"Despite this, the majority of HDTV can't sense the cadence perfectly. So if you want perect P, you need to shoot 720p." Steve Mullen

If you rendered to 720p with 24p would you get close to the best result.
Michael

"Despite this, the majority of HDTV can't sense the cadence perfectly. So if you want perect P, you need to shoot 720p." Steve Mullen

If you rendered to 720p with 24p would you get close to the best result.
Michael

Great idea. I'd like to get to 24p with no pullup. So I will try HDV or AIC. There is a 720p24 HDV codec, but not for AIC. Interesting experiment.

UPDATE: It seems to work. MPEGstream clip converts 1080/24PsF to 720p24 HDV at 23.98. Once in a FCP Timeline it works just like 720p24 shot on a JVC. Now to try AIC.

UPDATE: AIC seems to work as well, which is a much better option as it is I-frame only.

UPDATE: 720p24 DVCPRO HD also seems to work, which is better than staying in MPEG-2.

Now it will be interesting to see how this can go to HD DVD. Pulldown can be added to get to 720p60. But, it would be nice if it could go to to HD DVD as 720p24.

UPDATE: Compressor actually supports 720p24 to HD DVD. Hmmm. Getting closer.

The open issue is "how" is MPEGstreamclip treating PsF. It really is an issue that software isn't written to handle it. It's not "progressive" but it's not clear one should apply "deinterlace" to it. MPEGstreamclip offers Motion Adaptive, but they don't document what they do when there is motion.

UPDATE: Without going through an extra couple of steps, it looks like the only format supported for the disk is 1080. So the next step is to see if 1080p24 is supported to disk.

Close but TV's don't read flags because 480p/720p/1080p are not mpeg, it is uncompressed ATSC video frames, an internal pulldown mode works off the cadence only.

I didn't mean the TV was reading the flags.
TT

Bob,

I downloaded and played back your clip. It's a very nice and much more interesting video than what I'm posting, but it lacks those fine, bright, static horizontal lines where the twitter is most likely to show. Therefore, I re-encoded into 24p my garage clip with sharpness 7 (the one I posted yesterday), and - while it plays great in VLC with no deinterlacing through DVI - playing it back via component generates line twitter just like in the original.

So it seems that at least my monitor can't differentiate between 25PsF and 24P. Were your tests more successful?

Steve,

How do you find my S=6 and S=7 clips in terms of a compromise between aliasing and detailness?

Steve,

How do you find my S=6 and S=7 clips in terms of a compromise between aliasing and detailness?

Just finshed watching HD DVD of S = 5, 6, 7:

No filter plus LOW, MED, MAX.

I found S=7 was a bit too harsh and DV looking. Not as bad as 8, but more than one would want for P mode.

S=6 had enough detail and at MED almost no twitter. For an even quieter pix, one could use MAX.

I watched an HD program on Italy. Of course there was a lot of exposed brick. On Discovery HD they had a Classic car auction. Many hard engine parts -- and some twitter. There really is no way to fully eliminate it without wiping-out the fine detail of HD VIDEO.

I would probably also bump I from 7 to 8 for the same reason.

Thank you for all your help.

Bob,

I downloaded and played back you clip. It's a very nice and much more interesting video than what I'm posting, but it lacks those fine, bright, static horizontal lines that the twitter is most likely to show. Therefore, I re-encoded my garage clip with sharpness 7 (the one I posted yesterday), and - while it plays great in VLC with no deinterlacing, thorugh DVI - playing it back via component generates line twitter just like in the original.

So it seems that at least my monitor can't differentiate between 25PsF and 24P. Were your tests more successful?

Steve,

How do you find my S=6 and S=7 clips in terms of a compromise between aliasing and detailness?

I don't have any 'interlace' displays at hand, I'll try getting the clip out onto tape and then play that back through either the V1 or our M25, the M25 has HDMI.
I've been told that the V1 will always output interlaced video on both HDMI and component. That ties in nicely with a HDMI to SDI converter we've also been testing with the V1P which has thrown up another minor problem with Sony cameras!
So basically it's up to the display device to detect that it's being fed 24p but as Steve said most seem to fail at this task. I was going to try 720p but the M25 will only play it back, not record it, foiled again.

I think I'm kind of out of ideas here, this is exactly the same place I got to with 25PsF SD, too much V res and you're going to have problems unless you're displaying it on a PC.

Steve, while I agree with you that lots of vertical resolution will probably cause line twitter here and there (even in high quality progressive HD broadcast), I just cannot come to terms that while watching without deinterlacing (ie from a computer file), the video shows no twitter at all. Therefore, I'd appreciate your help even more if we try and pursue our efforts to find a way of presenting the 25PsF video on a HDTV in such a manner that a deinterlacer doesn't kick in. If Sony's camcorder people are not very helpful (their advise on turning the sharpness down to 3 was a brute force one), perhaps you have some contacts with the HDTV world - not just Sony? Perhaps there IS a way that we're not aware of?

Perhaps there IS a way that we're not aware off?

As I just found trying 720p, HD DVD's do not seem to support it and I suspect BD will only do 1080. I have no idea what a JVC BD player will do. But without burning software who cares.

The only P supported for playback is 24p. And, I have no idea if I'll be able to burn 24p. If I can, then Bob's got the right idea -- get 25p to 24p.

Bottom line -- it looks like until 25p becomes a fully supported NLE and HD DVD format -- you guys are basically screwed.
Moreover, if you bought a JVC 25p camcorder you would still not have support in many NLEs. It looks like 25p is just not going to be an HD format. Which increasingly makes me think 25p was never intended to be part of the V1.

NEVERTHELESS, it seems that despite all odds, we have got a working 25p solution. The Flicker filter is real-time and does the job. S=6 gives enough detail. In the last few weeks we have done what Sony could/should have done in a White Paper.

