If they are not using a Fovean, it may be that JVC may not support be able to support the data rate that a 3-CCD system would require.

Dan,
I think that light sensitivity differnce is more because in 3CCD cameras all incoming light is divided into three rays by some kind of filtering mirrors (not sure what they use for that). So every CCD receives only 1/3 or less of light coming through optics. 1CCD cameras have usually only IR filter, if any.

regards, Margus

Margus,

I believe they use a prism. You're probably right though, it would seem to make sense.

-Dan

The Foveon has it's own set of problems. It is not necessarily of any higher resolution than a CCD sensor.

The optical block in a 3CCD camera uses a beamsplitter that is usually some variation of a prism. The prism directs the R, G, & B light to individual CCDs. So a white pixel has had the relevant pixels on the R, G, & B CCDs illuminated with the same level of light. The light loss is in the beam splitter.

In a single chip camera, the R, G, & B elements that form one pixel are physically adjacent to each other. They are made sensitive to one color of light with a filter that is placed over them.

I don't think there are any single chip cameras now available that are more sensitive than the 2000/150

Greater colour depth
 

You can have HD frame sizes, and uncompressed (or low compression) data, but so long as the video is 8 bit you will always get colour banding in areas that should show smooth gradation.

What I look forward to is a 10 or 12 bit format first. Give me that and I could tolerate SD and 5:1 compression for a bit longer.

Just my 2p worth,

Regards,

Julian

the only format which for sure writes 10bit is Digital Betacam. not sure how D1 handles signals. About HDCAM Sony says '10bit/sample of input/output signals (8bit sample for internal compression process)'.
But these all are quite expensive formats.

regards, Margus

D-1 conforms to CCIR 601 and uses 8-bit digitizing of each channel.

Jeff

New 1/3" CCD please - 16:9 aint happening...
 

I (stupidly) sold my XL1s in a wave of excitement for the new Sony PDX10.

Having seen the PDX10 in the showroom i was really impressed with the 16:9 image i was shown on a 16:9 monitor.

It seemed perfect with the exception of having no zoom ring or gain or iris control. Then I got worried about the slight noise apparant in dark areas and thought to myself the PD150 has everything this does not and is just a little larger-- okay I'll slog it around the place, and it is more compact and robust compared to the XL1s. The picture is better, ie. sharper (I know it is not to everyone's taste)

Basically I am now stuck. I really wanted to future proof my investment by at least getting an (almost true) 16:9 image from the CCD (electronic 'in-camera 16:9' is really bad) I would like a 1/3" ccd for light issues as well. The pdx10 is noticably worse at handling darker scenes than the pdx10.

The pdx10, in my eyes, is not an option due to the abormally large amount of vertical smearing. Sony are aware of this and it is the same in the consumer 950 model. I think this has a lot to do with the small ccds used.

Anamorphic adapters do NOT rock my boat. I went to OPTEX today for a demo with one on a pd150. Lets just say it does not work well with just about anything ie. anything zoomed more than half way through the lens can barely be focussed. The whole image is one of a slight wide angle, with obvious distortions on straight verticals like door frames.

Is anyone going to make a 1/3" megapixel CCD so a new pd150 can be released!?

The pd150 is 'old' now and shouild be brought in line? When do you guys think this will happen?

What does everyone think...?

I certainly don't want the same level of improvement Sony brought to the 900 when they brought out the 950!

A megapixel 1/3" CCD would kill the 2000/150 product line. The individual pixel areas would get so small that the low-light sensitivity would go way down.

My personal opinion is that it will take a near-1/2" CCD to get good low-light performance and good 16:9 aspect ratio while also not screwing up the 4:3 aspect ratio performance at the same time.

Sony reps have told me that Sony will 'never make a 16:9 CCD' because of the low volume market. I personally think they are wrong but, importantly, the DSR-370 came out with 4:3 CCDs.

My guess is that we may see 16:9 at the same time we see HD. And the chips will have to be 1/2" if we want decent low-light and 4:3 performance. That means they will cost a bit more as will the optical block and the lens.

I could see that as a differentiator between the 2000/150 and the DSR-250 where Sony must really be getting whacked from the 1/2" JVC and Panasonic products. But if they did so, the cost will still be over $5,000 I think. The lens alone, for HD, has to be so much better corner-to-corner.

Thanks...
 

Thankyou for your opinion.

I hadn't thought that Sony could not do it -- just thought they would soon, and typically the week after i bought my pd150!

Surely products have a life cycle and the pd150 must be getting near the end of its time... I would have thought Sony would have to offer some improvement after releasing the 'widescreen' capable little brother (PDX10) of the PD150.

