We all know that often when one deinterlaces footage in many or most post programs, half the lines are thrown away and the remaining lines doubled. I've been a following the XH A1 and apparently when shooting in F format (24F or 30F), users have alluded to this occurring at some level because the sharpness decreases.

My question to V1 owners is, since the V1 is a TRUE progressive camera as Spotted Owl has said, does it avert any line doubling voodoo of any sort? Is this the sharpest progressive camera that shoots HDV that we know of? Or is the image a wee bit softer? I'd like to know.

A 60i/50i frame grab and then a 30P/25P frame grab from a few seconds later on a detailed area would be great for comparison.

First, please get my name right? :-)
Second, this camera doesn't deinterlace, because it's true progressive. There is no line doubling (nor is there any in the canon, either)
There is no way to give you a frame grab of 60i with 30p "a few seconds later" because there is no way to switch the camera modes that fast.
You can have similar footage of the a similar event, or you can have stills of the exact same.
Sharpest camera? I'm not willing to go that far, and say it's sharper or less sharp than any other HDV camcorder, as the XLH1 is very sharp, and all of the cameras have sharpening tools. The question isn't if it's the sharpest, but does it at default settings, have a sharper image.

I've not tested the XLH1 at default against the V1u with regard to sharpness.

>>My question to V1 owners is, since the V1 is a TRUE progressive camera as Spotted Eagle has said, does it avert any line doubling voodoo of any sort?<<

No.

>>Is this the sharpest progressive camera that shoots HDV that we know of?<<

Possibly, but the jury is still out. Let's see what the reviewers have to say. Adam Wilt, in DV Magazine, February 2007, on page 48 said the following:

"Overall, the raw resolution of the prototype V1 surpasses that of either the Z1 or the Panasonic HVX200, and may even challenge Canon's crisp XL-H1. I'm (Adam Wilt) eager to test the final, shipping version."

>>Or is the image a wee bit softer? I'd like to know.<<

See above.

Hope this helps, Dave.

... users have alluded to this occurring at some level because the sharpness decreases.


1) With Sharpness set a NORMAL, my posts here show no difference between I and P.

2) With Sharpness set a 5, my posts here show 24p to be softer than 60i.

So the solution is simple -- adjust Sharpness to taste. It's in your hands how the image looks.

Spot and Steve,
I recently did some very crude tests on our V1P and I noticed something interesting. I did post this before but the thread got locked and I think it's just got lost amongst a whole lot of other stuff.

Anyway I found no visual difference between 25p and 50i, yes this is an updated camera! But what I did notice was an increase in noise, as expected. I was shooting an almost totally black subject, a very large, black Pelican flight case. But the noise simply wasn't there on the flat areas of the case. It was only there on the edges. No not crawling things, just strong video noise.

Now the only explaination I have for this effect is the camera is using some form of DNR and that's certainly a valid technique. However I'm wondering if what some are seeing and others are not relates to how this affects resolution at lower light levels. Obviously also given the difference in noise levels inherent in 'p' Vs 'i' it's going to be more obvious in 'p' than 'i'.

Perhaps what'd further confuse things is fine moving detail in low light and DNR. The DNR might wipe out the fine detail mistaking it for noise. I'm more than happy to run some more tests to further investigate if anyone thinks there's any merit in my ideas.

I'm far from certain that anything's 'broken', just trying to clear up some of the FUD.

[Edit] Should have mentioned I was looking at the component output from the camera on a Dell 24" LCD. Not the recorded signal.

Very good point, Bob. There is a DNR system in the DSP of course, and with certain settings in the gamma setups coupled with low light, I've noticed that the DNR can get aggressive.

But what I did notice was an increase in noise, as expected.

There should be no difference in noise -- or sensitivity -- with Sony's system.

Every 1/50th or 1/60th second, a 960x1080 FRAME is input to the EIP which creates one FRAME of 1080-lines (1920-pixels wide). It makes no difference if I or P.


