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

I have purchased another camera. I doubt I'll have the time to post much as now I can get the two projects, that were on hold, off the ground at last.

I took the tape I had recorded to my dealer today and we watched the output on a Sony LMD 32" HD monitor. We both saw the features on the same monitor. His opinion was the same as mine and he was extremely pleased to have the footage that so clearly demonstrated the problems. My dealer has only just got their stock of V1Es back from Sony so hadn't seen the "fixed" issues. He will not be selling the V1Es as a progressive camera. Period. I showed him several scenes that only the sharpening could be seen to others where the arse falls out of the image. His comment, based on the footage I'd shot, it was clear that you couldn't maintain consistency. Kerching!!! He was surprised how variable the effect could be. He would instruct his staff not to sell the camera as a progressive camera from this point forward.

I'll see if I can find the time to rapidshare some m2ts for independent review for those that are interested in the facts.

TT

II'll see if I can find the time to rapidshare some m2ts for independent review for those that are interested in the facts.

I would love to see them and would love to return to a factual discussion of the issues with P mode that I have verified on my end. I am still interested in the V1 though fortunately, don't have to buy immediately. But I think there is opportunity for learning that is getting lost amongst the noise.

I would love to see much more P and P vs I footage posted than what we have, especially some standard charts, controlled but varied lighting.

I know it's work for the shooters but I would be willing to host if DV Info had bandwidth issues as I think it would benefit the community. I've got a VPS server with tons of unused bandwidth.

I have purchased another camera.

Just out of interest, what did you get, Tony?

Chris raised a perfectly valid point that Steve has followed up on, that this camera is only a tool, how we use it and the story we use to tell it is what matters. Steve went on to cite the issue of people shooting waterfalls and posting examples of macroblocking and how terrible it was and yet today tens of thousands of Z1s are used to shoot images for movies and HD broadcast. I could extend the same analogy to cover the HVX 200, heck even go back in time to when stuff was shot on VHS.

Yes people watched it, people even enjoyed what they watched, whole careers and businesses were built using nothing more than VHS cameras, despite what the res charts said, despite the lousy S/N ratio. All those debates were I have to agree pretty dumb cause the public didn't care, they came to watch a story.

Even now there's people who think they can't make a movie until they get a RED or their story would simply tank if it was shot on a Z1 and not a HVX and it's all BS, I agree wholeheartedly. Which is not to say I don't think it matters, we should all strive to deliver the best quality image possible and at times that'll involve many compromises based on our skills and our budgets.

But there's a reason why VHS or whatever was acceptable. It was consistent. It's part of how our sense of sight and sound works that we are very sensitive to anything unusual within what we hear or see. We'll put up with horrid amounts of distortion in what we hear if it's all the same and yet one distorted or out of tune note in something that's otherwise pristine demands our attention.

The same goes for our sense of vision. The first part of an image our eyes and brain processes is the edges, that's why mostly people prefer images with unnatural sharpness, more often than not they even prefer a lower resolution image that's sharper than a higher resolution image that isn't artificially sharpened.

At the moment I'm cutting a project where in at least half of the footage I've got 'talent' wearing dayglow orange vests over blue shirts. The chroma crawl is hideous. Does it matter, no. No one will ever complain even though I'd be happier if it wasn't there. But sure I'm not going to go into 'the sky is falling down' mode over it. It is what it is, DV.

But the problem being discussed here is a very different beast. I wouldn't give a rats if the image was a bit softer or the gamma wasn't film like or it was typical Sony colors compared to Panny colors. I'd even not suggest there's a real problem if the image was noisy, heck, OK, we'll just call it "grain", Joe Average sure doesn't seem to know the difference anyway so why wear out my fingers complaining about it.

If this issue was like any of those, I agree, it all comes down to how you feel your image should look and in the end it really doesn't matter much, no ones going to walk out of the cinema or change channels over it.

However what we're talking about here isn't a lack of resolution over the whole frame or a bit more than desirable noise. We're talking about an electronic artifact that isn't consistent accross the frame or over time. If it was as minor as the stuff in Steve's wonderful shots in the coffee shop no one will notice, heck I had to look pretty hard to find it.

It's when that becomes a major part of the whole image and there's nothing to mask it, no motion blur that pretty much masks the macroblocking in most HDV, no excuse that "nah it's not noise, it's grain mate"

In pretty well everyone of the frame grabs that people have posted and the small amount of test footage I've shot my eye has been drawn immediately to the part of the frame that exhibits the problem. It's way too visually distracting for the eye to ignore it. This is not the way to shoot an image that tells a story, I'd even go so far as to say if it affected the entire frame all the time it'd be less of a problem, Joe Average would see it as something intended, some new fangled special FX if you will, I think A Scanner Darkly could have saved 1000s of hours in post if they had a camera that'd do this for them.

I do agree with some of what Steve has said, the aliasing isn't a problem, I do agree no one stares at branches against the sky, sure it'd be better if it wasn't there but it's no show stopper. Having large parts of the frame turn to mush and for reasons we have little to no control over is going to impact our ability to use this tool to tell a convincing story. To equate this issue to macroblocking in HDV or noise in the HVX200 or any of the other such issues is simply wrong. The differences between how one part of the frame looks compared to other parts of the frame is simply way too dramatic for the eye to ignore.

Bob, I couldn't agree more with your point, bravo! My English is probably too limited to express it the way you did, but it's as if you were reading my thoughts.

Consistency and repeatability is the key to controlled creativeness, and that's why I prefer the "pseudo" progressive 25f of the Canon A1 over the "truly" progressive 25p of the V1 - even though it has some 10% less resolution than in the I mode, it's consistent in doing so, and I can treat the 25f mode as an additional creativity tool, not a gadged for performance measurement purposes.

<snip>
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.


If Bret had too much edge enhancement, why did some of the frame become sharp and noisy and some became soft and blocky? I had my wife watch Brett's video clip and she noticed how the front of the shed turned to mush. She actually said it "looks fake". Now trust me, for my wife to notice an artifact in a video its got to be pretty obvious. In Brett's sample, everything looked fine in interlaced mode. What in the world should he have done differently in Progressive mode?