Surely people need to broadcast 16:9 at a budget now -- owing to its pretty wide acceptance for the standard of new stuff made for television.

I wonder how long Sony can hold off and still remain profitable?

HD means a new computer, a new gigawire connection for devices, faster hard drives with more space etc. etc.

This will be the end for my G4 Powerbook -- or am i being over dramatic?

Does a HD picture look any better than a SD picture on a normal PAL tv?

Anyone know?

Much appreciated.

long live the 150/2000 please!
 

i think even if sony replaces the 150 soon that it will still remain in use for years to come . the majority of pro skateboarding videos are still shot on the ol' VX1000 and they look awesome. in my opinion no matter what new technology brings to the table- years down the road from now its gonna be like how did you get that look to your film -well i shot it on one of those old sony pd150s then everyone will want to go out and buy used ones etc. but then again this is only my opinion and who knows what the future will bring.

I asked Sony about a VX-2000/PD-150 replacement at NAB earlier this year. They pointed to the lifespan of the VX-1000 and said not very soon. I'd guess next year, maybe NAB.

Frankly, I get no requests for 16:9 since I don't do Indie films. My customers have 4:3 displays and many, like my wife, hate the black bars because it means the picture is smaller.

As I point out, I don't want the same 'improvment' Sony brought to the 950!.

Broadcast requirements are probably better met by a rented DSR-570WS if one is doing a resonably budgeted production. Better optics, better image processing, better sound, easier to manipulate, harder to carry and support.

I'll post here because you mentioned your G4. If your using FCP then your G4 has an almost infinite life span (at least as far as computers go . . . . what maybe 30 secsonds). If you have an older G4, you may lose Real Time effects, but not much else. Post details on your G4 and what you hope to do and I'll let you know aboout your laptop.

Jeff

Re: Thanks...
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Elephant : Thankyou for your opinion.


Does a HD picture look any better than a SD picture on a normal PAL tv?

I have not seen PAL and HD side-by-side but the HD I've seen is incredible. I don't believe PAL or SECAM or NTSC can get even close.

Understand that the HD we see today is shot with a minimum of $100,000 cameras and $100,000 lens systems.

My first look at a HD television was from the entrance of a store looking at the television at the rear of the store. The shot was of a motorcycle turning from left to right on the screen. The light from the headlight seemed almost blinding. The detail was as good as any film I've seen.

I am already losing real time effects on my 667 (non DVI output) 1 gb RAM Pbook. I suppose it is holding quite well after a year. I can edit fine, and that is what is important. We'll see what Apple release on the 5th -- do people expect a widespread adoption of Gigawire in new computers/cams? If so would you expect a PCMCIA device to add compatability for people with laptops?

You guys have been really helpful, I just find it hard to think about dumping all my savings into a two year old camera... When are the main 'shows' where Sony could intro a new pd150? Am I right in thinking there is one as soon as december?

All my stuff goes to DVD via Studio Pro -- does this render much of any cam's picture quality redundant?

(If I have given the impression I am otherwise then sorry, I am an artist who works accross many disciplines who simply wants the most longivity and quality out of everything he spends money on. It is a problem I have I geuss)

Thanks again for all your posts.

I wonder when 16:9 and HD are going to become the norm...? Years?

-- I am future phobic!

One more thing --- is there any way to get any info out of Sony? Does anyone have any contacts or tricks or tactics?

How long did the VX1000 take to be revised? I geuss I am used to Apple's almost clockwork 6 or so month revision cycle on its products...

I don't expect Apple to go to the next generation of FireWire until next year. Many seem to think it will be announced at MacWorld in January. I doubt it. I expect to see it next summer. I don't think Sony will have a new camera until Spring, at NAB. Sony sometimes releases rumors about cameras, but nothing so far on a replacement. I think 16:9 and HD are years away from a prosumer price point ($3000 to $4000). DV and it's variants will be here for a few more years.

Jeff

Here in the UK -- ALL new Broadcast TV and adverts are shot on widescreen, normal analogue TVs always have little balck bars on the top and bottom. While digital broadcasts are in 16:9 - analogue transmission uses a 14:9 format to remind everyone that they should be thinking about buying a widescreen tv soon and that WIDE is definaletly the way things have ALREADY gone. Obviously those with digital sat/cable/set top box capable TVs get 16:9 ALL the time.

Now you can see why I am so (over) concerned with being able too shoot true 16:9.

True, I am not 'intending' for TV broadcast now but I use it as a guide to how things are going...

Sorry if I seem to be going on too much about this issue but I just can't stand buying soon to be replaced equipment.

