V1u Review @ Videomaker
- Thread starter miamivideo
- Start date
Darth_Fluffy
Active member
Another review that doesn't mention the "oil paint" effect and seems to think it does pretty good in low light. There seems to be such across the board opinions on this camera. It's frustrating. I wish and hope that someone, sometime, gets to the bottom of the 'oil paint' effect.
Barry_Green
Moderator
It's been gotten to the bottom of. It's there, it exists, Sony issued a firmware update to address it (which caused the "marching ants" problem); then they actually pulled the progressive-scan feature out of all mention in their marketing materials in Europe, choosing to market it as an interlaced-only camera; then an engineer from Japan came over, looked at it, said "it's not a defect" and they're not going to change it. Sony restored their "progressive scan" marketing materials, and said "hey, if you don't like it, return it, but it is what it is."
If you shoot in progressive scan (on either the US version or the PAL version) you run the risk of it happening; it doesn't happen in all circumstances. If you want to make sure you see it, shoot with some gain; anything above 6dB of gain should show the effect quite clearly, from what I understand.
If you shoot in progressive scan (on either the US version or the PAL version) you run the risk of it happening; it doesn't happen in all circumstances. If you want to make sure you see it, shoot with some gain; anything above 6dB of gain should show the effect quite clearly, from what I understand.
Darth_Fluffy
Active member
Thanks Barry. Nice concise explanation. Appreciate it.
And thus another 24p myth is perpetuated. 24p (however competently/incompetently it's implemented in this camera) with standard pulldown is not a simulation.
David Jimerson said:
Well sure the only thing that's EVER going to look like film is film, it'd take some moumental amount of engineering to come close to emulating many of the defects (or subtle nuiances, take your pick as to what you want to call them) of that medium.
But for what we're likely to see in my lifetime and for the money our V1P does a pretty stunning job, way better than anything I've seen at the price point. Keep in mind that I'm no fan of the whole 24fps thing anyway so for me to say I find what I can get out the V1P at 25fps rather seductive is quite a leap. About the only critisism I've had so far is it looks too much like film, go figure.
Much of the negative comments being made about the V1P oddly enough belong in the same basket as early comments about the HVX200, many of them were from users who didn't know how to correctly view the images, they were looking at the limitations of their monitors, not defects in the camera.
And I've tried hard, very hard to invoke the dreaded oil painting effect with zero success. I've seen plenty of screen grabs that show it but until I can reproduce it I have to wonder what the hell they've done 'cause I've pushed the camera way beyond all reasonable limits and still no sign of it.
All that said though I'm far from saying the cameras is perfect, there's sure plenty to gripe about but the quality of the image you can get from it isn't one of them.
sodotoguwangus
Well-known member
I second what robroysyd said. I have yet to see the oil paint effect and I have deliberately tried to raise the gain and do whatever I can, just to witness it.
So far, I have had zero sucess.
What it all boils down to are a few people on a few forums who witnessed something and then it got blown completely out of proportion.
I hardly think the oil paint thing an issue. Trust me, I shoot 24p almost exclusively, and I haven't lost a wink of sleep over it...because it has never happened.
So far, I have had zero sucess.
What it all boils down to are a few people on a few forums who witnessed something and then it got blown completely out of proportion.
I hardly think the oil paint thing an issue. Trust me, I shoot 24p almost exclusively, and I haven't lost a wink of sleep over it...because it has never happened.
magi1500
Member
Yes, let us be clear about one thing: the V1U's 24p is real 24p. The Canon 24f thing is a simulation. It does not have a progressive imager and it loses resolution by deinterlacing. I have not seen the quality it produces. It might be awesome. But if we're talking about the V1U, the word "simulation" does not apply.
I must admit I've been very concerned reading about the "oil paint" effect. In fact I read dvinfo's entire thread about this. Very long and painful reading. I have a V1U I purchased from EVS in January. The sales rep said that he liked the picture more and as I looked at it versus the A1 I agreed. But the idea that I could be on a shoot in progressive mode and run into this problem has caused some concern for me. So I have tried to create the "oil paint effect" with out any success. I would like to figure this out. I have boosted the gain to +18db in less light, and still no sign of it. All I see is more grain.