I'll put this all this in my V1 book, but unless Sony buys-in only a minority of buyers will know of this "solution."

I'm going to try burning 1080 24p.

As I just found trying 720p, HD DVD's do not seem to support it and I suspect BD will only do 1080. I have no idea what a JVC BD player will do. But without burning software who cares.

The only P supported for playback is 24p. And, I have no idea if I'll be able to burn 24p. If I can, then Bob's got the right idea -- get 25p to 24p.

Bottom line -- it looks like until 25p becomes a fully supported NLE and HD DVD format -- you guys are basically screwed.
Moreover, if you bought a JVC 25p camcorder you would still not have support in many NLEs. It looks like 25p is just not going to be an HD format. Which increasingly makes me think 25p was never intended to be part of the V1.

NEVERTHELESS, it seems that despite all odds, we have got a working 25p solution. The Flicker filter is real-time and does the job. S=6 gives enough detail. In the last few weeks we have done what Sony could/should have done in a White Paper.

I'll put this all this in my V1 book, but unless Sony buys-in only a minority of buyers will know of this "solution."

I'm going to try burning 1080 24p.

Your solution Steve doesn't work with Vegas as nice as you report it does with FCP. The" Remove interlace flicker" has only one level, and is just not enough; on the other hand the Gaussian Vertical Blurr acts too strong even with its minimal setting of 0.001.

I will be trying similar solutions with Premiere and/or Edius.

Again, thanks for your cooperation. We have established that the V1E/P doesn not have a flaw in 25PsF mode; I think it's safe to say its vertical resolution is just too big to be properly handled by majority of HDTVs/monitors. Well, I gues 1080/50p is the answer...

UPDATE: Just encoded the S=7 clip with Premiere Antialias filter - results very similar to Vegas flicker removal, ie. not enough to eliminate most of line twittering.

UPDATE: I have found the Gaussian vertical blur=2.5 in Premiere as the best compromise - more effective than antialias, yet not so much softening as its Vegas counterpart at even minimal setting! This I think is the best way to go, as - depending on the contents - you may still decrease the blur amount, or (in an unlikely situation of even more twittery lines than those at my garage wall as per clip with S=7) increase it in a very, very fine fashion. Much better control than in Vegas!

UPDATE: I have found the Gaussian vertical blur=2.5 in Premiere as the best compromise - more effective than antialias, yet not so much softening as its Vegas counterpart at even minimal setting! This I think is the best way to go, as - depending on the contents - you may still decrease the blur amount, or (in an unlikely situation of even more twittery lines than those at my garage wall as per clip with S=7) increase it in a very, very fine fashion. Much better control than in Vegas!

Steve, the S=7 clip encoded with Premiere Gaussian Blur v=2.5 is here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/20037183/25PfS_S_7_with_Adobe_Gaussian_Vertical_Blur__2_5.m2v

Please compare it to what you consider the best results of your FCP trials, and let us know if it's comparable. Thanks!

Try setting the vertical blur in Vegas to .002. you'll probably be pleased with that. Not that it matters, but folks working with high rez stills have been working this way for years, and it helps when delivering XDCAM vid for display on an SD monitor as well, for all the same reasons.

Again, thanks for your cooperation. We have established that the V1E/P doesn not have a flaw in 25PsF mode; I think it's safe to say its vertical resolution is just too big to be properly handled by majority of HDTVs/monitors. Well, I gues 1080/50p is the answer...



That statement is utterly preposterous. Do you really think we go to the bizarre lengths you and Steve are doing when finishing HDCAM footage from an F900?

No I don't think so. :)

I still have not heard back from my DVD supremo but I can assure you that HD television programmes are being shot in 25P on F900s and being delivered as 50i/25PsF (aka 1080i25) for broadcast. The public are not seeing twitter from HD sat broadcasts and neither will they when watching 50i (25PsF) Blu-ray media.

Do you really think the whole of the PAL region is going to have to blur their F900 footage then encode at 24 fps? I don't think so.

You are worrying needlessly and other will end up worrying needlessly.

TT

Tony, this thread length has already demonstrated the lengths to which people feel the need to go for one reason or another. You've got to admit that for the most part, it's measurebating at it's finest.
There are some advantages to blurring vertically when dealing with images from the lower cost camcorders, comparing them to a CineAlta isn't really practicle nor reasonable. Yet you are correct, it's not necessary to undergo all of this for all formats, if you're going down this road at all.
But it's all in great fun, and some folks have little better to do.

This thread has remained remarkably civil given the volatility of the subject, so let's please keep it as such.

This thread has remained remarkably civil given the volatility of the subject, so let's please keep it as such.

I wasn't trying to light the blu-touch paper (see what I did there)! Far from it.

I think it is important that every now and then we touch base with reality in a discussion!

:)

TT

Try setting the vertical blur in Vegas to .002. you'll probably be pleased with that. Not that it matters, but folks working with high rez stills have been working this way for years, and it helps when delivering XDCAM vid for display on an SD monitor as well, for all the same reasons.

I have tried it, Spot - and I find it to unnecessarily soften the image too much (obviously, more so than 0.001). This is why I find the finer blur control in Premiere useful - I think Sony might improve it in the future updates.

Regarding your comment on Tony's post - I could not put it better myself. The progressive picture from the V1E is way sharper than 25F from Canon, which ironically brings about the problem of aliasing or line twittering. What we're discussing here is not measurebating for its own sake, but trying to work out a method to make it watchable without softening down to a level equal or lower than the Canon's default sharpness. This is about the V1E's 25PsF only, and extrapolating it to other formats is pointless; I never meant it at all.

I wasn't trying to light the blu-touch paper (see what I did there)! Far from it.

I think it is important that every now and then we touch base with reality in a discussion!

