If I were to make a choice between this and the Z1u, then it would have to be HVR-V1 and I earnestly don’t see why someone would choose the Z1u over this. I’d even get this over the XH-G1 but that would still be a very hard choice to make. The 3 CMOS chips should allow for a much better picture than all of the other HDV camcorders as long as there is lots of lighting.

It evidently uses the same slo-mo recording as the Sony HC3 does. Gives you three seconds of true slo motion by recording at a faster tape speed, I think.

Since the data being written to tape is digital (just binary 1's and 0's), speeding up the tape shouldn't change the video speed during recording. I suspect something else must be going on there...

Yeah, you're right. It's probably just scanning the frame at a faster rate. And I see where, unlike the HC3's three second slow mo, this is supposed to give you 24 seconds of useful footage.

probably works the same as the HC3 by utilizing a memory buffer in the camera (the buffer in the HVR-V1e is larger than the HC3 as noted above) to capture at a much higher frame rate then writes out to tape at the specified speed

it will be interesting to see how the image quality compares to the new Canon models G1/A1- if the sensors in the V1 are similar to the FX7, then the pixels are still stretched/shifted to get to 1440x1080 resolution for writing to tape (whereas the Canon is native)

It's not. The V1 processes the signal internally at 4:2:2 1920x1080, but what gets recorded on the tape is standard HDV, so it gets downrezzed to 1440x1080 and chroma gets subsampled to 4:2:0 before being recorded.

Well, not exactly. It cuts the resolution of the frames to 1/4, so it's 240 lines of res. 4x as fast sampling, 1/4 as much resolution, so it all nets out the same. The motion is sampled at 4x as much temporally, but into a matrix that's 1/4 as large spatially.

Here's an example of what the feature looks like on the HC3.
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...tion-Video.htm

The V1 reportedly uses the same technique but doubles the size of the memory buffer so that lets it record longer.

Barry - are you saying the sensors are 1920x1080? or are they smaller, then scaled up to 1920x1080 and then down again? given that the still picture resolution is only 1.2MP, I'm guessing the native sensor resolution is not 1920x1080...

I'm not sure, either. I'm curious about the white papers.

hwm

So is it safe to assume the US version will have 24p?

That's not automatic. Putting 25p into 50i is EZ, but 24p into 60i using the one frame into two fields approach doesn't work.

CineAlta uses 24p into 48i.

Berry are you sure? That would require a 2X horizontal scale to get to 1920. Not only would that cause a huge quality loss -- of what value is a 1920 image than is than decimated back to 1440 for encoding?

Oh, ClearVid. Joy.

Why do I get the nasty feeling Sony are just swapping one bit of video snakoil, faked progressive modes, for another, the clearvid 45 degree rotation scam.

Let me take a wild guess that while resolution measured strictly on the vertical and horizontal axes will be reasonable for a camera of this type, real world performance will be significantly worse due to the poor resolution on the diagonals.

OK here's the good bit - the camera has an HDMI output - this will feed out from the camera head before the HDV compression. Blackmagic have just announced new HDMI capture cards

http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/.

You do the math!

HDMI is NOT HD-SDI output!

Once again no EDIT button present.

Sorry -- once again no EDIT button.

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

Yes that's obvious even to non techie people like me, but it's better coming out HDMI from the camera head rather than going to tape as you avoid the HDV compression.

Actually this camera doesn't look that promising. However, I MIGHT get a chance to test it soon and post results. So be patient...

If you are really worried about compression and carry a computer around. :)

For the projects this camcorder -- with 1/4 CMOS chips -- are likely to shoot -- trying to record via HDMI doesn't really makes sense IMHO.

Reading the BM site it's interesting that they promote the capture and editing at 1920x1080 because it's not "compressed" HDV at "only 1440x1080."

But if they are capturing an HDV tape -- then this is nonsense. Worse, the computer is wasting time processing pixels that aren't carrying any information.

The MOST interesting thing is the notion of capturing from a settop box. So does that mean we can copy HD programs? Can we capture HD DVDs?

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

The card will not capture HDCP protected material, it's exactly what the spec is designed to prevent.

So no, you will not be able to capture and reencode protected Blu-ray/HDDVD titles.

If the output from the chips was so much better than the compression format was able to record, capturing HDMI would seem to be a good idea. At this stage, and with ClearVid again rearing its ugly head, its like buying laser alarms to protect a cubic zirconia.

I'm with Yasser, 25p seems like a massive step in the right direction but actually the camera is looking like a damp squib.

Yes, that is right, plus HDMI 1.3 will let you do upto 16 bit video at 4:4:4 SHD resolutions, or even more (not that we can expect any thing like this). I hear they are upgrading HDSDI, but seriously they should settle on HDMI as a common standard.

If this can be fed into a computer and compressed on the fly, then what about cineform?

