I'd suggest that increasing sharpness in a attempt to compensate might make things worse. Edge enhancement seems to always do a good job of enhancing noise and if this 'effect' is the result of DNR then edge enhancement is going to make the noise worse and the DNR bite harder. Perhaps this is why Sony were saying to turn detail down?

I agree. If my and others admittedly sketch DNR theory is correct, sharpening would make it worse. What would be needed is a fix to the NR DSP firmware and/or ability to adjust/turn off NR

I too noticed this, but I feel these HIGH-CONTRAST lines are exactly the ones where edge enhancement would be applied to increase their apparent sharpness.

In other words, overall detail can be soft -- the siding, grass, the wood railing -- while at the same time EE is applied to edges that meet certain criteria. And, at the same time noise reduction -- perhaps only chroma noise reduction -- is applied to areas of the same color. Multiple alterations to the video occur at the same time. And, each alteration is dynamic. It is turned on and off as needed.

This is what DSP does to "enhance" the image. This is how Sony got Hi8 to look so clean compared to S-VHS. This is nothing new in camcorder design.

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

I agree that increasing Sharpness might not be the right solution because -- as I think about it -- it might not help the grass and siding at all. It all depends on exactly what increasing sharpness does. I'm now thinking it only affects EE and not detail. (Which means there may be no way to avoid the fact P looks softer than I.)

Thus, if Brett's video was shot at 9 -- the branches might look better if 7 had been used -- while the siding might look the same. Which raises the possibility that Sony defined 5 for Cine
because it reduces EE while not really reducing detail.

It would be nice to shoot a complex scene at different levels of Sharpness to determine what the optimal level is for I and for P.

Again spot on the money Bob. We 25Pers can see the effect of sharpening because our default setting of 7 is more like the 24Per's 11. That's why we are being told to turn down sharpness to 3 to bring it more in line with 7 on the V1u.

The consensus is people really can tell the difference between P and I with the exception of Steve it seems.

P is not necessarily softer that I only when certain conditions are met. In other cases I is sharper than P. It is a mixture throughout the frame. This is why in Brett's clip the trees are alive with noise and the side of the shed is obliterated. This get worse as the light drops.

TT

You are definitely on the right track. You have to think of a reason why there is more digital noise and therefore an increased involvement from the DNR circuit particularly in darker areas of the frame.

Work that out and you have the answer to why P has the processed look.

The reason is prosaic. So prosaic that it is being overlooked.

TT

So isn't it more than likely that the encoder is just trying to compensate for too much detail? It would be extremly awesome if someone could post a series of labeled shots, all of the same subject, at every detail setting starting with the lowest. That would hopefully shed some light on what exactly the encoding engine is doing. Anybody up for the task?!

-pasty

Interesting... let's hope we're on to something here...

I don't think the encoder is involved in this.

And, frankly it really doesn't matter WHY P is softer than I. All of us can see that it is. I reported this and posted pix weeks ago. There's nothing really new here.

Now given this fact, when Sony defined the Cine setting they had a choice:

1) increase EE and hope that fact that "the objects to which it is applied" will have increased apparent sharpness which will overcome the overall softness; or

2) decrease EE to keep it in balance with the overal image softness.

Obviously, given that 90% of those shooting Cine mode are after a film-look, they made the right choice -- decrease EE to 5. This is the right amount of EE for P as is 7 for I.

In fact, given that every "how to get a film look" begins with "set 24p" AND "reduce Sharpness/Detail" -- the fact P looks softer is exactly what most folks want in Cine mode. The whole point of Cine mode is to avoid the hyper video look. So there is no real problem with softer P. Even for shooting 30p web video -- softer compresses better.

Now obviously there will be scenes where the EE balance isn't ideal. But an audience doesn't look at tree branches. They don't look at the siding on a house. They look at faces. They follow a story.

Once you understand the role of EE (Sharpness) and understand that it needs to be different for I and P because I and P are inherently different in image detail -- you are home free with a V1U. Use Sony's settings as I have and you get great HD.

Of course, you are free to increase or decrease EE as needed. But, if you increase it too much you are going to make mess. And, if you reduce it too much, you are going to make mush.

As Chris said many posts back -- the point of a tool is to use it be creative. Now that we understand the V1U better -- we know what settings to use. Why not shoot some PEOPLE doing somthing interesting? Enough of the tree branches. This all reminds me of people shooting water with the Z1 and worrying about the compression artifacts they saw. That kind of "testing" was big news for a week -- now few remember the horror stories. You can always find situations that break digital cameras.

