In fact you can see the paint effect in the other clips that Brett posted, too.

It seems mostly to be limited to areas of similar colour - like skytones, or flat walls.

In the villiage clip it's there in the sky, clouds, distant mountainside, and shadow areas of the branches - although less noticable because they don't have much variation in them naturally, so the "coring" or "noise reduction" or "hideous MPG artefacts" (or whatever is causing this phenomenon) isn't quite so obvious - but it's definately there. And there is dancing noise all over edges.

Whether this is "terribly" noticable or not - it doesn't seem to be an acceptable image when compared to the "I" footage. P seems to totally wipe out vast swathes of detail.

Alex

Whether the oil paint effect is noticeable is down to the scene on a case by case basis but the dancing noise is there all the time. The problem this causes is reducing the efficiency of the next encoding pass be that back HDV, compression to DVD or for broadcast etc etc. You'll be storing up problems for distribution with all that dancing noise.

It's not just how it looks it is the effect on the whole post production chain that must be taken into consideration.

TT

After a second thought, I can see some logic to it. So far, most NTSC reports about how great the progressive mode is were based on 24p, which is different in its nature than the 30p (which is in relation to 60i the same as 25p to 50i). Tony, both of us suspected quite a time ago that perhaps both 25p and 30p might be affected. And voila - they are (with the effect slightly less pronounced in the 30p). Sony is still selling the NTSC version as progressive simply because it has 24p, which works. I bet they are working on both 25p and 30p; whether they will succeed? Well, let's keep fingers crossed.

Just based on my informal tests I didn't notice any difference between 24P and 30P, they both exhibited the same effect. I don't have examples to show. But I'm pretty confident that 24P is no better.

The question for me is what Sony is going to do about it. It seems like they have a problem of the same magnitude as the split screen with the first JVC HD 100's. They'll either have to fix the problem with some sort of firmware update or get a working model and exchange it for the bad ones. I don't have time today to call them, but I will sometime soon. It would be nice if Sony acknowledged the problem and made a commitment to fix it. This is going to be bad PR for them.

The problem this causes is reducing the efficiency of the next encoding pass be that back HDV, compression to DVD or for broadcast etc etc. You'll be storing up problems for distribution with all that dancing noise.


The dancing noise is grain that the smoothing algorithm hasn't removed. But it does remove a lot of other noise so this actually will improve the encoding. It's easier to predict movements of smoother surfaces. The noise around edges would be there anyway even without the filter.

The dancing noise is grain that the smoothing algorithm hasn't removed. But it does remove a lot of other noise so this actually will improve the encoding. It's easier to predict movements of smoother surfaces. The noise around edges would be there anyway even without the filter.

Mikko

Look closer there is much more noise in progressive than interlaced. I have loads of footage of the phenomenon and can clearly see an increase in noise in areas where it is relatively noise free in interlaced. This noise creates a shimmering effect in areas of high contrast detail and makes detail like winter trees against a blue sky extremely problematic. There is much more ringing in these circumstances.

The issues are much more than just coring believe me. When the light drops on a subject an over-active noise filter sets about destroying even more detail. This does not happen to the same degree in interlaced mode as it does in progressive.

Coring can be an effective too to improve the efficiency of the compression scheme but in this case it is not the only problem. The coring threshold is quite steep so you can literally have clumps of high detail "pop" out of a smoothed area.

You will also find edge detail is more aliased in progressive mode too due to over sharpening.

TT

Tony, it's funny that you mention noise in winter trees against a sky. This is precisely where I find the noise to be the worst in the interlaced mode on the FX7. Edge enhancement noise can be clearly seen along the edges of bare branches against the sky. As I've said before, I see the same issue with wires against a sky.

Now if I shoot the same scene with my little Canon HV10, there is no noise in that same area. Yes, the Sony will appear brighter & a bit sharper, but with the added phenomena of edge noise. Again, this does not appear in most scenes, but it's clearly there in some.

So IMO some artifacts are not a byproduct of just the progressive mode.

To me so far it almost seems to react strange to subtle gradients. That may be why we notice this in areas of flat color such as a blue sky or wall. Maybe there is a lot of banding from the DSP. Just a thought.

Brett:

Can you shoot a 24p vs 30p vs 60i clip so we can be sure that is the issue? Say of the workshop? I'm a little uneasy that some cameras may have the issue in 24p.

