I hate to respectfully disagree but this is simply not how I see discussions on this board. We are all human beings here with clear slant and biased opinions. The only real honesty is to admit and fully disclose our bias and not pretend that it does not exist. Any quick reading of Steve's post over the years clearly indicates his bias and perspective on cameras and gear and his comments on this JVC are clearly minimizing the issues. But there is nothing wrong with that.

However, my posts on 24p or "filmlook vs. professional look" (yes, I started that thread) are clearly biased and skewed by my take on things as well. That's what makes this site interesting. Real people with real opinions.

Personally, as long as we can remain respectful and honest, we can benefit from hearing other's different perspectives.

But just like those that think documentaries or journalism should be "objective" (there is no such thing as "objective", especially in documentaries), it would be impossible for us to even try to be "objective".

Split screen is big issue for some shooters (respect that), and not for others (also respect that).

What we need is as much information on how, when and how much it occurs and what options people have (including returning or exchanging the camera).

I agree, but I think the reason I see this issue as "closed" is because -- as I've posted -- SSE can be prevented. If it can be prevented, then it is no longer an issue. To keep posting about it -- it simply becomes a dead horse.

[ The problem was that initially it was tied to the amount of gain. This proved posted -- last week -- to be untrue. ]

1. We all know that that image quality is best when we keep the iris neither fully open nor fully closed. That's why we add light to get an opening of at least F4 -- ideally F5.6. And, why we use ND filters to keep the iris no further closed than about F11 -- or ideally F8.

Therefore, it is our job to CONTROL light to keep an AVERAGE reading between F4 and F8 -- and the reading on the light we we will pan into or from.

2. We also know we should Manually White Balance on the light actually illuminating the subject -- and on the light we we will pan into or from.

3. We also know to keep image noise low, we should use the minimum possible gain. Not more than about +12dB with the HD100.

4. We also know that if we are using gain, it's a good idea to White Balance at the gain we will be using.

Now, if we do ALL these things we will capture a great picture.

You'll note I have not mentioned how to prevent SSE. I don't need to, because by following the standard rules of getting the best possible picture -- I have prevented SSE.

These principles are so old -- they hardly need to be said. They apply to an 35mm SLR, a 16mm camera, or any 35mm film camera. (Except, of course, gain was the film's sensitivity. And, we used a filter or chose the film, rather than the set the WB.)

[ I assume someone is protesting that they want to work with low light like they do with their SD camcorder. You're free to think that way -- which means you really have no choice of any low-cost HD camera because they all have a high-pixel count and lower sensitivity. ]

I prefer to think of the HD100 as using NEGATIVE film -- which has always meant "expose for the shadows." Further, since I also want a high quality image -- I consider I'm using a "low grain" film -- which I know means I'm using a film with low sensitivity. Therefore, I must plan my shots accordingly.

That means I can't freely shoot. So what? I haven't used any camera in over 50 years that I didn't have to do a bit of thinking before shooting. Nothing, new.

Very Interesting. JVC might have got it fixed then. Some extensive testing will tell. I like the fact yours is a PAL. Mine will be a PAL too when I buy.
Please keep us updated about you findings.

I think the SSE is more serious than that. I shoot low light wide open 35mm stills, postive and negs, some in near dark with 1.4 lenses (and used to shoot low light Super 8 negative and reversal) because I liked some of the stuff you could get as the image breaks up in a pleasing way.

However, with the HD100 the SSE limit creative choices at that end of exposure. For many shooter who like high key lighting - rock and roll, but for low keyers (including the 1080p film I'm shooting right now - fortunately 2/3rds of it is created in After Effects) the rest I will still shoot with my DVX100a because none of the HDV cams yet give a nice progressive image in low light (single 50W bulb edge light). The DVX100a is noisy, but for the look I need, a little levels and noise vanishes where I need it to vanish.

So, the SSE, low light issues (and the lack of appealing glass right now) keeps me shooting with my DVX100a. Deinterlacing Sony HDV might work and still might rent one, but not sure I get that much more rez with Deinterlaced Sony HDV than DVX progressive thin mode.

Low light is not just the playground of ENG and wedding shooters. Some of us are into natural light cinemetography and consider it an art. Low light behavior is a big deal. Noise does not bother me too much, though I would like the DVX cleaner.

