V1U grabs

[Stephen van Vuuren]

I guess I'm blind - on A/B switching the progr looks slightly sharper to me and since it's a static shot, that's to be expected.

But since the shots are not at the same moment in time, various factors could be affecting the results much less firmware.

What's more exciting is the nice latitude that keeps showing up in these shots - very impressive indeed.

[Ash Greyson]

To me, this looks IDENTICAL to Canon's "F" mode. You can only really discern it from grabs, much harder to see in real motion. Same is true of the HVX as well. Something about the motion seems to mask the resolution loss.



ash =o)

[Tony Tremble]

Why would there be a resolution loss going from interlaced material to progressive? I understand why the Canon F mode is slightly lower in resolution because it is being derived from an interlaced CCD. Since the V1 has CMOS chips that are inherently progressive it must take a special type of balls up!

Did anyone record 30p in the US? If so how did that compare to the sharpness of 60i?

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

Did anyone record 30p in the US? If so how did that compare to the sharpness of 60i?

No difference. Strobing (less) and NO judder frames. 30P was definitely nicer. But, we haven't seen 24p without pulldown.

[Simon Wyndham]

Could Vegas be treating the progressive stuff as interlaced and doubling fields, since its encoded in interlaced stream?

No. As I said at the beginning of the thread Vegas was set up correctly for each shot (ie project properties upper field first, NO deinterlacing, clip properties set to upper field first for the interlaced shot, and project properties progressive scan, and clip properties progressive scan for the progressive shot). I know how to use Vegas thanks. :-)

I guess I'm blind - on A/B switching the progr looks slightly sharper to me and since it's a static shot, that's to be expected.

I think you're blind! ;-) Either that or you've muddled them up.

Quite how you could say this when A/B switching them I don't know. Look closely at the tire detail in the foreground for one. There is one HUGE detail missing from the progressive scan image that seems to have been filtered out (a piece of rubber hanging out of the side near the top of the tire). Look at the drive detail. In the progressive image there's huge swathes of detail missing. Yes, actual detail. This isn't about softness or sharpness, its about actual detail in the picture.

As Steve Mullen mentioned, it could be that the filtering is set incorrectly.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

As Steve Mullen mentioned, it could be that the filtering is set incorrectly.

Simon, the progressive is in fact so much inferior, there has to be some reason other than the way it really works in the V1E - the difference is just too big to be true.

Or should I say - different? Doing away with this tyre piece completely must be some filtering in action, not just softening/resolution loss.

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Now I must say I'm completely lost: I cut out small windows around the tyre detail from both the interlaced and progressive grabs, saved as separate files - and guess what! The rubber detail, so obviously missing from the progressive frame when displayed in whole, is back there!

[Mikko Lopponen]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I guess I'm blind - on A/B switching the progr looks slightly sharper to me and since it's a static shot, that's to be expected.

? Static shots should have the same resolution. Moving shots would give the resolution advantage to progressive.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Mikko Lopponen

? Static shots should have the same resolution. Moving shots would give the resolution advantage to progressive.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

I believe that with interlace, sensor rows are "paired" to improve sensitivity and reduce twitter. Such that even field lines may be made from sensor lines 1+2, 3+4, 5+6 etc, odd field lines from 2+3, 4+5, etc.

My question to Simon is what do Sony have to say about all this? Until we get an answer to that, speculating about technicalities is all very well, but it may just turn out to be an early (and unrepresentative) individual model.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

No. As I said at the beginning of the thread Vegas was set up correctly for each shot (ie project properties upper field first, NO deinterlacing, clip properties set to upper field first for the interlaced shot, and project properties progressive scan, and clip properties progressive scan for the progressive shot). I know how to use Vegas thanks. :-).

With all due respect, with most 24p footage in Vegas, field order is set to "none". With HDV, interlaced footage is set to "upper field first" but with this cam I assume you would also want none though progressive HDV support for this cam is not yet built into Vegas which may be the isssue here (incorrect pulldown removal).

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

I think you're blind! ;-) Either that or you've muddled them up.

Quite how you could say this when A/B switching them I don't know. Look closely at the tire detail in the foreground for one. There is one HUGE detail missing from the progressive scan image that seems to have been filtered out (a piece of rubber hanging out of the side near the top of the tire). Look at the drive detail. In the progressive image there's huge swathes of detail missing. Yes, actual detail. This isn't about softness or sharpness, its about actual detail in the picture

I did not have them muddled up but to me it looks like the depth of focus has changed - very close and far looks softer but in focus looks slightly sharper.

[John Godden]

I think the focus location is slightly 'deeper' into the scene with the progressive.

i.e. The middle of the car is sharper with the progressive but less sharp on the front tire (compared to the interlaced).

Both captures look reasonably good though............. with the cautionary note of the mild CA.

Thanks for posting
JohnG

[Tony Tremble]

Simon

I don't suppose it would be possible to post any footage? Something with movement and detail?

Cheers

TT

[Simon Wyndham]

With all due respect, with most 24p footage in Vegas, field order is set to "none". With HDV, interlaced footage is set to "upper field first" but with this cam I assume you would also want none though progressive HDV support for this cam is not yet built into Vegas which may be the isssue here (incorrect pulldown removal).

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.

I did not have them muddled up but to me it looks like the depth of focus has changed - very close and far looks softer but in focus looks slightly sharper.

I can assure you that focus has not changed in any way or form. The only thing that changed was my switching between progressive scan and interlaced. Camera was in full manual operation and my fingers didn't go anywhere near the focus.

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).

Now I must say I'm completely lost: I cut out small windows around the tyre detail from both the interlaced and progressive grabs, saved as separate files - and guess what! The rubber detail, so obviously missing from the progressive frame when displayed in whole, is back there!

??

[Steven White]

Flipping back and forth I see no loss in detail, but rather a change in the sharpening settings.

On the roof edge for example, the interlaced image has a distinct detail-less black halo. The progressive image has a smooth transition to the background. Same as in the driveway, the sharpening enhances the edges of the stones.

It's also difficult to know if you're on an i-frame or not. Who knows how the MPEG-2 compression enters into it?

-Steve

[Floris van Eck]

I would say that people finally need to start sharing footage. They obviously are not allowed to... but that is what I want to see right now. All this endless analysing of images. It's all about how it looks in motion.