To me so far it almost seems to react strange to subtle gradients. That may be why we notice this in areas of flat color such as a blue sky or wall. Maybe there is a lot of banding from the DSP. Just a thought.

Tom, make sure what you're seeing is in no way related to your display device. Many digital displays will produce precisely this type of banding with areas of similar color.

Tom, make sure what you're seeing is in no way related to your display device. Many digital displays will produce precisely this type of banding with areas of similar color.

It's visible on the stills and clips... and it doesn't show up in "i", so it's unlikely that the display is the root cause of the problem.

I created an html page. Just go to www.geekstudios.com/demos. Then you can try "Save Target" or "Save Link" to download the clips. If that doesn't work, you can always find a friend with a PC.

Brett, thank you for taking the time to provide these links.

So I've opened the two workshop JPEGs and I'm comparing them on two identical 20" LCD displays. I've also viewed the M2T file.

It is of course 100% obvious from this footage that the progressive mode is washing out almost all the detail of the exterior of the red shop. And of course in that lower left portion of the screen, right under the hand rail, there's a lot of detail in the wood grain when in interlaced mode that turns to macroblocks in the progressive mode.

There's no way this can be a decoding issue of course, since the entire image would suffer equally. In progressive mode this camcorder targets portions of the image that meet certain criteria and applies a blurring or noise reduction to them. This is important for potential buyers to know, since some users regard progressive shooting as a priority and may wish to factor this into their purchasing decision.

Again, thanks for making the effort to post your objective samples.

I was looking to the workshop prog.jpg and you can notice in the back house and tree branches some type of paint effect but it all could be due to, over sharpened video filter or like many of you said some type of noise reduction filter or combination of both maybe. This remind me of the effect you get in photoshop by duplicating a picture then applying an emboss filter to the top image and then blend it with the first image and it looks something similar to the paint effect, off course without the detail loss.

OK -- which are 24p and which are 60i? They are 60i at 360 and 24p at 216.

Just use the pix number: 0 1 2 3

Sorry for the JPEGs. I wish we could upload TIFF or large BMPs.

And, yes I've made it harder by using 4 pix -- prevents guessing at 50:50 chance.

Now for those who claim 24p is different than 30p -- which it's not since it begins as progressive just like 30p -- which of the three A B C pix are 60i and which are 30p? Maybe one of them is 24p?

Given the claims that there are huge quality differences between frame-rates -- you shouldn't even need to play games and blow these up. The claimed differences should obvious at a glance.

Look for the oil paint FX. Look for the ants. Look for the macroblocks with no detail. Look for the ringing. :)

And if you claim you see some artifact -- you must describe it and point out where it is. No general "I see X in Y." Your observation must be able to be verified by others -- or it ain't valid.

Remember, it's claimed the effects are so serious that they are a deal breaker, so if there isn't a consensus -- then there isn't any problem with the V1U.

In c.jpg I can certainly see the oil painting effect, nowhere near as dramatic as what I've seen in some footage I've shot but given the subject matter that's exactly what I'd expect anyway.

That's the issue here, the problem only becomes pronounced enough to be objectionable with certain subject matter. I don't think anyone's saying you can't shoot footage that looks great. Rather the issue seems to be that you can shoot certain scenes under certain lighting conditions and get really bad results and under those and only those conditions there's a difference between shooting I and P.

Hey Steve

It is almost as though you ignore most of what's been written on the subject.

Read what Bob has written and please take note of it. It is important.

In good lighting there is little difference apart from the ringing noise around lines of contrast made worse in 25P by the excessive sharpening we have that also cause the marching ants effect. The effect is also quite noticeable in gradients such as skies.

When the light falls below optimum this is when the effect begins to dominate. That above all is the deal breaker for me anyway.

I applaud Sony's attitude toward its customers. I really do. Their official line is if progressive mode does not me your expectation then you are quite welcome to have a full refund. Can't say fairer than that!

They accept progressive is not up to the very high standard of the interlaced mode. It is a feature of the camera not a fault of it. I just want to make that clear. It was a fault prior to the firmware upgrade now the remaining "issues" with progressive mode are down to how the camera works in progressive mode. If you are not bothered by it keep the camera, if you are get the refund. There are no more fixes for any cameras coming.