From what I understand in the dvinfo post is that televisions are not properly displaying the image because of the way Sony's laying the 25P on to tape. Apparently most of the displays in PAL land are not understanding how to read Sony's cadence properly in progressive mode. I'm referring to the V1E. But according to several test they tried the oil paint effect went away once in the editing program and displayed on a computer LCD in true 25P. But then Sony released a firmware update to fix the problem. The firmware update looked like "marching ants." So they suggested not allowing the gain to go above a certainly level thus softening the image and correcting the problem.
The thing that I wonder is perhaps the problem is Sony allows too much detail in this cameras vertical image. Maybe, if the detail is pushed too much it becomes blocky (marching ants) and if the image is too soft (less gain) it becomes mooshy (oil paint). Is it possible in progressive mode that the vertical resolution is greater then 1080? This was also mentioned in the thread but not clarified.
I chose this camera because of the vibrant details in the color. The Canon seemed way to soft for me. The A1 users in the dvinfo post did say that by adjusting the detail in the A1 to the max. can create a detailed version similar to the V1U but not quite the same. Is it possible that the Sony's CMOS censors is just a different animal? Perhaps not a defect but an issue of finding the sweet spot. In other words "could it all be in the exposure?" A case of user error?
I recently shot a feature with a Varicam. We then did second unit shots with the HVX200. Working with the HVX200 I notice some major limitations in the resolution. I felt like the image was too grainy despite very good lighting. I left wondering if the smaller censors just couldn't manage a clean HD image as good as I had hoped. However when others looked at the image they couldn't see the difference between the Varicam and the HVX200. (Keep in mind I'm referring to the resolution not the depth of field issues. Obviously 1/3 ccd's is limited.) I then compared the Sony to the HVX200. (Okay not the mpeg 2, their is no question DVCPro is much better then HDV.) I liked the look and vibrance of the Sony over the HVX200. In a perfect world I would like the CMOS technology with the HVX200. Wait "RED" is coming to mind.
My main concern is the possibility of the "oil paint" effect. However is it really a problem with the camera or just the way the camera is being used? All cameras have there limitations. This is why experts write such wonderful guides, so that we can learn to maximize the benefits of the camera. However, if the Sony has a major defect I would like to know. But I must say, I have yet to see the problem even with a major increase in the gain.
I am not an advocate of Sony. I love Panasonic cameras and chose the Varicam over Sony for a major shoot. My main concern is if the V1U has a defect then it might be reason enough for me to replace it with a Canon A1.
From what I understand in the dvinfo post is that televisions are not properly displaying the image because of the way Sony's laying the 25P on to tape. Apparently most of the displays in PAL land are not understanding how to read Sony's cadence properly in progressive mode. I'm referring to the V1E. But according to several test they tried the oil paint effect went away once in the editing program and displayed on a computer LCD in true 25P. But then Sony released a firmware update to fix the problem. The firmware update looked like "marching ants." So they suggested not allowing the gain to go above a certainly level thus softening the image and correcting the problem.
The thing that I wonder is perhaps the problem is Sony allows too much detail in this cameras vertical image. Maybe, if the detail is pushed too much it becomes blocky (marching ants) and if the image is too soft (less gain) it becomes mooshy (oil paint). Is it possible in progressive mode that the vertical resolution is greater then 1080? This was also mentioned in the thread but not clarified.
I chose this camera because of the vibrant details in the color. The Canon seemed way to soft for me. The A1 users in the dvinfo post did say that by adjusting the detail in the A1 to the max. can create a detailed version similar to the V1U but not quite the same. Is it possible that the Sony's CMOS censors is just a different animal? Perhaps not a defect but an issue of finding the sweet spot. In other words "could it all be in the exposure?" A case of user error?
