I'm not sure if we're talking the same thing; by noise I mean the dancing noise that is equally visible in my 25p as well as 30p (or was it 24p?) V1 versions (eg. in the "church", "shoeshine" or "village" clips posted earlier on this forum).

Bottom line so far is:
I think we can safely say that both E and U versions of the V1 give the same results, also in progressive mode - one can like it or not, but no need to differentiate between them any longer.

The amount of aliasing, however, seems very different. And, after seeing your line twitter -- I'm not so sure there is not a real difference between the units.

I have finally come up with an explanation of why R50 models would have more aliasing than R60. It's really simple, but I want to think a bit more. If I'm correct -- it confirms Sony recommendation to use 3 with p. But, it also confirms the downside of doing so. It even explains why Sony created the first firmware for r50.

No matter the explanation -- the work you are doing is critical because it points to what r50 users can do.

Steve,

How come if I render video from 3D studio Max as 1440x1080 30p anamorphic and then encode that to HDV which in turn really makes it 30psf it doesn't show that many problems with aliasing? I mean a 3D render with have a lot more detail then any HD camera could do. I even encoded two different segments. One as a raw 60i and the other with flags set. I'm not sure if the flags made it to the tape on my HC1 that I used for the test but in the end it was still 1080i video that was progressive in nature even though it was encoded as 60i. I even added film grain to simulate noise and everything seemd to look pretty good even on my HDTV that just bobs.

A good 3D app will have the option to apply a anti-aliasing filter. Perhaps it turned on.

I think we've moved past the thread topic and really now looking at R50 vs R60. It's looking like -- contrary to my thinking -- that the R50 has more aliasing & line twitter than the R60. At the same time -- it appears that the type of deinterlace makes a difference during playback.

Is this related PsF? I really don't know.

Steve, I can't wait for the explanation, though - please provide us with it!

In the meantime, I've uploaded another file showing more or less the same scene with:
-50i, sharpness 7
-25p, sharpness 7
-25p, sharpness 5
-25p, sharpness 3
Here is the link:
http://rapidshare.com/files/17910475/V1E_50ivs25p-sharpness7-3.m2v

From my viewpoint, with sharpness set to 3 (as Prime Support suggests for the PAL users), the dancing dots (or aliasing) is almost eliminated. Also, I have shot a couple of quite nice clips with this setting and in some conditions, the video is not too soft (combined with the cinegamma and other settings, but also with the particular contents, you can get quite "filmic" look to it). However, when you watch the scene I provided with the link right after the same scene shot with higher sharpness, it looks absolutely too soft. I have to add though it's still on par with the default XH sharpness.

I'm looking forward to what others think of it.

Yes it does, but what's important it clearly shows that what is so dreadful when feeding 25p into component of my monitor (either live, or from tape with the V1) is just the monitor trying to "deinterlace the deinterlaced", and thus it's NOT the camera's fault.

Maybe that's because the camera outputs 50i at its components not 25p?

Also, I have shot a couple of quite nice clips with this setting and in some conditions, the video is not too soft (combined with the cinegamma and other settings, but also with the particular contents, you can get quite "filmic" look to it). I have to add though it's still on par with the default XH sharpness.


I think you've found your answer -- since your goal is a filmic look you are altering the video in several ways.

Even in the USA, Sony recommends a softer look for Cine. And, given the BBC's claim that switching to 24p is not enough because video is still too sharp -- going softer seems to be part of what folks do, or should do, when using P video for a film look.

If I'm correct that at "3" R50 units have the same V rez as the R60 units at "5" -- the only loss is H. rez. Since V rez is the most critical, using "3" is no big deal.

The critical question -- is how will you view your productions. If using a computer, then you can even use "5." If going back to HDV, then "3" is correct. Maybe "4" would be an OK compromise.

Not that I like the idea of having to turn down the sharpness on a HDV camera in order to obtain a watchable video, but I can add that under certain conditions, it is possible to keep sharpness low (eg at 3) to avoid aliasing, but still get a good picture. One thing to observe is the aperture; one should try never to close it too much or diffraction can add to low sharpness, further spoiling the picture. The same scene I posted, still with sharpness at 3 but with ND filter engaged and iris open up from around 8 to around 5.6, can be found here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/18138889/V1E25p_Sharpness3_ND.m2v

The perceived sharpness/resolution goes up even though the sharpness setting was untouched.

I think you've found your answer -- since your goal is a filmic look you are altering the video in several ways.

Even in the USA, Sony recommends a softer look for Cine. And, given the BBC's claim that switching to 24p is not enough because video is still too sharp -- going softer seems to be part of what folks do, or should do, when using P video for a film look.

If I'm correct that at "3" R50 units have the same V rez as the R60 units at "5" -- the only loss is H. rez. Since V rez is the most critical, using "3" is no big deal.

The critical question -- is how will you view your productions. If using a computer, then you can even use "5." If going back to HDV, then "3" is correct. Maybe "4" would be an OK compromise.

Steve, if its true that at "3" R50 units have the same V rez as the R60 units at "5" , and indeed some 20% more bandwidth must be squeezed out of the R50 hardware than from R60, it seems still possible than Sony might come with a new firmware fix for PAL models. It'd be unough to filter vertical resolution by some 20%, while keeping the horizontal rez and default sharpness intact, or keep the V rez intact while cranking up the H rez to its absolute limits, and then establish the default sharpness of 7 being the same as the current 5 setting in the 25p mode. The purpose of the above being that lowering sharpness to avoid dancing dots would only result in V rez reduction, keeping the H rez on par with the interlaced mode. Canon XH-series have separate "H DTL FREQ" and "DTL HV BAL" settings for just that. What do you think?

Steve, I can't wait for the explanation, though - please provide us with it!

In the meantime, I've uploaded another file showing more or less the same scene with:
-50i, sharpness 7
-25p, sharpness 7
-25p, sharpness 5
-25p, sharpness 3
Here is the link:
http://rapidshare.com/files/17910475/V1E_50ivs25p-sharpness7-3.m2v

From my viewpoint, with sharpness set to 3 (as Prime Support suggests for the PAL users), the dancing dots (or aliasing) is almost eliminated. Also, I have shot a couple of quite nice clips with this setting and in some conditions, the video is not too soft (combined with the cinegamma and other settings, but also with the particular contents, you can get quite "filmic" look to it). However, when you watch the scene I provided with the link right after the same scene shot with higher sharpness, it looks absolutely too soft. I have to add though it's still on par with the default XH sharpness.

