V1 25p issues (combined threads)
 

The "oil paint" effect noticed by Simon Wyndam is STILL present.

As it stands 25p is utterly useless it just doesn't look like video that you've ever seen before. I cannot imagine any circumstance that this video quality would be deemed acceptable. It certainly isn't HD by any reasonable measure.

I hope it is just a defective unit. I have been through the menus turned on/off picture profiles, made changes to sharpening, gain (to see if noise filter was kicking in) and just about everything else. Its almost as though skin detail smoothing is being applied to the whole image in 25Pscan mode.

I don't think a camera should leave the factory performing like this...it's a joke.

*GUTTED*

TT

Tony,

Could you please post some .m2t samples on rapidshare for instance to illustrate your opinion ?

Thanks,

Kristin

Uh, oh! I saw the 24P images and figured that 30P would be even better (since I don't like 24P very much). I ordered the V1 specifically for 30P. I wonder if it is an issue for the european version? I can't imagine they would advertise 24P, 25P, 30P, 50i, and 60i (25/50 for european models and 30/60 for U.S.) so specifically without them all working. I mean, have you seen the V1 site? "Progressive" is one of the main tab sections!

contradictory reports on 25p
 

Strange, really... I can see quite opposite opinion on the 25p sharpness from the first V1E owners in the UK. Where is the truth? Or, can it be THAT subjective?

I don't think that is necessary. Just look at Simon Wyndham's post for pictures of the problem.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=77101

It's exactly the same as he found. Sony were supposed to be aware of this problem and have fixed it. But no.

Right now I'd take CF25 from a Z1 over 25P from the V1e.

I'll be calling the dealer first thing Monday. Watch this space.

TT

Yes Marcus, I think so... Simon's pictures are made with a pre-production model. Opinions are very subjective... I think it's safer to watch some real raw samples taken by the camera, at least to see if the cameraman knows how to operate a camera... For instance I've seen a lot of low-light samples taken with other cameras where it was obvious the guy behind wasn't a pro. Just some point and shoot stuf... All these handheld things... So, wait and see...

No Piotr, it really isn't THAT subjective. Its horrid and not fit for purpose.

The TRUTH is what as I've described it. If you have a problem with my truth just skip my posts in the future.

BTW, I am one of the first UK owners many since the units only shipped Friday many won't receive their units until Monday.

I am hoping this is a rogue unit or needs an updated firmware.

TT hacked off.

can you post a grab?

Douglas, Simon.

I see what you mean!

Kristin, I am feeling particularly hacked off right now but was going to post a couple of screen captures to show the problem. Your post has just destroyed any enthusiasm I had left for that task. I know how to operate a camera thank you. I know how to analyse an image, it's my job.

Tony, I realize you're one of the first V1E owners in the UK, as I've also ordered mine with one of the retailers there and am aware the first stock arrived last Friday. Is it possible that you e-mail me with the information where exactly your unit was purchased. Because you see, if the problem is still present in SOME units and gone (fixed) with others, this information could save me hair-pulling should I happen to receive a machine like yours.

Tony, I feel your pain and share your concern. Try not to get too mad as that stress is bad for your brain. I remember now the shots from the pre-production model and I will agree that would be completely unacceptable. I now also seem to remember that it was only an issue on the pre-production European version. I just can't imagine what could cause such a thing, but I wouldn't mind seeing a still. Can you take stills from the V1 and put them on a memory stick? That might make the task easier so you don't have to cable up the camera and run a capture utility. I know how hard it is to put effort into something that seems hopeless, but I would appreciate knowing what to look for when my camera gets in.

Let's please try to maintain the spirit of the proceedings here and keep our emotions in check when posting. Are you willing to post some images or not. I have plenty of server space and bandwidth available for for anyone who is interested in sharing their experiences for the benefit of their fellows. Thanks in advance,

I have been assured that the unit I had was defective, and that the production models do not have the problem I saw.

I have been offered the chance to try out one of these new 'fixed' cameras, so I shall see.

Tony, please post some shots if you can. It would go a long way to helping the situation. Particularly take some shots of objects that have lots of fine detail, and take the shots in both the interlaced, and progressive modes for comparison.