The problem is solved...

TT

Could not agree more, Bob (I am referring to 25P). The problem is a real nuisance when you shoot in varied lighting and contrast situations, to the extent that you get very nervous about shooting progressive unless you have the proper conditions to get a good result.

And fair enough only certain types of shoots are suitable for progressive, especially with low frame rates, but you need to be confident that the results will give you the footage you should expect from a progressive marketed camera. The results of interlaced footage should not be relied on to get the best result when you are shooting progressive in order to achieve a clean progressive look.

You don't buy a progressive camera to get unreliable results. I just hope that Sony will bite the bullet and come out openly to give us an honest appraisal of the situation as they see it, so we as owners can review whether we have a full progressive or only in part progressive camera.

Michael.

In good lighting there is little difference apart from the ringing noise around lines of contrast made worse in 25P by the excessive sharpening we have that also cause the marching ants effect. The effect is also quite noticeable in gradients such as skies.TT

I think this qualifies as "good" lighting -- so where is the "ringing?"

Or, if you think it qualifies as "bad" lighting, then there should be all the artifacts.

Remember, you must describe it and point out where it is. No general "I see X in Y." Your observation must be able to be verified by others.

Time to put your claims to a public test.

<snip>
Look for the oil paint FX. Look for the ants. Look for the macroblocks with no detail. :)

And if you claim you see some artifact -- you must describe it and point out where it is. No general "I see X in Y." Your observation must be able to be verified by others -- or it ain't valid.


Steve, I'm a little too busy to look through your graphics right now. Perhaps you could look at the M2T file and two images of the red workshop that Brett posted for us and let us know if you think those are fine. Seriously, not trying to rag on anyone here, I'd really like your take on those samples.

The reason I ask is because people can post perfectly wonderful shots from their V1 camcorders all day long and that simply proves what we alredy know: the V1 can produce perfectly wonderful shots.

Unfortunately, providing wonderful samples does not dissprove that the camera can also create very problematic shots.

If you could give your professional breakdown of the video showing the red workshop that would be most helpful.

Thanks in advance!

And, yes I've made it harder by using 4 pix -- prevents guessing at 50:50 chance.

And we all hope you remember which one is which. What if you forget in the meantime?
The world will never know the "truth"... So how can we make sure you have jotted down the solution of your riddle?

And we all hope you remember which one is which. What if you forget in the meantime?
The world will never know the "truth"... So how can we make sure you have jotted down the solution of your riddle?

The way A-B tests work is to test if people can reliably differentiate between things. In reality, the truth is irrelevant. If a difference is real -- say between a B&W and Color images -- folks should be able to sort them perfectly.

Of course, this should be a blind vote because one could simply agree with the majority. I'm going to trust that no will play games as it's not in the spirit of the group.

Please remember I'm not saying the 25p issues aren't real. Obviously they have been or are -- depending on your view. I'm only pointing out that contrary to claims that the V1E has the same problems -- that it doesn't.

I have yet to see a similar public test using 25p and 50i.

Did you not see Brett's clip? That's all you need to know.

Put up m2ts.

If you are happy with the progressive "features" then that's fine Steve. I am not. I get a refund tomorrow. No more wasted time.

I have yet to see a similar public test using 25p and 50i.

Once the weather will allow me to move outside, I will do the test shots and post.
Btw in the numbered line two pics are copies of each other, not different shots with different settings. It is indicated by the identical head positions. The other two maybe identical, too - at least no heads there to indicate the difference.
What I see is two times two identical pics, two of them show oil paint inside the cake chiller.
If I had to live with that, I would be happy with it. But 25p is different.

Steve,

After looking at your pics, it seems to me that pics 1 & 3 are the 24P images. To my eyes, the dead giveaway is the drop ceiling behind the counter. It simply loses detail when compared to the other images.

Juan

I wish we could upload TIFF or large BMPs.Noted. I have now ammended the forum software file attachment parameters to allow for uploading fairly large file sizes using .TIF, .TIFF and .BMP extensions. Please be judicious with the bandwidth (thanks in advance).

...if there isn't a consensus -- then there isn't any problem with the V1U.

Possibly not true, given that it's generally felt that the "effect" is intermittent (and depends on the image shot).

We certainly have something weird going on in the footage and images provided by Brett.

