I viewed my Sharpness tests tonight. So far it's only V1 via HDMI to monitor.

I-mode: at "7" -- I could see very little EE. (Remember, my HDTV is adding almost no EE.) A small amount of EE is necessary to get clarity. Lowering below "5" reduced fine detail. At zero, video was very soft -- but not mush. The control is not aggressive. However, fine detail became even better as I increased above "7." The control really is a DETAIL control.

30p and 24p: VERY slightly less sharpness on vertical lines/edges than 60i/30p. Aliasing in the form of "dancing dots" on horizontal lines/edges. Dancing dots on VERY thin diagonals.

No line-twitter.

Oh, that. Sure, but it's a very rough indicator, as it also depends on the LCD own contrast and sharpness.

OK, so I have uploaded an MPEG-2 clip for you to check and comment. I'd like to upload raw .m2t files, but there's a limit of 100 MB so it's difficult to shot exactly what you want, and use just below the file length limit. This means some basic editing (trimming etc) is needed; in the old DV days I used a great shareware utility that could trim files (avi or mpg) without re-compressing. It was quick and didn't change anything in the original video; does an utility like this exists for HDV m2t files? Please let me kow!

In the meantime, I've trimmed and merged in Premiere 2.0 two clips - one is 25p and the other is 50i, they show roughly the same scene - you have branches in the sky etc. Of course, due to the season of the year we're having, the sunshine is not as bright as needed for a perfect HDV - but you will get and idea of differences.

Here, the progressive clip played back from the camera via component showed terrible line twitter. The same clip - captured and played back from the computer on the same monitor - doesn't show even a sign of it, as I mentioned before. Please let me know if you can see it - take a close look at the horizontal board edges in the shed's wall. Thanks!

And here's the link: http://rapidshare.com/files/17560397/test2.m2t.html

Please share your opinion on the video (not cameraman - it's poor) quality; whether you can find flaws (the line twitter, oil paint - anything)!

PS. Apart from line twitter, which hopefully is just a matter of display device - after a closer inspection I can see a liitle more noise in the progressive (both were shot at 0dB, sharpness 7 and 1/50th; exposure and focus were auto). This noise *might* have been the reason for some DNR to kick in, causing oil paint effect in the previous firmaware version (just IMHO). I can now safely say that the very same scene looks softer (less overal rez), but also less noisy with the A1 (also at default sharpness, but with -3dB gain, IF it's comparable at all).

PS.PS. here is a clip from Canon; 25F various picture profiles:
http://rapidshare.com/files/1760054...nce_01.m2v.html

Thank you. Using VLC to play via HDMI to my hdtv I see three things.

1) on P: aliasing on thin horizontal lines that appears as "dancing dot noise.

2) on P: diagonal stripes through slanted lines -- what I believe is called "barber pole."

From an article on ultra-sound:

"If the [low] I/Q Nyquist sampling rate is maintained all the way through the detector, axial spatial aliasing would result, which is visualized as a distracting "dancing dot" or "barber pole" artifact in the image whenever there is axial motion from frame to frame."

In short these are aliasing artifacts. It matches Adam Wilt's pre-review of the V1. Aliasing seems to be increased by movement (axial motion).

3) on P: no line twitter UNTIL I switched VLC from deinterlace OFF to BOB, DISCARD, LINEAR, and X. OFF, BLEND, and MEAN show no line twitter.

Line twitter is also caused by vertical movement over very thin lines.

None of this I see on I.

Anything that filters vertically seems to fix the problem. What do you see when you export back to HDV?


I'll burn your file to HD DVD when I get the chance.

UPDATE:

30p and 24p: Aliasing in the form of "dancing dots" (looks like noise) on horizontal lines/edges and on VERY thin diagonals.

Actual resolution seems the same on tree limbs and wood grain textures in all modes.


Can you send me a 3 sample and a 5 sample to add to the HD DVD.

Steve, I'm now *[EDITED]* sure the twitter is display dependent in the sense of whether or not it's trying to deinterlace; if it is not - the twitter is gone (the side effect of this conclusion is that my LCD component input *IS* in fact deinterlacing - hence twitter in from-camera progressive, but no hotizontal motion stair-stepping, or combing, in interlaced).