SSE is deal breaker, though. If I can't shoot wide open and have rich shadows filling the frame, I need another cam.

Steve....

the symptoms of the issue may be closed, but I am concerend about the underlying cause.

SSE is a result of a slight mis-matching of dual circuitry. To a layperson such as myself, seems to suggest that ALL HD, progressive, 3 x 1/3" CCD pickup systems will be required (if dual circuits aren't needed, why implement them?). It has been suggested that the density of these tiny chips and the heat they generate is one of the factors in this design (at least the choice made by JVC).

Two questions:

1 - Will in fact, all progressive pickup systems of 3 x 1/3" HD chips require dual circuits? (any confirmation on how Panasonic is handling this issue?)

2 - What is the long-term effect of these hot-running CCDs? Does the heat factor have an impact on lifespan and/or performance?

"Until you actually hold this camera in your hands and use it, you won't know if it suits your purpose, (or) whether SSE will be a dramatic issue for you..."

Chris - No offense, but a line down the middle of screen of a $6,000.00 professional camera not a technical problem? It would seem to be the very definition of a technical problem - and to this point, no one seems to have a fix - thus a post like mine on a forum like yours.....

Until I have my hands on it I won't know if a line down the middle of my camera is an issue? What possible purpose would a camera with a line at 0 gain have? But, again, perhaps someone has found a ready steady way to fix the problem in post, or has heard that there is fix comming, or has heard that JVC corporate has acknowleged the problem - thus a post like mine to a forum like yours.....

Although I am still interested in the camera, that interest is dwindling due to the continued reports of the effect and lack of JVC corporate response - is that not a viable subject for this forum? Is there a more appropriate place to talk about a user reported serious technical flaw that has not been addressed by the manufacturer?
John

The whole point of this discussion is to encourage JVC to work on the flaw and try to fix it. I think that most of us who insist that this is unacceptable do it because we like the camera and we don't want JVC to become complacent and think that the community accepted the problem. I think that it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that you cannot shoot wide open without taking the risk of getting SSE. Why even bother developing faster lenses then? There are simply too many professional applications that from time to time require shooting in low light. Period.

Progress never happened by acceptance. I really don't understand why Steve of all people keeps so vehemently defending the status quo of the situation. If we as a community had that attitude we'd be still shooting on U-matic or worse: "You know, just apply the basics, don't shoot into bright sources, have an assistant to carry the recorder, what's so new about that?"

Sounds like a broken record? Well, as long as there are people who try to 'close' the issue there have to be others who will keep it alive and pounding on JVC's door. (Hey, maybe I'll get kicked out of this forum now...:-)

John, I can't speak for Chris, but the bottom line *appears* to be this:
1. JVC is very aware of the issue, and seems to be dealing with it. It's quite unfortunate, and kinda strange that they haven't made any kind of a public statement or comment from the "official" side of the company.

2. This forum has discussed this issue to death, there is no point in continually beating the horse. Either JVC will fix it, or they won't. If they don't, it's a dead-in-the-water cam. If they do, it's a serious tool for many filmmakers and documentarians.

3. Chris, nor anyone else is suggesting it's a moot/small/insignificant issue. However, it's a well-known issue, so....we might as well be discussing how the Japanese allegedly created a magnetic field to start hurricanes in the Gulf for all the good it will do. It's a real issue, but continually beating on it does'nt fix it. What will fix it is folks not buying the camera, or JVC getting enough returns that they have no choice, or JVC having a product ethic that demands that they fix it. Beating up on it constantly here doesn't support any of those three motivations. I somewhat suspect that's more Chris' and other posters points.

Believe me, I'm in total agreement with you. I prefer Sony and Canon cams on the lower end, and Sony and Grass Valley on the higher side, and so have no desire to professionally own this cam. However, I've ordered one because I'm authoring books and seminars on HDV, and want to know what's up with all the products. You think I'm happy, knowing I'll likely get a camera that has a split screen? I just have faith in my NLE and JVC that this isn't going to continue to be a big deal.
But,....hope springs eternal. :-)

I think the bottomline should include consideration of the underlying CAUSE of the effect.

I'm not a huge fan of JVC, but won't it be ironic if Panasonic has the same issue with their HVX?

..... see my earlier post.

