New Low Cost Sony HD Camera Shown at CeBIT Show

[Guest Ultra Definition]

http://www.sony-europe.com/PageView.do?sit...e=1079021485605

 

http://www.sony-europe.com/content/attachm...V_G1_hisres.JPG

 

It's 1080i, which converts nicely to 24p.

 

Material shot with this camera can also be shown in its native 1080/60i format at Landmark Theaters that already converted to digital projection; no optical transfer needed. Landmark theaters are in all major US markets. This type of projection is becoming available worldwide, from India to Europe, you name it.

 

Landmark, when finished, will have nearly 200 screens with digital projection, in the US.

[Tenolian Bell]

1080 after mpeg 2 compression ain't 1080 any more, especially at 19Mbps. Any aquisition device with an i after its resolution doesn't really inspire much excitment in me.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

1080i HDV is 25 Mbps; the pro version of that standard will be 50 Mbps.

 

Varicam with lens costs probably 15x as much; it does not record at higher resolution. It records 60p at 100 Mbps; after rate conversion the effecive rate is 40 Mbps at 24p; in addition to that the codec is more efficient on the Sony.

 

Varicam gives you slow motion; this camera does not; but you can do slow motion at somewhat lower resolution digitally in post.

[Tenolian Bell]

Well ok 1080 at 19, 25, or 50 Mbps ain't really 1080.

[Tenolian Bell]

You keep saying this about the Varicam, and I've never heard this from anyone else. When you go from 60fps to 24fps, why do you drop from 100Mbps to 40Mbps, when you've recorded more images than needed at 100Mbps to make the 24fps in the first place. That doesn't really make sense.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

bit rate and No. of scanning lines: It's apples and oranges.

 

This camera is not 1080p but it is 1080

 

Re: Varicam bit rate: Panasonic fooled a lot of people with this; talk to an engineer. It does record 60 fps at a bit rate of 100 Mbps. When you go through the rate converter, you discard 60% of the recorded information. If you'd ever bump that 40% info to 100 Mbps, it will still be quality-wise an equivalent of 40 Mbps.

 

Varicam is actually more compressed than DV.

[Tenolian Bell]

bit rate and No. of scanning lines: It's apples and oranges.

If a camera records 1080, it needs a high enough bit rate to process and move the information real time. Which is why they are really trying to increase the bit rate. The Viper is 1080, but to capture all of that 1080 and keep, doesn't go to tape.

[Tenolian Bell]

Re: Varicam bit rate: Panasonic fooled a lot of people with this; talk to an engineer. It does record 60 fps at a bit rate of 100 Mbps. When you go through the rate converter, you discard 60% of the recorded information. If you'd ever bump that 40% info to 100 Mbps, it will still be quality-wise an equivalent of 40 Mbps.

 

Varicam is actually more compressed than DV.

So what about when you do record at 60P?

 

Is this then processed at 100Mbps?

 

What about when you record slow motion?

 

What about fast motion? If you record at 4fps

then does the bit rate go down to 10 Mbps?

 

Is slow motion footage at a higher bit rate than

fast motion footage. Is the bit rate as

variable as the frame rate?

[Mitch Gross]

You need to talk to some knowledgeable people about how the Varicam works. You do not throw away 60% of the information the way you describe. It's more like 10%. The camera knows what speed it shoots at and subrates out the data to make best advantage of the 100 data stream. Talk to a Panasonic rep to learn more--they won't lie, they'll just explain it more clearly then whoever told you the other information.

 

And 1080i is a far cry from 1080p. The stantment that "it converts nicely to 24p" is not only misleading but also confusingly mixes terms. There's 24p at 1080 resolution and there's 60i at 1080 resolution. They look quite different. That and resolution isn't everything. Temporal motion artifacts can have a far greater impact depending on the content. 24p at 720 resolution can look far superior to 60i at 1080 resolution the moment something moves. We all need to look at the full concept before drawing conclusions.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

If you shoot with PD150 PAL and deinterlace it, creating 25p, it looks nearly as well as DVX shot at 25p. You need to talk to post houses about conversions to 24p and 25p. You'll learn that originating in 60i or 50i is fine. Digital conversion then creates excellent results. That's ability to shoot 1080i is therefore very significant. It converts to film nicely.

