The spec seems to say it is a 960x1080 sensor that interpolates the missing pixels. The 960x540 HVX200 does a shift to get approximately higher resolution, but it isn't called 1280x720.

This camera has lots of interesting features: probably the HDMI being of most interest to me. I'm just confused why we always seem to talk about it as a 1920x1080.

Thanks,

David

Because that's what the sensor is providing.

It's not a resample or shift, it's combinant of existing pixels. It's one of the benefits of CMOS that CCD can't provide; individually addressable pixels that can be tapped for more than one piece of information.

You might look at the Sony site for some simple diagrams as to how this functions; it's confusing until you actually sit down with a piece of graph paper and hand-draw it, or at least that's how it was for me. The graphics make sense, but until I drew it out for myself, the reality wouldn't sink in.

The sensor sizes of the Sony cameras are 960x1080, but through pixel-shift, it goes to 1440x1080 and easily to 1920x1080. The HVX200, another great HD camera, has a sensor size of 960x540; I'm not 100% sure how it works since Panasonic hasn't totally revealed their tech, but it goes to 960x720 (and then to 1280x720 on HDTVs) and 1280x1080 (and then, again, to 1920x1080 on HDTVs).

Spot is the man when it comes to this stuff. Either way, it always looks good on my 1080i HDTV and my best friend's 1080p LCD HDTV.

heath

The Sony site says:
The signals from the four surrounding photodiodes are used to reproduce one more signal with the Enhanced Imaging Processor™.They talk about "1920x1080p video signals" and "960x1080 effective pixels." That they do it before image processing rather than in image processing is semantics. They only have 960x1080 cells of information. Arguably, if they did the interpolation in a shifted array they may have more information. The Sony doesn't claim a shift, rather offset rows where the interpolated pixels are surrounded on all sides.

This should still leave the resolution edge with the Canon's 1440x1080 in interlaced mode, Or leave a horizontal vs vertical tradeoff in progressive mode. To me, that seems to support the resolution images on their site, where the Canon seems to have more horizontal resolution, and the V1 more vertical resolution. To me, at least.

That they do it before image processing rather than in image processing is symantics.Incorrect. It is not "semantics." How they're getting more sampling points per pixel does not matter nearly as much as how the image actually looks on an HDTV display. Instead of getting hung up on numbers, what you need to do is evaluate the actual image for yourself and base your decision on what you see. There are a variety of ways other than the Pixel Shift process to achieve sub-pixel sampling. The Sony site provides a useful explanation of what's happening.

Well, I agree with the spelling of semantics. And if you are saying the quality of the electronics and image processing software is important, I'll agree to that to. However, how do call it a 1920x1080 camera? If we only cared about the size of the image in the image processor, we would have to call all these cameras 12 or 14 bit. The big news is the uncompressed, 4:2:2 upres'd output via HDMI.

The quality of the image processing may be best addressed in a shoot out with the A1 (to HDV) or maybe G1 to compare digital HD output. When both camera's are individually tweeked.

Well, I agree with the spelling of semantics. And if you are saying the quality of the electronics and image processing software is important, I'll agree to that to. However, how do call it a 1920x1080 camera? If we only cared about the size of the image in the image processor, we would have to call all these cameras 12 or 14 bit.
Because you end up with a 1920x1080 image size. When I output as a full-rez QuickTime movie in Final Cut Pro, the size is 1920x1080, not 1440x1080.

heath

Because you end up with a 1920x1080 image size. When I output as a full-rez QuickTime movie in Final Cut Pro, the size is 1920x1080, not 1440x1080.

heath

Than you can call the Z1, A1, etc. 1920x1080 cameras. What we are talking about is the resolution of the image coming from the sensors. If there are 960x1080 cells, you have 1,036,000 (x3) pieces of information. If you had a 1920x1080 sensor, you would have 2,073,600 (x3) pieces of information. Interpolating the missing resolution at the sensor before image processing may actually be a less satisfactory algorithm, being unable to use edge detection, etc.

We have three things here: what is captured (sensor, lens, etc.), how it is processed (A/D converter, image processing), and how it is accessed (HDV, HDMI, HD-SDI, analog component, DVCProHD, AVCHD). It is the combination, with ergonomics, price, etc, that determine the result.