Does anyone know if the century optics 16:9 adapter gives such a 'wide' angle distortion as the Optex one? I thought the optex adapter was bad.

Maybe the pressure isn't on in the states quite yet - but it won't be long...

I think it is further off than Real Soon Now. Why? Because the widescreen TV offerings are really confusing and quite incomplete. If you look around the hype and smoke, the real solutions are not yet in place and what we are hearing is a bunch of marketing guys trying to drive the market using bandwagon techniques. Well, it didn't work for TIVO over here.

As an aside. The average consumer (I'm talking the majority, not the upper middle-class and above) budget for entertainment isn't great enough to run out and buy $2,000 WS/HD televisions.

1. WS display devices are almost always a Monitor, not a TV so they need a AV Receiver or some outboard tuner to function at all. Most consumers don't have one of those installed so that is another chunk of money and technology. They don't have the money and they don't understand the technology.


2. WS displays are normally 'HD-Ready' but need the tuner to operate. Another expensive technology box.

3. They are very expensive. Way over the normal TV budget. Especially when one can now get a 36" TV over here for under $400 that is really quite good enough for most people.

4. HD and true widescreen broadcasts are few and far between. Want HD? You have to subscribe to a special cable or satellite channel or have an off-the-air HD tuner to pick up the broadcasts.

5. The US television stations have not yet gone digital and that is a Federal mandate. Yet another layer to the puzzle. Current tuners are not yet digital I think. But I'm not certain about that. And although the EU has it's homework done on the technology, the US selection is bad and doesn't even work correctly all the time.

6. There are no consumer recording devices, tape or disk, that will record and playback HD right now.

I think any savy consumer over here is going to wait and see for quite a while. Just way too much infrastructure missing at this point in time.

Besides, consumers are still all agog over their shiny new DVD's.

BTW, one of the most potent bellweather's remains unconvinced. My wife. She does not like letterbox because text is hard to read. Many of the WS displays aren't much better because they are short and wide. Not tall and wider (at least those I can afford to have hanging in my living room).

Oh, and did I mention that a WS TV will not fit in the entertainment cabinet she spent a fortune on? That is a big factor. Chuck a $5000 (today's money, I bought it 20 years ago) cabinet and buy another so the living room is all in synch? Nope.

So I think we in the US are not in such a hurry. My wife especially.

Your market and government may disagree.

In the US, I think a 4:3 camcorder is still a safe investment. But would not purchase an expensive on-the-shoulder camera that did not have 16:9 native capabilty (Sony DSR-570) unless I had a really quick payback situation. So when I found a need for a big camera, I bought used.

Mike, your comments regarding W/S and HD in the US are interesting. It seems that the rest of the world is well ahead of the US in this area.
Australia, like Brittain, broadcast predominantly in W/S SD digital and certainly most broadcasters insist on this format for programs and commercials.
In regard to W/S, analog W/S sets are available in Australia for around $US450. plus $US300 for a digital conversion box. Still a bit dear in our terms but getting closer.
Australia has chosen dual format broadcasts (Standard Digital and HD Digital) and regulated to abolish Analog in the year 2010. Less than 8 years to go. Analog sets will not receive broadcast signals after that date.
Any filmaker (that's me) that doesn't consider 16:9 as an upgrade in the immediate future may be out of business.

At last!
 

Someone who agrees with me!

I was beginning to think I was the only one taking 16:9 seriously.

I'm sure many with $5000 kits are not sure ready to embrace this impednding format switch.

I, for one, cannot pay for a 'good' setup now when there is no <$5000 option for reasonable quality 16:9. This surely is going to happen soon...

I am considering buying the Pana MX350 to bide some time, or maybe, gulp, re-buy a XL1s.

I know that the xl1s' 16x9 mode is not the best way to do it, but dosn't it allow the footage to be record in 16x9 anamorphic, whether it be digital or optical or not, it does allow it to be use on a 16x9 tv correctly?

kermie

Kermie,

I've just posted a question asking people's general opinions of whether 16:9 should be used. I'd like to get a consensus from people who've seen how it looks ( I haven't yet). So, keep an eye out for responses to that thread, too...might help. The title is "16:9 vs. 4:3".

The whole 16:9 issue boils down to one of acceptability. The XL1, PD150 and the whole prosumer/professional range can mostly produce 16:9 of sorts. None suitable for broadcast.

From a filmmakers point of view the 16:9 format is ideal and very well suited to framing and composition, tracking and action sequences etc.

To achieve quality 16:9 on video you need a good lense and CCD's specifically designed for the purpose, 16 parts long by 9 parts high. To cram enough pixels on each CCD you really need 2/3 inch CCD's and this equates to the Sony 570 WS series or equivelant at the moment. Technology will change that in time.

