OT: Heaven forbid, a Sony camera gripe!

corug7 wrote on 1/28/2004, 8:51 AM
I love my VX-2000 to death, and have nearly always had good luck with Sony products, but it is no secret in the industry that Sony is less likely to cave in to consumer demand than other companies. At a recent MCAI meeting I attended, I was told that Sony refuses to work on a prosumer 24p camera format, and instead recommends that a PAL camera be used at 25p and transferred to 24p. I'm sure that this is so that more cameras can be sold, but isn't this archaic thinking since one of their chief competetors in that segment offers a camera that can shoot at 60i, 30p, and 24p. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but... Well, yes I am. I love a good debate (heh heh).

Comments

BrianStanding wrote on 1/28/2004, 10:35 AM
Given their recent revisions to their DV VCR line, I expected Sony to come out with a NTSC/PAL switchable successor to the PD-150, perhaps with true progressive scan. Sony may feel that 24p standard-resolution video is really a passing fad, with the future in HD. An NTSC/PAL camcorder with PS would have nicely filled the gap created by the Panasonic DVX100, at least until the prosumer-level HD formats get settled out. It also would have distinguished the Sony cameras from the competition, without a tremendous investment in new technology.

So, I was dissappointed when the PD-170 came out without NTSC/PAL switchability and no improvements to progressive scan. I'm sure the PD-170 audio glitches will get ironed out, just as they did with the VX-2000. (How did Sony make the same mistake TWICE?) It's certainly not making me rush to upgrade my PD-150, though. NTSC/PAL would have had me drooling.

I'll bet Sony will come out with its own HD solution in the near future, though.
RalphM wrote on 1/28/2004, 10:47 AM
Sony ironed out the audio in the PD150 (sort of) but never did anything with the VX2000. There are work arounds, however, and Sony views the VX line as consumer cams, which they are.

You may want to check out Adam Wilt's article on 24P at dv.com, where he questions why we should go toward a 70 year old frame rate that was picked as the minimum that could pass for smooth motion.

My inexpert opinion is that economics will slowly but gradually move the major studios toward DV and away from film.

Let the market place sort it out - if Panasonic is making a big buck on 24P, prosumer cams, Sony will likely do something in that area

scotty_dvc80 wrote on 1/28/2004, 11:52 AM
well ok corug7 I had started a thread a month or so ago wherein I asked the question rather there was a conspiracy.. You are right, Sony wont make considerations for these upgrades..
Most felt I was off base and incorrect and maybe their right..
The top technology today is HD, 24P and 16:9
Panasonic doesnt have true 16:9 either but they have 60i, 30p 24p capabilities..
JVC has HD but none of these other features.
Cannon has the ability to change lenses.. but none of the others do
Sony has the pd x10 that does 16:9.. these are circuit boards and the chips are probably bought on the open market in bulk for manufacturing.
Im inexperienced in world trade and business but it seems like its all too coincidental..
Japanese are nationalist and penetrate markets I would think in a predatory and calculative fashion and as a unit although on the veneer seemingly independent.. Im rambling with assumable hypothesis now.. Just some thoughts....
corug7 wrote on 1/28/2004, 12:18 PM
Actually, I have a Panasonic DV-953, a consumer 3-chip camera, that shoots in native widescreen. People say "it's just scrunch and munch," but from everything I've read, it actually trims the sides to produce a 4:3 picture. Unfortunately, my Sony can shoot in 16:9, but with a significant loss of resolution as the top and bottom lines are cropped and the picture stretched (hence scrunch and munch). Panasonic advertises the camera as the first consumer camera that can shoot in 16:9. Maybe so in the states, but I bought a Japanese Sharp VL-DH3 (?) from 1996 that actually had a large 16:9 viewscreen built into it. The darn thing didn't work, so I resold it at a loss (bummer). Anyway, thanks for keeping the thread going.
scotty_dvc80 wrote on 1/28/2004, 12:24 PM
My understanding is that Sony has the only true 16:9 in the Sony PDx10 outside of course to full size broadcast cameras...
corug7 wrote on 1/28/2004, 12:34 PM
So why should we move toward a 70 year old frame rate? Because that is what is now considered a benchmark for quality by many. Undoubtedly lighting, colorspace, and contrast issues play a part, but that frame rate just seems to say "I was shot on film, look at me!" While I have no doubt that eventually studios will move more toward DV, I have my doubts that people will change their minds much about frame rates. At least not for quite awhile. Just as a side note, someone (who shall remain anonymous) somewhat rudely suggested I look up DALSA, a company specializing in digital imaging. They have some neat stuff worth taking a look at if you want to see where digital filmmaking could go.
Jsnkc wrote on 1/28/2004, 12:58 PM
I have tons of Sony consumer product gripes, don't even get me started!
rextilleon wrote on 1/28/2004, 7:11 PM
I think that the young independents make the assumption that most people who shoot video desire 24fps because they have the same fantasy of going to film and distributing their show in theaters. Progressive and 16:9 are much more important to the vast majority of shooters and thus, Sony analyzes the market and moves accordingly. Sometimes their decisions are correct, sometimes they are off---thats part of the game. 24fps looks great on film but looks ridiculous to me in DVPRO. My two cents.
FuTz wrote on 1/30/2004, 8:00 AM
And I'd add: the more I look at it, the more I realize one must concentrate on "LIGHTING" and "ADEQUATE FILTERING" more than on framerates.
wcoxe1 wrote on 1/31/2004, 8:03 PM
Personally, 24 fps is stupid.

Having seen psychological studies of framerates of everything from 18 to 90, I can tell you that I'd pick 70 fps in a heart beat for realism and sharpnes. 24 can't handle either. Beyond 70 doesn't seem to have any benefit.
vitalforces wrote on 1/31/2004, 9:34 PM
Write a good enough script, and you can show it on super 8.
farss wrote on 2/1/2004, 2:32 AM
With a script that good, someone will cough up the money to shoot it on 35mm.