I-OUTPUT: every 1/50th or 1/60th second, the odd-lines are output as an odd field of 1440x540. Every alternate 1/50th or 1/60th second, the even-lines are output as an even field of 1440x540.

When viewed, either in our eyes, or in the HDTV's deinterlacer, the two fields are combined. NOTE THAT THE VIEWED "I" FRAME COMES FROM TWO (2) CAPTURED 960x1080 FRAMES!

The camera's anti-alias filter is set to optimize the FRAME when displayed. It is the anti-alias filter that determines how much stepping is seen on edges of diagonals.


P-OUTPUT: every 1/50th or 1/60th second, the odd-lines are output as an odd field of 1440x540. Every alternate 1/50th or 1/60th second, the even-lines are output as an even field of 1440x540. HOWEVER, THE *SAME* CAPTURED 960x1080 FRAME IS USED FOR BOTH OUTPUT FIELDS. (The other captured 960x1080 frame is discarded.)

When viewed, either in our eyes or in the HDTV's deinterlacer -- the two fields are combined. NOTE THAT THE VIEWED FRAME COMES FROM ONE (1) CAPTURED 960x1080 FRAME.


NOTE:
Viewed "I" comes from twice as much source information as does viewed "P." There is every reason for "I" to look better.


THE ISSUE:

Ideally, there should be two settings for the anti-aliasing filters. In "I" mode, the filter frequency can be higher because when the fields are combined, they complement each other. This helps prevent visible aliasing (stair-stepping). Keeping the filter frequency high keeps overall detail high.

In "P" mode, the filter frequency could be set lower to present aliasing (stair-stepping). This would prevent any appearance of aliasing in P. The price, however, would overall detail loss!

Remember, you can always trade-off "detail" for a "cleaner" pix. Canon has always gone for clean. Sony -- see Adam Wilt's reviews of Sony DV camcorders -- goes for greater detail which means more aliasing. Moreover, while stair-stepping is what you see on hard edges -- softer edges just get noisey. And, Sony compared to Canon has also always had noisey edges. (These have been a very common complaints.)

Obviously, the V1U seems to have the balance down very nicely. But, I don't think I would say I and P are identical. And, I don't think it's possible to be perfectly identical. I think Sharpness needs to be adjusted to your own needs in each mode. And, I can't promise Sharpness will reduced aliasing as it depends on the frequencies altered by Sharpness.)

Please note, I'm making no comment on the V1E. I'll leave that to those who have them.

Steve,
thanks for that detailed explaination. When I get the chance I'll go back and repeat my tests on that basis with our V1P. At the time I was looking more at the aliasing non issue.

I wasn't going to post on this subject but I see the message still hasn't got through.

It is important for those people in 25P lands to see the issue at first hand.

1. To say the aliasing issue is a non issue is strange. In the image attached below it is very obvious that aliasing is an issue. Believe me when the tree moves in the original it looks like there is a gridded filter placed over the screen as all those edges run like crazy.

2. There is also an abundance of mosquito noise round the edges.

3. Notice also that the fine detail in the field behind the trees is obliterated by large block noise that is horrendous when in motion.

4. The oil paint effect is still present but is not so visible in this image. In images I have sent Sony it is still visible.

5. Over sharpening of edges.

These artifacts are not consistent with the very high quality of 50i.

******IMPORTANT*******
Sony are aware of ALL these issue in the 25PScan mode. These are NOT non issues to Sony. I have spoken to senior people within Sony, my dealer has spoken to Sony, Simon Wyndham emailed me and said his contacts were aware of the same issues and more. He had viewed the output on a Sony LMD23 monitor which showed "horrendous aliasing." Everyone is singing from the same hymn book. The 25P problem is real it is acknowledged and Sony are fixing it.

Thankfully it isn't a non-issue to Sony. So let us not keep inaccurately portraying the 25P issue as it doesn't seem to help anyone.

TT

The picture....

Thanks Tony for keeping us informed of the Sony fix. I hope you'll have better news soon ! I called Sony France Pro regarding this problem and, as usual in France, nobody knows anything about it ! I really wish everything's gonna be OK and I don't understand why it's easier for Sony to deliver a 24P and 30P good version than a 25P one.

