Okay, I'm getting mixed messages here. Maybe I am understanding Boyd wrong. But the impression I got from his post was to get off the discussion group with this subject. That the subject was well covered and I should stop posting. And I don't think I have been letting out steam to any great extent. I expressed my frustration, and I also addressed all the solutions people have come up with. None of them where new to me and I have already tried all of them, or at least the one's I could try, and I believe I responded to all them with a rational approach.

Below is what gave me the message to get off the board. Boyd seems to think I'm just venting. So if that's the impression, I quit. I don't want to come across that way.

"But consider what you could be doing if you devoted the same energy to something positive. Put this behind you and move forward with something fun and creative. Beyond that, DVinfo exists to inform and educate. It's good to make others aware of your pitfalls and disappointments, but we can't allow it to be your "sword of vengance" against a camera company, especially when there don't seem to be widespread reports of a problem like this."

It was in response to this aditude that made me say, send me the results. According to Boyd, the subject is over and done and I am just yeilding a "sword of vengeance." It may be over to him, But I still need to know a few things, like, what are the results of someone's test. I understand the purpose of the forum. That's why I was interested in the results. Even if Boyd is not. Who is the moderator here, I only want to get along.

This is turning into a battle, not a discussion.. So I bow out, thank you. And I will continue to follow the discussion, and of course I would prefer a test be posted for all to see. You've got me wrong.. Name one thing I said that is inflammatory or rude? Please talk to a few other folks.. Like, Hey Dude!

I already said I was getting out of the camera and the format.. My solution is clear.

Thank you all for you time... Ken

I'm sorry Ken, I think you're reading a little too much into what I said. I didn't say to "get off the discussion group" at all. I did point out, as Chris also has, that DVinfo shouldn't be used to prosecute a case in public. Your original title for the thread was "Sony Admits Major Problem with HDV format" which, as Chris noted comes off as being "alarmist". But I was merely pointing out that banging your head against the wall isn't getting your movie made, and a time comes to cut your losses and move ahead. But if you think there's a reason to keep pursuing this then by all means you should.

In fact, the issue does interest me and I just got back from making a few tests of my own. I went out in the pine barrens and drove down a very bumpy "washboard" type sand road with my Z1 on a tripod sticking out my sun roof. I recorded 1080i, manual control, steadyshot off, 1/60 shutter ND2, F4.4, manual focus at infinity. The Z1 was set to downconvert firewire to 480i, I captured in FCP 4.5 and exported these BMP's.

hitting a bump:
http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/hdvbumps01.bmp

a smoother section of road:
http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/hdvbumps02.bmp

Then I lowered the camera inside the car and set it for DV SP mode. I turned the steadyshot on for these tests, and if anything that seems to make the problem worse.

a big bump:
http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/dvbumps01.bmp

a smoother stretch of road:
http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/dvbumps02.bmp

For reference, here's something similar done with my VX-2000 from an old box of tapes I found from 2002. The VX-2000 was shooting in 16:9 mode, manual controls. Not sure of the other specifics but steadyshot was probably on. I was driving slower and trying to get a smooth shot however:

hitting a bump:
http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/vxbumps01.bmp

a smoother ride:
http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/vxbumps02.bmp

Finally, I did something similar with PDX-10 in 2003. Again, I was trying to get a smooth shot and driving slower however. These are also 16:9, steadyshot is probably on and manual controls.

a bump:
http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/pdxbumps01.bmp

smoother:
http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/pdxbump02.bmp

Sorry, I don't have any good way to capture the full res HDV since I'm still on FCP 4.5. I did watch the HDV on my 1280x720 Samsung 22" LCD via component video at 1080i. It looked about the way I would expect from unstabilized bumpy interlaced footage, and the stills seem like that too.

I never shot a lot of stuff this way because I don't like bumpy footage of driving around, so the whole thing isn't a big issue for me. But I was curious as to what might be going on with the Z1.

Is this similar to what you see?

