New Sample Footage

[Alex Leith]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Tom, make sure what you're seeing is in no way related to your display device. Many digital displays will produce precisely this type of banding with areas of similar color.

It's visible on the stills and clips... and it doesn't show up in "i", so it's unlikely that the display is the root cause of the problem.

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by Brett Sherman

I created an html page. Just go to www.geekstudios.com/demos. Then you can try "Save Target" or "Save Link" to download the clips. If that doesn't work, you can always find a friend with a PC.

Brett, thank you for taking the time to provide these links.

So I've opened the two workshop JPEGs and I'm comparing them on two identical 20" LCD displays. I've also viewed the M2T file.

It is of course 100% obvious from this footage that the progressive mode is washing out almost all the detail of the exterior of the red shop. And of course in that lower left portion of the screen, right under the hand rail, there's a lot of detail in the wood grain when in interlaced mode that turns to macroblocks in the progressive mode.

There's no way this can be a decoding issue of course, since the entire image would suffer equally. In progressive mode this camcorder targets portions of the image that meet certain criteria and applies a blurring or noise reduction to them. This is important for potential buyers to know, since some users regard progressive shooting as a priority and may wish to factor this into their purchasing decision.

Again, thanks for making the effort to post your objective samples.

[Alain Mayo]

I was looking to the workshop prog.jpg and you can notice in the back house and tree branches some type of paint effect but it all could be due to, over sharpened video filter or like many of you said some type of noise reduction filter or combination of both maybe. This remind me of the effect you get in photoshop by duplicating a picture then applying an emboss filter to the top image and then blend it with the first image and it looks something similar to the paint effect, off course without the detail loss.

[Steve Mullen]

OK -- which are 24p and which are 60i? They are 60i at 360 and 24p at 216.

Just use the pix number: 0 1 2 3

Sorry for the JPEGs. I wish we could upload TIFF or large BMPs.

And, yes I've made it harder by using 4 pix -- prevents guessing at 50:50 chance.

Now for those who claim 24p is different than 30p -- which it's not since it begins as progressive just like 30p -- which of the three A B C pix are 60i and which are 30p? Maybe one of them is 24p?

Given the claims that there are huge quality differences between frame-rates -- you shouldn't even need to play games and blow these up. The claimed differences should obvious at a glance.

Look for the oil paint FX. Look for the ants. Look for the macroblocks with no detail. Look for the ringing. :)

And if you claim you see some artifact -- you must describe it and point out where it is. No general "I see X in Y." Your observation must be able to be verified by others -- or it ain't valid.

Remember, it's claimed the effects are so serious that they are a deal breaker, so if there isn't a consensus -- then there isn't any problem with the V1U.

[Bob Grant]

In c.jpg I can certainly see the oil painting effect, nowhere near as dramatic as what I've seen in some footage I've shot but given the subject matter that's exactly what I'd expect anyway.

That's the issue here, the problem only becomes pronounced enough to be objectionable with certain subject matter. I don't think anyone's saying you can't shoot footage that looks great. Rather the issue seems to be that you can shoot certain scenes under certain lighting conditions and get really bad results and under those and only those conditions there's a difference between shooting I and P.

[Tony Tremble]

Hey Steve

It is almost as though you ignore most of what's been written on the subject.

Read what Bob has written and please take note of it. It is important.

In good lighting there is little difference apart from the ringing noise around lines of contrast made worse in 25P by the excessive sharpening we have that also cause the marching ants effect. The effect is also quite noticeable in gradients such as skies.

When the light falls below optimum this is when the effect begins to dominate. That above all is the deal breaker for me anyway.

I applaud Sony's attitude toward its customers. I really do. Their official line is if progressive mode does not me your expectation then you are quite welcome to have a full refund. Can't say fairer than that!

They accept progressive is not up to the very high standard of the interlaced mode. It is a feature of the camera not a fault of it. I just want to make that clear. It was a fault prior to the firmware upgrade now the remaining "issues" with progressive mode are down to how the camera works in progressive mode. If you are not bothered by it keep the camera, if you are get the refund. There are no more fixes for any cameras coming.

The problem is solved...