Broadcasters in Europe, Asia and the Pacific appear to be a little ahead of the technology but my gut feeling is that will change very quickly, perhaps a year or two at the most.

If I was to make any recommendation on upgrading it would be to watch carefully and wait until the technology/price ratio is favourable then move quickly. If you don't wish to broadcast your production, then 16:9 is of no real consequence yet.

Redgumtv,

You are in australia like me, and anything on the recording side of 16x9 is far to expensive, i would love a 16x9 native dvcamera but i knew it would have broken my 10k budget by a long shot.

Btw do you know how much those sony 570's are down here?


This entire 16x9, 4x3 issue always boils down to your final product needs anyways. If you send to festivals, or internet, even certain types of broadcasts, it dosn't really matter.

Only if you have really specified needs does it matter atm.

kermie

ps. on a weirder note, sony has removed the vx2000 from the australian sony style wesbite, i wonder what that means? maybe a replacement is comming here.

elephant,

I've used a Century 16:9 adaptor and it sounds similar to the optrex unit you were talking about. You can't zoom through the range and it has distortion and worst of all, slight fall off at the corners if it hasn't been adjusted properly. This all translates into RISK of poor shots while shooting. Something I try and minimise. Like you I'm now waiting, waiting, waiting for something new in the prosumer range.


Jim

cinema (letterbox) mode
 

I was disappointed that my pd150 had so few features as compared to my Sony Hi-8 handcam; such as option of shooting in monotone and 16:9 letterbox mode.

1. Why were these effects not included on this camera?
2. Does the Canon xl1s have these funtions?

Re: cinema (letterbox) mode
 

<<<-- Originally posted by walesfilmclub : I was disappointed that my pd150 had so few features as compared to my Sony Hi-8 handcam; such as option of shooting in monotone and 16:9 letterbox mode.

The VX-2000 has these things.... doesn't the PD-150? Even so, they shouldn't be much of a factor as they're easy enough to do in post. Also, take a look at the "memory stick gallery" http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm There you will find images that allow you to letterbox your footage in any desired format using the "memory mix" function.

Mark, I believe you are the first person I have ever heard complain about these "missing" items. What you are asking about are options that are available on many consumer camcorders, but you certainly won't find them on professional cameras, and as Boyd pointed out, they are easily accomplished in post.

Instead of "monochrome" shooting, what you get with the PD150 are, settable timecode, userbits, separate channel audio control, audio Noise Reduction, logo insertion, no 5min shutdown, separate gain control, DVCAM recording, and the hi-res black and white viewfinder.

These are options that are more "professional" in keeping with the PD150's intent, rather than the "nice to have" options found in the VX2K.

Doing B&W in the camera is a mistake. Any modern editor will do this for you and you have the option to change your mind later.

As for 16:9, upload a 16:9 mask into the camera and you can overlay it on your picture if I read the manual correctly. Make the mask in photoshop. Personally, I'd rather mask the image later, in Post.

advice taken.

Is there any difference in using the memory stick matts for shooting in camera to fixing the movie later in post?

Whenever you don't record everything the camera can deliver or you modify the image in-camera with filters or special effects, you limit your future options to do something else with the shot.

I recommend you always add special effects in post.

With 16:9 that starts from 4:3, that means you can slide the mask up and down in the 4:3 frame to get just the exact framing you want.

I agree with Mike in doing your matte in post, however if you also have it on a memory stick you can use it in the field to check your composition, and then drop it just before you roll tape.

The primary advantage of the letterbox overlay via memory stick is speed. No post-processing or rendering required... it's on the tape in letterbox as you shoot. However, it can't be undone! So, take the advice these guys are giving you, and apply this effect in post production where you have some options. But if you need letterbox right away, the memory stick delivers instantly.

Making memory stick mattes
 

While we're on the subject... I downloaded some nice memory stick mattes from http://www.streamovie.com/vx2000.htm. I wanted to change the aspect ratio a bit in one of them, so I copied the file and expanded the blue area a bit in photoshop, then wrote it back out. When copied to the memory stick, it appears in the directory on the camera, however it turned into a solid black rectangle with no blue!

I tried several times, even keeping the same file and using "save" instead of "save as". The files are all .jpg's. This was all done on a Mac - maybe that has something to do with it? When I copy the original files from the website to the memory stick they work as expected, but the modified ones don't. Any thought about what might be happening here?

There are a number of ways this can go wrong, Boyd. First of all, the file must be 640x480. Then, you must use a naming convention similar to the DSC0000 in the original files. Finally, if you are using a Mac before OSX, you will need additional help. Let me know if this is the case.