Chris

The reason I am not going to post clips or grabs because I am mindful of the treatment meted out to Simon Wyndham when he did so. As I said earlier the problem is "exactly" the same as shown in his grabs. I am also mindful of the "autofocus" thread from the XH-A1 forum where you correctly pointed out that a technical problem is best sorted by dealer or service centre. You will get a definitive answer when I have spoken to my dealer tomorrow and determined whether any more units are affected failing that when I have spoken to Sony.

Everything else about the camera is excellent. So, I will repeat what I said in my first post, I hope this is just a defective unit.

Cheers

Okay, okay I submit.

Exported from FCP as 1440x1080 BMP resized in GIMPshop to 1920x1080.

I have done nothing else to the files.

Detail is washed from the grass and destroyed around the aerials. Is that or is that not the "oil paint" effect you saw Simon???

Sorry it is such a mundane image but it absolutely shows the problem.

TT

Cut out a section from each picture.

Do you have a direct link to the files?

Simon check out my previous post. I've put managed to upload some representative sections.

Cheers

Glancing at those two images, you are indeed seeing the same problem that I had on the camera I used.

Hmm. This does not bode well at all!

I saw footage from the V1U at DV Expo a few weeks ago. Granted, Sony put their best foot forward, but what I saw on screen was GREAT looking progressive footage and muddy, soft looking interlaced. They had a clip with a fashion model shot in 24p that was incredibly sharp and detailed. They also showed footage of flowers in a field - shot interlaced. The colors looked nice, but the image seemed soft to me. Others in attendance thought the same. I never was able to determine how they were recording/showing this footage on the high end monitor.

I agree that your posted images show a real decline in image quality with progressive. Very interesting and very confusing.

I hope the next couple of weeks produce a bunch of samples from early buyers of this camera. Then we'll know what's going on here...

I'm not sure if the FX7 and the V1 use anything different or not but I felt the exact same way about the footage posted from the FX7. I thought it looked much much better then FX1 footage but still had an odd soft muddy look to it. I had hoped that perhaps there was some major difference between the FX7 and the V1 so I am waiting to see what the V1 actually looks like but now your post has me thinking. I still think the V1/FX7 look nice but I think it is lacking in fine details in the distance. For example some of the shots from the FX7 the trees in the distance look a little fuzzy to me. I have so far seen this overall look from all the FX7 shots. My concern isn't so much about resolution because I could care less about resolution but about the overall muddy look.

I have viewed the footage on 3 different computer monitors and exported the footage to HDV tape and watched it on my HDTV as well compared to HDV clips from other cameras.

I also hope some actual footage from the V1 can clear up some of this.

Tom, I'm assuming your talking about progressive mode in the FX7? I never explored that with the FX7 I borrowed from my friend, but I will say the normal interlaced footage, viewed on a 50" Fujitsu plasma, was cuttingly sharp. I guess since I had no interest in the progressive mode, I never explored it.

The FX7 does not have a progressive mode.

I am talking about many of the samples that were done with the FX7 as interlaced clips compared to the FX1 clips. Yes they looked much sharper then anything SONY has even done but details in the distance had a certain fuzzy look to them. It is really hard to explain and is more of how I view images then anything that could be used by other people. Again it was is no way to say the images were bad, just that I'm not really sure if I like them yet. Many people on here may love the images but I'm not sure if they fit my style.

The fact that interlaced footage looked really sharp on a 50" plasma seems even more confusing, given the muddiness Tom and I saw. Perhaps these early units (including those at DV Expo) are truly that - early units with inconsistencies. All I know is based on the visual evidence of the V1U at DV Expo, I would not buy one for interlaced work. And Tom - I agree - footage showed to us of the V1U in a park showed long focal length shots of trees and the lake. I thought the detail was pretty poor. Others did as well. Not scientific, but certainly noteworthy.

It's the same old story - wait until full production units start making their way into the public. Based on the 25p results that started this thread, even that may not answer our questions until enough units are out there. Was/is this unit a lemon? Is it indicative of the real, final camera. I sure hope not.

Wow, that's interesting. The only thing I can compare it to is the footage from the Canon HV10. The FX7 shows all the detail and resolution that is evident in the HV10 footage and the HV10 has been praised for its very high resolution with its 1920X1080 CMOS sensor. My friend's FX7 was just purchased at B&H photo, so its certainly a firm production unit.

