In fact, those solid macroblocks change from frame to frame, which seems to cause what could almost be described as a "shimmering" effect around high contrast edges - edges that aren't cored out.

Is that the crawling ants?

It looks to me a bit like this smoother:

http://neuron2.net/hiq/smoothhiq.html

an extreme example:

http://nickyguides.digital-digest.co...omer-noise.jpg

The smoothing isn't as bad in the v1e, but it's still something that should not be active unless there is excess grain like in that example pic because it will lose detail.

What happens if it doesn't support frame decoding but you import a frame encoded hdv clip anyway? I thought all mpeg decoders worked basically the same way and those flags don't actually do anything but tell the decoder how to output the interlaced fields.

Flags are sometimes wrongly encoded even in dvd-videos and thats why the decoders constantly analyze the picture.

You can force decoders to use weave deinterlacing (preserving the progressive nature) or the bob-method for interlaced material. Flags themselves won't stop the user from selecting the correct method (weave).

That's a very good question! Since the MPEG encoding is only on the tape, it seems like only the encoder and decoder would have to deal with FRAME verses ODD and EVEN data.

Before the encoder and after encoding -- the video is field-based.

But, as I said, I'm speculating.

What I like about the DNR possibility is that so many have commented about noise as well as oil paint. The ants are really weird since they are an NTSC composite artifact. I've never seen them in HD. But, they could occur when two slightly miss-matched fields are combined into a frame.

But I don't see why they would move?

-------------

Encoders don't do the right hing without flags -- they do whatever their default action is. This may be correct, but it may be very wrong! Goggle CUE and ICE. You'll learn a lot about MPEG-2 artifacts that come from many, many bad encoders.

This does sound reasonable too. But, why would P be cored more than I?

Um... Oh yeah! That would seem to be a flaw in that theory... especially as if it was just the coring setting it would have been an easy fix for V1E owners - especially given that the image looks so great in "I".

It is quite amazing that now people are beginning to see the problems with progressive mode even on the V1U. The artefacts are the same as I reported for 25P except for some reason they are slightly reduced.

I am amazed that you didn't spot these Steve.

I have a pretty good understanding as to the problem and I know it has nothing to do with software decoders at all. I am not going to post what it is because the post will just get deleted and I'll get accused of spreading FUD. Which I think you will all find out that I haven't in due course.

You might feel that there isn't too much of a problem looking at those images posted by Brett but wait until the lighting goes against you and you'll find another problem surface. I'll refer you to my post with comparison pics of roof detail on the 25P issue.

Whether you can live with the oil paint effect is your call but here in PAL land where the issue is magnified for whatever reason I can't.

TT

Now I am shocked: the prog_int_test.m2t file shows the kind of softness in the progressive 30p mode _EXACTLY_ like that in my V1E 25p mode!

I can't believe my eyes! Tony, can you see it?

What is Sony thinking? Why have they stopped marketing the V1E as a true progressive camcorder and still trying to sell the V1U as a fully functional version, if _BOTH_ suffer from the same flaw?

I'm compeletely lost. But you know what? I've got a feeling they'll soon come up with a software fix to both versions. It can be done, they just need more time.

Edit:
After a second thought, I can see some logic to it. So far, most NTSC reports about how great the progressive mode is were based on 24p, which is different in its nature than the 30p (which is in relation to 60i the same as 25p to 50i). Tony, both of us suspected quite a time ago that perhaps both 25p and 30p might be affected. And voila - they are (with the effect slightly less pronounced in the 30p). Sony is still selling the NTSC version as progressive simply because it has 24p, which works. I bet they are working on both 25p and 30p; whether they will succeed? Well, let's keep fingers crossed.

Wow, I just don't see much of a difference in Brett's jpegs. Yes, there are some differences, but they're very minor IMO. I think Tony's shots of the roof were more dramatic and may have pointed out the lighting issue in this problem.

Ken, just watch the prog_int_test.m2t clip closely - once it switches from interlaced to progressive (I assume 30p), the roof details get softened (and the brown walls even more so). There's no doubt about it; I tested my V1E in exactly the same manner: same scene, several seconds in 50i then several scenes in 25p; the same kind of difference in sharpness, only just a little more pronounced.

In fact you can see the paint effect in the other clips that Brett posted, too.

It seems mostly to be limited to areas of similar colour - like skytones, or flat walls.

In the villiage clip it's there in the sky, clouds, distant mountainside, and shadow areas of the branches - although less noticable because they don't have much variation in them naturally, so the "coring" or "noise reduction" or "hideous MPG artefacts" (or whatever is causing this phenomenon) isn't quite so obvious - but it's definately there. And there is dancing noise all over edges.