At last, a real comparison test. And yes, this is exactly what I'm seeing. Your pictures from the Z1 are as bad as the ones on the FX-1.. Exactly... The person who I mistook as being feed up with me has shown the problem exist on the HDV format in general, at least that's the way I interpret the picts. This format can not be used in many applications. Such as pro racing mounted behind the driver. Or mounted to a helicopter for news gathering. Or maybe not even on a boat on a tripod if the engine is vibrating the boat at all. It's clear that all the old formats are perfectly clear and usable, maybe not like a still shot, but definitely usable, weather you like moving footage or not, a lot of us do it. Now is it being an alarmist to say Sony has not put this limitation up front for us to see. In my mind this confirms my whole experience as a problem with the format and the title "Sony admits to major problem with HDV format." may not be from an alarmist. From your result I believe you see the same doubling of edges when you use the DV format, that again points to the idea that the camera produces an HDV image before converting it to DV and recording it to tape. The pict from inside your car is best... you can see the doubling of edges in the mirror edge, the road edge and the dash line. Such artifacts have never been a problem on any other format. I am of the opinion that this needs to go out to the pro community in CAPITAL letters. This confirms my need to drop the HDV format altogether and look at other technology. The new Panasonic may be an answer for under ten grand. I'll have to wait until I can get my hands on one and test it before I buy it. I'll have to wait until Nov., or later to get back on track with my production. Thank you Boyd... you have crystalized my opinions. Ken

Just my 2 cents:

Having had a GL2, HC1 and now an FX1 I can tell you the FX1 is not as forgiving as other HDV & DV camcorders.

I was shooting an RC Flying event over the weekend and I had to set the Steady Shot to HARD, and even then is was very problematic to keep it steady, I ended up on the tripod.

I guess it takes a little bit of practice and getting confortable with the cam.

Ummm....Tell that to the Cline bro's and NASCAR, who are using the Z1 for in-car shots. Same with David Hague and the Australian Holden Racing club. I'm here in Australia, and have just seen some very clean footage from the Monaro club, driving on a track at extremely high speeds. Looks fine to me. (and to the ABC, who have broadcast it)

That may be true, I can't say, but then how do you explain the problem demonstrated with both my postings, and Boyds? What have they done to mount their camera's..? Maybe the pitch of the engine doesn't have that low rate vibration that seems to set the problem off. This problem is not in our imaginations, it's real.

Ken, I did those tests so we'd have something concrete to discuss and also because I have a Z1 and am curious as to its limitations. I'm curious to see how others react to these as well. I'm not sure that I share your conclusions however. To make a better comparison I'd need to use the VX-2000 on that same very bumpy road at the same speed. As I suggested, the images from that camera are a few years old and I was trying to minimize camera shake whereas I tried to maximize it with the Z1.

However, the doubled image of the mirror that you point to doesn't strike me as having anything to do with HDV or MPEG. It looks just like what I'd expect from a big jolt to an interlaced scan camera. In other words, that's how much everything moved during the 1/60 second between the capture of the odd and even field.

Have you ever seen the examples at this site? http://www.100fps.com/

They are all SD images and I see the same kind of things there caused by vertical movement, like this one: http://www.100fps.com/bigger.jpg

Douglas Spotted Eagle replied to your post, but somehow it ended up in the wrong thread when Chris was splitting things, did you catch this?

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....78&postcount=4

I'll be curious to hear how others react to these examples. Personally, I'm not seeing anything which would rise to a "major problem with HDV format". Instead, it seems more of a "major problem with interlaced video." With the VX-2000 example, the 16:9 is created from only 360 scan lines which means you have something very soft to begin with, and my sense is that this minimizes the problem because you don't see so many discrete interlace artifacts.

Getting back to something Chris mentioned, I wonder if you wouldn't be a lot happier with an XL-2 or a DVX-100a. Aside from the 16:9 issue, they both shoot true progressive scan so you wouldn't see this sort of image doubling. However, I suspect that what you would see is just a big blur which encompases the full space between each of the "ghost" images in my example, since all 480 lines are captured at the same time.

Regardless, I'm glad that I've helped form your opinion even if we don't agree on the interpretation. Sharing information is really what we're about here at DVinfo. And no, I don't have anything against you but I think we just have a little different view of the world :-)

Ken, I'm not in the least suggesting it's in your imagination. I would suggest that you're overreacting to what could be any number of problems. Frame rate set really high? That wouldn't help things much. Mounting got any absorption? that would be a problem. Steady shot on/off? Set to what setting?

To take the question the other way, how do you explain NASCAR and others using the format successfully?

Vibration on any compressed format is going to have some negative impact, but it's no where near as egregious as you're suggesting, IMO.

This is all quite odd. If it was just an interlace issue, wouldn't it have been as prevalent in the PD150 or VX2000 or whatever Ken used prior to the Z1?