:)

TT

Reality is that most HD down here is being shot in 50i, not 25p.
I think you'll find that by design 50i delivers less V res than 25p in most cameras due to line averaging.
Even then the broadcasters are not out of the woods. The SD downconverts can end up with twitter. Those downconverts are being done through boxes costing serious money and despite their best efforts you can still get fine detail sneaking through that causes grief.
You don't even need the V1E to create this problem, don't even need a camera. There was some great test patterns around, don't seem to be able to find them anymore so I'll have to create my own. They were of every alternate pixel black and white. Try displaying that on a 50i system, works fine a real 25p display, blows up on a 50i display. Therein lies the root of the problem.
Could Sony have taken steps to alleviate the problem shooting 25PsF. Maybe but I suspect at the expense of V res. I'd rather them keep the res and we deal with it in post, all that seems to be lacking are the ideal tools for controlling aliasing in post.
And let's not forget that we'll be adding stills, text and graphics onto our 25p timelines. Without handling that very carefully again problems with twitter will arise.

1) Does the V1's HDMI port have HDCP? Nope.

2) The MPEG-2 spec. allows the encoding of "field based" video either as two separately encoded FIELDS or one encoded FRAME. What does the V1 use?

The HDV spec. uses FRAME encoding for both HD1 and HD2.

Therefore, the claim that the V1 uses FIELD encoding is false and the concern that V1 progressive is compromised by not using FRAME is unnecessary. There is no difference in HDV progressive encoding between Canon, JVC, and Sony.

3) Those concerned the V1E has MPEG-2 blocking artifacts, read about what causes them in FEB issue of Broadcast Engineering. Some decoders have MPEG-2 blocking filters.

And let's not forget that we'll be adding stills, text and graphics onto our 25p timelines. Without handling that very carefully again problems with twitter will arise.

Exactly -- that's what the Flicker Filter was designed for.

Hi everybody! This is my first post here, sorry for my bad english, I'm italian. I own the V1E since 15 Dec 2006, upgraded (?) in the early of 2007.
After the firmware fixing I noticed a V res boost switching from i to p, Why? Sony, WHY?! Someone told us that the p mode was softer than i ( the infamous oil paint effect, that is not a resolution problem but a coring/NR issue ) and Sony made the mistake of incrementing the V res causing flickering, aliasing, etc... ( the oil paint is lower but still present in fine similar color details like grass or brown trees without foliage ). I always use the FCP flicker filter workaround but I really hope that Sony will fix the problem, nobody needs a soft H res image with oversharpened V rez, twittery, flickery,more noisy, aliased... I emailed the problem to silver support, you already know the answer: try to lowering the sharpness to 3 (&*!%). Sorry again for my bad english.

After the firmware fixing I noticed a V res boost switching from i to p, Why? Sony, WHY?! Someone told us that the p mode was softer than i and Sony made the mistake of incrementing the V res causing flickering, aliasing, etc...
It's possible Tokyo created two versions of V1E firmware -- each with an error: the first firmware had the "oil paint" effect and the second with too much V. rez. To believe this you have to assume Sony engineers made two bad designs without seeing the problems that would result.

[edit]

The BBC reports that Sony downconverts HD to get SD in the A1 and Z1. The relation between the two is fixed at 2.25 -- which matches 1080 divided by 480. So this factor was designed into the V1U and V1E.

[edit]

There is a fundamental difference between PAL and NTSC cameras. PAL units must have 1.2X greater V rez. because of the difference in V rez: 576 vs 480. This is why the PAL chips always have more rows.

In order to get 576 lines, given the 2.25 factor, the V1E's HD signal needs to carry 1296-lines of rez. Of course a compromise, for example, 540 and 1215 could be chosen.

To get 1215, the only option is to raise the low-pass filter frequency to enable the capture of a signal with more vertical resolution. But, R50 HD cameras don't have extra CCD rows. The rows are fixed at 1080. When you capture a wider bandwidth signal -- with the same number of rows -- the result is inherently far more aliasing and twitter on horizontal edges/lines.

Interlace video is always sent through a low-pass filter. This is used on both U and E units. It removes line-flicker and aliasing.

This filter is not used for progressive -- so the aliasing is visible. Had Sony intended a 25p version, they would have designed the V1 differently from Day 1. Or, they blundered from Day 1. Take your pick.

To reduce the aliasing, Sony cranked up DNR which cleaned up the noise. [edit]
Of course, it also wiped-out detail. When it's video was rejected, in a panic, Sony dialed down DNR which brought back the crap. Solution, dial Sharpness down to 3. This works fine for reviews because the video is only played back.

A more well thought out solution would be to position 25p as an aquisition format that requires treatment in post after using Sharpness at 6.

As stimulating as this thread is, there have been no measurements of anything.

1) Does the V1's HDMI port have HDCP? Nope.

2) The MPEG-2 spec. allows the encoding of "field based" video either as two separately encoded FIELDS or one encoded FRAME. What does the V1 use?

The HDV spec. uses FRAME encoding for both HD1 and HD2.

Therefore, the claim that the V1 uses FIELD encoding is false and the concern that V1 progressive is compromised by not using FRAME is unnecessary. There is no difference in HDV progressive encoding between Canon, JVC, and Sony.

3) Those concerned the V1E has MPEG-2 blocking artifacts, read about what causes them in FEB issue of Broadcast Engineering. Some decoders have MPEG-2 blocking filters.

I realise this is quoted without comment, so I'll make one.

2) Just doesn't seem to add up, there must be some difference between what Sony and Canon are doing. Why else can we not play Canon's 25F on Sony HDV kit?
Perhaps what they meant was there's no practical difference?

I realise this is quoted without comment, so I'll make one.

2) Just doesn't seem to add up, there must be some difference between what Sony and Canon are doing. Why else can we not play Canon's 25F on Sony HDV kit?
Perhaps what they meant was there's no practical difference?

Indeed Bob.