I also think it's images 1 and 3 that are P, but I wouldn't stake my life on it - and I'll agree with you that in this case it's hard to tell.

Perhaps you could look at the M2T file and two images of the red workshop that Brett posted for us and let us know if you think those are fine.

Looking at the JPEGs I see exactly what I've always said about 30P vs 60I. The P has about 2 clicks less Sharpness than does I. Look at the grass. Look at the siding. (By the way -- I really don't believe these were shot with +9. Why would anyone shoot at anything above NORMAL.)

I posted this observation almost 3 weeks ago -- if not longer. It's obvious! You can see the lack of detail in my posts and Bretts. Look at my pix A B C. Look at the wood grain! It's obvious!

And, while the P softness is not always there -- likely because if there is a lot of contrast it increases apparent sharpness -- I'd hardly call it "intermittent." I'd say it's almost consistently slightly soft.

And, I'm not surprised since the capture method for P is different from that for I. Every I frame is sourced from 2 frames of 1920x1080 while P is sourced from 1 frame of 1920x1080. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this. I would expect this difference. No one should expect I and P to be identical.

The solution is simple -- try a bit more Sharpness with P than you use for I. If that adds to much EE, then the answer is equally simple. Just accept the fact that the way Sony gets P results in less fine detail that the way it gets I. Once accepted -- you either live with it or buy a different camcorder.

Looking at the JPEGs I see exactly what I've always said about 30P vs 60I. The P has about 2 clicks less Sharpness than does I. Look at the grass. Look at the siding.
<snip>


Well this is getting even weirder. So I'm looking at the two screen caps with the red work shed. I'm really trying to work with this reduced sharpness theory but I'm actually noticing now that the tree branches, especially in the right side of the frame, look quite a bit sharper and crisper in the progressive frame. There are actually some very fine branches that wash out in interlace mode that are clearly visible in the progressive frame. The increased resolution and detail in some parts of the progressive frame just does not align with the theory that progressive mode has reduced sharpness over interlaced. I think it stands to reason that whatever the sharpness settings are for progressive vs interlaced, it should be even across the entire image. I'm very clearly seeing now that the red siding on the shed - especially the front with the single door - is extremely blurred out in progressive and the details in the branches are actually increased.

I think I'm going to pull this clip into After Effects tomorrow and take a closer look.

Thanks for responding Steve.

Well this is getting even weirder. So I'm looking at the two screen caps with the red work shed. I'm really trying to work with this reduced sharpness theory but I'm actually noticing now that the tree branches, especially in the right side of the frame, look quite a bit sharper and crisper in the progressive frame. There are actually some very fine branches that wash out in interlace mode that are clearly visible in the progressive frame.

Good eye. That effect is visible on LCD as well. I think the reduced sharpness is unlikely. I played with the clip in Vegas 7 using levels and channel blend. The red shed lines that appear to soften in progressive are actually the more underexposed portion of frame. They contain much more blue and red, much green.

Most of the branches appear to stay same or sharpen slighty in progressive whereas the shed detail disappears.

My guess is that it's noise reduction (or possible a gamma/matrix issue) that is causing somewhat underexposed (lower IRE) areas (seems to be more blue and red channel affected) areas to get excessive noise reduction applied, basically treated detail as noise and smoothing it out.

However, areas of the frame that it identifies correctly as detail, and we see the slight progressive sharpness improvement we expect.

This jibes from my observations of Tony's images - areas of low detail in darker areas of frame lose detail and/or watercolor effect.

Of course, I'm not a camera engineer, but I think with these clues, some good charts, a vectorscope and controlled manipulations of camera settings, this issue (which is clearly real) can be illuminated.

I can see why testing might have missed it - my guess is well lit, higher contrast progressive images look fabulous as DSE's footage did.

Well this is getting even weirder. So I'm looking at the two screen caps with the red work shed. I'm really trying to work with this reduced sharpness theory but I'm actually noticing now that the tree branches, especially in the right side of the frame, look quite a bit sharper and crisper in the progressive frame.

Ha! I noticed the exact same thing! The progressive frame even seems to have more sharpening artifacts in certain areas of the frame. I made these 100% crops to illustrate Philip's point.

In the m2t, I also definitely see the dancing noise in the progressive versus interlaced.