Also, in Brett's video I didn't notice "noisy edges", entire portions of the picture became noisy - almost looked like a film grain filter.



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


Well the problem here is that sometimes perfectly fine interlaced shots turn cruddy when switched to progressive. I know you've got a zillion reasons why this is normal, good, acceptable or non-existent. But in every other camera I've seen the performance either stays the same or improves when switching to progressive. I think its reasonable to expect that a scene that looks good in interlaced will look at least as good in progressive mode.



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.

Well at least we can agree on something.

As for the performance of progressive scan on the V1, perhaps we can simply agree to disagree?

Just out of interest, what did you get, Tony?

The only alternative, the Canon XH-A1. I am looking forward to just getting down and using the tool rather than being frustrated and writing about it.

Peace...

TT

Thank you Bob for taking the time to comprehensively and absolutely nail the issue down.

TT

I would love to see much more P and P vs I footage posted than what we have, especially some standard charts, controlled but varied lighting... I would be willing to host if DV Info had bandwidth issues as I think it would benefit the community.Plenty of bandwidth here on DV Info Net that I'm happy to make available for this purpose. Interested parties who have such video that they're willing to share need only to contact me via email for the upload account info. Thanks in advance,

Plenty of bandwidth here on DV Info Net that I'm happy to make available for this purpose. Interested parties who have such video that they're willing to share need only to contact me via email for the upload account info. Thanks in advance,

Excellent - let's see some footage as there should be quite a few V1's in circulation now. Perhaps Tony can also shoot the same shots he did with his V1 as with his new A1 for comparison.

However what we're talking about here isn't a lack of resolution over the whole frame or a bit more than desirable noise. We're talking about an electronic artifact that isn't consistent accross the frame or over time. If it was as minor as the stuff in Steve's wonderful shots in the coffee shop no one will notice, heck I had to look pretty hard to find it.

It's when that becomes a major part of the whole image and there's nothing to mask it, no motion blur that pretty much masks the macroblocking in most HDV, no excuse that "nah it's not noise, it's grain mate"


Bob, IF what you decribed actually happened when shooting P then I would agree that there was a serious problem. But it doesn't happen! I've got hours of 24p shot from inside temples, inside houses, and in the blinding sun. Not once does what you describe appear in my video. Only a slight softness that you can see in in A B C, but can't see in 0 1 2 3. Which I assumed was the price to be paid for using "5" rather than "7." Now I think it is inherent in P mode.

Of course, I'm shooting with a very very early Sony prototype. Very likely the same one DSE used to shoot his stunning video for Sony -- before the NYC announcment -- that thousands have now seen. Unless we are both lying to you all, what you describe doesn't happen with prototype cameras.

I don't even want to think about what this might imply. I hate the idea that saying this will lead to even more speculation. Which is why I'm not going to continue in this discussion. I'll wait for a Sony to say something.

But, I'm sure in heck going to try to hold onto this baby as long as I can.

In a thread on another forum its been indicated that an engineer with an american V1U has confirmed the "oil paint" effect in 24P and 30P. Hopefully we can expect more information by way of an article and some pictures within a few weeks.

Its not mentioned who the engineer is, but if its who I think it is, we should get a totally thorough and unbiased opinion on the issue.

I'm sure we'll hear more about this as the information presents itself.

Steve,
sounds like I've had that V1U in my hands briefly too, well travelled camera!

Look I don't think anyone's telling fibs, I mean that most sincerely. I think we all need to take a deep breath and realise that IF there is a problem it's a damn complex one. As I've said before my analysis is that you could very easily shoot with this camera for the rest of your life and not feel there's any issue at all. I still think for the most part it produces some of the best looking images of any camera in it's price range and it's got enough image controls to keep any test pilot happy for years to come, I mean what image controls are missing on the dang thing, not many, it even lets you store setups onto flash memory, can't do that with even a Z1!

Now you mentioed the footage shot by DSE, I have to admit when I first saw it after other had pointed it out I could see the odd problem but a) it was a prototype and b) you had to look pretty hard to see the problem, sure didn't put me off one bit.

And then I saw your first posting of those coffee shop images and I was blown away, they looked great. Well OK, there was the odd bit that looked like CA but heck for the money no one could complain, every HDV camera has these issues. It's not the camera it's the glass mostly and you'd spend a lot more than what the whole camera costs just to get a lens that doesn't have issues.

But now we're seeing what were minor issues affecting small parts of the frame affecting large parts of the frame. No I don't think it's something that's crept into the production models that wasn't in the prototypes. There's a small trace of it in one of your coffee shot frame grabs. Well I think that's what it is and no I don't mean the wood grain. Take a look at the attached image I've circled an areas where I think the same thing is happening. In this case it's not a problem, no one would notice it without looking real hard and they shouldn't normally be doing that. But when this effect hits larger parts of the frame it's then that it cannot be ignored.

Now maybe there's a way to stop that happening, maybe I'm looking too hard, I don't have enough experience to really say for sure. All I can say is it looks wrong to me.

Now I'll admit in my most recent test I did something really dumb, I forgot to turn off the ND1 filter after the camera had told me to switch it on. Don't remember seeing it telling me to turn it off, stupid of me to not realise I should have anyway. One things for certain, causing the camera to wind the gain up sure bought the smear problem out in a high contrast scene. Again this shows two things. a) I'm a lousy cameraman b) Sony could make the indicator a bit more In Your Face c) the problem seems to relate to noise levels. Or perhaps part of the problem is people other than me not turning the ND filter off? And for what it's worth I was shooting 50i.

Bob, I looked carefully at your circled area and I honestly have to say (even though you said the same thing), if we have to look THAT hard at an image to see an issue, then perhaps we should paint the picture instead (no paint-effects jokes please). I don't think there's another camera that could hold up to the scrutiny that this camera has.

