Vertical Smear: sounds like the worst skiing accident ever.
 

I have been with my new pdx10 for one day now and we're gettting along very well, thank you. And thank YOU B&H. But damn! that vertical smear. You guys weren't kidding. Do other cams suffer this? It's practically a defect. Fairly avoidable, though I do have a thing for shooting directly into light sources. Mostly it is the sun that sets it off. And so, my question is: is there a specific filter out there that disallows such phenomena, a basic nd or other, without disallowing much light?

I dont think any filter can remove this. However, I recall somebody posted about a post-processing routine that can deal with smear. The name of this routine escapes me, sorry.

Huh! Fascinating. But if images are made of light, how does post then compensate for this....ah, removal of light (His Newbyness speaks...), and, thus, removal of image.....Help! Pull me out of the abyss of my ignorance, here. Anyone know about this possible post process? Mr. Ostroff? Anyone?

Do a search, it was discussed before. But I also doubt there's much you can do, other than being careful where you point the camera. There is a certain contrast threshold where the smear will occur. Try pointing at a light source, then stopping down one click at a time. At some point it will vanish.

I posted this clip awhile ago as an example. Wait until your browser loads the entire clip, then scrub the Quicktime slider back and forth. You'll see the smear grow from nothing into a solid bar as the sun drops below the clouds and intensifies.

As long as it doesn't reach this extreme point I (personally) don't mind it. It can be sort of a nice effect, like a star filter...

Hi Boyd and Shawn:

Boyd, I saw your clip the other day about vertical smearing. You mentioned the solid bar ... geez is that so apparant on the PDX-10? The video is beautiful and then this solid bar grows from the center/top of the screen to midway down. I understand what you say like a "star filter", but this is nothing like a star filter. YES the sun seems to glow like a 5 point filter as it's setting, but the growing bar takes away from your video.

Am I to understand that you can do away with that and maintain the quaility of the video by stopping down some more? Did you find a happy medium or is it like you said, the extreme most point it can be?

Shawn, when you say the smear is "fairly avoidable" do you mean you can adjust for it or you can't seem to get rid of it? Now that you have had use of your camera for a few days are you feeling better about it?

I ask these questions, because I have one on order and I'm waiting for it. If the smear is going to be a problem, I will get cancel my order and get something else. I'm very curious and I know Boyd loves his PDX-10. I like it's size and I expect a little more quality out of a camera because I work in television and demand good video quality, but at what price. I have never heard of a Panasonic camera doing this, at least not in any post here in these forums.

Your thoughts or comments would greatly be appreciated. Thanks very much.

Rick,

The smear is brought on by a very special and so limited set of circumstances: shooting directly into a particularly intense light source, really I mean the sun, at the widest part of the lens. You almost have to try to find the parameters for it to happen. I shot in this way into a 500w halogen light: no problem. I didn't mean to scare anyone away from the pdx10, it's a great little cam, the smear, with a little know how is completely avoidable. Not a reason not to buy. Just that it's an unusual thing to see, for me. And yet gorgeous sunset shots are out? I think i'll live.
Mr. Ostroff, sorry to trouble you when a simple search could have clarified instantly; I usually am good about that sort of thing. I found in a post something called Video Finesse (software?), "from the synthetic aperture site", it has a....feature: "sa drop out", that seems to clear up horizontal streak lines, and can (probably) clear up an image with vertical smear. Hope that makes enough sense. The post can be found quite easily by searching "vertical smear". Thanks all for thoughts!
Shawn

Thanks Shawn, I feel a little better about the camera now. I didn't want to keep my order in if it was going to be a persistant problem. I believe I understand when you say "avoidable" and with a little cropping, zooming and/or reframing it can be avoided! I hope I understood you correctly and that is the worst of it.

Thanks for addressing my concern.

Rick.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rick Tugman : Am I to understand that you can do away with that and maintain the quaility of the video by stopping down some more? -->>>

There seems to be a threshold for the contrast of a point light source where the smear becomes objectionable. If you stop down the iris one click at a time you'll reach a point where it becomes less noticeable or even vanishes. However this may result in an underexposed image. Really depends on what you're trying to do. I think it's one of those things where you need to experiment around a bit yourself and see how much of a problem it is. There is so much that's subjective when it comes to camer choices...

Thanks Boyd and Shawn.