Kristin

In my tests I was, at the request of another forum member looking for "staircasing" on high contrast diagonal edges. What I saw was the exact same results as I expected, the same in both 25p and 50i. As a further test we swapped the V1P for a Z1 in 50i and it was exactly the same. There will always be staircasing on diagonals at the resolution limit. This was using white card on a black background but pretty well lit. A 4 bank fluro 1 M away to be exact.

Now looking at the supplied image and blowing it up to 200% in PS I can see exactly what I saw in my tests but didn't look at in any great detail but have mentioned before.

The branches against the sky show expected staircasing. However around them is what looks like the exact same noise that I noticed in darker areas of the frame. Combine the normal aliasing (staircasing) with that noise and in motion things I agree could look really bad, I don't think it's the same as the mosquito noise that was the bane of DV though.

The dark field behind the tree has indeed become something more like a painting that a photo. Again I suspect this has something to do with dynamic noise reduction. From what Steve said before though I cannot see why it's an issue in P and not I. I was pretty certain in my tests I only noticed it in progressive and based on what was said was going to recheck it in case I had lost my marbles.

And from what I've been told Sony Australia are also investigating a problem post the first fix. What I hadn't been told is if they'd confirmed the problem or what the problem was so I wasn't going to mention it until further details emerged.

The dark field behind the tree has indeed become something more like a painting that a photo. Again I suspect this has something to do with dynamic noise reduction. From what Steve said before though I cannot see why it's an issue in P and not I. I was pretty certain in my tests I only noticed it in progressive and based on what was said was going to recheck it in case I had lost my marbles.


I agree there is always going to be some aliasing especially on high contrast edges especially in a 4:2:0 colour space......But.....in interlaced mode the stairsteps are much reduced because they are not subjected to the extreme level of sharpening.

You are absolutely correct about the dynamic DNR. In progressive mode it is over active and in changeable light one can see the detail literally is rubbed away to be replaced by blotchy block noise as the light drops. In interlace mode the detail remains even in the darks through a wide variation in light intensities.

The over active DNR and the increased sharpening creates the "oil paint" effect. The "fix" at Christmas reduced the point at which the DNR became active but in no way did make 25P acceptable.

If someone could tell me where I can get DVHSCap (Intel mac) to record short M2Ts as still frames do not show how bad the aliasing is, how that can create sparkling noise on all bright edges and to see how quickly the block noise becomes severe. The overall apparent noise is significantly higher in progressive mode as a result of these factors.

I find it hard to believe that a camera could be released in such a state and then be "fixed" and still it is not fit for purpose. Embarrassing...

TT

If someone could tell me where I can get DVHSCap (Intel mac) to record short M2Ts as still frames do not show how bad the aliasing is, how that can create sparkling noise on all bright edges and to see how quickly the block noise becomes severe. The overall apparent noise is significantly higher in progressive mode as a result of these factors.

I find it hard to believe that a camera could be released in such a state and then be "fixed" and still it is not fit for purpose. Embarrassing...

TT

I think this issue highlights the point that existing test methods are inadequate for cameras using advanced image processing. I'd bet you could run all the standard res chart tests and not see this problem.

I'll try and capture some footage using Vegas this week.

I think this issue highlights the point that existing test methods are inadequate for cameras using advanced image processing. I'd bet you could run all the standard res chart tests and not see this problem.

I'll try and capture some footage using Vegas this week.

Absolutely correct.

Check out these two frames taking care to notice the roof detail on the red brick houses in the front left and the grass in the foreground. These 2 frames were are part of the same clips separated by <20secs! ****BOTH shot in 25PScan Mode****

BTW, this does not happen in interlace mode. Interlace holds together very well.

TT

Forgot to say, light drop caused by cloud obscuring sun! No settings change between images.

