Dear Gosh... Where Is The Footage?!!

Thomas Smet · December 21st, 2006, 10:24 PM

Guys it is much much better then the 25p cameras but there is still something going on. It is small enough to maybe not notice when you watch the footage on a HDTV or even on a normal sized computer monitor but it is there. This is something that is not on any of the FX7 clips I have looked at but is on this clip. I noticed it the second time I looked at it although you have to see certain details just right in order to see it.

I would rather this come up now so it can get fixed before a lot of the cameras are sold. I for one would not want to composite any footage that had this look. It is not natural and doesn't look anything like the FX7 footage I have seen.

I have played this on 3 different computers in many different players and NLE's and it looks the same no matter what.

Here is a full resolution cross section of a still from the video. I know still images are not a good way to judge quality but it does show that the 24p may have the same issue as the 25p cameras but just not as bad. I would hope SONY would fix this right away but if we refuse to see it then why should they. I didn't want to see it but it is there. Perhaps I am doing something wrong here but I doubt it. I have been playing HDV footage from every single HDV camera on the market and this is the only time I have ever seen anything like this.

If somebody else can show me that it isn't there please post a sample and show me because everything I do shows it.

Pasty Jackson · December 21st, 2006, 11:14 PM

Well, possibly the problem could lie in your decoder then? Here is a grab from my system. It's from the same footage, but I'm not seeing the same problems.

Chris Rentzel · December 21st, 2006, 11:22 PM

Patsy I believe your grab was when the camera was not moving as much, and I think Thomas your grab was while zooming. Correct me if I'm wrong. It seems the images while zooming could lead to a paint-effect. Not sure that wouldn't happen on any camera though. If you put the camera on a tripod and let it shoot something, that'll probably be more accurate.

Thomas Smet · December 22nd, 2006, 12:21 AM

The still I took is when the camera wasn't moving.

Pasty it would be nice to see a shot from you at or around the same moment of time.

This paint effect is much more subtle with these versions of the cameras and sometimes can only be seen with certain types of details. Your shot of the cat head looks exactly the same as what I can pull here of the same image.

I am using many different decoders and coming up with the same results. With that said this is the only camera where I notice this sort of effect using any of my decoders and is exactly the same problem as noted with the 25p camera except on a much smaller scale which is sometimes very hard to see.

I also see this issue with the still image shots Steve Mullen has posted and those were decoded by him on many different systems and decoders as well.

Remember it is not my aim to put the camera down since I also want it to look good.

Chris Rentzel · December 22nd, 2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

The still I took is when the camera wasn't moving....

Hey Thomas, with all due respect: I have the same video file the grab came from, because it was posted as video in this forum. That particular frame (and those directly before and after) was in the middle of a zoom. You can play it back over and over and it's in the middle of a zoom. That's why I thought it wasn't good to judge that particular grab.

Not that I'm for or against the camera, but I have yet to see any bad grabs when the cam is on a tripod.

Regardless, I do think it's good to have this dialog so early in the infancy of a camera, and thanks for taking time to post.

Chris

Thomas Smet · December 22nd, 2006, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Rentzel

Hey Thomas, with all due respect: I have the same video file the grab came from, because it was posted as video in this forum. That particular frame (and those directly before and after) was in the middle of a zoom. You can play it back over and over and it's in the middle of a zoom. That's why I thought it wasn't good to judge that particular grab.

Not that I'm for or against the camera, but I have yet to see any bad grabs when the cam is on a tripod.

Regardless, I do think it's good to have this dialog so early in the infancy of a camera, and thanks for taking time to post.

Chris

Yeah the camera zooms out and then stops for a second and then zooms back in slightly before the end of the clip. I took the still when the camera wasn't zooming for about 1 second and when it had the least amount of movement from being handheld. The camera did move a few pixels I'm sure but show me any other camera that does this during slight movement. Even if it was zooming that sort of effect doesn't happen in the FX7 shots I have seen during zooming. If you would watch the clip carefully you would notice that the zoom stops for a short time period.