You deinterlaced those pictures. That means effective resolution is dropped by half even in the progressive pictures. Previous pics were not deinterlaced, but they had no motion so the interlaced pics also contained a lot of information and no visible interlacing.

Atleast the 1,2,3,4 pictures, the a,b,c shots look fine. Compared to the a,b,c shots the four first ones are visibly lower in resolution.

I'd have to guess A is interlaced. B and C are not.

Although to be fair Steve, you did several times say that there wasn't a "problem". Now that we're closer to working out what the cause of the "problem" might be you're saying there is a problem and you noticed it first (which you did - but not as a "problem".)

But people don't want softer in cine mode... they want less edge enhancement.

What this camera is giving is excessive palette knifing under certain circumstances. Just because it is intermittant doesn't make it acceptable. It is unpredictable, and that makes it very dangerous to anyone who HAS to get the shots they want without the time, budget or opportunity to reshoot.

No-one is here to bash the camera. We're trying to work out what's going on, and under what circumstances it displays the excess softening. That way those who own the camera can have more certainty of not finding their footage looking like mush when they get back home.

We don't YET understand whether this IS actually the cause of the problem (and it is a "problem" until we understand it fully), because no-one has yet done a comparison, adjusting sharpness across P and I.

You are a 100% correct -- when I put photos 0 1 3 4 up it was to show there was NO difference between 30 and 60i. And, no one could pick out which was which. It was a response to the first 25p reports. I still see no difference. Hence no problem.

When I put up A B C it was 24p, 30p, vs 60i. It was clear to me in these shots there was a difference. But a difference is not a problem unless it is to the shooter.

Here's why I disagree with your statement "But people don't want softer in cine mode."

1) For the last three years many cinematographers have chosen the Varicam because it looks more "filmic." DVCPRO HD in 720p mode has only 960x720 resolution verses HDCAM's 1440x1080. They have expressed that the LOWER resolution looks more like film than does the HIGHER resolution format. This choice is not about EE, because you can adjust it on both cameras.

2) Many looking for a film look put softening filters on to cut fine detail.

Bottom-line -- given the clear preference for soft images for a film look, I believe that most such shooters will welcome the softer look for P. Hence "no problem."

There are shooters who will find this to be a problem -- and that's those going to film. I'm sorry, but the percent of those who will ever go to film is so small as to not be a real market for Sony. They will/should be shooting with a JVC camcorder. The vast majority will be using 24p for a film look -- in which motion judder, temporal aliasing, and softness will be critical to the "it's not video illusion."

The Problem I do see is the excessive EE in these photos. But since I used Sony's Cine preset -- I never ran into this. Which is why I'm suggesting using the two presets from Sony.

But, I still blown away that anyone would shoot 30p and boost EE to 9. Why? Those of us who have lived with the JVC HD1 for years have wished they could get away from motion judder and excessive EE. Now someone spends $5K and creates the HD1 look?!?

It's time for those who care about this -- to shoot correctly some scenes. Use 24p and 5. And, use gamma 1 (not gamma 2!) because it increases contrast which inceases apparent sharpness. Now see if you are unhappy.

Softness, sharpness, resolution are terms very relative and subjective - often used by DPs, viewer etc. to mean different things.

However, some things have a high degree of certainty:

(1) Anyone (DP, director) shooting narrative 24p will want as much resolution and contrast in the image as possible while keeping the image naturalistic. Currently, 35mm film has been the standard.

(2) Video has traditionally suffered from electronic artifacts (often called sharpness) - edge enhancements, aliasing, interlacing that cause people to attempt to use softening techniques to remove the electronic feel. However, this does not mean "softness" is desired. It's naturalistic images that is desired by most narrative image makers.

(3) The SI, RED camera and current DSLR tech points where we are going with this. Plenty of resolution, fully adjustable settings for noise, NR, etc. but the goal is a naturalistic image with electronic artifacts and lacking the grain of 35mm. "Grainless film".

So, with the V1, let's hope Sony can tune the CMOS images, DSP, firmware so that we can have a baseline image as artifact free as possible and allow shooters to tune to taste and shooting environment.

It may not fully happen with the V1 - perhaps a later model, but CMOS has enough promising features that I expect it will happen, sooner or later.