This leaves me with another concern that I would like to be assessed before I re-consider the V1E: what can be done with what I simpy called "noise", and you more precisely descripted as "dancing noise". It can be very distracting; do you believe it can be eliminated by reducing sharpness? I'm asking about the theory behind it; practical tests I will do myself later because right now it's snowing here so no right comparison to yesterday's clips is possible.

Thanks!

EDIT: I played the clip with VLC and like Steve says: the Bob deinterlacer re-introduces heavy horizontal lines twitter, which is present when playing back from camera. This means it definitely (and not just probably) is a display-device related problem.

The bob-deinterlacer in vlc seems to be a bit worse than the bob method in for example powerdvd. It seems to exaggerate twitter.

Yes it does, but what's important it clearly shows that what is so dreadful when feeding 25p into component of my monitor (either live, or from tape with the V1) is just the monitor trying to "deinterlace the deinterlaced", and thus it's NOT the camera's fault.

I'm not sure if we're talking the same thing; by noise I mean the dancing noise that is equally visible in my 25p as well as 30p (or was it 24p?) V1 versions (eg. in the "church", "shoeshine" or "village" clips posted earlier on this forum).

Bottom line so far is:

- the line twitter is NOT the camera fault (monitor trying to deinterlace with bob or similar technique)

- the dancing noise is common to both E and U versions of the V1.

I think we can safely say that both E and U versions of the V1 give the same results, also in progressive mode - one can like it or not, but no need to differentiate between them any longer.

UPDATE on my tests with v1u:

30p and 24p: Aliasing in the form of "dancing dots" (looks like noise) on horizontal lines/edges and on VERY thin diagonals. 99% eliminated at 5. Becomes very visble at 11.

Actual resolution seems the same on tree limbs and wood grain textures in all modes. I'm not sure why my posted pix and others looked softer when the video doesn't. I fear I may have switched to Cine (at 5) AND switched 24/30 on. If so, my bad.


Can you send me a 3 sample and a 5 sample to add to my HD DVD.

Steve, do you mean the same scene but with sharpness at 3 and at 5? OK I'll do that, but have to wait for a better weather (it's now snowing in Poland).

Do you know about some tool for trimming HDV m2t files without a need for recompression? I used to have some shareware doing just that but only for SD video files...

Generally, do we agree that the only problem now is this "dancing dots" noise, and that it's the same in both the E and U versions of V1's progressive?

If so, we've just made an important step forward in understanding some myths about this camera.

The amount of aliasing, however, seems very different. And, after seeing your line twitter -- I'm not so sure there is not a real difference between the units.

I have finally come up with an explanation of why R50 models would have more aliasing than R60. It's really simple, but I want to think a bit more. If I'm correct -- it confirms Sony recommendation to use 3 with p. But, it also confirms the downside of doing so. It even explains why Sony created the first firmware for r50.

No matter the explanation -- the work you are doing is critical because it points to what r50 users can do.

Steve,

How come if I render video from 3D studio Max as 1440x1080 30p anamorphic and then encode that to HDV which in turn really makes it 30psf it doesn't show that many problems with aliasing? I mean a 3D render with have a lot more detail then any HD camera could do. I even encoded two different segments. One as a raw 60i and the other with flags set. I'm not sure if the flags made it to the tape on my HC1 that I used for the test but in the end it was still 1080i video that was progressive in nature even though it was encoded as 60i. I even added film grain to simulate noise and everything seemd to look pretty good even on my HDTV that just bobs.

A good 3D app will have the option to apply a anti-aliasing filter. Perhaps it turned on.

I think we've moved past the thread topic and really now looking at R50 vs R60. It's looking like -- contrary to my thinking -- that the R50 has more aliasing & line twitter than the R60. At the same time -- it appears that the type of deinterlace makes a difference during playback.

Is this related PsF? I really don't know.

Steve, I can't wait for the explanation, though - please provide us with it!

In the meantime, I've uploaded another file showing more or less the same scene with:
-50i, sharpness 7
-25p, sharpness 7
-25p, sharpness 5
-25p, sharpness 3
Here is the link:
http://rapidshare.com/files/17910475...arpness7-3.m2v

From my viewpoint, with sharpness set to 3 (as Prime Support suggests for the PAL users), the dancing dots (or aliasing) is almost eliminated. Also, I have shot a couple of quite nice clips with this setting and in some conditions, the video is not too soft (combined with the cinegamma and other settings, but also with the particular contents, you can get quite "filmic" look to it). However, when you watch the scene I provided with the link right after the same scene shot with higher sharpness, it looks absolutely too soft. I have to add though it's still on par with the default XH sharpness.

