V1U grabs

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

I'm not using 24p or pulldown. This was the European model and I was testing 25p. The default in Vegas for this is Upper Field first. I have to manually set the clip properties for the progressive footage to "progressive".

There is no issue with Vegas and this camera. Unlike the clumsiness that is 24p, 25p does not require any special handling other than telling Vegas that it is progressive.

But Vegas 6.0d has no preset for HDV 1080 25p on my machines, only 720. And I'm still unclear if field order should be "none" for this camera (like it is for the DVX, XL2, HVX etc in progressive modes). If you go into Vegas and chose the HDV 720-25p preset, it sets the field order to "none".

This all may have no effect on the footage, but I'm pretty sure Vegas will need some updates to fully support this cam.

Look, there are huge chunks of detail that are missing from the progressive images that are not explainable even if Vegas had been set incorrectly (which was not the case)

Screen grabs are always tricky to judge - these kind of discussions happen with every camera released. Unless Sony is lying about the cameras shooting mode, progressive mode will be as sharp and usually sharper than interlaced in all situations but some firmware or other issue may explain what you are seeing.

[Simon Wyndham]

There's no preset for 25p, but all you have to do is select progressive scan in a 1080 HDV project properties. I am rather familiar with working with 25p footage in Vegas! Just because there is no preset, it doesn't mean you can't do it. Presets are only what the programmers thought you would need. There is no "None" setting for field order in Vegas. Only Upper Field, Lower Field, or Progressive.

Vegas does not need any updates for the V1. Not for 25p anyway. Unlike 24p (and this is something I really need to emphasise) 25p does NOT need any special handling other than telling Vegas that the footage is progressive. There are NO special requirements for 25p. None. Nada. Zilch. In fact you could edit it as interlaced footage and it would still render out correctly because each alternate field is part of the same frame. No pulldown or other such clumsey muck is required.

Screen grabs are always tricky to judge

These are very easy to judge. There is huge loss of detail, period. If you watch the camera feed live, as I did on a 32" high def CRT, there is a loss of detail and resolution that is very apparent.

I really don't know how some of you can only see a slight softness in the progressive image. Are you guys actually looking at these grabs at their full size, or with a scaled Windows picture viewer or something?! In fact I find it utterly unbelievable that some of you can't see the total and utter loss of detail. The detail is either there, or it isn't. And I can quite clearly see the detail dissappearing on an A/B switch. I frame or not, this is a totally static frame. The detail on the driveway does not simply go 'soft'. Whole swathes of it completely dissappear.

There should be absolutely no difference at all, none, between the screen grabs if the progressive mode was working as advertised.

[Steven White]

I'm looking at it at full resolution on a 1920x1200 monitor. Not only do I see a difference in sharpening, I see a difference in position. If you're serious about claiming a loss of resolution, ask yourself the following:

Why is there a change in position?
Was the camera locked off?
Was there camera shake?
Is the loss of detail due camera motion blur?
Could it be that the loss of detail is macroblocking due to camera motion?
Where in the compression scheme is the frame taken from?
What were the in-camera sharpening settings?
Does applying sharpening after the fact achieve the same result (answer: no. compression noise and blocking, in addition to different algorithms contribute to the problem)

The list goes on. This is a shoddy experiment from a scientific standpoint (no offense meant - thanks for posting grabs!), and if you're going to make claims on camera performance, it's better to state all parameters.

-Steve

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

There's no preset for 25p, but all you have to do is select progressive scan in a 1080 HDV project properties. I am rather familiar with working with 25p footage in Vegas! Just because there is no preset, it doesn't mean you can't do it. Presets are only what the programmers thought you would need. There is no "None" setting for field order in Vegas. Only Upper Field, Lower Field, or Progressive.

It just the wording we are both right (see attached) field order settings in Vegas 6 and 7 is "none(progressive)" or "Upper Field or Lower Field". I'm also aware you can change the presets - I do all the time. Since you have 25p version of camera, it may well be that Vegas fully supports the camera right now.

