I thought I was shooting manual, but I will find another one with 1/60th like that and post it.

Have you shot anything in standard DV resolution yet? My guess is that with all those pixels, it shouldn't have the loss of verticle resolution that other interlaced DV cams have because of averaging even and odd lines each frame to add gain. It stands to reason that the interlaced footage should look about 25% sharper, or as sharp as a Canon XL2 shooting 16:9 progressive mode.

I'd love to know if this is the case. Even just posting one outdoor daylight SD clip would be really helpful.

What are you guys looking at? On the computer through VLC?

Yes, at full resolution on a monitor her face is a bit soft: down-converted to DV resolution it looks fine.

Looks pretty clear that she's slightly out of focus rather than that the camera can't record full detail there though, it's a close shot and the tree is in clear focus so her face probably can't be.

I manually focused it to her face.

It might be because of the compression issue. Since she is moving, if you are not watching the clip without interlaced capablity, she might not look as sharp. And mpeg2 compression is weak on moving objects. Then still objects might look even more stable because it is compressed. I can see her skin details on my interlaced monitor fine.

<<<-- Originally posted by Kaku Ito : I thought I was shooting manual, but I will find another one with 1/60th like that and post it. -->>>

Kaku, thanks. BTW, I've been able to get a pretty clean de-interlaced true 24P image. When you post the 1/60th shutter image @ cineframe24, I'll remove the pulldown and post the results for everyone to look at.

Best, Josh

And mpeg2 compression is weak on moving objects.

Yeah, but in the closeup most of the frame is almost stationary, so most of the MPEG-2 bitrate should be going into her face. I'd have to say that if the camera is going to make moving faces look out of focus, I won't be buying it... but given how sharp the other footage is, I still can't help but feel that it's soft focus.

Did you use the zoom on the LCD when focusing? Her face looks fine when downconverted to DV res, so if it is a focus issue it's only slightly out of focus and probably wouldn't have been visible when scaled down for the LCD if the LCD view wasn't zoomed.

I was focusing with the viewfinder while she was looking at the LCD screen flipped to her side.

I am not getting interlace playback, but instead 30p ( field 1 and 2 combined ) from my PC dvi out to HD monitor. Why is this? It looks great, like 30p film ( Iwerks ) Though I would like to look at it in interlace 60i. Is this a probelm with the graphics card or? Any suggestions would be great. Thanks!


Michael Pappas


<<<-- Originally posted by Kaku Ito : I manually focused it to her face.

It might be because of the compression issue. Since she is moving, if you are not watching the clip without interlaced capablity, she might not look as sharp. And mpeg2 compression is weak on moving objects. Then still objects might look even more stable because it is compressed. I can see her skin details on my interlaced monitor fine. -->>>

First of all, I want to thank Kaku for all his work.

The footage is amazing!

Kaku, I was wondering if you have confirmed the HDV->DV down conversion thru firewire?

Does it work?(can you import it in iMovie for example?)

Because if it does---one wouldn't have to invest in a new NLE or upgrade one(just yet) and just work with the footage like it is straight DV. I know you have a million things to do...but please?

Thanks again!

I've seen you hint at this before - I noticed it first with the night clip of the descending bike through the traffic - on VLC, I rendered out a wmvhd 60/720p (60p) and boy, did it look so "video-y" whereas my vegas avi downconverts all had a slight filmic look to them!

Weird, huh? I think vegas is resampling due to different resolution (ie. down to 720x480) and the processing introduces some sort of effect (you using vegas too? - I've had this happen too on pal->ntsc conversions and NOT due to 25 -> 30 - i've had it happen using some vegas filters on plain-jane ntsc 60i footage too - as filmmaker I like it - but very mysterious!)

are we talking about the same thing? I think we are...

The HD1 records @ 30fps and outputs DIGITALLY at that same frame rate but the ANALOG output is 60.

So maybe the FX1 is recording @ 30fps and it does the same as the HD1 (outputs DIGITALLY at that same frame rate but the ANALOG output is 60).

That would mean that you could keep the output @ 30fps instead of 60 for editing and output.

Troy

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Kubat : I've seen you hint at this before - I noticed it first with the night clip of the descending bike through the traffic - on VLC, I rendered out a wmvhd 60/720p (60p) and boy, did it look so "video-y" whereas my vegas avi downconverts all had a slight filmic look to them!