 

Panasonic's been running around claiming that their $60K Varicam is more filmic than $100K CineAlta. People think that it has less compressed than CineAlta, because it is 4:2:2 and CineAlta is 3:1:1. Unfortunately it is so compressed overall that it is even significantly more compressed than DV. Therefore the Varicam and the CineAlta chroma compressions are about equal. The luma on CineAlta is significantly less compressed than on Varicam. Add to it the fact that CineAlta has more than double the number of pixels, and there is no comparison between these cameras. Just think: Why no major motion picture was made with the Varicam but a number of them were made with CineAlta.

 

Varicam is the poor man's CineAlta. Panasonic will tell you a different story. So will the poor man who cannot afford CineAlta. There is a lot of disinformation around there that Varicam has less compressed color. I would suggest that you talk to Sony about the two cameras too and mention to them that someone claims that something like 10% bit stream is lost with Varicam at 24 fps compared to the acquired bit stream of 100 Mbps. Tell them who claims that fact. Talk to engineers too.

 

This is the reality: Varicam shoots at one speed. That speed is 60 fps. The recorded bit stream is 100 Mbps. You capture 60 frames in a bit stream of 100 Mbps. It means that for each frame you have 1.67 Mb. Once you want to to do slow motion of 6 fps, you need to go through Panasonic's rate converter and it basically throws out 90% of your footage and you're left with a bit stream of 10 Mbps that gets resampled back to the DVCPROHD format at a higher bit rate, which is meaningless for improving picture quality. It does not increase bit rate for each frame. All it does is records each frame several times.

 

So the truth is that you don't lose 10% information if you convert to 24p. You lose 60%.

 

I went through this on couple of productions. There is a lot of misinformation out there and people who own or have shot wiht Varicam will repeat some of the same propaganda.

 

The only significant advantage the Varicam has is that it shoots at 60 fps so you can throw away some of the frames and can slow down the speed to 24 fps, 4 fps, etc.

 

Now, what is significant about the Sony? It has the same resolution as Varicam. The lack of grain gives it excellent sharpness when projected to a theater screen. The resolution is obviously a lot less than 16 mm film, but due to lack of grain the sharpness looks good.

 

Since digital projection based on Windows Media 9 codec becomes available at the art houses like Landmark, you now have a low cost tool to create your movie digitally, with 16:9 aspect ratio, and you don't need optical prints. And if you like the 24 or 30 fps motion artifacts, you can deinterlace the image and convert to that speed first, although you will lose some quality.

 

The JVC HD10 camera is a piece of junk if anyone would want to shoot a film with it and it's 30p, which you can't really convert to 24p. There are ways to digitally slow it down to 24p, but it is slow and expensive. With interlaced image the conversion is quick and costs practically nothing.

 

The new Sony camera does resolve a lot more than Panasonic DVX100A so it is a viable low end independent filmmaker's tool.

 

If someone would like to debate this, I would suggest that he debates it on a technical level, not just make a blank statements.

 

What will make this camera a better filmmker's tool is availability of low cost Mini 35 or Pro 35 mm type adapter that P+S, Movie Tube and others are are either making or developing.

 

Right now to get any decent S 16 system, you'd have to spend $5 to $10K min., plus cost of stock, cost of making optical prints. Yes, you would get excellent images. If you could not afford to shoot film, there was the DVX that shoots 4:3 aspect ratio in standard definition.

 

Now there will be a revolutionary low cost HD camera and Landmark and others will allow you to show your film without optical prints. No, it isn't 16 mm and it isn't Varicam or CineAlta, but it is a viable tool for low end independent filmmakers. There is no reason to put it down.