Whether this is "terribly" noticable or not - it doesn't seem to be an acceptable image when compared to the "I" footage. P seems to totally wipe out vast swathes of detail.

Alex

Whether the oil paint effect is noticeable is down to the scene on a case by case basis but the dancing noise is there all the time. The problem this causes is reducing the efficiency of the next encoding pass be that back HDV, compression to DVD or for broadcast etc etc. You'll be storing up problems for distribution with all that dancing noise.

It's not just how it looks it is the effect on the whole post production chain that must be taken into consideration.

TT

Just based on my informal tests I didn't notice any difference between 24P and 30P, they both exhibited the same effect. I don't have examples to show. But I'm pretty confident that 24P is no better.

The question for me is what Sony is going to do about it. It seems like they have a problem of the same magnitude as the split screen with the first JVC HD 100's. They'll either have to fix the problem with some sort of firmware update or get a working model and exchange it for the bad ones. I don't have time today to call them, but I will sometime soon. It would be nice if Sony acknowledged the problem and made a commitment to fix it. This is going to be bad PR for them.

The dancing noise is grain that the smoothing algorithm hasn't removed. But it does remove a lot of other noise so this actually will improve the encoding. It's easier to predict movements of smoother surfaces. The noise around edges would be there anyway even without the filter.

Mikko

Look closer there is much more noise in progressive than interlaced. I have loads of footage of the phenomenon and can clearly see an increase in noise in areas where it is relatively noise free in interlaced. This noise creates a shimmering effect in areas of high contrast detail and makes detail like winter trees against a blue sky extremely problematic. There is much more ringing in these circumstances.

The issues are much more than just coring believe me. When the light drops on a subject an over-active noise filter sets about destroying even more detail. This does not happen to the same degree in interlaced mode as it does in progressive.

Coring can be an effective too to improve the efficiency of the compression scheme but in this case it is not the only problem. The coring threshold is quite steep so you can literally have clumps of high detail "pop" out of a smoothed area.

You will also find edge detail is more aliased in progressive mode too due to over sharpening.

TT

Tony, it's funny that you mention noise in winter trees against a sky. This is precisely where I find the noise to be the worst in the interlaced mode on the FX7. Edge enhancement noise can be clearly seen along the edges of bare branches against the sky. As I've said before, I see the same issue with wires against a sky.

Now if I shoot the same scene with my little Canon HV10, there is no noise in that same area. Yes, the Sony will appear brighter & a bit sharper, but with the added phenomena of edge noise. Again, this does not appear in most scenes, but it's clearly there in some.

So IMO some artifacts are not a byproduct of just the progressive mode.

To me so far it almost seems to react strange to subtle gradients. That may be why we notice this in areas of flat color such as a blue sky or wall. Maybe there is a lot of banding from the DSP. Just a thought.

24p vs 30p
 

Brett:

Can you shoot a 24p vs 30p vs 60i clip so we can be sure that is the issue? Say of the workshop? I'm a little uneasy that some cameras may have the issue in 24p.

Tom, make sure what you're seeing is in no way related to your display device. Many digital displays will produce precisely this type of banding with areas of similar color.

It's visible on the stills and clips... and it doesn't show up in "i", so it's unlikely that the display is the root cause of the problem.

Brett, thank you for taking the time to provide these links.

So I've opened the two workshop JPEGs and I'm comparing them on two identical 20" LCD displays. I've also viewed the M2T file.

It is of course 100% obvious from this footage that the progressive mode is washing out almost all the detail of the exterior of the red shop. And of course in that lower left portion of the screen, right under the hand rail, there's a lot of detail in the wood grain when in interlaced mode that turns to macroblocks in the progressive mode.

There's no way this can be a decoding issue of course, since the entire image would suffer equally. In progressive mode this camcorder targets portions of the image that meet certain criteria and applies a blurring or noise reduction to them. This is important for potential buyers to know, since some users regard progressive shooting as a priority and may wish to factor this into their purchasing decision.

Again, thanks for making the effort to post your objective samples.

paint effect
 

I was looking to the workshop prog.jpg and you can notice in the back house and tree branches some type of paint effect but it all could be due to, over sharpened video filter or like many of you said some type of noise reduction filter or combination of both maybe. This remind me of the effect you get in photoshop by duplicating a picture then applying an emboss filter to the top image and then blend it with the first image and it looks something similar to the paint effect, off course without the detail loss.

OK -- which are 24p and which are 60i? They are 60i at 360 and 24p at 216.

Just use the pix number: 0 1 2 3

Sorry for the JPEGs. I wish we could upload TIFF or large BMPs.

And, yes I've made it harder by using 4 pix -- prevents guessing at 50:50 chance.