Weird, huh? I think vegas is resampling due to different resolution (ie. down to 720x480) and the processing introduces some sort of effect (you using vegas too? - I've had this happen too on pal->ntsc conversions and NOT due to 25 -> 30 - i've had it happen using some vegas filters on plain-jane ntsc 60i footage too - as filmmaker I like it - but very mysterious!)

are we talking about the same thing? I think we are... -->>>

Every system I take those raw files to have the 30p look like Iwerks to tape. 30P mode of the DVX100, frame mode too. I have played it on three HD tv's A 50" XBR HD sony. A 26" HD CRT and my friends Bob Jones ( Owner and creator of the awesome SkyCrane jibs ) 15' HD LCD monitor at his house. Now on everyone of them they are playing not live 60 field interlace but 30P feel. I don't know what's up. The HDV demo that was posted two weeks or ago with the awesome shot of the boat at night this entire clips looks the same as well.

Pardon my potential ignorance here, but don't most HD displays out there convert everything to 720p? I'm not real up on the pro equipment, but most every HDTV consumer set I've looked at seems to convert everything to 720p...a true 1080i set seems hard to find... unless I don't know where to look.

Anyways, that would account for the more "filmic" 30p look, would it not?

Kev,

Actually it's the other way around dependent on the technology involved. 99.9% of CRT displays only do 1080i and upconvert 720p to 1080i.

Digital displays (LCD, Plasma, SEC, LCOS, D-ILA etc.) usually display everything at a 720p res and they downconvert 1080i to 720p (or whatever derivative they're using i.e. 768p).

As it stands the majority of HD capable displays are CRT based with digital displays slowing closing the gap. There are some 'TRUE' 1080i/p displays that have just recently come out or have been introduced. The first 1080p Plasma is slated for release 1Q next year. Sharp has a 1080p LCD panel that is 45" and one on the way that will be 55" @1080p.

Sony has the Qualia 004 1080p SXRD digital projector that's a true 1080p and is reviewed to be the best front projection equipment on the home theater market.

Anyway, 1080i is the norm for CRT/analog and 720p in that realm is almost unheard of although there are a handful of displays that will accept a 720p signal natively and upconvert it to 1080i/p . 720p is the standard for digital with 1080i/p slowly trickling in.

Troy

Good to know...thanks. I guess most of the exposure I've had to HD has been in the digital display realm...

Although.... I think Kevin may be sort of right here.

I've recently bought a Sharp Aquos 83cm LCD HDTV, which is one of the few TV/monitors to actually state it's viewable resolution, which is 1330x800.

That rez is BTW one of the highest you'll get on any readily available display - apart from the just released (well prototyped anyway) 1920x1080 resolution LCD panels.

So; even for the Aquos, which is infinitely superior in image to any plasmas I've looked at, the 1920x1080 image has to be squeezed down into 1330x800.

The 'filmic' look that is being referred to is, I suspect, related to a quite different issue. For instance, playing video via DVI from computer to external monitor requires a video card with timing rates, colour depths and resolution settings that can match or exceed the secondary display devices'. Everything has to be 'just right' with hardware and software or frame-rate, bit-rate and possibly resolution will be attenuated. Appz like Power Strip come in handy here - though I couldn't get Power Strip to work when connecting my 3.4Ghz laptop via DVI to the Aquos, despite the monitor showing up correctly (resolution/refresh rate etc) as the 2nd display device. Not everything is perfect just yet........

I've played the same clips back to the Aquos as native m2t through a Roku HD1000 at 1080i (definitely no possible bottlenecks) to the Aquos, and the video is indistinguishable from broadcast 1080i in every respect - including motion, not filmic - just bloody marvelous!!!.

which is one of the few TV/monitors to actually state it's viewable resolution, which is 1330x800.

When you're talking digital displays the actual pixel resolution is the same as the viewable. Digital displays usually don't have overscan like CRT displays which usually accounts for the decrease in viewable resolution.

the 1920x1080 image has to be squeezed down into 1330x800.

Not true as I pointed out above. Your set and the 45" 1080p Aquos sets are different models, you can't compare resolution specs. You may also want to check your specs again. The Sharp 1920X1080 is 1920X1080 viewable, it's already been confirmed by several owners.

Anyways, that would account for the more "filmic" 30p look, would it not?