You know as I write this I'm thinking about the clips I downloaded from that German site. I put those m2t clips in my editing program and back out to tape. I was then able to play those clips on my HV10 out to my plasma. Those clips were NOT sharp and were very unimpressive. In fact I believe I commented on just that in another thread. Both the FX1 and the FX7 looked pretty poor to me on that site and I mentioned how I'd never buy a camera who's footage looked like that! I even went on to say that my FX1 was far sharper than the FX1 clips he posted.

I can tell you with 100% certainty, my buddy's FX7 does not begin to look like the clips posted on that site. It is razor sharp with plenty of detail, right out to the horizon. I've raved about the HV10 and its fantastic resolution, and I believe the FX7 very well matches it. :)

The funny thing about this is that I was under the impression the controvery on 'softness' was surrounding only the progessive mode and NOT the interlaced. I don't recall which site mentioned (and posted clips) of how sharp the interlaced footage was, but when he went in to progressive mode it softened. It was blamed on pre-production issues.

Here's another thought though highly unlikely: Could there be some difference in the hybrid nature of the V1 with it's combo progressive/interlaced capabilities vs the FX7 with only interlaced. I just can't imagine what's going on given the extremely high level of detail the FX7 I saw is producing.

Just ordered one... Why would it be any different from the ones Simon and Tony have?
I have been hesitating for long between HVX and V1 - praying now for not making big mistake.

Any idea what if all the copies have the same problem? Shall I return the cam to Sony or the shop?

Thanks

I don't believe that either Simon or Tony 'have' the FX7/V1, they've simply used one at shows. Those could have been pre-production models. Trust me, the production model FX7 I used yesterday & today has no such interlaced issues. Keep in mind that I DID see those issues with the clips posted on the German site that came from these cameras, so I know what Tony & Simon are talking about. My friend's unit is simply razor sharp and looks nothing like the clips posted on the German site, no ands, ifs or buts. If the camera was only capable of those posted clips, I wouldn't consider it for a second. As I mentioned, the FX1 I had owned produced far sharper clips than those posted on the German site. I have no idea why this should be.

Ken you saw a NTSC model while so far most of the clips and reviews that have been so so were for PAL models. Could the PAL version be the only camera that seems to suffer from this issue since the NTSC users on here swear it looks great? I have yet to see any decent NTSC footage from this camera.

By the way I thought the V1 that TONY has is a production model that he actually bought from a store and not a pre-production model. I think those FX1/FX7 clips were also from a store bought final model of the FX7.

I hope to see some better footage soon.

Here is a raw clip shot with my FX7. I was playing around with the picture profiles boosting the color and sharpness.

I've posted samples before, most were zoomed in closeups. This is full wide angle. Hope this helps.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=W5HS2JEA

I can't comment on the V1e, but the pre-production model of the V1u had great 60i, 30p and 24p images, under the best, good, fair and worst conditions.

heath

Ron, thanks for that clip. I think you turned the FX7 into an FX1! That sharpening makes it look much like the FX1, but I still think the colors are better. I also have noticed a fairly strong difference in the clips when viewing with different media players. The difference between VLC and MediaPlayerClassic (not windows media player) is at least a gamma difference and maybe more. I'm not sure what other people are seeing on their machines, but the FX7 has FAR more resolution when viewed on my 1600x1200 LCD. The FX1 isn't bad, but the FX7 blows it away in detail. If there is any softness, it is because it shows tiny things that the FX1 can't see and therefore those tiny details aren't sharp. I'm just happy that they show up at all. Some people like the look of the FX1 with it's fairly high level of sharpening filter, but give me vague little details with no "black glow" any day.

Ron, this link gets me to a toolbar download for Windows only. Any specific link?

Unfortunately in Tony's case it is a production model, he has posted this a couple of days ago when he had received the cam as one of the first copies in the UK. I am worried because my order must be from the same batch and if the issue is really there, I can but hope that Tony has received a bad copy.
I would love to see comments from Sony cam experts.

Here's where an understanding of HOW a camcorder works can help.

Region 50 UNITS in 50i mode:

ODD 1/50th second: RESET all CMOS elements; allow integration time; read 960x1080 elements from chip into EIP; up-scale 960 to 1920 and low-pass filter vertical by 30%; encode odd lines from EIP as an Odd field.

EVEN 1/50th second: RESET all CMOS elements; allow integration time; read 960x1080 from chip into EIP; up-scale 960 to 1920 and low-pass filter vertical by 30%; encode odd lines from EIP as an Even field.