These 2 frames were are part of the same clips separated by <20secs! @25PScan Mode


Does this mean both images were taken with 25p? One looks as if it was interlaced (details are OK) and the other is smudged soft. I dont really get this if both are 25p

Does this mean both images were taken with 25p? One looks as if it was interlaced (details are OK) and the other is smudged soft. I dont really get this if both are 25p

Both are 25P all that has changed is that a cloud obscured the sun in the second image. This is the problem Zsolt. Interlaced footage does not suffer like this. Like I said before interlaced footage looks like it has come from a different camera compared to 25P.

This shows the problem of identifying the issue. As soon as the conditions are slightly off optimum the image turns to junk. There are other issues with 25P that are really only become obvious when the image is moving e.g the excessive line twitter, clumping block noise and aliasing.

Cheers

TT

I had a longer look at the photos and realized that in the one with the details the more distant roofs also show the soft smeared effect. Basically one roof in the first row has the details, the others dont.

I would find difficult to believe the reason is the change in light conditions (however there might be some sort of circuitry or filter that is affected by light...).

Your images made me think how could this happen. It would be very interesting to see all the 25 frames taken in one second. One by one. I bet there would be difference between them in terms of softness and artifacts.

And if one could capture the 25 frames of the next second (or any other) and this pattern would show a repetitive nature then some Sony engineer might think about the reason.
All this is speculation though.

Makes sense to me. The blacks / low light parts of the frame are where noise is the most noticable. If I was designing some form of DNR that's where I'd want it doing it's thing.
Why would you want to kill off noise, just a guess on my part but it's something that mpeg-2 encoders have a real problem with.
Now here's a thought, how is this affected by the amount of edge enhancement? Edge enhancement makes noise much worse, maybe, just maybe the problem can be tamed by lower it from the default when shooting 25p. When I say Edge enhancement read Sharpness or Detail.

What I still don't get is why this is only happening in 25p and why it's not happening in 24p or 30p.

Has anyone tried shooting these kinds of scenes on a V1U in 24p or 30p and looked for the same kind of problems?

Makes sense to me. The blacks / low light parts of the frame are where noise is the most noticable. If I was designing some form of DNR that's where I'd want it doing it's thing.
Why would you want to kill off noise, just a guess on my part but it's something that mpeg-2 encoders have a real problem with.

Are you saying that what is shown in the two images is acceptable?

The 25P sharpness level is way above that of interlaced. I shot with the default of 7 and progressive looks more like it is set to 12-15 while in interlaced it looks normal. If you turn down the sharpness the progressive footage just turns to mush below 5.

I just can't see how something like this passed any level of quality control. I have a hunch, based on the comments of Steve Mullen, that 24P and 30P are similarly affected to some degree. I reckon this might be a wider problem than just 25P.

People just don't look at an image properly or know what to expect. My dealer said he has sold loads of these cameras but there are only a few people reporting the 25P issue.

TT

I had a longer look at the photos and realized that in the one with the details the more distant roofs also show the soft smeared effect. Basically one roof in the first row has the details, the others dont.

I would find difficult to believe the reason is the change in light conditions (however there might be some sort of circuitry or filter that is affected by light...).

Your images made me think how could this happen. It would be very interesting to see all the 25 frames taken in one second. One by one. I bet there would be difference between them in terms of softness and artifacts.

And if one could capture the 25 frames of the next second (or any other) and this pattern would show a repetitive nature then some Sony engineer might think about the reason.
All this is speculation though.

Zsolt

There is no repetitive problem. As soon as the cloud's shadow moves over the roof the detail is rubbed away.

All of the smudging of the roofs off in the distance is pretty normal for 25P. As soon as the detail gets fine the "filter" gets going and rubs it out. Again, this does not happen in 50i.

TT

It's when you pan the camera is when I notice the problem at it's worst.
Michael

The 25P sharpness level is way above that of interlaced. I shot with the default of 7 and progressive looks more like it is set to 12-15 while in interlaced it looks normal. If you turn down the sharpness the progressive footage just turns to mush below 5.