TT

[Michael Phillips]

Could not agree more, Bob (I am referring to 25P). The problem is a real nuisance when you shoot in varied lighting and contrast situations, to the extent that you get very nervous about shooting progressive unless you have the proper conditions to get a good result.

And fair enough only certain types of shoots are suitable for progressive, especially with low frame rates, but you need to be confident that the results will give you the footage you should expect from a progressive marketed camera. The results of interlaced footage should not be relied on to get the best result when you are shooting progressive in order to achieve a clean progressive look.

You don't buy a progressive camera to get unreliable results. I just hope that Sony will bite the bullet and come out openly to give us an honest appraisal of the situation as they see it, so we as owners can review whether we have a full progressive or only in part progressive camera.

Michael.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

In good lighting there is little difference apart from the ringing noise around lines of contrast made worse in 25P by the excessive sharpening we have that also cause the marching ants effect. The effect is also quite noticeable in gradients such as skies.TT

I think this qualifies as "good" lighting -- so where is the "ringing?"

Or, if you think it qualifies as "bad" lighting, then there should be all the artifacts.

Remember, you must describe it and point out where it is. No general "I see X in Y." Your observation must be able to be verified by others.

Time to put your claims to a public test.

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

<snip>
Look for the oil paint FX. Look for the ants. Look for the macroblocks with no detail. :)

And if you claim you see some artifact -- you must describe it and point out where it is. No general "I see X in Y." Your observation must be able to be verified by others -- or it ain't valid.

Steve, I'm a little too busy to look through your graphics right now. Perhaps you could look at the M2T file and two images of the red workshop that Brett posted for us and let us know if you think those are fine. Seriously, not trying to rag on anyone here, I'd really like your take on those samples.

The reason I ask is because people can post perfectly wonderful shots from their V1 camcorders all day long and that simply proves what we alredy know: the V1 can produce perfectly wonderful shots.

Unfortunately, providing wonderful samples does not dissprove that the camera can also create very problematic shots.

If you could give your professional breakdown of the video showing the red workshop that would be most helpful.

Thanks in advance!

[Zsolt Gordos]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

And, yes I've made it harder by using 4 pix -- prevents guessing at 50:50 chance.

And we all hope you remember which one is which. What if you forget in the meantime?
The world will never know the "truth"... So how can we make sure you have jotted down the solution of your riddle?

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Zsolt Gordos

And we all hope you remember which one is which. What if you forget in the meantime?
The world will never know the "truth"... So how can we make sure you have jotted down the solution of your riddle?

The way A-B tests work is to test if people can reliably differentiate between things. In reality, the truth is irrelevant. If a difference is real -- say between a B&W and Color images -- folks should be able to sort them perfectly.

Of course, this should be a blind vote because one could simply agree with the majority. I'm going to trust that no will play games as it's not in the spirit of the group.

Please remember I'm not saying the 25p issues aren't real. Obviously they have been or are -- depending on your view. I'm only pointing out that contrary to claims that the V1E has the same problems -- that it doesn't.

I have yet to see a similar public test using 25p and 50i.

[Tony Tremble]

Did you not see Brett's clip? That's all you need to know.

Put up m2ts.

If you are happy with the progressive "features" then that's fine Steve. I am not. I get a refund tomorrow. No more wasted time.

[Zsolt Gordos]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I have yet to see a similar public test using 25p and 50i.

Once the weather will allow me to move outside, I will do the test shots and post.
Btw in the numbered line two pics are copies of each other, not different shots with different settings. It is indicated by the identical head positions. The other two maybe identical, too - at least no heads there to indicate the difference.
What I see is two times two identical pics, two of them show oil paint inside the cake chiller.
If I had to live with that, I would be happy with it. But 25p is different.

[Juan Oropeza]

Steve,

After looking at your pics, it seems to me that pics 1 & 3 are the 24P images. To my eyes, the dead giveaway is the drop ceiling behind the counter. It simply loses detail when compared to the other images.

Juan

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Steve Mullen

I wish we could upload TIFF or large BMPs.

Noted. I have now ammended the forum software file attachment parameters to allow for uploading fairly large file sizes using .TIF, .TIFF and .BMP extensions. Please be judicious with the bandwidth (thanks in advance).