There are some _very_ significant visual differences let alone structural differences. There is a huge quality difference between the Canon and Sony encoder implementations so I would call that a practical difference.

TT

Steve, believe me, my V1E had not V rez difference btw p and i before the firmware update, I'm sure that Sony could fix it easily, but it's a huge company, who cares about a few PAL p25 owners that wants a perfectly calibrated image?
Canon XH A1 has the V detail control, maybe the V1 has any embedded servicing menu, who knows? About SD internal downconverting I can see aliasing and twittering in 25p downconverted image, not in 50i,there is also a coarse EE in both , downconverting in FCP is a way better, but with the flicker filter engaged.
Best workflow for my little experience: HD recording with S=5 or 6, HDV or AIC importing in FCP, then applying Flicker Filter to max setting, rendering in a DVC50 timeline and exporting the movie, the resulting image has a way more rez than the Sony internal downconvert and no EE, then I check if the flickering is acceptable on my CRT, if not I apply a moderate flicker filter in the DOWNCONVERTED movie; the FCP flicker filter is a lot more effective in SD than HD because the different resolution.
Little off topic: Sony offers me a full refund if I'm unhappy with the 25p,
Canon A1 is the only alternative, but I love (and hate) my V1, if only Sony could be a better calibration...

1)

The HDV spec. uses FRAME encoding for both HD1 and HD2.

Therefore, the claim that the V1 uses FIELD encoding is false and the concern that V1 progressive is compromised by not using FRAME is unnecessary. There is no difference in HDV progressive encoding between Canon, JVC, and Sony.

Not possible. Encoding a frame with fields will end up with HORRIBLE compression artifacts as the encoder will use all of its bitrates for the jagged edges. I've done some encoding tests and I seriously doubt that answer.

I have tried it, Spot - and I find it to unnecessarily soften the image too much (obviously, more so than 0.001). This is why I find the finer blur control in Premiere useful -


Which blur control are you using in Premiere.... there are several to choose from...

Thanx

Which blur control are you using in Premiere.... there are several to choose from...

Thanx

I thought I said it - the Gaussian Blur (in Vertical).

Not possible. Encoding a frame with fields will end up with HORRIBLE compression artifacts as the encoder will use all of its bitrates for the jagged edges. I've done some encoding tests and I seriously doubt that answer.

I do not understand your answer; I can only assume that you are unaware of the advanced encoders used in HDV camera systems. Irregardless, Steve is correct. HDV uses FRAME encoding, whether JVC, Canon or Sony.

I do not understand your answer; I can only assume that you are unaware of the advanced encoders used in HDV camera systems. Irregardless, Steve is correct. HDV uses FRAME encoding, whether JVC, Canon or Sony.

I'll have to plead ignorance on the precise details.
However if both Canon and Sony are encoding the exact same thing I still have to ask why Canon's 25F tape will not play on anyone else's HDV kit?

No I'm not talking about image quality, simply about how it's encoded.

If you want to educate yourselves in V1 compression follow these steps and all will become obvious.

Capture 2 static scenes one interlaced and the other progressive.
Capture both clips.
Either in a NLE or Compositing package change the colour space to YUV.
Compare the YUV channels of the I and P footage.

The Y channel gives the game away!

If FRAME encoding is used for both I and P in the V1, according to Steve, then ironically it would appear not ideally suited to the task particularly for progressive footage. Which is a hoot.

If it is the same encoder encoding the same information (because the camera is locked off) then why does V1 progressive footage look like it is encoded by another (bad) camera altogether?

You can flicker filter all you like but that is not going to repair the damage already been done to the image. If I had a Sony V1 and wanted to shoot 25P I'd forget it and shoot 50i and deinterlace in post. If you were to do the above comparison test you might just kick the 25P mode into touch.

TT

Piotr,
try using the Median Filter in Vegas, it seems to give finer control than GB.

For all who might be interested:
I'm including a 1920 x 1080 image of alternate black and white lines. This is full 1080 line res. A 1080 display device should be able to display this with no flicker, certainly an LCD on a PC can. If you see anything wierd going on there's something wrong with your display device if it's being told to display progressive. It will encode to HDV with no apparent loss.

I tried to upload this file as a .png but unfortunately .png is limited to 1000x1000, the jpeg compression seems to have done no harm, I hope.

There are differences between the two, and a discussion with either/both Canon and Sony engineers makes that very clear. While the techniques might be somewhat similar, they are not at all the same.
This thread is going no where fast any longer, gang.

So, coming back to the topic. I have blurred with Premiere Gaussian filter (V=2.5%) all the default (7) sharpness clips from the V1E, and compared them to the clips I captured earlier with the XH-A1 (same scenery, lighting, 25F mode). Bottom line:

The post-processed picture from the V1E - while freed from virtually any liny twitter - is still sharper and (visually, as I have no means to measure that) higher resolution than the raw video from the Canon.

Which doesn't change the fact that A1 is a wonderful machine, and probably can be tweaked to produce sharper images than those I shot during my short testing period.

The rest is just a matter of personal preferrences. Even more off topic is a question of the price/value ratio for the two cameras; it is arguably better for the Canon and this has always been the most important reason for me to still consider it.

... are encoding the exact same thing ...?

They are encoding the same WAY, but not the same THING.

Canon is taking 24Hz 540-line fields and "field doubling" (BBC term so I'm going to use it) them to 1080-line frames and then encoding frames using FRAME encoding.

Sony is taking 24Hz 1080-line frames, adding 2-3 pulldown and placing every 2 fields into one 1080-line frame and then encoding using FRAME encoding.

PsF and pulldown only exist in the video world -- not the MPEG-2 world. In the MPEG-2 world there are only frames anf fields. In fact, in the MPEG-2 world a frame can carry 2 fields that have no relation to each other.

Interlace video and judder frames will indeed stress the MPEG-2 encoder more than progressive. And, indeed 720p HDV has always been artifact free, while 1080i HDV has always had a negative reputation.

