Hello,
I have been told that during a horizontal pan, there are compression problems and/or artifacts when in progressive mode.
I find that an exaggeration, but has anyone noticed something like that when horizontal panning, or during a high motion handheld shot?

Thanks

I use 30F at 1/60 for shooting waterfalls. I often do slow horizontal and vertical pans. I've never noticed any artifacts on my monitor when editing, or when reviewing raw or edited footage on tv.

I have... when shooting in 24F. The image is great when static sitting on a tri-pod, but when I began panning it appears that their are little jaggies shaking, of course you only will see this in post.

I have chosen as of lately to film in 60i and have been very happy with the results for my purposes.

Chad

I've shot everything in 24f and have had no problems with artifacting.

Be sure though to turn of the OIS during panning...

I think you may be referring to "strobing" of the image during fast pans in the 30F and 24F modes.

If you pan too quickly in either mode - more so in 24F - you run the risk of objects on screen moving so much between frames that they appear to strobe.

Keep pans slow and really lock on to the subject during the pans and you should have wonderful looking footage.

IMHO, the A1 produces beautiful footage in 24F and "hyper-realistic" footage in 60i.

Can someone please help understand the me difference between 30f and 60i?
thanks

Kuentos, I can't help you with that since I am in Europe and use PAL.
Ken, as for the strobing, I wasn't referring to that, but to compression artifacts. Like for example the "blocking" effect when you have a high motion sequence compressed to a low bitrate mpeg. I know that you would never see this as exaggerated as in the case of a low bitrate mpeg, but I've been told by a tech-freak friend of mine that only the HVX200 at 100MBps can handle well high motion shots or horizontal pans without artifacting.

OK, well, it's really quite simple.

There is only a finite data rate out of the camera to the tape.

If you exceed that data rate, something has to be dumped.

With HDV, with the long GOP system, if you do anything to provide more data to the system than it can compress and write to the tape, it gets dumped.

Take a flower. Have it in close up. Zoom back to include a vast expanse behind. All well, so far.

Now do a pan.

Every single pixel in every single frame has to change.

If you exceed the ability of the encoding to write that data to the tape, there is no way round it, it will dump the excess data.

In my experience, the one thing that will be maintained is the "central character" whatever that may be. All the rest will suffer quite noticeable degradation of the picture quality as excess data is simply dumped.

It is nothing to do with frame rate or anything else, simply a data rate block with HDV. It's probably the same with any other HD system that has to encode data, if you exceed it's capabilities, it has to do something with the excess - ergo, dump it.

Stathis,

Do Not do fast pans. Slow and easy will do it every time. If you must do a fast pan, make sure you have a fast moving target "front and centre" to take up the slack as the background turns to mush.

Most people do not see this degradation on their HDV footage as, suprisingly, they ain't watching it on an HD screen. When they do, it comes as quite a shock.

DO NOT EDIT HDV ON AN SD SCREEN!!!

It really isn't rocket science.


CS

Do Not do fast pans.

Oh come on. I've been doing fast pans and fast motion for awhile now with hdv devices and they work fine. Even on an hd monitor.

Most people do not see this degradation on their HDV footage as, suprisingly, they ain't watching it on an HD screen. When they do, it comes as quite a shock.

DO NOT EDIT HDV ON AN SD SCREEN!!!

It really isn't rocket science.
CS

Since I'm the only one in this thread that mentioned watching edited footage on tv, I get the feeling that the above statement is a passive aggressive swipe.

Just for clarification, I have a second computer monitor that I use with editing to preview footage, and my tv is HD plasma. I didn't believe I needed that level of detail for a quick response, but I stand corrected. If needed, I can provide model numbers also.

No, it’s not rocket science. The “rocket” has used the same science for decades while the HD landscape changes by the hour.

Panning is a combination of creative and technical skill. On the A1, 60i transitions fast pans with no problem at all. Too fast in 24 will strobe, but the image holds up. It’s nothing better or worse than what can be seen on TV right now.

If you want a really smooth wide pan in any frame rate, use a tripod and count to 5 within 180 degrees.

If you need to track a fast moving object, I would suggest 60i and use your skill to keep it in frame without excessive V or H camera shake.

I edit on a large computer monitor with both HD and SD screens simultaneously.

Hello,
I have been told that during a horizontal pan, there are compression problems and/or artifacts when in progressive mode.
I find that an exaggeration, but has anyone noticed something like that when horizontal panning, or during a high motion handheld shot?


What you were told is too ambiguous to judge for exaggeration, as it depends on how fast the pan is, how much detail is in the frame, and how closely you examine the results.

The last one is the kicker. It's easy to see the difference in 100% crops from frame grabs even on totally still footage (compared to uncompressed 4:4:4); but most are more concerned about the difference at normal viewing distances.

