This is all quite odd. If it was just an interlace issue, wouldn't it have been as prevalent in the PD150 or VX2000 or whatever Ken used prior to the Z1?


I would think because the HDV format is capturing more detail, it would be more noticeable, where that sort of movement might register as blurry on SD.

What was the shutter speed?

I can understand all the different feelings around this issue. Again, I want to state that I am way down here in lower Baja. I only have what I have. I have a PD 170 mounted on a GlideCam mounted on a Quad doing wonderful video, and unusable footage with the FX-1. Really, the GlideCam looks like it's doing it's job beautifully. When I first look at the extended end of the lens while in motion. It looks like a bird in flight. I have to bend over and look with my glasses on to see if there is any vibration at all. It is microscopic. Yet the picture is distorted. The same exact mount with the PD 170 is as it appears to the naked eye, it flies right along like a dream, it's a lot of fun to shoot with. Up rugged terrane and over washboard dirt roads. I am taping some of the most beautiful areas on the planet. I am building a wonderful new studio with 360 degree views of the ocean and the mountains. I have several hundred grand into my set up. This is a small item to replace on the grand scale. I'm just frustrated from being so far away from service and options. You can't import anything into Mexico without a 32% import fee. So the only way to get anything of value here is to either fly in and out with it in your hand, of drive the Baja's full length with it. It takes time to get things resolved down here. I have a lot of good things to look at, about the time my new studio is finished, I'll have resolved my camera issue one way or another, for me it's another format, and get on with documenting one of the most pristine area's left on the planet. I don't feel sorry for me. I'm the luckiest man I know..

My final thought is that the compression is unable to handle the extra data that happens when the lens is vibrated at a very minor level. It just doesn't have the capacity to develop all that tiny detail and resolve it like an uncompressed format.

In any case, that's all I know... I have the two cameras and the difference is one is usable, one is not.

Thanks, and sorry for my limited perspective. Ken

One question: are you shooting with builtin 16:9 mode on the PD-170? If so, the camera is taking 360 lines and up-rezzing them to 480. On the FX1 it takes takes 1080 lines and down-rezzes them to 480....

No, I'm using the 170 locked down on manuel focus, manual zoom, full wide angle with a wide angle adapter. No steady shot, it will leave artifacts even on the 170, but only a pros eyes will see them in most cases. The same with with FX-1, fully locked down, no steady shot. Steady shot really looks bad, the greater the setting, the worse it looks. Really, I've tried it all and discussed it all with a lot of people. And again, I'm kind of trying to sign out of this thread. I've covered all these issues in previous postings. And if you had looked at the posting of the PD-170 you would see I am shooting in 4x3. No offense meant, this is a long thread and it's hard to get it all. The 16x9 footage on the one posting is the FX-1 footage shot on a tripod, (beautiful by the way) with the PD 170 4x3 composited over the 16x9. Later in the video you see the PD-170 full screen in many different terranes. It really works great.

so you don't have to go search, one more time..

Good footage: http://homepage.mac.com/kene3/QuadHeaven.html (no problems here)

Thanks again.. Ken

Sorry, I can't watch the video because it needs Quicktime 7; can't upgrade to that because it will break other stuff on my system.

Good luck with your project, it sounds very cool.

All I can say on the matter is...

The samples look exactly like what I'd expect. I certainly wouldn't use my FX-1e in similar circumstances without making sure that ALL vibration regardless of it's frequency was totally eliminated, regardless of the sort of camera I was using.

To suggest that the 'effect' seen is a major problem with HDV is somewhat of a leap, given that it's more of a problem with eliminating the specific vibration that appears to be the cause of this seeming issue. If the problem was one with HDV in general, it would show up for you at all vibration levels - but you've even stated that it is at a specific vibration frequency.

For my 2c worth; that means the problem is with the vibration frequency and how it causes the whole camera system to perform/compensate for something I'm sure the designers never envisaged as a common usage condition. As for putting my FX-1e on an operating clothes dryer to see what sort of image I'd get compared to a similarly set-up SD camcorder...that wouldn't be something I'd do because I know what I'd see, and it would be beyond the standard operating conditions for either camera. If I did so, I would do so knowing that I have pushed the boundaries of each cameras' terms of use - and I'd need to take my own precautions to ensure the unit operates as close to those intended, and be aware of my responsibilities in doing so.