These are very easy to judge. There is huge loss of detail, period. If you watch the camera feed live, as I did on a 32" high def CRT, there is a loss of detail and resolution that is very apparent.

Evidently they are not, otherwise there would not be the varoius opinions here. I've looked at the graps on mutiple hi-rez monitor at full size and I see the progressive as sharper at the point of focus and softer in the out of focus regions.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Vegas does fully support the 25p HDV format right now, very different than the 24p.
Bear in mind, Simon says he's viewing on a 30" monitor. That is not native size for 1080, therefore there is absolutely some scaling involved. Between all the various monitors, it's quite possible various people are seeing various results. PNG is the best way to look at these, of course, but if you can accept stills (which really is a poor way of looking at motion pictures) then some zooms might be appropriate.

That said...lighten up, guys. At the least, you're getting to see early on, footage from these camcorders. I don't see anyone bitching about the Canon, JVC, or Panasonic footage...As someone who spent a lot of time shooting various images for sharing, it sorta makes one wonder "why am I doing this" when people are arguing about what you did or didn't do. Maybe Simon is doing an article on the camera for a magazine as I have done, and that requires caution as to what is posted, because a magazine has purchased the rights to specific images.
Either way...a tad of appreciation to Steve Mullen, Simon Wyndham, and anyone else who has posted information might be in order, rather than the roasting and argument?

[Bill Pryor]

Actually, people have been bitching about the Canon footage too. That's what people do any time there's any new camera and people post frame grabs.

[Tony Tremble]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

Actually, people have been bitching about the Canon footage too. That's what people do any time there's any new camera and people post frame grabs.

"Bitching" ?? Really?

I thought people were very grateful to Kaku Ito for all of his work.

Of course that gratitude also goes to Simon, Steve and DSE for making information, stills and clips available. I think it is a misreading of the level of interest that these two cameras have to say people are bitching. I thought it was good healthy discourse.

All I can see from this thread is a bit of brainstorming going on as people try and understand the reason for the progressive footage resolution loss and not trying to find fault with Simon's method.

Does Vegas know the difference between 25P and 25PsF?

Clutching at straws....

TT

[Simon Wyndham]

Hi Doug. I have viewed the footage on both a 32" HD CRT (1080 native, no scaling), and on my video editing LCD's at the 'full' resolution in the Vegas 7 preview window.

it sorta makes one wonder "why am I doing this"

Thats exactly how I feel at present! Along with the annoyance that people are assuming I'm making newbie style mistakes when setting up my NLE, or that I don't know how to use it properly!

Maybe Simon is doing an article on the camera for a magazine

Yes, I am reviewing the camera for Showreel.

Why is there a change in position?
Was the camera locked off?
Was there camera shake?
Is the loss of detail due camera motion blur?
Could it be that the loss of detail is macroblocking due to camera motion?
Where in the compression scheme is the frame taken from?
What were the in-camera sharpening settings?
Does applying sharpening after the fact achieve the same result (answer: no. compression noise and blocking, in addition to different algorithms contribute to the problem)

Steven, I've gone through this several times. I'll go through it once more.

1. Yes, the camera static, resting on the floor.

2. No there was not any camera shake. Not unless there was an earthquake in the area that shook the ground that the camera was resting on.

3. No, the loss of detail is not down to motion blur. The camera was not moving.

4. No there is no macro blocking due to motion (when have you ever seen macroblocking that looked like that?). The camera was static. I'll say again, the camera was static.

5. How would I know? The camera was static. Its not like an in motion frame where such things can be picked out.

6. Sharpening settings were on the default (7) for BOTH shots. Actually, even with detail turned right down the camera is still sharp.

7. Why would I want to add sharpening afterwards?

The camera is in a VERY slightly different position. I moved it slightly while pressing the menu buttons. But the camera was NOT moving during the shot one iota. And a slight shift in position doesn't change the fact that a load of detail is missing.