I recently shot a feature with a Varicam. We then did second unit shots with the HVX200. Working with the HVX200 I notice some major limitations in the resolution. I felt like the image was too grainy despite very good lighting. I left wondering if the smaller censors just couldn't manage a clean HD image as good as I had hoped. However when others looked at the image they couldn't see the difference between the Varicam and the HVX200. (Keep in mind I'm referring to the resolution not the depth of field issues. Obviously 1/3 ccd's is limited.) I then compared the Sony to the HVX200. (Okay not the mpeg 2, their is no question DVCPro is much better then HDV.) I liked the look and vibrance of the Sony over the HVX200. In a perfect world I would like the CMOS technology with the HVX200. Wait "RED" is coming to mind.
My main concern is the possibility of the "oil paint" effect. However is it really a problem with the camera or just the way the camera is being used? All cameras have there limitations. This is why experts write such wonderful guides, so that we can learn to maximize the benefits of the camera. However, if the Sony has a major defect I would like to know. But I must say, I have yet to see the problem even with a major increase in the gain.
I am not an advocate of Sony. I love Panasonic cameras and chose the Varicam over Sony for a major shoot. My main concern is if the V1U has a defect then it might be reason enough for me to replace it with a Canon A1.
That might be one explaination although I'm at a loss as to why Sony actually admits that there was a problem with their camera and went to the trouble to issue a fix for it. There's no denying that at some point shipping of V1E were stopped and the progressive features removed from their advertisement. Either there actually is a problem or someone at Sony needs to be fired.
I worked in theatrical distribution for a Major Studio. I was in the print control office working with both marketing and distribution. I must say the politics do exist. Perhaps the marketing department felt it was better to adjust the materials to avoid the issue. The quality control tech guys have no say in what the marketing people decide to do. Every major company is political. The departments usually don't even talk to each other. According to dvinfo the problem was that the LCD's just don't handle the cadence in progressive mode properly in 25P mode. But internally it's recording just fine. NOW WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD SONY DO THIS!? Thus marketing people find out and FLIP OUT. They say, "We need to avoid the issue." Then suddenly the Tech guys say, "hey this is not a flaw," so then the marketing people hear an explanation from the tech guys like (okay this is just hypothetical) :
Tech: "The 25P is fine, it's the monitors that aren't understanding the new technology."
Marketing: Oh so the camera does work? Oops we made a mistake. How do we fix this? (save face)
Tech: We could do a firmware to try and allow it to display better with some blurring etc. and then will say it's fixed.
Marketing: Good idea. This way people will feel like we've done something to correct it. Okay let's do it.
Tech: Okay.
_________
That's it done deal. Well not to me. But this is how things work in the corporate world. My biggest concern is whether or not the progressive vertical image over extends the 1080 resolution. If it does then there could be a problem. This could explain the issue. The only way to resolve this would be to lower the gain resulting in less resolution, thus correcting the issue. Then Sony would need to release a future camera that would not push the image to such crazy levels. Again this is speculative but if so "Sony screwed up." What that means is the camera would need more light with less gain to resolve the problem. As long as the image looks great then I guess I'll live with it. But it is disappointing because the average user may feel like the camera is not usable, especially if they don't know how to correct this problem.
It still comes down to the final image for me. If lowering the gain takes away the vibrant image that the consumer loves then yes they will feel cheated. If the "oil paint effect" still occurs under less gain then we have a major problem. This is my greatest fear. Because that means there is no work around. It also would mean the camera cannot properly handle the vertical resolution period. But I have yet to run into it and am happy with the camera and it's image over all.
Tech: "The 25P is fine, it's the monitors that aren't understanding the new technology."
Marketing: Oh so the camera does work? Oops we made a mistake. How do we fix this? (save face)
Tech: We could do a firmware to try and allow it to display better with some blurring etc. and then will say it's fixed.
Marketing: Good idea. This way people will feel like we've done something to correct it. Okay let's do it.
Tech: Okay.