Hopefully you will be able to test one of the newer HD/HDV camcorders under the same circumstances, however I suspect that serendipity will play an essential part in finding a HD/HDV camcorder that will perform adequately under the same conditions/scenario.

Just a quick observation...

To me, the HDV clip that is used as an example to my mind actually gives a more accurate impression of the reality of the vibration to be experienced on your ATV, than the SD stuff in your promo video. As the clarity is also greater in the FX-1 clip, the overall image quality is also superior - despite the vibration. I'd bet the ATV really does vibrate that much through it's rev range. I can see that such accuracy could be a bad thing.

As you can see, I'm not out of here yet... Boyd, I am loading a WMV file to my site now. Although I have to warn you, it's 45 megs compared to the 16 meg QT file. My experience with QT7 has been great. I even upgraded before I got FCP 5. It worked great even when I didn't have QT Pro... I did lose some export options that you may find you can't live without. Then again, for thirty bucks you can upgrade to pro without buying FCP 5. I did it because we use iChat video a lot with our family in the states and it's a significant upgrade. FCP 4 worked fine with QT 7, none pro version. I'll post the link when I get this huge file uploaded. I hope you have broadband... OOPs? I just got it loaded and it wont play. Do you have iChat working. We can exchange large files that way.. my iChat address is ...

"All I can say on the matter is":

I have done as you suggested. Again, the GlideCam is fantastic. All visible vibration is eliminated by that wonderful device. And again, consider my perspective. To me this is a huge problem. It eliminates almost every application I would want to use it for. Not only the Quad video's that are my bread and butter now. But I am also planning on going out on fishing expeditions after Marlin and game fish. The problem would eliminate my ability to use a tripod on a fishing boat. Only hand held or vest mounted GlideCam would work, doable, but to lose a tripod shot would present it's challenges. So for me to use the term "Major Problem" is an absolute truth.

2c worth: Yes, the problem is with vibration frequency. Like a slightly rumbling car, a boat, a helicopter, and yes an ATV. Yes, my use is beyond what they designed the product for... However, if I had the camera here now, I would go out and film the camera in motion with my 170 and show you how smooth this mount is. My concern has never been about the tinny vibration, I never saw it until I had the problem with the FX-1 and I bent over with glasses on to see it. It's about dust, or an accident. I know I am taking chances with the camera. But even in the worst case I crash and destroy the camera completely. Well, if I make twenty grand or more with the product, it works out. I never would have put a fifty grand camera in the same place. The FX-1 cost around the same as my PD-170. A reasonable risk for such gain. I am aware of the fact that I am pushing the accepted boundaries of the camera. Again, I wasn't going to send this camera in for repair. I was going to accept it and move on. But this forum came to the conclusion that the camera had a repairable problem. So I sent it in, and that takes months for me to do from down here. And no, I will never buy another HDV camera again. The MP2 encoding has it's limitations, according to me. I feel confident that a none compressed HD would work fine. And with the new panasonic coming out with a price range of an acceptable risk, I'll buy one and do it with it, after I test it that is. Besides, I'm having fun doing these video's. I've got a list of projects waiting for me to do for the QuadMan who runs a big business down here. It's profitable. Although at this point in my career, I don't want to work much for others. I like being my own producer. But it's fun and I'm making money doing it.

Steve, I have to disagree with you about the clarity of the HDV stuff under the vibration. It appears as a mushed up mess. It looks like the auto focus is running amuck. It's completely unusable. The 170 has a great picture, and yes, the resolution of the HDV is fantastic. I love the quality of the pictures on a tripod. It's truly a great breakthrough. HD at SD data rates, wonderful. But be aware, according to me, it has it's limitations.

Adiós, Ken

<< I never would have put a fifty grand camera in the same place. >>

Fear not Ken, I myself have flown cameras worth five times that amount in exactly the same way. ATV Steadicam mounts are very common, been around for years and assuming they are properly rigged and secured and the driver is responsible, perfectly safe to operate.