Well, I guess this is getting academic. At least one person on this thread feels that the progressive mode is softening the image to please people wanting a film look.

Some of us see instead that parts of the image are turned into mushy macro blocks while other parts of the image become sharpened and noisy (just noticed the noise in the tree branches last night - almost looks like a post processed film grain filter).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so if someone buys this camcorder and enjoys the 24/30P I suppose more power to them. I certainly wouldn't accept what's coming out of this $4,000 camcorder, but that's just me.

I'm just glad that Canon has finally stepped up with an affordable 24P camcorder. And I'm sure that Panasonic is working on a killer 24P cam in this range too.

And I will still wait with my trusty DVX100. I canceled my early HVX pre-order (and still glad that I did). I borrow/rent a camera when I must have HD but have not been really impressed with the new low cost cams(except for RED and SI but still to pricey for my budget) until the V1 with it's CMOS, no smear and wide latitude. However, it's clear it's suffering some growing pains as first low-cost 3-CMOS out of the gate. Like the SSE and other early issues on the HD100, the images could well be improved, so I have not given up yet.

I also would not be surprised with a non-P2 low cost Panny HD 24p cam at NAB. I think there is a huge market for it. The Canon A1 is interesting but a couple of issues are show stoppers for me still. So I will stay on the fence.

Try reading before you post. P is not softening the image to "please" anyone. P simply "looks" softer. (It may not measure softer by the way.) That may "please" some film look shooters. It may not "please" others -- who are free to buy another camcorder. When you sell 50,000 to 100,000 camcorders world-wide, this is not a big deal.

Moreover, there are no "mushy macro blocks" nor "noisey edges" in properly shot 24p or 30p. In fact the only sin in Brett's images is too much EE -- which he had control over. All the claimed V1U "problems" have appeared in video that was poorly shot. I've got many hours of correctly shot 24p video and so does DSE -- and we don't see problems.

Shoot Sh*t and you should expect it will look like Sh*t.

In fact there are now thousands of V1U being used. Where are all the complaints? In fact, of all the folks posting -- how many own V1Us? Who are you? Why are you commenting on someone elses poorly shot video and not posting your own?

We are now in the seeing "faces in the clouds" world where reality no longer has any role. This is the internet at its worst.

It is senseless to keep on plugging away at the notion that the oil paint effect is not a problem. The V1 simply cannot produce progressive footage to the same quality as interlaced and the idea that somehow Sony made the progressive mode softer on purpose is too look more like film is crazy. I've never seen a oil paint effect on any film! Sony are being quite open about the problem, well, at least with dealers. Nobody has to pretend the issue doesn't exist any more.

Steve you show two scenes where the "feature" is tough to spot but equally I can show many scene where the issue is all too noticeable to the point where the footage is unusable. I can show progressive footage completely falling apart. Let us at least get some balance into this. Now that the problem has been acknowledged why not use your undoubted intelligence and skill to quantify the problem and feedback your findings to your contacts at Sony? It might make the difference to the next product.

***
I will say for the record anyone wanting a 50i or 60i only camera you will find the V1 a match for any other camera on the market. I think the interlace footage is about as good as it gets. So if you have no interest in progressive shooting get this camera or at least give it a serious look. On the other hand if you requiring progressive be aware that there are known issues particularly in less than ideal light and with fine detail. If you don't see the artefacts or do see them and you don't find them a deal breaker fine enjoy an excellent camera. Otherwise look elsewhere.
***

ATB
TT

No Steve, what you are seeing is a debate where there are people with an equally strong but diametrically opposite opinion. Just because you and DSE don't see the problem doesn't mean other people who have are shooting sh*t as you eloquently put it.

TT

How many posting about problems are watching their own V1U video -- note I said "U" not "E" or "P" video on a calibrated monitor?

And some people are clearly trolling here when they keep posting the same things over and over. Especially when they don't even own a V1U!

P is not softening the image to "please" anyone. P simply "looks" softer. Who cares why? It just does.

P's useability is a judgement call. If you don't accept it, buy another camcorder and please go post on its forum.

I'm sorry that's absolute hogwash. "P" IS turning the image to mush under CERTAIN circumstances. But Bretts footage should not look like that under ANY circumstances! No other 24P / 24F camera would ever show that marked a difference - no matter HOW badly you pushed the settings away from where the sweet spot is.