Heck, I've looked at the Canon images and frankly I couldn't live with the terrible color seperation that seems to occur in some images on the right side of the frame. Just like the Sony, it doesn't show up in all clips, but IMO when it does, it's far worse than the issue with the Sony. It's particularly bad since this issue effects both the 'i' and the 'p' issue, it's inescapable. I've seen a number of clips that show this effect and it almost looks like a color CRT TV with terrible convergence issues. I myself could not live with that because it's such an 'in your face' problem. Frankly I'm utterly amazed that more Canon owners don't complain about that. My tiny little Canon HV10 HDV cam doesn't display anything like that problem.

So yes, none of these cams are free of issues, I guess you "pick your poison".

Heck, I've looked at the Canon images and frankly I couldn't live with the terrible color seperation that seems to occur in some images on the right side of the frame. Just like the Sony, it doesn't show up in all clips, but IMO when it does, it's far worse than the issue with the Sony. It's particularly bad since this issue effects both the 'i' and the 'p' issue, it's inescapable. I've seen a number of clips that show this effect and it almost looks like a color CRT TV with terrible convergence issues.
Just my $0.02: you're right about the color fringing issue with the Canon, but IMHO it IS escapable - it only shows at the zoom and aperture extremities AND contrasty scenes all at the same time; you may easily avoid it (and BTW, just take a look into the "Purple outline on background objects" thread - I never saw a color separation that bad on the A1).

That said, I agree that the issue in the area circled by Bob is a minor one.

I have a V1U and (so far) I haven't noticed any of the problems mentioned. I have seen the 'purple fringe' in high contrast footage, but I have yet to see the 'oil paint' effect. I have to mention that I'm also using the M2 35mm adapter.

It has been mentioned that the oil paint effect happens in certain shots and not others. Could someone give me a shot list where they find these problems to be obvious and I'll try to shoot it. Trust me, if there is a problem, I'd like to see it before I shoot my feature.

I've been using the Z1U and FX1 for over two years and have looked at A LOT of foootage (and just to mention, I've never had a drop out on any of my camers; 3 of them).

I want to have faith in the V1U, and if the footage I've shot so far is an indication, I'm happy. Granted, I haven't really done any post production work on these clips, so I don't know how they would handle under color correction or extensive editing.

So... if there is anyone who would like me to test the camera under specific situations (and I don't mean just good lighting, I mean they way that you think the camera shows these flaws) let me know. Give me a shot list and I'll see what I can do.

Todd

Todd, I am not sure whether you are 24P or 25P but one of the most annoying issues I have with progressive 25P is on shiny edges.
Take a clip with a reflective edge in it as interlaced then take the same as progressive.
The interlaced has no problems whereas the progressive along the edges has a crawling effect and you can repeat it every time. You apply the cinema effect to the progressive, the crawl diminishes a small amount but you start to notice the darker parts of the image begin to loose detail (probably I could learn to live with that), but the uncertaintity of the image in regard to edges is not acceptable as when you take a scene you need a level of quality that is consistant.
I now just take interlaced to be on the safe side as progressive is too flakey to be relied on unless you have the conditions you can guarantee will not produce unwanted results.
I do realize that progressive is meant to produce a softer image to get the look you are after but it has to be consistant across the image.
Michael.

Could some of those who have observed problems with progressive try taking some shots with just manual settings.
I have done some of the shots I have had problems with and using a higher f stop or higher shutter speeds and fine tune it with a bit of gain, the crawling went and the image was sharper. I don't have the gear to get a detail look at the images and appraise them more carefully, but I would like someone else to check this out with better gear.
Michael

Michael,

I only use manual settings (especially since I'm using the M2) and I haven't noticed any problems either. I can't imagine that the camera would add these flaws if operated only in auto, but you never know...

Todd

Steve,
sounds like I've had that V1U in my hands briefly too, well travelled camera!

I don't think it's something that's crept into the production models that wasn't in the prototypes.

Bob, I just realised that I've had two V1Us. One came from DSE. And one came from DVexpo -- which might or might not be the first one I had.

I think it's obvious that Sony would not have given me the V1U twice if they thought there was anything wrong. In particular, they would not have asked me to shoot my Asia trip in 24p if they thought there was anything wrong with P mode. Chris will verify that I have been very hard on Sony -- and in public. They had to know I would be brutally honest if I found problems.

So we must assume that the video they and DSE were seeing didn't have significant issues. So let's call this Firmware A. And, I'm going to further assume (A) was what the Sony engineers thought was the OPTIMAL tuning given the way the camera works.

The version that went to the UK, which was the version Simon got, was horrible. Let's call this Firmware B.

Sony revised it for the production V1E's Let's call this Firmware C.

There may, or may not be any difference between the protype (A) and the shipping V1U. But let's call the shipping firmware, D. The difference bwtween (C) and (D) is the difference that has caused "many" V1E complaints and only a "few" V1U complaints.

All agree that P is softer than I.


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

Why is the V1 P-mode softer than I?

A) 1080-rows become 1080-lines in a frame every 1/60th second. For P -- these 1080-lines are used in a frame that lasts 1/30th second. For I -- 540-lines are used for the first field. In the second field, a NEW set of 540-lines are used for the second field. Over 1/30th second -- a total of 1080-lines are presented. However, because the second field comes from a second capture, I mode will have more vertical information over 1/30th second.

B) 960-columns are "interpolated" to about 1440-pixels each time the CCD is read and processed by the EIP. For P -- these 1440--pixels are used in a frame that lasts 1/30th second. For I -- these 1440-pixels are used for the first field. In the second field, a NEW set of 1440 pixels are used. Thus, over 1/30th second -- TWO sets of 1440 pixels are presented. Therefore, when presented, a frame of I has more horizontal information than does a frame of progressive.

C) Thus as I've repeatedly said, given Sony's design, P will be softer than I.

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

My feedback from the UK is that Sony Japan has not given-up on 25p which is likely why 25P was restored.

Well, regarding firmware C, I can say that my FX7 does not have a consistent level of noise. If one goes up to my 50" plasma and looks at large expanses of sky, you can see a bit of grain. However, this is totally unnoticeable at anything approaching normal viewing distances.

For most scenes you simply can't see noise in reasonable lighting. I still think the biggest issue (and it's not really a 'big' issue) is the occasional EE under certain conditions (tree limbs and wires against a sky).

