Bottom line: how are you measuring quality!

First it's important to understand that the camera itself has nothing to do with image quality. Image quality is determined solely by the person who is operating the camera. In other words, image quality is a product of the actions of a human being, not the actions of equipment. For further clarification, read Ken Rockwell's excellent article "Why Your Camera Does Not Matter" at
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm -- it's written for still photography but the exact same principles apply to video as well.

There are a variety of camcorder image and audio parameters that can be tested, measured and compared, but "image quality" is not one of them. Hope this helps,

Wow Chris! You are sooooo right... That is a great article!

But it's amazing how I can get caught up in the "if I get a better camera the production values will be better. And because we love what we do we are always looking forward towards making a little more beautiful shot, etc. But sometimes I lose sight of just how small the differences REALLY are.

Then there's the natural self-consciousness of attempting to shoot a feature with an A1U... She keeps telling me size doesn't matter, but...

First it's important to understand that the camera itself has nothing to do with image quality. Image quality is determined solely by the person who is operating the camera. In other words, image quality is a product of the actions of a human being, not the actions of equipment. For further clarification, read Ken Rockwell's excellent article "Why Your Camera Does Not Matter" at
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm -- it's written for still photography but the exact same principles apply to video as well.

There are a variety of camcorder image and audio parameters that can be tested, measured and compared, but "image quality" is not one of them. Hope this helps,

In principal I agree... wholeheartedly. Certainly the skill and creativity of the painter is very important. On the other hand, it also begs the question of why we are here.

Afterall, the painter would be helpless without information upon which to base his decision about which tools, brushes and paint would be best to use to paint a fresco on the ceiling of the Pope's chapel.

He may also wish to consult with engineers to determine the best way to construct scaffolds to support his weight, along with the weight of his assistants and tools, in an advantageous position near the ceiling so he could properly create his work.

He would also have a need to determine the logistics of raising supplies up to his workstation, how to light fires to keep warm and prepare food on this structure, late into the night, or at least how to send out for a cup of Espresso, Latte or Cappuccino. And he would surely want to know which was the best type of rope to use to lower buckets containing who-knows-what to people below to properly dispose of, so he wouldn't have to crawl up and down the ladders in the middle of a creative burst.

So he might talk with all of his painter friends to determine which paint would last the longest, and remain the most true to his artistic requirements for brightness, resistance to cigarette and pipe smoke, insence, and years and years of neglect and poor maintence... and the best tools to purchase to make his job easier and obtain higher "image quality."

And if he obtained the wrong information from the bulletin board where he exchanged information with his friends, he may make poor choices leading to the purchase of poor quality paints for his frescos. And if this were to happen, the Pope may be angry and we wouldn't be able to appreciate his creations today.

And in the end, if all his research led him to the best tools and the best paints to create the most beautiful, long lasting frescos on the ceiling of a chapel at the behest of the Pope, and if for this rendering he chose to use as his subject, a pig, and if he chose to paint the lips of this pig red, he would have created the most beautiful pig ever painted on the ceiling of a chapel, but it would still be a rendering of "lipstick on a pig."

I suggest that it is difficult to separate the skill, the tools, and the quality of the paint from the rendering itself. And certainly everything starts with the skill and creativity of the painter, but websites like this are also necessary to help us make sound buying decisions that effect the quality of our work.

Thanks Chris.

However, in this forum we are comparing equipment not photographers. Yes, having the best equipment for a photographer's skill and situation is important. Not this issue here.

Generally, subjective evaluations are common when an objective measure is unavailable. Sometimes because one doesn't exists. Sometimes because it is not practical. And clear sensor size in pixel count or area is not the only determinant. For example, Fuji still cameras use a CCD which yields a signficicantly better image than its competitors in many (most?) lighting conditions.

Many times the question is determining the size of the system being measured. You don't just buy a sensor. The sensor is part of camera with specific optics, electronics, software, and recording mechanisms. An entire system. This has been an interesting topic in comparing the environmental impact of styrofoam vs paper cups and hybrid vs. non-hybrid cars. It depends on the size of the system you are measuring. Including manufacture and disposal, the styrofoam vs paper argument is indeterminate at best and hybrid cars are worse for the environment (a function of the batteries).