[Mitch Gross]

I didn't put anything down, I simply tried to point out some isues I had with your statements about it. I thought we'd pledged to relax about these things and stop with the huge posts full of listed factoids which together give an impression of information that do not necessarily add up.

 

The fact is that 1080/60i is a very different animal than 1080/24p. It looks very different and certainly converts to film quite differently. I can ask engineers all I want about this but I don't need to--I've seen it for myself. So when you make a blanket statement that the 1080/60i "converts nicely to 24p" I feel I should say something because while you may feel the artifacts created ar enot too bad, others should know that they do exist. They may fully agree with you that it looks okay but there is a difference and people should know. It is why there is progressive technology available now--there is a difference to the look.

 

I have not seen the new Sony camera and neither have you. It may be an interesting and useful piece of technology and it may not. I will reserve my judgement until I see it for myself. I did the same with the little JVC HD camera until I saw and tested it myself. I will do the same for any new technology. I get excited by the possibilities of any new technology that I find may be useful to me as a filmmaker or even as a film viewer, but I've learned ot to bet the family farm on anything I have not vetted myself.

[Filip Plesha]

I would never trust an imaging system that can't give me great stills.

[Rachel Oliver]

Are the Sony Links supposed to go somewhere? I just get an apology page from Sony? Where did you get all this info? I'd love to read some more about this.....

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> 1080i HDV is 25 Mbps; the pro version of that standard will be 50 Mbps.

 

But that's less than Digibeta....

 

Soft, low moan.

 

Phil

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Sorry Mitch, you're right, we should wait to test the camera ourselves to see how good the image is. Of course progressive is better. Joe

 

 

http://www.sony-europe.com/PageView.do?sit...e=1079021485605

 

http://www.sony-europe.com/content/attachm...V_G1_hisres.JPG

 

SOORY, ONCE I TRANSFER THE LINKS HERE, THEY GET MESSED UP AND DON'T WORK. I'LL SEE WHAT I CAN DO.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

OK, the first link above now works. On the bottom of that web page is a link to a picture, I believe.

 

ADDED INFO:

 

It seems that the picture link does not work. Here's another link that has a picture, but only a low resolution one. Please relize that this particular site is very amateurish otherwise.

 

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony-...er-03_17_04.htm

[Mike Brennan]

"You need to talk to some knowledgeable people about how the Varicam works."

 

Steve Mahrer from Panasonic has accurate information. Many vendors and even owner operators do not.

 

" You do not throw away 60% of the information the way you describe. It's more like 10%."

 

At 24p each of the 24p frames are the same quality, as are the other 36 frames to pad out the recording.

 

"So each frame of DVCPROHD at 720p is 1.65Mb per frame. Multiply by 24 to get 39.60Mb/s at 24p" (source BBC)

 

"The camera knows what speed it shoots at and subrates out the data to make best advantage of the 100 data stream."

 

The new decks can record different standards, ie @25p the 1700 records 1440 x1080 4:2:2 then compress 6 to 1. But the camera at 60p is as described above.

 

I've posted the numbers at http://www.hd24.com/compression_numbers.htm

 

"Talk to a Panasonic rep to learn more--they won't lie, they'll just explain it more clearly then whoever told you the other information.

 

They don't appear to have explained it clearly to you Mitch :(

 

Really, Kodak, Panasonic and Sony are three peas in a pod. The old adage "let the buyer beware" has an echo "let the forum reader beware".

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest Ultra Definition]

At 24p each of the 24p frames are the same quality, as are the other 36 frames to pad out the recording.

 

"So each frame of DVCPROHD at 720p is 1.65Mb per frame. Multiply by 24 to get 39.60Mb/s at 24p" (source BBC)

 

Thanks. A lot of people bought or rented the Varicam under the false impression that it has an effective bit streem of 100 Mbps at 24p. I always claimed that it is 40. BBC quotes it at 39.6. Varicam is significantly more compressed than $399 Korean consumer DV camcorder. You just can't compare Varicam to CineAlta, no matter what Panasonic claims or their cleverly setup demos indicate.