I don't care who Sony's market is. I don't care whether Sony think they can let this ride. And I don't care that some people think it's acceptable. I'm not going to start apologising for a large company who should be providing solid, predictable, dependable tools.

There is a problem with the way Sony has set this camera up, and it can't deal with high detail images properly in "p". What are we supposed to do? Only shoot close ups? No landscapes? Don't go near grass or trees with this camera?

Some of us don't own a V1, but most of us can make pretty objective assessments of what we've seen.

Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it wrong.

We all agree that the images show undesirable artefacts under certain circumstances. What we don't agree on is whether that's acceptable from an (apparently) progressive camcorder like the V1.

I know what I see. And I don't think it's acceptable. I don't care whether it's on a calibrated A grade monitor, or my granny's TV. But in everything appart from the image behaviour in "p" this is a camera that I would like to own.

I am interested in this thread because I would like to see some answers and suggestions to come from this meeting of minds.

Your suggestion of "go away if you don't like it" isn't really the answer I'm looking for.

I respect your opinion, and I'm very happy that you are content with the way this camera works. But there are many people here who are concerned about this.

I have purchased another camera. I doubt I'll have the time to post much as now I can get the two projects, that were on hold, off the ground at last.

I took the tape I had recorded to my dealer today and we watched the output on a Sony LMD 32" HD monitor. We both saw the features on the same monitor. His opinion was the same as mine and he was extremely pleased to have the footage that so clearly demonstrated the problems. My dealer has only just got their stock of V1Es back from Sony so hadn't seen the "fixed" issues. He will not be selling the V1Es as a progressive camera. Period. I showed him several scenes that only the sharpening could be seen to others where the arse falls out of the image. His comment, based on the footage I'd shot, it was clear that you couldn't maintain consistency. Kerching!!! He was surprised how variable the effect could be. He would instruct his staff not to sell the camera as a progressive camera from this point forward.

I'll see if I can find the time to rapidshare some m2ts for independent review for those that are interested in the facts.

TT

I would love to see them and would love to return to a factual discussion of the issues with P mode that I have verified on my end. I am still interested in the V1 though fortunately, don't have to buy immediately. But I think there is opportunity for learning that is getting lost amongst the noise.

I would love to see much more P and P vs I footage posted than what we have, especially some standard charts, controlled but varied lighting.

I know it's work for the shooters but I would be willing to host if DV Info had bandwidth issues as I think it would benefit the community. I've got a VPS server with tons of unused bandwidth.

Just out of interest, what did you get, Tony?

Chris raised a perfectly valid point that Steve has followed up on, that this camera is only a tool, how we use it and the story we use to tell it is what matters. Steve went on to cite the issue of people shooting waterfalls and posting examples of macroblocking and how terrible it was and yet today tens of thousands of Z1s are used to shoot images for movies and HD broadcast. I could extend the same analogy to cover the HVX 200, heck even go back in time to when stuff was shot on VHS.

Yes people watched it, people even enjoyed what they watched, whole careers and businesses were built using nothing more than VHS cameras, despite what the res charts said, despite the lousy S/N ratio. All those debates were I have to agree pretty dumb cause the public didn't care, they came to watch a story.

Even now there's people who think they can't make a movie until they get a RED or their story would simply tank if it was shot on a Z1 and not a HVX and it's all BS, I agree wholeheartedly. Which is not to say I don't think it matters, we should all strive to deliver the best quality image possible and at times that'll involve many compromises based on our skills and our budgets.

But there's a reason why VHS or whatever was acceptable. It was consistent. It's part of how our sense of sight and sound works that we are very sensitive to anything unusual within what we hear or see. We'll put up with horrid amounts of distortion in what we hear if it's all the same and yet one distorted or out of tune note in something that's otherwise pristine demands our attention.

The same goes for our sense of vision. The first part of an image our eyes and brain processes is the edges, that's why mostly people prefer images with unnatural sharpness, more often than not they even prefer a lower resolution image that's sharper than a higher resolution image that isn't artificially sharpened.

At the moment I'm cutting a project where in at least half of the footage I've got 'talent' wearing dayglow orange vests over blue shirts. The chroma crawl is hideous. Does it matter, no. No one will ever complain even though I'd be happier if it wasn't there. But sure I'm not going to go into 'the sky is falling down' mode over it. It is what it is, DV.