However, I think your overall theory has some merit.

Steve,

I think you're right, well I'd suspect that the rock and the hard place is the noise from the sensors and what the mpeg-2 encoder can cope with.

I'd add that I've seen similar smearing or smudding or banding or whatever it's being called on other Sony CMOS HDV cameras, the HVR A1P has caught me out when I made a boo boo and had too much gain dialled in.

Can I suggest hooking the camera up via component into a big monitor and looking at what you see there under low light straight from the camera head, i.e. not from tape, just live.

Well, regarding firmware C, I can say that my FX7 does not have a consistent level of noise. If one goes up to my 50" plasma and looks at large expanses of sky, you can see a bit of grain. However, this is totally unnoticeable at anything approaching normal viewing distances.

Great news! That's means the reviewer was wrong, which is great because for those who only want 60i -- the FX7 is a much cheaper camcorder.

I'll alter my posting.

Steve,
I think you're right, well I'd suspect that the rock and the hard place is the noise from the sensors and what the mpeg-2 encoder can cope with.

Can I suggest hooking the camera up via component into a big monitor and looking at what you see there under low light straight from the camera head, i.e. not from tape, just live.

I just got an email from someone who claims noise and paint is not an issue on his CRT monitor, but it is on his LCD. I selected a Sony A10 LCD HD monitor that correctly deinterlaces video. However, the majority of the tested 2005 and 2006 fail the deinterlacing test.

UPDATE
See:

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/depth/hdvatwork_01082007/

If DNR has removed detail in an area -- and if the monitor uses "bob" deinterlacing -- the paint effect will be increased. Since the majority of HDTVs and softer de-interlacers use "bob" -- I'm not surprised some are seeing a more of a problem than others.

Since I specifically bought an HDTV that correctly deinterlaces -- we need to factor that into the equation. Not only do I have a prototype -- my monitor is one of those that pass the deinterlacing test. My quality descriptions ONLY come from watching on my HDTV monitor. I never use a computer to judge quality!

I had once mentioned that the viewing device is VERY critical in assessing the quality of the video. If a display introduces noise and artifacts as SOME displays do, those people will unjustly accuse the acquisition device and not the display.

If DNR has removed detail in an area -- and if the monitor uses "bob" deinterlacing -- the paint effect will be increased.


No. The paint effect isn't noise, its areas that lack detail. Bob will not "increase" those areas in anyway. What happens when you take a 1080p still and resize it to 540? It will lose details EVERYWHERE, it won't increase the paint effect. It will actually decrease it as all the details get closer. If you don't believe then just try fooling around with photoshop and deinterlacing some of those paint examples.

LCD's will always have more noise. The blend example is wrong, but I posted a response to the other thread.

I think the progressive noise on the V1U is because of the water color effect and this is why:

It is due to dancing or chattering pixels. The water color effect is very very subtle on the V1U to the point where most people seem to not notice it. This of course is a good thing because it works since most of the people do not notice it. It is bad however because a water color effect that is very small will dance around from frame to frame and cause chattering that is so small it looks like noise.

This makes sense why as still images some of us notice a water color effect but when in motion very few notice it. When the video is playing all the dancing water color pixels look like noise.

On top of that of course the level of the water color filter is different for different sections based on who knows what. which can show some areas having more noise then other areas.

I checked this with the video clip of the church which I played with the VLC player in full screen on a 1920x1200 LCD monitor (letterboxed of course to fit in 1920x1080). When I paused the video I noticed the water color effect in the church and the clouds. When the video played I didn't notice the effect as much but the effect was replaced with dancing pixels or noise. The effect is sort of like when you have a bad bluescreen shoot and the edge of the key has jumping chattering edges and you end up using a matte choker to get rid of it.

This is my theory at least and it makes sense as to why SONY might suggest turning the sharpness down. If reduced sharpness could get rid of the tiny amount of water color filtering then there would be no filter effect to cause the chattering pixels.

As far as I can tell deinterlacing has nothing to do with this and the only reason why some deinterlacing methods seem to reduce the noise is because overall the image is softened slightly.

As for a CRT based HDTV, well CRT is a different beast then a digital display and CRT's are usually better at smoothing out details and noise whereas a digital display will show you every pixel. I think the advantge to the V1U on the CRT has to do more with the fact that it is analog rather than an interlaced device.

It sure would be nice if somebody with a V1U could shoot some stuff at the different sharpness settings to see if this works. I would rent one but nobody near me rents the V1U yet.

Steve
Can I suggest hooking the camera up via component into a big monitor and looking at what you see there under low light straight from the camera head, i.e. not from tape, just live.

That's what I first did to identify the problem. I hooked up the camera directly to my Sony LMD-232 and flipped between progressive and interlaced. So it's obviously not the HDV encoding that is causing the problem. The ambient light was rather low, so I had gain up to +6db. But, I was looking at the paint effect mostly, not noise. The paint effect was definitely present. So much so, that you could see it in the little 3.5" LCD also.

So... if there is anyone who would like me to test the camera under specific situations (and I don't mean just good lighting, I mean they way that you think the camera shows these flaws) let me know. Give me a shot list and I'll see what I can do.
Todd

Architectural details seem to reveal the paint effect the most. Roofs, Building Facades, etc. Probably because they have straight lines with a consistent color that changes slightly because of lighting angle highlights or texture.

As for a CRT based HDTV, well CRT is a different beast then a digital display and CRT's are usually better at smoothing out details and noise whereas a digital display will show you every pixel. I think the advantge to the V1U on the CRT has to do more with the fact that it is analog rather than an interlaced device.



Not sure I agree there Tom. I've got a Sony Bravia LCD and a Fujitsu plasma, both fixed pixel devices. The LCD seems to introduce noise of its own and the Fujitsu tends to show a much purer picture. This can be seen with the same sources. So I would never use an LCD as a critical viewing device.

That's what I first did to identify the problem. I hooked up the camera directly to my Sony LMD-232 and flipped between progressive and interlaced. So it's obviously not the HDV encoding that is causing the problem. The ambient light was rather low, so I had gain up to +6db. But, I was looking at the paint effect mostly, not noise. The paint effect was definitely present. So much so, that you could see it in the little 3.5" LCD also.