I hate to say it, but for me, this camera is just too inconsistent. I really wanted to buy this camera for the smaller size and better focusing and exposure aids but Sony isn't doing a good job of convincing me, especially when the competing Canon XH-A1's street price has now settled to $3500. I really feel for the V1E folks who have been inconvenienced by this whole mess and I don't blame them at all if they vote with their pocketbooks and get an XH-A1 instead.

P.S. Another thing Sony, the focus distance display turning off after 3 sec is also another really bonehead thing to do!

I'd suggest that increasing sharpness in a attempt to compensate might make things worse. Edge enhancement seems to always do a good job of enhancing noise and if this 'effect' is the result of DNR then edge enhancement is going to make the noise worse and the DNR bite harder. Perhaps this is why Sony were saying to turn detail down?

I'd suggest that increasing sharpness in a attempt to compensate might make things worse. Edge enhancement seems to always do a good job of enhancing noise and if this 'effect' is the result of DNR then edge enhancement is going to make the noise worse and the DNR bite harder. Perhaps this is why Sony were saying to turn detail down?

I agree. If my and others admittedly sketch DNR theory is correct, sharpening would make it worse. What would be needed is a fix to the NR DSP firmware and/or ability to adjust/turn off NR

Well this is getting even weirder. So I'm looking at the two screen caps with the red work shed. I'm really trying to work with this reduced sharpness theory but I'm actually noticing now that the tree branches, especially in the right side of the frame, look quite a bit sharper and crisper in the progressive frame.

I too noticed this, but I feel these HIGH-CONTRAST lines are exactly the ones where edge enhancement would be applied to increase their apparent sharpness.

In other words, overall detail can be soft -- the siding, grass, the wood railing -- while at the same time EE is applied to edges that meet certain criteria. And, at the same time noise reduction -- perhaps only chroma noise reduction -- is applied to areas of the same color. Multiple alterations to the video occur at the same time. And, each alteration is dynamic. It is turned on and off as needed.

This is what DSP does to "enhance" the image. This is how Sony got Hi8 to look so clean compared to S-VHS. This is nothing new in camcorder design.

--------------

I agree that increasing Sharpness might not be the right solution because -- as I think about it -- it might not help the grass and siding at all. It all depends on exactly what increasing sharpness does. I'm now thinking it only affects EE and not detail. (Which means there may be no way to avoid the fact P looks softer than I.)

Thus, if Brett's video was shot at 9 -- the branches might look better if 7 had been used -- while the siding might look the same. Which raises the possibility that Sony defined 5 for Cine
because it reduces EE while not really reducing detail.

It would be nice to shoot a complex scene at different levels of Sharpness to determine what the optimal level is for I and for P.

I'd suggest that increasing sharpness in a attempt to compensate might make things worse. Edge enhancement seems to always do a good job of enhancing noise and if this 'effect' is the result of DNR then edge enhancement is going to make the noise worse and the DNR bite harder. Perhaps this is why Sony were saying to turn detail down?

Again spot on the money Bob. We 25Pers can see the effect of sharpening because our default setting of 7 is more like the 24Per's 11. That's why we are being told to turn down sharpness to 3 to bring it more in line with 7 on the V1u.

The consensus is people really can tell the difference between P and I with the exception of Steve it seems.

P is not necessarily softer that I only when certain conditions are met. In other cases I is sharper than P. It is a mixture throughout the frame. This is why in Brett's clip the trees are alive with noise and the side of the shed is obliterated. This get worse as the light drops.

TT

I agree. If my and others admittedly sketch DNR theory is correct, sharpening would make it worse. What would be needed is a fix to the NR DSP firmware and/or ability to adjust/turn off NR

You are definitely on the right track. You have to think of a reason why there is more digital noise and therefore an increased involvement from the DNR circuit particularly in darker areas of the frame.

Work that out and you have the answer to why P has the processed look.

The reason is prosaic. So prosaic that it is being overlooked.

TT

So isn't it more than likely that the encoder is just trying to compensate for too much detail? It would be extremly awesome if someone could post a series of labeled shots, all of the same subject, at every detail setting starting with the lowest. That would hopefully shed some light on what exactly the encoding engine is doing. Anybody up for the task?!

-pasty

Interesting... let's hope we're on to something here...