I'm looking forward to what others think of it.

Maybe that's because the camera outputs 50i at its components not 25p?

I think you've found your answer -- since your goal is a filmic look you are altering the video in several ways.

Even in the USA, Sony recommends a softer look for Cine. And, given the BBC's claim that switching to 24p is not enough because video is still too sharp -- going softer seems to be part of what folks do, or should do, when using P video for a film look.

If I'm correct that at "3" R50 units have the same V rez as the R60 units at "5" -- the only loss is H. rez. Since V rez is the most critical, using "3" is no big deal.

The critical question -- is how will you view your productions. If using a computer, then you can even use "5." If going back to HDV, then "3" is correct. Maybe "4" would be an OK compromise.

Not that I like the idea of having to turn down the sharpness on a HDV camera in order to obtain a watchable video, but I can add that under certain conditions, it is possible to keep sharpness low (eg at 3) to avoid aliasing, but still get a good picture. One thing to observe is the aperture; one should try never to close it too much or diffraction can add to low sharpness, further spoiling the picture. The same scene I posted, still with sharpness at 3 but with ND filter engaged and iris open up from around 8 to around 5.6, can be found here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/18138889...rpness3_ND.m2v

The perceived sharpness/resolution goes up even though the sharpness setting was untouched.

Steve, if its true that at "3" R50 units have the same V rez as the R60 units at "5" , and indeed some 20% more bandwidth must be squeezed out of the R50 hardware than from R60, it seems still possible than Sony might come with a new firmware fix for PAL models. It'd be unough to filter vertical resolution by some 20%, while keeping the horizontal rez and default sharpness intact, or keep the V rez intact while cranking up the H rez to its absolute limits, and then establish the default sharpness of 7 being the same as the current 5 setting in the 25p mode. The purpose of the above being that lowering sharpness to avoid dancing dots would only result in V rez reduction, keeping the H rez on par with the interlaced mode. Canon XH-series have separate "H DTL FREQ" and "DTL HV BAL" settings for just that. What do you think?

Hi Piotr

Are you saying the XH-A1 image is as soft as the V1E at sharpness setting 3?

That would be an extraordinary claim. Perhaps you could clarify that remark?

I have downloaded and viewwed your footage to see if there is any difference between a "fixed" V1 to one shipping directly from the factory with upgraded firmware. Well no. The image still turns to mush at sharpness setting 3 in line with Sony's recommended progressive setting.

Regards

TT

Tony,

Have you also downloaded the clip showing clearly how opening aperture up can sharpen the picture, even at the sharpness setting at 3? For you convenience, here is the link: http://rapidshare.com/files/18138889...rpness3_ND.m2v

All I want so say is that by carefully tuning the parameters, it is posiible to obtain a very nice picture with sharpness=3, completely free of the dancing dots (the horizontal, contrasty line twitter have already been established beyond doubt as a viewing device-induced artefact).

As to the Canon - yes, unless you crank its sharpness up (to +3, or even higer), it looks much softer than the V1E at the default 7 setting, which leaves the room to decrease the V1's sharpness while still being on par with the A1, at least with the V rez of its progressive mode (unfortunately, de-sharpening affetcs also the H rez - hence my "wish" to Sony in the previous message). Of course, the best compromise could be setting sharpness at around 5, which is completely viable in certain conditions, where the contents doesn't have too many contrasty lines and thus the aliasing artefacts are not so strong.

I don't expect a firmware update. Sony has often released an A version -- not to fix things, but to add features/capabilities that may not have been ready.

It really comes down to how many units they want to sell. Given the near absence of HD in R50 -- sorry but its true -- the V1 is primarily aimed at Japan, Korea, and the USA. Since they'll sell all they can build in these 3 countries -- how many R50 sales do they need?

When you look at R50 there are 3 segments: PAL DV/DVCAM, 50i HD, and 25p HD. Despite the VOCAL interest in 25p -- it's a minority market, anywhere. News, sports, corporate are 50i. And, if you look at the quality of the V1 imaging -- there are tons of PAL sales to be made. So if Sony sells all the PAL DV/DVCAM units they expect, plus all the 50i HDV units they expect -- they can afford to punt the 25p market. And, the fact is despite some complaints about 25p HDV, they'll still sell a bunch of them.