To me, saying quantitative measures don't matter is a cop out. To say it isn't practical to get objective measures, or that the system being measured isn't valid by itself would be valid.

In this case Sony makes a big point about talking abut 1920x1080 processing in this camera, and relatively buries the 960x1080 sensor size. Is the sensor size significant? Maybe, maybe not...but Sony seems to think it is.

David

P.S.
If Ken Rockwell had used different features of his Canon 5D vs A530, he would have been able to get a better result and had more flexibiltiy with the 5D.

Better equipment is always... um... better... But me thinks the most salient points in the article were:
1) We can get overly obsessed with the equipment and forget the important stuff.
2) There will always be 'new' and 'better' stuff coming out.
3) None of it is likely ti make THAT much difference.

Compare our present equipment to that used to make some of the best movies ever made. Our stuff is soooo much better. So why aren't we all making movies as good as that.

Don't get me wrong. I know equipment is important. And I too am drooling over the V1. Believe me.

But I know I can get a little too obsessed over equipment and I find it helpful to be taken back to the basics. In fact, sometimes I wonder if it's even a bad excuse not to work. You know... "I should wait until I get the new Rough Rider 6000, then I'll REALLY tear it up" story.

So again, thank you Chris.

The writer was trying to show the importance of ability over equipment. And a great videographer with a handheld DV could probably out do by best HD efforts. However...

The V1 is a star performer in class of new cameras...'affordable...high definition..acquisition' that viewers here are considering. None are bad: H1, A1, G1, V1, Z1, HDX, HD100/110/200/250...not a bad camera in the bunch. But with different features leading to different results.

The sensor resolution may only be a small part of the total picture, but it does have an impact and is highly used in marketing. Panasonic 'hid' the resolution of the HDX for a while (just track the old posts on another forum). IMHO, Sony may have obsfucated it here. Which is why I started this thread. To find out if there was something I didn't see.

To me, saying quantitative measures don't matter is a cop out. To say it isn't practical to get objective measures, or that the system being measured isn't valid by itself would be valid.What you don't seem to understand is that quantitative measures really do not matter at all nearly as much as the far, far more important considerations of ergonomics, specific feature sets, and workflow options... these are the factors that carry the greatest impact as to what one person can achieve with a specific tool vs. another person. As such, that is what this site is all about -- specifically, how to choose and use this gear based on those critical factors of ergonomics, specific feature sets, and workflow options. Because these are the primary things to consider when comparing equipment.

I'll tolerate only a certain amount of measurebating on this site, only because these measurebatory topics are a useful way to expose new visitors to the fundamental concept that the number of pixels do not matter nearly as much ergonomics, feature sets, workflow options, and of course, budgetary concerns. That is the direction in which I am purposefully shaping this site. I'm grateful that when we do succumb to measurebatory topics around here, we're usually able to impress upon misguided folks the reality that resolution is not everything, that interpolation and compression are not bad words, and that tech specs and numbers have little if any bearing upon what a person is actually capable of achieving with a given piece of equipment.

Occasionally I'll run across a measurebator who can't see the light; I usually encourage them to pursue their habitual measurebatory fixations elsewhere on the internet. The web is chock full of other places in which a measurebator can get lost in the numbers. This place is not one of them. Thanks in advance,

Don't mind me. I wonder about that stuff too. But most of it will be pretty much speculation until we can walk into stores, get our hands on them and shoot a little tape under similar conditions to what we'll be actually using the puppies for.

So that's why I particularly thought that article was a nice reality check to hold me over while waiting to play with one outside the little locked down one at DVExpo...

All of this numbers talk would go away if we had more samples to see. Why do you think the numbers game doesn't come up anymore for any of the Canon HDV cameras or the Panasonic HVX200? At first thats all people could talk about was the numbers for the HVX200 but now that we have had enough examples to see what it can do a lot of that has died down.

Right now what else can we do? All we really have to go by are a whole slew or newage numbers and diagrams given to us by SONY to encourage us to talk about the new way of doing things with this camera. Would it be better if everybody just stopped talking about the camera?

In a way SONY is the reason why we talk only about the numbers because they made it so interesting this time to talk about the numbers.