Now for those who claim 24p is different than 30p -- which it's not since it begins as progressive just like 30p -- which of the three A B C pix are 60i and which are 30p? Maybe one of them is 24p?

Given the claims that there are huge quality differences between frame-rates -- you shouldn't even need to play games and blow these up. The claimed differences should obvious at a glance.

Look for the oil paint FX. Look for the ants. Look for the macroblocks with no detail. Look for the ringing. :)

And if you claim you see some artifact -- you must describe it and point out where it is. No general "I see X in Y." Your observation must be able to be verified by others -- or it ain't valid.

Remember, it's claimed the effects are so serious that they are a deal breaker, so if there isn't a consensus -- then there isn't any problem with the V1U.

In c.jpg I can certainly see the oil painting effect, nowhere near as dramatic as what I've seen in some footage I've shot but given the subject matter that's exactly what I'd expect anyway.

That's the issue here, the problem only becomes pronounced enough to be objectionable with certain subject matter. I don't think anyone's saying you can't shoot footage that looks great. Rather the issue seems to be that you can shoot certain scenes under certain lighting conditions and get really bad results and under those and only those conditions there's a difference between shooting I and P.

Hey Steve

It is almost as though you ignore most of what's been written on the subject.

Read what Bob has written and please take note of it. It is important.

In good lighting there is little difference apart from the ringing noise around lines of contrast made worse in 25P by the excessive sharpening we have that also cause the marching ants effect. The effect is also quite noticeable in gradients such as skies.

When the light falls below optimum this is when the effect begins to dominate. That above all is the deal breaker for me anyway.

I applaud Sony's attitude toward its customers. I really do. Their official line is if progressive mode does not me your expectation then you are quite welcome to have a full refund. Can't say fairer than that!

They accept progressive is not up to the very high standard of the interlaced mode. It is a feature of the camera not a fault of it. I just want to make that clear. It was a fault prior to the firmware upgrade now the remaining "issues" with progressive mode are down to how the camera works in progressive mode. If you are not bothered by it keep the camera, if you are get the refund. There are no more fixes for any cameras coming.

The problem is solved...

TT

Could not agree more, Bob (I am referring to 25P). The problem is a real nuisance when you shoot in varied lighting and contrast situations, to the extent that you get very nervous about shooting progressive unless you have the proper conditions to get a good result.

And fair enough only certain types of shoots are suitable for progressive, especially with low frame rates, but you need to be confident that the results will give you the footage you should expect from a progressive marketed camera. The results of interlaced footage should not be relied on to get the best result when you are shooting progressive in order to achieve a clean progressive look.

You don't buy a progressive camera to get unreliable results. I just hope that Sony will bite the bullet and come out openly to give us an honest appraisal of the situation as they see it, so we as owners can review whether we have a full progressive or only in part progressive camera.

Michael.

I think this qualifies as "good" lighting -- so where is the "ringing?"

Or, if you think it qualifies as "bad" lighting, then there should be all the artifacts.

Remember, you must describe it and point out where it is. No general "I see X in Y." Your observation must be able to be verified by others.

Time to put your claims to a public test.

Steve, I'm a little too busy to look through your graphics right now. Perhaps you could look at the M2T file and two images of the red workshop that Brett posted for us and let us know if you think those are fine. Seriously, not trying to rag on anyone here, I'd really like your take on those samples.

The reason I ask is because people can post perfectly wonderful shots from their V1 camcorders all day long and that simply proves what we alredy know: the V1 can produce perfectly wonderful shots.

Unfortunately, providing wonderful samples does not dissprove that the camera can also create very problematic shots.

If you could give your professional breakdown of the video showing the red workshop that would be most helpful.

Thanks in advance!

And we all hope you remember which one is which. What if you forget in the meantime?
The world will never know the "truth"... So how can we make sure you have jotted down the solution of your riddle?

The way A-B tests work is to test if people can reliably differentiate between things. In reality, the truth is irrelevant. If a difference is real -- say between a B&W and Color images -- folks should be able to sort them perfectly.

Of course, this should be a blind vote because one could simply agree with the majority. I'm going to trust that no will play games as it's not in the spirit of the group.

Please remember I'm not saying the 25p issues aren't real. Obviously they have been or are -- depending on your view. I'm only pointing out that contrary to claims that the V1E has the same problems -- that it doesn't.

I have yet to see a similar public test using 25p and 50i.

Did you not see Brett's clip? That's all you need to know.

Put up m2ts.

If you are happy with the progressive "features" then that's fine Steve. I am not. I get a refund tomorrow. No more wasted time.

