>>>>Live with your lame ex1 just don't zoom and the colors will be fine. lol>>>

What an extraordinary posting. I suppose your only intention is flaming because otherwise makes no sense at all. One might ask the basis for your assertions re the EX1? Or why you are bouncing up and down like a cat on a hot tin roof, but I guess you will just keep bouncing.

Perhaps FishEyes is thinking the EX1 has heavy chromatic aberration at the long end (telephoto)?

You really should try watching HD TV on your PC at least, and see an SD commercial come up. How do you react?

Do you have a barf bag handy, or do you just take a potty break?

Yes, possibly an opinion gained from reading posts on DVInfo. However "heavy" isn't correct; "observable" is the term I would use. Whatever, 3rd hand opinions aren't useful.

is fish eyes actually bill conduit resurrected? (without the flowery poetry / prose?)

i was the last to admit hd was the future, till the two major broadcasters i string for wanted hd. they weren't over the moon about hdv, but hey, they take it (without any complaints about 'quality'), and this is off a v1p.....

and yes, as serena put it - the aberration is 'observable' - to those who know what they're looking for.

Maybe fish eyes does have a point.
Certainly if you're only delivering SD then a 2/3" camera with good glass is going to give better results but you'll still need deep pockets to afford one of them.
Having said that we've taken the SD SDI feed from an EX1 into our DVW 250 porta pack and it's friggin hard to tell the difference between what's recorded from a $10K EX1 compared to a $50K+ camera. I'd imagine shooting under low light a DB camera would win, at almost an order of magnitude more cost it'd damn well better.

Aside from all that I'd really like for Fish Eyes to tell us which camera we should be using. Darned if I can think of a 16:9 SD camera under $10K that's worth having. I guess I could put our Century Optics anamophic adaptor onto a PD170 but that's got serious issues. So I'm all ears.

Bob.

Again, it seems odd to me that my Z7 seems to have no issue whatsoever going to SD renders, and yet I keep reading of all the problems that the EX1 and EX3 owners are facing. It must be a 1440/2=720 thing. I'll bet you anything that if you just shoot in the 1440x1080 lower quality mode on your EX, all your SD downrezzing problems will just go away.

"... yet I keep reading of all the problems that the EX1 and EX3 owners are facing.

Laurence, I'm an EX 3 owner and I haven't experience any of "the problems" other owners are allegedly facing. And that goes for the other EX owners I know personally.

Most of it, I think, boils down to workflow (or the lack thereof).

Laurence you're probably right and it's easy to test; I think farss mentioned the same point some time back. Also may be issues with changing frame/field rates (24fps to 60 fields/sec) since I haven't experienced any problems rendering 1920x1080 25p to PAL 50i.

Here's another idea: if it just looks bad on a CRT, throw in a little vertical gaussian blur so the extra vertical detail doesn't flicker on the CRT. That or try selecting an interpolate deinterlace method even though the source footage is progressive. Again that will cut down on the fine vertical detail that is probably what's driving you nuts on your CRT playback.

You have two choices when downscaling:

a small amount of blur, or scaling with subpixel rendering (such as with "Best" rendering in After Effects).

You have two choices when downscaling:

a small amount of blur, or scaling with subpixel rendering (such as with "Best" rendering in After Effects).
==============
Or shoot SD when the final output is SD and HD when the final output is HD.

John

As I think about it I am almost certain that your problem is too much horizontal detail causing the image to twitter a little when played back on an interlaced TV. What you need to do is get every even and odd line to be the same, just as they are when your VX2000 (and every other interlaced SD camera) averages them as it's shooting. The easiest way to do this would be just to select a deinterlace method even though the image is progressive. Yeah you'll be throwing away a little resolution and it won't look quite as razor sharp on an LCD or Plasma TV, but it will very likely still look miles better than SD shot footage and fix your problem. I wish I had some of your problem footage to test this.

Thanks Laurence,

Actually, that's what I ended up doing in the end a few days ago after much experimantation. I also used the filter "Reduce Interlaced Flicker".

The results are decent., The upscaled video looks great on a Pasma and LCD TV and acceptable on a CRT coming off an upconverting DVD player and OK from a standard DVD player.

There is an mxf file of the footage [Link=https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=check_download&ufid=MnFoanZ2cGtUME0wTVE9PQ&key=73818367f9e3e42a706b19e2bda45e781007c172]Here[/link] - thanks:
John

The Reduce Interlace Flicker switch will cure the aliasing and line twitter problem for sure. You'll also loose more resolution than you need to.

The problem is too much vertical resolution. The solution is to add Gaussian Blur, Vertical only. In the case of these clips 0.002 was enough. You need to add it before downscaling ideally.