-----------------

Region 50 UNITS in 25p mode:

ODD 1/50th second: RESET all CMOS elements; allow integration time; read 960x1080 from chip into EIP; up-scale 960 to 1920 and low-pass filter vertical by 30%; encode odd lines from EIP as an Odd field.

EVEN 1/50th second: encode even lines from EIP as an Even field.


Now it would take an engineer about one second to see that 25p mode would involve a different process than 50i. This could be simplified if 25p used the same process as 50i with one tiny exception -- inhibit the second CMOS RESET pulse as shown below:

EVEN 1/50th second: read 960x1080 from chip into EIP; up-scale 960 to 1920 and low-pass filter vertical by 30%; encode even lines from EIP as an Even field.

IF, and this is a big IF, the signal were to degrade in the chip between the first read-out and the second read-out -- then the frame quality might degrade in 25p mode.

Simple to check this. Just deinterlace what you consider to be a "bad" frame and see if there is a "good" field and a "bad" field. If not, then I'm not sure I can see ANY way for 25p to be different than 50i.

==========

Interestingly, Region 60 models might operate differently because of the need to add pulldown!

Region 60 UNITS in 60i mode:

ODD 1/60th second: RESET all CMOS elements; allow integration time; read 960x1080 elements from chip into EIP; up-scale 960 to 1920 and low-pass filter vertical by 30%; encode odd lines from EIP as an Odd field.

EVEN 1/60th second: RESET all CMOS elements; allow integration time; read 960x1080 from chip into EIP; up-scale 960 to 1920 and low-pass filter vertical by 30%; encode odd lines from EIP as an Even field.

--------------

Region 60 UNITS in 24p mode:

Choose 24 of the 60p frames and add pulldown to get 60 fields.

---------------

Region 60 UNITS in 30p mode:

Choose 30 of the 60p frames and add pulldown to get 60 fields.

OR

ODD 1/60th second: RESET all CMOS elements; allow integration time; read 960x1080 from chip into EIP; up-scale 960 to 1920 and low-pass filter vertical by 30%; encode odd lines from EIP as an Odd field.

EVEN 1/60th second: encode even lines in EIP as an Even field.

OR

ODD 1/60th second: RESET all CMOS elements; allow integration time; read 960x1080 from chip into EIP; up-scale 960 to 1920 and low-pass filter vertical by 30%; encode odd lines from EIP as an Odd field.

EVEN 1/60th second: read 960x1080 from chip into EIP; up-scale 960 to 1920 and low-pass filter vertical by 30%; encode odd lines from EIP as an Even field.

IF either of the two latter processes is used, then 30p works like 25p.

And, if the latter process is used, then if its true 25p is degraded, so should 30p.

However, if either of the first two proceses are used, the Region 60 models will not -- as I'm convinced they do not -- show any degredation in either P mode.

Steve

25P and 50i looked identical on HD production monitor. The problem seems to be during/after encoding.

There is no good field they are both "smoothed".

We made the mistake of not running tape during the demo. We didn't imagine there would be this problem. The moral of this story is to run tape and on the camera that you walk out the door with!

My dealers are on to it.

TT

Ken, I did not just use a V1 at a 'show'. I had one in my possession for nearly a week and had the time to examine the picture at my leisure.

Thomas is a V1 owner. The screenshots speak for themselves. The shots I posted had NO post processing, and on top of that Sony themselves confirmed that there was a problem.

Steve, on the camera I had the problem wasn't just one of vertical resolution. Colours and shades took on th appearance of a 'watercolour' style filter in Photoshop. The shots that Thomas posted suffer from the same issue.

Tom, I'm not sure about those posted clips, but you could be right about some issue with the PAL version vs. the NTSC version. The one I played with was indeed an NTSC version and had no issues in terms of resolution/sharpness. Very strange.

Marcus, that's the thing that I also find interesting. Viewed on my 50" HD Fujitsu plasma, the image is tack sharp and highly resolved, yet my plasma is only 1366X768, so I'm not even seeing the full potential of the FX7 or my Canon HV10! I'm not sure if the FX7 will have the same high measured resolution of the HV10 (which has a full 1920X1080 sensor), but it should look even better on a full rez monitor.

Tony,

I never wanted to sound harsh. Thank you for posting your opinion, sure it's important to be aware of an eventual problem. But it's easier to understand with raw samples from different cameras, not only to refer to one. Well, let's see what Sony has to say...