If you download the video file on Vimeo or the Sample test shot of the NEX-5 From D-Preview I can’t see the interlacing at 100%?

Footage from the NEX-5 reports back as “Video Tracks:
H.264, 1920 × 1080, 25 fps, 36.20 Mbps”

As the NEX-VG10 uses the same chip what gives?

I could understand Sony’s film on Vimeo being de-interlaced but not the raw sample from the NEX-5 on dpreview.

Am I missing something here?

Reference:
 – 1.13GB
Sony NEX-3 & NEX-5 Review: 12. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review -92MB

Cheers, James

That's probably it.

That would be one possibility. The bigger problem in my mind is the sorry state of the implementation of gain in almost all raw cameras, which use one or more of:

• Idiot gain
• Numpty analog gain
• Useful analog gain
• Metadata gain

Idiot gain is digital amplification applied to the raw file in-camera. It causes clipped highlights, larger files, increased quantization error (for non-integer gain factors), and slightly increased post-processing requirements. There is no excuse for ever using it in a raw camera, yet most manufacturers do it.

Numpty analog gain is the kind that does not reduce noise (as a ratio to signal -- not in absolute terms). In order to have any use whatsoever, the analog gain must reduce either quantization error, late state read noise (e.g. ADC self-noise), or some other noise source. If there is no reduction, then it would be the same as using idiot gain and therefore harmful to the image.

Useful analog gain, in contrast, does reduce the noise ratio. This does not always make it the right choice, since it still clips one stop of highlights for every one stop increase in gain, but at least it has a benefit. Ideally, all of the noise sources (e.g. self-noise of the ADC) would be reduced to a level that it does not contribute to the total read noise at all. Then there is no reason to ever use analog gain (with its attendant loss in highlight headroom). But in most cameras, that is not achieved (probably for a good engineering reason). The next best thing is to offer the ability to eleminiate the contribution of late stage read noise by feeding the late stage electronics with a stronger signal.

For example, here are two images with the exact same exposure and brightness, one that has linear digital gain (applied in post) and the other that has useful analog gain:

http://thebrownings.name/images/2009...rapee_crop.png

http://thebrownings.name/images/2009...rapee_crop.png

In that particular case (5D2 ISO 1600 vs 100), there is a very nice reduction in noise, but the cost is 4 stops of blown highlights. The ISO 100 shot could be processed to preserve those highlights (rather than clip them as in the example) with nonlinear digital gain if desired.

The noise-vs-headroom balancing act is the same one that sound engineers do when choosing the gain level on their mixer if the ADC (or another component) has high self-noise.

Metadata gain is when the data from the sensor is left as-is until post production.

Most digital cameras offer a mix of all four types of gain. For example, on my 5D2:

• Idiot gain at f/2.8 or faster f-numbers (compensation for sensor angle of response).
• Metadata gain any time Highlight Tone Priority is used.
• ISO 50: metadata gain
• ISO 125: idiot gain
• ISO 160: useful and idiot gain
• ISO 200: useful gain
• ISO 250: useful and idiot gain
• ISO 320+HTP: useful, idiot, and metadata gain.
  [...]
• ISO 2000: useful and idiot gain
• ISO 2500: useful, numpty, and idiot gain

It would be much better if manufacturers got rid of idiot and numpty gain alltogether. They never have any useful purpose in a raw camera. Then the only choice would be between useful analog gain and metadata gain. Ideally, the user would have full control over which type to use, so that it would be possible to shoot ISO 6400 using only metadata gain, analog gain, or a combination of both. Of course, the camera would choose the most sensible option by default to make it easy to use.

In non-raw cameras (i.e. most video cameras), the possible gain implementation types are far less varied:

• Linear digital or analog gain
• Non-linear digital gain

I can measure raw files to determine what types of gains are used, but it's not possible to do that with non-raw cameras, so I'm not sure what my XH-A1 is using, for example.

One big difference between raw/non-raw is that after useful analog gain has been exhausted, digital gain is no longer a bad option. Non-linear gain does the same job as linear gain on the midtones, but preserves highlights through tonal compression (also tending to reduce contrast). The video cameras I've used only expose this type of feature through settings such as gamma, knee, etc., but it can also be implemented directly as a gain control.

As video and stills cameras get closer together I hope they bring the best of both worlds (metadata and nonlinear digital gain) instead the worst (numpty and idiot gain).