Not to say accidents can't happen, of course; it's a small motorized vehicle! I myself had a component break in my arm during a particularly strenous set of G's about 5 years ago and the rig was thrown off the back. Insurance covered the damage and I got some shiny new parts for my rig. C'est la vie.

I knew someone who was shooting on-board sport bike footage with a low-end z-something canon who was getting pretty nice shots. He then upgraded to a Panny GS400, a camera that I personally own and love, and got complete garbage out of it on his bike. The vibration made it completely unusable. In the end, he discovered that OPTICAL stabilization on the GS was a big part of the problem whereas the electronic stabilization on the Z cam actually worked much better. He ended up returning his GS because the only options on that cam were optical or nothing, and niether worked particularly well. He went back to cheesy cam with electronic and actually got better results. This probably has nothing to do with your setup, and I know nothing about the 170, but I thought this was worth mentioning in case it helps in any way.

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.

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

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.

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.

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..

Click here (http://www.steadicenter.com/categories.php?cat_id=9&sessionid=7105186990712c02837fe7ab638350ec) for various Steadicam hard-mounts on vehicles, including some ATV's--none are mine, but it might be illustrative.

Cool link! Thanks Charles,

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.php?p=351439&postcount=5

I'm not sure how to take that posting. "The rep said" (What, the break away features of parts?) "was due to allowing the camera to function better under high vibration, such as found on boats, motorcycles, etc." That's a strange statement. Maybe it's just not coming across right. While at the head of the posting it says they where having all kinds of image problems. Not very reassuring, it does show an awareness of the problem I am having though. At least it seems so. And if so, it doesn't make me feel they fixed the problem on that unit either. With keying problems and imaging problems under minor vibrations. It all makes me move further away from the format. Don't get me wrong. I love the image too. I understand a lot of folks loving this camera, the Sony, to make that statement clear. If I was still shooting musical performances with muti cams. It would be great I bet... I'd be altogether on the other side of the fence.

Once I pictured what you were doing with that ATV, Ken, I must say I was astonished--it had never occurred to me before that a one-man band driver and operator set-up was even possible.

Regarding the wind issue, yes, it is a problem with vehicle mounts. Some use gyros to help with this (I saw a Glidecam at NAB a few years ago with gyros on it--interesting, but I'm willing to bet that no Glidecam operator out there is going to be spring for the money for those). Wind screening is a great way to go, although for a forward-looking lens position not all that easy. The optimal setup for a physical wind break when the wind is comingn at the lens is to set up two permeable (such as a double net) blocks in a V formation behind the camera, with the open end of the V facing the camera (the camera almost inside the V). This will create a little bit of a calm zone where the camera flies. Not perfect, but better than not having one at all. I usually end up on the rear of an ATV looking backwards, and have had a windblock rigged right behind the rig, which is very effective.

I set up a thread to test your theory Ken.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=50094

-Steve

I'll take a picture of the mount later today and post it... Maybe I should send it to your referenced site too. But then again, should I let my idea out.. oops to late.. besides, sharing knowledge is the only way to be in this business. I've fired engineers before for keeping things to themselves trying to make themselves indispensable, doesn't work with me. We are all learning... With my mount I have forward, sideways, right and left perspectives and rear... just a spin of the sled's post... I'll post my photo late PM most likely.. Ken E.

Looking forward to seeing it. And I wouldn't worry too much about "letting it out"--I think most people would prefer to split the duties of operating and driving...!

To me this just looks like perfectly ordinary interlace artifacts: I honestly don't see what the problem is.

The only difference I can think of between the Z1 DV and PD170 DV is that on the Z1 you're scaling down the DV footage when you letterbox, whereas on the PD170 you'd have native 4:3. That will make interlace artifacts even worse.

Okay Charles, here's the picts of my GlideCam rig.

http://homepage.mac.com/kene3/GlideCam.html

Ken E.

Nice job, Ken!

You can really see how much flex is occuring throughout the suspension system--even though your mounting point is biased backwards maybe 10 degrees, by the time you get to the gimbal pin at the front of the arm you can see that it has shifted to a forward bias of another 10 degrees. I would guess that you are having to hold the rig in place otherwise it would want to fly forwards, yes?