I'm looking forward to what others think of it.

Hi Piotr

Are you saying the XH-A1 image is as soft as the V1E at sharpness setting 3?

That would be an extraordinary claim. Perhaps you could clarify that remark?

I have downloaded and viewwed your footage to see if there is any difference between a "fixed" V1 to one shipping directly from the factory with upgraded firmware. Well no. The image still turns to mush at sharpness setting 3 in line with Sony's recommended progressive setting.

Regards

TT

Tony,

Have you also downloaded the clip showing clearly how opening aperture up can sharpen the picture, even at the sharpness setting at 3? For you convenience, here is the link: http://rapidshare.com/files/18138889/V1E25p_Sharpness3_ND.m2v

All I want so say is that by carefully tuning the parameters, it is posiible to obtain a very nice picture with sharpness=3, completely free of the dancing dots (the horizontal, contrasty line twitter have already been established beyond doubt as a viewing device-induced artefact).

As to the Canon - yes, unless you crank its sharpness up (to +3, or even higer), it looks much softer than the V1E at the default 7 setting, which leaves the room to decrease the V1's sharpness while still being on par with the A1, at least with the V rez of its progressive mode (unfortunately, de-sharpening affetcs also the H rez - hence my "wish" to Sony in the previous message). Of course, the best compromise could be setting sharpness at around 5, which is completely viable in certain conditions, where the contents doesn't have too many contrasty lines and thus the aliasing artefacts are not so strong.

Canon XH-series have a separate "H DTL FREQ" and "DTL HV BAL" for jus that. What do you think?

I don't expect a firmware update. Sony has often released an A version -- not to fix things, but to add features/capabilities that may not have been ready.

It really comes down to how many units they want to sell. Given the near absence of HD in R50 -- sorry but its true -- the V1 is primarily aimed at Japan, Korea, and the USA. Since they'll sell all they can build in these 3 countries -- how many R50 sales do they need?

When you look at R50 there are 3 segments: PAL DV/DVCAM, 50i HD, and 25p HD. Despite the VOCAL interest in 25p -- it's a minority market, anywhere. News, sports, corporate are 50i. And, if you look at the quality of the V1 imaging -- there are tons of PAL sales to be made. So if Sony sells all the PAL DV/DVCAM units they expect, plus all the 50i HDV units they expect -- they can afford to punt the 25p market. And, the fact is despite some complaints about 25p HDV, they'll still sell a bunch of them.

Sony makes business decisions -- and they fact is that if they had never offered progressive, they would sell a huge number. Remember, the FX7 will still likely sell more units than the V1.

Moreover everyone needs to remember HDV is a joint project with JVC. It sure seems to me that they have nicely split the market between them. Sony wins interlace sales and JVC wins progressive sales. This is how the Japanese do business.

Neither company worries about Canon -- although they should -- because it doesn't have the worldwide sales channels that Sony and JVC do. There is an upper limit to how many they can sell. Plus they both need Canon to keep HDV the majority seller.

But the real issue is 3 useable? Well its 2-clicks softer than 5 which is 2-clicks softer than 7. Since I like 9 better than 7 -- 3 is a huge drop. But, other people love turning the U models waaay down when shooting 24p. Soft is part of their film look.

So, I'll bet many will choose 3 or 4 in the USA simply because they want the softness. In fact, as Adam Wilt wrote, "One telling factor is that sharpness can be dialed down on the V1 without the picture going to mush, as it will on the Z1."

So its really a matter of taste. I don't see the need to fight about taste. People can choose the tool that will give them the look they want.

PS: the minimum iris for so tiny a chip is f/4.0. Your finding is fully valid, and may explain user error as the source of the "mush"claims. :)

Tony,

Have you also downloaded the clip showing clearly how opening aperture up can sharpen the picture, even at the sharpness setting at 3? For you convenience, here is the link: http://rapidshare.com/files/18138889/V1E25p_Sharpness3_ND.m2v

All I want so say is that by carefully tuning the parameters, it is posiible to obtain a very nice picture with sharpness=3, completely free of the dancing dots (the horizontal, contrasty line twitter have already been established beyond doubt as a viewing device-induced artefact).

As to the Canon - yes, unless you crank its sharpness up (to +3, or even higer), it looks much softer than the V1E at the default 7 setting, which leaves the room to decrease the V1's sharpness while still being on par with the A1, at least with the V rez of its progressive mode (unfortunately, de-sharpening affetcs also the H rez - hence my "wish" to Sony in the previous message). Of course, the best compromise could be setting sharpness at around 5, which is completely viable in certain conditions, where the contents doesn't have too many contrasty lines and thus the aliasing artefacts are not so strong.

I am still not quite sure whether we are talking about the same thing i.e a soft blurred image or an image without edge enhancement artefacts.

The Xh-A1 has much less EE as a default than the V1. I can only assume from what you have said regarding a wide open iris that you are not aware of the softening of an image with a small aperture due to lens diffraction. I wouldn't advise going below f5.6 if you can help it.

I simply cannot agree that the a well shot XH-A1 image is softer or lacks resolution than a well shot V1 image at sharpness setting 3.

TT

PS: the minimum iris for so tiny a chip is f/4.0. You finding is fully valid, and may explain user error as the source of the "mush"claims. :)

If that was directed at me as I use the mush claims and stand by it then no. I am a competent camera operator.

I'll post some of the mush recorded using Sony's recommended workaround for a poorly performing progressive mode if you like?

Hope that helps

TT

I simply cannot agree that the a well shot XH-A1 image is softer than a well shot V1 image at sharpness setting 3.

TT
And you are right, but a "well shot XH-A1" is only possible with its sharpness setting not less than the default. Whereas the V1 at the default sharpness is much sharper (thus having an edge in the I mode), and allows to reduce shapness in the P mode to avoid aliasing (OK - 3 may be too soft for some tastes, but 5 is just fine IMHO).

Disclaimer: all this is not to say I have already accepted the V1E as is (details of my signature have not changed yet:); I probably would if it was possible to decrease H Rez just enough to avoid aliasing, but leave the V rez untouched. And I still think it could be achieved by a new firmware; whether Sony is listening or not is another matter.