For those who care:
ISO (International Standards Organization) ratings "evolved" (I'm going to hear from the non-North Americans on that one...) from the ASA (American Standards Association) ratings for film, which measured the sensitivity to light.

Film was sensitive to light due to the formulation of the light reactive particles in it's emulsion. The larger the particles, the more receptive to light they were (higher ASA/ISO) but creating a grainier image. As well, in chemical processing, one could "push" the exposure higher by developing longer or at higher temperatures. This affected the contrast of the images on the film as well as the overall exposure.

It's best to think of video as being more akin to colour positive film (slides) than colour negative film (prints) due to the extra step available to "correct" or "enhance" exposure in the printing process associated with colour negative film. Although a RAW workflow does begin to approximate a colour negative work flow.

Why ISO in digital video/cinema? For folks USED to working with motion picture film, the analogous nature of calling sensitivity an ISO rating allows for a more seamless transition. For people that use light meters for exposure and calculating contrast ratings, it's a no-brainer.

When one changes the ISO setting on a digital video/cinema camera, one is NOT inherently changing the sensitivity of the sensor assembly - one is adjusting the electronic processing that is done to the image. Or conversely, when one RATES a RED ONE at a certain ISO, one is making a learned call on how much one wants to protect highlights.

It isn't magic - higher ISO means more gain. More gain means more noise. Film OR video. HOWEVER, just like in film, sensor size and technological wizardry CAN VASTLY affect grain signature at a given sensitivity. ISO 400 film in a medium format (120 film for example) shows MUCH less grain than ISO 400 in 35mm (or 110 film or Kodak Disc for those who remember those...) as the individual particles are smaller COMPARED TO THE OVERALL FRAME SIZE.

The interesting thing is just how well some dSLRs with video capability handle increased sensitivity. I hear of Canon 5D and 7D cameras being exposed at ISO's that stagger me, with little discernible noise. Even on video cameras, gain has changed dramatically (but not AS much...) - I remember when choosing to add gain while shooting really was a risky move in production (not so much in news...). Now 6 - 12dB of gain is negligible in all but the highest of standards environments (I'm think National Geographic and the like).

Someone want to help me down off this soapbox?

I'm really thinking, from the bits I have read, that the camera is recording progressive frames (30p) and dividing each frame into 2 fields for 60i output.
One clue I noticed was in some of the sample footage where a bird was flying across the frame very quickly. It had the distinct juddering motion that I associate with 30p. It definitely did not look like the motion rendering you see with 60i. This was Flash for web, so it may have been some sort of encoding artifact, but it looked exactly like 30p motion to me.
If this is true, you could do a simple deinterlace in post and end up with a pure 30p file.

So in response to all this news about the camera. Looking at the features, I am ready to buy another camera, and was wondering what you guys thought between the Sony FX1000 and the new Sony VG10. I know of shooting capabilities and love that the FX1000 shoots at 30p and 24p. Your thoughts?

Yes - this is what is properly called psf - "progressive, segmented frame". Exactly how films have always been shown on TV.
"De-interlace" is a specific term and it's exactly what you'd NOT do on 1080psf. To go between psf and p is a straightforward matter of reordering lines (shuffling 1,3,5,7 etc and 2,4,6,8 etc to become 1,2,3,4,5,etc) - the actual data doesn't get altered at all.

De-interlacing involves forming frames from fields, and involves such things as interpolation. Key difference is the data DOES get altered.

Kristian
That's a tough question.
My first thought is that you are comparing a real camera (FX 1000) about which everything is known, to a somewhat theoretical camera (NEX VG)- although we do have the Sony supplied specs, and some sample footage.

FX 1000- if you love the camera, have the post production workflow for it, and it does what you need, how can you go wrong. On the other hand, HDV is kind of yesterday's format, and 1/3" chips are looking pretty tiny these days.

NEX VG- Full raster 1920x1080 24 mbs AVCHD with a 1" chip (10X the surface area of a 1/3" chip), probably a good lens, smaller & lighter (2.5lb with lens vs 5lb), no servo zoom, but ability to change lenses and will possibly at some point be adaptable to existing 35mm Canon, Nikon, etc. lenses. Looks like it has a fair amount of manual control. Probably an excellent still camera as well. Could be the real game changer in small HD videocameras- the new paradigm.