So isn't it more than likely that the encoder is just trying to compensate for too much detail?]

I don't think the encoder is involved in this.

And, frankly it really doesn't matter WHY P is softer than I. All of us can see that it is. I reported this and posted pix weeks ago. There's nothing really new here.

Now given this fact, when Sony defined the Cine setting they had a choice:

1) increase EE and hope that fact that "the objects to which it is applied" will have increased apparent sharpness which will overcome the overall softness; or

2) decrease EE to keep it in balance with the overal image softness.

Obviously, given that 90% of those shooting Cine mode are after a film-look, they made the right choice -- decrease EE to 5. This is the right amount of EE for P as is 7 for I.

In fact, given that every "how to get a film look" begins with "set 24p" AND "reduce Sharpness/Detail" -- the fact P looks softer is exactly what most folks want in Cine mode. The whole point of Cine mode is to avoid the hyper video look. So there is no real problem with softer P. Even for shooting 30p web video -- softer compresses better.

Now obviously there will be scenes where the EE balance isn't ideal. But an audience doesn't look at tree branches. They don't look at the siding on a house. They look at faces. They follow a story.

Once you understand the role of EE (Sharpness) and understand that it needs to be different for I and P because I and P are inherently different in image detail -- you are home free with a V1U. Use Sony's settings as I have and you get great HD.

Of course, you are free to increase or decrease EE as needed. But, if you increase it too much you are going to make mess. And, if you reduce it too much, you are going to make mush.

As Chris said many posts back -- the point of a tool is to use it be creative. Now that we understand the V1U better -- we know what settings to use. Why not shoot some PEOPLE doing somthing interesting? Enough of the tree branches. This all reminds me of people shooting water with the Z1 and worrying about the compression artifacts they saw. That kind of "testing" was big news for a week -- now few remember the horror stories. You can always find situations that break digital cameras.

Look for the oil paint FX. Look for the ants. Look for the macroblocks with no detail. Look for the ringing. :)


You deinterlaced those pictures. That means effective resolution is dropped by half even in the progressive pictures. Previous pics were not deinterlaced, but they had no motion so the interlaced pics also contained a lot of information and no visible interlacing.

Atleast the 1,2,3,4 pictures, the a,b,c shots look fine. Compared to the a,b,c shots the four first ones are visibly lower in resolution.

I'd have to guess A is interlaced. B and C are not.

And, frankly it really doesn't matter WHY P is softer than I. All of us can see that it is. I reported this and posted pix weeks ago. There's nothing really new here.

Although to be fair Steve, you did several times say that there wasn't a "problem". Now that we're closer to working out what the cause of the "problem" might be you're saying there is a problem and you noticed it first (which you did - but not as a "problem".)

But people don't want softer in cine mode... they want less edge enhancement.

What this camera is giving is excessive palette knifing under certain circumstances. Just because it is intermittant doesn't make it acceptable. It is unpredictable, and that makes it very dangerous to anyone who HAS to get the shots they want without the time, budget or opportunity to reshoot.

No-one is here to bash the camera. We're trying to work out what's going on, and under what circumstances it displays the excess softening. That way those who own the camera can have more certainty of not finding their footage looking like mush when they get back home.

We don't YET understand whether this IS actually the cause of the problem (and it is a "problem" until we understand it fully), because no-one has yet done a comparison, adjusting sharpness across P and I.

Although to be fair Steve, you did several times say that there wasn't a "problem". Now that we're closer to working out what the cause of the "problem" might be you're saying there is a problem and you noticed it first (which you did - but not as a "problem".)

But people don't want softer in cine mode... they want less edge enhancement.

You are a 100% correct -- when I put photos 0 1 3 4 up it was to show there was NO difference between 30 and 60i. And, no one could pick out which was which. It was a response to the first 25p reports. I still see no difference. Hence no problem.

When I put up A B C it was 24p, 30p, vs 60i. It was clear to me in these shots there was a difference. But a difference is not a problem unless it is to the shooter.

Here's why I disagree with your statement "But people don't want softer in cine mode."

1) For the last three years many cinematographers have chosen the Varicam because it looks more "filmic." DVCPRO HD in 720p mode has only 960x720 resolution verses HDCAM's 1440x1080. They have expressed that the LOWER resolution looks more like film than does the HIGHER resolution format. This choice is not about EE, because you can adjust it on both cameras.