This actually is one of the as-yet unsolved issues with vehicle mounts; unlike the body mounted rig which allows the operator to dictate the floating position of the rig through his hip position, with a hard mount you are truly at the mercy of the topography. I'm sure Ken will back me up that as you traverse a grade with the vehicle, the rig "wants" to shoot out in the downhill direction. Same also with corners; the centripetal acceleration requires a good grip to rein in the rig.

In any event, Ken, I hope your format issues work out and you are able to keep shooting--best of luck with all of it!

It does want to move out from me some. But I don't find it a big problem. I can actually let go of it for a moment and it will float, not for long. I think I should be using the V16 though. I can see that this light weight unit is getting stressed with the extra weight I have on it. I've got the extra plates bolted under the sled. This is really a great thing to shoot with. I could also use the lower monitor because the on camera monitor is out of sight. I point and shoot mostly. The wide angle makes it work out. I get pretty good at it after awhile. I've done some pretty bumpy, hilly terrane and gotten great footage. You may notice I have the mount tilted up some to compensate for the bias. I can swing my arm out and tilt the camera down to get a shot of the wheel too. Or across the front of my body, and even a side profile of myself riding along.

Lots of fun down here in Baja with this.. Ken E.

Ken has an interesting, and for him serious, problem. I certainly can "feel his pain" 8-)

As I will discuss following, I don't believe it is an "format" (HDV compression) problem. I believe it is a vibration isolation problem.

Based on looking at Ken's first clip and the tests and comments he has made I am of the strong opinion he's dealing with a vibration-band-limited problem. Ken has stated that the problem is reduced at higher rpm.

And I also believe the problem he is seeing is physical (mechanical vibration somewhere in the optical chain) and not mathematical (due to the HDV compression algorithm). To my viewing the video clip shows the imagery vibrating pretty well in consonance with the ATV's.

Even though Ken stated that he could see no vibration at the lens I don't believe one can see the level of vibration causing the image "jitter" shown in the clip.

We obviously know that the problem starts with the ATV vibration. The fact that Ken sees it with the FX1 and not the PD170 can be due to at least factors - the two times higher vertical resolution of the FX1 and a potentially greater sensitivity to vibration for the FX1, or a combination of both. Also, the resonant frequency of th mechanical unit (the Glidecam plus camcorder) can be affected by the mass of the camcorder. The lower weight of the PD170 could shift the resonant frequency to a point not affected as much by the ATV at idle.

If we assume ( a BIG assumption in this situation) that Ken's camcorder is representative of all FX1/Z1U's, that is it doesn't have some anomaly causing, then the question is whether the ATV vibration can adequately isolated from the FX1 to permit good imaging.

In one posting Ken stated "Are you driving with the camera handheld, I'm sure there is no problem." To me this implies that Ken believes that a handheld FX1 would not be affected by the ATV vibration.

Is this true, Ken? If not, would you do such a test - handhold the camera while someone runs the ATV through the lower rpm range? Let someone else control the throttle so you have less coupling to the ATV.

If such handholding will eliminate the problem, then I would assert there is non-handheld solution possible.

Glidecam-type devices, by their very nature are "low pass filters". That is they allow for slow movements of the camcorder while removing higher frequency motion. But any such filter has a "corner frequency", the frequency at which the filter starts reducing higher motion frequencies. I believe in this situation the Glidecam is not rolling the higher frequencies off fast enough to eliminate the camcorder vibration.

Although not the same situation as Ken's I have posted a 3 min clip on my website that provides some footage of a car-mounted Z1U. I took the original video as a test of a windshield suction cup mount arrangement which can be seen in the clip. I made no particular attempt to minimize the vibration from the car to the camcorder. As can be seen in the clip the camera is resting on a white polystyrene block that isn't particularly soft. I have consider retesting with my Cine Saddle (bean bag) to see if that improves isolation but haven't had a chance to do that yet.

