Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony NEX-VG10 E-mount video camera  (Read 7974 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« on: July 14, 2010, 03:22:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Sony has announced details of its promised NEX format video camera, and Imaging Resource has a good preview at
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NEXVG10/NEXVG10A.HTM

Perhaps the most impressive spec.:
Pricing has been set at just under US$2,000, including an Active SteadyShot-compatible E-mount 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS lens -- an impressive value considering that this lens alone regularly costs $800.

Perhaps the least impressive: all output formats are interlaced, not progressive scan. But at up to 60fps, so maybe the 1080, 60i is really "1080 30p encapsulated". [Edit: it seems confirmed that images are "Captured at 30p (29.97p), Recorded in AVCHD 60i (59.94i) format" --- http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10071401sonynexvg10e.asp And apparently in PAL countries, it will instead by 25p capture, AVCHD 50i output. The NEX-VG10 is far more a high end home video camera whereas the Panasonic AG-AF100 is more oriented to students and "low budget professionals". For example the NEX-VG10 has only NTSC or PAL and HDMI output, while the AG-AF100 has HD-SDI and XLR audio.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 07:23:24 AM by BJL » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2010, 08:03:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Just a quick question after reading the Michael's introduction.

Why when a camera as "only" 720 we read it is a shame and when it lacks 720 it is a pity?
What makes 720 so limitating and at the same time so desirable?

Something I just don't finish to understand.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4894



« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2010, 10:05:20 AM »
ReplyReply

720 isn't "only". It's a very valid and important format, particularly with high frame rates when rapid motion needs to be handled.

The sports networks use 720, the drama networks (such as they are) use 1080.

On most screens in most sizes no one will be able to tell the difference in resolution.

It's a big topic though, and not given to short simple answers.

Michael
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 10:06:13 AM by michael » Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2010, 01:58:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe - just maybe - the world will someday standardize on fewer video formats. 720 P @ 25 fps for everything up to HD broadcast and 2K and up for higher resolution needs.

Now that interlacing is (or should be...hello Sony?) dead, let's eliminate that. For 'normal' viewing there is no need for any standard frame rate higher than 25 - so let's eliminate 24 & 30 & 60 fps

Then all we'd have to discuss is resolution  

Chris
« Last Edit: July 15, 2010, 01:59:38 PM by Chris Sanderson » Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2010, 02:51:07 PM »
ReplyReply

That's more messy than I thought.
It appears to be a jungle of formats and techs.
Maybe a future or regular article(s) in Lu-La on that (those) complicated topic(s) that are constantly evolving will be good,
as video is part of the photographer task now, I'm sure I'm not the only one to feel a bit confused.

Cheers.
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695


« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2010, 03:26:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Interlacing is the work of the devil; a cheat; a cruel and heartless ploy by engineers bent on fooling the eye to gain something for nothing.  

720 60P is gorgeous.  Douglas Trumbull's "Showscan" format (70mm film shot at 60 fps) demonstrated the advantages of high frame rates, even for "regular" subjects, not just sports.  It never reached common usage due to high film stock costs, but the imagery was incredible.  I shot aerials with it once.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2010, 03:48:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Since the 60i [50i resp. in PAL countries] output is reportedly recorded at 30fps progressive scan [25p resp.] and then put in an interlaced format "wrapper", could the video experts tell me
- is it feasible for software to "upwrap", revealing the progressive scan image, or is the wrapping "destructive"?
- is it possible and at all likely that Sony could add the 30p [25p] option via a firmware upgrade, if we huff and puff enough?
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2010, 04:14:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
Since the 60i [50i resp. in PAL countries] output is reportedly recorded at 30fps progressive scan [25p resp.] and then put in an interlaced format "wrapper", could the video experts tell me
- is it feasible for software to "upwrap", revealing the progressive scan image, or is the wrapping "destructive"?
- is it possible and at all likely that Sony could add the 30p [25p] option via a firmware upgrade, if we huff and puff enough?
Guesses only: Yes, it is possible to 'go back' to the 30p but depending on how the interlacing and de-interlacing is done, it may or may not be optimal. If you think of each line taking about 1/6000+ sec to 'expose', there is a time difference between each line and each 1/60 field. The optimal progressive method of de-interlacing would combine line pairs that are closest together in time, but this may or may not be possible. As I write this, it strikes me that a possible reason the Sony engineers stayed with an interlaced 'base' is to help somewhat with the 'jello-cam' problem that is inherent in the time lag between lines exposed progressively from the top to the bottom of a frame.

Will huff & puff change Sony's execution? Well your guess is as good as mine but surely they must have had a compelling reason to execute this way.  
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2010, 04:32:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris Sanderson
Then all we'd have to discuss is resolution  
And DR. Never forget DR.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2220


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2010, 06:16:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Peter McLennan
720 60P is gorgeous.