Sony makes business decisions -- and they fact is that if they had never offered progressive, they would sell a huge number. Remember, the FX7 will still likely sell more units than the V1.

Moreover everyone needs to remember HDV is a joint project with JVC. It sure seems to me that they have nicely split the market between them. Sony wins interlace sales and JVC wins progressive sales. This is how the Japanese do business.

Neither company worries about Canon -- although they should -- because it doesn't have the worldwide sales channels that Sony and JVC do. There is an upper limit to how many they can sell. Plus they both need Canon to keep HDV the majority seller.

But the real issue is 3 useable? Well its 2-clicks softer than 5 which is 2-clicks softer than 7. Since I like 9 better than 7 -- 3 is a huge drop. But, other people love turning the U models waaay down when shooting 24p. Soft is part of their film look.

So, I'll bet many will choose 3 or 4 in the USA simply because they want the softness. In fact, as Adam Wilt wrote, "One telling factor is that sharpness can be dialed down on the V1 without the picture going to mush, as it will on the Z1."

So its really a matter of taste. I don't see the need to fight about taste. People can choose the tool that will give them the look they want.

PS: the minimum iris for so tiny a chip is f/4.0. Your finding is fully valid, and may explain user error as the source of the "mush"claims. :)

I am still not quite sure whether we are talking about the same thing i.e a soft blurred image or an image without edge enhancement artefacts.

The Xh-A1 has much less EE as a default than the V1. I can only assume from what you have said regarding a wide open iris that you are not aware of the softening of an image with a small aperture due to lens diffraction. I wouldn't advise going below f5.6 if you can help it.

I simply cannot agree that the a well shot XH-A1 image is softer or lacks resolution than a well shot V1 image at sharpness setting 3.

TT

If that was directed at me as I use the mush claims and stand by it then no. I am a competent camera operator.

I'll post some of the mush recorded using Sony's recommended workaround for a poorly performing progressive mode if you like?

Hope that helps

TT

And you are right, but a "well shot XH-A1" is only possible with its sharpness setting not less than the default. Whereas the V1 at the default sharpness is much sharper (thus having an edge in the I mode), and allows to reduce shapness in the P mode to avoid aliasing (OK - 3 may be too soft for some tastes, but 5 is just fine IMHO).

Disclaimer: all this is not to say I have already accepted the V1E as is (details of my signature have not changed yet:); I probably would if it was possible to decrease H Rez just enough to avoid aliasing, but leave the V rez untouched. And I still think it could be achieved by a new firmware; whether Sony is listening or not is another matter.

Also, the tests I'm running now helped me realize how important the viewing device is. I sort of accepted my LCD can display HDV very well through component, because I first bought and tested it with the Sony HC1, which was my first HDV camera and of course, just an interlaced one. Now I can see clearly the monitor has a not-so-good deinterlacer, and is silly enough to deinterlace also the V1E's 25PsF steam. Therefore, I'm planning to run my final tests with my dealer next week, by connecting both the V1E and the Canon A1 to the same, newest generation, full resulution Bravia HDTV.

The nice thing about the V1 is it adds almost no EE when viewed on an HDTV that has its Sharpness correctly set. At 15, the pix simply gets more clear while at 0 it just goes soft. The control very nicely alters DETAIL -- as it should.

Which raises the question of using 4 as a compromise. The question is how much aliasing do you see on a movie exported back to HDV? If an edited movie looks good at 4 -- then you've got a good compromise. I worry that 3 might not be good at the second generation of HDV. Equally, likely is that it will be fine.

Only a test will determine how much filtering is done during the decode and recode.

Don't know how relevant this is now but I've just found out from the Sony Vegas team that Vegas cannot create a m2t file the same as what you'd get capturing a tape from the V1 recording progressive i.e. you cannot create a file with the "p" flag set.

Further comment indicates that playout from a deck via component or HDMI will yield the exact same thing (no flags) regardless of any flags on the tape.

I offer this without comment as I have no knowledge of what happens over a HD component or HDMI connection.

There are 2 MPEG-2 flags. One is the PROGRESSIVE FLAG that indicates, naturally, that video should be decoded -- and most importantly -- converted from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. Without this flag EVERY decoder, including the in a V1, can't properly decode P-mode. This is a serious issue playing back your production.