But the problem being discussed here is a very different beast. I wouldn't give a rats if the image was a bit softer or the gamma wasn't film like or it was typical Sony colors compared to Panny colors. I'd even not suggest there's a real problem if the image was noisy, heck, OK, we'll just call it "grain", Joe Average sure doesn't seem to know the difference anyway so why wear out my fingers complaining about it.

If this issue was like any of those, I agree, it all comes down to how you feel your image should look and in the end it really doesn't matter much, no ones going to walk out of the cinema or change channels over it.

However what we're talking about here isn't a lack of resolution over the whole frame or a bit more than desirable noise. We're talking about an electronic artifact that isn't consistent accross the frame or over time. If it was as minor as the stuff in Steve's wonderful shots in the coffee shop no one will notice, heck I had to look pretty hard to find it.

It's when that becomes a major part of the whole image and there's nothing to mask it, no motion blur that pretty much masks the macroblocking in most HDV, no excuse that "nah it's not noise, it's grain mate"

In pretty well everyone of the frame grabs that people have posted and the small amount of test footage I've shot my eye has been drawn immediately to the part of the frame that exhibits the problem. It's way too visually distracting for the eye to ignore it. This is not the way to shoot an image that tells a story, I'd even go so far as to say if it affected the entire frame all the time it'd be less of a problem, Joe Average would see it as something intended, some new fangled special FX if you will, I think A Scanner Darkly could have saved 1000s of hours in post if they had a camera that'd do this for them.

I do agree with some of what Steve has said, the aliasing isn't a problem, I do agree no one stares at branches against the sky, sure it'd be better if it wasn't there but it's no show stopper. Having large parts of the frame turn to mush and for reasons we have little to no control over is going to impact our ability to use this tool to tell a convincing story. To equate this issue to macroblocking in HDV or noise in the HVX200 or any of the other such issues is simply wrong. The differences between how one part of the frame looks compared to other parts of the frame is simply way too dramatic for the eye to ignore.

Bob, I couldn't agree more with your point, bravo! My English is probably too limited to express it the way you did, but it's as if you were reading my thoughts.

Consistency and repeatability is the key to controlled creativeness, and that's why I prefer the "pseudo" progressive 25f of the Canon A1 over the "truly" progressive 25p of the V1 - even though it has some 10% less resolution than in the I mode, it's consistent in doing so, and I can treat the 25f mode as an additional creativity tool, not a gadged for performance measurement purposes.

If Bret had too much edge enhancement, why did some of the frame become sharp and noisy and some became soft and blocky? I had my wife watch Brett's video clip and she noticed how the front of the shed turned to mush. She actually said it "looks fake". Now trust me, for my wife to notice an artifact in a video its got to be pretty obvious. In Brett's sample, everything looked fine in interlaced mode. What in the world should he have done differently in Progressive mode?

Also, in Brett's video I didn't notice "noisy edges", entire portions of the picture became noisy - almost looked like a film grain filter.


Well the problem here is that sometimes perfectly fine interlaced shots turn cruddy when switched to progressive. I know you've got a zillion reasons why this is normal, good, acceptable or non-existent. But in every other camera I've seen the performance either stays the same or improves when switching to progressive. I think its reasonable to expect that a scene that looks good in interlaced will look at least as good in progressive mode.


Well at least we can agree on something.

As for the performance of progressive scan on the V1, perhaps we can simply agree to disagree?

The only alternative, the Canon XH-A1. I am looking forward to just getting down and using the tool rather than being frustrated and writing about it.

Peace...

TT

Thank you Bob for taking the time to comprehensively and absolutely nail the issue down.

TT

Plenty of bandwidth here on DV Info Net that I'm happy to make available for this purpose. Interested parties who have such video that they're willing to share need only to contact me via email for the upload account info. Thanks in advance,

Excellent - let's see some footage as there should be quite a few V1's in circulation now. Perhaps Tony can also shoot the same shots he did with his V1 as with his new A1 for comparison.

Bob, IF what you decribed actually happened when shooting P then I would agree that there was a serious problem. But it doesn't happen! I've got hours of 24p shot from inside temples, inside houses, and in the blinding sun. Not once does what you describe appear in my video. Only a slight softness that you can see in in A B C, but can't see in 0 1 2 3. Which I assumed was the price to be paid for using "5" rather than "7." Now I think it is inherent in P mode.