Yeah - let's hope so! Sorry if I was beating a dead horse...
Could you let us know when you get your camera, how it looks, et al? Thanks Doug...
John

FWIW, I can *almost* guarantee Panasonic won't. I keep waiting for someone to offer a specific, technical explanation for why this is happening. It's there, I believe, I've had two different competitive manufacturers tell me essentially the same story as to the why...however, I don't believe I'm mathmatically astute nor technical enough to explain it with any degree of confidence or authority.

DSE has just saved me from an immense amount of further typing. What he just said pretty much sums up the way I feel about the situation.

I never know what motivations lies behind someone who has only a handful of posts on this site. Maybe they're a longtime lurker who knows the ropes around here, or maybe they think this is "just another message board." So it's my intention to make this point very clear:

A person cannot camp out in a forum discussing some hardware or software that they have chosen not to buy; they cannot hang out here constantly nay-saying about something they're not using. That has not happened yet; I'm not accusing anybody of actually doing that here. I'm just letting you know now, ahead of time: that game is not played here.

As has been stated, the SSE issue is very real and we're all very well aware of it and I'm looking forward to some kind of response from JVC. Meanwhile, if you've said "I'm not buying this camera," then that's great -- it's the *one* time you're allowed to do that on this board. Leave the remaining bandwidth to the users and to those folks that are genuinely interested in furthering some *productive* conversation. Hope this helps,

In the UK, JVC are doing another Milk Run with TouchVision. Today in Farnham - Thursday's in London with the Wide Angle on show for the first time.

Bottom line: no SSE, but then no night shots. Some room lighting, but still no SSE (one shot looked like it had in still frame, but it was part of the scene!)

An informed sauce says that there are almost weekly firmware revs from JVC, but there's no point in releasing a firmware update if it's not quite right - c.f. 'Beta testing'. I guess when they've got it licked, they'll go GM. OTOH, there was talks of adjustments over and above the firmware update, requiring a trip to the shop - maybe this is the Dead Pixel Shuffle, maybe a real need to open the unit up and do something (though that sounds very 'Analog' to me).

Chris....

Were your comments made with me in mind?

If so, I can tell you I am sincere in my curiousity, and was hoping that my questions were put in such a way that the answers would not only provide some concrete design facts, but also make potential buyers of any HD camcorder more aware of how these things are designed.

Marty, my comments are not directed towards anyone here in particular; they're meant for those people who have said (or are about to say) "I'm not buying this camera." If you are choosing not to use this equipment and feel like you need to say so, that's fine... one time and one time only. Step aside and let the actual users have this board, that's who it's for.

I am specifically discouraging "crusaders." A crusader is somebody who feels that since they're not buying a particular thing, then neither should anybody else. It is not a crusader's responsibility to make potential buyers aware of what they perceive to be deal-killing flaws. Rather it's the potential buyer's own responsibility to evaluate for themselves what the bonafide owners of that gear are saying.

Anything else consitutes noise, which is worse than useless and gets in the way of intelligent and productive discourse between the person doing some serious research and the actual users of the gear. If you *own* this camera and you have something to add about the SSE issue, then I encourage your input wholeheartedly. If you don't own this camera and you have no direct experience with the SSE issue, then what business do you have talking about it. That doesn't help anyone. I hope that's clear. We've had enough meta-discussion about this so let's please try to get back on topic.

Doesn't tell you anything! You must get the exposure to F2, or higher.

Is this topic is closed to those who don't own the camera?

Is there another thread to ask about the CCD circuitry design, and the affect of heat on the chips?

I am confused about the rules here.

I also suspect it's the fact that 6 A/Ds are used. The first several dozen pixels in each CCD's row get no light. These pixels are sampled and averaged to a Black Level and stored in the DSP. One for each color. Normally, this value is subtracted from every pixel.

But, in the HD100, this one value must serve for both halves of each CCD. Each half is being digitized by a different A/D. Since there are bound to be differences between these 2 A/Ds -- the single Black Level has a probability of being wrong for the second A/D.

Now, when a full range image is captured (say 0-100IRE) -- a tiny percent error doesn't make much difference. But, if the image is poorly lit and uses only half (0-5OIRE) or a quarter (0-25IRE) of the A/D's range -- then the tiny error will show-up as a split.

That is why:

1) We need sufficient light.