I just can't see how something like this passed any level of quality control. I have a hunch, based on the comments of Steve Mullen, that 24P and 30P are similarly affected to some degree. I reckon this might be a wider problem than just 25P.
TT

I can tell you having shot hours of 24p there is no such problem as you say you see. And, I've posted multiple 24p and 30p comparisons with 60i -- and to date no one has reliably been able to tell which was which, except the 24P was SOFTER which, of course, is exactly what most shooting 24p want. That tells me NORMAL may be fine for both 24p and 60i. No need to dial down.

My previous posting point was that there are good reasons why I and P "MAY" look different. It makes perfect sense for them to not look 100% identical.

Saying this is NOT support for what you and a few others see. Moreover, given the 100's if not 1000's of V1Us in use -- I really doubt that no one has seen the "bug" if it existed.

In fact, I've got to wonder given the 100's of V1Es in use, why only few people have posted anything negative. Tony, it's as reasonable to assume you have one of a few bad V1Es as it is for you to assume they are all bad, but only you have the ability to see the "bug."

Frankly, I haven't looked at your pix postings because I'm only interested in how the video looks being played back. But, I just quickly looked at it. All I see is an picture with highly crushed blacks. A little too soft, but not too bad for a posted still from video.

Bottom-line -- there are dozens of luma and chroma filters that must set perectly. Seems your unit MAY not yet be precisely set.

I think it is a serious error to now try to suggest that ALL V1's have some problem based upon your single sample.

Are you saying that what is shown in the two images is acceptable?
TT

Not at all, I'm trying to fathom HOW it is happening, why a shift in the levels changes the appearance of the problem.

It also explains what Steve is saying, lots of people aren't complaining. Well sure, from what I've seen so far you need a pretty specific set of circumstances and even then perhaps only part of the frame is affected. Looking at you first image the stream looks great, the field towards the back looks horrid and the branches against the sky shows things that in motion could be awefull too.

Looking at your second two images taken in sequence shows something pretty dramatic is going on.

As to Steve's suggestion that this a one off problem. Well possibly but I'd assume all this is happening in digital land so I doubt it's a pot set in the wrong position.

So surely the answer is to get another V1E and run them side by side or else get others to check under the same conditions. In fairness to Sony as I said before if this is a genuine problem in all units I doubt typical testbench tests would reveal this problem. It's possible all units have this problem, I'd certainly have to go out of my way down here to create those shooting conditions at this time of year to try to repro the problem. Certainly I wouldn't have seen it in any of my usual camera checks.

In fact, I've got to wonder given the 100's of V1Es in use, why only few people have posted anything negative. Tony, it's as reasonable to assume you have one of a few bad V1Es as it is for you to assume they are all bad, but only you have the ability to see the "bug."

Personally, I don't think that Tony has an odd bad apple is a reasonable assumption.

It seems that all of the V1E/P users who have expressed ANYTHING on this forum have said they have the problem. I have not heard anyone saying that 25p is definately as good a V1U 24p/30p.

Anyway, I think it's safe to assume that all V1E/Ps have a problem given that Sony said to Tony that the initial Firmware update did not fix the problem.

The 25P issue is not limited to my unit. Sony hasn't stopped delivering units to dealers for no reason. My dealer still has not received his units back from Sony as they are not fixed. Dealers who are still selling the units are being urged to explain that there is a problem with 25P and it will be fixed under warranty.

The reason for posting the later two pics was to show how the 25P issue can suddenly raise its ugly head in a matter of seconds and how easy the flaw can be missed.

Who has ever said someone shooting progressive actually wants a softer image?

TT

<snip>...haven't looked at your pix postings because I'm only interested in how the video looks being played back. But, I just quickly looked at it. All I see is an picture with highly crushed blacks. A little too soft, but not too bad for a posted still from video.<snip>

Ok, lets keep it real. The comparative images that Tony has with the buildings.... it looks like someone took the video into Photoshop and applied the "blur" tool to litterally wipe out selective detail. Its definitely "too bad" and, to be frank, I'd have sent my XH A1 right back if it produced anything like that. You can argue about the goodnes of the V1 NTSC models, or that maybe Tony just has a bad apple (not that I think this is the case)... but I don't think it can be objectively argued that those shots are just a little too soft. They suck coming from a camcorder at this price point.