The V1 appears to be a great camera with a significant new feature in this price class (HDMI output). However, the A1 is also a great camera, and probably gives up little or no resolution to the V1, in contrast to what an actual 1920x1080p sensor may provide.

Small question, which A1? Sony's 1-cmos or Canon's 3-ccd?

heath

All prosumer "HD" cameras except the cinealta and maybe the JVC cameras are hopelessly far from the resolutions they claim to provide. Their "high resolution" frame grabs (http://i.cmpnet.com/dv/magazine/0106-Adam%20Wilt%20cam%20test-web/Camera%20Test-All%20Scenic%20Shots.zip) are almost as fuzzy as upsampled 24p DV frame grabs.

Well, I agree with the spelling of semantics. And if you are saying the quality of the electronics and image processing software is important, I'll agree to that to. However, how do call it a 1920x1080 camera? If we only cared about the size of the image in the image processor, we would have to call all these cameras 12 or 14 bit. The big news is the uncompressed, 4:2:2 upres'd output via HDMI.

The quality of the image processing may be best addressed in a shoot out with the A1 (to HDV) or maybe G1 to compare digital HD output. When both camera's are individually tweeked.

1. It's not semantics. Semantics would imply that they're taking information from one pixel, shifting it or transforming it to something else, which is what every other camera in the industry does at some level, right up to CineAlta. Instead, it takes multiple bits of information from the same pixel and surrounding pixels.

You can call it whatever you like but the fact remains, it's actual samples. If you're going to go by your definition, then there aren't cameras built outside of the 100k plus cams that have imager resolution equal to final output resolution, other than a couple.

2. The output from the HDMI isn't uprezz'd, unless you consider that they convert the PAR from 1.333 to 1.0 on HDMI output. The 4:2:2 is taken from the stream pre-encoder, and as far as uncompressed, well... even the very inexpensive palm-corders have 4:2:2 uncompressed HD pipes. Just as most every DV camcorder has had 4:2:2 uncompressed SD pipes. The HDMI is just another means of packaging and delivering it.

The HDMI aspect of the camera is being significantly overblown, IMO. Yes, you get an uncompressed stream from the camera. That's exciting, but old news. The "cool" factor is that you can now keep it digital. Except...I'll gladly wager that we can compare 4:2:2 uncompressed component from the cam (or any other cam) and 4:2:2 uncompressed digital from the cam, capture them, compare them, and either you won't be able to tell the difference, or you'll like the component better. Having already done this with the AJA Xena card and beta hardware, that's been our result.

For the benefit of Sean, the V1 is quite reasonably close to XDCAM HD in terms of resolution, and not that far off of the FW900 in terms of actual resolution. The compression is what makes the differences, not to mention the significant differences of glass and imager size, but that more goes to sensitivity than resolution.

All that said, at the end of the day, view the media from the camera on a monitor capable of displaying that resolution without resampling. Make your determinations from that. Numbers are effectively meaningless, and merely provide measuring points. While we need to know how many inches are in a foot, we can't measure the value of that foot scientifically; it's aesthetic, not quantifiable.

All that said, at the end of the day, view the media from the camera on a monitor capable of displaying that resolution without resampling. Make your determinations from that. Numbers are effectively meaningless, and merely provide measuring points. While we need to know how many inches are in a foot, we can't measure the value of that foot scientifically; it's aesthetic, not quantifiable.

Agreed, forget the numbers! I had the opportunity to see the awesome capabilities of this little package in NJ this past week.

All this measurbating gets old after awhile.

-gb-

Let try this one at a time.

1. Sony is not sampling a pixel and the ones around it, just the ones around. The shift takes advantage of having three sensors, so there is another value to use. Because this is only part of the phase of getting the final image, it is only part of the story. The Silicon Imaging camera, with a forum on this site, is way under $100k and has nearly all the good stuff, at least to me.

2. The V1 HDMI output is captured at 960x1080, is upres’d to 1920x1080, is down res’d to 1440x1080, then upres’d to 1920x1080. What do you call that? The component is an interpretation of the digital signal in the camera, so that may affect the subjective view of the image. However, the HDMI captures is also much less expensive, more in line with a sub-$5k camera. Personally, I’d love to see an SI-2k Cineform solution in a $5k camera (smaller sensor, fixed lens).

3. Monitors are just now becoming native 1080p, and the electronics is just (as reported by Steve Mullen) handling the de-interlacing and up-rezing adequately. In a few years this will be the norm.