Take a flower. Have it in close up. Zoom back to include a vast expanse behind. All well, so far.

Now do a pan.

Every single pixel in every single frame has to change.


Actually, no - in that case every 16 pixel block simply takes a step to the right (or left, as the case may be). This is called a motion vector, and it's part of what makes MPEG2 such an efficient codec while still retaining high quality. In a pan, only the pixels along the edge of the screen where new detail is being revealed actually change and are encoded new; the rest of the image is simply encoded as a bunch of motion vectors saying move this block x number of pixels left or right. So a smooth, slow pan should not push the compression beyond the limitations of HDV's data rate.

Because of motion vectors it's important to distinguish between movement of blocks of pixels (panning on a relatively static shot) and actual changing pixels (people walking around, sparkling water, blowing leaves, etc) when determining what's likely to cause HDV to break up.

Now, if you pan too fast it's possible you could exceed the radius in which the encoder looks for movement of each macroblock, and that might cause some artifacts - but it's also likely that if you are shooting 24f panning at that rate will introduce judder that's far more distracting than the artifacts.

If your shot consists primarily of fine, moving detail (like a grove of trees blowing in the wind, or rippling water), and you are panning, the encoder can't use motion vectors because the pixels are changing too much from frame to frame, so you are likely to see artifacts.

If you are shooting handheld the movement is less consistent than a smooth pan on a tripod and you may limit the ability to make efficient use of motion vectors, but again this depends on how fast you are moving and how much detail is in your scene.

I'm not sure where the best trade-off is in terms of compression and shutter speed. Shooting 24f at 1/48 means that if you move the camera quickly you'll have a good deal of motion blur. Motion blur means you can't use motion vectors efficiently (because the blurry pixels don't look like the clear ones in the frames before) , but it also reduces detail right at the time when the encoder is working hardest and therefore may allow you to avoid noticeable artifacts during fast motion. A high shutter speed will eliminate blur, which means each frame has clear, highly detailed blocks that are easy to track motion vectors for - but it also means you potentially have a lot more detail per frame, and if those details are changing within the scene (i.e. not a largely static scene with camera movement) it may push the limits of the encoder. I suspect that all in all a slower shutter speed will be less likely to artifact, or at least produce less noticeable artifacts, but I haven't done any focused testing to prove this.

Thanks everyone...
That was really enlightening!

In no way, shape or form, was I having a swipe at anyone in my post. I do most humbly appologise if that was it's percieved intent.

I thoroughly checked each and every previous post a number of times before posting mine to ensure that was not a possibility, still got it wrong. Sorry.

My comment about HD monitors comes from my experience with certain shots I have done.

When I first had the A1, my only HD screen was a Dell 24" monitor on the PC. All well and good.

I shot a heap of stuff, edited it, and thought it looked great.

Some months later I bought a Sony 46" X series Bravia and reviewed my "wonderfull" stuff. Oh dear!

I watched the clips on the Sony, and then ran them again on the Dell.

I ran them on both screens at the same time (bit of a bugger as the screens are on diametrically different sides of the room). Oh dear!

Stuff I just could not see on the Dell (this IS a HD monitor BTW) suddenly jumped out, smacked me over the head with a baseball bat and said, "Didn't see me, did you?".

Too bloody right I hadn't. The problems were so infintesmal on the Dell they simply didn't register. On the Sony they stood out like a sore thumb, in glorious Technicolour (er, SonyColour?).

Is the Sony an all singing, all dancing "Broadcast Monitor"? Heck, in no way. But seeing HD @ 46" is a lot different to seeing it @ 24".

Sounds rediculous, doesn't it, it shouldn't really make any difference, screen size versus viewing distance and all that, but hey, I can only tell you what I see.

Once again, I appologise to anyone who may have misinterpreted my post or it's intention.


CS

I apologize for taking things so personal.

For example, if I play a capture file (60i) on my new 24inch Gateway monitor, I can see pixelation when panning. If I play the same file directly from the camera to the monitor via the componet cable, no pixelation. I have a new quad core Pentium and I suspect that it or the software (PowerDVD)codec are not keeping up when I play the capture file (more decoding?). If I play the same scene rendered in post on my five year old Sony Bravia (1080i) it is stunning and absolutely no pixelation. Some HDTVs mentioned in this thread are plasma, some LCD. Can we really make any realistic and accurate comparison with so many possible variables? Nonetheless, all of this has caused me to be cautious and think about what I am doing or representing: I was showing off the camera to a fellow videographer (sony Z1) with the first example listed above and I was a little embarassed and having read this thread a little later, I started looking at the variables I have in my system. I will invite him back another day and tout the wonders of the A1 on my HDTV. Any ideas about the capture file being rougher? thanks