Which makes one wonder about the MPEG-2 generated by Vegas for DVDs or HD DVDs.

The other flag is UPPER, LOWER, and FRAME. I have no idea if the V1 sets this flag. It can be set with P video to indicate the encoding was done by frame. Of course, that assumes the V1 encodes P as frames. According to some, it is not, which means the flag would not be set.

MPEG-2 flags only exist inside encoded data.

You mean with a sharpness so low it starts to smooth? The problem with most HDTV's is that we don't know what sharpness setting is 0. And if your source is a dvd/v1/other camera it most likely has ee already.

It would be easy to find though just by plugging it into a computer and looking at black text on a white background. LCD sharpening usually looks pretty horrid.

The V1P at least certainly records the flag.
Shoot 25PsF and 50i. Capture clips using V7.0d and drop them on the T/L and RClick the events. Under Media Properties the PsF footage shows as Progressive and the Interlaced footage shows as Interlaced. This is old news, I posted links to some mixed clips weeks ago asking if anyone could guess which was which but it was a no brainer for anyone with Vegas.

I can take those same clips with no FXs and PTT using my M15U and capture that tape and again Vegas correctly reports the footage as P or I.

What I cannot do is encode a file with the flags set, ready to PTT. I can encode to 25p however the deck will not accept the stream, it comes up with an Invalid Format error.

I'm told that I can encode as 50i and PTT and then dub via component to HDCAM and all will be well, I guess that makes sense as the stream now contains 50i not 25PsF so the flags shouldn't indicate "P" anyway.

That would be true for the xh-a1, but doesn't V1 encode everything into an interlaced file? That way the flags will be actually set for interlace.

Isn't that the progressive flag?

I use test discs. My set goes to smooth (zero EE) at 8, so I set it at 16. One wants no visible outlines. Turns out that before I had the disks -- I had already chosen 20. Fact is that anything from 15 to 25 is fine.

I have to wonder how many reports of CAMERA EE come from folks who leave monitor EE at 50 which they assume is correct.

There won't be any MPEG-2 flags in the component video going to HDCAM. The deck simply takes fields. More interestingly would be how/if you would get a DVCPRO HD or D-5 deck to record 25p.


"What I cannot do is encode a file with the flags set, ready to PTT. I can encode to 25p however the deck will not accept the stream, it comes up with an Invalid Format error."

... ready to PTT?

If you can't record 25p -- how do you do the following:

"I can take those same clips with no FXs and PTT using my M15U and capture that tape and again Vegas correctly reports the footage as P or I."

RETURN TO THE ORGINAL TOPIC

For interlaced [or progressive frames as interlace] video, the encoder can either keep the fields separate or combine them together into one frame before encoding, whichever is best for compression purposes. There is a flag on each image stored in the MPEG-2 stream called “picture_structure” can be either “frame” or “top field” or “bottom field.”

IT IS POSSIBLE A FRAME CAN BE RECORDED AS AN MPEG-2 BIT STREAM JUST AS EASILY AS TWO FIELDS CAN BE RECORDED AS AN MPEG-2 BIT STREAM. LIKE DV, MPEG-2 CAN SENSE INTER-FIELD MOTION TO SWITCH BETWEEN FIELD (MOTION) AND FRAME (STATIC) ENCODING. BY DEFINITION, THERE WILL BE NO MOTION BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE FRAMES -- SO FRAME ENCODING WOULD BE USED.

WHAT PROOF DO WE HAVE THAT THE V1 ENCODES AS FIELDS? MUST IT USE FIELDS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER 1080I HDV EQUIPMENT? I ASSUME SO.

So I assume the “picture_structure” flag is either “top field” or “bottom field.”

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

For 24p, there are two extra flags available for MPEG-2. These two flags are called “repeat_first_field” and “top_field_first.” A frame in the MPEG stream can have “repeat_first_field” set to “true,” and that tells the decoder to generate 3 fields from this frame, rather than 2. Because fields have to alternate between even (bottom) and odd (top), the “top_field_first” flag tells the encoder which of the two fields in the frame should be sent out first.

In Europe almost every film is encoded with 2-2 pulldown. This will be true for V1 25p and 30p.