As far as I know, 720p is at 60Hz or 60fps. That's about as far away from a filmic look as anything. There are a lot of other processing in each HDTV set that may account for a different look on each set.

Ste

Troy

What is a Roku HD1000? And how are you playing HDV clips through it?



<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Crisdale : Although.... I think Kevin may be sort of right here.

I've recently bought a Sharp Aquos 83cm LCD HDTV, which is one of the few TV/monitors to actually state it's viewable resolution, which is 1330x800.

That rez is BTW one of the highest you'll get on any readily available display - apart from the just released (well prototyped anyway) 1920x1080 resolution LCD panels.

So; even for the Aquos, which is infinitely superior in image to any plasmas I've looked at, the 1920x1080 image has to be squeezed down into 1330x800.

The 'filmic' look that is being referred to is, I suspect, related to a quite different issue. For instance, playing video via DVI from computer to external monitor requires a video card with timing rates, colour depths and resolution settings that can match or exceed the secondary display devices'. Everything has to be 'just right' with hardware and software or frame-rate, bit-rate and possibly resolution will be attenuated. Appz like Power Strip come in handy here - though I couldn't get Power Strip to work when connecting my 3.4Ghz laptop via DVI to the Aquos, despite the monitor showing up correctly (resolution/refresh rate etc) as the 2nd display device. Not everything is perfect just yet........

I've played the same clips back to the Aquos as native m2t through a Roku HD1000 at 1080i (definitely no possible bottlenecks) to the Aquos, and the video is indistinguishable from broadcast 1080i in every respect - including motion, not filmic - just bloody marvelous!!!. -->>>

I assume he meant Rorke?

<<<-- Originally posted by John C. Chu : First of all, I want to thank Kaku for all his work.

The footage is amazing!

Kaku, I was wondering if you have confirmed the HDV->DV down conversion thru firewire?

Does it work?(can you import it in iMovie for example?)

Because if it does---one wouldn't have to invest in a new NLE or upgrade one(just yet) and just work with the footage like it is straight DV. I know you have a million things to do...but please?

Thanks again! -->>>

This is the first I've heard of the "HDV->DV down conversion thru firewire". I'm curious about this as well.

Hi!

I noticed that there are many people around the world with big HDTV screens and projectors. Well here's a link to a litte clip:

www.drachenfeder.com/int/dach_after.avi

it's 720p 24 frames/s. It's divX coded but still decent quality. I'd like to ask for your opinion of this image compared to the FX1 image. Any comments are welcome.

Greets
Markus

Interesting. Hello Markus, what is the source of this clip. If you did it, give some more background. What's the original size and etc. Thanks.....


Michael Pappas

@Miachael Pappas

It's the original size. Well before going thru divX it was 4:4:4 uncompressed. It's shot with our self build HD camera direct to disc. We do curently some beta testing and I'm interested how the picture this camera produces "feels" on different screens.

Check out this clip:
www.drachenfeder.com/int/take1.avi

It's more cine like. Although there is a small problem with fixed pattern noise in the bright areas. We fixed this already, just hadn'd time to convert a new file.

Markus, is this the Silicon Imaging cameras, which by the way is down the street from me in Costa Mesa CA. I like the quality. I am going to swing over to the PC/HD system later and view it. Are you from the Alternative Imaging forum on this Board. I am very aware of this gear if so. I have been quietly watching this section for some time. The clips that I have are very few, two to be exact and they are outstanding even for wmvhd's down-conversions from the original SI camera shots. They are the closest to film I have seen in some respects, and by far blow the HDV out of the water. I have told Chris Hurd a while ago that the alternative board section is and should be voted number 1 in DV magazine as being the most cutting edge publicly on display in HD/digital cinema research and design. IF THERE ARE ANY DV-MAGAZINE EDITORS ETC, THINK ABOUT GIVING THIS A BLURB IN THE DV magazine to DVinf.net "Alternative Imaging Methods " forum

Markus what players will this view with, my VLC won't play it for some reason. Strange that on my Internet Explorer OSX will. I would like to see more done with this and if you could point me towards links with other shots I would like to see and study them and report back here. Thanks

To others that have not known about this section here on DVino.net. Here is the link. If top notch HD 4:4:4 is what you need or even 4:2:2 go have a look at the cutting edge:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=70

PS: Markus you need to make those links hyperlink so we can do a "save as" to desktop.

