera can do over cranking and under cranking. This was one of the few things Panasonic users said the HVX200 would still have an advantage on. They didn't however say how it would work and if it is only really limited to 720p at 24p like the HVX200 by using the 60p frames as 24p. If SONY is actually reclocking the chips (which can be done with CMOS) to have slow motion with 1080 and any destination framerate then that is pretty amazing. Hopefully it isn't like the lame slow motion feature on the V1 where it does true slow motion but at a very low resolution. Now that I think about the video a little bit more I'm not sure how they are going to do it. The video clearly states as do any of the specs that have been out already that 720p mode can only record 50p and 60p. There is no mention of 24p for 720p. 24p seems to only be for 1080. In a way that kind of makes sense. 720p 50p and 60p are different then 1080i 50i and 60i and have two different markets and while one can be converted to the other it is sometimes best to start with the desired format. For 24p shooting however if you had a choice between 1080p 24p and 720p 24p who would ever choose 720p 24p? Even if you wanted 720p 24p in the end it would be best to still shoot 1080p 24p and then down convert. Anyway if the camera doesn't record 720p 24p then how are they doing slow motion in camera? They either reclock the chips or do the low resolution method. I doubt they would brag about the feature if it was the low rez version because nobody would ever use it. We will have to wait to see more info on this feature.
4:2:0 at true progressive framerates is very good so the 4:2:2 isn't as big of a deal as some would like to think although it still would have been great to have 4:2:2. Having 4:2:2 would have pretty much been the final nail in the HVX200 coffin, not that the HVX200 is bad in any way. For me the only time I would really want 4:2:2 will be when I am hooked up via HD-SDI in my bluescreen studio so it doesn't really matter to me either way. For me having 4:2:2 in camera would have been a really sweet bonus but it is not a deal breaker in any way at all. |
July 20th, 2007, 10:30 AM | #18 | |
Wrangler
|
Quote:
The over/under crank works exactly like it does on the big brother F350. They alter the time of recording a single frame and then play it back at the desired frame rate. When you undercrank a lot, the live playback in the vf looks blurry and stuttered. But when you play it back at full speed, it looks beautiful. I've got some stuff I shot in the car at normal freeway speed at 12fps. Played back at 30fps, it looks like we're at Daytona. The resolution is full when you undercrank, and drops to half vertical when you overcrank. But when you playback the overcrank, it doesn't look like you're missing anything. I demo'd some overcrank stuff in my class at NAB of a golf ball being struck. You can see every nick and scratch on the golf club, and every scuff mark on the ball. It's a lot like shooting 60i and de-interlacing in post, only the hardware does a much better job of reconstructing the full frame, and does it in real time. -gb- |
|
July 20th, 2007, 03:56 PM | #19 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: College Park, Maryland
Posts: 913
|
Checked back over it. Sorry about that. Your correct.
|
July 20th, 2007, 06:20 PM | #20 |
New Boot
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Meridian, Mississippi
Posts: 22
|
greg,
forgive me if i'm wrong, but, i thought the EX was capable of recording at 720 60p, like the jvc 250. i believe the reason for the halfing of the resolution in the 350 was because it only recorded in 23.98p and 29.97p in 1080 not in 60p like the ex and the jvc 250 to get its varible frame rates *When capturing at 31-60 fps (in 23.98P/29.97P mode)/26-50 fps (in 25P mode), the camcorders provide lower vertical resolution than in normal capturing mode. rand |
July 20th, 2007, 06:45 PM | #21 | |
Wrangler
|
Quote:
It's a bit difficult to explain when typing it out, but that's the basics of it. -gb- |
|
July 20th, 2007, 07:24 PM | #22 |
New Boot
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Meridian, Mississippi
Posts: 22
|
greg
thanks for clearing that up for me rand |
July 21st, 2007, 02:39 PM | #23 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
|
Since they are mentioning in the promo the full 1920x1080 resolution of the HD422 chips, those of the EX will have less - does anyone know if it's 1440x1080, or even less?
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive |
July 21st, 2007, 05:07 PM | #24 | |
Wrangler
|
Quote:
-gb- |
|
July 22nd, 2007, 05:19 AM | #25 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Efland NC, USA
Posts: 2,322
|
In the video they also used the words NEW and LOW POWER when describing the imagers. That suggests CMOS could be a real possibility.
__________________
http://www.LandYachtMedia.com |
July 22nd, 2007, 06:10 AM | #26 |
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 470
|
Given Sony's love for their "Clearvid" technology I wouldn't be surprised if the EX comes with CMOS chips - I have to say I prefer the look of Sony's V1 footage over that of the Z1 when it's properly exposed. Has a sharpness and cleanness to it that's a bit more appealing to my eye than the footage from the Z1's CCDs.
What are the issues people have had with CMOS chips by the way? I've heard that people are still a little iffy about them. |
July 22nd, 2007, 06:25 AM | #27 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
|
Mark, I'm very pleased with the picture from my V1 CMOS'es, as well - however, somehow I've no confidence in large 1/2" chips that have never been used before. The CCD technology is much more matured.
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive |
July 22nd, 2007, 08:55 AM | #28 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1,570
|
Quote:
Scaling up the size of the photosites isn't usually a problem, there's a camera out with 65mm sized sensors, it's scalind down when things get difficult. |
|
July 22nd, 2007, 01:28 PM | #29 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Efland NC, USA
Posts: 2,322
|
Quote:
Personally I hope the EX does come with CMOS imagers. Chris
__________________
http://www.LandYachtMedia.com |
|
July 22nd, 2007, 11:59 PM | #30 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
|
Quote:
|
|
| ||||||
|
|