4. While I haven’t seen it personally, I find it hard to believe that an uncompressed 4:2:2 image with uncompressed audio doesn’t work much better in post than a heavily inter-frame compressed 4:2:0 image with MPEG1 audio.

Heath: I was thinking about the Canon A1. I don’t believe (although I may be wrong) the Sony A1U has the optics, quality of image control, and maybe the image processing as these cameras. Additionally, it is interlaced.

David

Greg

A good antidote to the measurebating are clips and good descriptions of footage that has been seen.

What are the awesome capabilities of this package as you see them?

From what I have seen there is "something" happening with the Sony V1 image. Even in a wide angle and loads of depth of field there is a real sense of depth, for want of a better explanation, a 3D feel. Is this something you've seen? I don't know how or why this should be. But it's very nice.

TT

2. The V1 HDMI output is captured at 960x1080, is upres’d to 1920x1080, is down res’d to 1440x1080, then upres’d to 1920x1080. What do you call that? The component is an interpretation of the digital signal in the camera, so that may affect the subjective view of the image. However, the HDMI captures is also much less expensive, more in line with a sub-$5k camera. Personally, I’d love to see an SI-2k Cineform solution in a $5k camera (smaller sensor, fixed lens).



Your viewpoint isn't accurate, as several of us have tried to point out.

But in the words of the famous Wil Rogers, "A man convinced against his will..." and all that.

What are the awesome capabilities of this package as you see them?

From what I have seen there is "something" happening with the Sony V1 image. Even in a wide angle and loads of depth of field there is a real sense of depth, for want of a better explanation, a 3D feel. Is this something you've seen? I don't know how or why this should be. But it's very nice.

I know what you mean about a 3D feel. That is what good HD did for me the first time I saw it in 2002 when I got an HDTV set. My own personal theory is that you get a 3D feel from having so much more resolution available. This resolution plays not only to solid objects of varying colors, but the 'specular highlights' as well. Standard definition tv transmitted via good old NTSC has such relatively poor resolution and color saturation (due to transmission limitations), that there is no mistaking that it doesn't look real.

But when you see high definition transmitted via digital over the air and not compressed to death like it gets on the satellite providers, it has so much vivid color saturation and specular highlights that it gives a visual impression of 3D. IOW, it looks more like what your eyes see in the real world which with normal vision is 3D so your brain tricks you into perceiving it as such. Again, just my thoughts about why it looks this way, not actual scientific data.

I don't think I am allowed to say exactly what I saw at Sony HQ this last week, but all who saw it were mightily impressed.

-gb-

I don't think I am allowed to say exactly what I saw at Sony HQ this last week, but all who saw it were mightily impressed.

-gb-

Oh no! That's worse than measurebating!!! :) :)

Come on Greg give us a hint. You know you want to.

I've never known such secrecy surrounding a camera launch.

cheers

TT

I actually like what Sony did because if you had 1920X1080 imagers being around 1/4” the low light capabilities wouldn’t be as good as it is. The Canon XH-A1/G1 does have 1440X1080 imagers that will produce a wonderful image while shooting outside but when compared to the Z1u while shooting inside with little lighting, The Z1u wins because it has bigger/less pixels per imager.

It's quite clear from: http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/minisites/HDV1080/HVR-V1U/devices.html That Sony is using an interpolation process to interpolate 1920x1080 from their 960x1080 set of data points. Due to the diagonal alignment of their pixels, extra "virtual" or interpolated data points naturally lie on the corners of the pixels in such a way as to facilitate this interpolation. Now given that for interlaced imaging, vertical resolution needs to be lowered by a filter to stop twitter, it would seem that this interpolation would introduce this filtering as a natural by-product of it's operation, thus, the 1080 vertical resolution is used to help fill in the gaps in the 960 horizontal resolution, to intelligently pad it out to 1920. You don't notice the loss in vertical resolution as that loss was necessary anyway to stop twitter. Makes total sense, and should indeed allow for a very good compromise between pixel size (ie noise levels) and resolution. Considering in most operations it will be put down to 1440x1080 with HDV compression, it would seem to be a valid compromise.

Indeed, it reminds me of the very valid compromise that Sony took with the original Z1, which was also 960x1080, but used pixel shift between the R, G and B sensors to interpolate the 1920 horizontal pixels from. Again, this allowed larger pixels, which is important when you're trying to do HD on a small chip.

