ATV vibration causing HDV problem?

John McGinley · August 24th, 2005, 01:32 PM

Quote:

In the end, he discovered that OPTICAL stabilization on the GS was a big part of the problem whereas the electronic stabilization on the cheap Z cam actually worked much better.

Maybe a stabilizer post process on your footage would do the trick, yes it would be another step, but it could be worth a shot. Does Final Cut Pro come with a stabilization filter? I know Premiere does.

Ken Eberhard · August 24th, 2005, 01:36 PM

Good try, And yes, believe me or not, I tried that too. But each frame is goofy... No chance of recovering clarity.

Boyd Ostroff · August 24th, 2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Eberhard

My experience with QT7 has been great. I even upgraded before I got FCP 5.

No doubt, but since my system is very stable, I'm in the middle of 3 different projects, and it does everything I need.... why in the world would I mess with new system software? Just read some posts around here and Apple's site if you don't know what I mean.

That's OK about the video, I'm gonna just take your word on all this. It sounds like you really are working on a dream project. Whatever the reasons, if you aren't happy with the video you're getting then you should keep looking for a better solution, and I'm sure you'll find it.

Kaku Ito · August 26th, 2005, 04:00 AM

From my experiences shooting onboard of donwhilling MTB in the mountain, you really have to lock it tight to elminate the vibration.

I can believe Ken's problems because that is what I noticed on onboard HC1 footage that I shot with my fully airsuspended mountainbike on street, if I don't lower the air of the tires, footage is really shakey (vibration is coming form the roughness of the asphalt grain, not bumps). Some people said the footage is nice but I did mention at that time, I have to do something with the vibration.

I've been thinking the way to absorb the vibration, so if I find any then I will let you know. I love your footage ken. ATV is great.

Also, someone mentioned about the cheapy does better job, I suspect the cheapy ones I have don't really have full frame spec nor fast shutter speed. That usually makes it look better. Also, I'm thinking it is probably the best to helmet mount HC1. Because our body is the best absorption and suspention that I can think.

Ken Eberhard · August 26th, 2005, 06:49 AM

Thanks for the compliment on the footage Kaku. It's really fun to do.

The point I can't stress enough is, the mount I am using is doing the job. I was really happy to hear from Charles when he said he has flown cameras on Steadicams on motorized off road vehicles before and that it's been done for years by lots of people. They work great at eliminating vibration. They use the term fly a GlideCam, or Steadicam because that's what it does. You can run down stairs and the camera fly's down. I actually wore the GlideCam vest while riding the quad to try and eliminate the problem. A lot of work to do it that way. I was willing to do that to get the job done. But even when the vest is worn and the GlideCam never touches anything on the quad, although it helps, it does not eliminate the problem with the footage. I am of the "opinion" that any other format would work on my mount. I might add, a confident opinion. That's how smooth the camera is flying.

I mentioned that I was going to try the new panasonic HVX200. Well, I've decided to give the whole HD format another year to come up to speed at my price range. The P2 cards are outrageously expensive. 1700 dollars for eight minuets of record time. 34 hundred for 16 minuets. Wow, that makes a days recording on a moving vehicle in the middle of nowhere a huge challenge. From what I understand we are on the edge of new technology that will give us up to 30 gigs in a solid state card within a year, cheap too. Or at least that's the speculation. When that happens the solid state recording will come of age. I'll fly my associate down here again and we will do our project is SD this year. Although I have to tell you. That may get my projects rolling again, but frankly. The way I feel about the scenery I am recording, I will be starting at zero when I finally get into HD. Being in Baja where things are hard to get. I was considering burning the PD-170 tapes I've made because my archive doesn't really start until I change formats. If I go to solid state of course, I'll keep them. The HVX200 could be perfect for me. No moving parts. That's great. I bet the batteries will last a long time with no mechanical parts moving. A very exciting innovation.

Ken E.... Former owner of Studio E in northern Calif..

