|
|
Posted by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss on 08/14/07 05:45
> The US model also suffers progressive scan image problems although the
> over-sharpening artefacts are much reduced from the V1E model. Just
> compare a locked off 60i image to either 24P or 30p and make sure you
> look at the dark areas of the image and areas of similar colour will be
> lacking detail and macroblocked compared with 60i. You will also see
> much more mosquito noise round contrasty fine detail in progressive mode
> compared to interlace.
This is interesting. I already found out that the 60i mode has less noise
for a given gain up setting. Now your additional information will be
material that I will try experimenting with, to see how much difference. The
noise difference is about 3dB.
> Some time later I purchased the Canon XH-A1 and I am delighted with the
> way its encoder handles motion in both 25F and 50i. Resolution tests
> might put the V1e 50 lines more res vertically but as soon as the image
> moves the Canon image hold up to some very close scrutiny where the Sony
> fails immediately.
I recently bought a Canon HV20, and I am embarassed to say that both the
picture AND sound are VASTLY superior to the V1U. The CODEC seems to be MUCH
less plagued with artifacts. In fact, some stills I pulled from my HV20, run
through PhotoShop with levels set to exaggerate the macroblocks on a blue
sky scene showed much smaller and less obvious types of macroblock
artifacts. The V1U footage has such extreme macroblock artifacts that I am
noticing them on blue sky footage and on flat, still water in a shot looking
down on a river's edge where the water is stagnent. Flat green color, but
pronounced rectangular stepping of colors there.
Some footage of people's faces looks like a Solarizing filter was applied.
It's awful.
I shot some footage with my HV20, which I purchased as a B roll camera for
the 2 V1Us, and the only real deficiency with it is that the picture has too
much contrast. Cinema mode helps, but applies a blurring effect to the whole
picture, making it look slightly soft. Normal mode has crisp, sharp edges,
hardly any chromatic aberration, and amazingly good color fidelity for a
one-chipper.
I recorded a wedding last month, using the HV20 for the altar mic feed. I
also fed the V1U as a backup. When I listened to those two versions, and
also my Zoom H4 version, which was recording the choir/organ performance, I
was stunned at just how bad the V1U audio was, and how good the HV20 audio
was. This is all upside-down! More expensive should not mean worse sound &
picture!
> The HVR-V1 has received glowing reviews but this is a reflection of the
> competence of the person reviewing the camera rather than the camera
> itself. There seems to be a cadre of pseudo intellectuals making
> pronouncements about a subject they demonstrably know very little about.
> I know people who have been banned from web fora for voicing those
> opinions.
========================================================================
The problem here can be traced to one individual. He is a Sundance media
fellow and part of VASST. One should trace the money/funding. I think that
explains that gentleman's blind eye and deaf ear to the bad sound and
picture on the V1U. This gentleman has implied on public forums that I am a
quack and have an agenda to harm Sony. He is doing a grave disservice to the
video community by suppressing my views and using his clout and reputation
to discredit my scientific tests of camera audio. My testing and making
public of this problem should be welcomed, as it opens the door to a
possible Sony recall and we all benefit. Wouldn't everyone who owns a V1U
rather have the full audio frequency response, rather than what it is now?
DSE seems to think otherwise.
========================================================================
In all fairness, I think what Sony accomplished with 1/4" chips is nothing
short of amazing, however, it should be a CONSUMER camera, not an ENG
camera. HD needs 6X the chip surface area as SD to obtain the same light
sensitivity. Going down in chip size just aggravates the CODEC. And Sony's
CODEC is clearly inferior to Canon's. I would have bought the XL-H1, except
that all the footage I found shot with that camera suffers the worst
chromatic aberration I've ever seen in a semi-pro camera. The HV20 is
actually better than both the XL-H1 and the V1U. Amazing little camera.
> Avoid the HVR-V1 unless you are only interested in interlaced recording.
>
> To now hear that the V1 has crappy audio does not surprise me. I didn't
> get that far as the image it captured was a joke.
>
> S
I'm continuing to pound on Sony technical support in New Jersey, but getting
nowhere so far. New V1Us for sale are being listed with "20-20Khz" frequency
response. Buyers of those cameras beware. But at least now we have a means
to nail Sony on false advertising, if those cameras now shipping are the
same as the ones that shipped before July 2007.
Yes, the images can be very poor. But don't tell the folks on DVinfo.net.
They're all kissing Sony's arse over there. Anyone who speaks a bit of truth
gets talked down by DSE. The fact is, the picture is garbage in low light.
There are rare instances where the picture is quite good. These are almost
always daylight scenes, with simple backgrounds and no gradient or near-flat
colors (which show concentric bands, like rings on a tree trunk). I can't
stop being distracted by that banding, every time I look at HDV footage from
the V1U. It's way more distracting than any DV artifacts I saw on my VX2000.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION
Hear my Kurzweil Creations at: www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
www.basspig.com The Bass Pig's Lair - 15,000 Watts of Driving Stereo!
Business sites at:
www.mwcomms.com
www.adventuresinanimemusic.com
-
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|