I have been going over the camera choices for about 5 months and know I want to get something that was 3 CCD and delivers good video quaility but in a small package. A tall order today especially if you take into account the small package. I had a order in for the PV953 and liked what I saw till I saw a PD-150 at work just over a week ago. I work in television was able to see "big brother" first hand. I was amazed how light it was so I figured the PDX-10 couldn't be too heavy. I thought for sure the PDX-10 would be able to do the job that I expect from a camera.

I was concerned about weight and size because I travel alot for work but I demand good video quailty. This is mostly for personal use, but I will use it for the shows I work on for scenics and such. I like the ruggedness of the PDX-10 and believe it will be compact enough to through into my backpack and go. If it's just over 2 pounds than that is not too much. The camera itself without the XLR block seems pretty compact.

I don't believe the PV953 is too much different in size and the PDX-10 is only heavier because of it's construction. I'm not against spending about $ 600.00 more for the PDX-10 if I'll get more out of it. I was just afraid of hearing about the vertical smear and if it is pretty much avoidable then ok. As with anything you have to learn what you can do or not do.

Boyd, I know you've had your PDX-10 for a while and I have read a lot of your posts. I have seen the video the camera produces and all I can say is it does look great. Do you miss the F stop numbers? Does that make a difference in adjusting the iris? Is there anything you think I should know about when I get the camera? Some cameras come with built in flash for the stills... is that something you miss? Do you have suggustions for low light shooting like in a living room etc? I just wanted to be sure I was making the right decision. The place I ordered my PDX-10 from promised to send it in the coming days as they were over sold.... so we'll see but it would be nice to get the feel for it first hand.

I know I asked a lot of question here, I just like to gather all information so I know what to expect.

Thanks for your replies and input.

Best regards, Rick.

Rick:
At first the missing f-stops bothered me. But when someone pointed out that dead center on the "slider" was f4.0 then I got used to it very quickly. Personally, no it doesn't bother me now. I know approximately what the f-stop is and I use the zebra pattern to determine exposure.

One other thing to be aware of - there are no built-in ND filters on the PDX-10, so pick up a few 37mm ones for your kit.

I don't take stills with my video camera(s), that's what my Nikon 5700 is for :-) And when I do take stills, I never use a flash....

The other night I was playing around and had the PDX-10 hooked up to 16:9 HD monitor. I had the camera in my living room and was pointing it a the far end where the only light is a 25w bulb in a floor lamp with a fairly dense silk shade on it. There was no problem whatsoever properly exposing objects near the lamp. So I pointed the camera into a very dark corner and cranked the gain all the way up. There was still an image,albeit dark. I didn't try lowering the shutter speed. Personally, I prefer the image with the sharpness turned all the way down, it's less harsh. I've found that this will also minimize the effect of any noise in a dark scene.

I tried the PDX10 for a week. It seems every point-light source would cause smear. When I went outside, the low-pressure sodium street lights created a solid bar that was difficult to tell from the poles. The street lights weren't even in frame! A passing cars headlights created two vertical white bars travelling accross the screen, ditto for tail lights!

Here is the kicker that made me return the cam. I was filming indoors and my 2-story family room has a fan with a three spot-light fixture. Every shot I took that had the lights nearly in-frame showed easily recognizable verticle strips. The BIG ONE cam while passing the camera in front of the TV. The TV sits on a dark entertainment center and there was a recognizable (tho distorted) image on the front of the entertainment center that was a copy of the TV image!

I called Sony and they were serious when they suggested a star filter to cover up the effect?! I did not try this. I feel I payed $1900 for a camera it should work as advertised. Oh and Sony does document the fact in the manual that smear is a normal function for this camera.

The only luck I ever had of getting rid of the smear is to seriously under-expose the shot, or seriously over-expose. Under exposing just minimizes the length of the smear while over-exposing seemed to make it fade and disappear into the background. But man was it ugly. I did not even attempt to correct either in post...

Try Panasonic NV-GS100K, IT doesnt produce smear!
excellent camera for the bucks, just 1200$, I am not a panasonic rep! LOL

"Sunset": MX5000

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/...y/IMGA0151.JPG

You don't need a star filter w/ this cam! :)

Pretty nice shot there, Young. Perhaps you don't want the filter, but you do have light smear that is particularly visible in the bottom darkness of the picture. Perhaps you like the effect, perhaps that is an acceptable amount to you, but it is smear, and it certainly wouldn't be acceptable to certain shooters/future camera owners. Huh! This is great! Now I know something about the mx5000. Under the right conditions, that camera produces at least some vertical smear.