2) We need an AVERAGE exposure of F4 to F5.6 in order to cover the possibily of a statistically "non-normal" distribution of light. For example, a very bright light supplies very high value samples to the AVERAGE, yet the rest of the pixels are in low-light. If we setttle for an F2 reading, the average will be F2 -- but the majority of the scene will be way darker. By adding light until we get to F4, we have a greater chance that the rest of the scene will be bright enough.

I would have assumed that JVC would have used all black rows at the top to actually determine the A/D differences and correct the Black Value for the second A/D. That might have been the firmware fix. However, it's possible that such a single correction simply isn't adequate for the dynamics of CCDs, A/Ds, and a huge range of lighting conditions.

THE BOTTOM-LINE -- the weaker the signal, they greater the error will show-up. At least, that's my GUESS as to what's happening!

By the way -- I suspect some one will write software to SAVE critical scenes where this occurs. Simply adjust the slider until its gone.

A few things...

It's not a "line", it's that the left half looks different than the right half; one side will look brighter (and perhaps redder) than the other. The "line" refers to the notion that there is a clear demarcation between the halves of the screen.

JVC is most definitely aware of it, and they are concerned about it. I've spoken with them about it.

This is something I cannot agree with at any level. To me, trying to tell people "don't worry about it" is nearly as bad as the crusaders who have no interest other than to discredit the product. Potential buyers need to know what's happening and when (or if) they will encounter the issue. The issue is not by any means closed, nor can it be prevented in a huge percentage of circumstances, so therefore it is not a dead horse.

I assembled my camera, plugged it into my XBR960, and turned it on. First thing I saw was two completely different looks to the halves of the picture on the screen. Not subtle, but massively noticeable. And this is with a firmware version 1.17 camera, which is apparently the latest.

Can it be prevented? Apparently yes, by keeping enough light in the scene. And for those who intend to use the product specifically under controlled lighting circumstances, they may be able to do as Steve recommends and it may become a non-issue for them. For others, who shoot in available light (I'm thinking news, sports, events, wedding receptions, etc) it could be a dealbreaker.

There are a whole lot of types of shooters out there, a whole lot more than just "indie filmmakers".

I flatly reject the idea of someone declaring this a "non-issue" -- that arrogantly dismisses a whole huge sector of the market's shooting requirements. I don't think that in the history of video cameras there's ever been an issue quite like this. Experienced professionals are unprepared for this -- they haven't seen something like this before. The issue needs to be explained, not glossed over or swept under a rug.

Let's come up with a better definition for it: let's determine the light rating that's necessary to avoid it, and then be able to definitively tell people: "if you're shooting at under XYZ footcandles, then you'll see an unusual artifact in the picture, where one half will be noticeably brighter than the other."

I will conduct some testing today to try to determine what FC the situation occurs under, and how many FC are necessary before the split is no longer visible.

Thank you! Well put.

EDIT: Steve wrote in while I was typing, so I should update it to say that that's more like what I'm talkin' about. Let's determine what's happening, acknowledge the limitations, share info on how to defeat it, and advise people as to how they can determine whether or not it will be an issue for them. For some it will be a non-issue, for others it will be a dealbreaker. It's not for us to tell them whether or not it's a dealbreaker, but it is for us to supply them with the accurate and correct information that they need so they can make that decision for themselves.

How would the reaction to this issue have been if it was a Sony camera?

I really hope they sort it out, I like the look of this camera and I was all set to get one, but as I shoot mostly doccos in available light, I'll be waiting to see what develops.This board has the best information I can find about it, so I'm glad it's still being discussed as it has a bearing on how I spend my hard earned cash!

This topic isn't closed at all. It is very much open. I am simply making a very basic appeal for the sake of the integrity of what usable, actual information we have here, to *please* withold comments about things one has no direct experience with. If one does not have the camera in hand and has not seen the issue, then what usable input could there possibly be?

Please, I started this site years ago specifically to get away from that kind of talk... (grin)(that was a tongue in cheek comment from having been to too many trade shows).

I'll grant that CCD circuitry design may be an interesting topic for some (and it is not an uncommon topic around here), but what can you *do* with that information? What does it accomplish? How about another thread discussing how to actually use this thing. How about discussing technique and usability, setting up scene files and sharing them, the practical applications of the camera, and even more importantly, what you're creating with it and how.