Even so, with the degrees of steadyshot available on the Z1, it would certainly seem possible to isolate and eliminate vibration-induced footage problems.

From the title of this thread ("Sony admits fault with HDV format" or whatever) I expected it to be an announcement about the format itself, such as this one:
http://www.sonydigital-link.com/dime..._tape.asp?l=en

That's a blanket admission that 1/2-second dropouts are happening in, and peculiar to to the Sony HDV format and are sometimes unrecoverable.

Ken, have you considered using something like the CineSaddle? I would be surprised if it didn't absorb the vibration and deliver glass-smooth footage.

I don't fully understand Ken's situation, and since I'm not ready to upgrade to QT7 yet I can't watch his video.

However in the test I did, the issue wasn't "vibration." It was big bumps that caused the camera to shake up and down. I was trying to create a worst case scenario. Frankly I was surprised because even in that worst case I just saw pretty normal looking interlace, and not big blocky MPEG artifacts like others have complained about. I think the vibration is being well handled, as shown in this image where I was also driving down the same sand road at the same speed between bumps:

http://www.greenmist.com/hdv/dvbumps02.bmp

If I get time tomorrow I'll take the VX-2000 down that same road and shoot a few seconds for reference. But watching the video from the Z1 at 1280x720 on my 22" LCD, it really looked about the way I would expect from a bumpy road with no stabilizer....

I would think because the HDV format is capturing more detail, it would be more noticeable, where that sort of movement might register as blurry on SD.

What was the shutter speed?

I can understand all the different feelings around this issue. Again, I want to state that I am way down here in lower Baja. I only have what I have. I have a PD 170 mounted on a GlideCam mounted on a Quad doing wonderful video, and unusable footage with the FX-1. Really, the GlideCam looks like it's doing it's job beautifully. When I first look at the extended end of the lens while in motion. It looks like a bird in flight. I have to bend over and look with my glasses on to see if there is any vibration at all. It is microscopic. Yet the picture is distorted. The same exact mount with the PD 170 is as it appears to the naked eye, it flies right along like a dream, it's a lot of fun to shoot with. Up rugged terrane and over washboard dirt roads. I am taping some of the most beautiful areas on the planet. I am building a wonderful new studio with 360 degree views of the ocean and the mountains. I have several hundred grand into my set up. This is a small item to replace on the grand scale. I'm just frustrated from being so far away from service and options. You can't import anything into Mexico without a 32% import fee. So the only way to get anything of value here is to either fly in and out with it in your hand, of drive the Baja's full length with it. It takes time to get things resolved down here. I have a lot of good things to look at, about the time my new studio is finished, I'll have resolved my camera issue one way or another, for me it's another format, and get on with documenting one of the most pristine area's left on the planet. I don't feel sorry for me. I'm the luckiest man I know..

My final thought is that the compression is unable to handle the extra data that happens when the lens is vibrated at a very minor level. It just doesn't have the capacity to develop all that tiny detail and resolve it like an uncompressed format.

In any case, that's all I know... I have the two cameras and the difference is one is usable, one is not.

Thanks, and sorry for my limited perspective. Ken

One question: are you shooting with builtin 16:9 mode on the PD-170? If so, the camera is taking 360 lines and up-rezzing them to 480. On the FX1 it takes takes 1080 lines and down-rezzes them to 480....

No, I'm using the 170 locked down on manuel focus, manual zoom, full wide angle with a wide angle adapter. No steady shot, it will leave artifacts even on the 170, but only a pros eyes will see them in most cases. The same with with FX-1, fully locked down, no steady shot. Steady shot really looks bad, the greater the setting, the worse it looks. Really, I've tried it all and discussed it all with a lot of people. And again, I'm kind of trying to sign out of this thread. I've covered all these issues in previous postings. And if you had looked at the posting of the PD-170 you would see I am shooting in 4x3. No offense meant, this is a long thread and it's hard to get it all. The 16x9 footage on the one posting is the FX-1 footage shot on a tripod, (beautiful by the way) with the PD 170 4x3 composited over the 16x9. Later in the video you see the PD-170 full screen in many different terranes. It really works great.

so you don't have to go search, one more time..

Good footage: http://homepage.mac.com/kene3/QuadHeaven.html (no problems here)

Thanks again.. Ken

Sorry, I can't watch the video because it needs Quicktime 7; can't upgrade to that because it will break other stuff on my system.