2) Many looking for a film look put softening filters on to cut fine detail.

Bottom-line -- given the clear preference for soft images for a film look, I believe that most such shooters will welcome the softer look for P. Hence "no problem."

There are shooters who will find this to be a problem -- and that's those going to film. I'm sorry, but the percent of those who will ever go to film is so small as to not be a real market for Sony. They will/should be shooting with a JVC camcorder. The vast majority will be using 24p for a film look -- in which motion judder, temporal aliasing, and softness will be critical to the "it's not video illusion."

The Problem I do see is the excessive EE in these photos. But since I used Sony's Cine preset -- I never ran into this. Which is why I'm suggesting using the two presets from Sony.

But, I still blown away that anyone would shoot 30p and boost EE to 9. Why? Those of us who have lived with the JVC HD1 for years have wished they could get away from motion judder and excessive EE. Now someone spends $5K and creates the HD1 look?!?

It's time for those who care about this -- to shoot correctly some scenes. Use 24p and 5. And, use gamma 1 (not gamma 2!) because it increases contrast which inceases apparent sharpness. Now see if you are unhappy.

Here's why I disagree with your statement "But people don't want softer in cine mode."



Softness, sharpness, resolution are terms very relative and subjective - often used by DPs, viewer etc. to mean different things.

However, some things have a high degree of certainty:

(1) Anyone (DP, director) shooting narrative 24p will want as much resolution and contrast in the image as possible while keeping the image naturalistic. Currently, 35mm film has been the standard.

(2) Video has traditionally suffered from electronic artifacts (often called sharpness) - edge enhancements, aliasing, interlacing that cause people to attempt to use softening techniques to remove the electronic feel. However, this does not mean "softness" is desired. It's naturalistic images that is desired by most narrative image makers.

(3) The SI, RED camera and current DSLR tech points where we are going with this. Plenty of resolution, fully adjustable settings for noise, NR, etc. but the goal is a naturalistic image with electronic artifacts and lacking the grain of 35mm. "Grainless film".

So, with the V1, let's hope Sony can tune the CMOS images, DSP, firmware so that we can have a baseline image as artifact free as possible and allow shooters to tune to taste and shooting environment.

It may not fully happen with the V1 - perhaps a later model, but CMOS has enough promising features that I expect it will happen, sooner or later.

Well, I guess this is getting academic. At least one person on this thread feels that the progressive mode is softening the image to please people wanting a film look.

Some of us see instead that parts of the image are turned into mushy macro blocks while other parts of the image become sharpened and noisy (just noticed the noise in the tree branches last night - almost looks like a post processed film grain filter).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so if someone buys this camcorder and enjoys the 24/30P I suppose more power to them. I certainly wouldn't accept what's coming out of this $4,000 camcorder, but that's just me.

I'm just glad that Canon has finally stepped up with an affordable 24P camcorder. And I'm sure that Panasonic is working on a killer 24P cam in this range too.

I'm just glad that Canon has finally stepped up with an affordable 24P camcorder. And I'm sure that Panasonic is working on a killer 24P cam in this range too.

And I will still wait with my trusty DVX100. I canceled my early HVX pre-order (and still glad that I did). I borrow/rent a camera when I must have HD but have not been really impressed with the new low cost cams(except for RED and SI but still to pricey for my budget) until the V1 with it's CMOS, no smear and wide latitude. However, it's clear it's suffering some growing pains as first low-cost 3-CMOS out of the gate. Like the SSE and other early issues on the HD100, the images could well be improved, so I have not given up yet.

I also would not be surprised with a non-P2 low cost Panny HD 24p cam at NAB. I think there is a huge market for it. The Canon A1 is interesting but a couple of issues are show stoppers for me still. So I will stay on the fence.

Well, I guess this is getting academic. At least one person on this thread feels that the progressive mode is softening the image to please people wanting a film look.

Some of us see instead that parts of the image are turned into mushy macro blocks while other parts of the image become sharpened and noisy (just noticed the noise in the tree branches last night - almost looks like a post processed film grain filter).



Try reading before you post. P is not softening the image to "please" anyone. P simply "looks" softer. (It may not measure softer by the way.) That may "please" some film look shooters. It may not "please" others -- who are free to buy another camcorder. When you sell 50,000 to 100,000 camcorders world-wide, this is not a big deal.