Also, the tests I'm running now helped me realize how important the viewing device is. I sort of accepted my LCD can display HDV very well through component, because I first bought and tested it with the Sony HC1, which was my first HDV camera and of course, just an interlaced one. Now I can see clearly the monitor has a not-so-good deinterlacer, and is silly enough to deinterlace also the V1E's 25PsF steam. Therefore, I'm planning to run my final tests with my dealer next week, by connecting both the V1E and the Canon A1 to the same, newest generation, full resulution Bravia HDTV.

OK - 3 may be too soft for some tastes, but 5 is just fine IMHO.

The nice thing about the V1 is it adds almost no EE when viewed on an HDTV that has its Sharpness correctly set. At 15, the pix simply gets more clear while at 0 it just goes soft. The control very nicely alters DETAIL -- as it should.

Which raises the question of using 4 as a compromise. The question is how much aliasing do you see on a movie exported back to HDV? If an edited movie looks good at 4 -- then you've got a good compromise. I worry that 3 might not be good at the second generation of HDV. Equally, likely is that it will be fine.

Only a test will determine how much filtering is done during the decode and recode.

Don't know how relevant this is now but I've just found out from the Sony Vegas team that Vegas cannot create a m2t file the same as what you'd get capturing a tape from the V1 recording progressive i.e. you cannot create a file with the "p" flag set.

Further comment indicates that playout from a deck via component or HDMI will yield the exact same thing (no flags) regardless of any flags on the tape.

I offer this without comment as I have no knowledge of what happens over a HD component or HDMI connection.

Don't know how relevant this is now but I've just found out from the Sony Vegas team that Vegas cannot create a m2t file the same as what you'd get capturing a tape from the V1 recording progressive i.e. you cannot create a file with the "p" flag set.

Further comment indicates that playout from a deck via component or HDMI will yield the exact same thing (no flags) regardless of any flags on the tape.

There are 2 MPEG-2 flags. One is the PROGRESSIVE FLAG that indicates, naturally, that video should be decoded -- and most importantly -- converted from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. Without this flag EVERY decoder, including the in a V1, can't properly decode P-mode. This is a serious issue playing back your production.

Which makes one wonder about the MPEG-2 generated by Vegas for DVDs or HD DVDs.

The other flag is UPPER, LOWER, and FRAME. I have no idea if the V1 sets this flag. It can be set with P video to indicate the encoding was done by frame. Of course, that assumes the V1 encodes P as frames. According to some, it is not, which means the flag would not be set.

MPEG-2 flags only exist inside encoded data.

The nice thing about the V1 is it adds almost no EE when viewed on an HDTV that has its Sharpness correctly set.

You mean with a sharpness so low it starts to smooth? The problem with most HDTV's is that we don't know what sharpness setting is 0. And if your source is a dvd/v1/other camera it most likely has ee already.

It would be easy to find though just by plugging it into a computer and looking at black text on a white background. LCD sharpening usually looks pretty horrid.

There are 2 MPEG-2 flags. One is the PROGRESSIVE FLAG that indicates, naturally, that video should be decoded -- and most importantly -- converted from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. Without this flag EVERY decoder, including the in a V1, can't properly decode P-mode. This is a serious issue playing back your production.

Which makes one wonder about the MPEG-2 generated by Vegas for DVDs or HD DVDs.

The other flag is UPPER, LOWER, and FRAME. I have no idea if the V1 sets this flag. It can be set with P video to indicate the encoding was done by frame. Of course, that assumes the V1 encodes P as frames. According to some, it is not, which means the flag would not be set.

MPEG-2 flags only exist inside encoded data.

The V1P at least certainly records the flag.
Shoot 25PsF and 50i. Capture clips using V7.0d and drop them on the T/L and RClick the events. Under Media Properties the PsF footage shows as Progressive and the Interlaced footage shows as Interlaced. This is old news, I posted links to some mixed clips weeks ago asking if anyone could guess which was which but it was a no brainer for anyone with Vegas.

I can take those same clips with no FXs and PTT using my M15U and capture that tape and again Vegas correctly reports the footage as P or I.

What I cannot do is encode a file with the flags set, ready to PTT. I can encode to 25p however the deck will not accept the stream, it comes up with an Invalid Format error.

I'm told that I can encode as 50i and PTT and then dub via component to HDCAM and all will be well, I guess that makes sense as the stream now contains 50i not 25PsF so the flags shouldn't indicate "P" anyway.

There are 2 MPEG-2 flags. One is the PROGRESSIVE FLAG that indicates, naturally, that video should be decoded -- and most importantly -- converted from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. Without this flag EVERY decoder, including the in a V1, can't properly decode P-mode.

That would be true for the xh-a1, but doesn't V1 encode everything into an interlaced file? That way the flags will be actually set for interlace.


The other flag is UPPER, LOWER, and FRAME. I have no idea if the V1 sets this flag. It can be set with P video to indicate the encoding was done by frame.

Isn't that the progressive flag?

You mean with a sharpness so low it starts to smooth? The problem with most HDTV's is that we don't know what sharpness setting is 0.

I use test discs. My set goes to smooth (zero EE) at 8, so I set it at 16. One wants no visible outlines. Turns out that before I had the disks -- I had already chosen 20. Fact is that anything from 15 to 25 is fine.

I have to wonder how many reports of CAMERA EE come from folks who leave monitor EE at 50 which they assume is correct.

I'm told that I can encode as 50i and PTT and then dub via component to HDCAM and all will be well, I guess that makes sense as the stream now contains 50i not 25PsF so the flags shouldn't indicate "P" anyway.

There won't be any MPEG-2 flags in the component video going to HDCAM. The deck simply takes fields. More interestingly would be how/if you would get a DVCPRO HD or D-5 deck to record 25p.


"What I cannot do is encode a file with the flags set, ready to PTT. I can encode to 25p however the deck will not accept the stream, it comes up with an Invalid Format error."

... ready to PTT?

If you can't record 25p -- how do you do the following:

"I can take those same clips with no FXs and PTT using my M15U and capture that tape and again Vegas correctly reports the footage as P or I."