Charles Papert · August 26th, 2005, 10:04 AM

Click here for various Steadicam hard-mounts on vehicles, including some ATV's--none are mine, but it might be illustrative.

Chris Hurd · August 26th, 2005, 10:19 AM

Cool link! Thanks Charles,

Boyd Ostroff · August 26th, 2005, 10:26 AM

Yeah, very cool. Some of those things look really scary though, especially this one: http://www.steadicenter.com/details.php?image_id=2522... I hope they weren't driving at highway speeds!

One other thing I don't understand about all this. When I've used my glidecam 2000 outside on a windy day it's a real problem. How does this work when you're driving around in an open vehicle? Or is my problem just that I've been using the lightweight little PDX-10?

Steven White · August 26th, 2005, 10:46 AM

If you're seeing the artifacts in native DV shot material on the FX1, it's not a codec problem.

From the sample video on the first page, it looks to me like you're seeing resononaces of either something in the lens, the stabiliser or the CCD block of the camera. If it is a resonance, you'll be SOL. But I wouldn't expect a resonance to be so broad. Especially considering how much the revs are likely to change on an ATV.

Looking at the "good" steadicam shots, it would seem this footage will already pushing the limits of long GOP MPEG-2. You have a lot of new information in each frame, and this combined with any vibration will probably ruin the shots. There's probably no chance for a good post-production image stabilization. HDV isn't one of those formats that can handle a lot of instability on the front end. If I was going to think about "camera shake" as an effect, I'd add it in post to be sure... but like you said - removing it will be a no go.

I am curious about something though. In an ealier post CF24 was brought up, CF24 will not give this kind of artifact. However, in the "every setting" you've tried - have you tried CF30? It may provide better results than the 60i in this type of situation. It's a shame the CF modes have gotten labeled as "effects" - they're not. They're just atypical sampling methods. CF30 ought to get rid of any interlace and 4:2:0 problems you're experiencing to give the MPEG-2 codec a bit of a break.

-Steve

Ken Eberhard · August 26th, 2005, 12:48 PM

Thanks again Charles, That is really a great site. It's great to see so many variations on a theme. As you can see, most mounts are hard mounted to the vehicle and the rest left to the GlideCam/SteadyCam. The camera I have would not work in many of those places. My mount is so simple by comparison. Mine mounts to the quad rack behind and to the left of me. The arm extends forward and the sled hangs just to the left of my left knee. I drive with my right hand and guide the camera lightly with my left. My shots aren't as well composed as if I only had one thing to do. But then for my purpose. I shoot lots of footage and use a small amount. Wide angle only. I can set up along the way and do drive buys and tripod mounts to gain other perspectives.

I want to pose a question to this forum. Now that I am of the opinion that the HDV format in general is unusable when exposed to extremely low vibration and I've decided to sell my camera on ebay. Am I obligated by ethics to tell the new buyer about the camera's limitations? And if that's a yes to me, than is it true that Sony should do the same?

I see many disappointed producers in those pictures I just looked at if they where all set up in a distant land with all their energy riding on an HDV camera. They may think this is a major problem too. Even if you think they are dumb for not testing things first.

Steve, you sound like a knowledgeable man. Can you say definitively that the FX-1 does not first generate an HDV codec, and then downsize to DV in real time before it gets to tape?... Because that's what I am speculating... Thus the same problem in both modes... Sony replaced my lens assembly and stabilizer printed circuit before they said it was not repairable and the nature of the format.

Also, the CF modes, they all make it look worse. I don't think anything can clean up the mess that's created at the root level. Again, my opinion... What do you think?

Thanks... Ken E

Ken Eberhard · August 26th, 2005, 01:02 PM

Sorry, I missed a question...

I add lots of weight to the bottom of my sled to hold it down in the wind. You have to adjust the arm tension to compensate for the extra weight. The extra weight smoothes the whole ride out also. It makes the forward and back tilt a bit of a push. But it's the best compromise I have found.