Now, interpolation is not necessarily a bad word. Bayer CFA imagers use interpolation to create colour from the black and white mosaic image. This is accepted. DSLRs use Bayer CFA to do their work (apart from Sigma, but they use, you guess it, interpolation to figure out the right colours as silicon is quite a poor filter of colour), and although it's an 8mp camera or 12mp camera, we know it's all interpolated. Looks very good though. Similarly in my work at RED, where we have a 12mp 60fps CMOS sensor. To get colour images from it, guess what, we use interpolation. End results look really good though, so interpolation is not a bad word.

However, you should understand interpolation and what it means. There are various types, some better than others. I guess if you could get RAW data out of the Sony Clearvid, you could write adaptive software interpolation that could do a much better job of creating the image than the on-board DSP could, although at a much slower pace.

So, when looking at interpolated images, don't say "it's not real", but look carefully and see how real it looks. For instance, on the Sony page above, they show Sony v A v B. I think we can guess who A and B are from the descriptions, but it's obvious to me that the real 1440x1080 sensors of the Canon produce the highest resolution image. All three images have hideous levels of sharpening though, making the comparison very difficult, but the Canon does look to also have the least amount of sharpness added.

Graeme

Many thanks as always, Graeme! Much appreciated. Compression isn't a bad word either!

;-)

No, compression isn't a bad word. It's a realistic compromise. Indeed, I'm told, and I wasn't there, but some top movie maker was looking at REDCODE v Uncompressed at 4k and preferred the look of the REDCOE. Now that's funny :-)

But seriously, well done compression is not a problem. And as we're finding out, when compression is done on raw data, it's much less of a problem than when done on processed images as it just holds up that much better. There's a bright future for compression I'm sure!

Graeme

It doesn't surprise me that a filmmaker would prefer the compressed vs uncompressed, there have been a few times I've heard shooters and editors say they prefer the look of XDCAM over the HDCAM, and there is a significant difference in compression ratios of those two cams, not to mention the colorspace.
thanks for the input, Graeme

XDCAM v HDCAM is not comparing apples with apples though. What I was talking about was comparing the exact same footage from the same sensor, processed identically, but one version had a lossy encode / decode step in there. With XDCAM v HDCAM there are 100 other variables that effect the image, not least that XDCAM is more modern and Sony's algorithms should have advanced in the time since HDCAM.

BTW, to my eyes, the uncompressed does look better, but I stare at it all day in super magnification as I twiddle parameters and algorithms to make it better.....

Yes, I know that HDCAM vs XDCAM HD isn't an apples to apples comparision, my point was that I've more than once, heard from shooters preferring the compressed vs litely compressed. They're also different in 2/3 vs 1/2 lenses, 4:2:0 vs 3:1:1, MPEG vs uncompressed amongst several other factors, as you point out.
I'm a big fan of compression, simply because of datarate savings, and the fact that we don't need to have monolithic systems to process the data. Having just picked up a Ciprico MediaVault with 4 channels of optical, I'm really respecting what compression does for us. On the other hand, uncompressed is significantly faster to work with, too.
Really looking forward to seeing your end product in the RED!

HDCAM is hardly uncompressed though - it's an 8bit DCT codec, just like most other codecs of it's age - DV, DVCProHD etc.

Compression is wonderful though - imagine what RED would be like without it - you'd have to be able to record about a 1GB per second at full blast to get all that information off the sensor. As we drop down to 4k30p, we add some nice compression, and now you can record it to a singel hard drive. Now that's the power of compression. Just like getting HD on a DV tape.

As for the look of compression, we're now getting philosophical..... Given compression works by removing image redundancy and things which are not easily percievable, compression can act as noise reduction and image enhancement. Most codecs work on data in a transformed space, ie DCT or DWT or whatever. Similar spaces, especially wavelet space, are used in image processing algorithms for noise reduction, for instance. SO, you could get an image coming out of mild compression actually looking better and more "together" than before it went in..... I wonder if we'll get to the point where compression is used as a positive image enhancing force....

Graeme

I wonder if we'll get to the point where compression is used as a positive image enhancing force....