The clip is here: http://www.clamcamvideo.com/gallery.html#mount

I've tried to include samples covering fairly slow speed on a broken up paved road to fairly fast (50 mph) on a fairly smooth paved highway. At about 1:38 there's a scene of a roadside desert plant taken with the vehicle stopped but with the engine idling. At 2:02 there's a section of the pavement that is essentially flagstones. This paving ends at 2:30. The vehicle used - a Scion Xb - has some engine-induced vibration at idle that is reduced at higher rpm. I believe most of the vibration at speed comes from the road surface.

I have at least one alternative to the Glidecam that Ken might try to solve the problem but I'll save that discussion until we hear back from Ken.

Carroll Lam

Hi Carroll, Your clip and comments are very welcome. Your WMV file works pretty good, but it stalls frequently even with my 1 meg download speed. But as I examine your clip I see several places that seem to have the same problem I am having. One that seems to show it best is just over half way in you pull over to the right in a large pull out, after the bloom shot. As you start to pull back on the road look at the rock wall to the right. It seems to go fuzzy and I seem to see a doubling of the top wall line. I know your expecting some vibration distortion from your mount. But this may be more than that. It is very similar to my problem. Also, right at the start in the woods, the branches look like they go into a soft focus. Look at the logs as you pull back, there is one spot they look fuzzy too. This is another characteristic of the problem. Hi detail goes blurry, but on close examination it appears the camera can't get it straight, it has nothing to do with focus. Early in the video you hit some pretty rough stuff and the camera jumps a lot. I see traces of the problem there too. One test you might do, if you have one, use a DV camera, not the Z1 in DV mode, but another camera with the same mount and see if you get a much improved picture. My bet is you will.

And yes, it is a specific vibration frequency range that kicks the problem off. Sony also thought it was a mechanical problem in the lens assembly and they replaced it completely.

I'm going to add one more detail to this discussion. I have a 55 inch Mitsubishi HD monitor here also and I plugged the FX-1 directly into it via component video and the problem is there also. It does not seem to be an artifact of down converting.

And yes to the handheld on the ATV. It does help get rid of the problem. The camera works great until it is vibrated. The best I got was with my GlideCam vest on while riding on the back with someone else driving. But the problem is so prevalent even then that I didn't even want to consider cutting around it in the edit.

This test is perfect for the problem. I'm seeing unusable footage in this clip. If we can get the same test with a normal DV and compare, we all might come to some conclusions.

Thank you all for putting up with me... Ken E.

I might add. The jumpy characteristic of Carroll's clip is also the nature of the problem I am having. This kind of artifact can be the cause of the steady shot. Did you have it on or off? It looks to me like you have it off, because that's about as good as I can get mine to look in the rough. Turning it on only makes mine worse. This jumpy footage I'm seeing maybe from the WMV frame rate or compression though. Is that jumpy look on the master too? The feeling that part of the picture is hanging there for a moment before it goes on?

Thanks again.. Ken E.

Your WMV file works pretty good, but it stalls frequently even with my 1 meg download speed.
Not surprising. The average bit rate of that particular clip is 1.5 Mbps.


But as I examine your clip I see several places that seem to have the same problem I am having. One that seems to show it best is just over half way in you pull over to the right in a large pull out, after the bloom shot. As you start to pull back on the road look at the rock wall to the right. It seems to go fuzzy and I seem to see a doubling of the top wall line.
I'm pretty sure the Scion's hood goes through a maximum engine-induced vibration as its rpm increases so that is probably where it most closely matches your problem. You'll note from the pictures the setup the camcorder is basically retained in place by the cantilever mount from the suction cup but its weight is mostly supported by the stiff polystyrene block resting on the Scion's hood. Thus, the camcorder essentially experiences full hood vibrations.
One test you might do, if you have one, use a DV camera, not the Z1 in DV mode, but another camera with the same mount and see if you get a much improved picture. My bet is you will.
I'm sure that would be the case. I've done a lot of similar stuff with DV cams.

I have a 55 inch Mitsubishi HD monitor here also and I plugged the FX-1 directly into it via component video and the problem is there also.
Assuming you were in HDV mode this is another bit of evidence that the problem is mechanical, not mathematical. The component outputs are no way involved with the HDV compression process.

And yes to the handheld on the ATV. It does help get rid of the problem. The camera works great until it is vibrated.
I figured as much. Better vibration isolation means better image quality.