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com

<<<Originally posted by Markus Rupprecht : @Miachael Pappas

It's the original size. Well before going thru divX it was 4:4:4 uncompressed. It's shot with our self build HD camera direct to disc. We do curently some beta testing and I'm interested how the picture this camera produces "feels" on different screens.

Check out this clip:
www.drachenfeder.com/int/take1.avi>>>?


MARKUS.................OUTSTANDING...........

I suggest others take a look at this link too:

www.drachenfeder.com/int/take1.avi

Michael Pappas

It should play with the latest divX player or VLC player. and well, it's not done with a SI camera. I won't get into details on what chip we build our camera around. But be shure, we did it indie style. I'd really love to get some feedback on the "feel" of this pictures before getting involved in endless technical discussions. I'm a director after all. And we started this entire "build your own HD cine cam" adventure just because I was a few weeks away from shooting and totally trusted the industry with the specs on the JVC HDV cam. And it sucked. color resolution, compression. Awfull. Well, soon you will get the entire story. But for now...

The homebuilt HD cam footage looks great but it's a static shot. I'd love to see some fast pans and heavy motion shots. I guess some heavy motion night shots would be the ultimate test. We already know that the HDV really shines there!

<<<-- Originally posted by Troy Lamont :

When you're talking digital displays the actual pixel resolution is the same as the viewable.
-->>>

Huh?...... Actual physical pixels in a screen don't necessarily indicate the viewable resolution. Despite only having 1330x800 physical pixels, the Sharp Aquos can display 1080i full screen viewable, just the same as 1280x720 fills the full 1330x800 screen size.....same deal with all of my digital monitors (regardless of their actual resolution). However, the more physical pixels in a screens' makeup, the greater the clarity.

<<<--
Not true as I pointed out above. Your set and the 45" 1080p Aquos sets are different models, you can't compare resolution specs. You may also want to check your specs again. The Sharp 1920X1080 is 1920X1080 viewable, it's already been confirmed by several owners.
-->>>

No dissension here..... I don't believe I stated that the 45" or 55" Sharp LCD displays were any resolution.

<<<--
As far as I know, 720p is at 60Hz or 60fps. That's about as far away from a filmic look as anything. There are a lot of other processing in each HDTV set that may account for a different look on each set.
-->>>

Would that make 720i 120fps? And, yes I know there's a lot of other processing going on in HDTV sets, which was the intent of my original post.

BTW, I hope you made a mistake in quoting Kevin Dooley without assignation in your reply to my post, otherwise it could appear to misrepresent my original post.....

Hey, what the heck is that? It looks remarkably like film.

Is this something that's be available soon? Is it a portable unit or one of those make-shift cameras that won't be good for field work? I'm very interested in this if it's going to be available for under $7,000!

Murph

Huh?...... Actual physical pixels in a screen don't necessarily indicate the viewable resolution.

Since this is a thread about the FX1, I'm not going to disdain any further discussion about this topic with you. It seems as if you hit the nail on the head with the first word of your quote above. Do your homework thou hast not an inkling.

Markus,

I'd like to ask for your opinion of this image compared to the FX1 image. Any comments are welcome.

These clips are excellent! I played them back on my 55" HDTV and I thought I was at the movies! Very smooth, very detailed with excellent contrast. Kudos.

You have to reveal the source and thanks for the clips.

Kaku,

Was I under the assumption that you were going to do an 'official' review once you're done with your real job? :)

Any more clips pending?

Thanks again for all you've provided.

Troy

<<<These clips are excellent! I played them back on my 55" HDTV and I thought I was at the movies! Very smooth, very detailed with excellent contrast. Kudos.
You have to reveal the source and thanks for the clips.>>>>>

I agree.......
I watched them on the big screen last nignt, amazing looking. This is many many years ahead of what the consumer will have. My brother thought it was a HD trailer from a movie when it first rolled on the 50" HD screen....

This was just a simple AVI, imagine what the 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 version looks like.

Here is a link to the people who shot this and other stills form his camera. It's in German so you will have to translate.