So in summary:

* no ICP to worry about. Cue is still possible if the decoder doesn't check the Picture_Structure flag and assumes the video was encoded as fields not frames.

* another week and no postings of V1E "oil paint" or MPEG-2 "blocking"

* after fix -- no image problems other than excessive V aliasing.

* with S=6, huge V rez advantage to V1 and equal H rez. compared to A1.

* aliasing removed in post

* 25p not supported by BD and HD DVD.

* 24p can be burned to HD DVD.

flags in a mpeg2 file are not the same as progressive encoding. Yes to us it may look the same but they are two totally different beasts. Flags mean that mpeg2 interlaced encoding is used but the flags tell the decoder to keep certain fields together so they come out looking progressive.

Progressive encoding has no flags and the video is encoder and decoded as progressive so there are no funky field pairing up conversions going on.

Take 24p for example. There is no way 24p sitting inside of 60i could be encoded as frames. A 24p mpeg2 file encoded as 24p is different then a 24p file encoded for DVD with the flags set to make it 60i. So 24p on the V1 has no option at all other then to encode as fields. Now maybe 30p and 25p are encoded as true frames but I doubt it. It was always my understanding that SONY wanted to make sure P footage from the V1 would work 100% with every piece of HDV equipment and all NLE's out there. This means the video must be encoded as fields because this is the normal structure of HDV 1080i. This is why there are no progressive specs in HDV 1080i because frame encoding is not supported. Canon of course gets away with using Frame encoding which is why the tapes will not play in SONY equipment. The normal HDV decoders do not know what to do with frame encoding. The Canon decoders on the other hand were made to decode field and frame decoding. Canon put in a few extra parts of mpeg2 that are not in the HDV spec.

It would have been nice for SONY to use frame encoding since most major NLE's now support the Canon F modes but then that would mean that older SONY decks wouldn't be able to play the tapes because the decoders just cannot decode frame encoding. I think this would have upset some people so SONY decided to stick with the HDV specs and keep everything field encoded.

Flags on the other hand are easier for normal decoders to read. That is why a DVD player can play a flagged 24p in a 60i file but it cannot play a 24p encoded mpeg2 p file. The decoders are still putting out interlaced video with the flags even though it looks progressive. Progressive scan DVD players know to take the flags and instead of putting out 60i pump out the 24p.

So if the P footage from the V1 says it is P it is only because the flags tell the decoder to decode as P. That does not mean the encoding was progressive or frame encoded. Vegas clearly has a good decoder since it is going to deal with V1 footage so it knows to treat the flagged video as progressive once it gets in the system.

So 24p on the V1 has no option at all other then to encode as fields. Now maybe 30p and 25p are encoded as true frames but I doubt it.

This is why there are no progressive specs in HDV 1080i because frame encoding is not supported.


Well you better tell Sony they don't use FRAMES.

The MPEG-2 spec not only allows both FRAMES and FIELDS -- the decoder can switch between them as it desires. All it needs to do is flag fields as TOP or BOTTOM and a frame as FRAME. A decoder reads the flags and does the decode and correct color up-sample.

The nature of the fields/frames coming into the encoder is irrelevent. In HD1 the encoder gets Frames while in HD2 it gets Fields. It has no idea if these are interlace fields, interlace fields with pulldown, or PsF.

According to Sony, an HD2 encoder does only one thing -- combine the fields and encode.

An HD2 decoder does the decode to a frame and then outputs fields. The decoder has no idea what ls in the frames. It spits out 2 fields that AFTER the decoder is turned into interlace video. From this point onward, video equipment has no idea if these are interlace fields, interlace fields with pulldown, or PsF.

Thus Sony progressive rides exactly the same path as does Sony interlace. HD2 has always been ready for carrying progressive. Had Sony not used FRAME from Day 1, then it would have had to add FRAME to encoders and decoders.

Bottom line -- with Sony there is never anything but interlace video except in the EIP. Even the display treats the video as interlace and uses the cadence to decide is it "film" or "video." If video, then it does to 25PsF/30PsF exactly what it does with 50i/60i. At no point does any part of the system know what it is carrying -- except in the deinterlacer if it senses a 2-3 cadence.

I believe the MPEG-2 progressive flag is set so that NLE's can know the kind of video in a FILE.

They are encoding the same WAY, but not the same THING.

Canon is taking 24Hz 540-line fields and "field doubling" (BBC term so I'm going to use it) them to 1080-line frames and then encoding frames using FRAME encoding.

Sony is taking 24Hz 1080-line frames, adding 2-3 pulldown and placing every 2 fields into one 1080-line frame and then encoding using FRAME encoding.

PsF and pulldown only exist in the video world -- not the MPEG-2 world. In the MPEG-2 world there are only frames anf fields. In fact, in the MPEG-2 world a frame can carry 2 fields that have no relation to each other.

Interlace video and judder frames will indeed stress the MPEG-2 encoder more than progressive. And, indeed 720p HDV has always been artifact free, while 1080i HDV has always had a negative reputation.

So in summary:

* no chroma errors to worry about

* another week and no postings of V1E "oil paint" or MPEG-2 "blocking"

* after fix -- no image problems other than excessive V aliasing.

* with S=6, huge V rez advantage to V1 and equal H rez. compared to A1.

* aliasing removed in post

* 25p not supported by BD and HD DVD. Move underway to 24p.

* 24p can be burned to HD DVD.