When I first started filming I dindt get any of this

now I love 24/25p and 60p makes me feel a little ill

interlaced looks smudged

the smudging covers camera handling errors however

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2010, 10:43:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris Sanderson
Guesses only: Yes, it is possible to 'go back' to the 30p but depending on how the interlacing and de-interlacing is done, it may or may not be optimal. If you think of each line taking about 1/6000+ sec to 'expose', there is a time difference between each line and each 1/60 field. The optimal progressive method of de-interlacing would combine line pairs that are closest together in time, but this may or may not be possible. As I write this, it strikes me that a possible reason the Sony engineers stayed with an interlaced 'base' is to help somewhat with the 'jello-cam' problem that is inherent in the time lag between lines exposed progressively from the top to the bottom of a frame.

Will huff & puff change Sony's execution? Well your guess is as good as mine but surely they must have had a compelling reason to execute this way.  
Chris, (or who feels like answering)

After reading all those informations (about video) and regarding the blurry offers (I need at least a 5k HMI light to see through it) I have a simple question:

If you where basically a still photographer, but you would need to shoot video from time to time for assignments and to open the fan of your expression medias,
and you would be on budget (90% of the profession) and had to choose one gear, what would be your choice right now?
A GH serie Pana would do the job or we need more "heavy artillery".

Please, no "it depends" or maybes and ifs. No numbers neither graphics. One gear! one name! one word!  

Thanks

Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2010, 07:51:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris Sanderson
Guesses only: Yes, it is possible to 'go back' to the 30p but depending on how the interlacing and de-interlacing is done, it may or may not be optimal.
One suggestion is that, due to AVCHD format officially supporting only 1080p24, 1080i50 [for PAL?] and 1080i60 [for NTSC?], Sony has to wrap its 1080p30 sensor output, and does by simply putting the "even" and "odd" lines of each "30p" frame in successive "60i" output frames. (But

Q1. Does this make sense?
Q2. Does this make it trivial to reconstruct the 30p from the 60i? (It seems so to me, but ...)
Q3. What about the 50i mode on models sold in "PAL countries"

P. S. The GH1 produces 1080p24 "native" and then wraps it as 50i or 60i, so maybe experience with that camera is a hint.


The bottom line seems to me to be that the AVCHD standard should have 1808p25 and 1080p30 added to the supported output formats! Then again, Panasonic disregards the restrictions by offering 1080p30 and 1080p25 in its AVCCAM HD camcorder, the AG-AF100, even though that camera's native format is 24p.

AFAIK, Sony and Panasonic are the authors of the AVCHD spec's, so this liberalization should be easy enough for Sony to arrange.
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2010, 11:04:59 AM »
ReplyReply

H. Paul Moon weighs in nicely on this subject here:
Link
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4894



« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2010, 12:36:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Intesting read, except that it's full of half truths and some actual falsehoods.

The official AVCHD spec does indeed only have progressive support at 24P, but that doesn't stop companies from including 30P and even 60P in their cameras. Indeed the Sony NX5 camcorder has 30P as part of its spec, so how come people are saying that this is why Sony had to use 60i as a wrapper? They didn't on their NX5, as just one example.

As for being able to turn 30p (or 60i for that matter) into 24p.... Well, all I can say is that it looks like crap. The math doesn't work at all well, as anyone familiar with video technology should know. Can be done? Yes. Should be done? No! Not if you care about image quality.

And is 24P better than other frame rates? No one will dispute that Progressive is superior to Interlaced. That ship sailed long ago. 24fps on the other hand is a hold-over from the motion picture world. It has its origins as the slowest frame rate that could support magnetic sound back in the 1930's. Film was expensive, so keeping the rate as low as possible had economic benefit for the studios. But it's motion artifacts and cadence are a large part of what makes movies look like movies, and not like TV. This isn't a subject for dispute, simply ones for people to decide if they like or not.

And finally, don't believe everything that you read on the Internet, including things that I write.  

Michael
« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 12:38:16 PM by michael » Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2010, 01:01:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
Intesting read, except that it's full of half truths and some actual falsehoods.

The official AVCHD spec does indeed only have progressive support at 24P, but that doesn't stop companies from including 30P and even 60P in their cameras. Indeed the Sony NX5 camcorder has 30P as part of its spec, so how come people are saying that this is why Sony had to use 60i as a wrapper? They didn't on their NX5, as just one example.

As for being able to turn 30p (or 60i for that matter) into 24p.... Well, all I can say is that it looks like crap. The math doesn't work at all well, as anyone familiar with video technology should know. Can be done? Yes. Should be done? No! Not if you care about image quality.

And is 24P better than other frame rates? No one will dispute that Progressive is superior to Interlaced. That ship sailed long ago. 24fps on the other hand is a hold-over from the motion picture world. It has its origins as the slowest frame rate that could support magnetic sound back in the 1930's. Film was expensive, so keeping the rate as low as possible had economic benefit for the studios. But it's motion artifacts and cadence are a large part of what makes movies look like movies, and not like TV. This isn't a subject for dispute, simply ones for people to decide if they like or not.

And finally, don't believe everything that you read on the Internet, including things that I write.  

