|
|
Posted by ptravel on 11/02/07 06:54
On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact that I
> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally capture
> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the resulting
> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from tape
> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via HDMI,
> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI forum you
> linked to.
>
> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in HDMI
> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency / half-power
> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution. And on
> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as the
> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display shows no
> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus the
> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the camera's
> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this effect,
> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening may
> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent resolution. If
> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to judge
> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted in the
> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>
> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so as to
> make fast pans take on a more under-sampled and degraded appearance, but
> very very seldom have I seen any real macroblock effects or other
> artifacting. My movies of Niagara Falls, with lots of vertical water motion,
> horizontal panning, and very agitated and tiny water details is about the
> most stressing case I have tried, and even then the HV-20 was a vast
> improvement over the older FX-1 as well as the recent Sony HC-3 my son was
> using.
>
> Although I am by no means an advocate of high priced cables, I might also
> take a look at the HDMI cable being used between the HV-20 and the HDTV. The
> cables I use here are very inexpensive, work very well, and introduce no
> particular problems, but it is remotely possible that high frequency ringing
> or other transient / overshoot problems could make the HDMI port look bad.
> This is a bit far fetched but worth a quick substitution if you have another
> HDMI cable to substitute.
>
> Please continue to update as I really would hope this problem is not a
> deal-breaker.
>
> Smarty
Smarty, thanks for the response. I've got a bunch of HDMI cables here
but, as it happens, the one I was using is the best I have -- though
money isn't necessarily a measure of quality, this one cost me $70.
I'll try a couple of others this weekend.
I took a look at a frame grab. To my eye, there are sharpening
artifacts or, at least, some kind of high-frequency distortion. I
posted it here:
www.travelersvideo.com/hv20.jpg
In the interest of bandwidth, I had to compress it rather heavily, but
I think the artifacts show through. I REALLY want to like this
camera, so I'm going to do some more extensive tests this weekend,
including lowering sharpening and trying it in 24p mode (though my
preference is to shoot 1080i/60).
>
> "PTravel" <ptra...@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > "Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote in message
> >news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>
> >> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to see
> >> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera, since I
> >> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
> >> non-professional user.
>
> > As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in skill,
> > experience or knowledge. However, I've hit a significant problem with the
> > HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>
> > Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in high-frequency
> > detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
> > camcorder. The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output, far less
> > visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's
> > caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
> > something odd with my television.
>
> > I've discussed it at length here:
>
> >http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>
> > Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the camera
> > as long as it looks good on the component output. However, I'm going to
> > do so more tests this weekend. If the output continues to display these
> > signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and waiting
> > until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>
> > I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|