Still Images shot with his Homemade HD cam:

http://web2.1289-1.1st-housing.de/72008?enclosingtemplate=plain&

http://web2.1289-1.1st-housing.de/72005?enclosingtemplate=plain&

http://web2.1289-1.1st-housing.de/72004?enclosingtemplate=plain&

MAIN LINK- ARTICLE to his HD system:

http://web2.1289-1.1st-housing.de/72003


Now back to the FX1
Now as I have said before, I would like to see someone shoot some tripod shots
of people interacting with one another with the HDR FX1. I don't have accsess to it or i would be filming actors etc. Kaku and the others that are lucky to have A FX1, go film people-kids, well composed shots etc. Oh yeah 0db gain too, and 1/60th.

FYI on hyperlinking your web links:

www.dvinfo.net/conf[/url ]

Now, I had to put a space between both "l" and "]" so you'll need to take away that space, so you get:

[url]www.hdvinfo.net/conf

If you want to make it a clickable text link, do this:

[url =www.dvinfo.net/conf]DV Info Net Forums[/url ]

Again, get rid of the space between "l" and "=" and also "l" and "]"

You'd get:

DV Info Net Forums (www.dvinfo.net/conf)

Your friendly wrangler,

heath

I'm reading the article through Babel fish--and my head's spinning--Gosh, it's hard to get through those translations.

<<<-- Originally posted by Betsy Moore : I'm reading the article through Babel fish--and my head's spinning--Gosh, it's hard to get through those translations. -->>>

When using the Babel Fish: DON'T PANIC.

Hey Markus,

I noticed one of the photos was captioned 720p--are they all 720 or are you messing around with 1080 too? What do you imagine this camera would cost (ballpark)

As they say in your country,

Donkey Shame:)

From the article:

"We had 3000 euro, a half-full tank and were nonsmokers. The development of DRAKE 1 could begin..."

I suspect this is the babelfish translation of a Blues Brothers reference. Anyway, it looks as if Markus and company are using medical or industrial CCDs and engineering their own DSP and capturing direct to disk. I wonder how the optical path works? Is it a 3-CCD with prism arrangemet? The article talked about black & white CCDs, but I can't understand the details. I understood the desire for a true 35mm light path to duplicate 35mm depth of field directly onto the CCDs.

I truly want to see how the "small problem with fixed pattern noise" has been fixed. This is no "small problem" - it looks like getting much too close to a DLP projector! Not very pleasing. You can also see this problem in the 2nd still that Michael posted. Look at the shirt.

For $3000 Euros, this is a very interesting development. Imagine if the the near future if 35mm equal "webcams" were sold that connected directly to a laptop or a firewire hard drive, and had a PL mount, Nikon mount or even c-mount lens on the front.

Remember, Dalsa was involved in medical imaging long before they started developing a digital film camera.

I also just realized I've just helped pull this thread way off topic. I want to join everyone else in thanking Kaku for posting the clips. Watching these images playing through VLC player on my Apple Cinema Display was awe-inspiring! I've noticed that after downconverting to DV, the images look much more like "live video", but that's probably just a function of a 60i capture with a 60th shutter. If Sony will only offer 24p on the pro model, I have no doubts that this camera will be ready for indie film applications. The level of detail is stunning, and puts any DV camera, even the higher end broadcast cameras to shame. Sony is going to own the under-$50,000 camera market come next April!

<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Anderson : Sony is going to own the under-$50,000 camera market come next April! -->>>

I wouldn't speak so fast. ;)

Hi Frederic,

Your work with LumiereHD is making it possilbe for my files to be available which I thank you. It wasn't possible to provide such without your software.
Am I correct that I can't demux FX1 files with version 1.2, or I'm doing something wrong.

If there's something I can help you, please let me know.

<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Haubrich : I wouldn't speak so fast. ;) -->>>

...I'd love to ask for more info, but I also know that if you do know something, you won't be able to spill the beans yet.

I just hope all this HDV stuff shakes down by April/May. I'm pushing the limits of my DVX and need to move to the next level. Sometime late next spring or in early summer would be a great time for me to do that and I plan to buy the best camera I can afford then. It must do 24p and at least as much resolution as the FX1 and also be easily manageable in the field. I'm guestimating my budget will be $25K. Something like that recently announced JVC pro HDV camera may be an option, the pro version of the FX1 may fit the bill too if it indeed does 24p (but I doubt it will). Maybe Panasonic will have a successor to the DVX100? Maybe I'll stumble across a Sony HDC-F9x0 on eBay (yeah, right). I just hope something comes along... It just looks like the prosumer market is going to fall short of what I need and top out at about $7K and the extra I can scrape up for my budget won't buy me what I really would like to have. As of right now, it looks like I'll be buying the pro version of the FX1 and possibly a wide angle lens attachment as well as an underwater housing... But it's all pure speculation at this point. ;-/

Jeff

Kaku,

You are correct. Version 1.2 isn't yet compatible with the Sony devices. Version 1.5 will be fully compatible with all the Sony HDV cameras and decks.