 

The Panasonic Varicam sits image quality-wise half way between standard definition and Sony's CineAlta.

 

No major motion picture was ever made with Varicam because the people who have the money to make a major motion picture also hire expertise to understand which camera is better.

 

Panasonic can claim whatever they want. See what BBC claims. They are as neutral as can be.

[Mitch Gross]

I'll hae to investigate further from what others told me about the Varicam. I would never wish to misinform anyone or be deluded myself.

 

Back to the origins of this thread, while Sony has their little PD170-sized HDV camera mockup sneak-peaking at CeBIT and NAB, JVC is supposed to be showing an "ENG style" HDV camera at NAB. This to me translates as something akin to their successful DV500 or DV5000 type shoulder-mount cameras. Those are 1/2" 3xCCD cameras but JVC also has 2/3" cameras both in DV and in their D-9 format. I would be more interested in an HDV camera of this type over a little handycam camera, likely with greater controls and proper manual focus lenses. JVC will definitely have something at the show, but it may be a non-functioning mockup if they can't get everything working in time. Neither Sony nor JVC will likely have anything available for purchase before the Fall at the earliest.

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Mitch,

 

you're not misinforming anyone. You are right that the camera is not lowering the bit stream at lower speeds. It's always 100 Mbps. Once you go through the rate converter, you may still continue having a bigger than effective bit stream because same image may be recorded several times.

 

The problem is that the camera records at double speed of 30p, so only half the bit stream is available for your images; the other 30 images are discarded. If Sony CineAlta recorded at double speed (slow motion), the image quality would be lower too, because only 1/2 of the bit steam would be available for the actual frames that would be used.

 

Analogy to film. If you'd want to record at double speed, and you could not increase the transport speed (equivalent to bit stream), you'd have to make the frames somehow smaller, so twice as many images would fit on the length of film. Then if you'd like to play it at 24 fps, you'd have to discard every second frame. This is what the Varicam does. It always records at 100 Mbps at 60 fps and and at 24 fps the rate convertor discards 36 frames, crearting an effective bandwidth of 40 Mbps. DV has 25 Mbps but it it uses 2.67x less pixels, so it is less compressed. If Varicam would have the same compression as $400 DV camera, the effective bit stream would have to be 66.7 Mbps at 24p.

 

Once the tape is recorded after the rate converter, some frames may be repaeted, so the recorded bit stream may again be larger than the effective bit stream.

 

The reason that Panasonic created the slow motion capability in this camera, within 100 Mbps, something had to give. If the camera recorded at variable speed, it could increase quality at 24p vs. 60p. It does not. It records 60 fps, nothing else, at 100 Mbps.

 

The Varicam image does not look bad. The color compression is same as on CineAlta and because of lack of grain it holds up OK on a theater screen. On HDTV it looks great. CineAlta will project well to a larger screen, but on HDTV, who cares, either camera is fine.

 

 

SONY HDV CAMERA:

 

As to the Sony HDV camera; we may see it earlier. Originally the Sony site had a high resolution picture of the casmera and it looks finished. If Sony releases it now, because of the limited 25 Mbps rate, not that great low light capability, etc., it would not compete much with other Sony stuff. If they wated too long, people would not be buying Son's other pro DV stuff, hoping that this camera would be something a lot better. Sony had a long enough time to develop the camera. Last NAB they already showed privately chips for this camera.

 

The more expensive Sony and JVC HD will apparently have 50 Mbps, and that may not be available until NAB 2005.

 

Joe

[Mike Brennan]

"Then if you'd like to play it at 24 fps, you'd have to discard every second frame. This is what the Varicam does. It always records at 100 Mbps at 60 fps and and at 24 fps the rate convertor discards 36 frames"

 

 

The 1700 and the new for NAB 120 portable change sampling.