So....here are my conclusions based on the facts to date:

1. A couple of specific HDV camcorders (your FX1/my Z1U) are more susceptible to vibration than similar DV camcorders.

2. A properly setup Glidecam will not adequately isolate the problem vibration frequencies from the HDV camcorder.

3. Isolating the FX1 from the vibration souce (via the human body) is adequate to eliminate the problem.

4. The problem is vibrational motion of the image chain and not based on MPEG2 compression artifacts.

Some things we do not know:

a. Is the problem just due to the expected higher sensitivity of HD cameras to vibration?

b. Would another brand HDV camcorder (e.g., JVC) exhibit the same vibration sensitivity?

c. Would an HD camera (e.g. a Varicam or Pana HDX200 ) exhibit the same vibration sensitivity?

d. Can the current Glidecam setup be "tuned" to eliminate the problem vibration frequencies.

e. Are there other methods of vibration isolation that would eliminate the problem?

Questions a, b, and c can only be answered by someone with access to those units and are willing to do the testing.

Question d needs input from some good Steadicam/Glidecam "tuning" expert (Charles Papert?). Obviously the suspended weight and spring tensions need to be adjusted to try to move its rolloff frequency low enough to eliminate the problem vibration frequencies.

Question e would require tests. Two possible alternative methods of isolation (besides the human body) are some form of "bungee cam" or a Kenyon gyro suspension mount.

Obviously you have an investment in the Glidecam setup and alternative mounts may be prohibitive. Further work at tuning the Glidecam setup may be your least disruptive alternative.

Or, you may not wish to pursue the problem further. As you've stated you are going to put the FX1 up for sale.

Thank you all for putting up with me...
Well, the problem you discovered (and I validated) is of importance to those of us that use our cameras in sometimes extreme conditions and want to move into the "HD age". Your input has triggered a whole host of qualitative and quantitative tests by a variety of video experts on this forum resulting in very useful information and better understanding of the HDV format and its limitations.

We obviously haven't learned everthing there is know...yet. 8-)

Carroll Lam

Yes, the problem is with the Sony's HDV cameras... They seem to have two limitations. One is keying and the other is moving motorized vehicles. No big deal if you know that going in... I'm not that put out by it. I just wish it had been put up front.. Like in small print someplace that says "This camera format may not work well when exposed to minor vibrations." Or "in vibrating places other camera formats may work." That way you can go in with your eyes open to testing. Someone suggested that NASCAR is using them in their cars. I somehow doubt it. Is that a fact? And I don't think anyone is going to come up with a mount that will work. As I've stated. I have done hand held and vest mounted GlideCam.. Think about that. The GldieCam mounted on my vest, total separation via my body, plus the GlideCam.. That footage was better, but not usable without a lot of cutting. So I don't think anyone is going to do much better than that. I also put an air tube between two plywood plates and tied them together with straps so that the top board and the bottom board had no solid connections. Then mounted the GlideCam on the top board... No go. A bungee cam might work, but what a beast to control. And I can't think of how to do that on a quad. I bet the panasonic DVCPRO HD will work. In the photos on the link of Glide mounts. I saw some pretty nice cameras there. Any of them HD? I can't be the the first person to try HD of any format on a moving vehicle with minor vibration. I really do think it's the HDV encoding. And I'm still of the opinion the Sony first goes to HDV and converts it's to DV via it's real time down converter before it goes to tape as DV. No one has proven otherwise yet to my knowledge. That would explain the problem crossing over to the DV mode and explain away the idea it's a mechanical problem.

Now that I am sure it is not just my camera. And I can't fix the problem by buying another HDV and simply replacing this one. I am actually considering keeping it. Yes, I love the camera too. I may need muti cams in music production if I get back into that down here. So for now, I'll use it. I can always sell it later and the production value now is greater than the money I might lose by selling it later on down the line.

I think Panasonic is on the right track at this point. Make a reasonably priced 100 MBS camera. Although for me, it will have to be another year or so when the P2 cards come down in price and the capacity goes up.

Again, thanks for putting up with me.. Ken E.