Someone asked a while back in this thread about shooting HD and capturing standard DV widescreen. Here is a link to a post on the Vegas forum where a Sony rep says that you can do this:

http://mediasoftware.sonypictures.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=327630&Page=0

Jeff,

All I can say is "24p help is on the way"...just teasing. It sounds like your wishes will come true sooner than you think, at a more affordable price than you think. HDV is about to become a very competitive field and the ultimate winner is going to be the consumer.

If you plan on waiting a few months until you make a purchasing decision, you're in good shape.

<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Haubrich : Jeff,

All I can say is "24p help is on the way"...just teasing. It sounds like your wishes will come true sooner than you think, at a more affordable price than you think. HDV is a about to become a very competitive field and the ultimate winner is going to be the consumer.

If you plan on waiting a few months until you make a purchasing decision, you're in good shape. -->>>

Hehe... Well, hopefully you're right. It will be at least 5 months before I make any purchase, so I think I'm in good shape in that regard. Although, with the lack of official announcements and rumors flying around, I find myself saying "screw it" and I start dreaming up ways I might be able to afford a CineAlta. Hehe.

Jeff,

5 months sounds like perfect timing for a sound HDV purchasing decision.

Frederic,

Could you please confirm about the following? Does LumiereHD version 1.2 capture footage from HDR-FX1 at 1080i with no modification in the data?

These are totally nothing interesting to watch since they are shot for comparing the frames. So, please don't blame me for shooting something not fun to watch:). It was quite challenging because of the situation on this location at this time of the day. But I think it might give you good ideas of how this cam takes shots like these clips under a terrible circumstances.

These clips are shot in front of my company.
I named these files HDV frame comparison footage, abbreviated as "HDVfcmprsn". These are shot at around 16:30pm, it was getting dark.
No gain added:), F1.7, 1/60, no cinematone even the ones with cinemaframe.

HDVfcmprsn24f.m2t Cinematone off
HDVfcmprsn30f.m2t Cinematone off
HDVfcmprsn60i.m2t

Just in case you can't find the directory...
Here! (www.hdvinfo.net/media/kakugyo/16:30RainFrmCmprsn) <Thanx to Heath for reminding me, I keep on forget what it was>

Don't enjoy but compare them well!! :)

Ok, analysis:

1-60i mode shows the most interlacing artifacts (a lot)
2-Cine24 loses a lot of resolving power
3-While 60i produce the sharpest image, Cine30 is #2.

I made screen captures uncompressed of all three clips and used the B.G. post at left as a guide, I blew it up 300% in Photoshop. It is pretty clear cut.

That means this camera's Cine30 is NOT from a real progressive CCD as some have said and that it just de-interlaces the footage a la Magic Bullet in camera.

Cine24 loses a loy of details and is choppy. Garbage look filter.

Thank you Donal for the analysis.

I should have done DV shooting at the same time. I will do that tomorrow and probably replace with these clips (so, there will be three HDV and three DV clips).

FORGET the 24 cine thing - looks like an effect !!! 30 cine thing is more useable BUT this camera is INTERLACE and that is where this camera SHINES !!

1080i !!!! is excellent ... want 24progressive = look elsewhere ...
don't even consider the FAKE 24 on this camera !

if you are getting interlace artifacts at 1080i then you are either watching on a progressive screen and screen size is smaller then 1920x1080 , and /or your processor can't play back the clips at 29.97 ... well actually if you are playing back on WMP the codec that it is using really wasn't designed for the sony HDV compression .. if you have a HDV plug-in that i suggest you see what speed it's playing back the clip ??

you need to set your monitor to 1920x1080 or larger if you want to see 1080i !!!! if the clip will play back at 29.97 you will see very little interlace artifacts on progressive screen ...
if your player has to scale the clip smaller then it might be introducing artifacts ???