*No postings of oil paint effect? I take it you missed Massimiliano's post.
*No Image problems other than continuing extreme macroblocking and detail removal. Piotr's recent clips.
*After fix severe mosquito noise is seen around contrasty lines. Source s_5.m2t to name one of many of Piotr's clips.
*V1E Prog mode may well have a slight increase in res over its Int mode but at what cost? Very inefficient use of bandwidth destroys the fidelity of the image. It is therefore of questionable use. Why would anyone use 25P when it looks like 3rd or 4th generation HDV?
*Aliasing removed in post also drops resolution back down to Int mode levels.
*25P continues to be supported by BD just as before. There is no move under way to 24P. There is a move to produce feature films in 24P across ALL regions. PAL land now gets 24P films rather than 25P. All other R50 HDTV generated progressive and interlaced footage to be delivered in 50i aka 1080i25. FACT. 25P is delivered as 1080i25 to ensure titles and credit rolls are smooth.

I will post images captured from V1E in progressive and interlaced compared to Canon which PROVE categorically that the Canon even in 25F has no less V resolution than the V1E in interlaced mode. The Canon has far more H res than the V1E as well. Easily demonstrated by way of a posted image.

To keep reciting the Canon field doubles mantra does NOT make it correct. It isn't correct. Tom Roper has measured the resolution drop of 24F and it only confirms what owners of the XH-A1 see with their own eyes.

Piotr

In the real world of professional level production sharpness is an image is to be avoided. It is amateur hour.

Have a good weekend y'all,

TT

*No postings of oil paint effect? I take it you missed Massimiliano's post.
Tony, I supposse Massimilianos's V1E has got the same "level" of fix as your own; i.e. not the final one (both were fixed early in January).

*After fix severe mosquito noise is seen around contrasty lines. Source s_5.m2t to name one of many of Piotr's clips
The clip you mention is a raw file. The proposed method of vertical blurring removes most of it, along with the line twitter.

Piotr

In the real world of professional level production sharpness is an image is to be avoided. It is amateur hour.
Agreed. I am an amateur and I like it sharp. I'm very happy that the more professional look I adopt in my video, the less problems I'll have to deal with in post. With sharpness set to 3 or 4, there is no excessive sharpness and no line twitter or dancing pixels even without any post-processing.

I'm looking forward to your promised images. I confess that during my A1 testing I didn't even think of reverting to the V1 (the broken handle flap made me return it to my dealer and get the fixed V1 for another try), therefore I didn't try to re-create the sharp and natural picture of the Sony. Should this prove to be possible without introducing similar mosquito noise and aliasing - who knows? See my post about the price/value ratio above:)

Tony, have a very nice weekend, too.

UPDATE: I shot a nice, artificially lit scene tonight with the most "filmic" settings - 25p, sharpness at 3, Gamma 2, Cinecolour, colour gain at 3 etc. Beautiful - never achieved such a look in Canon (much flatter and washed-out, or artificial colours when boosted; much more of noise). But maybe I just didn't try hard enough... Sorry for OT. My point though is that this proved sharpness at 3 is *not* enough to eliminate line twitter completely (still some on fine, very bright lines like white papersheet edges). Some very slight vertical blurring is still needed in post... Wow, this camera has so much resolution! Even on a full 1080 display, the 25PfS video behaves as it was squeezed down (you can see this effect when watching high-res video in a small window on your computer screen).

The BBC reports that Sony downconverts HD to get SD in the A1 and Z1. The relation between the two is fixed at 2.25 -- which matches 1080 divided by 480. So this factor was designed into the V1U and V1E.

There is a fundamental difference between PAL and NTSC cameras. PAL units must have 1.2X greater V rez. because of the difference in V rez: 576 vs 480. This is why the PAL chips always have more rows.

In order to get 576 lines, given the 2.25 factor, the V1E's HD signal needs to carry 1296-lines of rez. Of course a compromise, for example, 540 and 1215 could be chosen.

To get 1215, the only option is to raise the low-pass filter frequency to enable the capture of a signal with more vertical resolution. But, R50 HD cameras don't have extra CCD rows. The rows are fixed at 1080. When you capture a wider bandwidth signal -- with the same number of rows -- the result is inherently far more aliasing and twitter on horizontal edges/lines.


Altough this sounds more like a speculation (or educated guess; Steve please correct me if I am wrong) than a factual knowledge, there certainly is something to it. The more I shoot in 25PsF, the more I'm certain the V-rez of the V1E is very high; too high I'd say. When uncompressed (through HDMI or Component), it almost seems to actually exceed the HDV specs, looking on a 1080 display as if it had actually more than 1080 lines (don't take me literally, I'm speculating based on purely subjective impressions). The result is similar to a video displayed in a window whose size in pixels is less that the video resolution. But feed it compressed through FireWire, and voila! - the picture (before or after tape) displays perfectly, without any aliasing or line twitter (for instance, in VLC through Capture Device). You can re-introduce the twitter only with turning the bobbing on, thus unneccessarily deinterlacing progressive video, or by... yes you guessed it, by decreasing the VLC window size, so that it's less than 1920x1080!

Piotr,
the V res is not too high. With 25PsF or 25p 1080 you really can have 1080 lines of V res. Take my sample test image I posted yesterday. That will display perfectly if displayed correctly.
It'd be pretty silly to have a system with 1080 vertical pixels if they cannot be used after all.

The problem that you and I and others are seeing comes about when we display half those lines at one point in time and the other half at a different point in time. You very easily run into the same problem with still images from a DSC or graphics or text and are displaying it on an interlaced display or one that's attempting to emulate an interlaced display or one that's wrongly trying to de-interlace progressive.

For what it's worth though we've taken an SD feed from the HDMI output while having the HDMI chip do the scaling and the results look pretty damn good. The odd thing (only a very subjective evaluation) is the res drops when switching the camera between I and P. When we get a chance we're going to try recording to DigiBeta, if the results on our broadcast monitor are anything to go by this is going to be one very usefull camera. We'll have a package that can record 16:9 4:2:2 SD to DB that's both portable and relatively cheap.