Remember this was only a section of the image I took and not the whole frame. When the camera zooms all the way out to where you see the girl's head and stops shaking for a few frames before it zooms in again that is where I took the image. I know better then to take an image in the middle of a zoom.

Ken Ross · December 22nd, 2006, 07:47 AM

Tom, could you point out in the frame grab of the cat's head what exactly you are seeing that's not quite right? I've looked at that grab and I'm having trouble seeing any issues. It might be helpful if you could point out precisely the problem in that grab. Thanks.

Thomas Smet · December 22nd, 2006, 09:50 AM

The image of the cats head wasn't the one I posted but the image under the post with my name. It is the shot of the stones and the cats rear end. Look at the pattern in the stones, rock and weed. Also the texture on the cat is all wrong. The girls head looks a little funny but it is border line and it could pass as normal I guess.

The shot of the cats head is really hard to tell because the hair has lots of detail and I don't think this issue shows up in areas of high detail. If the person who posted the shots of the cats head wants to help prove that my image was done with a bad decoder then he should have chosen the same image. The image I picked is pretty easy to find because it was the image that was zoomed out and that has the least amount of movement due to hand shake. That is why I picked that image and not just some random image.

If it is my decoder on 3 different systems with 3 different NLE's on each system why is it that the decorder doesn't do this with any other type of mpeg-2 footage? I can even play shots from the FX7 and they look fine compared to these shots.

Todd Giglio · December 22nd, 2006, 10:17 AM

Thomas,

Did you notice any of these artifacts in the clips I posted? I don't see anything out of the usual. The clips I posted are under the title:

3 V1U clips coming soon...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=82265

I'm trying hard to find these flaws, but I don't see it (I did in the 25p images). I definitely don't see it when the video is playing (I did stare at stills, but I see nothing out of the usual).

Todd

Chris Medico · December 22nd, 2006, 03:18 PM

Here is a fused file I just put together from a rainy day here in NC. I didn't have my tripod with me so its a little shaky from being hand held while leaning over in the car trying to keep the camera out of the rain. ;)

The camera settings were Gain - 0db, A - F2.8, shutter 125, zoom 20x.

Color and other settings were out of the box stock. It was shot in 1080/60i

http://www.filefactory.com/file/a66e41/

Pasty Jackson · December 22nd, 2006, 08:07 PM

Would somebody mind shooting and posting a 24p clip with the sharpness bumped down a few notches, or all the way down... or both?

-Pasty

Marcus Marchesseault · December 22nd, 2006, 08:12 PM

Chris, after while watching that footage I felt cold and damp. It's 80 degrees here today! I don't know what is the best camera in the world, but it would take a lot to convince me the V1 isn't one of the best. I can't believe how easy it is to get good color with this camera. Perhaps it is all the image controls and a good layout and maybe it's the CMOS that does the job. Maybe I've improved my techniques where I finally need a camera with these controls to match my style. Whatever blend of these factors helps make better images, it has really impressed me on the screen. On a big HDTV, the images just draw you in. It's intoxicating.

The still images don't really do it justice, but I'll try to attach a few. This is my first try at attachments, so forgive me if it's botched. Image 2 is taken from the tape. Images 7 and 8 are stills shot directly to memory stick. On a big screen, the resolution of the video looks fantastic and you can get an idea of the color from the stills.

Tony Tremble · December 23rd, 2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus Marchesseault

Chris, after while watching that footage I felt cold and damp. It's 80 degrees here today! I don't know what is the best camera in the world, but it would take a lot to convince me the V1 isn't one of the best. I can't believe how easy it is to get good color with this camera. Perhaps it is all the image controls and a good layout and maybe it's the CMOS that does the job. Maybe I've improved my techniques where I finally need a camera with these controls to match my style. Whatever blend of these factors helps make better images, it has really impressed me on the screen. On a big HDTV, the images just draw you in. It's intoxicating.

My feelings _exactly_. All the concerns of 1/4" chips have been forgotten. The image really does have a certain something about it that makes people double take. Everyone I've shown images to had a similar response and these people are either camera ops or work in post like me.