RETURN TO THE ORGINAL TOPIC

For interlaced [or progressive frames as interlace] video, the encoder can either keep the fields separate or combine them together into one frame before encoding, whichever is best for compression purposes. There is a flag on each image stored in the MPEG-2 stream called “picture_structure” can be either “frame” or “top field” or “bottom field.”

IT IS POSSIBLE A FRAME CAN BE RECORDED AS AN MPEG-2 BIT STREAM JUST AS EASILY AS TWO FIELDS CAN BE RECORDED AS AN MPEG-2 BIT STREAM. LIKE DV, MPEG-2 CAN SENSE INTER-FIELD MOTION TO SWITCH BETWEEN FIELD (MOTION) AND FRAME (STATIC) ENCODING. BY DEFINITION, THERE WILL BE NO MOTION BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE FRAMES -- SO FRAME ENCODING WOULD BE USED.

WHAT PROOF DO WE HAVE THAT THE V1 ENCODES AS FIELDS? MUST IT USE FIELDS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER 1080I HDV EQUIPMENT? I ASSUME SO.

So I assume the “picture_structure” flag is either “top field” or “bottom field.”

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

For 24p, there are two extra flags available for MPEG-2. These two flags are called “repeat_first_field” and “top_field_first.” A frame in the MPEG stream can have “repeat_first_field” set to “true,” and that tells the decoder to generate 3 fields from this frame, rather than 2. Because fields have to alternate between even (bottom) and odd (top), the “top_field_first” flag tells the encoder which of the two fields in the frame should be sent out first.

In Europe almost every film is encoded with 2-2 pulldown. This will be true for V1 25p and 30p.

To display a perfect progressive image from 24p, an MPEG-2 decoder outputs 1080i digital or analog video and feeds it via HDMI or analog component to the deinterlacing chip in your HDTV. The deinterlacing chip decides the video is 24p when it encounters a stream of 5-field sequences in which the 1st and 3rd fields are identical. The deinterlacer then switches to "film-mode" and combines 540-line fields 1 and 2 to make one 1080-line progressive frame—and outputs the frame three times. It then combines 540-line fields 4 and 5 to make another 1080-line progressive frame and outputs it 2 times. (Doing so converts 24p to 60p.) It repeats the process again for the next 5 fields. The ten 1920x1080 frames are sent to a progressive display panel. Because the 2-3 cadence tells the deinterlacer exactly what to do, 24P can be displayed perfectly.

When the deinterlacer doesn’t see a 3-2 cadence, it switches to "video-mode" deinterlacing. Likewise, with 25p or 30p where there are no repeated fields, the deinterlacer switches to "video-mode" deinterlacing. Unfortunately, “video mode” deinterlacing can only yield different kinds of compromised video.

IN SHORT, A DEINTERLACER MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT 25P AND 30P ARE TO BE TREATED AS 50I and 60I.

IN SHORT, 25P, 30P, 50I, AND 60I NEVER CAN LOOK PERFECT.

From -- http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

To clarify regarding the V1:
Component output is always interlaced video (HD out would always be 1080i).

Over HDMI:

a) If a display device is capable of 1080i, the V1 outputs 1080i.

b) If a display device is capable of 480p, the V1 converts 1080i to 480p.

c) If a display device is capable of 1080p, the V1 sends it 1080i (not p even if the footage was recorded using a progressive mode).

It would seem we've gone around the mulberry bush on this one a few times.

It would seem we've gone around the mulberry bush on this one a few times.

The connection path has nothing to do with encoding and decoding nor deinterlacing so it's unclear why you have posted about component video. It "clarifies" nothing this group is talking about.

The connection path has nothing to do with encoding and decoding nor deinterlacing so it's unclear why you have posted about component video. It "clarifies" nothing this group is talking about.

There are questions above in the thread about printing back to the V1, and how the V1 outputs. It also clarifies that the component and HDMI outputs on the V1 are always "i" unless you're viewing on a 480p display, in which case it converts 1080i to 480p.
Thanks for the catch.

I have done some more tests today; in 25p I changed the sharpness from 4 through 7 (default), 9 up to 12! And I can tell you that unless you're fixed on those offending areas (where contrasty lines cause aliasing artifacts of dancing dots), the progressive video is just stunning, especially at 9 sharpness setting - but only when played back through DVI as a computer file, without deinterlacing.

Which doesn't change the fact that - after having established that the component playback on an 1920x1200 LCD engages deinterlacing and cuts the resolution - I really don't know which workflow I should adopt to actually deliver the progressive video at full resolution. After HD or BlueRay DVD becomes available, it will have to be connected through the same component (or HDMI) inputs, and the deinterlacer will kick in...

Basing on what Steve said about 24p being the only format that can be played back without deinterlacing (thus at full v-rez), and on my own testing - I can't help feeling frustrated as a PAL user. Have even been thinking on replacing the V1E with a V1U (no progressive issues plus 24p, for less money) - considering any possible delivery methods, what disadvantages can you see of using it in a PAL land?

I suggest down converting to 720p. While it may not be as good as true 1080p, although the difference you will see is very very small, you will at least get 720 vertical lines on pretty much every single HDTV on the market. With 1080p some HDTV's may give you 1080p while a lot of them will at best give you 540 lines. Using 720p gives a constant level of quality. This is my opinion of course but you do pretty much eliminate any HDTV deinterlace issues and sharpness issues by delivering as 720p.

Basing on what Steve said about 24p being the only format that can be played back without deinterlacing (thus at full v-rez), and on my own testing - I can't help feeling frustrated as a PAL user. Have even been thinking on replacing the V1E with a V1U (no progressive issues plus 24p, for less money) - considering any possible delivery methods, what disadvantages can you see of using it in a PAL land?

You would have no Prime Support.

You'd constantly have to worry about flicker with lighting.

You testing or you post production workflow is at fault. How are you testing? Include your entire workflow, make and model of TVs and monitors and methods of connection.

Don't let your lack of knowledge/experience kid you into making a decision you'll regret.

TT

I suggest down converting to 720p. While it may not be as good as true 1080p, although the difference you will see is very very small, you will at least get 720 vertical lines on pretty much every single HDTV on the market. With 1080p some HDTV's may give you 1080p while a lot of them will at best give you 540 lines. Using 720p gives a constant level of quality. This is my opinion of course but you do pretty much eliminate any HDTV deinterlace issues and sharpness issues by delivering as 720p.