I have noticed something interesting with my 25PsF video that I don't understand. When I play it back with VLC with deinterlace off and take a snapshot, the resulting picture is lacking a lot of lines at the bottom (it can't even be displayed by some software, like Nero Photosnap Viewer - but you can display it with the Windows own Picture and Fax viewer, or Paint). When I switch deinterlacing on, the snapshot is complete (it's also complete from the V1E interlaced video, or from the Canon A1 progressive and interlaced).

Can somebody explain why that happens? Perhaps the missing bottom lines have something to do with the true 25PsF resolution?

Here is one such "incomplete" snapshot (to upload it, I had to convert from png to jpg)

UPDATE: the previous uploaded pic didn't have full resolution, this one has - and is reported as 1920x1088 here.

UPDATE:Unfortunately, the second one also gets scaled down when uploaded - hence jagged edges which are perfect in the original; don't know why...I also added a snapshot from the same clip with bobbing=on; the scan is complete but aliased lines are clearly visible.

UPDATE:Finally, both uploaded snapshot *are* full resolution after all; when downloaded with IE they must be maxed using the maginifying glass cursor tool. Then you can clearly see the difference: the first (left) picture is not de-interlaced and has no jagged edges, while the second (right) one is bobbed and has plenty of aliasing. The questions remain:

- why on earth cannot we play back (through HDMI or component) with the quality as in the first picture, ie. without deinterlacing?

- what does the missing bottom lines phenomenon come from?

Piotr, the V res is not too high. With 25PsF or 25p 1080 you really can have 1080 lines of V res.

You can record up to 1080-lines, but the question is what comes from the EIP. Given the number of CCD pixels in a column (540) there is an upper limit to the number of lines of V rez. that should be captured. (Way less than 1080.) This number is determine by the Nyquist value. A low-pass filter SHOULD remove all information above this number before the A/D to prevent aliasing.

When Piotr says too much, he means raising the filter higher than it should be. This allows more V detail which is why we see twitter. Aliasing is extra NOT REAL detail, and is visible as the dancing noise.

You want data -- the over 5000 hits recorded by the site is far more "data" than your opinion or spots'.

You also ignore the fact the humans can make judgements that work in certain cases better than instruments. In fact rez "measurements" are made by humans. Do you consider them not "data?"

Because Piotr is trying to choose between the two camcorders. Read the past posts. Even better, read the tread topic. What camcorder has 24F?

And, if don't find anything of value in this thread -- why are you reading it? Why post something that has NOTHING to do with the topic. Do you think folks are interested in a post that has only your opinion of the thread?

Don't like a thread -- don't read it.

Well said... Of course, we should not get into a battle of V1 vs A1. Obviously, some users have had bad experiences with the V1 and are very bitter. However, if you try to understand the camera instead of bash it; you might begin to like it. Piotr is a prime example of a user who is trying to find a solution to a so-called problem with the V1E. Misinformation about any camcorder doesn't do anyone any good.

In my opinion, and this is only my opinion. The picture of the V1 and HVX 200 looks better than canon's A1/G1. So my decision for a camera is between those two models. However, I'll wait until NAB to make a decision. I'm hoping Sony will come out with an update to the V1 with 1/3rd inch CMOS sensors. After all, CMOS is the better sensor for High Definition. Why you ask?

Have you ever wonder why it seems that HD video is more noisy than SD video from CCD cameras? Well, It is because the S/N ratio of CCD-based cameras degrades ~3 dB per octave. For example, if a CCD camera has a standard definition S/N ratio of 62db, in high definition it will be 54db. Of course, you can apply more noise reduction but at the expense of lower resolution (1).

CMOS cameras, on the other hand, are capable of reducing noise and maintaining resolution because the noise-setting bandwidth is at the pixel amplifier rather than the video output amplifier, and since the pixel-based amplifier’s bandwidth better matches the imager sampling frequency, the CMOS output buffer’s noise is usually negligible, and the result is a higher S/N ratio (2).

These facts were obtained from an article on broadcasting high definition television called, "CMOS vs. CCD: Changing Technology to Suit HDTV Broadcast." Hopefully, you find it useful.



Additional Sources:

1. K. Mitani, M. Sugawara and F. Okano, “Experimental Ultrahigh-Definition Color Camera System with Three 8M pixel CCDs,” SMPTE Journal, April 2002.

2. M. Loose, L.J. Kozlowski, A.M. Joshi, A. Kononenko, S. Xue, J. Lin, J. Luo, I. Ovsiannikov, J. Clarke and T. Paredes, “2/3-inch CMOS Imaging Sensor for High Definition Television,” 2001 IEEE Workshop on CMOS and CCD Imaging Sensors, June 2001.

You can record up to 1080-lines, but the question is what comes from the EIP. Given the number of CCD pixels in a column (540) there is an upper limit to the number of lines of V rez. that should be captured. (Way less than 1080.) This number is determine by the Nyquist value. A low-pass filter SHOULD remove all information above this number before the A/D to prevent aliasing.

When Piotr says too much, he means raising the filter higher than it should be. This allows more V detail which is why we see twitter. Aliasing is extra NOT REAL detail, and is visible as the dancing noise.

Sounds like a great theory and one that I had hinted at some time ago except it doesn't apply!
The A>D converter is converting lines, not columns so it's only a factor in the H direction.
All else being equal, same sensors etc when they're being clocked interlace V res is reduced by 30% as line averaging is applied to contain line twitter. This improves S/N by 6dB. Note this is line averaging which is quite different to a low pass filter.
When clocked progressive line twitter is impossible (assuming it's displayed corrrectly!), so line averaging is turned off. You get the full res but 6dB less S/N.

The above is from a Panasonic white paper, sorry I can't find a link to it anymore.