I guess there are folks to whom the guts appeal to, but my original intention for DV Info Net was for it to be a *usability* forum. Who is using it, what are you doing with it and how. To me those are conversations far more stimulating, more interesting and ultimately of far greater relevance than dissecting innards.

And when there is an important issue regarding innards:

Bingo! And that's from an HD100 owner. That's what I was looking for. Thank you, Barry!

I'm wondering why someone shooting any of the above subjects would buy a 24p/30p progressive camcorder when an FX1 for half the price would do the job -- except, of course, it too is almost 2 stops less sensitive than the PD170/VX2100.

The bulk of HD100s, I expect, will be bought by those who rent CineAlta, HDCAM, and Varicams who shoot 24p. These folks are already filmmakers who are used to working with a crew that knows how to light. And, they rent all the types of lights they need. They want perfectly exposed video. FX are done in post. Indie filmmakers, unles they are of the "run and gun" type -- will be the other buyers.

I'm sure JVC would love to sell to all the markets you have listed, and as long as these folks use light (news and sports always do), they can.

Until recently, weddings were also shot with extra light -- so if someone wants an HD wedding they need to accept more light no matter what camcorder they use. But, I can't honestly see why a wedding would be shot at anything other than 60i. There is no real reason for a 24p wedding!

There is no reason for everyone to find one camcorder ideal.

Splitscreen example
 

Here is a tiff image with a split screen example.

Its shot in my office and what you see is my white-painted wall.
The exposuer is set correctly at f4, all settings are at normal, no gain is used.

The light comes 90 degre from the side, so there is no light hitting directly to the lens.

Download the image (2.6mb) from here: http://www.plonk.se/splitscreen_nogain_f4.tif

f4? Well, that proves Steve's f2 theory doesn't always work then.

Hang out at WEVA, on the videouniversity fora, on TheKnot, or one of several other popular wedding boards, and you'd instantly change your comment. LOTS of DVX shooters in the wedding world, lots of people that were excited about the JVC for weddings, many, many Z1/FX1 owners.

Why 24p for weddings? Aside from the fact that a lot of videographers like the cadence of 24p, it also allows them to put longer videos, higher bitrates on a single layer DVD. That's pretty important to them too. Many are using HDV, very happily so. To quote Doug Graham of EventDV magazine, "I've yet to hear of anyone buying an FX1/Z1 for weddings and taking it back due to low light problems."

Weddings are much like film productions these days, view a few of the videos that people like Glen Elliot, Tim Ryan, Ken Erhardt, Mark and Trish VonLanken, and other reasonably well-known videographers are doing. And why they're making big money doing it. Mostly in 24p at either acquisition or delivery.

In fact, I'll wager serious cash that WEVA/4Evergroup carry more influence than any other single group of camera/software buyers out there. I was just at a GPVA meeting where virtually everyone shoots weddings, and the room was packed with nearly 200 people. And a high number already own HDV.

Even though I would never consider shooting a wedding, I have tremendous respect for those that do. Some of their 60-90 minute works are incredible, given the lack of ability to control the shoot and set.

Spend a little time in the DVInfo.net wedding/event forum, you'll quickly get an "honest idea of why someone would want to shoot 24p" at a wedding.

[edit] Failed to mention that Ken Freed has been spending a lot of time presenting/talking to groups of wedding videographers, even though it's a crowd that you think wouldn't be interested in 24p [/edit]

Mikael, would you mind if I added that image to our HD100 gallery here on the site?

Not at all, of course you can.

Well, okay... I appreciate the explanation. Consider for a moment that this forum has been up and running many months prior to the camera's release. There were no users during that timeframe.

I'm just trying to be an informed buyer. This just seemed like a logical place to be.

This was a PAL model and I make no claims about anything but USA Inspected HD100's.

Moreover, F4 is only a recommendation that so far has worked for me in the real-world.

This is like the famous banding from the XL1 when someone shot a blank wall. Never seemed to bother those who bought the camera.

You're absolutely right about that, of course. I didn't mean to sound flippant; my primary concern here is in keeping the noise level down and the information level up.

This is ironic.... I always hate it when threads drift off topic, but here I am doing my best to do just that.

Just a word of thanks for taking the time to explain your objectives for the forum. I'm still not quite sure what to do to conform, but I will figure it out.