I looked at your footage in Vegas (could not get my AE to read it) using color channel seperation, scopes etc. and the problem is clearly visible in the signal. It's unlike any HDV issue I've seen (no variation across GOPs etc) and not caused by display.

It's there in the I & P signal, so I would fully except it on direct camera output which would run through the DSP/sensor processing. I still think it's related to the NR falsely diaganosed noise and smoothing out detail.

I attended an HD shootout at the local reseller here in SLC today. Very, very impressed with the performance of the V1U against the other cams which included the SDX900, HVX200, XLH1 / A1, JVC 250 and Sony F350.

Lots of charts and low light. I must say that I'm very impressed with how the V1U performed. If I can get permission, I'll post some of their results which were all live to monitor.

Bob Grant posted some footage I shot yesterday.. and some shot awhile back. The trick was to be able to tell what was shot V1U / Z1U - it takes a bit more finessing, much like the high end cams. When calibrated correctly though, it out performed or equally performed with those cameras above aside from sensitivity, which is to blame on smaller chips but still didn't look bad.

So over the course of the past few days, I've come to love the camera much more. Still tweaking but for the most part, content now.

As for any anomalies, there may be some under different conditions. I do believe that for the most part, they're correctable. then again I could be wrong...

mike

It's there in the I & P signal, so I would fully except it on direct camera output which would run through the DSP/sensor processing. I still think it's related to the NR falsely diaganosed noise and smoothing out detail.

But people aren't complaining about it the I signal.

No. The paint effect isn't noise, its areas that lack detail.

LCD's will always have more noise. The blend example is wrong, but I posted a response to the other thread.

Blend is the correct deinterlace method for static video. It provides the maximum vertical resolution. You need to learn more about deinterlacing.

Of course, the water color effect isn't noise -- were the effect to REALLY EXIST, it would be the RESULT of noise REDUCTION -- specifically "coring" and line-based DNR. Coring and line-based DNR reduce noise by removing chroma detail. Coring makes any area with minor chroma variations -- become a uniform color -- hence a watercolor artifact. Line-based chroma DNR smears color detail vertically -- hence a watercolor artifact.

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

And, while Ken is right that LCDs introduce noise VS plasma -- this generalization is very risky. Walmat sells under $1000 plasmas that will have far more noise than a $4000 LCD/Plasma. Particularly suspect are the EDTV plasmas -- the type sold in Region 50. These are optimized for widescreen PAL DVD.

The only generalization that is valid: flat-panels generally have more noise than CRT HDTVs. Even more important, CRT HDTVs require NO deinterlacing. That eliminates a whole set of issues.

But the real issue is that these devices differ significantly by brand and model. Which means the very different reports of noise on, for example, the FX7 are not because the camcorder is different, but because the viewing devices are different. See Ken's post and camcorderinfo's review. Totally opposite on the claims of noise.

Bottom-line, when you add display variability into the different levels of Sharpness and Gain -- reports of noise simply can't be trusted.

That doesn't mean there isn't noise, but its very hard to prove given we have no objective way of measuring it. So I remain open on the question. I will say that on a good display, it doesn't show-up.

Architectural details seem to reveal the paint effect the most.

Brett, I've downloaded all your clips and played them via HDMI to my 50-inch Sony LCD. Your video looks wonderful and has only three artifacts:

1) on the static INT>PROG sample -- at the switch point the video becomes slightly softer. This is consistent with my experience. There is no doubt that P-mode is softer than I-mode.

2) on the static INT>PROG sample -- at the switch point the branches get noisey. In particular, the horizontal branches. A display should switch to "blend" on static video. When I switch VLC to blend, the noise is eliminated.

What if there was some movement in the frame? Some displays would switch to "bob" and the noise would return. But, a good deinterlacer will use blend on the startic areas while switching to bob -- or something better ONLY for the moving AREA. (This is how my Sony works.) Even better deinterlacers will switch to bob -- or something better ONLY for the moving PIXELS.

What if the branches were moving? If the deinterlacer uses "bob" the line doubling will show the noise, but it will be hard to see since the branches are moving. If the deinterlacer uses something better than "bob" -- noise may not be increased.

Bottom-line -- I suspect the V1U may have some inherent noise, but the amount you see depends on the display.

3) The three clips where you used 9 obviously have significant EE. And that raises the question, with the EE so boosted, it's possible that this may be introducing other problems. Frankly, I think these should be removed from your site because they were shot incorrectly. Yet they are being used for many claims. And, that raises yet another question -- for the INT>PROG sample -- did you use 5? Because if you didn't, then this too is a bad sample.

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

The good news is that for all your video samples -- and stills -- there is NO watercolor effect. Not on the church. Not on the shed. It's no where to be seen.

In fact in all the V1U samples I've downloaded, there is no watercolor artifact. Not one! I'm convinced that there is no watercolor artifact. There's certainly nothing in hours of 24p India footage that looks like a watercolor artifact.


I think it is time to stop repeating the claim of a watercolor artifact in posts with no reference to any evidence. Repeating a false claim has a way of making it seem true.

I will continue to pounce on any claim of watercolor artifacts where the poster provides no link to a CORRECTLY SHOT VIDEO (not still) clip and no description of "where" and "what" the poster is seeing.

I've got 4 months experience with the V1U -- and I've never seen anything except softer P-mode video. Not even any noise.

Steve while you as one single person may not see any water color effect in the footage of the church does not mean it may not be there. Are you going to say that I do not know what I am talking about? The water color effect is there but is is very small and very subtle. I just do not think you can see it. Thats fine. It is very small details. I have tried in the past to point it out but you refuse to listen to anybody. I never realized we had to take your word as the final say on the subject.

Is the watercolor bad? no not really. If you are ok with it then it is fine. It is not something that overpowers the image.

Is it there? Yes I do think so. Having compositors eyes I am a little bit more used to seeing image details because we have to look out for things like this in a composite so we get clean results.