One more posting of a movie clip...

http://homepage.mac.com/kene3/HDVtestSequence.html

In the first clip, see it go out of focus, oops, the focus is locked down..

That is odd, though it's not entirely surprising that that kind of vibration could cause problems for the focus mechanism. Are you certain that the focus was locked? I've never seen such problems on my Z1 in normal use.

In the third clip. How many guys are standing there?

Uh, one. Again, you seem to be complaining about... interlace artifacts. The FX1 is an interlaced camera, you will get interlace artifacts if you view it on a computer screen.

At some point here I am going to bow out of this thread... I've spent a lot of time here this last week.

Yes, I'm sure the focus was locked down. Absolutely. I bet you will see these problems if you put your camera in contact with a slight vibration. It's not an intlace problem, you could drop one of the fields and it would clean up.. but not with this stuff. It's in both fields. None repairable, none usable... Uh, one man, yes, but how many edges does the man have? I was just trying to add a little humor to the situation. The picture looks so bad I wouldn't put it on my bathroom wall. The posting I put up in QT can be frame advanced. You can download it into your computer by saving to disk in the lower right corner triangle. Take it into FCP and de-interlace it.. You may argue that it has gone through another compression. But it wont clean up in any format. It's all goofy, each and every field. At this point I believe we have duplicated the problem with two Z1's.

Adiós, Ken E

Yes, the problem is with the Sony's HDV cameras... They seem to have two limitations. One is keying and the other is moving motorized vehicles. No big deal if you know that going in... I'm not that put out by it. I just wish it had been put up front.. Like in small print someplace that says "This camera format may not work well when exposed to minor vibrations." Or "in vibrating places other camera formats may work." That way you can go in with your eyes open to testing. Someone suggested that NASCAR is using them in their cars. I somehow doubt it. .

Ken, I respectfully suggest the problem is with you and your workflow. I/we regularly key the Z1's, in Sony Vegas and in Serious Magic Ultra 2. Daily, I do this. I've also shown it to several hundred people in various classes and HDV presentations. I even have a really bad screen shot with beer stains, seamed background, and dark "blob" on the screen that I key in demos. You'll see some of that in this month's Studio Magazine.

Re; NASCAR; John Cline and his brother produce and shoot for NASCAR as official archivists of events. They are using Z1's in cars as crash cams, etc.
Jody Eldred shot the opening sequences of JAG from a BELL twin blade HELICOPTER with absolutly no stabilizing tools at all. Twin blades are painfully filled with vibration.

I've had my Z1 on the front of a motorcycle that jumped 60 feet in distance, at a height of approx 18 feet. The only problem was the landing, as one would expect.
Today, I spent about 10 mins with my Z1 on the front of my Rubicon at various speeds, just trying to see if it was nearly as bad as you suggest. I'll post pix when I find time to go shoot pix of me sitting on the Rubicon. (500cc, large Honda)

If you don't like HDV, that's fine it's certainly not for everyone. But to to make blanket statements like "can't key with it" etc is a little over the top. If HDV isn't working...then it's probably time to buy a much more expensive camera if you want HD, but then again...you'll find problems with any format on the front of an ATV rig if you don't have an expensive, well suited stabilizing system.

On the other hand, if you want to post an original, UNTOUCHED m2t somewhere, I'd be happy to look at it in a couple different apps. I can manage up to around 100 meg without complaint. I also have an HD-SDI monitor here at the moment to really delve into this.

after downloading that last DV rez clip...there's a WHOLE lot more to this story than HDV. There is clearly field reversal happening and/or other error that has zip to do with HDV or Sony.

Just as a note for Ken -- in his post above, D.S.E. suggests uploading a native .m2t clip somewhere... I'll be more than happy to host some video for you here at HDV Info Net; just shoot me an email for the FTP access privs.

Thinking outside the box,I too think the ignition system is your problem .The higher the rpm the increasing pulses from the ignition to the sparkplugs.Maybe try some quality suppressors on the system.Its amazing how much interferance an arking or badly suppressed plug lead can cause to electronics.

Thinking outside the box,I too think the ignition system is your problem .The higher the rpm the increasing pulses from the ignition to the sparkplugs.Maybe try some quality suppressors on the system.Its amazing how much interferance an arking or badly suppressed plug lead can cause to electronics.