Ken E

Steven White · August 26th, 2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Am I obligated by ethics to tell the new buyer about the camera's limitations?

So long as you haven't damaged the camera, I see no reason why you can't advertise it the same way as any other FX1. This problem you are experiencing is in all likelihood a problem with all FX1's, and as a result, by giving the model number, you're giving adequate information.

That said, I think the buyer has the right to know how the camera was used by its former owner - if they're wise enough to ask it. They're certainly allowed to ask why you're selling it.

Quote:

than is it true that Sony should do the same?

Sony placed no guarantees that the camera would work with a specific mount on a specific ATV. If this were a camera specifically designed for this job, with some stupid "Sony FXXXTREME1" name, then yeah - I think they ought to put "may be susceptible to vibration" in the fine print.

Quote:

Even if you think they are dumb for not testing things first.

There's only so much testing you can do. But **** happens. I think this kind of defect would be as tough to detect for Sony as it would be for users.

Quote:

Can you say definitively that the FX-1 does not first generate an HDV codec, and then downsize to DV in real time before it gets to tape?

I'll see if I can come up with a test today or tomorrow. I'm thinking a strobe light might help with that.

-Steve

Ken Eberhard · August 26th, 2005, 02:01 PM

In my case, it's more like how the camera was not used. I bet it spent less than an hour on a quad, possibly less. It never got any further than around the block.

I am of the opinion that Sony knows. I would even bet that's why Panasonic didn't sign on to the format. As they say, the reason they didn't sign on to the HDV format is = Quality.

You can bet all those vehicle mounted Cam users would have been surprised by the limitations. After all, we've been doing it with other camera's... We would only expect... Especially with Sony. I've had tons of Sony gear for many years. From large formated pro decks to four PD 150 cameras at once. I've had nothing but stellar results from them and great service including repairing the audio buzz in the 150's. I suspect the repair center was surprised when the engineers in Japan told them, sorry, not way this camera is going to work under those conditions. And again, those conditions aren't so bad to expect a problem. Not unless your in the know....

Ken E

Ken Eberhard · August 26th, 2005, 06:14 PM

Boyd, I was just reading on a thread where you are active that folks are having trouble keying HDV... I wonder, would it help solve our question about whether HDV is down converted to DV in camera before it goes to tape in DV record mode by recording something with the FX-1 in DV mode and try to key it...? Do the compression artifacts of HDV show up there? If so, then my assumption would seem to be true. If not, I could be wrong.. If someone would try this it might help our quandary... Thanks.. just thinking to much again... Ken E.

Boyd Ostroff · August 26th, 2005, 06:53 PM

Well I don't have any plans to try keying with my Z1 at the moment, but maybe someone else has some thoughts.

Did you catch this post by DSE regarding the new JVC? The good news is that it's designed to handle vibration. The bad news it that it's also designed to fall apart. ;-)

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....39&postcount=5

August 26th, 2005, 10:04 AM	#66
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Click here for various Steadicam hard-mounts on vehicles, including some ATV's--none are mine, but it might be illustrative. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

August 26th, 2005, 10:19 AM	#67
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Cool link! Thanks Charles, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 24th, 2005, 01:36 PM	#62
Ken Eberhard Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Baja California, Sur, Mexico Posts: 48	Good try, And yes, believe me or not, I tried that too. But each frame is goofy... No chance of recovering clarity.

August 26th, 2005, 04:00 AM	#64
Kaku Ito Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Posts: 1,382	From my experiences shooting onboard of donwhilling MTB in the mountain, you really have to lock it tight to elminate the vibration. I can believe Ken's problems because that is what I noticed on onboard HC1 footage that I shot with my fully airsuspended mountainbike on street, if I don't lower the air of the tires, footage is really shakey (vibration is coming form the roughness of the asphalt grain, not bumps). Some people said the footage is nice but I did mention at that time, I have to do something with the vibration. I've been thinking the way to absorb the vibration, so if I find any then I will let you know. I love your footage ken. ATV is great. Also, someone mentioned about the cheapy does better job, I suspect the cheapy ones I have don't really have full frame spec nor fast shutter speed. That usually makes it look better. Also, I'm thinking it is probably the best to helmet mount HC1. Because our body is the best absorption and suspention that I can think.