Steve C, thanks for the Black magic link, would have been good as a news thread. I came to a sudden realisation the other day of a way to capture HDMI camera output for a few hundred dollars, but this makes that a bit irrelevant. I am thinking of getting something like this. It maybe hard to use this to capture field footage, but it is easier to use than making your own complete homemade camera.


Now about the camera, great. Finally P without JVC. I would guess they are goign to come out with 1/3inch models too. I would hope that they would include 35mb/s XDCAM HD like codec.

I wouldn't assume it's 24p in the US version. I always say, we'll believe it when the announcement is made!

heath

Can we run the hdmi out to sony's new little deck? And does that bypass the 4:2:0 chroma sampling to give us 4:2:2?

Really reaching here, I realize.... :-)

$4,800? Seems a little high.

The native resolution is not 1920x1080. It's 960x1080. They say there are 1.03 million pixels in video mode, a few more for still mode.

The chips are 960x1080, they are scaled up to 1920x1080 for internal processing, and then scaled down to 1440x1080 for recording.

I can't explain why they did it, but that's what I'm reading in the various brochures and interviews.

It's probably the way the Z1/FX1 work as well, they also have 960x1080 chips but that's different, they employ spatial offset to read the chips, CMOS is a different pixel-based technology of course.

Anything we speculate on is nothing but speculation until real-world results are seen. Apparently Sony is willing to go on record to say that in bright light/sunny conditions this FX7/V1E will look noticeably sharper than the FX1/Z1U (but in dark conditions the situation reverses).

Sony's marketing material says that all internal processing is done at 1920x1080x4:2:2. They also say elsewhere that the chips are 960x1080. And we know that the recording format is HDV, which is inherently 1440x1080x4:2:0.

So piecing all that together, the 960x1080 chips get uprezzed to 1920x1080 for all internal DSP processing, then scaled to 1440x1080 for recording.

I assume with horizontal pixel shift?

Very similar to Panasonic's HVX200, which has a sensor size of 960x540, and shoots 960x720p and 1280x1080i.

heath

-- Deleted --

I understand that is what Sony says, but we've been through the Japanese to English issues before. Let's wait until the USA announces.

An up-scale by 2X followed by a down-scale 1.5X makes so little sense -- and is so likely to cost quality -- that I think this sentence is in doubt.

Also, the V1 really seems to be an A1 replacement. Looked at this way, it's a great step forward. It fits much better with the Z1 in the PRO line. I would love one as the Z1 is too big and the A1 is too small. This one "is just right."

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

Don't know, because CMOS is a different type of technology.

"pixel shift" is spatial offset, where the green CCD is offset 1/2 pixel, and then the sampler reads and builds a YUV signal off of those chips. The chips are analog and aren't read via RGB, they're read YUV, so each luminance pixel is composed of something like 60% green, 29% red, and 11% blue.

Whereas with CMOS you're talking about discrete pixel transfer, much more like starting with RGB in the first place. So it wouldn't necessarily be the same type of thing, it may be more of a conventional digital uprez.

But hey, this is new technology so we'll have to see what they have done. I would certainly expect that one of the chips would be offset from the others by 1/2 pixel, that's what they did in the FX1/Z1.

Sort of, but perhaps not. See the prior post. The HVX doesn't "shoot" 960x720 or 1280x1080, it scans its chips using spatial offset into a 1920x1080 matrix, and then downsamples it to the recording format (either 1280x1080 US or 1440x1080 EU, or 960x720, or 720x576 (EU) or 720x480 (US). But the spatial offset technique takes advantage of the way that CCDs are read as analog signals and processed into the YUV space.

CMOS isn't quite the same, it's a discrete digital pixel well. Each pixel in a CMOS chip is individually addressable (which is not possible in a CCD; a CCD is an analog device that outputs an analog signal).

So it's two different approaches. I don't know what to say about the end results until we see 'em side by side. Both units are claiming 1920x1080 internal signal processing, one does so from CCDs using spatial offset, the other does so through CMOS but I don't know how they get from 960x1080 up to 1920x1080; I would suspect it's a digital up-rez.

Yes, but. The BM mentions capture from settop box. Which means HDMI does not ITSELF protect media transfer. As I understand it, it simply ensures the receiving device performs a digital handshake. Which is performed by a chip.

The contents are protected by, if I remember right, "5C." Thus, the program orginator turns on various levels of protection. This is already the case with FireWire transfer to D-VHS.

Anything sent by PBS, for example, can't be prevented from being recorded. Supposedly anything sent via OTA is supposed to be able to be able to be copied. But, CBS fought hard to prevent this with HD. No matter the law, the state of the what comes out of a settop box sometimes works as it should and sometimes doesn't.

I assume the 5C is also handled by a chip. Probably, the HDMI chip. Much more on the AVSFORUM.