Again I'm not really sure why you are being so negative. You ask to see proof and when we show you you just ignore it and say it isn't there. If you do not see it and it doesn't bother you thats fine but why sit there and try to claim that we are trying to pull all this out of thin air. This is not a conspiracy against SONY or you. I for one have tried to not say anything negative to you or about you on the subject but yet you are quick to put down anybody else who you do not agree with.

Again, I like SONY cameras and own a DSR-300, DSR-370, DSR-500, Z1 and a HC1 so this is in no way a way to slam SONY.

I agree with SONY on the subject that the sharpness needs to be turned down. This should get rid of any other noise reduction that may be causing the water color in certain areas which will get rid of the chattering noise. (see my post above) I only bring up all of this so people with the V1U can learn how to avoid this. What I bring up is no different then trying to help people to get better keys by telling them to reduce the detail to reduce the edge enhancement.

You can try to tell me until you are blue in the face that the noise reduction water color effect isn't there but I know what I see and I am no fool. I do not think you are either and I rather respect a lot of the stuff you have done. This one time I must disagree with you and I'm sorry for that. I have to trust my eyes however.

Now if you can show me proof that it isn't there and that I am doing something wrong I would be glad to listen just like I have with everything else so far.

Now if you can show me proof that it isn't there and that I am doing something wrong I would be glad to listen just like I have with everything else so far.

It doesn't work that way. Anyone who claims something exists needs to prove it does. Simply repeatedly claiming you see "it" isn't good enough.

I made a very reasonable request:

1) provide a link to the clip (and to be a realiable claim, you really need multiple clips).

2) Provide a quote from the shooter that the P video was shot with Sharpness = 5 which is what Sony recommends. (This rules out 3 of Brett's clips.)

3) Describe what you see and where it is. Saying it's "on the church" isn't good enough.

In other words, you need to be as responsible as a professional reviewer would be if you are going to make claims about an effect that "... is there but is is very small and very subtle."

At this point -- not even ONE report of the alleged watercolor meets these standards for public verifiability. And, with each day going by with no new clips from the thousands of V1U buyers -- and Brett's clips disqualified -- those who make such claims need to "put up, or ... ."

In fact, if a problem is "very small and very subtle" and is reported primarily by those who don't even own a V1U and isn't reported by 99.9% of those who do own a V1U -- one could say there is no need for a debate. The issue is so trivial as to not be worth considering.

And, it's amazing that you have been knocking the V1U (based upon some compression theory) for 3 months -- claiming it won't be good for compositing and yet have never used a V1U. That's the classic behavior of a "troll."

Now I know you aren't -- and I think your compression theory is true. But to not test a V1U to verify your worries -- does seem a bit strange for a "pro" who was really considering buying a V1U.

Isn't one of the features of the V1x that you can save cameras setting to a file on a memory stick?
Would it be too much to suggest that those who own or have use of a camera and want to post screenshots or footage include that file?
There's so MANY tweaks in this camera I doubt anyone is going to write them all down or remember them, this might help others to repro the problem, offer meaningful advise etc.
Perhaps this community can then move onto to what should be one of it's primary roles of advising how to get the best out of the camera.

Blend is the correct deinterlace method for static video. It provides the maximum vertical resolution. You need to learn more about deinterlacing.

And it will also smooth noise. If you don't know why is that I'll tell you. Because you are effectively blending two images together. Think about it. If you take two images with a moderate amount of noise and blend them together then the noise will go down. Ofcourse. That fact is also used in many noise reduction algorithms.

Maximum vertical resolution would be provided by weave. Especially for static video.


Bottom-line, when you add display variability into the different levels of Sharpness and Gain -- reports of noise simply can't be trusted.

I think that the biggest problem for lcd's is color reproduction, gamma and black levels. There is one setting that could possibly cause an "oil paint" effect and it's not deinterlacing but brightness. Some lcd's start dropping brightness digitally instead of lowering the backlight after a certain value and then we will see some shades going all wonky.

But that would cause an oil paint effect everywhere.

Really, only HDTV's with ATSC resolution (1280x720 or 1920x1080) connected by component or HDMI qualify. Otherwise, your display device becomes the weak link in the test.



I would disagree. Any professional, calibrated device hooked into the appropriate device and/or software should be able to view 100% of the signal (perhaps only a portion of the frame if at 100%). My fine pitch calibrated CRT computer monitors show far more of any image in both detail than any other device in my studio. Plus, if you know how to use NLE, scopes, channels and levels, you can diagnose most issues even on crappy displays.

I'm working on a 4K uncompressed 32-bit float/HDR project right now. I don't have a 4K Float/HDR display nor will budget for one. But even many high end studios don't either and you simply have the required to setup to look at portions and proofs as well as using analytical tools to verify your images.

More importantly, all the reported V1 artifacts are clearly visible on all my machines and displays, even my laptop LCD. Obviously lower contrast, uncalibrated displays will affect the level of artifacting you notice and in some shots it's more subtle, but it's there and in the video signal - just take this thread footage and channel separate it - you can see the various in the resolution loss in the color channels.

2) on the static INT>PROG sample -- at the switch point the branches get noisey. In particular, the horizontal branches. A display should switch to "blend" on static video. When I switch VLC to blend, the noise is eliminated.


That's like saying "when I switch on noise reduction, the noise is eliminated".

No software dvd-players use blend. Powerdvd, windvd, theatertek etc, all use weave or bob depending on the situation. Weave for progressive, bob for interlaced. And there are very good reasons for that too.

Maximum vertical resolution would be provided by weave. Especially for static video.


You are 100% correct. VLC offers "blend" which, for some reason, I took to be equivilant to "weave." That's the problem with software deinterlacers -- their terminology doesn't correspond to the same terminology used in hardware. For example, VLC offers "X" mode.

Weave, not blend, is correct for static video. Weave would not reduce noise, while blend would.

Sorry for the confusion I caused.

Of course, we still don't know what Sharpness Brett used for the "shed" clip. If it wasn't 5 then we don't have a clip of trees at 5. It would be nice if he would post what settings he used.

Guess I'll have to shoot some trees.