Good luck with your project, it sounds very cool.

All I can say on the matter is...

The samples look exactly like what I'd expect. I certainly wouldn't use my FX-1e in similar circumstances without making sure that ALL vibration regardless of it's frequency was totally eliminated, regardless of the sort of camera I was using.

To suggest that the 'effect' seen is a major problem with HDV is somewhat of a leap, given that it's more of a problem with eliminating the specific vibration that appears to be the cause of this seeming issue. If the problem was one with HDV in general, it would show up for you at all vibration levels - but you've even stated that it is at a specific vibration frequency.

For my 2c worth; that means the problem is with the vibration frequency and how it causes the whole camera system to perform/compensate for something I'm sure the designers never envisaged as a common usage condition. As for putting my FX-1e on an operating clothes dryer to see what sort of image I'd get compared to a similarly set-up SD camcorder...that wouldn't be something I'd do because I know what I'd see, and it would be beyond the standard operating conditions for either camera. If I did so, I would do so knowing that I have pushed the boundaries of each cameras' terms of use - and I'd need to take my own precautions to ensure the unit operates as close to those intended, and be aware of my responsibilities in doing so.

Hopefully you will be able to test one of the newer HD/HDV camcorders under the same circumstances, however I suspect that serendipity will play an essential part in finding a HD/HDV camcorder that will perform adequately under the same conditions/scenario.

Just a quick observation...

To me, the HDV clip that is used as an example to my mind actually gives a more accurate impression of the reality of the vibration to be experienced on your ATV, than the SD stuff in your promo video. As the clarity is also greater in the FX-1 clip, the overall image quality is also superior - despite the vibration. I'd bet the ATV really does vibrate that much through it's rev range. I can see that such accuracy could be a bad thing.

As you can see, I'm not out of here yet... Boyd, I am loading a WMV file to my site now. Although I have to warn you, it's 45 megs compared to the 16 meg QT file. My experience with QT7 has been great. I even upgraded before I got FCP 5. It worked great even when I didn't have QT Pro... I did lose some export options that you may find you can't live without. Then again, for thirty bucks you can upgrade to pro without buying FCP 5. I did it because we use iChat video a lot with our family in the states and it's a significant upgrade. FCP 4 worked fine with QT 7, none pro version. I'll post the link when I get this huge file uploaded. I hope you have broadband... OOPs? I just got it loaded and it wont play. Do you have iChat working. We can exchange large files that way.. my iChat address is ...

"All I can say on the matter is":

I have done as you suggested. Again, the GlideCam is fantastic. All visible vibration is eliminated by that wonderful device. And again, consider my perspective. To me this is a huge problem. It eliminates almost every application I would want to use it for. Not only the Quad video's that are my bread and butter now. But I am also planning on going out on fishing expeditions after Marlin and game fish. The problem would eliminate my ability to use a tripod on a fishing boat. Only hand held or vest mounted GlideCam would work, doable, but to lose a tripod shot would present it's challenges. So for me to use the term "Major Problem" is an absolute truth.

2c worth: Yes, the problem is with vibration frequency. Like a slightly rumbling car, a boat, a helicopter, and yes an ATV. Yes, my use is beyond what they designed the product for... However, if I had the camera here now, I would go out and film the camera in motion with my 170 and show you how smooth this mount is. My concern has never been about the tinny vibration, I never saw it until I had the problem with the FX-1 and I bent over with glasses on to see it. It's about dust, or an accident. I know I am taking chances with the camera. But even in the worst case I crash and destroy the camera completely. Well, if I make twenty grand or more with the product, it works out. I never would have put a fifty grand camera in the same place. The FX-1 cost around the same as my PD-170. A reasonable risk for such gain. I am aware of the fact that I am pushing the accepted boundaries of the camera. Again, I wasn't going to send this camera in for repair. I was going to accept it and move on. But this forum came to the conclusion that the camera had a repairable problem. So I sent it in, and that takes months for me to do from down here. And no, I will never buy another HDV camera again. The MP2 encoding has it's limitations, according to me. I feel confident that a none compressed HD would work fine. And with the new panasonic coming out with a price range of an acceptable risk, I'll buy one and do it with it, after I test it that is. Besides, I'm having fun doing these video's. I've got a list of projects waiting for me to do for the QuadMan who runs a big business down here. It's profitable. Although at this point in my career, I don't want to work much for others. I like being my own producer. But it's fun and I'm making money doing it.