Of course, I'm shooting with a very very early Sony prototype. Very likely the same one DSE used to shoot his stunning video for Sony -- before the NYC announcment -- that thousands have now seen. Unless we are both lying to you all, what you describe doesn't happen with prototype cameras.

I don't even want to think about what this might imply. I hate the idea that saying this will lead to even more speculation. Which is why I'm not going to continue in this discussion. I'll wait for a Sony to say something.

But, I'm sure in heck going to try to hold onto this baby as long as I can.

In a thread on another forum its been indicated that an engineer with an american V1U has confirmed the "oil paint" effect in 24P and 30P. Hopefully we can expect more information by way of an article and some pictures within a few weeks.

Its not mentioned who the engineer is, but if its who I think it is, we should get a totally thorough and unbiased opinion on the issue.

I'm sure we'll hear more about this as the information presents itself.

Steve,
sounds like I've had that V1U in my hands briefly too, well travelled camera!

Look I don't think anyone's telling fibs, I mean that most sincerely. I think we all need to take a deep breath and realise that IF there is a problem it's a damn complex one. As I've said before my analysis is that you could very easily shoot with this camera for the rest of your life and not feel there's any issue at all. I still think for the most part it produces some of the best looking images of any camera in it's price range and it's got enough image controls to keep any test pilot happy for years to come, I mean what image controls are missing on the dang thing, not many, it even lets you store setups onto flash memory, can't do that with even a Z1!

Now you mentioed the footage shot by DSE, I have to admit when I first saw it after other had pointed it out I could see the odd problem but a) it was a prototype and b) you had to look pretty hard to see the problem, sure didn't put me off one bit.

And then I saw your first posting of those coffee shop images and I was blown away, they looked great. Well OK, there was the odd bit that looked like CA but heck for the money no one could complain, every HDV camera has these issues. It's not the camera it's the glass mostly and you'd spend a lot more than what the whole camera costs just to get a lens that doesn't have issues.

But now we're seeing what were minor issues affecting small parts of the frame affecting large parts of the frame. No I don't think it's something that's crept into the production models that wasn't in the prototypes. There's a small trace of it in one of your coffee shot frame grabs. Well I think that's what it is and no I don't mean the wood grain. Take a look at the attached image I've circled an areas where I think the same thing is happening. In this case it's not a problem, no one would notice it without looking real hard and they shouldn't normally be doing that. But when this effect hits larger parts of the frame it's then that it cannot be ignored.

Now maybe there's a way to stop that happening, maybe I'm looking too hard, I don't have enough experience to really say for sure. All I can say is it looks wrong to me.

Now I'll admit in my most recent test I did something really dumb, I forgot to turn off the ND1 filter after the camera had told me to switch it on. Don't remember seeing it telling me to turn it off, stupid of me to not realise I should have anyway. One things for certain, causing the camera to wind the gain up sure bought the smear problem out in a high contrast scene. Again this shows two things. a) I'm a lousy cameraman b) Sony could make the indicator a bit more In Your Face c) the problem seems to relate to noise levels. Or perhaps part of the problem is people other than me not turning the ND filter off? And for what it's worth I was shooting 50i.

Bob, I looked carefully at your circled area and I honestly have to say (even though you said the same thing), if we have to look THAT hard at an image to see an issue, then perhaps we should paint the picture instead (no paint-effects jokes please). I don't think there's another camera that could hold up to the scrutiny that this camera has.

Heck, I've looked at the Canon images and frankly I couldn't live with the terrible color seperation that seems to occur in some images on the right side of the frame. Just like the Sony, it doesn't show up in all clips, but IMO when it does, it's far worse than the issue with the Sony. It's particularly bad since this issue effects both the 'i' and the 'p' issue, it's inescapable. I've seen a number of clips that show this effect and it almost looks like a color CRT TV with terrible convergence issues. I myself could not live with that because it's such an 'in your face' problem. Frankly I'm utterly amazed that more Canon owners don't complain about that. My tiny little Canon HV10 HDV cam doesn't display anything like that problem.

So yes, none of these cams are free of issues, I guess you "pick your poison".

Just my $0.02: you're right about the color fringing issue with the Canon, but IMHO it IS escapable - it only shows at the zoom and aperture extremities AND contrasty scenes all at the same time; you may easily avoid it (and BTW, just take a look into the "Purple outline on background objects" thread - I never saw a color separation that bad on the A1).

That said, I agree that the issue in the area circled by Bob is a minor one.