Yes Graeme, it might give new meaning to the phrase, "I squeezed the crap out of it.", if it becomes perceived as a positive. ;-)

-gb-

While this discussion has strayed a bit, let ask a corollary question: how does the 960x1080 sensor compare to the 1920x1080 Bayer filter CMOS sensors on a Silicon Imaging camera or a Sony A1U/HC1/HC3?

Tricky one..... Especially as the new Sony uses a non-Bayer pattern on it's diagonal pixels.

so, it's 960x1080x3 v 1920x1080 ? Still not really answerable without measuring, but the output of the Bayer should measure about 1440x810, and the ClearVid will probably measure around 1440x810. However, I'd hazard that the larger chip would look better.... Resolution measurements != picture quality.

Graeme

How did you calculate 1440x810? I thought the green would be 960x1080 and the red and blue half that. Since even the V1's image processing is 4:2:2, wouldn't only half the red and blue be used? Or in this case (960x1080), the entire sensor?

I'd just like to say that i always find Graeme's input useful and valuable and excellent reading. Thanks Graeme for your contributions to the forum.

One related question: on the Sony site, the comparison picture shows big black lines around the edges of window panes, white cornerstones, etc for the V1 that are not there in the other images and undoubtly not there in real life. What caused that? Only the Canon picked up detail in the window lock mechanism.

One related question: on the Sony site, the comparison picture shows big black lines around the edges of window panes, white cornerstones, etc for the V1 that are not there in the other images and undoubtly not there in real life. What caused that? Only the Canon picked up detail in the window lock mechanism.

It looks like its just way over-sharpened. I never really understood the usefullness of that comparison chart. Its provided by Sony, so it might have the appearance of being biased. We have no clue whatsoever what the camera settings are (that alone nullifies the comparison). And frankly, when I first saw that graphic I wasn't even sure why Sony bothered; to me it looks like the HVX is resolving a pretty decent amount of detail (after being poo pooed by many for being so "low resolution") and the Canon shot looks the best to a lot of people anyway.

You know, just looking at that "comparison" is a reminder of how similarly all these cameras perform. What's the point of endlessly shooting still life and then zooming into frame grabs to see how the 700 line camcorder supposedly looks better than the 540 line camcorder. Ugh.. I think if there's another HD camcorder "shootout" I'm going to petition that no resolution charts are used. Lets look at colors, lattitude, smear, ergonomics, price.. etc.. anything other than resolution. OK, I'm going on a tirade.. better get back to work.

For the numbers I gave I used a 75% factor horizontally and vertically on the bayer CFA, which is about right with a good demosaic and decent optical low pass filter. For the Sony, looking at how it works, they seem to trade extra horizontal for vertical, and it seemed that, given how such things work, a 150% horizontal and a 75% vertical factor would be appropriate. AS I say, it's a guesstimate.

Yes, the lines are just over-zealous sharpening. Yes, the difference between the three is small, with to my eyes, the Canon looking superior and to have the least amount of sharpening too. It still has too much, but, less is better than more.

Graeme

Ugh.. I think if there's another HD camcorder "shootout" I'm going to petition that no resolution charts are used. Lets look at colors, lattitude, smear, ergonomics, price.. etc.. anything other than resolution. OK, I'm going on a tirade.. better get back to work.

We did all of that with the Texas HD Shootout. Our goal was to not only show res charts which give a camera's potential, but to employ different scenes which would stress the codecs to their limits on each camera and show how each handled highlights and low lights. We also did res charts to see how they matched up against mfgr's claims.

-gb-

Isn't the premise of the Foveon that all this interpolation isn't a good thing? It is trading off 40% resolution (effectively a little less than 5MP) for effectively having 3 sensors.

Well, good interpolation is good, and bad interpolation is bad :-)

What Foveon doesn't tell you is that the colour you get from them is heavily interpolated as silicon is a poor colour filter. You have to do a fair bit of mangling of the data from the 3 pixels that lie on top of each other to get a real colour out. In contrast, the RAW colour from, as I know it well, Mysterium, looks pretty ok, just a little under-saturated, before we put it through a small amount of correction.

In tests a Bayer CFA looks to have an equivalent Foveon resolution of about 1/2 the mp. So, a 10mp Nikon, will look to have equivalent to a 5mp Foveon. But, for those 5mp, the foveon actually has 15mp of pixels as they're stacked. So, 10mp bayer =15mp foveon, so to me, foveon is inefficient, if rather clever. I'd also remember that Sigma cameras don't have the correct amount of anti-alias filtering on their sensor (they make this out to be a good thing, but it's not) hence half the detail you see is really aliassed, and this shows when you blow up or scale up a Sigma image as it looks like everything is stair-steppy rather than smooth.