Moreover, there are no "mushy macro blocks" nor "noisey edges" in properly shot 24p or 30p. In fact the only sin in Brett's images is too much EE -- which he had control over. All the claimed V1U "problems" have appeared in video that was poorly shot. I've got many hours of correctly shot 24p video and so does DSE -- and we don't see problems.

Shoot Sh*t and you should expect it will look like Sh*t.

In fact there are now thousands of V1U being used. Where are all the complaints? In fact, of all the folks posting -- how many own V1Us? Who are you? Why are you commenting on someone elses poorly shot video and not posting your own?

We are now in the seeing "faces in the clouds" world where reality no longer has any role. This is the internet at its worst.

It is senseless to keep on plugging away at the notion that the oil paint effect is not a problem. The V1 simply cannot produce progressive footage to the same quality as interlaced and the idea that somehow Sony made the progressive mode softer on purpose is too look more like film is crazy. I've never seen a oil paint effect on any film! Sony are being quite open about the problem, well, at least with dealers. Nobody has to pretend the issue doesn't exist any more.

Steve you show two scenes where the "feature" is tough to spot but equally I can show many scene where the issue is all too noticeable to the point where the footage is unusable. I can show progressive footage completely falling apart. Let us at least get some balance into this. Now that the problem has been acknowledged why not use your undoubted intelligence and skill to quantify the problem and feedback your findings to your contacts at Sony? It might make the difference to the next product.

***
I will say for the record anyone wanting a 50i or 60i only camera you will find the V1 a match for any other camera on the market. I think the interlace footage is about as good as it gets. So if you have no interest in progressive shooting get this camera or at least give it a serious look. On the other hand if you requiring progressive be aware that there are known issues particularly in less than ideal light and with fine detail. If you don't see the artefacts or do see them and you don't find them a deal breaker fine enjoy an excellent camera. Otherwise look elsewhere.
***

ATB
TT

We are now in the seeing "faces in the clouds" world where reality no longer has any role. This is the internet at its worst.

No Steve, what you are seeing is a debate where there are people with an equally strong but diametrically opposite opinion. Just because you and DSE don't see the problem doesn't mean other people who have are shooting sh*t as you eloquently put it.

TT

How many posting about problems are watching their own V1U video -- note I said "U" not "E" or "P" video on a calibrated monitor?

And some people are clearly trolling here when they keep posting the same things over and over. Especially when they don't even own a V1U!

P is not softening the image to "please" anyone. P simply "looks" softer. Who cares why? It just does.

P's useability is a judgement call. If you don't accept it, buy another camcorder and please go post on its forum.

Moreover, there are no "mushy macro blocks" nor "noisey edges" in properly shot 24p or 30p.

I'm sorry that's absolute hogwash. "P" IS turning the image to mush under CERTAIN circumstances. But Bretts footage should not look like that under ANY circumstances! No other 24P / 24F camera would ever show that marked a difference - no matter HOW badly you pushed the settings away from where the sweet spot is.

I don't care who Sony's market is. I don't care whether Sony think they can let this ride. And I don't care that some people think it's acceptable. I'm not going to start apologising for a large company who should be providing solid, predictable, dependable tools.

There is a problem with the way Sony has set this camera up, and it can't deal with high detail images properly in "p". What are we supposed to do? Only shoot close ups? No landscapes? Don't go near grass or trees with this camera?

And some people are clearly trolling here when they keep posting the same things over and over. Especially when they don't even own a V1U!

Some of us don't own a V1, but most of us can make pretty objective assessments of what we've seen.

Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it wrong.

We all agree that the images show undesirable artefacts under certain circumstances. What we don't agree on is whether that's acceptable from an (apparently) progressive camcorder like the V1.

I know what I see. And I don't think it's acceptable. I don't care whether it's on a calibrated A grade monitor, or my granny's TV. But in everything appart from the image behaviour in "p" this is a camera that I would like to own.

I am interested in this thread because I would like to see some answers and suggestions to come from this meeting of minds.

Your suggestion of "go away if you don't like it" isn't really the answer I'm looking for.

I respect your opinion, and I'm very happy that you are content with the way this camera works. But there are many people here who are concerned about this.