I have a V1U and (so far) I haven't noticed any of the problems mentioned. I have seen the 'purple fringe' in high contrast footage, but I have yet to see the 'oil paint' effect. I have to mention that I'm also using the M2 35mm adapter.

It has been mentioned that the oil paint effect happens in certain shots and not others. Could someone give me a shot list where they find these problems to be obvious and I'll try to shoot it. Trust me, if there is a problem, I'd like to see it before I shoot my feature.

I've been using the Z1U and FX1 for over two years and have looked at A LOT of foootage (and just to mention, I've never had a drop out on any of my camers; 3 of them).

I want to have faith in the V1U, and if the footage I've shot so far is an indication, I'm happy. Granted, I haven't really done any post production work on these clips, so I don't know how they would handle under color correction or extensive editing.

So... if there is anyone who would like me to test the camera under specific situations (and I don't mean just good lighting, I mean they way that you think the camera shows these flaws) let me know. Give me a shot list and I'll see what I can do.

Todd

Todd, I am not sure whether you are 24P or 25P but one of the most annoying issues I have with progressive 25P is on shiny edges.
Take a clip with a reflective edge in it as interlaced then take the same as progressive.
The interlaced has no problems whereas the progressive along the edges has a crawling effect and you can repeat it every time. You apply the cinema effect to the progressive, the crawl diminishes a small amount but you start to notice the darker parts of the image begin to loose detail (probably I could learn to live with that), but the uncertaintity of the image in regard to edges is not acceptable as when you take a scene you need a level of quality that is consistant.
I now just take interlaced to be on the safe side as progressive is too flakey to be relied on unless you have the conditions you can guarantee will not produce unwanted results.
I do realize that progressive is meant to produce a softer image to get the look you are after but it has to be consistant across the image.
Michael.

Could some of those who have observed problems with progressive try taking some shots with just manual settings.
I have done some of the shots I have had problems with and using a higher f stop or higher shutter speeds and fine tune it with a bit of gain, the crawling went and the image was sharper. I don't have the gear to get a detail look at the images and appraise them more carefully, but I would like someone else to check this out with better gear.
Michael

Michael,

I only use manual settings (especially since I'm using the M2) and I haven't noticed any problems either. I can't imagine that the camera would add these flaws if operated only in auto, but you never know...

Todd

Bob, I just realised that I've had two V1Us. One came from DSE. And one came from DVexpo -- which might or might not be the first one I had.

I think it's obvious that Sony would not have given me the V1U twice if they thought there was anything wrong. In particular, they would not have asked me to shoot my Asia trip in 24p if they thought there was anything wrong with P mode. Chris will verify that I have been very hard on Sony -- and in public. They had to know I would be brutally honest if I found problems.

So we must assume that the video they and DSE were seeing didn't have significant issues. So let's call this Firmware A. And, I'm going to further assume (A) was what the Sony engineers thought was the OPTIMAL tuning given the way the camera works.

The version that went to the UK, which was the version Simon got, was horrible. Let's call this Firmware B.

Sony revised it for the production V1E's Let's call this Firmware C.

There may, or may not be any difference between the protype (A) and the shipping V1U. But let's call the shipping firmware, D. The difference bwtween (C) and (D) is the difference that has caused "many" V1E complaints and only a "few" V1U complaints.

All agree that P is softer than I.


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

Why is the V1 P-mode softer than I?

A) 1080-rows become 1080-lines in a frame every 1/60th second. For P -- these 1080-lines are used in a frame that lasts 1/30th second. For I -- 540-lines are used for the first field. In the second field, a NEW set of 540-lines are used for the second field. Over 1/30th second -- a total of 1080-lines are presented. However, because the second field comes from a second capture, I mode will have more vertical information over 1/30th second.

B) 960-columns are "interpolated" to about 1440-pixels each time the CCD is read and processed by the EIP. For P -- these 1440--pixels are used in a frame that lasts 1/30th second. For I -- these 1440-pixels are used for the first field. In the second field, a NEW set of 1440 pixels are used. Thus, over 1/30th second -- TWO sets of 1440 pixels are presented. Therefore, when presented, a frame of I has more horizontal information than does a frame of progressive.

C) Thus as I've repeatedly said, given Sony's design, P will be softer than I.

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

My feedback from the UK is that Sony Japan has not given-up on 25p which is likely why 25P was restored.