 

At 50i 25p they do 1440 x1080 8 bit 4:2:2 then 6.1 to 1

At 60i they change to 1280 x1080 8 bit 4:2:2 then 6.1 to 1

720p is same as Varicam camera.

 

So the 120 will be a good quality portable deck that can record viper HDSDI pics. Is this enough for US fimmakers to shoot on 25p?

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest Ultra Definition]

Mike,

 

I have a question. Can you take one of the Panasonic portable recorders and record to it from a POV box camera? Sony's coming out with one with 1080/24p/25p/30p/50i/60i, 1440x1080 for $20K. JVC will have one for less, will have 2 HDSDI outputs.

 

Do you know how much can you adjust the box cameras locally or do you have to use a camera control unit?

 

There is also this new $2K HD card for PC that is supposed to be available soon. So you could actually record to HD arrays.

 

Do you know if it is possible to use the Sony camera with the Panasonic recorder or a computer to create inexpensive CineAlta, with double sound system of course?

 

Do you have any idea on cost of the #120. I could not find any info on it on Panasonis's US site.

 

Joe

[Mike Brennan]

"have a question. Can you take one of the Panasonic portable recorders and record to it from a POV box camera?"

 

 

Absolutley! A effects, stunt, remote head system for $40k plus lens. Also a viper or HDC950 recorder. Also it could record images from the $5k HDVcams if what Sony allude to is correct (that the HDV cams will have a interface to HDCAM. They probably will make the HDSDI output available for replay only if we shout out too much that we would use the HDV camera as a low cost HD head and record onto a Panny recorder :(

 

 

Sony's coming out with one with 1080/24p/25p/30p/50i/60i, 1440x1080 for $20K.

 

Actually the spec is that the chip is 1.5 million pixel 1440 x1080, it is uprezed to 1920 x1080. With so many 1440x1080 sampled pics about one wonders why it isn't a strandard in its own right! Of course a 1920 x1080 image sampled to 1440 x1080 is better than a image from a 1440 x1080 imager.

 

 

 

"Do you know how much can you adjust the box cameras locally or do you have to use a camera control unit?"

Ikegamis HDL40 can be used with any of its remotes. Don't know about the other, expect the Panasonic box cam can too.

 

"There is also this new $2K HD card for PC that is supposed to be available soon. So you could actually record to HD arrays."

 

Can do this now but tape is still more field and production friendly than arrays.

 

"Do you know if it is possible to use the Sony camera with the Panasonic recorder or a computer to create inexpensive CineAlta, with double sound system of course?"

 

Shouldn't under estimate the amount of signal processing that exist in bigger camcorders. Shouldn't forget that cinealta is just a marketing name that excludes equipment and formats from others.

 

"Do you have any idea on cost of the #120. I could not find any info on it on Panasonis's US site."

 

The 130 is around $25k? So perhaps the 120 wil be similar?

 

Mike Brennan

[Jason Rodriguez]

There is also this new $2K HD card for PC that is supposed to be available soon. So you could actually record to HD arrays.

All these HD/SDI cards for $2K or whatever will soon become very unecessary unless of course you want to specifically output to a tape format.

 

Just wait. Your ideas would have been nice last year or a year ago. After this year's NAB they won't be woth anything, unless of course you just like piling a bunch of junk together to make something yourself and not use products that would be much better and readily available on the market.

 

So again, wait. Please quit posting about your Sony POV slap-together camera that's going to run you around $40-$50K when all is said and done, i.e., recorder, viewfinder, etc. It's just not going to be worth it, and the image quality is going to suck in comparison.

 

Wait :)

[Jason Rodriguez]

"Do you have any idea on cost of the #120. I could not find any info on it on Panasonis's US site."

It's not the 120, AFAIK it's going to be the 1200A.

 

You can find information about the 1200 on the Panasonic Japanese site, although again, I believe the 1200A, with the ability to input/output DVCProHD over firewire, will be the product released at NAB.