Myself... I preordered one yesterday :-)

I appreciate the detailed reply.
I had assumed, inutitively, that if you did a simple (non interpolated) deinterlace, the two artificially seperated fields would be put back together into the original frame.
Like many things, it's apparently more complicated than it would appear at first glance :(

That's all correct, but I think you're missing the point of what Daniel and I are implying. The example you give is correct in that FOR A GIVEN CHIP SIZE dof will change with aperture, no question about it.

But what Daniel and I are saying is that for the same angle of view, the same dof can be achieved with a variety of chip/aperture combinations. So if a particular dof look is achieved at (say) f2 with a 1/3" chip, the exact same dof can also be got at f4 with a 2/3" lens, and also at f 8 with a chip size of 4/3"!
Yes again, and that's the other part of what we're saying. Taking the example above, a 2/3" chip should be two stops more sensitive than a 1/3" chip, so f4 with a 2/3" chip will give the same results exposure wise as f2 and the 1/3" chip. Convienient, eh?

Optically the focal length for the 2/3" case will twice that for the 1/3" chip to give the same angle of view. If we assume simple lenses, and (say) 10mm for the 1/3" case, 20mm for the 2/3" it works out that the lens diameter will be the same in each case, by definition. Practically, for a given chip technology, the ONLY way to improve the sensitivity is to increase the lens diameter - the chip size is irrelevant.

Of course, in practice it's impossible to get much better than about f1.4 (approx), even in a prime lens, and regardless of chip size. If we were to compare f1.4 lenses on both 1/3" and 2/3" chips, the latter would be more sensitive - but it also follows that for the 2/3" case the lens would have twice the focal length, and hence twice the diameter to maintain the f stop.

I think you've got it right in your head, it's just the use of the word "de-interlace" to describe reconstructing p from psf that I disagree with. It may sound pedantic, but "de-interlace" means something quite specific and not at all what's involved here. Start referring to de-interlacing, and that's exactly what some people will start doing, and not like the results......!

Thanks Robert. You are totally correct, we really don't know much about this camera other than the specs Sony has posted on their site. But like you said HDV is a thing of yesterday now. And why spend $3199 on a camera when $2000 seems more attractive. Knowing that there WILL be a big brother to this model (hoping for progressive) just makes me more excited. Also a simple Beechtek always handles the situation with XLR inputs. Maybe I will join you in placing a preorder for this model :-)

Kristian
All is not lost re 30p. Apparently the NEX VG actually records progressive frames and then divides them into interlaced fields. So, even in the interlaced wrapper it should look like 30p and be free of interlace artifacts.
There is discussion as to how you could reassemble the fields into true 30p in post if needed.
It's kind of ironic that in the early days we had pseudo 30p/24p, this time around we have pseudo 60i.

Hmmm... not so sure about this one. I'm not impressed with NEX-5 video, and this has the same sensor and image processor... at $2k? Really?? For what, a headphone jack and horizontal grip? oh, Sony... *sigh*

I haven't seen anything in the demo footage that I can't get at least as good, if not better, with a hacked GH1 for half the price. And with the GH1, I'd get 60p & 24p & raw stills.

>> If it's actually PsFs in either 60i or 50i wrap

Y'know, maybe it is - I may have to retract my earlier posts. It would be a first for a sub $2000 Sony vidocam to be "pseudo 60i", but this sensor is a new ballgame and having a slower readout for it does make some sense.

If so, yes, it will be trivial to extract 25P or 30P from the wrapper.

Also, if it's true, the shoe is finally on the other foot- us guys who like the motion rendering of 60i will be whining about being stuck with 30p motion- hands wringing..."why, oh why couldn't they give us TRUE 60i".
I can hear it already :)
Getting back to the "deinterlacing" issue. Among all the algorithms for deinterlacing we have on board, isn't there the facility to do simple, non interpretetive deinterlace- where it just puts the two fields together in a frame without altering the data? Seems like that would do the trick to reconstitute the original 30p as it was shot, if in fact it actually was shot that way.

Thanks again Robert. Quick question how much recording time do you think a 32 GB Memory Stick Pro-HG will handle on this camera?

Yes I agree Robert. Of no interest to me almost the exact opposite of what I want for stage stuff. I want large depth of field, smooth motion and low light performance. It appears to have none of these features!!!