This camera is the mutts nuts.

TT

Chris Medico · December 23rd, 2006, 11:13 AM

Yea, when I played it back at home I was stunned in the detail. Everything I've seen so far posted by everyone looks really good.

I shot the trees to see how the camera would handle backlighting. I was impressed to say the least. It was also one of the only things I could find that wasn't going to look black and white.

When the weather breaks I'll be shooting more interesting stuff. Oh.. I'll not forget to bring my tripod with me next time either.

The next trick is to get a good output workflow together to retain as much of that great picture as possible while making the product deliverable.

Marcus, I would love to see the video you made those stills from. That is some serious beauty.

Chris

Robert Ducon · December 24th, 2006, 05:24 AM

Beauty. I have Hi8 footage from 1991, from a Sony (i've since transcoded it to HD - cropped top and bottom of the frame). That looks a mite bit better though. Other than the sharpness and great colour, I notice a lack of compression artifacts, which sets this camera far apart from the Z1U and FX1 I continue to use. Thanks Marcus and others for posting.

December 21st, 2006, 10:24 PM	#16
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	Guys it is much much better then the 25p cameras but there is still something going on. It is small enough to maybe not notice when you watch the footage on a HDTV or even on a normal sized computer monitor but it is there. This is something that is not on any of the FX7 clips I have looked at but is on this clip. I noticed it the second time I looked at it although you have to see certain details just right in order to see it. I would rather this come up now so it can get fixed before a lot of the cameras are sold. I for one would not want to composite any footage that had this look. It is not natural and doesn't look anything like the FX7 footage I have seen. I have played this on 3 different computers in many different players and NLE's and it looks the same no matter what. Here is a full resolution cross section of a still from the video. I know still images are not a good way to judge quality but it does show that the 24p may have the same issue as the 25p cameras but just not as bad. I would hope SONY would fix this right away but if we refuse to see it then why should they. I didn't want to see it but it is there. Perhaps I am doing something wrong here but I doubt it. I have been playing HDV footage from every single HDV camera on the market and this is the only time I have ever seen anything like this. If somebody else can show me that it isn't there please post a sample and show me because everything I do shows it. Attached Thumbnails

December 21st, 2006, 11:14 PM	#17
Pasty Jackson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Asheville, NC Posts: 47	Well, possibly the problem could lie in your decoder then? Here is a grab from my system. It's from the same footage, but I'm not seeing the same problems. Attached Thumbnails

December 22nd, 2006, 03:18 PM	#25
Chris Medico Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Efland NC, USA Posts: 2,322	Here is a fused file I just put together from a rainy day here in NC. I didn't have my tripod with me so its a little shaky from being hand held while leaning over in the car trying to keep the camera out of the rain. ;) The camera settings were Gain - 0db, A - F2.8, shutter 125, zoom 20x. Color and other settings were out of the box stock. It was shot in 1080/60i http://www.filefactory.com/file/a66e41/ __________________ http://www.LandYachtMedia.com

December 22nd, 2006, 08:12 PM	#27
Marcus Marchesseault Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 1,961	Chris, after while watching that footage I felt cold and damp. It's 80 degrees here today! I don't know what is the best camera in the world, but it would take a lot to convince me the V1 isn't one of the best. I can't believe how easy it is to get good color with this camera. Perhaps it is all the image controls and a good layout and maybe it's the CMOS that does the job. Maybe I've improved my techniques where I finally need a camera with these controls to match my style. Whatever blend of these factors helps make better images, it has really impressed me on the screen. On a big HDTV, the images just draw you in. It's intoxicating. The still images don't really do it justice, but I'll try to attach a few. This is my first try at attachments, so forgive me if it's botched. Image 2 is taken from the tape. Images 7 and 8 are stills shot directly to memory stick. On a big screen, the resolution of the video looks fantastic and you can get an idea of the color from the stills. Attached Thumbnails