To display a perfect progressive image from 24p, an MPEG-2 decoder outputs 1080i digital or analog video and feeds it via HDMI or analog component to the deinterlacing chip in your HDTV. The deinterlacing chip decides the video is 24p when it encounters a stream of 5-field sequences in which the 1st and 3rd fields are identical. The deinterlacer then switches to "film-mode" and combines 540-line fields 1 and 2 to make one 1080-line progressive frame—and outputs the frame three times. It then combines 540-line fields 4 and 5 to make another 1080-line progressive frame and outputs it 2 times. (Doing so converts 24p to 60p.) It repeats the process again for the next 5 fields. The ten 1920x1080 frames are sent to a progressive display panel. Because the 2-3 cadence tells the deinterlacer exactly what to do, 24P can be displayed perfectly.

When the deinterlacer doesn’t see a 3-2 cadence, it switches to "video-mode" deinterlacing. Likewise, with 25p or 30p where there are no repeated fields, the deinterlacer switches to "video-mode" deinterlacing. Unfortunately, “video mode” deinterlacing can only yield different kinds of compromised video.

IN SHORT, A DEINTERLACER MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT 25P AND 30P ARE TO BE TREATED AS 50I and 60I.

IN SHORT, 25P, 30P, 50I, AND 60I NEVER CAN LOOK PERFECT.

From -- http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...e-10-2000.html

To clarify regarding the V1:
Component output is always interlaced video (HD out would always be 1080i).

Over HDMI:

a) If a display device is capable of 1080i, the V1 outputs 1080i.

b) If a display device is capable of 480p, the V1 converts 1080i to 480p.

c) If a display device is capable of 1080p, the V1 sends it 1080i (not p even if the footage was recorded using a progressive mode).

It would seem we've gone around the mulberry bush on this one a few times.

The connection path has nothing to do with encoding and decoding nor deinterlacing so it's unclear why you have posted about component video. It "clarifies" nothing this group is talking about.

There are questions above in the thread about printing back to the V1, and how the V1 outputs. It also clarifies that the component and HDMI outputs on the V1 are always "i" unless you're viewing on a 480p display, in which case it converts 1080i to 480p.
Thanks for the catch.

I have done some more tests today; in 25p I changed the sharpness from 4 through 7 (default), 9 up to 12! And I can tell you that unless you're fixed on those offending areas (where contrasty lines cause aliasing artifacts of dancing dots), the progressive video is just stunning, especially at 9 sharpness setting - but only when played back through DVI as a computer file, without deinterlacing.

Which doesn't change the fact that - after having established that the component playback on an 1920x1200 LCD engages deinterlacing and cuts the resolution - I really don't know which workflow I should adopt to actually deliver the progressive video at full resolution. After HD or BlueRay DVD becomes available, it will have to be connected through the same component (or HDMI) inputs, and the deinterlacer will kick in...

Basing on what Steve said about 24p being the only format that can be played back without deinterlacing (thus at full v-rez), and on my own testing - I can't help feeling frustrated as a PAL user. Have even been thinking on replacing the V1E with a V1U (no progressive issues plus 24p, for less money) - considering any possible delivery methods, what disadvantages can you see of using it in a PAL land?

I suggest down converting to 720p. While it may not be as good as true 1080p, although the difference you will see is very very small, you will at least get 720 vertical lines on pretty much every single HDTV on the market. With 1080p some HDTV's may give you 1080p while a lot of them will at best give you 540 lines. Using 720p gives a constant level of quality. This is my opinion of course but you do pretty much eliminate any HDTV deinterlace issues and sharpness issues by delivering as 720p.

You would have no Prime Support.

You'd constantly have to worry about flicker with lighting.

You testing or you post production workflow is at fault. How are you testing? Include your entire workflow, make and model of TVs and monitors and methods of connection.

Don't let your lack of knowledge/experience kid you into making a decision you'll regret.

TT

In Vegas 7.0d, I encoded some hand-held video (720/25p, sharpness at 9):
http://rapidshare.com/files/18897429...9_run_gun_.m2t

All the artifacts (aliasing as dancing dots; look at the car body or the green shed roof of corrugated iron sheet) that 1080/25p showed are still there, but IMHO you must be watching very carefully for them to actually be distracting. I welcome your opinions.

PS. And here's the link to the same video, in 1080/25p format - can you see any quality differences (apart from resolution)?
http://rapidshare.com/files/18916880..._hand-held.m2v