Ron Evans

While so many are looking at this camera for what it isn't, I am impressed for what it is. Like all of you, I would not throw away my pro cam and replace it with this little guy. But I see this camera as a way to get certain shots that my 1/3" sensor pro cam can't. I see the new Sony as a way to capture b-roll quickly, even on the run, in a small, highly capable and relatively affordable price.

My business and workflow demand a fast pace with short dwell time at locations. Businesses want video but they don't want video to be an all-day or even hours long production. With a crew of as few as two, One can be shooting the main video while a camera operator / PA / grip / whatever is out shooting quick snips with a small camera. Or my PA can be unpacking or packing gear while I'm grabbing shots in the lobby, outside, the office space, etc. At most, I'm using a light and small tripod. And a small camera that has some creative abilities of an APS-C sized sensor and relatively long lens. (Indeed, the combo exactly matches that of my Nikon SLR and zoom lens. I already "see" in that focal length range.) Also, pros are already seeing that AVCHD is no longer a consumer file format. I'm comfortable with the limitations of AVCHD and those limitations are not in image quality but in processing requirements that push my computer to its limits. Finally, a b-roll camera will not be the one responsible for recording sound so one that can just record vocal notes, for me, is sufficient. However, I've also recorded sound with other AVCHD consumer cams with 1/4 inch TRS sockets using pro audio gear and I would challenge anyone to tell me that it didn't pass through an XLR socket on a camera.

While many are bemoaning the "shortcomings" of this neat little cam, I'm betting pros will see its virtues and, as important, buy and use it.

Dave

Ron wrote: "Yes I agree Robert. Of no interest to me almost the exact opposite of what I want for stage stuff. I want large depth of field, smooth motion and low light performance. It appears to have none of these features!!!"

Well, maybe, maybe not.

I say this as the one who started the questions about the low-light capabilities and asked if it was lens design or what? I think we just do not yet know enough about this product and its accessories.

The specs given us for the stock lens have all the downsides that Ron listed. But it seems that there are two other lenses made specifically for this unit. Would one of those lenses work better for multi-cam event and stage productions? How about the lenses you can use with adapters?

For example, a number of different lenses are listed at the end of credits at the end of that "Beautiful Bali" video. The shots of the dancer in the temple indicate considerable low light capability with whatever lens was used for that shot. However, it also seemed to me to have a shallow, "filmic" depth of field, too. The whole piece was done in that style.

Is that because the video makers chose that style or because that's how this camera works with everything? If the latter, then this camera is absolutely out of the question for me, too. Maybe Sony made this thing to be THE camera for the indie film makers and the other folks who really like the film look and film-type shooting styles?

Maybe. Maybe not.

I think Sony put out just enough info to get us talking. We certainly are doing that.

Same as other Sony AVCHD cams like the NX5/AX2000 and CX5xx which shoot 24Mbps AVCHD, about 2½ hours.

with a 32 GB card? wow, I was hoping at least 4 hours at the speed of 24Mbps.

As far as low light capabilities. I am hearing this camera does great in low light? Man, serious, I am stuck here. I really would like to wait for this and pre order it. But not having it in my hands and not being able to play with it is hard. I shoot social events (weddings, corporate etc) and low light is essential to my shooting at times. So between this and the Sony FX1000, I am hard in choosing.

Am I reading this right? The Sony VG10 shoots at a minimum of 11 lux? and FX1000 at 1.5 lux? What the?

Yeah, that is the specification we've been talking about. Note that it is the specification for a particular zoom lens and that particular lens apparently only goes to f/3.5.

Maybe there is or will be lens that will go down to f/1.6. But maybe it will have only shallow depth of field. Maybe it won't. It is still too early to tell.

As for recording times, you can get close to 4 hours with 17Mbps "FH" AVCHD. I just checked my NX5 manual. It says the FX 24 Mbps capacity on a 32 gig card will be 170 minutes (not quite 3 hours) while FH (17Mbps) capacity will be 235 minutes (so not quite 4 hours).

If you get an MRC unit with your FX1000, you'll get the 170 minute recording time for HDV.

