Sony HVR-V1U - finally true 1080 24/30/60p
Back to post
Comments
farss
wrote on 9/20/2006, 5:00 AM
I think we'll need a good look at theimages from both to see what that translates to in terms of image quality. Until then the Canon gets my vote simply because it isn't dumbed down, Three Rings To Rule Them All!
I've really got it in for dumbed down things.
I just spent many hours helping a much younger gent get his school prject out of iMovie, my goodness, what frustarion.
I've really got it in for dumbed down things.
I just spent many hours helping a much younger gent get his school prject out of iMovie, my goodness, what frustarion.
craftech
wrote on 9/20/2006, 5:09 AM
Aside from the issue of the smaller CCD sizes does anyone know where the tapes load from? Can't seem to find anything that explains this. I wouldn't pay over $1000 for ANY camera that loads from the bottom no matter WHAT else it does well.
John
John
FrigidNDEditing
wrote on 9/20/2006, 6:31 AM
I can't concieve of any $5K camera bottom loading tapes, especially if it's replacing (somewhat) the Z1, and not a consumer level cam.
Dave
Dave
craftech
wrote on 9/20/2006, 6:37 AM
I can't concieve of any $5K camera bottom loading tapes, especially if it's replacing (somewhat) the Z1, and not a consumer level cam.
=======
One wouldn't think so Dave. The camera looks rather small though and they chose to reduce the CCD sizes to save money so these days nothing would really shock me.
John
=======
One wouldn't think so Dave. The camera looks rather small though and they chose to reduce the CCD sizes to save money so these days nothing would really shock me.
John
FrigidNDEditing
wrote on 9/20/2006, 6:42 AM
"thing is, our shutter speeds work a lil differntly.. well tehy do and they dont.. being that we have motion to contend with, so if we bring it down to lets say 1/25, the motion blur may be excessive.. even if the lens is rated at 2.8... lets say u zoom all the way through and slow ur shutter.. yes it would mostly look ok, but try some fast motoon and fair enough u get that low light performance, however its at the cost of the motion sharpness..
Ok, I shot stills for just shy of 10 years before getting into video, and unless I was going for a particular slow shutter shot, my exposure rarely dropped below 1/60th or 1 over the focal length of the lense if I had anything over 150mm on it. I am pretty stable though so I could usually push my luck a little. However this still doesn't change the fact that the lense can do 2.8 at a full zoom, and that means that it's a pretty fast lens.
Dave
Ok, I shot stills for just shy of 10 years before getting into video, and unless I was going for a particular slow shutter shot, my exposure rarely dropped below 1/60th or 1 over the focal length of the lense if I had anything over 150mm on it. I am pretty stable though so I could usually push my luck a little. However this still doesn't change the fact that the lense can do 2.8 at a full zoom, and that means that it's a pretty fast lens.
Dave
Spot|DSE
wrote on 9/20/2006, 7:01 AM
1. The tape loads from the right side just like a PD camcorder.
2. Amazing that you'd think that 1/4 chips were chosen to save money. Not true at all. Cost was not a factor in that decision. Takeuchi addressed this specifically at the camera announcement, and it was also mentioned in the press conference yesterday.
But...it's likely impossible to explain to anyone who has already made up their mind about the camera's features and quality before it's even shipped.
i'll tell you one thing; as much as I like my XLH1, in low light, this CMOS camcorder kicks it's butt.
2. Amazing that you'd think that 1/4 chips were chosen to save money. Not true at all. Cost was not a factor in that decision. Takeuchi addressed this specifically at the camera announcement, and it was also mentioned in the press conference yesterday.
But...it's likely impossible to explain to anyone who has already made up their mind about the camera's features and quality before it's even shipped.
i'll tell you one thing; as much as I like my XLH1, in low light, this CMOS camcorder kicks it's butt.
jkrepner
wrote on 9/20/2006, 7:32 AM
Spot/DSE: "i'll tell you one thing; as much as I like my XLH1, in low light, this CMOS camcorder kicks it's butt."
Wait... V1u looks better than the XLH1 in general, or just in low light situations or is it the other way around? Can you clarify? Obviously, I'm not holding this as gospel but it's nice to get general opinions from people that have used both.
Thanks.
Jeff
Wait... V1u looks better than the XLH1 in general, or just in low light situations or is it the other way around? Can you clarify? Obviously, I'm not holding this as gospel but it's nice to get general opinions from people that have used both.
Thanks.