Bottom line is a progressive scan video camera, no let's stop calling them that, a digital film camera, takes a sequence of still images, film cameras, RED, SI-2K, D20 etc none of them will employ line averaging or limit V res in any way. You want to display moving images at full V res from them on interlaced displays, well without processing you're going to have the potential for line twitter.
If you doubt what I'm saying take my 1080 res test image, my P displays have no problem with this, a full 1080 lines of V res. Try displaying a HD res chart, on a display that's displaying P correctly you'll get to 1000 line no sweat, on an interlaced display at around 700 line it'll fall apart.
The question might be, should Sony have done something to limit V res so the progressive scan images would display correctly on legacy interlaced displays, fair question. Are the other HDV cams that record P doing this in camera, I suspect so, I've not read of one offering 700+ lines of V res.

I'm a few days away from Sony's Full HD presentation, be interesting to see what they have up their sleeve, maybe they have a HDTV that'll display the images from the V1 correctly.

Bob, just to make it clear - my monitor can display your chart with no problems; thanks for this great test!

Bob, just to make it clear - my monitor can display your chart with no problems; thanks for this great test!

Great, step 1!

So on the same monitor, same everything do you have issues with twitter on images from the V1E?

If anyone's interested the ISO 12233 res test chart should come in handy for seeing what you monitor(s) are doing. Digitise it to 1080p HDV correctly framed, no AA filtering. I'd post a copy but it might be copyright, A Google will find a vector PDF version of it.

The first step in testing anything should be testing your test equipment, yes this is measurabator stuff. Sorry but I spent a lot of time working around a standards lab, this was drummed into me relentlessly.

So your first port of call should be to take the camera out of the test. When and only when you know your test system is upto the task at hand then bring the camera's images into the test system.

Great, step 1!

So on the same monitor, same everything do you have issues with twitter on images from the V1E?



YES - everything the same, the monitor fully capable of clearly showing your chart with all lines distinguishable - yet the 25PsF is twittering when fed from the camera via component, or played back from a captured raw file with VLC bobbing.

No twitter at all when fed from camera compressed through firewire, or played back from VLC with deiterlacing off.

I'll repeat what I have already stated many times: the component input on my monitor (as well as the component and HDMI inputs on the Bravia HDTV I tested) are doing to the 25PsF from camera exactly what bob deinterlacing does to a raw captured file played back from the HDD.

YES - everything the same, the monitor fully capable of clearly showing your chart with all lines distinguishable - yet the 25PsF is twittering when fed from the camera via component, or played back from a captured raw file with VLC bobbing.

No twitter at all when fed from camera compressed through firewire, or played back from VLC with deiterlacing off.

I'll repeat what I have already stated many times: the component input on my monitor (as well as the component and HDMI inputs on the Bravia HDTV I tested) are doing to the 25PsF from camera exactly what bob deinterlacing does to a raw captured file played back from the HDD.

OK
but just to be really clear. If you're feeding that monitor by DVI from a PC that's very different to feeding it via HDMI or component.
What happens if you print that test image to tape and feed the camera to the monitor via HDMI or component playing it back?

See when a monitor is connected via DVI from a PC it's refresh rate, de-interlacing etc is being controlled by the PC. My Dell 2407 is a good example, it displays the 25PsF perfectly via DVI from a PC out of Vegas, feed it component from the camera and yuck.

What you've seen using VLC ties in exactly with this, VLC lets you emulate what HDTVs are doing, mostly wrongly too.

Sounds like a great theory and one that I had hinted at some time ago except it doesn't apply!
The A>D converter is converting lines, not columns so it's only a factor in the H direction.
All else being equal, same sensors etc when they're being clocked interlace V res is reduced by 30% as line averaging is applied to contain line twitter. This improves S/N by 6dB. Note this is line averaging which is quite different to a low pass filter.
When clocked progressive line twitter is impossible (assuming it's displayed corrrectly!), so line averaging is turned off. You get the full res but 6dB less S/N.
I'm not a full beliver in the "theory" for exactly the reason you said -- the A/D is sampling along rows.

But, we do see aliasing on rows, even with the V1U. So something equivelent must be happing as cameras are "sampling" an image vertically. Nyquist still must apply. I just don't know what or how.

Moreover, the E really does have significantly more aliasing vertically than does the U. It's not simply that the camera does not filter enough. My U works exactly like you describe. But, Piotr's does not. He is recording crap in the same 1080 HDV that I have. Something is fundamentally different -- so inherently different that Sony could not simply "adjust" it. Therefore, I think the "theory" is correct--except it's not the A/D.

The last question I'm waiting for an answer to from Sony is: does the V1 do row-pair filtering for interlace. In the past it has always been done. But, the V1's sensitivity does NOT change by 6dB. This is a clue it may not be used. If it's not, a low-pass filter can be used in or before the EIP. But, no mtter HOW it's done-it works fine on the U models. So it is a differentiating factor.

Aliasing happens when a frequency above 0.5 the sampling frequency is allowed to get into the converter. For example with a A>D converter clocked at 1Khz a 1,001Hz signal will produce an ouput from the converter of 1Hz.

For this to happen in the V res, even though the converter isn't working on rows there might be an issue. This camera is employing 3 chips and producing a Y signal by interpolating them, quite possibly that signal contains more than 1080 lines of V res and certainly that could cause aliasing problems.

I think though we need to be careful, line twitter is only a problem with interlaced displays, aliasing can be seen on both I and P displays.

I can see this issue with my 1080 line image. Using Vegas and other programs to downconvert to 720 I can get either a set of fat lines, what looks like graduated fills of varying frequencies etc or a screen of grey. The screen of grey is what I should get but I only get that using bicubic interpolation (Best), all the aliasing problems occur using nearest neighbour (Good).

So yes, potentially you might be onto something with an idea you proposed a few days ago. The camera might be internally creating an image with more than 1080 lines and sampling that into 1080 lines. If not done carefully aliasing could occur. This issue will only occur with an image containing enough detail of course. I believe it's been known to occur in the SD world by using HD glass on a SD camera.