I would be very cautious about drawing conclusions from the lux ratings of any of these cameras.
You need to see what the actual low light images look like.
Depending on the camera, the image can look a lot better, or worse than the rating implies.
For example: a low light shot that gives a "bright" but noisy image is useless, an image that is a little darker, but has no noise, silky blacks with detail in the shadows, is an acceptable image that can be worked with. The raw "lux" ratings do not address these qualitative issues.
The little Sony CX550 is rated @ 11lux and yet produces outstanding low light images. Here are some sample shots:
Sony 550 Night Shots
Keep in mind that these images are Flash for web- in the BR version on HDTV the image quality is quite stunning

You get about an hour on an 8G MS (56 minutes is coming to mind), if you're recording at 17mbps - that drops down to about 40 minutes at the higher bitrate, so multipy that by 4 for a 32G stick/card (remember Sony takes SDHC now!), and you come out just a bit over 2 1/2 hours...

In some ways this camera is a bit strange when you consider the CX550, with 64G built in memory AND the card slot, excellent low light, and pretty smooth motion with 60i... I definitely share Ron's take for events, and wonder about it for wedding use. I do think the "lux ratings" are likely about useless because of the interchangeable lens - what we really need to find out is how the sensor performs and if it's clean and handles gain well, only hands on will tell that story.

OTOH, I'm looking at this more as though it is a DLSR that is optimized for video - got to go search for NEX5 footage and stills and see if it's passing muster (since the lens, sensor and basic menu structure are supposedly "borrowed"). The shallow DoF and the ability to use Alpha lenses (manually focused) still opens some interesting possibilities as a "dual use" camera - my primary concern is where the compromises are if any (already noticed the still side lost RAW... jpeg only).

This definitely isn't your run of the mill "handycam", seems more like the inverse of the 5D2 - instead of a still cam that does video, it's a video cam that does stills...

Looking closly at the VG 10 shot "Bali" short that is posted earlier in this thread, it has some very good low light footage. Some of it was shot with faster lenses (f 1.8), but still, what I see certainly implies that the camera is probably going to be up to the job. It's hard to imagine that Sony wouldn't use the same technology for low light that has been such a winner with the 520/550 series.
We'll see...

No, not really. It will not have smooth motion, but it will have EITHER good low light performance OR large depth of field - depending on the lens chosen.

The stock lens will give dof comparable to a 1/3" camera wide open, and similar low light performance as well. Put a fast lens on and you'll get shallow depth of field and much better low-light performance. (But don't expect to get such a lens with a large zoom ratio.)

This is in resonse to Robert's post about the lux ratings and there have been a couple of intervening posts by Robert and David. This doesn't go to their latest comments.

What I've found over the years is that Sony's lux ratings are useful for comparing Sony cameras, For example, my HDR-HC1 was rated down to 7 lux while my VX2000 went down to 2 lux, and knowing those things, I had a pretty good idea of how well an NX5 or an FX1000 would work for me. So, when I see the VG10 with an 11 lux rating from Sony, it raises big questions in my mind.

But it does not answer any of them, which I think is the point that Robert was making.

Re the CX550 -- the manual's specs give a base rating of 11 lux but then there is another spec for the camera's "low light" mode (activated with a button on the side) and that mode has a 3 lux rating. Many of the low light pictures I've seen from the CX550, as well as what I myself have shot with it are made using that low light mode and, to my eye, it yields very good results.

For Kristian: It is really hard trying to decide between a camera you think is suitable and one a few months down the road that might (or might not) be be suitable for much less money. This camera won't even be shipping for at least a month and a half, and we do not know anything about lens kits at this point.

But, if you can wait two or three weeks, we'll probably be getting more details about what the other lenses do and what comes stock and what does not. We'll have a much better idea of how things actually work. Somebody will get hands on with this camera. You will get a better idea whether the less-expensive VG10 will be as suitable for the kinds of things you do as the FX1000 you are looking at.

If you need to get a new camera right away, your questions about recording times make me wonder if you might not be better off looking at the AX2000 rather than the FX1000. The AX is only about $300 more than the FX. If you want long recording times with an FX, you would need an MRC unit which is more than double the price difference between the FX and AX. If you are not getting an MRC for the FX1000, you would be limited to the 1 hour time of HDV tapes. The AX2000 runs two 32 gb cards in tandem/relay which would give you almost 6 hours of recording time if long recording times are important to you. (You can use the less expensive 16 gb cards, swapping out a full card while the camera continues to record to the other one.) On the other hand, by the time the VG10 starts shipping (assuming it will have a lens kit suitable for what you do), the 64 gb cards may be down to a more affordable price, and that would give you nearly 6 hours of 24Mbps recording time,

I do get that the attraction of the VG10 is that it may be $1500 less than the AX/FX cams that seem to have the features you want. SO, the question is whether you need a new cam right now or can wait a few weeks to feel more comfortable with a decision.