In Vegas 7.0d, I encoded some hand-held video (720/25p, sharpness at 9):
http://rapidshare.com/files/18897429/720-25p_sharpness9_run_gun_.m2t

All the artifacts (aliasing as dancing dots; look at the car body or the green shed roof of corrugated iron sheet) that 1080/25p showed are still there, but IMHO you must be watching very carefully for them to actually be distracting. I welcome your opinions.

PS. And here's the link to the same video, in 1080/25p format - can you see any quality differences (apart from resolution)?
http://rapidshare.com/files/18916880/25p_sharpness9_hand-held.m2v

WHAT PROOF DO WE HAVE THAT THE V1 ENCODES AS FIELDS? MUST IT USE FIELDS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER 1080I HDV EQUIPMENT? I ASSUME SO.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
IN SHORT, A DEINTERLACER MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT 25P AND 30P ARE TO BE TREATED AS 50I and 60I.

IN SHORT, 25P, 30P, 50I, AND 60I NEVER CAN LOOK PERFECT.

From -- http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

I believe the V1 is using fields so that it is compatible with other 1080I HDV equipment.

How can you say 25p etc can never look perfect, you keep hammering this point and yet offer no justification. Every R50 country has been broadcasting 25p SD since the first day of broadcasting. Now they're doing the same thing in HD, sorry but it works and works very well. Many R50 shooters spend considerable time/money running their footage through de-interlacers to produce 25PsF, simply because it looks better then 50i, the de-interlacers in the display devices (if not CRTs) don't have to think very hard to do a perfect job of combining the fields to produce a frame.

The implication of what your saying to anyone with a vague concept of how this stuff works is that the V1 is producing defective 25PsF that is somehow fooling de-interlacers. Maybe your right, I can't really say if you've unconvered some new concern. From what I've seen though I doubt it.

As you said the de-interlacers should be able to detect that there's no temporal separation between the fields in the 50i and simply weave (merge) the fields. This is a no brainer. I'd have serious doubts that this wasn't reasonably well taken care of in most EDTV and HDTVs, the device designers would obviously realise that telecined film would be one of the most common things displayed on their products.

What DOES pose a challenge for de-interlacers is 50i, not 25PsF. If you want to hammer the point about de-interlacers in display devices 50i is their nemesis, not 25PsF.

How do I manage to get 25PsF back to tape?

Simple.

Vegas can capture the 25PsF from tape to a file. The file has the P flag set. I can print the same file back to tape, the flag goes along for the ride and the file is not re-encoded. Vegas's HDV PTT permits a direct m2t file to tape print.

What I cannot do as Vegas doesn't support it, is encode a file with the same flag, that's all.

Why doesn't Vegas support encoding with the P flag?

Well according to Sony it doesn't matter, if mastering to HDCAM or XDCAM the results the display device gets will be the same whether going directly to tape or mastering to HDV (compression isssues aside) and then dubbing to HDCAM or XDCAM for broadcast.

Vegas can capture the 25PsF from tape to a file. The file has the P flag set. I can print the same file back to tape, the flag goes along for the ride and the file is not re-encoded. Vegas's HDV PTT permits a direct m2t file to tape print.

What I cannot do as Vegas doesn't support it, is encode a file with the same flag, that's all.

Why doesn't Vegas support encoding with the P flag?

Well according to Sony it doesn't matter, if mastering to HDCAM or XDCAM the results the display device gets will be the same whether going directly to tape or mastering to HDV (compression isssues aside) and then dubbing to HDCAM or XDCAM for broadcast.

What makes you think Vegas doesn't convey the P flag to it's 1080/25p or 720/25p encoded output from a V1E's 25PsF file? Both Vegas-encoded clips I posted above are properly recognized as progressive by Vegas, Canopus Procoder 2, Ulead Mediastudio and VideoStudio, and other NLE's. Unlike the raw .m2t files, which are only recognized as P by Vegas; other NLE's treat them as 50i (Upper Filed First).

[...]the de-interlacers should be able to detect that there's no temporal separation between the fields in the 50i and simply weave (merge) the fields. This is a no brainer. I'd have serious doubts that this wasn't reasonably well taken care of in most EDTV and HDTVs, the device designers would obviously realise that telecined film would be one of the most common things displayed on their products[...]

Bob, pure logic says it should be done this way - just weaving when no temporal difference is detected between fields, but apparently it doesn't work this way, at least not with the majority of HD tvs and monitors.

Why?

It beats me. It'd be so much easier to be done than all the sophisticated and expensive methods of deinterlacing 50i...

I have done some more tests today; in 25p I changed the sharpness from 4 through 7 (default), 9 up to 12! And I can tell you that unless you're fixed on those offending areas (where contrasty lines cause aliasing artifacts of dancing dots), the progressive video is just stunning, especially at 9 sharpness setting - but only when played back through DVI as a computer file, without deinterlacing.


You just confirmed my tests -- P does not get a "busy" pix until you go above 10. And, you can go to 12+ with I. The V1 does not add much EE, it only increases bandwidth.

And, you are correct -- because the deinterlacer can find the 2-3 cadence, 24p does have an advantage IF you are willing to live with motion judder and cadence judder and editing issues and monitoring issues. It seems far simpler to only shoot 50i -- it solves all problems and IMHO it looks so much better.

"Bob, pure logic says it should be done this way - just weaving when no temporal difference is detected between fields, but apparently it doesn't work this way, at least not with the majority of HD tvs and monitors."

You found the issue. Bob always says "should" but he is clearly not reading what the experts are saying about how deinterlacing "actually" works. I'm not an expert, but I'm BEGINNING to understand what the experts say. Everyone is free to read the original, and they should.

For example, 24p is perfect ONLY if the logic that checks the cadence works. Testing revealed 80% of our HDTV'S fail to pick up the 2-3 cadence. This is why there is so much interest in 1080p HDTVs. Logic says it should make no difference if the signal is sent from your HD DVD player via 1080i because the the deinterlacer should be able to turn it back to P. Yet, tests revealed this doesn't actually happen. So although it should't matter, but it does.

(Watching the Oscars, so many of the clips they showed were I that was not --even at the pro level -- correctly deinterlaced. It's clear many video pros do not understand how to convert I to P.)