August 26th, 2005, 06:49 AM	#65
Ken Eberhard Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Baja California, Sur, Mexico Posts: 48	Thanks for the compliment on the footage Kaku. It's really fun to do. The point I can't stress enough is, the mount I am using is doing the job. I was really happy to hear from Charles when he said he has flown cameras on Steadicams on motorized off road vehicles before and that it's been done for years by lots of people. They work great at eliminating vibration. They use the term fly a GlideCam, or Steadicam because that's what it does. You can run down stairs and the camera fly's down. I actually wore the GlideCam vest while riding the quad to try and eliminate the problem. A lot of work to do it that way. I was willing to do that to get the job done. But even when the vest is worn and the GlideCam never touches anything on the quad, although it helps, it does not eliminate the problem with the footage. I am of the "opinion" that any other format would work on my mount. I might add, a confident opinion. That's how smooth the camera is flying. I mentioned that I was going to try the new panasonic HVX200. Well, I've decided to give the whole HD format another year to come up to speed at my price range. The P2 cards are outrageously expensive. 1700 dollars for eight minuets of record time. 34 hundred for 16 minuets. Wow, that makes a days recording on a moving vehicle in the middle of nowhere a huge challenge. From what I understand we are on the edge of new technology that will give us up to 30 gigs in a solid state card within a year, cheap too. Or at least that's the speculation. When that happens the solid state recording will come of age. I'll fly my associate down here again and we will do our project is SD this year. Although I have to tell you. That may get my projects rolling again, but frankly. The way I feel about the scenery I am recording, I will be starting at zero when I finally get into HD. Being in Baja where things are hard to get. I was considering burning the PD-170 tapes I've made because my archive doesn't really start until I change formats. If I go to solid state of course, I'll keep them. The HVX200 could be perfect for me. No moving parts. That's great. I bet the batteries will last a long time with no mechanical parts moving. A very exciting innovation. Ken E.... Former owner of Studio E in northern Calif..

August 26th, 2005, 10:26 AM	#68
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Yeah, very cool. Some of those things look really scary though, especially this one: http://www.steadicenter.com/details.php?image_id=2522... I hope they weren't driving at highway speeds! One other thing I don't understand about all this. When I've used my glidecam 2000 outside on a windy day it's a real problem. How does this work when you're driving around in an open vehicle? Or is my problem just that I've been using the lightweight little PDX-10?

August 26th, 2005, 10:46 AM	#69
Steven White Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 547	If you're seeing the artifacts in native DV shot material on the FX1, it's not a codec problem. From the sample video on the first page, it looks to me like you're seeing resononaces of either something in the lens, the stabiliser or the CCD block of the camera. If it is a resonance, you'll be SOL. But I wouldn't expect a resonance to be so broad. Especially considering how much the revs are likely to change on an ATV. Looking at the "good" steadicam shots, it would seem this footage will already pushing the limits of long GOP MPEG-2. You have a lot of new information in each frame, and this combined with any vibration will probably ruin the shots. There's probably no chance for a good post-production image stabilization. HDV isn't one of those formats that can handle a lot of instability on the front end. If I was going to think about "camera shake" as an effect, I'd add it in post to be sure... but like you said - removing it will be a no go. I am curious about something though. In an ealier post CF24 was brought up, CF24 will not give this kind of artifact. However, in the "every setting" you've tried - have you tried CF30? It may provide better results than the 60i in this type of situation. It's a shame the CF modes have gotten labeled as "effects" - they're not. They're just atypical sampling methods. CF30 ought to get rid of any interlace and 4:2:0 problems you're experiencing to give the MPEG-2 codec a bit of a break. -Steve