The shallow depth of field is due to a combination of f-stop and chip size.
Works exactly the same as a 35mm still camera- an f-1.4 plus a 35mm frame is going to give a very shallow DOF. f-8 plus 35mm frame will give an extended DOF. These characteristics are enhanced by the focal length of the lens as well- extreme Tele= shallow DOF, Wide Angle=greater DOF.
So, with the APS chip, shooting f-1.9, moderate focal length lens= shallow DOF
APS chip + high f-stop= extended DOF.
There is no question that the Bali movie was illustrating the shallow DOF capabilities of the cam, (because that's usually not possible with small handicams- it's unique to the VG )but certainly you can shoot with greater DOF as well, and quite easily so.

I don't disagree about the foregoing, I just think it is too early to tell if this is a camera can easily work well for everybody. Clearly, it seems likely to be aimed at the folks who happily use DSLRs and film-movie techniques. But, how well will it work for event shooters like Ron, Kristian and me?

I like the way Dave put it: is this a video camera optimized for DSLR still shooting?

Will it record at anything other than 30p which might not work so well for shooting dancers in performance? (That's the "smooth motion" Ron was talking about a few posts back.) So, how well does it's 60i conversion work? It might be splendid, it might be middling acceptable to some and not others. At this point, we all have concerns and opinions (and suspicions) but none of us have gotten our hands on one to see what comes out.

And just so nobody mistakes my points for dogmatism, my point about the specifications is that the early ones raise questions and concerns for event shooters but don't provide answers. What we need is somebody to get hold of one for review as Adam Wilk did with the NX5. Until that happens, there isn't enough info for anybody like Kristian to make a purchase decision.

Jay, it's misleading to think of it as a "conversion" to 60i (which is more properly now referred to as i30 - the convention was changed to always refer to frame rates) and I think you are assuming that will give a motion look equivalent to 1080i/30 - it won't. What we are talking about is psf - "progressive, segmented frames" - which is a way of carrying a true 30p signal over an i30 system. But the motion rendition will still be exactly the same as 30p.

Psf is exactly the same as how films have been shown on TV ever since TV first started. Hold the frame in a gate, scan the odd lines, scan the even lines (without moving the film!) then onto the next frame. (OK, it's more difficult with 60Hz in the US, I know...) And the televised film still had the movement of film, even though it was a standard NTSC or PAL signal.

Obviously, its time for me to learn the new vocabulary. But I'm a little confused by it.

My HDV cams shoot what used to be called 1080i/60 but that is what we now call 1080i/30, right? So, what is the proper term for what used to be called 1080p/30? Is that still "30p"? I get that psf is different, but does that really make a difference in how smoothly rapid motion is reproduced? Or, like so many other things, does it depend on each manufacturer's implementation? Or is what psf does just like movie projectors which hold a frame and use shutters to flash the light through twice?

Your HDV cam shoots true 60i- it records the odd lines first, then (it's now a fraction of a second later in time) the even lines. If you put these two fields together, they do not make a progressive frame- they are offset by time. This is the origin of "interlace artifacts" and why it requires sophisticated software to satisfactorily "deinterlace" the fields into acceptable looking pseudo progressive frames.
As near as I can tell, the VG10 actually records a progressive frame and then, after the fact as it were, splits that frame into 2 fields- just as in the example of prepairing a movie for broadcast TV- called psf.
When you view true 60i, the motion is very smooth because you are playing back 60 different moments in time (fields) per second. The psf "60i" is playing back only 30 moments in time per second- it looks exactly like 30p. The fact that it is divided into 60 fields is irrelevant, and with fast motion, fast panning, etc. can have a bit of a "juddery" rendering of motion.
Those of us who love the motion of 60i tend to notice and object to this appearance. Those who love 30p/24p work around it and aren't bothered by it.
Most ordinary viewers don't notice any of this- in that regard the entire topic is a little esoteric.
Without question, if you are shooting a basketball game, 60i or 60p looks better, but for most stuff, IMO, it verges on the academic from the viewer's point of view.
As was just mentioned, the Sony CX 550 does have a 3 lux "low lux" setting. I don't use that setting and just FYI the CX 550 low light samples posted earlier were all shot with the "standard" settings, rated at 11 lux.