Steve, I have to disagree with you about the clarity of the HDV stuff under the vibration. It appears as a mushed up mess. It looks like the auto focus is running amuck. It's completely unusable. The 170 has a great picture, and yes, the resolution of the HDV is fantastic. I love the quality of the pictures on a tripod. It's truly a great breakthrough. HD at SD data rates, wonderful. But be aware, according to me, it has it's limitations.

Adiós, Ken

<< I never would have put a fifty grand camera in the same place. >>

Fear not Ken, I myself have flown cameras worth five times that amount in exactly the same way. ATV Steadicam mounts are very common, been around for years and assuming they are properly rigged and secured and the driver is responsible, perfectly safe to operate.

Not to say accidents can't happen, of course; it's a small motorized vehicle! I myself had a component break in my arm during a particularly strenous set of G's about 5 years ago and the rig was thrown off the back. Insurance covered the damage and I got some shiny new parts for my rig. C'est la vie.

I knew someone who was shooting on-board sport bike footage with a low-end z-something canon who was getting pretty nice shots. He then upgraded to a Panny GS400, a camera that I personally own and love, and got complete garbage out of it on his bike. The vibration made it completely unusable. In the end, he discovered that OPTICAL stabilization on the GS was a big part of the problem whereas the electronic stabilization on the Z cam actually worked much better. He ended up returning his GS because the only options on that cam were optical or nothing, and niether worked particularly well. He went back to cheesy cam with electronic and actually got better results. This probably has nothing to do with your setup, and I know nothing about the 170, but I thought this was worth mentioning in case it helps in any way.

Maybe a stabilizer post process on your footage would do the trick, yes it would be another step, but it could be worth a shot. Does Final Cut Pro come with a stabilization filter? I know Premiere does.

Good try, And yes, believe me or not, I tried that too. But each frame is goofy... No chance of recovering clarity.

No doubt, but since my system is very stable, I'm in the middle of 3 different projects, and it does everything I need.... why in the world would I mess with new system software? Just read some posts around here and Apple's site if you don't know what I mean.

That's OK about the video, I'm gonna just take your word on all this. It sounds like you really are working on a dream project. Whatever the reasons, if you aren't happy with the video you're getting then you should keep looking for a better solution, and I'm sure you'll find it.

From my experiences shooting onboard of donwhilling MTB in the mountain, you really have to lock it tight to elminate the vibration.

I can believe Ken's problems because that is what I noticed on onboard HC1 footage that I shot with my fully airsuspended mountainbike on street, if I don't lower the air of the tires, footage is really shakey (vibration is coming form the roughness of the asphalt grain, not bumps). Some people said the footage is nice but I did mention at that time, I have to do something with the vibration.

I've been thinking the way to absorb the vibration, so if I find any then I will let you know. I love your footage ken. ATV is great.

Also, someone mentioned about the cheapy does better job, I suspect the cheapy ones I have don't really have full frame spec nor fast shutter speed. That usually makes it look better. Also, I'm thinking it is probably the best to helmet mount HC1. Because our body is the best absorption and suspention that I can think.

Thanks for the compliment on the footage Kaku. It's really fun to do.

The point I can't stress enough is, the mount I am using is doing the job. I was really happy to hear from Charles when he said he has flown cameras on Steadicams on motorized off road vehicles before and that it's been done for years by lots of people. They work great at eliminating vibration. They use the term fly a GlideCam, or Steadicam because that's what it does. You can run down stairs and the camera fly's down. I actually wore the GlideCam vest while riding the quad to try and eliminate the problem. A lot of work to do it that way. I was willing to do that to get the job done. But even when the vest is worn and the GlideCam never touches anything on the quad, although it helps, it does not eliminate the problem with the footage. I am of the "opinion" that any other format would work on my mount. I might add, a confident opinion. That's how smooth the camera is flying.

