Sorry if this was posted here before but I didn't see it and I thought some of you might be interested in seeing this Sony Promo for the EX.

All it takes is money money money ;-)

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcamEX_index.shtml


Don

Thanks for posting the link Don,

It's early days still, and from such lo-res footage one must resist drawing any solid conclusions... but @ around 1:34 into this montage there is a brief street scene with high contrast areas on the pedestrians clothing - this shot is demonstrating some worryingly heavy CA/blooming. There is minor CA on some other shots too - although far less off-putting.

I'm concerned that Sony's new (and pretty smart) implementation of the manual/auto lens does have some downsides to it.

OK, so you might just put this down to compression artefacting but I doubt it, here's praying that this is just one of those early prototype floors that will be resolved (no pun intended) in production.

Roll-on the hands-on footage from more independant sources...

Dave.

OK, so you might just put this down to compression artefacting...

I don't think that CA could be caused by compression artifacts. In the shot you are referring to, Dave, it's clearly chromatic aberration. I remember reading somewhere that the camera is supposed to have an electronic compensation for CA built in....? Is that right? If that were the case, it's possible that the issue in the Sony video could be only a matter of early prototype that was/will be later resolved by updating the circuitry.

As far as I understand, the CA-correction circuitry comes into play with the Sony wide converter mounted on the EX1.

I don't think that CA could be caused by compression artifacts. CA (chromatic aberration) is one cause of fringing. Compression artifacts are another cause of fringing. But we've covered this ground before in our XL H1 forum.

Not all fringing is caused by CA (in fact, only a minority of fringing is caused by CA). Compression artifacts and chroma sampling issues are the most common cause of fringing. Hope this helps,

The image in question has a vertical pole that has slight green fringing on one side and purple on the other. My understanding is that this is CA, not compression artifacts.

even if it's CA, it's clearly not as bad as the Canon XL/XH cameras

Thanks for the clarification Chris,

I'm not 100% sure of course, as without the benefit of an uncompressed HD grab no one can be. Subjectively to my eyes however, thats what I would call it in this example.
My hunch is that the shot was taken in worst-case conditions where CA is most likely to reveal itself, ie. using a long(ish)-lens on a high-contrast scene in bright daylight conditions. A combination that experience tells most of us to be cautious of when running and gunning.

One thing that this video does confirm in my mind is that the severity of apparent CA is something that deserves further testing when the production models are out to play in a few weeks.

Take that as a polite request...

Thanks,
Dave.

As I mentioned before:

"I remember reading somewhere that the camera is supposed to have an electronic compensation for CA built in....? Is that right? If that were the case, it's possible that the issue in the Sony video could be only a matter of early prototype that was/will be later resolved by updating the circuitry."

And yes, it doesn't seem as bad as the Canon or JVC HDxxx series. The CA on the JVC could be really bad. And it's caused by the optics/chip - no compression involved there.

Based on Nigel's article, the EX shows little CA.
At least where he mentions the high contrast white swan against a dark background.

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=171

Uh guys, it's an under $8,000 HD camera with a good but probably not great lense. Even the F950 series HDCAM with a $15,000 to $20,000 lense on the front has some CA fringe appear from time to time. I've seen it and worked around it and even just lived with it on occasion because it was barely noticeable and not a show stopper.

You cannot get a perfect one piece attached lense camera for under $8k.
But in this case I think you can get a good camera that meets more than 90% of your general Professional Broadcast HD production needs.

Even with some CA fringe,

Cheers.

You cannot get a perfect one piece attached lense camera for under $8k.


I surely did not write that...???
I'm sure everyone knows about lens quality verses price. But, what we are hearing is this may be one of the better lens to be offered in this price range for a fixed lens camera.

Sorry Steve that certainly wasn't aimed at you, it was just my own badly and broadly worded simple minded BS statement. I've read that the lense is good for the price as well. I guess I was afraid that we would see the same thing as on the JVC ProHD forum about a year ago where people were constantly trashing the standard lense for CA, which cost around $1,500. It got really old after a while.

I guess I can relax about that. A lot of smart people here so far. Certainly smarter than me. When the camera comes out I'm sure we'll share lots of war stories and work arounds.

Cheers.

Uh guys, it's an under $8,000 HD camera with a good but probably not great lense. Even the F950 series HDCAM with a $15,000 to $20,000 lense on the front has some CA fringe appear from time to time. I've seen it and worked around it and even just lived with it on occasion because it was barely noticeable and not a show stopper.

Not unlike getting some CA on my F350 with a $16,000 lens on it. When I went to do some research on the CA issue, I learned that it's actually harder to minimize CA in the manufacture of HD lenses. If I can find the link again, I'll post it.

-gb-

What about that supposed electronic compensation? I remember seeing a mention somewhere but cannot find it now...

I hear you Greg. Your statement is well understood.

With the EX and upcoming cams, RED included, cost verses image quality has improved considerably over the last couple years. I was wondering when this would kick in for the prosumer video cameras. It certainly has for Digital SLRs.
Of course, not to say that RED is prosumer, this is one hell of a pro camera at a decent price! For that matter,for some, the EX may fall into a pro bracket too.

I have no intention of trashing this camera before it's even hit the shelves, it really is looking very promising (on the most part) so far. Certainly for the money, there is little to be dis-heartened about.

All I was voicing was my concern that from perhaps the only real footage (albeit highly compressed) that has been made available so far, there was one shot that stood out as demonstrating a noticeable (and IMO quite distracting) degree of CA. I am not trying to rain on Sony's parade with my comments, more to simply point out the direction of some clouds ! ;)

The questions really are;
1) How much of the effect has been exacerbated by the compression? I would expect lower-res images to disguise CA or make it less noticeable - being hidden/lost within the lower definition.

2) Is this 'as bad as it would ever get' for this camera OR are there conditions where it might be even more of an issue?

3) Is this just an early prototype/QC tolerance issue?

Again, I am not attempting to flame here - just pointing out an issue that I think deserves further testing when the time comes.

Thanks,
Dave.

Sorry if this was posted here before but I didn't see it and I thought some of you might be interested in seeing this Sony Promo for the EX.

Don

Here you go! http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=103909 ;-)