Even without the Low lux setting the CX550 wide open does pretty well in bad light, but if you want to see how the f stop affects things, turn on the iris control, and zoom in... you can see both the iris closing down, and the light sensitivity dropping, rather significantly IMO. This is where clean gain (and that is something the R CMOS seems to handle very well in the XR and CX cameras) could come into play, and until we see some real world tests, we won't know what this camera is capable of...

I did see some footage shot by engadget (IIRC) at a Sony show that looked promising - their mini review was interesting, as they at least got hands on a working camera.

Honestly I'm a little nervous about the 30FPS or whatever, I've got a couple Sony P&S that used 30p and I didn't like the way they handled motion all that well, although I'd venture 99.8% of people would have found the footage acceptable, and more likely "excellent". This goes back to the challenge of creating a camera that is both an excellent still and an excellent video camera... there's always some compromises from my experience, although the performance may well be more than "acceptable", as has been the case with Video DSLRs. As the first camera to "go the other way", but with a dedicated sensor apparently developed with BOTH in mind, this should be an interesting product even if it's a flop (which I doubt, I suspect they'll sell a gigantic boatload of these).

As a "closeup" and "glamour shot" camera with a CX550 or two for cutaway, I am already pretty sold on this camera, presuming Sony doesn't come up with something in an SLR format that fits the bill, the announcements on those new toys should be hitting shortly.

Maybe I need to relearn my vocab too - my understanding was that complaints about progressive "judder" were complaints about pulldown (i.e. repeating frames to deal with 24P on television and DVD). There is no pulldown with 30P and so I don't see why it would judder with an appropriate choice of shutter speed (although there will be greater motion blur and thus less perceived sharpness).

I agree that pulldown introduces even more problems, but, for example, with an EX1 set for 30p, and even more so if set for 24p, I can do a fast pan and see the jerky/juddery motion in the LCD monitor as I'm shooting, and also when I playback in the camera, and certainly with playback in the NLE. I think it is purely a function of the slower frame rate. It was seen even more dramatically back when a lot of web video was 15 fps- any movement looked "jerky" or discontinous.
Proper shutter speed, slower panning, & other cinema tricks of the trade help a lot, but it is probably consensus that 60i or 60p renders fast motion more smoothly than the slower frame rates.

You're not the only one. The approved format used to be

{no of lines}/{frame or field rate}{interlaced or progressive}

- so the second number would be frame rate if progressive, field rate if interlaced. So 1080/30p and 1080/60i would both have 30 frames per second.

A few years ago, the bodies reponsible for setting standards agreed to change nomenclature so that the second number always referred to frames, never fields. To show the new nomenclature was in use, the format was altered to become:

{no of lines}{interlaced or progressive}/{frame rate}

so the above examples become 1080i/30 and 1080p/30. Unfortunately, the change seems to be taking a long time to happen, and the old style is still in wide (if decreasing) use.

Does that help?
Yes.
Yes.
In terms of motion rendition, psf and p give exactly the same effect. Try looking at Progressive segmented frame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Progressive and Interlace
 

Hi Professors,

Sony has issued a good PDF to explain Progressive.

http://www.sony.ca/hdv/files/white/H...ive_Primer.pdf

The problem with the approach is that it gives no indication of temporal motion. 30P, 60i, or 30P in 60i are all 30 frames a second. 30P and 30P in 60i will look much the same but 60i will be a lot smoother since it has twice the effective frame rate. Camera for 60i is actually exposing at 60 frames a second but only recording fields. Sony put the 30P in 60i since for playback on a TV it cannot be 30P. Choices come down to1920x1080P24, 1920x1080 60i, 1440x1080 60I or 1280x720P60 for Bluray.

I have several Bluray discs of concerts that I am sure were shot with a combination of 30P and 60i cameras. Very annoying to me since I hate the motion artifacts of slow frame rates.

Ron Evans

So what's the "proper" usage of Psf? 1080psf/30?