I mentioned that I was going to try the new panasonic HVX200. Well, I've decided to give the whole HD format another year to come up to speed at my price range. The P2 cards are outrageously expensive. 1700 dollars for eight minuets of record time. 34 hundred for 16 minuets. Wow, that makes a days recording on a moving vehicle in the middle of nowhere a huge challenge. From what I understand we are on the edge of new technology that will give us up to 30 gigs in a solid state card within a year, cheap too. Or at least that's the speculation. When that happens the solid state recording will come of age. I'll fly my associate down here again and we will do our project is SD this year. Although I have to tell you. That may get my projects rolling again, but frankly. The way I feel about the scenery I am recording, I will be starting at zero when I finally get into HD. Being in Baja where things are hard to get. I was considering burning the PD-170 tapes I've made because my archive doesn't really start until I change formats. If I go to solid state of course, I'll keep them. The HVX200 could be perfect for me. No moving parts. That's great. I bet the batteries will last a long time with no mechanical parts moving. A very exciting innovation.

Ken E.... Former owner of Studio E in northern Calif..

Click here for various Steadicam hard-mounts on vehicles, including some ATV's--none are mine, but it might be illustrative.

Cool link! Thanks Charles,

Yeah, very cool. Some of those things look really scary though, especially this one: http://www.steadicenter.com/details.php?image_id=2522... I hope they weren't driving at highway speeds!

One other thing I don't understand about all this. When I've used my glidecam 2000 outside on a windy day it's a real problem. How does this work when you're driving around in an open vehicle? Or is my problem just that I've been using the lightweight little PDX-10?

If you're seeing the artifacts in native DV shot material on the FX1, it's not a codec problem.

From the sample video on the first page, it looks to me like you're seeing resononaces of either something in the lens, the stabiliser or the CCD block of the camera. If it is a resonance, you'll be SOL. But I wouldn't expect a resonance to be so broad. Especially considering how much the revs are likely to change on an ATV.

Looking at the "good" steadicam shots, it would seem this footage will already pushing the limits of long GOP MPEG-2. You have a lot of new information in each frame, and this combined with any vibration will probably ruin the shots. There's probably no chance for a good post-production image stabilization. HDV isn't one of those formats that can handle a lot of instability on the front end. If I was going to think about "camera shake" as an effect, I'd add it in post to be sure... but like you said - removing it will be a no go.

I am curious about something though. In an ealier post CF24 was brought up, CF24 will not give this kind of artifact. However, in the "every setting" you've tried - have you tried CF30? It may provide better results than the 60i in this type of situation. It's a shame the CF modes have gotten labeled as "effects" - they're not. They're just atypical sampling methods. CF30 ought to get rid of any interlace and 4:2:0 problems you're experiencing to give the MPEG-2 codec a bit of a break.

-Steve

Thanks again Charles, That is really a great site. It's great to see so many variations on a theme. As you can see, most mounts are hard mounted to the vehicle and the rest left to the GlideCam/SteadyCam. The camera I have would not work in many of those places. My mount is so simple by comparison. Mine mounts to the quad rack behind and to the left of me. The arm extends forward and the sled hangs just to the left of my left knee. I drive with my right hand and guide the camera lightly with my left. My shots aren't as well composed as if I only had one thing to do. But then for my purpose. I shoot lots of footage and use a small amount. Wide angle only. I can set up along the way and do drive buys and tripod mounts to gain other perspectives.

I want to pose a question to this forum. Now that I am of the opinion that the HDV format in general is unusable when exposed to extremely low vibration and I've decided to sell my camera on ebay. Am I obligated by ethics to tell the new buyer about the camera's limitations? And if that's a yes to me, than is it true that Sony should do the same?

I see many disappointed producers in those pictures I just looked at if they where all set up in a distant land with all their energy riding on an HDV camera. They may think this is a major problem too. Even if you think they are dumb for not testing things first.

Steve, you sound like a knowledgeable man. Can you say definitively that the FX-1 does not first generate an HDV codec, and then downsize to DV in real time before it gets to tape?... Because that's what I am speculating... Thus the same problem in both modes... Sony replaced my lens assembly and stabilizer printed circuit before they said it was not repairable and the nature of the format.

Also, the CF modes, they all make it look worse. I don't think anything can clean up the mess that's created at the root level. Again, my opinion... What do you think?

Thanks... Ken E

Sorry, I missed a question...

I add lots of weight to the bottom of my sled to hold it down in the wind. You have to adjust the arm tension to compensate for the extra weight. The extra weight smoothes the whole ride out also. It makes the forward and back tilt a bit of a push. But it's the best compromise I have found.

Ken E

So long as you haven't damaged the camera, I see no reason why you can't advertise it the same way as any other FX1. This problem you are experiencing is in all likelihood a problem with all FX1's, and as a result, by giving the model number, you're giving adequate information.