Evidently they are not, otherwise there would not be the varoius opinions here.

http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/Sony%20V1U/blowup.png

Try that. Now, if I was face to face wit you, could honestly and truthfully tell me with all your heart that the progressive version of the image is only 'slightly softer' than the interlaced one? Really? There can be no dispute. That progressive frame is seriously messed up resolution and detail wise. If there are varying opinions after seeing the shot above, then I give up all hope, and will have to wonder forever if we are all living on the same planet!

There is no change in depth of field. The camera was on its widest angle with the focus locked off to infinity. And this isn't exactly a 35mm film camera, so any idea that the depth of field can be manipulated selectively, especially to the degree of difference that there is from that angle is utterly absurd anyway. I'll also add that the interlaced footage was taken after the progressive one (so you can forget any idea that I knocked it out of focus for the proscan shot to begin with).

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

Does Vegas know the difference between 25P and 25PsF?

Vegas treats them the same. As soon as you tell it that footage is progressive, it combines the two alternate fields to make a full progressive image to display it fully in the preview window. The difference in the preview window when you tell Vegas that footage is progressive is instantly noticeable as a higher detail/resolution image. Because of that I know absolutely that vegas was handling the footage correctly.

Even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't explain the 'paint filter' effect. As you can see from my last post with detail blown up 300%, people who see no difference must need glasses!

[Tony Tremble]

Evidently they are not, otherwise there would not be the varoius opinions here. I've looked at the graps on mutiple hi-rez monitor at full size and I see the progressive as sharper at the point of focus and softer in the out of focus regions.[/QUOTE]

The clue is in the noise. Take a good long look at the noise in the black of the gold car's rear tyre.

In the interlaced image the noise is high frequency. It should be identical in the progressive image which it most certainly isn't! It has nothing to do with focus shift. Even if the focus had shifted, which I don't believe it has, the noise would be high frequency and the same as the interlaced all things being equal. The noise is inherent to the system and will be the same for either format and independent of focus.

So that means the noise has been "filtered" either in-camera or somehow during capture.

As we know this is a pre-production model so it is plausible that not all functions have been turned on or might even contain bugs. To my eyes progressive image looks like an interlaced clip that has been crudely deinterlaced and then smoothed.

TT

[Simon Wyndham]

Exactly Tony! Finally someone who is looking properly!

It wasn't filtered in capture. It was just a straight Vegas 7 HDV capture. On a live display from the camera to a high def display the loss of resolution in proscan mode is noticeable there too.

[Tony Tremble]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

Even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't explain the 'paint filter' effect. As you can see from my last post with detail blown up 300%, people who see no difference must need glasses!

Exactly.

I'd like to know how anyone can determine where the point of focus is on an image with such a huge DOF!!

:)

TT

[Simon Wyndham]

Especially when the point of focus was infinity!

[Ray Bell]

To me it looks like a little too much noise reduction going on....

I hope the camera just needs a little more tuning in the on board processing
engine before it ships....

Some one needs to send this to Sony and ask " what the hey "

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Simon, I'm unawares of a CRT that displays all 1080 lines, and at 30 inches, it's scaled somehow. The Sony BVM series only display 800 "true" lines, which is why we use it for HD/SDI matched to a 2k projector, and try to discern both.
However, your screen grabs do show compelling differences that we're not seeing with the footage we had from the V1U. Makes me wonder if the 25p model is significantly different somehow?

[Piotr Wozniacki]

I live in a PAL country, so I am interested in clarifying the issue (if any) apparent with the V1E version. I am watching Simon's grabs on a 1920x1200 monitor full screen and while I'm not entering the dispute on focal point, possible camera shake compression artefacts and alike, I can clearly see the loss of resolution and absence of some fine detail in the progressive picture. However, those flaws are so evident and serious I find it hard to believe they actually origin in the camera itself. With all due respect, Simon, there HAS to be some other reason. Sony don't employ idiots, who would market a new camera as truly progressive, while in fact it simply deinterlaces and smoothes interlaced material with some coarse on board magics.