It's when you pan the camera is when I notice the problem at it's worst.
Michael

This is to be expected from *all* progressive cameras.
Panning and zooming are different techniques when shooting 24, 25, and 30p. 60p will be/should be more like shooting 60i, but my 60p experience is currently limited to one camera, and it wasn't all that impressive. (neither me nor the camera) :-)

Panning and zooming are different techniques when shooting 24, 25, and 30p.

Are you sure?

I know 24p is a nightmare because of the ugly jerkiness you get from pull-down, but I've never found 25p or 50i @ 1/50th to be much of a difference. To my eyes you just get more motion blur at 25p.

Yes, I'm sure.

Take your camera and do a reasonably fast pan across something that has a lot of vertical breaks, such as a picket fence, shooting 25p.

Now do the same thing shooting 50i.

You'll see strobing.

Shoot a subject moving across a landscape with high speed in both modes, you'll also notice it.
It might be that because you're so familiar with the stutter that 50i has, that it won't bother you as much, but it's definitely there. Having shot all of the modes, 50i is the most irritating for me. We used to shoot 25p fairly regularly, (or 50i) for conversion to 24p. 25p and 24p are indistinguishable.

Yes, I'm sure.
Take your camera and do a reasonably fast pan across something that has a lot of vertical breaks, such as a picket fence, shooting 25p.
Now do the same thing shooting 50i.
You'll see strobing.
Shoot a subject moving across a landscape with high speed in both modes, you'll also notice it.
It might be that because you're so familiar with the stutter that 50i has, that it won't bother you as much, but it's definitely there. Having shot all of the modes, 50i is the most irritating for me. We used to shoot 25p fairly regularly, (or 50i) for conversion to 24p. 25p and 24p are indistinguishable.

Actually it's possible because I'm habituated to 25p. I always shoot 25p (a lot of stuff I work on is for web delivery) and I think it's about 8 years since I've shot any 50i (back in the day working for news).

Actually now you come to mention it, I do remember taking more "care" with camera moves when I started shooting 25p...

It all seems pretty natural now.

The 25P issue is not limited to my unit. Sony hasn't stopped delivering units to dealers for no reason. My dealer still has not received his units back from Sony as they are not fixed.TT

I can confirm this. I have spoken with the guy at Sony today to get an update on the situation with my camera that is with them for about 2 weeks now. He said they were waiting for folks in Japan to figure out what to do. Since I will need the cam very soon (at least to be able to work with 50i), he sent it back today without the fix. They will send a courier again for my cam once they will know what to do.

Surely they wont bother if the issue was not acknowledged by them.

Tony, it's as reasonable to assume you have one of a few bad V1Es as it is for you to assume they are all bad, but only you have the ability to see the "bug."
I think it is a serious error to now try to suggest that ALL V1's have some problem based upon your single sample.

Hmmm...I have to argue with this.

First, if this would be the case, would it not be super easy for Sony to say: "hey Mr. Tremble, here is a perfect replacement unit for you, we have double checked, it does not show any of the artifacts you have found in your bad apple unit" and the story was over.

Instead, they do a software update first.
Then they pay courier twice to collect and resend units in countries as far as Poland and Hungary.
They stop distribution in UK and OZ (maybe also in other places I am not aware of) until the problem being fixed.

If the problem units were not many, why would they bother instead of simply replacing these solitary bad units with normally working ones to get things smoothen and avoid suspicion of potential new customers in 25p markets?

I haven't posted on this forum for a while, as I thought that after Sony officially admitted the bug, and that there's still no working fix for it, all we can do is just wait. But posts from people who still deny the bug very existence make me come back with this short confirmation: yes, Steve, the bug is there. In fact, it's so evident I returned my camera - after getting it back from PrimeSupport after unsuccessful attempt at fixing -to my dealer for full refund.