December 23rd, 2006, 11:13 AM	#29
Chris Medico Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Efland NC, USA Posts: 2,322	Yea, when I played it back at home I was stunned in the detail. Everything I've seen so far posted by everyone looks really good. I shot the trees to see how the camera would handle backlighting. I was impressed to say the least. It was also one of the only things I could find that wasn't going to look black and white. When the weather breaks I'll be shooting more interesting stuff. Oh.. I'll not forget to bring my tripod with me next time either. The next trick is to get a good output workflow together to retain as much of that great picture as possible while making the product deliverable. Marcus, I would love to see the video you made those stills from. That is some serious beauty. Chris __________________ http://www.LandYachtMedia.com

December 21st, 2006, 11:22 PM	#18
Chris Rentzel Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 60	Patsy I believe your grab was when the camera was not moving as much, and I think Thomas your grab was while zooming. Correct me if I'm wrong. It seems the images while zooming could lead to a paint-effect. Not sure that wouldn't happen on any camera though. If you put the camera on a tripod and let it shoot something, that'll probably be more accurate.

December 22nd, 2006, 12:21 AM	#19
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	The still I took is when the camera wasn't moving. Pasty it would be nice to see a shot from you at or around the same moment of time. This paint effect is much more subtle with these versions of the cameras and sometimes can only be seen with certain types of details. Your shot of the cat head looks exactly the same as what I can pull here of the same image. I am using many different decoders and coming up with the same results. With that said this is the only camera where I notice this sort of effect using any of my decoders and is exactly the same problem as noted with the 25p camera except on a much smaller scale which is sometimes very hard to see. I also see this issue with the still image shots Steve Mullen has posted and those were decoded by him on many different systems and decoders as well. Remember it is not my aim to put the camera down since I also want it to look good.

December 22nd, 2006, 07:47 AM	#22
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Tom, could you point out in the frame grab of the cat's head what exactly you are seeing that's not quite right? I've looked at that grab and I'm having trouble seeing any issues. It might be helpful if you could point out precisely the problem in that grab. Thanks.

December 22nd, 2006, 09:50 AM	#23
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	The image of the cats head wasn't the one I posted but the image under the post with my name. It is the shot of the stones and the cats rear end. Look at the pattern in the stones, rock and weed. Also the texture on the cat is all wrong. The girls head looks a little funny but it is border line and it could pass as normal I guess. The shot of the cats head is really hard to tell because the hair has lots of detail and I don't think this issue shows up in areas of high detail. If the person who posted the shots of the cats head wants to help prove that my image was done with a bad decoder then he should have chosen the same image. The image I picked is pretty easy to find because it was the image that was zoomed out and that has the least amount of movement due to hand shake. That is why I picked that image and not just some random image. If it is my decoder on 3 different systems with 3 different NLE's on each system why is it that the decorder doesn't do this with any other type of mpeg-2 footage? I can even play shots from the FX7 and they look fine compared to these shots.

December 22nd, 2006, 10:17 AM	#24
Todd Giglio Major Player Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 265	Thomas, Did you notice any of these artifacts in the clips I posted? I don't see anything out of the usual. The clips I posted are under the title: 3 V1U clips coming soon... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=82265 I'm trying hard to find these flaws, but I don't see it (I did in the 25p images). I definitely don't see it when the video is playing (I did stare at stills, but I see nothing out of the usual). Todd

December 22nd, 2006, 08:07 PM	#26
Pasty Jackson Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Asheville, NC Posts: 47	Would somebody mind shooting and posting a 24p clip with the sharpness bumped down a few notches, or all the way down... or both? -Pasty

December 24th, 2006, 05:24 AM	#30
Robert Ducon Major Player Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Victoria BC Posts: 400	Beauty. I have Hi8 footage from 1991, from a Sony (i've since transcoded it to HD - cropped top and bottom of the frame). That looks a mite bit better though. Other than the sharpness and great colour, I notice a lack of compression artifacts, which sets this camera far apart from the Z1U and FX1 I continue to use. Thanks Marcus and others for posting. __________________ Mac + Canon HV20