Now THERE'S something I hadn't considered whatsoever. Given that my Rubicons are just a couple months old...this wouldn't rear its head on my system, should this at all be the culprit, or one of several potential culprits.

Uh, one man, yes, but how many edges does the man have?

One, after you deinterlace the frame. Though I do see something odd happening around his right arm: color bleed, maybe?

I'm sorry I made the statement about the keying problem. I read that information on this forum. You look it up and and join that thread. I had no business making that statement. From what I read, it sounded pretty conclusive. Again, it wasn't for me to say one way or the other. I apologize.

I don't remember who it was, but a few months ago someone on this forum told us he was using his Z1 on a motocross bike doing fifty foot jumps with no problem and he had it attached with suction cups to the gas tank. Is that you? It was that statement that encouraged me to send my FX1 into Sony for repair. Also, what does the rev up cycle of the bike look like?

I'm very confused now... Here's a testimony that seems to say the Sony's HDV cameras don't have the problem in general. I'd love to find that out. For me, that would be the best and most affordable fix I could hope for.

My camera is in the states with my associate who did the shipping back and forth to Sony. I can ask him to post a file. Or if someone on this thread who has validated the problem I am having could make one available. I'll see if I can get one from my source. But he is very busy and I can't guarantee a quick posting and I wont see my camera until someone I know fly's back down here with it, that is if I keep it.

We've also done test on a clothes dryer.. No ignition problem there. We've had the same results. And we have covered this in this thread before. I know it's a long thread. but you can scan back to see if you want. Also, look at the clip Carroll Lam posted. He has his on a car hood, same problems. Different electronics.

I'm going to do a lot less posting on this thread. I've said more than I know to be fact. I can't say anything new. And after all of this. I'm back to square one. Do I buy another HDV or not? I'll stay tuned and if I'm needed I'll step in. But I don't think I can say anything more of much use. And I'll try to get the file for you.

Thanks.. Ken E.

Douglas, You say it is clearly field reversal. So what can be done to fix this? I'm sure you don't consider my clips to be "looking good". Can this be repaired? I can't use the camera on my mount and my mount is set up right. The GlideCam is fantastic. And from what your saying, I should get great pictures on my mount. I do with the PD-170. If your camera works, and if John Cline's works, Why is mine and a few other Sony HDV's having such problems. And why does the Sony repair team say, that's the way HDV is, sorry, your using it in a place we can't guarantee good results. I also realize you may not have any knowledge about repairing this camera. But what would you do? Sony will not try to repair this camera again. And it's not a matter of "NOT LIKING HDV" as you said, it's a matter of wanting some footage I can use. Would you use the footage I posted? Did you see my posting of my 170 on the mount? That's the way I would expect my footage to look. I would run out and buy another HDV if I where convinced I would not have the same problem.

PD-170 on the same mount. http://homepage.mac.com/kene3/QuadHeaven.html

I'm working on the m2t clip. I may have it as soon as later today if my associate gets the time to do it.

In the clip where I round the corner and see my friend. When you de-interlace it, each field is a blur. I've de-interlaced many stills of video through the years. When one field is removed, you get a much clearer picture, however degraded by half the resolution. That is not the case here. And yes, we will know more when you see the untouched file.

My main question to you is, would you use the footage I posted? Why do you say, if I don't like HDV then it's not for everyone? That implies you might use the footage. Please clarify.

Ken E.

PS. Chris, can you send me the FTP address to post at please?
kene3@mac.com

Hello Ken, I don't know if you have tried this software.

This works with HDV (latest version)

I've only glanced at it, i've tried these type of software on miniDV footage and it is amazing, much better than DIS (Digital Image Stabilizer), the reason being that in DIS the hardware has to correct in real-time. With these software you can even have two pass!!

Anyway to cut a long story, I tried this type of software and it made a clip that was done handheld (very shaky) look like it was done on a glidecam.


So try this on one, I my self have not used this one, you will probably have to play around with different settings

http://biphome.spray.se/gunnart/video/deshaker.htm



hope that helps


Anhar Hussain Miah