And, the idea of converting to 720p is an interesting one for production. Some folks do convert to DVCPRO HD which is very EZ to edit and is 4:2:2. By the way, this might filter out the aliasing.

What makes you think Vegas doesn't convey the P flag to it's 1080/25p or 720/25p encoded output from a V1E's 25PsF file? Both Vegas-encoded clips I posted above are properly recognized as progressive by Vegas, Canopus Procoder 2, Ulead Mediastudio and VideoStudio, and other NLE's.

Sorry maybe I'm not being clear. You can encode to 25p but that will NOT PTT, you can try, Vegas will try, the deck will just come up with a "Invalid Format" error.

You can bring that file into Vegas and yes sure it'll see it as "P" as you've seen.
As Steve pointed out with mpeg-2 you've got three options:

1) Encode frames - flag says P This is 25P
2) Encode fields - flag says I This is 50i
3) Encode fields - flag says P This is 25PsF

Option 1 is what the Canon cameras do but it's outside the HDV spec and no VCR will play or record it.
Option 2 is obvious.
Option 3 is what the V1E/P does. This is what I trying to get Vegas to record to tape. This is what the Vegas engineers have confirmed Vegas cannot do.

This encoding needs to be done at the encoder level, I suspect it's a limitation of the MainConcept encoder.I t might be possible using a mpeg-2 utility that gives you direct access to the flags.

Sorry Bob, I misunderstood. I'll try printing back to tape over the weekend. So you say it's impossible from Vegas timelime, or from a separate (rendered to 1080/25p) file within Vegas?

You just confirmed my tests -- P does not get a "busy" pix until you go above 10. And, you can go to 12+ with I. The V1 does not add much EE, it only increases bandwidth.


"Bob, pure logic says it should be done this way - just weaving when no temporal difference is detected between fields, but apparently it doesn't work this way, at least not with the majority of HD tvs and monitors."

You found the issue. Bob always says "should" but he is clearly not reading what the experts are saying about how deinterlacing "actually" works. I'm not an expert, but I'm BEGINNING to understand what the experts say. Everyone is free to read the original, and they should.

For example, 24p is perfect ONLY if the logic that checks the cadence works. Testing revealed 80% of our HDTV'S fail to pick up the 2-3 cadence. This is why there is so much interest in 1080p HDTVs. Logic says it should make no difference if the signal is sent from your HD DVD player via 1080i because the the deinterlacer should be able to turn it back to P. Yet, tests revealed this doesn't actually happen. So although it should't matter, but it does.

(Watching the Oscars, so many of the clips they showed were I that was not --even at the pro level -- correctly deinterlaced. It's clear many video pros do not understand how to convert I to P.)

And, the idea of converting to 720p is an interesting one for production. Some folks do convert to DVCPRO HD which is very EZ to edit and is 4:2:2. By the way, this might filter out the aliasing.

Steve,
you're still ignoring the issue of what can happen even if it doesn't do what it should. And you're still unable to explain how us PAL folk have been coping with 25PsF all these decades without this problem coming to light.

Now here's something new. I've always though this aliasing, or line twitter or crawling ants or whatever you want to call it thing was a bit of a red herring, I really hadn't seen it, until today. Funny thing is I wasn't even looking for it, I was testing our new HDMI to HD/SD SDi converter, great little box, stunning SD from that little V1 and box.

Anyway I just wanted to compare the HDMI from the camera straight into the monitor.

The camera was locked of, the subject was totally static. In this test scenario the camera is always sending 50 fields per second to the display device and there's no temporal separation between those fields, no motion vectors or whatever can be derived because nothing moves between the two fields. Regardless of that, no matter if the camera is in 25p or 50i the display device has no way of knowing, it's always getting 50 fields. Whatever de-interlacing errors the display device might be making it'll make the same mistakes whether it's getting 50i or 25PsF, it simply has no way of knowing. Any differences in the results have to be the result of what the camera is doing.

Now, hopefully you've taken that on board.

In 25p there's serious artifacts on horizontal lines, anything within a few degrees off horizontal has serious issues.

In 50i the problem decreases dramatically but I'm far from 100% certain that it's gone either.

Now please keep in mind this is not recorded video, this is straight from the camera head, live. No mpeg issues involved, no flags, nothing.

But what are those issues? They're certainly not line twitter, they're something quite unique. If you look very carefully you see that they seem to be happening at around the pixel level.

Now when we looked at the rest of the frame where we had white paper there was the typical chroma noise, all looked 100% normal. However when we pointed the camera at our blackout cloth again we go that really major noise as the gian came up. But this stuff looks nothing like normal video noise. The noise pixels are black, there's no chroma in them and they're bigger than a pixel, now that's really odd. Yet we still had some bright white areas in the frame, they're fine, a reasonably amount of pixel sized chroma noise. Getting back to the noisy parts of the frame, the noise is worse in as the levels fall off and can suddenly change nature at an edge or as you approach a high contrast edge.

So, going back to the horizontal lines and the whatever it is. I really can't say just what's happening there. I've spent enough time staring at problems with interlace video etc to know this is something new. I've eliminated display device issues what else could it be?

Well, elsewhere in the frame, I looked at the black text on the white paper. That text was riddled with that same blocks of noise, the stuff bigger than a pixel with no color in it. So what happens I wonder when that hits the EE circuits in the camera. Maybe this is something. Those lines were very thin, maybe only a pixel or two high. so the EE in the camera is trying to decide if there's an edge to enhance or not but the noise is fooling it. So the edge is being enhance sometimes and not others due to the random noise. Bingo, this fits the observed effect.
We know from other observations that the noise level is dramatically worse in P than I, we know the display can't tell the difference between I or P from the camera as it's always getting fields.
And it might explain why Sony suggest turning Sharpness down to 3. With too much EE the circuit can push the edge into an adjacent pixel but the noise confuses the logic, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The effect of that on a horizontal edge would look like line twitter or more precisely as some have described it "marching ants"

Steve,
you're still ignoring the issue of what can happen even if it doesn't do what it should. And your still undable to explain how us PAL folk have been coping with 25PsF all these decades without this problem coming to light.