Any professional, calibrated device hooked into the appropriate device and/or software should be able to view 100% of the signal (perhaps only a portion of the frame if at 100%)


More importantly, all the reported V1 artifacts are clearly visible on all my machines and displays, even my laptop LCD. .

1) I've already removed the request for display info.

2) When you say "just take this thread footage and channel separate it -- you can see the various in the resolution loss in the color channels" you are confirming the issue we all agree exists: Softer luma and chroma in P-mode. Can you quantify the loss?

3) "All the reported V1 artifacts" is repeating the existence of artifacts without stating what "they" are and which clips show them.

The reason I'm being such a pain in the ass is that the specifics are critical as the issues with the V1 are very different than, for example, the Split Screen Effect with the HD100. With the HD100, there were dozens upon dozens of reports from all over the world. Many included screen-shots. The posts typically included specific gain levels. The problem was so well defined that we could simply say "SSE" and everyone knew what we meant.

We need well shot video and then screengrabs that show everyone the problem.

<snip>
The reason I'm being such a pain in the ass is that the specifics are critical as the issues with the V1 are very different than, for example, the Split Screen Effect with the HD100. With the HD100, there were dozens upon dozens of reports from all over the world. Many included screen-shots. The posts typically included specific gain levels. The problem was so well defined that we could simply say "SSE" and everyone knew what we meant.
<snip>

I think one of the problems here is that A/B comparisons are really where the issue becomes apparent.

Lets take that red shed as an example. If a guy videos that at 24P and looks at it later, he'll just assume that's the best image and detail the camera can produce. He might be a bit unhappy about some of the blockiness in some of the wood grain, and maybe assume that the camera wasn't able to record the fine details in the red siding on the front of the shed. He may not be that critical at all of course and be 100% happy with the footage.

BUT, if he shot it in interlaced and then progressive and A/B compared the shots, he'd see that some of the wood grain that turned to blocks in P is rendered in interlaced. He'd also see that there's all kinds of detail in the front of that shed in interlaced, but in P its turned into a blurry red wall.

So some of the progressive funkiness going on with the V1 is definitely not going to jump out at people like JVC's split screen. You definitly didn't have to A/B roll JVC footage where SSE displayed itself.

Anyway, I'm sure this will be clarified in more detail over the coming weeks.

3) The three clips where you used 9 obviously have significant EE. And that raises the question, with the EE so boosted, it's possible that this may be introducing other problems. Frankly, I think these should be removed from your site because they were shot incorrectly. Yet they are being used for many claims. And, that raises yet another question -- for the INT>PROG sample -- did you use 5? Because if you didn't, then this too is a bad sample.

I'm convinced that there is no watercolor artifact. There's certainly nothing in hours of 24p India footage that looks like a watercolor artifact.

I think it is time to stop repeating the claim of a watercolor artifact in posts with no reference to any evidence. Repeating a false claim has a way of making it seem true.

I did make clear in a later post that I had the Sharpness on 9. However I realize there may be some confusion about the settings, so I'm posting those on the web page too. www.geekstudios.com/demos I'm not sure how you decided anything but 5 is "bad". Where does Sony say you should set Sharpness on 5? The default is 7. To me 5 is simply too soft, but I've never complained about the EE or noise at higher settings. I haven't yet arrived at my optimal sharpness setting. It will take more time and playing around. I think reasonable, talented shooters can arrive at different conclusions.

If you don't like my footage you can post your own. I never claimed that my footage was the end all and be all of V1 footage. It's just one sample. And I think it's useful for people to see.

I'm also not quite sure what you mean by properly shot. All of my stuff is shot with a tripod and properly exposed with 1/60th shutter. Also, I reject the notion that everything must be absolutely perfect for you to judge a camera's quality. Most people want to know what the camera will look like in a variety of situations. There are times when everyone will need to shoot with gain up and iris wide open, so it's important to know what it will look like in those situations. So long as it's disclosed what the settings are, I don't see what the problem is.

As far as the watercolor effect. Below is a cropped photo from the workshop scene in both interlaced and progressive that to me shows a watercolor effect. It was shot with sharpness at 7, Sony's nominal setting. Now you may call it "softer" and I call it "watercolor" or "paint." But there is definitely color banding going on in the progressive that is not happening in the interlaced. I make no judgement for other people whether or not this is acceptible for them. I just point it out. When I have time I will recreate the situation that convinced me I wasn't imagining things.

I'm generally pleased with the V1. However, I do have some disappointments with its progressive performance. It seems like Sony is making some false claims about the camera. On their website they claim it is sharper than competing cameras, however it is doubtful that that is the case in progressive scan mode. When I was deciding between the V1 and the A1, progressive scan was a factor. However, it appears that it should not have been, since A1s frame mode probably has the same or better resolution than V1s progressive mode. A native progressive scan camera like the V1 SHOULD be just as sharp in progressive as it is in interlaced. If there is some Noise Reduction going on reducing resolution, it would be nice to have some control over it.

Now I have no bias against the V1 in this discussion. I understand how our british brethren might by slightly biased against the V1 because of the trouble they went through. If anything, I'd be biased towards the V1, since I've bought one and have no options for returning it. In general, people like to think they made the best purchasing decision. Even if I had the option, I think I'd keep it anyways, since there are things I don't like about the A1 and I've bought a fair amount of accessories. Now I have to ask you, Steve, do you have any financial relationship to Sony? Including receiving free, reduced price or loaner cameras or equipment? If so, you should disclose that.

Did any one notice the chromatic aberration on Steve's Pics 0-3. The food case and chairs have a purple outline.

Thanks for the images Brett. I can see the 'smoothing' effect in the p image on the side of the shed over the i, but I also think the roof over the door in the p grab seems cleaner with more defined detail (where the i image seems blurry or soft).

Over all, I'm in the same boat as you. I bought the V1U and I will live with it. This 'effect' doesn't really seem a major problem to me and I don't find it too distracting. It would be nice if the i and p images were identical (and maybe Sony will have a firmware update that can do this), but since I'm shooting with a 35mm adapter (DOF), I think I can work around these issues. Once I get a chance (I have two young boys and they CAN BE a handfull!), I'll try to shoot some trees/roofs and post A/B samples with 24p/30p/60i. I also have a Z1U and maybe I'll try to shoot the same images and post them too.

