I would suggest setting up to shoot a highly detailed scene such as leafy trees or bushes blowing in the wind. Lot's of detailed data moving.

Or moving water like a babbling stream or waves lapping on a beach.

Anything that provides detailed multiple moving subjects.

Thank you for taking the time to perform these tests.

Dear Friends,

Many, but not all, can see an immediate difference when presented with two images, one 4:2:0 35 Mbps and one 4:2:2 100 Mbps, side by side on two identical monitors, or in a side by side comparison.

One of the keys to seeing the difference is to use a good monitor, as not all computer monitors are good enough.

If one wants to immediately see a difference, a codec torture test can be used.

One of the most difficult things to handle is rotating the camera ("roll"), on its lens axis.

Every pixel, depending on how far it is from the center of the image is rotated a different amount. A Bit-Starved codec can easily fall apart.

Another test is just a bunch of moving leaves, or trees with leaves blowing in the wind.

Please let it be known that the Sony EX1/EX3 can take great images. All we are saying is that:

1. 4:2:2 can be dramatically better. This can be immediately apparent at times, not so at other times.

2. Our 100 Mbps 4:2:2 Long-GOP can hold up better in post.

3. Our 100 Mbps 4:2:2 can handle the unusually situations where the codec is stressed.

4. Our 100 Mbps 4:2:2 can be easier to work with in post as there can be less noise, less mosquito noise.

5. Our 100 Mbps 4:2:2 can be dramatically better for greenscreen work.