That said, I think the buyer has the right to know how the camera was used by its former owner - if they're wise enough to ask it. They're certainly allowed to ask why you're selling it.

Sony placed no guarantees that the camera would work with a specific mount on a specific ATV. If this were a camera specifically designed for this job, with some stupid "Sony FXXXTREME1" name, then yeah - I think they ought to put "may be susceptible to vibration" in the fine print.

There's only so much testing you can do. But **** happens. I think this kind of defect would be as tough to detect for Sony as it would be for users.

I'll see if I can come up with a test today or tomorrow. I'm thinking a strobe light might help with that.

-Steve

In my case, it's more like how the camera was not used. I bet it spent less than an hour on a quad, possibly less. It never got any further than around the block.

I am of the opinion that Sony knows. I would even bet that's why Panasonic didn't sign on to the format. As they say, the reason they didn't sign on to the HDV format is = Quality.

You can bet all those vehicle mounted Cam users would have been surprised by the limitations. After all, we've been doing it with other camera's... We would only expect... Especially with Sony. I've had tons of Sony gear for many years. From large formated pro decks to four PD 150 cameras at once. I've had nothing but stellar results from them and great service including repairing the audio buzz in the 150's. I suspect the repair center was surprised when the engineers in Japan told them, sorry, not way this camera is going to work under those conditions. And again, those conditions aren't so bad to expect a problem. Not unless your in the know....

Ken E

Boyd, I was just reading on a thread where you are active that folks are having trouble keying HDV... I wonder, would it help solve our question about whether HDV is down converted to DV in camera before it goes to tape in DV record mode by recording something with the FX-1 in DV mode and try to key it...? Do the compression artifacts of HDV show up there? If so, then my assumption would seem to be true. If not, I could be wrong.. If someone would try this it might help our quandary... Thanks.. just thinking to much again... Ken E.

Well I don't have any plans to try keying with my Z1 at the moment, but maybe someone else has some thoughts.

Did you catch this post by DSE regarding the new JVC? The good news is that it's designed to handle vibration. The bad news it that it's also designed to fall apart. ;-)

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....39&postcount=5

I'm not sure how to take that posting. "The rep said" (What, the break away features of parts?) "was due to allowing the camera to function better under high vibration, such as found on boats, motorcycles, etc." That's a strange statement. Maybe it's just not coming across right. While at the head of the posting it says they where having all kinds of image problems. Not very reassuring, it does show an awareness of the problem I am having though. At least it seems so. And if so, it doesn't make me feel they fixed the problem on that unit either. With keying problems and imaging problems under minor vibrations. It all makes me move further away from the format. Don't get me wrong. I love the image too. I understand a lot of folks loving this camera, the Sony, to make that statement clear. If I was still shooting musical performances with muti cams. It would be great I bet... I'd be altogether on the other side of the fence.

Once I pictured what you were doing with that ATV, Ken, I must say I was astonished--it had never occurred to me before that a one-man band driver and operator set-up was even possible.

Regarding the wind issue, yes, it is a problem with vehicle mounts. Some use gyros to help with this (I saw a Glidecam at NAB a few years ago with gyros on it--interesting, but I'm willing to bet that no Glidecam operator out there is going to be spring for the money for those). Wind screening is a great way to go, although for a forward-looking lens position not all that easy. The optimal setup for a physical wind break when the wind is comingn at the lens is to set up two permeable (such as a double net) blocks in a V formation behind the camera, with the open end of the V facing the camera (the camera almost inside the V). This will create a little bit of a calm zone where the camera flies. Not perfect, but better than not having one at all. I usually end up on the rear of an ATV looking backwards, and have had a windblock rigged right behind the rig, which is very effective.

I set up a thread to test your theory Ken.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=50094

-Steve

I'll take a picture of the mount later today and post it... Maybe I should send it to your referenced site too. But then again, should I let my idea out.. oops to late.. besides, sharing knowledge is the only way to be in this business. I've fired engineers before for keeping things to themselves trying to make themselves indispensable, doesn't work with me. We are all learning... With my mount I have forward, sideways, right and left perspectives and rear... just a spin of the sled's post... I'll post my photo late PM most likely.. Ken E.

Looking forward to seeing it. And I wouldn't worry too much about "letting it out"--I think most people would prefer to split the duties of operating and driving...!