-------------------------
Steve Mullen
My "Sony HDV Handbook" is available at:
www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

HDMI does not itself protect media transfer but HDCP does. This is manditory in all Blu-ray/HD-DVD players and is turned on for media that require it. If a HDCP device is connected to a non HDCP device when enabled the link will fail, no video data will be transfered, and the HDCP complient device will have to act on this. Usually the response to a non HDCP complient devices is to scale down, to say 540p and then not engage HDCP. A compromise for early HDTV buyers.

I cannot speak for US satellite, but in the UK the boxes' HDMI ports are protected by HDCP, this is not switched on for all channels/programming but when it is, the response to a non HDCP complient TV is just an error message and no picture.

5C may be a higher level of management but as far as HDCP it is either on or off, so a HDMI capture card by design of the HDCP protocol will not be much use recording protected content.

Barry,

"Anything we speculate on is nothing but speculation until real-world results are seen."

There is no spoon.

"Apparently Sony is willing to go on record to say that in bright light/sunny conditions this FX7/V1E will look noticeably sharper than the FX1/Z1U"

I have no doubt of this, but resolution is not the same thing as sharpness so this tells us nothing. To make an image look sharp, Sony increase the default value of the sharpening algorithm until it looks sharper. Job done. When moving from the HC1 to the HC3, clearvid delivered less total resolution. We can only assume the new colour pattern did not perform as well as expected to offset the fewer lit pixels and Sony responded by using more agressive sharpening. Clearly having made the statement Sony will increase the level of sharpening until it does look sharper regardless of actual resolution. The question I would want to make them answer is - 2 years on, why arn't they blowing the 1Mpixel resolution offerings clean away?

"Whereas with CMOS you're talking about discrete pixel transfer,"

CCD and CMOS both use discrete pixel transfer, and they both capture an analog quantity at the raw pixel level. The only practical difference for a modern camera is that CMOS is capable of fabbing an ADC on the same die as the sensor array, the CCD process cannot do this and the ADC must be attached as a seperate chip.

clearvid probably requires a significant amount of digital processing to get any sort of acceptable signal anyway. Taking the clearvid raster at face value, each pixel contains a contribution from several neighboring pixels as far as a conventional X/Y grid display device is concerned, it may well be that the deconvolution algorithm has been designed to output a full 1920x1080 image and this sets the resolution of the sensor array. I'm not sure it is even meaningful to quote 960x1080 as a resolution but it is certainly meaningful to remeber 1Mpixel as the overall amount of information being fed into the engine. I have failed to find any confirmation on the site of the number of pixels.

Like clearvid, pixel shift is just another sort of compromise obscured by a snakeoil explanation. While the salesman's interpretation seems to gain the amount of overall information read from the device in proportion to the number of overlapping zones created, the amount of real data hasn't changed. 3 x 1Mpixel sensors have enough information to produce a 1Mpixel image at 4:4:4. Moving the green sensor does not increase the total amount of information coming from the device, so to take advantage of those half or quarter pixel overlaps to get a higher luma resolution you have to make assumptions about the way the colourspace behaves, which reduces the accuracy and resolution of the colour. In the best digital case this gets you a picture that does visually look sharper and actually has higher resolution, but may not be as good for things like chroma key, in the worst analog case this just gets you colour fringing.

clearvid and pixel shift are performance tradeoffs wrapped in snakeoil explanations. In this case a pixel shift would be genuinly useful, in that noone uses high resolution colour information, and the camera doesn't record it anyway, but clearvid desperatly needs increased resolution on the diagonals which could be achieved by placing the center of the green pixels at the middle of the cross of the other two colours. Equivalent to a movement of half a pixel in both directions on a normal system.

Blackmagic has announced a cross-platform expansion card that enables capture from HDMI enabled camcorders, and output/monitoring via HDMI.

Guess which company just released two HDV camcorders that sport shiny new HDMI output ports? I'll give you a hint...the manufacturer's name starts with an "S" and it ryhmes with "pony"...

Now, we still don't know if the HDR-FX7 and HVR-V1E camcorders output HDMI before HDV compression. But if I had to speculate randomly at this point, I'd guess that Sony got it right and spits out a beautiful uncompressed image from the HDMI port. I seriously doubt that this oh-so-conveniently-timed announcement is just coincidence.
"With Intensity, you can now capture and playback full resolution HDTV uncompressed video...Totally eliminate HDV & DV compression quality problems, and render much cleaner graphics while retaining deeper color and image detail. If you need lower data rate editing, you can also select from a range of professional compressed video capture modes."
Folks, it sounds to me like you can HDMI tether a camcorder to your PC or MAC with the Blackmagic card installed, and ingest straight-up uncompressed HD. Nifty.

The new card is scheduled to be available October 15th and will cost you around $250.

I also read this camera has a 60 GB internal hardrive. But it still has tape right?

If this camera ends up really having 24p here and is not priced at $5,800 it will be a good seller.
I'd like to see it under $4,000