After downscaling you might like to add some Unsharpen Mask to make it look like what comes out of most SD DV cameras.


These problems are no different to working with high resolution still images in interlaced standard definition video. There's certainly a host of information about these and other issues related to interlaced video available on the web. There's some excellent technical articles by the BBC however they are very indepth.

There's a suggestion above that this problem might be 'fixed' by shooting 1440 x 1080 as footage from cameras such as the Z1 doesn't have these issues. This is not a solution. The Z1 was designed to also shoot Standard Definition and as such it has vertical resolution limited by the Optical Low Pass Filter (OLPF) so that it can deliver problem free interlaced standard definition footage. The maximum vertical resolution from the Z1 is around 700 lines. The EX1 comes in around 1,000 lines, the EX1 is a true high definition camera, I would consider it more a digital film camera than a video camera. There is one other camera that came out some time ago that also could show this problem and that was the V1P or V1E. The variant built for the Region60 market did not exhibit the problem and the V1P/E only showed the problem in 25p, in 50i no such problem.


Now you might be tempted to think that shooting interlaced with the EX would reduce or eliminate this problem. It would indeed seem to do so. The camera will do the line pair averaging trick and reduce vertical resolution, possibly just enough to give problem free interlaced SD. The downside is how mpeg-2 handles chroma sampling. I'm not 100% certain I understand this fully but it would appear that the chroma samples are in part split accross the fields. This can lead to other wierdness. Of course on top of this though interlace delivers twice the temporal resolution which can be a big plus. The EX cameras though do offer the option to have the best of both worlds by shooting 720p50 or 720p60. My only concern is I'm not certain if Vegas is quite doing the right thing in how it converts 50/60p to 50/60i. You also need to switch the shutter Off when shooting 50/60p or you might get more judder than you'd like.

Bob.

http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=de&lp=de_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sony.de%2fbiz%2fview%2fShowProduct.action%3fproduct%3dDSR-PD175P


Let's see if any of you measurbators can can tell if SD is really dead by Sony's news or if HD refers to the personal complexes felt here on this board.

Sometimes you have two good eyes but you still can't see... lol

Have fun wasting time/energy rendering HD to SD DVD with rolling shutter/skew effect.

But thanks for the unpaid beta testing of these cams. I found out what I needed to know. Will you?

I'll move on to my next paid project.

Ciao

When someone has to immediately start making inappropriate references to genetalia, it's a sign of immaturity and stupidity all rolled into one pathetic bundle.
Would you care to show us some of your work?
Are you actually someone from Zacuto? You sound just like the bozo at their booth at NAB telling everyone they didn't need HD. Very similar wording as a matter of fact.

Well that's a laugh.

Here's the specs in English

Guess what my friend, it's Sony's Z5 with the HDV recording capability disabled. So you get the same rolling shutter problems, same everything EXCEPT no ability to record HD. It might pay you to do some actual research next time.
Why in the world someone would buy such a camera escape me. You still have the same issues from the 1/3" CMOS chips and none of the advantage when it comes to delivering superior quality standard definition.

Bob.

>>>But thanks for the unpaid beta testing of these cams. I found out what I needed to know. Will you? I'll move on to my next paid project.<<<

Yes, we've found out what we needed to know: namely that you don't have a "next" (or probably "last") paid project. Note also that although the question concerned rendering to SD, in this part of the world HD is the commercial requirement.

FishEyes, you just go right ahead and keep doing your "paid" SD projects and if I EVER get another one, I'll be sure to send them to you. If you don't mind, I'm going to keep all the HD projects for myself.

On another note, this whole rolling shutter thing is a bit of a red herring. The way a CMOS chip is scanned, one line at a time, is exactly the same way that television cameras worked for decades until the CCD chip became popular. As I often do, I just shot a bunch of automobile racing hand-held with a CMOS camera. I have no doubt that the effect exists under very specific conditions, I've just never seen it in any of my footage. One would think that a quick-pan on a car doing 200+ MPH would trigger the problem.

I think this BBC document is relevant to the issue raised by "craftech": http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD30_rev2_Sony_PMW-EX1_and_EX3.pdfBBC tech review of EX1/EX3[/link]

Pretty deep, although with one or two baffling statements.

I heard that BBC has now standardized on 10-bit 4:2:2 HD cameras (same as the old SD standard), presumably based on the availability of the new Panny HPX300, which alas has 1/3" sensors.

I heard that BBC has now standardized on 10-bit 4:2:2 HD cameras (same as the old SD standard), presumably based on the availability of the new Panny HPX300, which alas has 1/3" sensors.

Well that certainly makes me feel bettor about my Z7. :-)