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

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-V1 / HDR-FX7

Sony HVR-V1 / HDR-FX7
Pro and consumer versions of this Sony 3-CMOS HDV camcorder.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 16th, 2006, 10:14 PM   #1
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Adam Wilt's V1 review is online at DV.com

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

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

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 12:43 AM   #2
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 01:13 AM   #3
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
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.
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 01:33 AM   #4
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
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.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 02:34 AM   #5
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 451
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
Tony Tremble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 07:50 AM   #6
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
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.
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 08:18 AM   #7
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
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.
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 09:38 AM   #8
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 451
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
Tony Tremble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 09:55 AM   #9
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
I don't know where that link was but I can email the pdf to you?
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 10:12 AM   #10
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
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. :)
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 10:21 AM   #11
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
Imager Device
4.5mm (1/4 type) 3CMOS sensor
Recording Pixels (HDV/DV16:9 still recording):
Max. 1.20 Mega (1440 x 810) pixels Ė 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 Sonyís ClearVid Sensor and image processing system (new Enhanced Imaging Processor) allows for still image resolution equivalent to twice that of the image sensorís effective pixel count.
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 10:44 AM   #12
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
1280 horizontal seems as likely as 960...
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 10:52 AM   #13
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
Thanks to Steve Mullen for the three articles on CMOS technology, and applications in the V1... Really sheads a light on things...
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos
Chris Barcellos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 11:56 AM   #14
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
Quote:
...allows for still image resolution equivalent to twice that of the image sensorís 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
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2006, 11:56 AM   #15
HDV Cinema
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Roper
1280 horizontal seems as likely as 960...
Sony has confirmed 960x1080.
__________________
Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c
Steve Mullen is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony HDV and DV Camera Systems > Sony HVR-V1 / HDR-FX7

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:24 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network