Jeff
Grazie
wrote on 9/20/2006, 7:34 AM
Yes, Bob, it was the Rings that turned my head. Native 16:9 and all that H1 functionality .. and guess what? They still ain't got a friggin' proper lens cap! I asked yah! Where as the V1 got one of those SONY cha-chunks thingies on the front.
Interesting to hear and see the low light comparisons though. In the meantime, I guess, I'll have to be informed by Prof Spot's " this CMOS camcorder kicks it's butt. "
Interesting to hear and see the low light comparisons though. In the meantime, I guess, I'll have to be informed by Prof Spot's " this CMOS camcorder kicks it's butt. "
JJKizak
wrote on 9/20/2006, 7:54 AM
That cha-chunk thingy is pretty neat I think. I play with it all the time.
JJK
JJK
mliebergot
wrote on 9/20/2006, 8:52 AM
Spot, does the V1 use the same 3 CMOS sensors as the FX7?
In other words, would the FX7 look just as good in low light as the V1?
The V1 of course has many more options than the FX7 does. But, I am just interested in the lowlight ability of the FX7 compared to the V1, as it wold seem that they share the same CMOS circuitry.
In other words, would the FX7 look just as good in low light as the V1?
The V1 of course has many more options than the FX7 does. But, I am just interested in the lowlight ability of the FX7 compared to the V1, as it wold seem that they share the same CMOS circuitry.
Quryous
wrote on 9/20/2006, 10:27 AM
craftech
wrote on 9/20/2006, 1:37 PM
1. The tape loads from the right side just like a PD camcorder.
==============
Great. Thanks
==============
2. Amazing that you'd think that 1/4 chips were chosen to save money.
==============
It's been the trend. Remember when a consumer cam had a 1/3 CCD. Remember when a consumer cam then had a 1/4 CCD? Now they are 1/5 and 1/6 CCD and their low light ability shows it. It's not so "amazing" to think of such things. One of the many CamcorderInfo.com editorial articles addressing this shrinking CCD phenomenon was the one following the introduction by Panasonic of the subsequently successful 3-CCD line of consumer cams (PV-GS120, etc):
[[Panasonic is risking a lot by concentrating on a technology which most consumers don't understand. Three CCD camcorders improve the quality of video by dedicating one chip to red, green and blue. One CCD camcorders only have one chip for all three colors. The result is that a 3CCD camcorder produces much clearer, better defined and accurate colors. The problem is that the only 'metric' of image quality that has pierced the vernacular of most consumers is pixel count. Many consumers think higher pixel counts means better video quality. Although technically higher pixel counts marginally do improve the look of the image, 3 CCDs and larger CCDs have a much greater effect.]]
==============
But...it's likely impossible to explain to anyone who has already made up their mind about the camera's features and quality before it's even shipped.
===============
I haven't. That's why I posted questions.
Thanks for your response as always Doug.
Regards,
John
==============
Great. Thanks
==============
2. Amazing that you'd think that 1/4 chips were chosen to save money.
==============
It's been the trend. Remember when a consumer cam had a 1/3 CCD. Remember when a consumer cam then had a 1/4 CCD? Now they are 1/5 and 1/6 CCD and their low light ability shows it. It's not so "amazing" to think of such things. One of the many CamcorderInfo.com editorial articles addressing this shrinking CCD phenomenon was the one following the introduction by Panasonic of the subsequently successful 3-CCD line of consumer cams (PV-GS120, etc):
[[Panasonic is risking a lot by concentrating on a technology which most consumers don't understand. Three CCD camcorders improve the quality of video by dedicating one chip to red, green and blue. One CCD camcorders only have one chip for all three colors. The result is that a 3CCD camcorder produces much clearer, better defined and accurate colors. The problem is that the only 'metric' of image quality that has pierced the vernacular of most consumers is pixel count. Many consumers think higher pixel counts means better video quality. Although technically higher pixel counts marginally do improve the look of the image, 3 CCDs and larger CCDs have a much greater effect.]]
==============
But...it's likely impossible to explain to anyone who has already made up their mind about the camera's features and quality before it's even shipped.
===============
I haven't. That's why I posted questions.
Thanks for your response as always Doug.
Regards,
John
farss
wrote on 9/20/2006, 2:23 PM
But...it's likely impossible to explain to anyone who has already made up their mind about the camera's features and quality before it's even shipped
=====================================================
I think my comment was that we'll have to wait and see how the images from both cameras compare before we make up our minds. And that realistically isn't something that can be done in a few minutes either. Good looking images are not necessarily 'good' images if you're referring to images straight out of the camera as it comes out of the box.
