It is slightly better. I know that the Canon's artifacting would look about the same in that scene as the JVC, but with a larger frame. Downsampled to 720p it would probably look slightly better, believe it or not.

For most purposes it doesn't bother me in the least. Do you watch your footage with your face next to the screen or with a magnifying glass? Also, there are ways to massage it in post without softening the picture too much.

If I were shooting something for Discovery HD, I'd tap the SDI so I didn't have anything to worry about. Same with the JVC, tap the analog if it's of utmost importance to avoid any of these kinds of artifacts.

QUOTE
"Barlow Elton... Do you watch your footage with your face next to the screen or with a magnifying glass"?

DOH! Guilty as charged. hehe... don't we all?

Joking aside Barlow, I would love to have a portable device to capture from the JVC / anolog, it would maybe reduce the face prints on my LCD screen. ;)


Peter, what was your shutter set to on the HD downhill series of runs on your site? It looked like a good balance of motion/action. I tend to push it up around 250 for the motos I shoot.

Here is a short kayaking m2t clip from the wonderfull acipellago in Stockholm.
Filesize: 3.21mb.

http://www.plonk.se/artifacting.m2t

The artifacts in the water is hard to see, but in the sky you can see them quite well.

All settings are at normal, no gain, 25P.

Daniel ... a bit OT, but here goes
I was in a hurry that day so I didn't write it all down but I do remember that most of my shots were at 250 shutter. At the time I only had the on-camera ND2, were I to add on the ND6 that I now own, I would have likely gone to variable shutter and dialed it in to 120 or so for a bit shallower DOF on some shots. As you can see, many shots were clipped but I didn't want to shut it down more than F8 and didn't want to go any faster than 250 ... I took the middle road and accepted the outcome. This was all shot at 24p, so I think it turned out okay for my first time out with the new camera on snow. The original full rez footage does not appear as clipped as the down-converted .wmv shown on my site and is of course much richer in it's colors. I threw this piece together in about 90 minutes including ingest time of 40 minutes of footage.
Little to no CC ... had to have it ready for the banquet and awards ceremony soon thereafter
cheers
PS: that was the actual sunrise from my deck that morning

On my screen it's not that noticeable, I really have to be digging to see this stuff. What was your detail setting? The other water shots with detail at MIN look good.

On the bright side, if you shot a scene like this with an HVX-200 you'd have a screen full of dancing colored noise that would be easy for everyone to see.

I'm just as guilty, and I have plently of face prints on my screen to prove it . I probably have more than you because my CRT computer monitor tends to make things look nicer than they are in reality, unlike an LCD, so I stared even closer to the screen and soaked up lots of lovely raditation! You still can't beat CRT's for the overall image.

There should be some SDI portable devices coming onto the market relatively soon. All you need is an AJA analog-->SDI converter and one of these firestore like devices and you could certainly avoid the blockies.

Well, its the left part of the sky that looks blocky to me, at least on my LCD-screen.
Detail settings where at normal.

The water looks worse to me on my screen. Experiment with the detail setting and see what the max detail is that doesn't show artifacting in situations like this. You can always add sharpening in post.

btw, Pappas has a lot of beach footage and I don't see a whole lot of artifacts from either the JVC or Canon.

http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/F...cty=US&lang=en

I'll have to take a closer look at some of my footage.

I did run a few tests with a water fountain spraying into my pool, but I did not see any artifacts. I 'll have to freeze some frames and blow it up 200% and look closer.