August 26th, 2005, 12:48 PM	#70
Ken Eberhard Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Baja California, Sur, Mexico Posts: 48	Thanks again Charles, That is really a great site. It's great to see so many variations on a theme. As you can see, most mounts are hard mounted to the vehicle and the rest left to the GlideCam/SteadyCam. The camera I have would not work in many of those places. My mount is so simple by comparison. Mine mounts to the quad rack behind and to the left of me. The arm extends forward and the sled hangs just to the left of my left knee. I drive with my right hand and guide the camera lightly with my left. My shots aren't as well composed as if I only had one thing to do. But then for my purpose. I shoot lots of footage and use a small amount. Wide angle only. I can set up along the way and do drive buys and tripod mounts to gain other perspectives. I want to pose a question to this forum. Now that I am of the opinion that the HDV format in general is unusable when exposed to extremely low vibration and I've decided to sell my camera on ebay. Am I obligated by ethics to tell the new buyer about the camera's limitations? And if that's a yes to me, than is it true that Sony should do the same? I see many disappointed producers in those pictures I just looked at if they where all set up in a distant land with all their energy riding on an HDV camera. They may think this is a major problem too. Even if you think they are dumb for not testing things first. Steve, you sound like a knowledgeable man. Can you say definitively that the FX-1 does not first generate an HDV codec, and then downsize to DV in real time before it gets to tape?... Because that's what I am speculating... Thus the same problem in both modes... Sony replaced my lens assembly and stabilizer printed circuit before they said it was not repairable and the nature of the format. Also, the CF modes, they all make it look worse. I don't think anything can clean up the mess that's created at the root level. Again, my opinion... What do you think? Thanks... Ken E

August 26th, 2005, 01:02 PM	#71
Ken Eberhard Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Baja California, Sur, Mexico Posts: 48	Sorry, I missed a question... I add lots of weight to the bottom of my sled to hold it down in the wind. You have to adjust the arm tension to compensate for the extra weight. The extra weight smoothes the whole ride out also. It makes the forward and back tilt a bit of a push. But it's the best compromise I have found. Ken E

August 26th, 2005, 02:01 PM	#73
Ken Eberhard Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Baja California, Sur, Mexico Posts: 48	In my case, it's more like how the camera was not used. I bet it spent less than an hour on a quad, possibly less. It never got any further than around the block. I am of the opinion that Sony knows. I would even bet that's why Panasonic didn't sign on to the format. As they say, the reason they didn't sign on to the HDV format is = Quality. You can bet all those vehicle mounted Cam users would have been surprised by the limitations. After all, we've been doing it with other camera's... We would only expect... Especially with Sony. I've had tons of Sony gear for many years. From large formated pro decks to four PD 150 cameras at once. I've had nothing but stellar results from them and great service including repairing the audio buzz in the 150's. I suspect the repair center was surprised when the engineers in Japan told them, sorry, not way this camera is going to work under those conditions. And again, those conditions aren't so bad to expect a problem. Not unless your in the know.... Ken E

August 26th, 2005, 06:14 PM	#74
Ken Eberhard Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Baja California, Sur, Mexico Posts: 48	Boyd, I was just reading on a thread where you are active that folks are having trouble keying HDV... I wonder, would it help solve our question about whether HDV is down converted to DV in camera before it goes to tape in DV record mode by recording something with the FX-1 in DV mode and try to key it...? Do the compression artifacts of HDV show up there? If so, then my assumption would seem to be true. If not, I could be wrong.. If someone would try this it might help our quandary... Thanks.. just thinking to much again... Ken E.

August 26th, 2005, 06:53 PM	#75
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	Well I don't have any plans to try keying with my Z1 at the moment, but maybe someone else has some thoughts. Did you catch this post by DSE regarding the new JVC? The good news is that it's designed to handle vibration. The bad news it that it's also designed to fall apart. ;-) http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....39&postcount=5