Until that detailed analysis is available all I can say is Canon would SEEM to have taken a more serious approach than Sony to putting usable features in the hands of the shooter.
One piece of wisdom I've gleaned the hard way is all the features in the world amount to little if the cameraperson can't access them very easily when needed. Shooting a live event when you cannot take your eye off the EVF requires very careful control placement to make features usable. Ultimately this can have more impact on final image quality than what tests in a lab reveal. I suppose it's the difference between what one could do and one can do.
Bob.
=====================================================
I think my comment was that we'll have to wait and see how the images from both cameras compare before we make up our minds. And that realistically isn't something that can be done in a few minutes either. Good looking images are not necessarily 'good' images if you're referring to images straight out of the camera as it comes out of the box.
Until that detailed analysis is available all I can say is Canon would SEEM to have taken a more serious approach than Sony to putting usable features in the hands of the shooter.
One piece of wisdom I've gleaned the hard way is all the features in the world amount to little if the cameraperson can't access them very easily when needed. Shooting a live event when you cannot take your eye off the EVF requires very careful control placement to make features usable. Ultimately this can have more impact on final image quality than what tests in a lab reveal. I suppose it's the difference between what one could do and one can do.
Bob.
Grazie
wrote on 9/20/2006, 2:30 PM
Oh you are sooo right Bob! One 7' Dane standing behind me at the show was heard to say, "Huh! No big svitches, like my Z1! I like the big switches!"
As you say, Bob, getting at the controls is prime.
What switches?
As you say, Bob, getting at the controls is prime.
What switches?
DJPadre
wrote on 9/20/2006, 8:53 PM
"I mean - the fact of the matter is that to me it seems somewhat ameturish to do that because you're obviously going to have blur just like you would on a still. Perhaps I'm not understanding something that you're saying here, but in my world that situation that you gave just doesn't happen, not unless you want a substandard image (stills or video)."
I hear ya mate... thing is though, when shooting progressive at 1/25th, u can get away with speeds that slow. Theyre a little blurrier, but they do let in available light. Now these 2.8 readings... well, to me, it wont mean much as i have a gain swich... if teh gain switches had stop level readings, then it WOULD mean something...
As an example, some weddings i do are so finicky that i have no choice but to run gain at 6db with a slow shutter of 1/25. The exposure and motion i get is actually really nice and clean and not muddled (compared to 12db noise and softened edges.. to be hoenst it doesnt even look progressive... but progressive is natively noisier) so that blur and loss in motion sharpness is the compromise i take so as to not add noise to the image (this is on DVX100)
Running interlaced is much more fogiving i have to admit, but the slow shutter speeds (for dancing and the like) seem to be working well for me.
Mind u im in 25p land... shouldnt make THAT muich of a differnce, but its there...
Running a faster shutter would be ideal when zooming through, but the loss of light is so profound that sometimes its not even worth going anywhere past the 150mm mark.... and with these 1/4 CMOS chips, that light situation may be more of an issue.
I dont know. Im hoping DSE's comments on the kick buttability are true for the majority of users.
Either way, we wont know until we get our dirty mitts on them :)
I hear ya mate... thing is though, when shooting progressive at 1/25th, u can get away with speeds that slow. Theyre a little blurrier, but they do let in available light. Now these 2.8 readings... well, to me, it wont mean much as i have a gain swich... if teh gain switches had stop level readings, then it WOULD mean something...
As an example, some weddings i do are so finicky that i have no choice but to run gain at 6db with a slow shutter of 1/25. The exposure and motion i get is actually really nice and clean and not muddled (compared to 12db noise and softened edges.. to be hoenst it doesnt even look progressive... but progressive is natively noisier) so that blur and loss in motion sharpness is the compromise i take so as to not add noise to the image (this is on DVX100)
Running interlaced is much more fogiving i have to admit, but the slow shutter speeds (for dancing and the like) seem to be working well for me.
Mind u im in 25p land... shouldnt make THAT muich of a differnce, but its there...
Running a faster shutter would be ideal when zooming through, but the loss of light is so profound that sometimes its not even worth going anywhere past the 150mm mark.... and with these 1/4 CMOS chips, that light situation may be more of an issue.
I dont know. Im hoping DSE's comments on the kick buttability are true for the majority of users.
Either way, we wont know until we get our dirty mitts on them :)