Now here's something new. I've always though this aliasing, or line twitter or crawling ants or whatever you want to call it thing was a bit of a red herring, I really hadn't seen it, until today. Funny thing is I wasn't even looking for it, I was testing our new HDMI to HD/SD SDi converter, great little box, stunning SD from that little V1 and box.

Anyway I just wanted to compare the HDMI from the camera straight into the monitor.

The camera was locked of, the subject was totally static. In this test scenario the camera is always sending 50 fields per second to the display device and there's no temporal separation between those fields, no motion vectors or whatever can be derived because nothing moves between the two fields. Regardless of that, no matter if the camera is in 25p or 50i the display device has no way of knowing, it's always getting 50 fields. Whatever de-interlacing errors the display device might be making it'll make the same mistakes whether it's getting 50i or 25PsF, it simply has no way of knowing. Any differences in the results have to be the result of what the camera is doing.

Now, hopefully you've taken that on board.

In 25p there's serious artifacts on horizontal lines, anything within a few degrees off horizontal has serious issues.

In 50i the problem decreases dramatically but I'm far from 100% certain that it's gone either.

Now please keep in mind this is not recorded video, this is straight from the camera head, live. No mpeg issues involved, no flags, nothing.

But what are those issues? They're certainly not line twitter, they're something quite unique. If you look very carefully you see that they seem to be happening at around the pixel level.

Now when we looked at the rest of the frame where we had white paper there was the typical chroma noise, all looked 100% normal. However when we pointed the camera at our blackout cloth again we go that really major noise as the gian came up. But this stuff looks nothing like normal video noise. The noise pixels are black, there's no chroma in them and they're bigger than a pixel, now that's really odd. Yet we still had some bright white areas in the frame, they're fine, a reasonably amount of pixel sized chroma noise. Getting back to the noisy parts of the frame, the noise is worse in as the levels fall off and can suddenly change nature at an edge or as you approach a high contrast edge.

So, going back to the horizontal lines and the whatever it is. I really can't say just what's happening there. I've spent enough time staring at problems with interlace video etc to know this is something new. I've eliminated display device issues what else could it be?

Well, elsewhere in the frame, I looked at the black text on the white paper. That text was riddled with that same blocks of noise, the stuff bigger than a pixel with no color in it. So what happens I wonder when that hits the EE circuits in the camera. Maybe this is something. Those lines were very thin, maybe only a pixel or two high. so the EE in the camera is trying to decide if there's an edge to enhance or not but the noise is fooling it. So the edge is being enhance sometimes and not others due to the random noise. Bingo, this fits the observed effect.
We know from other observations that the noise level is dramatically worse in P than I, we know the display can't tell the difference between I or P from the camera as it's always getting fields.
And it might explain why Sony suggest turning Sharpness down to 3. With too much EE the circuit can push the edge into an adjacent pixel but the noise confuses the logic, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. The effect of that on a horizontal edge would look like line twitter or more precisely as some have described it "marching ants"

Bob

If it is any help. I observed _exactly_ what you have detailed above. I have been calling those running horizontal lines twitter right from the start. I think it might have been confused with twitter being generated by poor displays. I know that what I have, many examples of, is generated in camera and not as a result of the display.

I posted frame grabs which prove that fact. But again things like that get missed. Turning down the sharpness can mitigate those artefacts to some extent but not before drastically affecting the resolution of the image. I describe it as turning to "mush."

Steve's explanations have never come close to explaining the problems. As I stated in discussions way back the artefacts have nothing to do with de-interlacing.

My dealer explained a what the issue is and that it inherent to the the way the camera works in progressive mode. He was given the info by Sony UK.

All the firmware fix did was to bring the V1E more into line with the V1U by reducing the oil paint effect. Brett Sherman's video of the red shed showed the V1U has exactly the same rendering problems as the V1E when in progressive.

The remaining artefacts are nothing to do with PsF. Fact.

There should not be the necessity to endure all these crazy workarounds and I can't believe it has been suggested to render to 720P. The whole selling point for the V1 was 1080P!!!

I viewed Piotr's video at sharpness 9. Well, if the noise on the green roof is seen as being acceptable then good luck!!

TT

I viewed Piotr's video at sharpness 9. Well, if the noise on the green roof is seen as being acceptable then good luck!!

TT

Tony, nobody ever said it was acceptable! My point was to show it doesn't get "linearly" worse with the sharpness increasing from the "3" setting.

I'm still seriously considering to revert back to the A1, where such artefacts are simply not present (at least I haven't noticed them on my unit during testing). The picture is very "quiet", but IMHO it lacks the vividity that the V1 at sharpness 9 produces. Now that I have to make my decision, I'd be very grateful if you posted a clip from your A1 with colors as vivid and natural as those in my V1E clip, edges eqally sharp but not overenhanced - and still NO noise whatsoever. If you can do that, many of those still on the fence would benefit. Thanks!

PS. Of course, do not mimick my bad panning and zooming in progressive, as the clips I posted were intended to take the V1E's 25p mode to the limits; the stuttering is very excessive. The A1 seems more forgiving also in this respect.

There should not be the necessity to endure all these crazy workarounds and I can't believe it has been suggested to render to 720P. The whole selling point for the V1 was 1080P!!!
TT

Also true, Tony. If I encoded and posted my clip in 720p as well, it was only to prove the point the artefacts are still there.

So, Bob, can we narrow down our tests to using black text on white paper to test the 25P and see what results we get straight out of the camera. I have done some repeats of the original footage where I observed edge problem but could not repeat the results. I would like to see if all PAL owners repeated the same footage of the same test (black text on white paper) we may be able to find a common issue that we could work on.
Camera settings would need to be noted or preferably just set it to full auto. Also if we put the clip through a NLE and render it and provide feedback as to the results.
Michael.

Bob, pure logic says it should be done this way - just weaving when no temporal difference is detected between fields, but apparently it doesn't work this way, at least not with the majority of HD tvs and monitors.

Why?

Because the simple chips can't see the picture. They don't know what the picture is so they basically treat everything interlaced.

I'm still seriously considering to revert back to the A1, where such artefacts are simply not present (at least I haven't noticed them on my unit during testing). The picture is very "quiet", but IMHO it lacks the vividity that the V1 at sharpness 9 produces. Now that I have to make my decision, I'd be very grateful if you posted a clip from your A1 with colors as vivid and natural as those in my V1E clip, edges eqally sharp but not overenhanced - and still NO noise whatsoever. If you can do that, many of those still on the fence would benefit. Thanks!