Once the weather will allow me to move outside, I will do the test shots and post.
Btw in the numbered line two pics are copies of each other, not different shots with different settings. It is indicated by the identical head positions. The other two maybe identical, too - at least no heads there to indicate the difference.
What I see is two times two identical pics, two of them show oil paint inside the cake chiller.
If I had to live with that, I would be happy with it. But 25p is different.

Steve,

After looking at your pics, it seems to me that pics 1 & 3 are the 24P images. To my eyes, the dead giveaway is the drop ceiling behind the counter. It simply loses detail when compared to the other images.

Juan

Noted. I have now ammended the forum software file attachment parameters to allow for uploading fairly large file sizes using .TIF, .TIFF and .BMP extensions. Please be judicious with the bandwidth (thanks in advance).

Possibly not true, given that it's generally felt that the "effect" is intermittent (and depends on the image shot).

We certainly have something weird going on in the footage and images provided by Brett.

I also think it's images 1 and 3 that are P, but I wouldn't stake my life on it - and I'll agree with you that in this case it's hard to tell.

Looking at the JPEGs I see exactly what I've always said about 30P vs 60I. The P has about 2 clicks less Sharpness than does I. Look at the grass. Look at the siding. (By the way -- I really don't believe these were shot with +9. Why would anyone shoot at anything above NORMAL.)

I posted this observation almost 3 weeks ago -- if not longer. It's obvious! You can see the lack of detail in my posts and Bretts. Look at my pix A B C. Look at the wood grain! It's obvious!

And, while the P softness is not always there -- likely because if there is a lot of contrast it increases apparent sharpness -- I'd hardly call it "intermittent." I'd say it's almost consistently slightly soft.

And, I'm not surprised since the capture method for P is different from that for I. Every I frame is sourced from 2 frames of 1920x1080 while P is sourced from 1 frame of 1920x1080. I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this. I would expect this difference. No one should expect I and P to be identical.

The solution is simple -- try a bit more Sharpness with P than you use for I. If that adds to much EE, then the answer is equally simple. Just accept the fact that the way Sony gets P results in less fine detail that the way it gets I. Once accepted -- you either live with it or buy a different camcorder.

Well this is getting even weirder. So I'm looking at the two screen caps with the red work shed. I'm really trying to work with this reduced sharpness theory but I'm actually noticing now that the tree branches, especially in the right side of the frame, look quite a bit sharper and crisper in the progressive frame. There are actually some very fine branches that wash out in interlace mode that are clearly visible in the progressive frame. The increased resolution and detail in some parts of the progressive frame just does not align with the theory that progressive mode has reduced sharpness over interlaced. I think it stands to reason that whatever the sharpness settings are for progressive vs interlaced, it should be even across the entire image. I'm very clearly seeing now that the red siding on the shed - especially the front with the single door - is extremely blurred out in progressive and the details in the branches are actually increased.

I think I'm going to pull this clip into After Effects tomorrow and take a closer look.

Thanks for responding Steve.

Good eye. That effect is visible on LCD as well. I think the reduced sharpness is unlikely. I played with the clip in Vegas 7 using levels and channel blend. The red shed lines that appear to soften in progressive are actually the more underexposed portion of frame. They contain much more blue and red, much green.

Most of the branches appear to stay same or sharpen slighty in progressive whereas the shed detail disappears.

My guess is that it's noise reduction (or possible a gamma/matrix issue) that is causing somewhat underexposed (lower IRE) areas (seems to be more blue and red channel affected) areas to get excessive noise reduction applied, basically treated detail as noise and smoothing it out.

However, areas of the frame that it identifies correctly as detail, and we see the slight progressive sharpness improvement we expect.

This jibes from my observations of Tony's images - areas of low detail in darker areas of frame lose detail and/or watercolor effect.

Of course, I'm not a camera engineer, but I think with these clues, some good charts, a vectorscope and controlled manipulations of camera settings, this issue (which is clearly real) can be illuminated.

I can see why testing might have missed it - my guess is well lit, higher contrast progressive images look fabulous as DSE's footage did.

Ha! I noticed the exact same thing! The progressive frame even seems to have more sharpening artifacts in certain areas of the frame. I made these 100% crops to illustrate Philip's point.

In the m2t, I also definitely see the dancing noise in the progressive versus interlaced.

I hate to say it, but for me, this camera is just too inconsistent. I really wanted to buy this camera for the smaller size and better focusing and exposure aids but Sony isn't doing a good job of convincing me, especially when the competing Canon XH-A1's street price has now settled to $3500. I really feel for the V1E folks who have been inconvenienced by this whole mess and I don't blame them at all if they vote with their pocketbooks and get an XH-A1 instead.

P.S. Another thing Sony, the focus distance display turning off after 3 sec is also another really bonehead thing to do!