16:9 memory stick option
 

Thanks, Boyd, for the URL to the 16:9 mattes. My own creation didn't work. I compared its properties to images Sony put on the stick and made them alike in all respects, but got only one large black rectangle, as you said, when trying to select it in the VX2000. I noticed that, unlike all the existing mattes on the stick, my creation, and the first image on the web page when I used it, display in the LCD as 100_xxx where the others are 100-xxx. The dash versus underscore has me beat as neither character appears in the file name and so can't be "fixed". While I take the advice about saving the games for post, I have a project I think this makes sense in and I'd love to test it. Can anyone suggest an approach to making this work? I have used RGB 0-3-254 which is what the Sony-supplied mattes read in Photo Shop, 640/480, 8 bit jpg, best quality. The advanced properties view of my file versus the others showed 192 horizontal and vertical resolution while the others were 300. I changed it to 300 without impact. The only difference I can find is in channels. The Sony files show content in all three RGB channels. My file shows nothing in R and G, but then the other files have colour spectrums where mine is black bars and blue chroma.

<<<-- Originally posted by Wayne Orr : There are a number of ways this can go wrong\\

Nope, I think I tried all that, just as David did. I just modified a file from the website then saved it with the same name. I needed to shoot some stuff in this format a couple days ago, and it had to match an existing sequence that was cropped a little tighter than the memory stick matte. So I just used the memory stick version, then using the motion tab in FCP cropped it further which was actually quite simple. But it would still be nice to know why the home-made mattes don't work. BTW, I am using MacOS 9.2.2.

This is for Boyd and David, and other Mac owners out there. I wrote this awhile ago but it is still up to valid:

Those of you who use a PC need read no farther. This brief lesson is regarding loading images to a memory stick for use in Sony cameras, such as the PD150 and the VX2000. This is a piece of cake for the PC folks who can use the software that comes with the Sony cameras, but unfortunately the software is not Mac compatible. When we try to upload images to the stick, they appear in the Mac, but will not load from within the camera. As many Mac users have discovered, the solution to this problem is not readily available on the Net.

I wanted to be able to place SMPTE color bars on the beginning of a tape, ala normal professional style shooting, and of course, the supplied camera bars are usable but do not contain some of the information that is useful for setting up a monitor in the field, or, in a post edit bay. Plus, there are times when it would be handy to be able to create a custom matte to be able to actually make the composite on the shoot, much like a matte painting. Anyway, I finally have the answer to the problem, thanks to a software called Graphic Converter from www.lemkesoft.com If you want to load accurate color bars to a memory stick, you should also download the free app, Test Pattern Maker from www.syntheticaperature.com. There are a lot of color bars floating around, and many of them are bogus. You can really make yourself crazy if you set up a monitor to incorrect color bars, and then wonder why your tapes all look weird. If you are curious about the bars you are using, import them to Photoshop and take a look at them, refering to the Info tab. You may find some strange levels. Anyway, once you have these two applications in your Mac, here is what you do:

With Test Pattern Maker, create the standard bars you wish to use, but be sure to make them 640X480 size, as those are the only dimensions you can import to the memory stick. You can make more than one set of bars, if you wish. One can be 0 setup and another 7.5. This opens up another discussion, and its your decision.

Next, open the newly created bars file in Graphic Converter. All you need to do is "save a copy" in the JPEG format pulldown. Be certain to give the copy a new name that is consistent with the files in the stick, such as, DSC00075. When asked, save at maximum quality. That's all there is to it. Unfortunately, you won't be able to get an icon with the file, even if you select that option. Maybe someone who is more computer savy than myself can figure that one out.

Now, to copy to the memory stick, simply drag and drop the new file to the memory stick in the folder which contains your still photos (that is, if you didn't save it directly from the Graphic Converter app). An important note; there must already be at least one saved photo in the file folder, otherwise there will be no folder. So if your memory stick is empty, take a still picture with your camera to create the folder, and you will be good to go.

Remember, you can create other graphics to import to the stick for compositing in the field, such as a "range finder." Sure, you could probably do it in post, but sometimes its just more fun to see the final composite when you shoot it. And often more helpful. You can also create a custom title which you can composite over the scene at the shoot. Since you can see the actual title at the shoot, you may think up ways to have your subjects interact with the title. Be sure to refer to the operating manual for tips on using chroma key or luma key stills for use with the memory stick.

I hope this brings back a smile to some Mac owners who have been cursing the Sony techs for their obvious snub.

(I have heard rumors that this problem no longer exists in OSX)