I just dumped my order for the PDX-10 because of these reports. I have never read anything about smear on the Panasonics so I put in a reorder for the PV953. As much as I wanted the PDX-10 hearing some of these stories changed my mind. If there isn't that much difference in the video quality I can deal with it. I know Tommy Haupfear says the PDX-10 is slightly better than the PV953 in low light, but it is only "slightly" less grainy which I can deal with.

As for the GS100... that was one my list of cameras to also buy. But when making my decision, I just didn't want to deal with the Japanese menus although I love everything I see from that camera. Again .... while there are improvements over the PV953.... it isn't all that much to have to deal with the menu issue especially when several people in my family will be using the camera.

Sad to hear these stories about the PDX-10 which had promise.

Most of these cam's have a verticle smeer problem to some extent or the other but I was supprised at how much they seem to differ between each cam. The 953 has the same problem as do most small HAD CCD camcorders with high pixel counts. You do get a feel for the parameters of your camcorder with use and it solves the vast majority of these problems.Even the VX2000 has a bit of a verticle smeer problem ,just not as bad as the newer(higher pixel count) models.
KennJ

Thanks Ken, that's the sort of input I'd been hoping for.

There, Rick, you see, nothing to be frightened of, and you just might be encountering smear with your new 953. It is, as was mentioned several posts ago, rather avoidable. Do let us know how the Panny works out for you, though!

Hey Shawn:

YES I read and took into consideration Boyd's and your e-mail especially about "avoidable" but I think for my purposes the PV953 will be ok.

It arrived today and I have been out a little working with it and have already look at the low light. There are plenty of manual controls and the only drawback is 1/60 shutter speed is the lowest it can go. There is plenty of iris control and you can step through other options quite easily.

Reports about a menu called "Gain up" greatly help the low light on the 953. I was quite impressed this afternoon looking at my kid watching TV in a dark room with only a little (and I stress little) light coming through the closed blinds and what light was behind me coming through the doorway and around a little nook.

So as I begin to put the camera through it paces I will be happy to post some things for you guys to see. I'm sure there will be some smearing, but not the line that I saw on Boyd's video, but time will tell if it can be replicated.

Thanks for all your input.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rick Tugman :Sad to hear these stories about the PDX-10 which had promise. -->>>

Well we all have our own set of expectations and priorities. The PDX-10 has some quirks to be sure. But, just returning from a shoot yesterday, I'm still very happy with mine. If I did event videography I probably wouldn't be happy with the PDX-10. But I just want to put the best possible 16:9 DV on a big screen, and I can work around the vertical smear problem.

I posted the example of vertical smear as a "worst case" for people to see, but I have plenty of nice footage, shot right into the sun, where this isn't a problem...

Very true Boyd .... and you are correct about expectations. I can't agree with you more. I had seen your photos and it was those photos that made me want to get the PDX-10 after seeing big brother (PD-150) in person. I think if I wasn't having trouble getting it (some dealers promise you and never deliver) I would have still gone with it.

I think in rethinking my situation and what I wanted from the camera (price point, family usage and the 3MP still feature), I now think (with not too much difference in quality) I have the best of both worlds for my situation. Time will truly tell that. I truly believe the smear can be avoided on the PDX-10, but like the GS100 Japanese menus did I want to deal with it being a bigger issue and possibly a little more prevelant on the PDX-10.

Since this is my first DV camera and I believe this will be a stop gap for a few years then who knows .... I'll hand it down to the kids and I'll get that Sony PDX whatever will be at that time.... but for now I think it will this will do the job maybe not as well as the PDX-10, but I'm not the operators you all are either.

I admire the balance in your judgment, Rick. And I'm eager to catch glimpses of your output with the 953. As I constructed my own debate recently on which cam to buy in the least amount of time, for the lower price, it boiled down to the pdx10 and the dv953. Small world. (Small selection of quality, relatively inexpensive 3ccd cams, too!)
Enjoy,
regards,
Shawn

Thanks Shawn .... this was a long drawn out process for me. I have looked over cameras for the past 5 months. I even considered the smaller Panasonic GS70, but after seeing it and learning of the PV953 the choice was basically made for me. Then I continued searching then after seeing Boyd's pictures and seeing the PD-150 I had made the choice for the PDX-10. It was really more than I wanted to spend and when the dealers didn't deliver what they promised, I said to myself, it's not worth the extra money right now. That was really the crux of it. Your right there really wasn't anything out there except for these cameras which are below 2 grand.

I'll be happy to get something posted once I get things going and I finish a little bit of traveling I have coming up.