Questioning the evidence from those affected does not help anybody. That not every single V1E buyer has reported the bug doen't mean a thing, either. Many don't post here, others don't care so much, still other simply sent it to Prime Support fro a fix without notifying their dealer. It's as simple as this.

My Dealer informed me that he will not have flawless units from the factory before the end of February. So, the problem is a serious one, and forums like this should help people get informed and not introduce confusion.

In the post "Dear Gosh... where's the footage", Chris Medico posted some footage at 30p in a highly contrasted environment. This footage showed the issue well with 25p, it would have been impossible to shoot this without crawling edges of one sort or another. The problems he had with the shoot otherwise I think you would expect anyway.
In my previous post I mention panning, this was done extemely slowly with a tripod just to make sure I was not creating a problem horizontally or vertically.
If you had first hand experience of the 25p issue, you would be keen to see the back end of it as you cannot produce quality video in all circumstances with 25p.

But posts from people who still deny the bug very existence make me come back with this short confirmation: yes, Steve, the bug is there.

Questioning the evidence from those affected does not help anybody.

Everyone should read more carefully. I have never questioned that some number of V1E's have some kind of "bug."

Read them again! What I questioned was Tony's newest claim that ALL V1s have a problem and that thousands of us simply haven't noticed it yet. I also objected to his using my explanation of how the V1 works as "support" for his "they are all broken" theory.

Lastly, I have been trying to explain why I and P "may" not look identical because they are not created the same. And, why if one asked which looked better -- the answer would be I. In other words, I do not expect that out of the box two different scanning systems would look identical. I also don't expect a high-detail camera to be 100% free of aliasing. Ain't ever been the case with any camera I've tested.

Conversly, I have no problem believing that the "bug" is far beyond anything I would call "not identical."

PS: of course there are not "pots" -- but there are dozens a firmware parameters that can be adjusted. In fact, I suspect that we are dealing with an issue that arises from the fact the 576PAL and 1080i use different filter settings than do 480NTSC and 1080i. If it's really the end of FEB, it could be a new optical anti-aliasing filter.

PS: of course there are not "pots" -- but there are dozens a firmware parameters that can be adjusted. In fact, I suspect that we are dealing with an issue that arises from the fact the 576PAL and 1080i use different filter settings than do 480NTSC and 1080i. If it's really the end of FEB, it could be a new optical anti-aliasing filter.

And as for the quote above, is any of that based on information you have received from Sony or is it something you've plucked out of the air? It is pretty clear you haven't looked at the comparison pics I posted as the problems are far greater than an anti aliasing filter.

The information I have is that if needed they will completely re-write the firmware, because they can, as tweaking proved unsuccessful.

Whether you like it or not 25P is broken on all units that shipped in the first batch which includes the V1P and V1E. There is probably a very good reason why more owners are reporting issues as many will be in the hands of freelance camera operators shooting mainly in WS DVCAM for news. I very much doubt the cameras were ever bought with any intention of shooting HDV by these people. I've seen two already being used at press conferences in news footage.

TT

It is pretty clear you haven't looked at the comparison pics I posted as the problems are far greater than an anti aliasing filter.

TT

Tony -- please relax. No one disputes you see a serious problem with your V1U. No disputes that Sony is working on the problem.

Sorry, but I did look at your pix post and it looked like a bad shot. But, as I said, I'm not into using compressed frame grabs to prove quality points.


BUT the topic of this thread is PROGRESSIVE SOFTNESS and not your problem! The Thread on 25P was closed. Now you've opened the topic again, here. So, anything to do do with 25P is OT.

Please let's get back to the topic before this thread is closed too.

Please let's get back to the topic before this thread is closed too.

Steve gave good advice here, but some people just aren't getting into the spirit of DVinfo's forums. Sadly, I've had to close this thread as well. Let's all take a breather and cool down, then maybe we can re-open the discussion after Chris has a chance to review things.