The motion rendition looks exactly like film. Crank down the edge enhancement and shoot with a comparable depth of field and it will look identical to film motion rendition. I proved this by strapping a DVX and a 16mm film camera side by side and shooting the exact same scenes, then split-screening the footage. The motion is identical.

Here are a couple of examples of 24p footage that looks, I believe, very much like film. Before clicking the links, be aware that these are horror films (part of dvxuser's currently-running horrorfest) and as such you may see some R-rated content.
http://www.nrestudios.com/horror_mir...cer-rich_s.mov

http://www.nrestudios.com/horror_mir...rkjohnson2.mov

http://www.nrestudios.com/horror_mirror/BloodyMary.mov

Actually, if anyone wants to see a DVX compared to film in the same production I heartily suggest getting hold of Incident At Loch Ness. This was shot mostly on a DVX100, but there are also S16mm shots intercut at some points, and aside from colour rendition, you'd be hard pressed to tell which was which.

Of course this would be different if ever a high def version was released.

Sorry, but it doesn't. That's because a film shutter's "efficiency" (see Ansel Adam's "The Camera") IS different that a video camera's shutter's efficiency. And, the rolling shutter efficiency of a CMOS shutter IS different than a CCD shutter. Thus, the type of exposure with motion will be slightly different.

Moreover, with the V1 you simply can NOT get a minimal DOF (which would prevent "Background strobing" by putting the background out of focus). You can eliminate Foreground strobing by follow panning, but Background strobing will remain.

The only solution I've found is to use a 216-degree shutter which adds slightly more motion blur. This really is a key feature of the V1 -- non-integral shutter-speed changes.

Moreover, the amazing total clarity (even with Sharpness set to zero) of the V1, means an image has zero texture. (This is the whole point of HD -- a "look through a perectly clear window.") The better the HD camera, the less it will look like film. (Although the VERY fine grain 70mm film stocks can give the same look.)

The advantage of going to film is you can use a stock with grain to fix this. If you don't go to film, you'll have to add grain.

Could you fool an audience -- probably, which may be all that matters in the end.

Incident At Loch Ness.

Watch it, then comment. I have to go with barry on this one. All other factors are explained in the BBC documents that I linked to. The author of those has spent the last 20 years or so researching this very subject alone on the BBC's request, and since high def was invented way back when on his own accord.

The key to the motion differences is in the way detail frequencies are handled. Detail, and how it relates to the 'judder' is paramount.

Since "detail" has so many different parameters and you only get one V1 control called Sharpness (which has a very subtle effect) -- and no control over how much aliasing there is in ANY prosumer camera -- I'm certainly interested in the theory, but it won't do one much good in the real world.

Which, explains why Cine Altas are so expensive and require an engineer/DP to run. Also remember, the CineAlta is super-sampled for much less aliasing and more real detail.

Well, yes, you are correct that the lower end cameras do not have the same number of adjustments available. However you will notice that Alan has examined and created settings for the FX1/Z1, A1, and HVX200 as close as he can to the filmlook requirements.

Usually on the more basic cameras this involves reducing the 'sharpness' as it is called on the V1. Note that Sony seem to have cottoned on, and in the Cinema picture profile preset they have reduced this setting.

Are you referring primarily to film grain here, or to other characteristics of film versus digital? Seems to me that if you had the same depth of field, dynamic range and motion characteristics, then having or not having film grain is arguably a minor issue. Perhaps future generations will come to expect motion pictures to be more like looking through a window and less like film...

That's already the case because film has become nearly grainless. Frankly, for narrative I like grain which is why I like films prior 1980. So I would want grain added to any video. For me 24fps is not enough.

All

Check out this comment added to the dvuser.co.uk review by Nigel Cooper regarding the Progressive scan 'softness' etc that has been much discussed here :

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=141


"IMPORTANT NOTICE!
On Wednesday 18th October 2006 I was informed by Sony UK that the pre-production model of the V1 that I had for review was not of the same specification of the actual production models that will be sold here in the UK. Sony UK have just received this information directly from Japan. It turns out that the pro-production V1 that was loaned to me from Sony had an issue with the progressive scan mode. This issue caused the images to look a little bit soft compared to the interlaced mode. My review here states that in progressive it looks a little soft compared to interlaced and I even go so far as saying that the V1 lacks a little detail on wide shots and is a trifle soft in progressive when compared to the JVC GY-HD111E. Sony will be sending me a proper production model in the not too distant future so I can modify my review according to my new findings. In the meantime anyone reading this review should ignore any mention of softness or lack of details as it is almost certainly down to the faulty pre-production model I had."

What a relief!

Thanks for posting the info Stu.

TT