Graeme

Those ratios make sense since there is excessive color information.

Why hasn't anyone used asymmetric sensors: 1920x1080 green and 960x1080 red and blue?

Developing and building a sensor is expensive. It makes sense to have 3 identical sensors, rather than go to the expense of making a special sensor for red and blue. Also, I'd hazard that having different sensors would make colourimetric matching more tricky, but I think the first agurment is the main one.

Having bigger pixels for the red and blue would make them less noisy, but then again, averaging pairs of pixels would do the same thing....

Graeme

One related question: on the Sony site, the comparison picture shows big black lines around the edges of window panes, white cornerstones, etc for the V1 that are not there in the other images and undoubtly not there in real life. What caused that? Only the Canon picked up detail in the window lock mechanism.


You only posted one of the images on the Sony site. There is a 3 picture series of images on the Sony site. I prefer either of the other 2 images (Sony or Panasonic) over the Canon image. The numbers don't tell it all. The proof is in the pudding. What I see is much red fringing on the vertical edges of the window in the Canon image. The Sony image in this same series appears to me to be superior. It's just as clear to my eye and does not have the red fringing problems of the Canon image. How can you overlook the red fringing and talk about resolution?

There is more going on here, and it isn't the numbers. I think this is why Sony used this image. It appears to point out problems with the lens or the processor in the Canon camera.

Or problems in the test itself. I'd hardly call it a controlled test, and we only get to see a small section of the image that was shot. You can't evaluate a camera from a single image.

Graeme

Actually, I photoshop'd the windows together an enlarged it. There was a definite purple fringe in the Canon. And a much higher level of detail. Enlarged, the Sony had pronouced edge enhancement (I assume thats what those black streaks are) and loss of surface texture (which may be an overactive noise reduction). To me, the Canon had the edge in resolving vertical lines, and the Sony had a edge on horizontal lines. However, what do I know?

Come on, this is advertising 101.

Any company will make their product look better when compared to the competition. Is Tide really that much better then "product B", or are the ads on TV set up to make the other laundry soap not work as well?

Well over a dozen things could have been adjusted alone on any of those cameras to adjust how the image looks. The images could have also been adjusted later in photoshop.

I'm not calling SONY anything but this is just how marketing and advertising work. I would do the same thing as would anybody else on the planet if they were marketing a product that competed against another product.

My point is to not take the image from the SONY site for any decent information to judge the cameras. Either check them out yourself or wait until somebody such as Adam Wilt can compare the results and put the cameras through a fair test.

Generally, there have been few comparitive ads between camera manufacturers. If the add is comparative, it has frequently been against other or previous models from the same manufacturer.

Typically comparitive ads are done for products with a poor image, to properly place them in the mind of the target audience. For example, a Hyundai, Kia, Suzuki, or Mitsubishi may have comparative ads. Toyota and Honda are very unlikely to have comparative ads.

Sony would generally ignore its competition. This ad is unusual, and probably reflects information that engineering provided marketing that their CMOS progressive camera was better than its competitors.

Come on, this is advertising 101.

Any company will make their product look better when compared to the competition. Is Tide really that much better then "product B", or are the ads on TV set up to make the other laundry soap not work as well?

Well over a dozen things could have been adjusted alone on any of those cameras to adjust how the image looks. The images could have also been adjusted later in photoshop.

I'm not calling SONY anything but this is just how marketing and advertising work. I would do the same thing as would anybody else on the planet if they were marketing a product that competed against another product.

My point is to not take the image from the SONY site for any decent information to judge the cameras. Either check them out yourself or wait until somebody such as Adam Wilt can compare the results and put the cameras through a fair test.

No Photoshopping was done on any of those images whatsoever. I'd hate to think that Canon or Panasonic would Photoshop an image for their best interests either. Then again...some companies have done camera marketing DVDs that didn't use the camera they're marketing for the shot.

Beware, conspiracy theorists! None of these manufacturers would ever photoshop a comparison image. They'll simulate an LCD display image on a brochure, but they won't touch a comparison shot.