Todd

It doesn't work that way. Anyone who claims something exists needs to prove it does. Simply repeatedly claiming you see "it" isn't good enough.

I made a very reasonable request:

1) provide a link to the clip (and to be a realiable claim, you really need multiple clips).

2) Provide a quote from the shooter that the P video was shot with Sharpness = 5 which is what Sony recommends. (This rules out 3 of Brett's clips.)

3) Describe what you see and where it is. Saying it's "on the church" isn't good enough.

In other words, you need to be as responsible as a professional reviewer would be if you are going to make claims about an effect that "... is there but is is very small and very subtle."

At this point -- not even ONE report of the alleged watercolor meets these standards for public verifiability. And, with each day going by with no new clips from the thousands of V1U buyers -- and Brett's clips disqualified -- those who make such claims need to "put up, or ... ."

In fact, if a problem is "very small and very subtle" and is reported primarily by those who don't even own a V1U and isn't reported by 99.9% of those who do own a V1U -- one could say there is no need for a debate. The issue is so trivial as to not be worth considering.

And, it's amazing that you have been knocking the V1U (based upon some compression theory) for 3 months -- claiming it won't be good for compositing and yet have never used a V1U. That's the classic behavior of a "troll."

Now I know you aren't -- and I think your compression theory is true. But to not test a V1U to verify your worries -- does seem a bit strange for a "pro" who was really considering buying a V1U.

Steve,

I would gladly rent a V1U if somebody near me rented it out but sadly that is not the case. Also all the projects I currently have do not require me to rent a camera so I'm not about to spend the money to do so until I have a need to.

I do not have any of my own shots from the V1U but I didn't realize this thread was only for owners of the camera. I do agree with you that it would be best to use the camera myself but at the same time I know when I see certain things. I'm sorry for the terms used here but like you I'm not really sure what to call it yet. Just because it doesn't have a proper name doesn't mean I am crazy.

I also started this in the hope of trying to find a way to reduce the effect. I do not think SONY would be that thick to design a camera that is flawed. In order to understand how to reduce the issue however we must know what it is and what causes it. I do not exactly know whats going on because I am not an engineer. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to figure it out so I can reduce it in the future if I do ever need to rent a V1U or buy one.

I agree with SONY that the sharpness needs to be turned down. Of Course I have no way to test this but I think if the sharpness is turned down most if not all of the problems will go away. I agree with one of your statements that it is kind of a tradeoff between sharpness and a clean image. This is pretty much thecase with every HDV camera to a certain degree. The V1U just has a different look when it is too sharp.

The V1U I'm sure has a certain default sharpness so most casual users will find the images to be sharp and detailed. That however may not mean the images are of the best quality. Yes reducing the sharpness makes the image soft but we must remember that all HDV cameras are using chips of not so optimal resolution. SONY came up with an interesting way to sharpen the images from it's 960x1080 chips without making it look too much like EE.

For compositing I have always used even SD cameras at greatly reduced sharpness. This really helps reduce the EE and makes for a much cleaner key. I'm sure the V1U is no different it is just that one camera has EE while the other has funky artifacts. My bet is that if you reduce the sharpness to 5 or maybe even 3 all artifacts will go away and the image will look perfectly clean.

One test I like to do with the church shot is to use a crop to make it SD and then watch this SD cropped version on a HDTV or computer monitor. In this case you can clearly see some dancing shimmering details. I know most people don't crop to SD but some people do and a lot of people use the Z1 for this type of shooting.

I would love to see some progressive footage with reduced sharpness to see if that helps clean up everything.

1) I've already removed the request for display info.

2) When you say "just take this thread footage and channel separate it -- you can see the various in the resolution loss in the color channels" you are confirming the issue we all agree exists: Softer luma and chroma in P-mode. Can you quantify the loss?

We don't have footage yet to quantify - just verify.


3) "All the reported V1 artifacts" is repeating the existence of artifacts without stating what "they" are and which clips show them.

In this thread, detail loss and gain in different areas of image with Brett's footage. In Tony's images, his footage. etc.



The reason I'm being such a pain in the ass is that the specifics are critical as the issues with the V1 are very different than, for example, the Split Screen Effect with the HD100.


We are in the same stage as early reports of HD100 issues - but while skepticism is always a great attitude, the evidence is in. I recall your responses to the first SSE reports and often you blame the shooter as the cause despite footage to the contrary. This attitude accomplishes nothing positive IMO and is in conflict with your claimed skepticism. If you argue there is not enough evidence for or against the existence of camera issue/defect, there is not enough evidence to point to shooter "skill" as the cause for the observed issue.


We need well shot video and then screengrabs that show everyone the problem.

While there is plenty of video & grabs to indicate a clear problem, I agree that footage shot in controlled fashion with the goal of shedding more light on the V1 would help. That's why I have requested it (and hopefully the V1 shooter down the road from me & I can get together to make it happen).

If DNR has removed detail in an area -- and if the monitor uses "bob" deinterlacing -- the paint effect will be increased. Since the majority of HDTVs and softer de-interlacers use "bob" -- I'm not surprised some are seeing a more of a problem than others.

The majority of HDTV monitors do not use "bob" they use vertical filtering which weaves together the two fields but filters or softens the whole image, even the static part to lose the combs on movement. The softening is inherently not good and ghosts but it's hardly noticed usually because the video is downrezzed to the native 720p resolution of the panel.

The more egregious sin is committed when the technique is used on 1080p monitors.

The vertical filtering should not cause blurring in specific areas of the screen, but rather throughout the whole of it.

A more desirable deinterlacing technique is the per-pixel motion adaptive which weaves the static parts and bobs (interpolates) the moving parts.

The most sophisticated method is direction vector which weaves the fields, but horizontally shifts areas to null the combs in the moving areas without softening. It's used in high end video processors.

I think the only HDTV monitors to use "bob" were the 1080i rear projection crt's that would display 720p by scaling the frame to 1080, then bobbing it to 540i.