I did create a custom profile approximating the look of the V1 but have since reverted back to less colour and edge enhancement. I guess I prefer the flatter less edgy look that the Canon gives. All the edges are sharp but just not over enhanced. That is my preference. But is it yours? Judging by your posts on this forum you do like the aesthetic of the Sony image. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

You are kidding yourself if you think you are going to get no noise from any camera. As soon as an image is compressed you'll get noise. The question is whether you find that noise objectionable or whether that noise is consistent. Personally I found the noise from the progressive mode of the V1 objectionable and not consistent either as Bob's detailed post explained.

The Canon does have slightly more noise to begin with BUT that noise is consistent even in poor light and in dark areas of an image. It certainly does not produce the block noise that the V1 produces.

I concur with your observation that the Canon is superior when dealing with motion.

I think you worry far too much what other people think than your own opinion. If you like the V1 image despite its obvious flaws in 25P then stick with it. Are you really going to 25P all that much? I had no complaints about the 50i mode of the V1. It was great.

Comparing the 25F mode of the Canon to the 25P mode of the Sony I prefer the slight V resolution loss of the 25F to the noisy edgy Sony. When the sharpness level is reduced to mitigate that noise an edginess then the Canon wins hands down and has no less V resolution to the V1 in IMO.

Other more important factors regarding image quality is the less DOF of the Canon and its bokeh which is gorgeous.

Ultimately image quality is subjective and what floats one person's boat might sink another. With the XH-A1 I have found I can achieve the image I have always wanted from a video camera i.e to not look like it was shot on a video camera. Other people have different requirements and tastes.

Cheers

TT

Tony,

I get it you're not going to post any video that would be comparable to mine in sharpness and colour vividity, and yet be as quiet and free from aliasing as default A1 settings can provide. It's a pity, and it's symptomatic.

Because if I saw such an A1 clip, my decision would be obvious: say goodbye to the V1 and get the A1 for good. Otherwise, it's still a matter of a very difficult process of weighing pros and cons, and either accepting this ammount of dancing dots here and there as a trade-off for vividness and sharpness, or not.

Because I'd like to stress it again that all the other "flaws" described earlier are IMHO line twitter, which is only visible when a viewing device input is deinterlacing the progressive 1080i stream from the V1. Just returned from the local Sony retailer where I watched my video on the newest Bravia HDTV through both the HDMI and component inputs: the line twitter is simply unacceptable, just like what I get on my monitor via component. Now, why am I so sure it's coming from deinterlacing? Because the same clip played back from my PC with VLC shows no line twitter at all, and when I switch the "bob" deinterlace option in VLC, the line twitter is back - even throuh the DVI interface.

So, the question on how to paly back the progressive material from the V1 remains unanswered. I can see just one possibility, that I am unable to validate: when the progressive material goes onto the Blueray or HD DVD, the HDMI or component input on high-end HDTVs "know" they are getting progressive from 1080 DVD player and switch deinterlacing off.

Can anyone confirm this?

Piotr,
if you can try what I did above, just straight from the camera, not tape, into the X series Bravia. Try switching the camera between P and I and see how the "twitter" looks. Try this in fairly low light on a horizontal edge.

Only reason I ask is I've only got a V series Bravia and they're none too flash, should have a full broadcast 1080 LCD in a few weeks for testing other things.

Still by my calculations my test takes the monitor out of the equation.

Bob, I did it on the 51" X2000 Bravia, and yes it shows what your're describing in P. But it's no worse than what is happening on my 1920x1200 LCD monitor through component. It vanishes when playing back a captured P file with a software player with deinterlace off, and returns with deinterlaced on (bobbing).

Bob, I did it on the 51" X2000 Bravia, and yes it shows what your're describing in P. But it's no worse than what is happening on my 1920x1200 LCD monitor through component. It vanishes when playing back a captured P file with a software player with deinterlace off, and returns with deinterlaced on (bobbing).

Surely it is completely obvious what is happening? No?

The Bravia is not receiving or understanding the P flag being sent or not as the case may be by the V1 when you connect to it via hdmi.

When you capture the NLE can read the P flag encoded in the m2t stream hence there is no deinterlacing error.

TT

Surely it is completely obvious what is happening? No?

The Bravia is not receiving or understanding the P flag being sent or not as the case may be by the V1 when you connect to it via hdmi.

When you capture the NLE can read the P flag encoded in the m2t stream hence there is no deinterlacing error.

TT

It has always been obvious to me, while you kept saying that the "flaw" has nothing to do with deinterlacing, Tony.

Anyway, I'm compiling a short DVD with BlueRay-formatted, 25p clips from my test V1E and will give it a try at the retailer's on his Bravia. If the twitter is gone, for me the V1E is the winner as I never intended to watch my video straight from the camera, anyway.

It has always been obvious to me, while you kept saying that the "flaw" has nothing to do with deinterlacing, Tony.



The real flaws are not those introduced by HDTV deinterlacing.

Bob Grant has posted the most complete appraisal of the V1 progressive issues and I wholeheartedly concur with his observations. Let's not forget Brett Sherman's red shed clip which shows the same flaws.

I can see the same flaws in your footage you posted. My monitor is not deinterlacing and neither is the software. I can see aliasing aplenty. I can see the oil paint effect in the dark areas of the garage and I can see the dancing noise round contrasty edges.

TT

Tony, I am more than aware the picture is far from perfect. Could you please indicate more precisely where exactly you can see the oil paint?

However, the ultimate test will be for me that of trying how a Bravia HDTV can interpret a progressive material, put on a BlueRay player.

Therefore, I'm in an urgent need to put some HDV 1080/25p file (around 2 GB) on a regular DVD (don't have HD or BlueRay burner) in such a way that it be readable by a BlueRay player. Is it possible? Which authoring application will allow me to create the structure on my HDD, so that I could just copy it to a DVD as data? I've heard this is possible with Ulead VideoStudio, but only with HD DVD. What is the BlueRay folder/file structure, and what file format is playable (it's \HVDVD_TS\*.mpg for the HD DVD). Please help!

Regards

Piotr