Or problems in the test itself. I'd hardly call it a controlled test, and we only get to see a small section of the image that was shot. You can't evaluate a camera from a single image.

Graeme

The test may not be valid, and I don't mean to offend Canon XL-H1 owners (we own one too), but the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming that the Canon XL-H1 has excessive problems with red and green fringing. Sony just pointed this out subtly on their site.

I think this move was gutsy on Sony's part, but I'll bet they are prepared to back this up later, in other comparisons after the camera comes out. These pictures on Sony's site point to problems Canon has with the XL-H1 20x lens, even though they were posted austensibly to point out that the V1U has superior resolution.

Adam Wilt also pointed out this red and green fringing problem in his comparison review of four low cost HD camcorders earlier this year in DV Magazine. Adam Wilt wrote that Canon's XL-H1 20x lens has more problems with red and green fringing (he also called it CA) than it's lower cost competitors.

If you spend as much time working with XL-H1 footage as we have (we used the XL-H1 to shoot over 40 hours of footage for an upcoming film project, and still use it.), and compare that footage with other footage you have shot, you will likely agree that Canon's 20x lens has problems with red and green fringing, more so than it's lower cost competitors.

I have also viewed hundreds of images and clips shot by others with the Canon XL-H1 camera, including many clips on this site. This red and green fringing characteristic appears in shots taken with the XL-H1 that include vertical lines and hard edges where there is a sharp change in color or contrast. This is especially noticable towards the outer edges of the frame.

These red and green fringing problems are the reason we only purchased one XL-H1 for our project. And for obvious reasons, we are looking seriously at the V1U for future projects, instead of the XL-H1's siblings, since the A1 and G1 use essentially the same lens as the XL-H1.

In any case, we use the XL-H1 now, and will continue to use it until something better comes along in our price range. However, we do plan to buy three V1Us if the camera (and lens) are as good as Sony claims.

It will be interesting to see if the Sony V1U gives the XL-H1 a real run for it's money. But until the camera comes out, has gone through extensive testing, and the substantive reviews come out, we are only speculating. Let's see what the reviewers have to say.

I won't argue with anyone about the numbers. I'm only interested in the quality of the footage. The numbers are meaningless in the end.

I won't argue with anyone about the numbers. I'm only interested in the quality of the footage. The numbers are meaningless in the end.

Dave, you hit the nail on the head with that statement. Chris Hurd will be proud of you for that.

Thanks,

-gb-

I think your comments about the XL-H1 red/green fringing are right on the mark. Since I own the XH-A1 I would say that more or less it has the same problem too. Where I would take exception is to assume the V1 actually has less, and if it does have less, is it making another trade-off in its place? I owned the Z1 and know that it too had fringing, just not the red/green variety. Especially toward the long end of the zoom, the fringing was actually pretty severe but it was blue/yellow which to my eyes doesn't jump out and scream at you like the red/green, but maybe to someone else it does? The XH-A1 lens stays razor sharp at any focal distance, zoom range or aperture. My Z1 was pleasing but got soft at the long end or at wide open apertures. Will the V1 be improved? Let's hope so but the XH-A1 didn't materially improve on the XL-H1 if at all. And since I've seen the same blue/yellow fringing in the FX7 footage that I saw in the Z1, I would expect the same. So then it comes full circle, what do you like best?

Nobody said it better than when they said all the HDV cams are an embarrassment of riches.

How does the HDX200 fair?

Dave Pope said: ...the quality of the footage. The numbers are meaningless in the end.

(sorry, gotta learn how to use this quote tool with a Mexican keyboard)

In the end, may I suggest, meaning is to be found, for some, in the numbers. I’m not such a numbers person but I would hesitate to judge thems that are as being without meaning and value.

How do you propose we measure, or talk about, learn, about ‘quality’. Have we all read a long time ago Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values Robert M. Pirsig. He convinced a lot of us at the time that quality defys definition. Not a reason not to do it anyway, but he did have a point. But if we are to have conversations that go beyond ‘that’s great, that sucks’, we might be stuck with measuring quality and we simplify things using numbers to indicate points between good and not so good, and…

The bloody numbers bulshit strikes again.

Rhetoric makes me smile.

One and one are, became, always were, again existentially insisting with vigorous candor: 2.

Which is twice one.

Schizophrenia.

What’s quality got to do with it!