With that said I still could care less about the resolution and am more interested in a clean image with as little artifacts as possible. I still think a lot of these cameras would have been better off if they all went with 720p 60p instead of 1080i. the 720p from a SONY or Canon camera in my opinion would have been great and for the most part have given us just as much detail in the end. In fact the V1 even samples the chips at 1920x1080 at 60p so if it could pull that off then 720p would have been even easier. No matter what chip method you try I think there is a limit of how much detail you can get out of this class of camera.

I still say all these cameras are more like film stocks. In the end they are all HD but each has a different look. The V1/FX7 is like a film stock with more natural color and more latitude but in no way super better then any other film stock. If you need to shoot with a film stock to deal with greater latitude then get a V1. If you want a film stock better for shooting at night then perhaps a Canon or Z1 would be the way to go.

Clearly the V1 will not be a bad camera and in fact be a very good camera but it may not fit the style of everybody on here. Sadly there is no way of knowing that yet without looking at the specs to see how it fits compared to the other cameras people are looking at. As soon as we get to see some samples compared to ther cameras then hopefully we will not have to resort to numbers talk anymore and we can get back to what most of us would rather do which is look at the image itself and judge for ourselves if it looks good enough for us and if it fits our style.

... and we can get back to what most of us would rather do which is look at the image itself and judge for ourselves if it looks good enough for us and if it fits our style.

Right on Thomas.

...

Clearly the V1 will not be a bad camera and in fact be a very good camera but it may not fit the style of everybody on here. Sadly there is no way of knowing that yet without looking at the specs to see how it fits compared to the other cameras people are looking at. As soon as we get to see some samples compared to ther cameras then hopefully we will not have to resort to numbers talk anymore and we can get back to what most of us would rather do which is look at the image itself and judge for ourselves if it looks good enough for us and if it fits our style.

I agree Thomas. A metric of a camera's potential is its resolution, latitude, color reproduction. These are by no means the only measurements. For myself, they are visual measurements that allow me to make a personal choice. They can be determined scientifically and by the numbers. For certain work, the numbers are critical. In my humblle opionion, manufacturers have made the numbers less meaningful recently.

Declaring a the resolution 1920x1080 for a particular camera would lead you to believe a fair comparison could be drawn between a digital still image of 1920x1080 and a frame grab from an HD camera.

And to some extent, that's a fair expectation. It is after all, claimed to be a 1920x1080 sensor, or perhaps one that can resolve 1920x1080 unique pixels, or maybe not.

I can't assume a camera's ability to produce 1920x1080 pixels of an image camera's the lens sees.

I agree that 720p is easier to work with, and the resolution one sees on a 720p image is hard for me to decern from a 1080i image.

See the discussioon thread about the Z1 vs V1 resolution. A German site has lots of comparisons of images. From full frame grabs you can make up your mind about resolution and lattitude. In my opinion, the V1 is a feature camera, and not a quantum leap in resolution. lattiutude or color reproduction. If one likes the feature set, and the nudge in image quality, its a great camera. Or if you just like the size. :-)

I've made up my mind.

Here's the link from the Z1 vs V1 rez thread. It compares several HDV Camera. http://www.fxsupport.de/12.html

Here's the link from the Z1 vs V1 rez thread. It compares several HDV Camera. http://www.fxsupport.de/12.html

Great tests. Babelfish helps quite a bit on the text.

Now I would like to see something similar for Z1 and V1.

All of this numbers talk would go away if we had more samples to see. Why do you think the numbers game doesn't come up anymore for any of the Canon HDV cameras or the Panasonic HVX200? At first thats all people could talk about was the numbers for the HVX200 but now that we have had enough examples to see what it can do a lot of that has died down.

I would submit that Sony hasn't put up any footage for the same reason Jim Jannard at RED says they won't be putting up footage prior to the cam shipping; "It only puts us at a disadvantage..." because people will find fault, dissect, tear up, criticize, etc more than they'll look at the reality of what's possible. Just as we've seen in this thread and this particular forum. Folks don't seem to want to look at products for what the products allow and encourage them to do, but rather to find attributes of a product that don't meet that person's particular description of Nirvana...

Doubly so as we're still in active development. That said, we just put up some nice 1080p footage.

Graeme