My apologies for the off-topic chatter. When in doubt, keep posting. Many thanks,

I really think JVC is surprised by the Splitscreen
 

I really think that JVC is surprised by the split screen and their engineers must be scrambling to work out the math to fix the issue. Think about it. If their was ever any intent to mask the problem, why would they allow the camera to open past f2? Why even put gain on the camera at all?

It seems to me that the issue has taken JVC by surprise. What could they say? They must be speechless! I'm hoping they get the math figured out because their codec is the real deal.

Spot, that post was almost word-for-word what I would have written too.

For filmmakers, I don't see where the JVC has appeal over the HVX. For people who get hired to shoot (stringers, conventions, weddings, etc), I can see where the JVC could have significant appeal over the HVX, because of the form factor and the long record times. Wedding/event shooters like to have the big camera. Wedding/event clients like to see that they're getting what they paid for. Event shooters need to shoot a lot of footage, etc.

Plus, I thought the HD100 might do well for weddings because a *lot* of wedding videos are being edited to be entirely slow-motion. The JVC's unique 480/60p mode would probably be perfect for that, and would deliver the cleanest slow-mo of any camera in standard-def; only the HVX could compete with that 60p motion rendition.

Indie filmmakers don't, for the most part, care so much about the look of the camera. Stringers and event shooters and wedding shooters do. They make their living off their camera, and the #1 most intriguing thing the HD100 has going for it is the shoulder-mount pro-style look. Paying clients like to see that they're getting their money's worth, and an HD100 doesn't look like a handycam. I don't think I've talked to a wedding/event shooter yet who wasn't jazzed about the HD100's looks.

But, as Steve rightly points out, the shooting modes and limitations in the HD100 may make it a less desirable choice for those types of shooters. Which is a frustrating conundrum.

Let me put it this way: the things that appealed to me about the HD100 were long-form recording capability, and the shoulder-mount form factor for clients who care about that. I've made a pretty decent amount off shooting conventions; the HD100 could pay for itself in less than a week of doing that type of work, and it's easy and there's no editing(!) I've been doing it with the DVX, but I figured the HD100 might take it up a notch. It seemed perfect for the task in many ways -- broadcast form factor, high-def, and long (and cheap) recording times. However, operationally, it may turn out to be the single least-suited camera for those tasks, because of the frame rate limitations and the split-screen-under-available-light situation! What good does it do to record an hour on a $15 tape, if the entire hour has the split-screen effect?

I haven't tested for SSE in standard DV mode; if it doesn't do it in DV (or 480/60p), and if I can get standard-definition video that's at least DVX-like, then I may keep it and use it for its standard-def capabilities, recognizing that high-def would need to be used only during controlled-lighting circumstances. But if it still does SSE in standard-def, then I'm really at a loss to understand what to do with the camera. (It's like a great big tease -- "its mouth is saying 'no,' but its eyes are saying 'yes' ".)

I just want to encourage people to keep posting about their findings with the SSE. I would have owned 2 HD100s by now if I wasn't so worried about the SSE. The thing is that so much has been posted about it that I'm slightly confused.

Numerous people posted that JVC acknowledged that it is a fault and if you find the SSE at something like +12 gain or so they'll replace it? Some say 0 gain? Other people are complaining that JVC does not acknowledge it as a problem. Which is it?

Some people post that only the 100E and 101E have the problem, the 100U is mostly SSE free because of newer firmware. This is also contradicted. In fact there are posts that claim no amount of firmware will help. Then ones that claim no new firmware has been released. Which is it?

Finally there are those that say if you do A, B, and C in x, Y, and Z situations you'll never see the SSE and you should follow these rules all the time and JVC shouldn't have allowed you to shoot with A, B, and C settings and if XYZ happens to you often, don't buy the camera.

My opinion. If they are replacing the cameras officially or unofficially, I don't care as long as they are replacing them consistantly. I can see that they would not want to officially acknowledge the issue especially if they are close to releasing a version of the camera SSE free.

Everything about this camera/deck combination is right except for this SSE. It's really a dealstopper especially because it's unpredictable and it'll add hours and hours to fix on post. Not affordable with any sort of event work.

Lens possibilities and cost comes to mind. If I think a little harder, I'm sure I could dig a couple more. When the HVX200 is actually released, the list may even grow a notch or two.

How did the HVX make it into this thread?

I didn't bring it up, I promise. :)