Michael

  Yeah, my main contention was about the 30p, not 24p.  24p would be great.  Do you think there will be loss converting 60i to 30p in the NLE?  I am hearing/reading TONS of opinions about this on either side.


Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2010, 08:21:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
As for being able to turn 30p (or 60i for that matter) into 24p.... Well, all I can say is that it looks like crap.
What about 60i to 30p? That is all most of us would care about: retrieving the combing free, progressive scan goodness that the Sony sensor is producing in the first place.

Quote from: michael
And is 24P better than other frame rates? No one will dispute that Progressive is superior to Interlaced. That ship sailed long ago. 24fps on the other hand is a hold-over from the motion picture world.
That makes sense to me, but it has been argued that for many movie watchers there is a psychological association of the 24fps experience to cinema" and 30fps to "TV", making them prefer the former. Maybe this is like the way some people find the lack of film grain or noise n good low ISO digital images uncomfortably "plasticky", to the point of sometimes adding a "film grain effect" in post. Or the notorious market failure of New Coke despite solid evidence that it was preferred in blind taste tests. Or why the steering wheels of cars are inconveniently bigger than they need to be with power steering out of comfortably familiarity with the larger size dating back when non-power steering required more leverage ...
Logged
HPaulMoon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2010, 05:08:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: michael
And finally, don't believe everything that you read on the Internet, including things that I write.  
Starting with your comments in reverse order, I'll add that not only shouldn't we believe everything on the Internet (including your own comments), also:  never underestimate the power of Google search!

Quote from: michael
Interesting read, except that it's full of half truths and some actual falsehoods.

The official AVCHD spec does indeed only have progressive support at 24P, but that doesn't stop companies from including 30P and even 60P in their cameras. Indeed the Sony NX5 camcorder has 30P as part of its spec, so how come people are saying that this is why Sony had to use 60i as a wrapper? They didn't on their NX5, as just one example.
First of all, your information is wrong about AVCHD.  30p is an official mode.  The reason that Sony "had to" use 60i as a wrapper is because the Blu-Ray spec (which is the winning physical media delivery standard) does not include 30p like AVCHD, but does include 60i.  For the brand of consumer who will not be laying down video tracks into an NLE and rendering to various output standards, this is an out-of-the-box solution that does not compromise quality (for those of us who have grown out of the 24p fetishism and prefer 30p).

Quote from: michael
As for being able to turn 30p (or 60i for that matter) into 24p.... Well, all I can say is that it looks like crap. The math doesn't work at all well, as anyone familiar with video technology should know. Can be done? Yes. Should be done? No! Not if you care about image quality.
And if you do care about image quality, it's a bigger problem that all of your 24p footage will be viewed 99% of the time in some kind of 30p/60i context due to the display technology used for output, whether streaming online or even viewing a 24p Blu-Ray (since panels are not - with rare exception - native 24p).  The conversion from lousy 24p to smoother 30p is even more problematic than the opposite.

Quote from: michael
And is 24P better than other frame rates? No one will dispute that Progressive is superior to Interlaced. That ship sailed long ago. 24fps on the other hand is a hold-over from the motion picture world. It has its origins as the slowest frame rate that could support magnetic sound back in the 1930's. Film was expensive, so keeping the rate as low as possible had economic benefit for the studios. But it's motion artifacts and cadence are a large part of what makes movies look like movies, and not like TV. This isn't a subject for dispute, simply ones for people to decide if they like or not.
Dispute.  Among the bag of tricks to make people think they are watching film rather than cheap video, jerky motion is at the bottom of the bag.  But it's certainly the most easy, expedient trick for amateur filmmaking.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2010, 05:58:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: HPaulMoon
First of all, your information is wrong about AVCHD.  30p is an official mode.
Not according to this official web-site:
http://www.avchd-info.org/format/index.html
As with Blu-Ray, the options I see with 1920x1080 are 60i, 50i and 24p, but no 30p.

Anyway, I have been assured that the 1080i60 output of the NEX-5 shows up as 30p in NLE software, that 60i being a simply "frame splitting" wrapper, so the VG10 will probably work like that too.
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2010, 08:49:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
If you where basically a still photographer, [snip] what would be your choice right now?
Canon5Dll + $10,000 in add-ons + lenses
« Last Edit: July 26, 2010, 08:50:03 AM by Chris Sanderson » Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2010, 01:08:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris Sanderson
Canon5Dll + $10,000 in add-ons + lenses
Thanks Chris.

What I don't like are the 10.000$ in add-ons  

I did a making-off with one recently. No add-ons, kind of hell really.
I had the manfrotto and fortunatly the plateau guy was an angel and doing kind of Mc Gyver bricolage it worked very well.
But, but but...Zacuto is clever.

The worsed for me was the handling. Already I do not like the 5D handling with stills, with video it is horrible.
Specially I changed a lot the optics and weight balance sensation was completly different. Once I get used of one I lost the
balance, in video I just realsed how important it is.
All shoot in manual focus that worked very well but I ended with a wired sensation of do-it-yourself.

Cheers.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad