... horizontal lines ares still "flicking", and I have to set sharpness lower ( 3) to fully avoid it.

You can't "avoid" line flicker with 1080i50 (or 1080i60 video). It's inherent in the "i" system. All you are doing is creating a vertical smear that makes a single pixel line "thicker" than 1 video line -- hence no flicker. That smear is killing the fine detail in your image.

Whoever at Sony Service Europe told folks to set Shapness at "3" clearly has zero understanding of what line flicker IS and zero understanding of how 1080i is different than 720p or 1080 "F."

Line flicker is inherent in any display system that presents video as a series of FIELDs. It makes no difference if the display is interlaced or progressive. As long as the video enters the display as a series of fields that are then presented sequentially -- whenever there are single pixel high "lines" they will appear in one field presentation but not in the other field presntation. Therefore, the line(s) will flicker at 25Hz or 30Hz. (The former will be far more visible and annoying.)

It doesn't matter if the sensors use progressive or interlace scanning. The V1 is capturing 24p, 25p, or 30p! The issue is not IN the "camera."

Once a progressive scanned image is converted to INTERLACE video -- as it is with the V1 -- the video becomes Progressive segmented Frames -- PsF. The same as CineAlta -- except not 1080/48PsF.

From this point forward, ALL video equipment will treat it as "interlace video with no motion artifacts." Thus, when displayed it will have line flicker just as does ALL interlace video.

You need to always read 24p as 24PsF, 25p as 25PsF, and 30p as 30PsF.

The way to eliminate line flicker is to correctly use the V1's progressive video:

1) After editing at 25fps, convert each video frame to a film frame or 25p DVD. (DVD video "should" be displayed as progressive video, but unless the viewer has the correct equipment it will not be.)

2) After editing at 25fps, record to 1080p25 D-5. The transcode will accumulate pairs of fields into a video frame before recording. But, if broadcast using any 1080i50 channel, the video will now be interlace and you'll see line flicker. This is why the IBC wants either 720p50 or 1080p50.

3) Remove 2-3 pulldown (24fps) and edit. Doing so removes the FIELDs. Then transfer to 24p DVD, 1080p24 D-5, or film. Obviously film and D-5 will be progressive "recordings."

If broadcast by ABC, FOX, ESPN, the D-5 will have 2-3 pulldown added, but will remain progressive. But, if broadcast using any 1080i60 channel -- despite the addition of 2-3 pulldown, the video will now be interlace and you'll see line flicker. DVD video "should" be displayed as progressive video, but unless the viewer has the correct equipment it will not be.

As long as you view 1080PsF or 1080i video -- you may see line flicker on very thin horizontal lines/edges.

Great post, but that reminds me of a question.
Is there an advantage to putting 24pA into a 24fps timeline and authoring your DVD as a 24P DVD as opposed to just keeping it 60i and making a 60i DVD?

The only reason I mention this is because I know my TV is only going to be displaying 60i anyway, so what's the difference between having my TV doing that conversion back to 60i and just leaving it at 60i in the first place and editing on a standard timeline?

I'm just saying, if people are primarily showing their equipment on regular TVs...which do you think is best?

Having spent more time than was reasonable dealing with line twitter from high resolution stills when made into SD DVDs I'd have to disagree with some of that.

The problems were never visible on display devices that were progressive, didn't try plasma but LCDs were clean. CRTs were a nightmare, on several stills I had an issue where the whole frame would flicker yet it was rock solid on a LCD.

I've seen the same thing in OTA SD broadcasts. Source is probably F950, the downconverted SD can have line flicker very badly but again watching the same thing on a LCD it's completely clean.

With the hires stills I got around the problem by applying a Very small amount of gaussian blur in the vertical direction only while monitoring on a CRT. For shots that warranted the effort I'd mask the problem areas and apply the blur to that area only.

The problems were never visible on display devices that were progressive, didn't try plasma but LCDs were clean. CRTs were a nightmare, on several stills I had an issue where the whole frame would flicker yet it was rock solid on a LCD.
Most LCD and plasma displays will switch to "weave" for stills, which causes both fields to be combined into one 1080-line frame that is presented twice -- so no flicker.

You got "lucky" because you were using stills. With motion video, weave is very rarely used. Thus, two fields will not be combined. If bob is used -- consider why this deinterlacing technique got its name. :(

Note: EDTVs -- now mostly found in Region 50 for displaying PAL DVDs, will flicker even on stills. That's because they don't combine fields since an EDTVs' vertical resolution is so limited. EDTV's simply display one field after the other. That may be why line twitter is reported in the PAL areas.

By the way, scaling-up each field from 540 to say 768-lines can cause the image to be be blurred vertically. Given MPEG-2's 4:2:0 chroma, if the chroma is not scaled correctly -- which is likely in these cheaper EDTVs -- the result could be smeared color.

Is there an advantage to putting 24pA into a 24fps timeline and authoring your DVD as a 24P DVD as opposed to just keeping it 60i and making a 60i DVD?

The only reason I mention this is because I know my TV is only going to be displaying 60i anyway, so what's the difference between having my TV doing that conversion back to 60i and just leaving it at 60i in the first place and editing on a standard timeline?

I'm just saying, if people are primarily showing their equipment on regular TVs...which do you think is best?

It may not help with the visual quality of the end result except that authoring a true 24P dvd vs. 60i will allow you to fit more material on the dvd. You can make use of longer time at the same quality, or settle for the same amount of run time with higher data rates (less compression) for better visual quality.

-gb-

The way to eliminate line flicker is to correctly use the V1's progressive video:

1) After editing at 25fps, convert each video frame to a film frame or 25p DVD. (DVD video "should" be displayed as progressive video, but unless the viewer has the correct equipment it will not be.)

2) After editing at 25fps, record to 1080p25 D-5. The transcode will accumulate pairs of fields into a video frame before recording. But, if broadcast using any 1080i50 channel, the video will now be interlace and you'll see line flicker. This is why the IBC wants either 720p50 or 1080p50.


OK Steve, I'll have a V1E back for a short testing, so I'd like - for this test sake - to do exactly what you're proposing here and post the results. Even though I might argue here about the Canon 25F not needing "special treatment" to look great, I won't:)

But please give me a step-by-step instruction on what I should do with a 25p clip from the V1E, in order to watch it without flicker with default sharpness. I'm using Sony Vegas 7.0d (have also access to Edius 4.13 as well as Premiere Pro 2.0) and only have a 1920x1200 LCD (either as a PC monitor using DVI-D, or as an HD monitor using component). If it is possible to be done (ie. avoid line flicker while maintaining sharpness), your theory will be self-defending (and very useful actually; otherwise it'll just remain... well, just another arguable theory).

PS. I have no idea whether my LCD is weaving or bobbing - all I know is that both 1080i from all cameras I tried AND 1080/25F from Canon A1 look terrific...

I'm using Sony Vegas 7.0d (have also access to Edius 4.13 as well as Premiere Pro 2.0) and only have a 1920x1200 LCD (either as a PC monitor using DVI-D, or as an HD monitor using component).

1) I've only used Vegas and Edius to work with 24p -- so you'll have to figure-out how to capture 50i and get it into a 25fps timeline.

2) For a real test you need to export keeping resolution. If you export in PAL, you'll be scaling down the images and smoothing it.

3) You also need to export at 25p.

5) I burn 720p30 and 720p60 to red-laser at 1280x720 using MPEG-2 ar 27Mbps. Then I play these on my Toshiba HD DVD player into my native 1280x720 HDTV. This keeps the path progressive and HD.

Unless you can do this -- you can export an MPEG-2 1080/25p file and play with VLC via your computer's DVI port. I'm assuming that VLC will do nothing more than display each frame twice.

If you use Vegas and your computer has a second DVI port -- you can use the External Monitor function to view the timeline. It "should" output 50p. Check at the Vegas forum.

Vegas has no 1080 25p template however I've been told that by simply changing the project properties to Field Order = None you'll be set to go.

I'm not so certain just what it might do though with the DVI feed to the secondary preview device, that goes through the graphics card and from memory depending on the setting might be doing an adaptive de-interlace. Need to check this one out.

The internal preview monitor certainly doesn't but it can get pretty funky to know just what you're seeing, particulalry with PAL.

Vegas has no 1080 25p template however I've been told that by simply changing the project properties to Field Order = None you'll be set to go.

I'm not so certain just what it might do though with the DVI feed to the secondary preview device, that goes through the graphics card and from memory depending on the setting might be doing an adaptive de-interlace. Need to check this one out.

The internal preview monitor certainly doesn't but it can get pretty funky to know just what you're seeing, particulalry with PAL.

I agree. When I tried using my HDTV's PC port it didn't work very well. So now I send out from my MBP via DVI port into HDMI. This works OK, but not perfectly with motion. I use it only for CC.

I'm going to burn 24p via 60i red laser HD tonight.

My real question is will I be able to get 1080/24p to HD DVD. We are on the real bleeding edge.

1) I've only used Vegas and Edius to work with 24p -- so you'll have to figure-out how to capture 50i and get it into a 25fps timeline.

2) For a real test you need to export keeping resolution. If you export in PAL, you'll be scaling down the images and smoothing it.

3) You also need to export at 25p.

5) I burn 720p30 and 720p60 to red-laser at 1280x720 using MPEG-2 ar 27Mbps. Then I play these on my Toshiba HD DVD player into my native 1280x720 HDTV. This keeps the path progressive and HD.

Unless you can do this -- you can export an MPEG-2 1080/25p file and play with VLC via your computer's DVI port. I'm assuming that VLC will do nothing more than display each frame twice.

If you use Vegas and your computer has a second DVI port -- you can use the External Monitor function to view the timeline. It "should" output 50p. Check at the Vegas forum.
Steve,

ad 1. OK - I can capture the 25p just fine;
ad 2. I don't get what you mean;
ad 3. Exporting in 25p is somewhat tricky in Vegas as there's no 1080-25p template ready, so - for the sake of true compatibility of results - please send me your suggested settings (and there are plenty of them in the "video" and "advanced video" sections of custom template - changing 23,97 into 25 fps in the 1080-24p Blue Print template is not enough as it results in error during render)
ad 5. I don't do HD DVDs or Blue Rays at the moment, so a 1080/25p MPG-2 file on disk is the only option. Yes I can play it either from Vegas timeline or with VLC and yes I can use the DVI or component (as a second monitor to my ATI card) - but as I mentioned in my original post, I have no idea what my monitor does on input, except that it can play a beautiful picture from all interlaced HDV sources PLUS the progressive 1080/25F from Canon.

Well, so far you haven't said anything that would change my current workflow to an extent that would make me anticipate a "new look" of the V1E' 25p... Please, try to be more specific!

Well, so far you haven't said anything that would change my current workflow to an extent that would make me anticipate a "new look" of the V1E' 25p... Please, try to be more specific!

YOU are the the person who is shooting 25p and I've got to assume you know how to capture 25p, edit 25p, and export in HD 25p. If not -- what are you doing with your 25p HD video?

I'm in 24p land and Vegas supports 24p from the V1, so I've no way to solve PAL land problems with Vegas. Check our Vegas forum for help with 25p if you need it.

My points are simple:

1) Using Sharpness below "5" is removing fine detail from your HD video. If you don't care -- that's fine by me.

2) Unless you create HD DVDs -- the only HD media option you've got is 1440x1080 MPEG-2 at 25p. You can view this using VLC via DVI to your monitor.

Bottom line -- if you are shooting progressive and want to avoid seeing interlace artifacts (line flicker), the entire path to your monitor must be progressive from the point of capture.

2) Unless you create HD DVDs -- the only HD media option you've got is 1440x1080 MPEG-2 at 25p. You can view this using VLC via DVI to your monitor.

Bottom line -- if you are shooting progressive and want to avoid seeing interlace artifacts (line flicker), the entire path to your monitor must be progressive from the point of capture.
Steve, I really wanted to follow your steps and recreate your workflow, but now I can see it all boils down to what I have been always doing: watching a 1080/25p MPEG-2. From your previous elaboration, I thought you meant something more to it....

... now I can see it all boils down to what I have been always doing: watching a 1080/25p MPEG-2.

If you are watching video played from the camera itself, you are not watching 1080/25p MPEG-2. You are watching 1080/25PsF MPEG-2. This is really 1080/50i.

You must export 1080/25p from an NLE to get true progressive HD video.

You've never said what you are doing when you view V1 video.

You must export 1080/25p from an NLE to get true progressive HD video.
That's what I've always done. I only meant that while it's easy with Premiere, my Vegas 7.0d cannot export a 1080/25p MPEG-2 by just changing the frame rate in the 1080/24p "Blue Print" template; I'll try to go through advanced video settings in order to make it work as soon as I have captured 25p material from the "fixed" V1E that I've just got an hour ago.

One thing I can tell you already after having hooked the camera to the component input of my monitor: while I haven't spotted any softness (it was obvious in my previous V1E), the prog scan introduces a lot of line flicker - especially visible with nearly horizontal, contrasty edges (such as a white book - say the camera's own manual - lying on my desk and filmed more or less horizontally). I'm not even going to reduce sharpness like Prime Support advices; it either is in a 1080/25p produced by an NLE or not. Should the latter be true, well - it would mean the V1 is a truly progressive camera, and you were right in saying that the flicker was introduced by the way we all were watching the 25PsF.

... the prog scan introduces a lot of line flicker -- especially visible with nearly horizontal, contrasty edges... .

... it would mean the V1 is a truly progressive camera, and you were right in saying that the flicker was introduced by the way we all were watching the 25PsF.

By definition -- progressive video cannot have line flicker. You need FIELDs to have flicker. So Progressive scan cannot "introduce" flicker because it has frames and does not have fields. And, by construction -- the V1 is a progressive scanning CAMERA. There is no "truly" about it. It simply is.

Fields are created AFTER the camera section only for the purpose of recording. Which makes it a "PsF" CAMCORDER. This is not the same as a 24p or 24F camcorder. The recorded video is interlaced -- meaning it has fields. This is why you can see flicker.

You have to convert interlace fields to progressive frames to get back to what the camera captured. Once there are no fields and only frames, by definition there can be no flicker -- on a progressive display.

Steve, here are my observations:

- when connected LIVE though component to my 1920x1200 monitor, once the progressive is engaged the contrasty lines flicker (these same lines are rock-solid in the interlaced mode)

- the captured progressive video doesn't flicker, either before (as m2t) or after rendering to 1080/25p in Edius, Premiere, or Procoder2 (as mpeg-2).

I'm far from drawing any conclusions yet (have to record under different conditions, in both interlaced and progressive), but I can see NO reason whatsoever to reduce sharpness from default - that's for sure.

Why the above facts do not stick to your theory, I don't know.

I was given an opportunity to check the fixed V1E, having all the great experience with the Canon A1. As I mentioned before, it's a little too early for me to draw final conclusion and pass a judgement, but a couple of things I can say for sure about the progressive mode:

- no less resolution in 25p than in 50i
- no oil paint effect so far
- line flicker only visible when monitoring live, or playing back, from the camera hooked up through component to a HD LCD; after capture and even without rendering to 1080/25 MPEG-2 (ie playing back from a computer file) no line flicker or marching ants
- no reason to reduce sharpness in progressive!

All this leads to conclusion that the nimb of the V1 still not delivering in progressive mode (even after the fix) has probably a lot to do with the way we're actually watching the progressive material. I'd really appreciate somebody proposing the best workflow (sorry Steve - while what you're saying about it is logical, it contradicts some factual findings of mine: e.g. line flicker, and when it is visible). What has to be done is establish a common and unambiguous terminology for phenomena such as line flicker vs marching ants, mosquito noise, interlacive stair-stepping etc. Only having done this can we:

- compare the picture quality between the I and P-modes (or the V1 to other cameras)
- elaborate a proven workflow (separately for the main delivery means)

Let's just be clear about one thing, for over 50 years in this country and a bit longer in other region 50 countries, 25PsF has been broadcast, originally is SD and now in HD. In case anyone doesn't get how this was done, it's done in a telecine. So 25PsF is hardly a new challenge in PAL land. The question is what is the V1E/P doing that is different to a telecine.

I suspect the answer lies in that a telecine traditionally is scanning each film frame as two fields. Yes those fields can be merged to produce the original frame, almost.

The V1E/P is scanning one frame and splitting that into two fields. At first glance this should yield exactly and precisely the same result, you can merge those two fields to get back the original frame, no almost about it.

I suspect the difference and hence perhaps some of these problems lie in how line averaging is used in interlaced scanning, not only to improve signal to noise but also to reduce line twitter. Line averaging will reduce the vertical resolution by 30% but gain you 6dB in S/N relative to scanning the sensor progressively. Attempting to emulate this by reducing sharpness has a problem, you're reducing both the vertical and horizontal resolution, oops.

Vegas does offer the ability to emulate line averaging by using guassian blur in the vertical direction only, I think it's one of the few NLEs with this FX out of the box.

All this aside though it still leave one obvious question, why is this only a problem with the V1E/P. OK, I can explain why 25PsF from the V1E/P might be different from 25PsF out of a telecine. Doesn't explain why Canon's cameras in 25F don't have this problem it seems. And NO, the fact that they're recording 25p is irrelevant. Almost for certain that 25p is still going to end up as 25PsF as there's almost no way to deliver true 25p, only 25PsF exists in HDV and SD DVDs. The only possible explaination is that the 25F from the Canon has significantly lower vertical res than the 25PsF from the V1E/P, perhaps Canon are doing line averaging before munging the fields into frames?

The only possible explaination is that the 25F from the Canon has significantly lower vertical res than the 25PsF from the V1E/P, perhaps Canon are doing line averaging before munging the fields into frames?

Having owned the V1e and now have the Canon XH-A1 does not have a significantly lower vertical res to the V1E.

By the time you've reduced the sharpness to stop crawling edges and line twitter the Xh-A1 image is far superior in terms of resolution.

There are some instances where there is some stair stepping of bright diagonal edges almost exactly the same as the V1E produces. This is the only thing you notice when comparing 25F with 50i.

It is claimed that Canon clock the green CCD a field out of phase to the red and blue CCDs then the DSP get to work constructing a progressive frame. Think of it as temporal pixel shifting. It works well and by compressing the frame as progressive it is more efficient for the MPEG encoder and as such the Canon image is without the ringing round thin contrasty lines like tree branches against a clear sky.

When comparing similar shots from the V1 to the XH-A1 you find that the XH-A1 has bucket loads of resolution without any hint of EE. If I wasn't so busy I'd get some comparative clips together although I expect I'd only be duplicating what Noel is doing.

Cheers
TT

But a couple of things I can say for sure about the progressive mode:

- no less resolution in 25p than in 50i
- no oil paint effect so far
- line flicker only visible when monitoring live, or playing back, from the camera hooked up through component to a HD LCD; after capture and even without rendering to 1080/25 MPEG-2 (ie playing back from a computer file) no line flicker or marching ants
- no reason to reduce sharpness in progressive!

All this leads to conclusion that the nimb of the V1 still not delivering in progressive mode (even after the fix) has probably a lot to do with the way we're actually watching the progressive material. I'd really appreciate somebody proposing the best workflow (sorry Steve - while what you're saying about it is logical, it contradicts some factual findings of mine: e.g. line flicker, and when it is visible). What has to be done is establish a common and unambiguous terminology for phenomena such as line flicker vs marching ants, mosquito noise, interlacive stair-stepping etc. Only having done this can we:

- compare the picture quality between the I and P-modes (or the V1 to other cameras)
- elaborate a proven workflow (separately for the main delivery means)

1) When you say so difference in resolution -- are you using equal Sharpness for I and P? And, what value(s)?

2) I agree with you that IF you see you line flicker -- it will be "viewing from the camera." You are seeing PsF video WITHOUT anything being done to it. And, the monitor INPUT is obviously in "video" input mode -- not "PC" mode.

3) Playing back a file opens the question of the player software and nature of the computer output. Playing back a file also opens the question of which INPUT type is being used with the monitor.

Bottom-line -- it appears that some see flicker while you don't (and I don't) when they play captured video.

My "workflow" was only to force there to be NO fields in the video for those who DID see flicker in captured video. Forcing the video file to have only frames removes the possibility.

However, Bob is correct. Any progressive video converted to PsF should have flicker. In fact, the V1 in I mode should have flicker!

A) The reality is that 1080i broadcasts do have flicker -- which is one of the reasons ABC, ESPN, FOX, DOD, and NASA don't use it. I suspect the reason we don't see much with movies is because a guassian filter is used during telecine.

B) Since there appears to be no sensitivity difference between I and P -- it seems the V1 is ALWAYS reducing vertical resolution by 30%. Therefore, there should be as much flicker in I as there is in P. But, for you -- and others -- this does not seem to be true. WHY?

You raise an important point -- I'm glad you said it -- that it "probably a lot to do with the way we're actually watching the progressive material."

If we back way up and stop assuming the artifacts are IN the V1, we solve a lot of problems. We can stop wondering why there are reported issues (flicker and ants) in P mode, but not in I mode. We can stop wondering why some see flicker and some don't.

Instead, we can look at why some displays have issues with PsF verses I HD video. For example, we know pure progressive stills will flicker on an interlace monitor but not on a progressive monitor. We don't blame the computer because we understand WHY the display is showing the flicker.

I've often wondered, given the near total lack of HDTV in Region 50 -- what kind of monitors are being used. How many folks have a real HDTV at home? Or, are they using computer monitors. If over 50% of real HDTVs fail to deinterlace correctly -- I'll bet none of the computer monitors do. Likewise, I'll bet few of the 16:9 EDTV's sold in Region 50 do -- because they simply show 540-line fields.

In short -- it may well be that V1 video "artifacts" are artifacts from the deinterlacer used in player applications and monitors. This explains why there are so many conflicting claims about the V1 from Region 50.

(We don't get flicker reports from Canon shooters because it uses only half the CCD's vertical resolution in 24F mode. By definition, it is "smearing" the image vertically because with motion video it is taking 1 field and line-doubling it to 1080-lines. That's why Canon can't use the term "24p" or "24PsF." It is not a progressive camera.)


The good thing is that your report makes clear that other than line flicker -- the fixed V1E/P have NO problems. And, if the flicker is a display artifact, then you guys have the same quality V1s as we do.

Steve, it's too early to say it's flawless - even Sony admits it is. I have to test it further. One thing I can confirm however - there is NO need to reduce resolution in progressive (to answer your question, I've used default for both I and P - is it 7?)

Let's not forget those alarming screengrabs of the red shed's wall - they were clearly "oil-painted" in progressive, and it was the NTSC version. So far, I haven't noticed anything like it.

Speaking of monitors: yes, when fed directly from the camera, mine is using a "video" (as opposite to "PC") input (Component). I can use this input also when playing back a captured (raw m2t, or rendered to 1080/25p MPEG-2) file - through a separate HDTV component output of my graphics card. There is no flicker there, just like there's no flicker when playing back using the PC input (DVI-D).

But it cannot be true that my monitor doesn't do anything when fed through component. If it didn't, I would see the interlace artifacts (stairstepping) with I material; I don't! Of course, when a file is palyed back from the computer, and the material is interlaced, I can see stairstepping...

This only adds to the complexity of the problem, because - why clearly some process (deiterlacing? which method?) is used by the component input, I don't know much about it. Whatever the process, I'll never agree it reduces the vertical resolution by half - not at all, the 1080i video is clearly full resolution, but with no interlace artefacts.

If it applies some treatment to I material, it probably does so to P material as well, because it cannot "know" it is PsF and not I (some software can; eg. Sony Vegas correctly reads the progressive flags and reports the captured m2t's as progressive). I predicted this potential problem a couple of months ago, when first reports on the 25p mode on the V1E surfaced - I wrote the monitors people use are probably trying to "deinterlace the deinterlaced"...

Last but not least, I cannot leave uncommented your claim about the Canon 24F showing only half the vertical resolution - it clearly is NOT the case. Objectively, it has been measured to resolve just some 10-12% less horizontal lines than the I-mode; subjectively - on the same monitor, I didn't notice ANY resolution drop in the F-mode.

Well, first sign of weakness spotted: single-color surfaces in shadow areas of the 25p picture DO have more noise than in interlaced. Is it when some NR used to kick-in, creating the infamous "oil paint effect"? Would it also appear with the firmware version I'm testing now? To be seen...

(We don't get flicker reports from Canon shooters because it has only half the vertical resolution in 24F mode. By definition, it is "smearing" the image vertically because it is taking 1 field and line-doubling it to 1080-lines. That's why Canon can't use the term "24p" or "24PsF." It is not a progressive camera. It is a 24fps, one field, line-doubled, interlaced camcorder.)


You made the claim. Now prove it.

Show us some clips that prove your case. Are you a credible source of information or not? Let the public decide by posting examples that demonstrate your claims.

Thanks

TT

I've used default for both I and P - is it 7?)

Let's not forget those alarming screengrabs of the red shed's wall -- they were clearly "oil-painted" in progressive, and it was the NTSC version. So far, I haven't noticed anything like it.

But it cannot be true that my monitor doesn't do anything when fed through component. Whatever the process, I'll never agree it reduces the vertical resolution by half - not at all, the 1080i video is clearly full resolution, but with no interlace artefacts.

Last but not least, I cannot leave uncommented your claim about the Canon 24F showing only half the vertical resolution - it clearly is NOT the case. Objectively, it has been measured to resolve just some 10-12% less horizontal lines than the I-mode; subjectively - on the same monitor, I didn't notice ANY resolution drop in the F-mode.

RE: The Canon is using a very nice line doubler to get the best it can from a single field. Static measures allow a line doubler to do a good job. They can't do the same with motion. The measured dynamic rez shows this: 24F is only 540-lines (one field) while 60i is 700-lines. That's a huge difference.

RE: Yes, your monitor must deinterlace. Everyone who has a "failing" HDTV claims they would notice. They haven't read my reporting on deinterlacers. bob presents 540-lines per field -- which is obviously not half of a field. You do get 1080-line per frame.

It's not that an HDTV fails to deliver 540-lines per field. It fails because it doesn't do better. A motion sensitive deinterlacer can present a much BETTER pix. It can do 1080 PER FIELD for static pixels and about 800 PER FIELD for dynamic pixels. Obviously, you can't see HOW MUCH BETTER your pix could be until you compare two monitors side by side. My Sony passes the test -- so obviously I can't see how much poor it could look.

Anyone working with 1080i must have an HDTV that passes the test. But, I doubt such tests are even being run it Region 50. And, I doubt many of the buyers of HDTVs anywhere have any idea about this issue. They think resolution and size are the important issues. You can download an MPEG-2 file and test your own monitor.

RE: I never saw any issue with the red shed. I played my 24p transferred to HD DVD tonight, and saw only perfect video. I think you can forget worrying about "oil paint" -- there hasn't been a report from anyone in a month. Obviously, it was a bad version of firmware that went into the first batch of cameras.

I finally did spot a bit of what might be line flicker at night with +9dB gain, but no more than I see on any video-based 1080 broadcast.

I also watched 720p60 I shot with a JVC GY-HD250. With 720p, I have a 100% progressive path to my Sony 720p display. Just as with 720p60 broadcasts -- no flicker. The only way to have artifact free HD is by shooting 720p60. It also removes the motion judder artifact of 24p and 25p. :)

I've also set my HDTV Sharpness to 16 of 100 which removes 95% of EE from the TV. I'll be getting Video Essentials on HD DVD next week. Finally a way of testing an HDTV. Have you calibrated your monitor?

The default for CINE is 5 and VIDEO is 7.

(We don't get flicker reports from Canon shooters because it has only half the vertical resolution in 24F mode. By definition, it is "smearing" the image vertically because it is taking 1 field and line-doubling it to 1080-lines. That's why Canon can't use the term "24p" or "24PsF." It is not a progressive camera. It is a 24fps, one field, line-doubled, interlaced camcorder.)

That's simply incorrect. Canon doubles the ccd clock rate to 48hz and pulls 24 frames out of those two fields with some intelligent blending by the DIGIC DV II processor. There is a about a 10 to 25 percent drop in vertical resolution.

It's also believed that they disable the row-pair summation mode of the interlaced ccds to maintain higher vertical resolution.

The only reason Canon calls it F instead of P is because the CCD's themselves are native interlaced. Call it 'truth in advertising'. There are also licensing issues with 24P recording in video cameras because a patent was granted that IMHO should never have been issued. So Canon is able to produce an output virtually identical to 24P without paying the licensing fee. They don't simply line double one field and call it 'progressive'.

-gb-

That's simply incorrect. Canon doubles the ccd clock rate to 48hz and pulls 24 frames out of those two fields with some intelligent blending by the DIGIC DV II processor. There is a about a 10 to 25 percent drop in vertical resolution.

It's also believed that they disable the row-pair summation mode of the interlaced ccds to maintain higher vertical resolution.

The normal clocking rate for 60i interlace is 60Hz so they SLOW IT DOWN to 48Hz for 24F.

Canon refuses to explain HOW it gets 1080-line frames. There are several ways it could be done: vertical green-shift based interpolation is raised as a possibility. A 2D FIR filter is another option. Highly filtered "weave" could be used. Highly filtered "bob" could be used. A motion sensitive system could be used. And, yes a motion sensitive system could "blend" both fields, but only for static video. Once there is motion, it would have to switch out of blend. "Blending" is simply a form of line-doubling.

Bottom-line, measured dynamic rez shows this: 24F is only 540-TVL (one field) while 60i is 700-TVL. The 540-line measure tells us that upon motion -- only a single field is used.

By the way -- a 25% drop is rez is hardly "virtually identical to 24P." And, no matter HOW it's done -- line-doubling/interpolation/etc. is not equal to progressive video because resolution varies based upon motion. That is the KEY to understanding why 24p is so much better a system.

There IS a slight 1dB drop in sensitivity with 24F, but not the 6dB expected or 3dB given the slower shutter-speed. And, I've not seen any reports of a 3dB decrease in S/N ratio. So there is no evidence for turning-off row-pair summation.

The data does not support your claims. Canon can't call it p because it ain't. What a bizarre effort to explain away Canon's design. In any case -- discussing HOW the Canon works is way OT in this thread.

Well, first sign of weakness spotted: single-color surfaces in shadow areas of the 25p picture DO have more noise than in interlaced. Is it when some NR used to kick-in, creating the infamous "oil paint effect"? Would it also appear with the firmware version I'm testing now? To be seen...

DNR of any kind must reduce vertical information in order to reduce noise. The problem is that DNR can be in the camera, in the encoder, or in your MONITOR. (Have you disabled every special mode in your monitor?)

Alas, one can't escape the point you raised -- the monitor is part of the system. It's why the AVS Forum is so critical to use BEFORE buying an HDTV. To solve this -- I only recommend 2007 46-inch Sony Bravias. It's a full spectrum LCD.

The normal clocking rate for 60i interlace is 60Hz so they SLOW IT DOWN to 48Hz for 24F.

No kidding? Really? When I said double the scan rate to 48hz, I was referring to DOUBLE THE INTENDED FRAME RATE. As opposed to the XL2 which has native progressive CCD's and actually clocks them at 24hz.


In any case -- discussing HOW the Canon works is way OT in this thread.

I agree, which is why you should have left that remark out of your earlier post. You were the one who brought Canon into the discussion. In fact, I could edit it out for you if you like.

-gb-

Canon... uses only half the CCD's vertical resolution in 24F mode. The vertical resolution loss is only about 10%. It is not line doubling.

Canon refuses to explain HOW it gets 1080-line frames.Incorrect. At a New York press event in November 2006 among some thirty-odd invited journalists, Canon USA presented a paper describing exactly how Frame mode works. Hope this helps,

Alas, one can't escape the point you raised -- the monitor is part of the system. It's why the AVS Forum is so critical to use BEFORE buying an HDTV. To solve this -- I only recommend 2007 46-inch Sony Bravias. It's a full spectrum LCD.
Steve, while of course I'm admitting my knowledge is not as profound as yours - some of your claims simply do not reflect the reality I'm vitnessing here (with both 25p and 50i of the V1E, but also with the 25F of the Canon A1). But in order to give them justice, tomorrow I'm taking my V1E to the Sony dealer here; if it doesn't show line flicker at one of the 2007 Bravias, I'll admit you are right on that.

The fact is: 25p introduces a lot of flicker when fed directly (live or from tape) to the 1920x1200, calibrated LCD through component.

The same material - after having been captured into a raw m2t file (or further rendered into 1080/25p with an NLE) - doesn't show ANY flicker. Regardless on whether it's played back with a software player and fed to the same monitor via DVI-D, or using component output of my graphics card and component input of the same monitor, which showed heavy flicker direct from camera! This fact means that - as opposed to what Prime Support's advise has been for the V1E users - there really is NO reason to turn down the sharpness (unless perhaps one is going to only watch his recordings from the camera, without editing - but how many of us do?).

Whether the "true" 25p of the Sony V1E is at least as good as the "fake" 25F from the Canon A1, is still to be established, though.

What has to be done is establish a common and unambiguous terminology for phenomena such as line flicker vs marching ants, mosquito noise, interlacive stair-stepping etc.

Your point may be important. Line flicker is an exect 25Hz alternation of a single line. Is that what you are seeing? Or, are you seeing "noise" above horizontal lines?

Adam Wilt's PRE-review notes that there is a bit of "aliasing" above horizontal lines. Clearly this can't be "stair-stepping" aliasing since it's not a diagonal. So it's seen as "noise."


--------

There may also chroma filtering in the decoder to help reduce ICE -- Interlace Chroma Error. This can appear as a serration along a horizontal edge between contrasting colors. This may well be what some called "ants." So the hardware/software decoder can play a role in what folks see.

Adam also notes the V1's V. rez may be 800-TVL with static images. That's very good!

Your point may be important. Line flicker is an exect 25Hz alternation of a single line. Is that what you are seeing? Or, are you seeing "noise" above horizontal lines?
Steve, it IS *very* important that we talk and think the same thing. By "line flicker" I mean an alternation, not noise; however it is not exactly 25 Hz - much less than that. I have posted a screenshot from VLC playing a short clip in 25p (raw m2t file), you can find it here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/17431478/V1E25p.png.html

When you look at how bright the car body looks (even though it was actually very dirty:), just imagine it's contrasty edges (such as the horizontal thing above the registration plate) alternating with uneven, but rather low frequency - this is what I call "line flicker". As you see from the grab, there's no noise whatsoever around it! But again - the flicker was only present when I played the clip back from the camera hooked via component; in the captured file - whatever input I use to feed it to the monitor - the flicker is gone.

The vertical resolution loss is only about 10%. It is not line doubling.

Incorrect. At a New York press event in November 2006 among some thirty-odd invited journalists, Canon USA presented a paper describing exactly how Frame mode works. Hope this helps,

Is that white paper at their site? If not -- it doesn't "help."

Line doubling is a general term for doubling the number of lines. Obviously to get frame with no motion artifacts ALL the lines that wind-up in a frame must be capture at a single point in time. Since the CCDs are, according to Canon, running in interlace -- only a single field can be used. Since a field has only 540-lines per color -- SOME system must double that to 1080-lines per color. Canon can say its NOT "line-doubling" all they want, but at the end of the process the number of lines has been doubled. Moreover, it doesn't matter what anyone calls the system -- it's not a 24p camcorder. And, that's shown by the rez measures.

Adam Wilt et all measured the Canon. It is 540-TVL in 24F and 700-TVL in 60i. That is not a 10% decrease. He also has measured the V1 at about 800-TVL. That's is much higher than the Canon. These are public numbers that anyone can verify by reading the Texas Shootoff series in DV.

Sorry for the OT.

Steve, it IS *very* important that we talk and think the same thing. By "line flicker" I mean an alternation, not noise; however it is not exactly 25 Hz - much less than that. Alternating with uneven, but rather low frequency - this is what I call "line flicker".

Ahhhhhh -- so it's not "line flicker" as in alternating fields at 25Hz.

There is another term "line twitter" which is almost always said to be the same as "line flicker." But, for years I've been wondering if it really was. What you are seeing seems much better described by the word twitter.

And, it's not new. The VX100's 24p mode had a LINE THICKENESS setting to prevent crap from appearing when progressive was displayed. In the B model it got 3 levels. It was a low-pass or gaussian filter that slightly decreased V. rez.

IF I'm right, the V1 passes the full V. rez to your monitor, but your graphics card has a "filter" that very slightly cuts V. rez. It may be a real filter -- or only the result of less that perfect components.

IF I'm right, the V1 passes the full V. rez to your monitor, but your graphics card has a "filter" that very slightly cuts V. rez. It may be a real filter -- or only the result of less that perfect components.

This is probable, as I obviously don't get as bright and punchy a picture from the computer (either via DVI or component), as it is from the camera - but hey, it would mean the V1E DOES have a problem, after all! However, this is NOT resolved by turning down the sharpness, which would turn the whole picture into mush.

PS. Steve, do you think that hooking up the V1E to properly deinterlacing HDTV (like the new Sony Bravias) would eliminate, or increase the line twitter phenomenon that we have just defined?

Is that white paper at their site? If not -- it doesn't "help."Canon did present it; regardless of whether the paper is in the public domain, it *was* presented to journalists and industry professionals.

"Twitter" and "Flicker" are not interchangeable words. Poynter is the only person I've seen to deliver a comprehensive explanation of the difference, but they are indeed, different. One is an interlacing artifact and the other is contrast-driven in conjunction with interlacing artifacts.
Most high end camcorders have twitter filters that reduce the vertical detail information that would typically cause twitter in an interlaced image. It's not hard to test.

Guys, this one is about off the rails; let's stick to discussion of the Sony camcorders, and specifically the progressive and interlaced characteristics of the V1. This thread is not a discussion of Sony vs Canon vs anyone else.


Thank you,
The Management :-)

This is probable, as I obviously don't get as bright and punchy a picture from the computer (either via DVI or component), as it is from the camera - but hey, it would mean the V1E DOES have a problem, after all! However, this is NOT resolved by turning down the sharpness, which would turn the whole picture into mush.

PS. Steve, do you think that hooking up the V1E to properly deinterlacing HDTV (like the new Sony Bravias) would eliminate, or increase the line twitter phenomenon that we have just defined?

1) We want the camcorder to output the max possible rez. It would be a "problem" if it didn't.

2) I see no twitter with my Sony via HDMi from the V1 -- so it does seem to be monitor dependent. Have you turned down monitor Sharpness? DSE confirms twitter is different than flicker.

3) Record an edited 25p back to the V1 and see what the video is like. It may be that after one decode and one encode -- twitter is will be gone.

I ran a whole series of 60i, 30p, 24p tests at all Sharpness levels today. Will view tonight.

But here's the neat thing. With Peaking ON, you can see the detail be removed as you dial down or see it be added as you dial up. Using this field test -- I could see no difference between I and P.

1) We want the camcorder to output the max possible rez. It would be a "problem" if it didn't.

Agreed; IF it's a monitor problem, then I could only welcome this as a sign that the V1 is indeed pumping much higher rez (and dynamic range) than other cameras in "prog" mode.

2) I see no twitter with my Sony via HDMi from the V1 -- so it does seem to be monitor dependent. Have you turned down monitor Sharpness? DSE confirms twitter is different than flicker.

This makes me even more anticipating my tests with the V1 conected via HDMI to one of the new Bravia HDTVs.

3) Record an edited 25p back to the V1 and see what the video is like. It may be that after one decode and one encode -- twitter is will be gone.

Will do just that.

I ran a whole series of 60i, 30p, 24p tests at all Sharpness levels today. Will view tonight.

But here's the neat thing. With Peaking ON, you can see the detail be removed as you dial down or see it be added as you dial up. Using this field test -- I could see no difference between I and P.

Do not quite follow what you mean, sorry - could you reword it for me? Thanks!

This makes me even more anticipating my tests with the V1 conected via HDMI to one of the new Bravia HDTVs.

Do quite follow what you mena, sorry - could you reword it for me? Thanks!

Be sure to drop Contrast to about 70% and Brightness to about 50%. Turn sharpness down to about 20%. Turn off every other "special" function like DNR and Gamma Enhance. Color at 40 to 50. And, Color Temp to WARM.

Since the peaking output follows the Sharpness control -- you can see the Sharpness alter the peaking display. Higher Sharpness causes more detail to become clearer -- hence more yellow detail.

I viewed my Sharpness tests tonight. So far it's only V1 via HDMI to monitor.

I-mode: at "7" -- I could see very little EE. (Remember, my HDTV is adding almost no EE.) A small amount of EE is necessary to get clarity. Lowering below "5" reduced fine detail. At zero, video was very soft -- but not mush. The control is not aggressive. However, fine detail became even better as I increased above "7." The control really is a DETAIL control.

30p and 24p: VERY slightly less sharpness on vertical lines/edges than 60i/30p. Aliasing in the form of "dancing dots" on horizontal lines/edges. Dancing dots on VERY thin diagonals.

No line-twitter.

Since the peaking output follows the Sharpness control -- you can see the Sharpness alter the peaking display. Higher Sharpness causes more detail to become clearer -- hence more yellow detail.

Oh, that. Sure, but it's a very rough indicator, as it also depends on the LCD own contrast and sharpness.

OK, so I have uploaded an MPEG-2 clip for you to check and comment. I'd like to upload raw .m2t files, but there's a limit of 100 MB so it's difficult to shot exactly what you want, and use just below the file length limit. This means some basic editing (trimming etc) is needed; in the old DV days I used a great shareware utility that could trim files (avi or mpg) without re-compressing. It was quick and didn't change anything in the original video; does an utility like this exists for HDV m2t files? Please let me kow!

In the meantime, I've trimmed and merged in Premiere 2.0 two clips - one is 25p and the other is 50i, they show roughly the same scene - you have branches in the sky etc. Of course, due to the season of the year we're having, the sunshine is not as bright as needed for a perfect HDV - but you will get and idea of differences.

Here, the progressive clip played back from the camera via component showed terrible line twitter. The same clip - captured and played back from the computer on the same monitor - doesn't show even a sign of it, as I mentioned before. Please let me know if you can see it - take a close look at the horizontal board edges in the shed's wall. Thanks!

And here's the link: http://rapidshare.com/files/17560397/test2.m2t.html

Please share your opinion on the video (not cameraman - it's poor) quality; whether you can find flaws (the line twitter, oil paint - anything)!

PS. Apart from line twitter, which hopefully is just a matter of display device - after a closer inspection I can see a liitle more noise in the progressive (both were shot at 0dB, sharpness 7 and 1/50th; exposure and focus were auto). This noise *might* have been the reason for some DNR to kick in, causing oil paint effect in the previous firmaware version (just IMHO). I can now safely say that the very same scene looks softer (less overal rez), but also less noisy with the A1 (also at default sharpness, but with -3dB gain, IF it's comparable at all).

PS.PS. here is a clip from Canon; 25F various picture profiles:
http://rapidshare.com/files/1760054...nce_01.m2v.html

Apart from line twitter, which hopefully is just a matter of display device - after a closer inspection I can see a liitle more noise in the progressive (both were shot at 0dB, sharpness 7 and 1/50th; exposure and focus were auto).

Thank you. Using VLC to play via HDMI to my hdtv I see three things.

1) on P: aliasing on thin horizontal lines that appears as "dancing dot noise.

2) on P: diagonal stripes through slanted lines -- what I believe is called "barber pole."

From an article on ultra-sound:

"If the [low] I/Q Nyquist sampling rate is maintained all the way through the detector, axial spatial aliasing would result, which is visualized as a distracting "dancing dot" or "barber pole" artifact in the image whenever there is axial motion from frame to frame."

In short these are aliasing artifacts. It matches Adam Wilt's pre-review of the V1. Aliasing seems to be increased by movement (axial motion).

3) on P: no line twitter UNTIL I switched VLC from deinterlace OFF to BOB, DISCARD, LINEAR, and X. OFF, BLEND, and MEAN show no line twitter.

Line twitter is also caused by vertical movement over very thin lines.

None of this I see on I.

Anything that filters vertically seems to fix the problem. What do you see when you export back to HDV?


I'll burn your file to HD DVD when I get the chance.

UPDATE:

30p and 24p: Aliasing in the form of "dancing dots" (looks like noise) on horizontal lines/edges and on VERY thin diagonals.

Actual resolution seems the same on tree limbs and wood grain textures in all modes.


Can you send me a 3 sample and a 5 sample to add to the HD DVD.

Steve, I'm now *[EDITED]* sure the twitter is display dependent in the sense of whether or not it's trying to deinterlace; if it is not - the twitter is gone (the side effect of this conclusion is that my LCD component input *IS* in fact deinterlacing - hence twitter in from-camera progressive, but no hotizontal motion stair-stepping, or combing, in interlaced).

This leaves me with another concern that I would like to be assessed before I re-consider the V1E: what can be done with what I simpy called "noise", and you more precisely descripted as "dancing noise". It can be very distracting; do you believe it can be eliminated by reducing sharpness? I'm asking about the theory behind it; practical tests I will do myself later because right now it's snowing here so no right comparison to yesterday's clips is possible.

Thanks!

EDIT: I played the clip with VLC and like Steve says: the Bob deinterlacer re-introduces heavy horizontal lines twitter, which is present when playing back from camera. This means it definitely (and not just probably) is a display-device related problem.

EDIT: I played the clip with VLC and like Steve says: the Bob deinterlacer re-introduces heavy horizontal lines twitter, which is present when playing back from camera. This means it definitely (and not just probably) is a display-device related problem.

The bob-deinterlacer in vlc seems to be a bit worse than the bob method in for example powerdvd. It seems to exaggerate twitter.

The bob-deinterlacer in vlc seems to be a bit worse than the bob method in for example powerdvd. It seems to exaggerate twitter.
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.

Thank you. Using VLC to play via HDMI to my hdtv I see three things.

1) on P: aliasing on thin horizontal lines that appears as "dancing dot noise.



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:

- the line twitter is NOT the camera fault (monitor trying to deinterlace with bob or similar technique)

- the dancing noise is common to both E and U versions of the V1.

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.

UPDATE on my tests with v1u:

30p and 24p: Aliasing in the form of "dancing dots" (looks like noise) on horizontal lines/edges and on VERY thin diagonals. 99% eliminated at 5. Becomes very visble at 11.

Actual resolution seems the same on tree limbs and wood grain textures in all modes. I'm not sure why my posted pix and others looked softer when the video doesn't. I fear I may have switched to Cine (at 5) AND switched 24/30 on. If so, my bad.


Can you send me a 3 sample and a 5 sample to add to my HD DVD.

Steve, do you mean the same scene but with sharpness at 3 and at 5? OK I'll do that, but have to wait for a better weather (it's now snowing in Poland).

Do you know about some tool for trimming HDV m2t files without a need for recompression? I used to have some shareware doing just that but only for SD video files...

Generally, do we agree that the only problem now is this "dancing dots" noise, and that it's the same in both the E and U versions of V1's progressive?

If so, we've just made an important step forward in understanding some myths about this camera.