Best regards,

Rick.

New pdx-10 framegrabs
 

FWIW, here are some frames from yesterday's video shoot with the PDX-10: http://www.greenmist.com/trovatore/film/20030812

All of these have been deinterlaced by superimposing clips of the odd and even fields in FCP. Some of them have had a "silk stocking" filter applied in post, however yesterday was beautiful and foggy in NJ as this unprocessed frame shows.

Regarding low light performance, there are several examples. These were shot just after sunset on a densely overcast day... it was really dark outside! There is noticeable noise in these frames, but it sort of fits the mood we were trying to create.

Custom presets were used with WB set to daylight then tweaked slightly in some frames. Sharpness was turned to the minimum and color level was turned down two clicks. The night shots are at 1/30 sec, all others at 1/60. For the night shots I had the lens wide open with 0db gain. It would have been possible to get a pretty bright image by boosting the gain.

Now we were going for a very soft misty look (this is getting used in a slow motion sequence), so don't make too many judgements about the sharpness of the PDX-10's lens from these.

I'm wondering if anybody of you, guys, tried to slow down shutter speed to alleviate the problem, just like Sony recommends on p.71 of TRV950 manual:
'
ftp://ftp.ita.sel.sony.com/ccpg/dvimag/manuals/camcorders/TRV950.pdf

Does it help?

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/...y/IMGA0151.JPG

Hehe... There are ways to avoid smearing. On the last pic above, I created the smear intentionally. Sorry, I didn't use the tripod as always. :)

Anyway, here are the same photos "with" and "without" the smear. Manual treakings did the trick.

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/...c/IMGA0197.JPG

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/...c/IMGA0198.JPG


P.S. I don't know why, but vertical smearing from the TRV950 is, indeed, nastier than from the DV953 when shot in auto mode.

Young Lee, I see only a modest amount of smear on your pictures. Smear is a faint vertical line coming from the sun. I'm not sure about origin of 45 deg angled lines from the sun. My guess it's because of iris having small number of blades, probably four.

Lovely pics, Lee, smear or no :). I guess one of my main concerns with underexposing shots to get rid of smear is that it will then create noise. Unsure whether that is a valid concern.

FYI, this is what I posted on Sept 27 2002 about vert smear...

I knew you would say that. :) How about these pics? I tweaked the shutter speed, and one has the vertical line and the other doesn't. Sorry, I didn't use the tripod (my laziness). :)


http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/...c/IMGA0194.JPG

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/...c/IMGA0196.JPG

Lee, yes the first picture has a clear vertical smear. I'm puzzeld to explain a ring around the sun. May be some kind of lens flare? As for these 45deg lines that I think come from iris, they make picture more beatiful, in my opinion.

Of course Lee, reducing the amount of light falling on a CCD will allways reduce smear effects, but this is not allways possible if the rest of the scene has to remain visible... But I don't see real vertical smear on yr images, being a vertical line from top to bottom. I think you are just confusing vertical smear and optical diffraction. Diffraction effects occur with strong point sources (sun) and high F-numbers. Setting a higher shutter speed and open the aperture will reduce diffraction. (FYI the 45degree diffraction rays mean that yr cam has a 45 degree/4 blade diafragm system)

Did I mention "vertical" smear on the first pics? :?

BTW, it' not very obvious but you can find the faint vertical line in the second set of the pics. :)

P.S. Thank you for the tip on the 45 degree/4 blade diafragm system. :)

How about this pic? "Vertical" smear and X mark. :)

http://www.dvuser.co.kr/zboard/data/...c/IMGA0152.JPG

Agree Lee, you only mention a "vertical line" in yr second post which is known in the cam world as "vertical smear" and because the whole thread is about (and started about) vertical smear I just "interpreted" your statement. And yes, like Vladmir wrote in his first post I can see "a modest amount of smear" meaning a faint vertical line (=vertical smear) in the first pic.

Vertical smear and diffraction effects can come together...their origin is totally different. For optical diffraction effects see (6 blade diafragm) http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/diffraction.htm

Thank you. :)

I have created the "vertical smear" but it has never prevented me from obtaining a shot.

Some 16:9 frame grabs from my PDX10

http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrow...elected=441334

I think low light is a much bigger issue than vertical smear. I shot a wedding on Tuesday of this week with my PDX10 and VX2000 and even though I haven't reviewed the footage I can already tell that I'm going to be none too happy with the PDX10 in the very dim lighting.