_________
That's it done deal. Well not to me. But this is how things work in the corporate world. My biggest concern is whether or not the progressive vertical image over extends the 1080 resolution. If it does then there could be a problem. This could explain the issue. The only way to resolve this would be to lower the gain resulting in less resolution, thus correcting the issue. Then Sony would need to release a future camera that would not push the image to such crazy levels. Again this is speculative but if so "Sony screwed up." What that means is the camera would need more light with less gain to resolve the problem. As long as the image looks great then I guess I'll live with it. But it is disappointing because the average user may feel like the camera is not usable, especially if they don't know how to correct this problem.
It still comes down to the final image for me. If lowering the gain takes away the vibrant image that the consumer loves then yes they will feel cheated. If the "oil paint effect" still occurs under less gain then we have a major problem. This is my greatest fear. Because that means there is no work around. It also would mean the camera cannot properly handle the vertical resolution period. But I have yet to run into it and am happy with the camera and it's image over all.
Last edited:
moldcad
Veteran
der4, rest assured the oil paint effect is history. As one of the dvinfo discussion participants, and somebody who has gone to greatest lengths in order to choose between the V1E and Canon A1 (for all the same reasons as you), I know for sure that after fixing the oil paint effect (or local softness), the only problem with the V1E's 25PsF mode is the line twitter and other aliasing-related artefacts. They're present when you play from the camera through component or HDMI on a HD TV or LCD, because those devices cannot tell the progressive stream and deinterlace it just like it were a 1080/50i video.
You can recreate this playing back a captured clip with a software player like VLC, and switching bobbing (one of deinterlacing methods) on. However, the same clip played back without deinterlacing, doesn't produce any aliasing wahtsoever - even if it was shot with sharpness way higher than the Sony's recommended 3.
You can recreate this playing back a captured clip with a software player like VLC, and switching bobbing (one of deinterlacing methods) on. However, the same clip played back without deinterlacing, doesn't produce any aliasing wahtsoever - even if it was shot with sharpness way higher than the Sony's recommended 3.
John Trent
Well-known member
der4,
You say you haven't seen any of the "oil paint" effect. Could you please tell me if you've seen any blockiness or "marching ants"? Thank you.
You say you haven't seen any of the "oil paint" effect. Could you please tell me if you've seen any blockiness or "marching ants"? Thank you.
der4 said:
That sounds pretty possible except that it might have backfired on Sony. This is how I imagined the whole thing went:
Sony Tech (returning camera): Here you go, all fixed up!:thumbup:
Customer: Cool, thanks!! I'll just plug this in to my 42'' plasma and check out the gorgeous HD...WHAT THE? Sony *$#*(@#@ :kali: .
Customer (dialing up dealer): GET ME AN A1. STAT!
Jade: That is hilarious.
Moldcad: Thanks for the info. That is very encouraging.
John:
When the camera gain is over +6db the image is grainy, but I don't like using gain. Even Panasonic suggest on the Varicam to not push up the gain. There recommendations is to not exceed +3db. This allows for more colorspace. In HDV I think this is even more important.
But to answer your question if the gain is too high there is blockiness. It reminds me of shooting on a ACL Eclair with a 10-120mm lens. But it does look evenly distributed. This is all easy to control with proper lighting and correct exposure settings. But if you were not in a controlled setting you could run into some problems with too much gain. Keep in mind that I am new to this camera and I have a lot to learn. There may be some settings that I'm unaware of that could resolve the lowlight issues. But not completely because of lux in this camera. This is not the correct camera to choose for an event videographer under minimal lighting conditons. I know sony sells a light to help with this but I don't have first hand experience with that. For a filmmaker it does a very nice job. Again, it depends on who the dp is.
Moldcad: Thanks for the info. That is very encouraging.
John:
When the camera gain is over +6db the image is grainy, but I don't like using gain. Even Panasonic suggest on the Varicam to not push up the gain. There recommendations is to not exceed +3db. This allows for more colorspace. In HDV I think this is even more important.
But to answer your question if the gain is too high there is blockiness. It reminds me of shooting on a ACL Eclair with a 10-120mm lens. But it does look evenly distributed. This is all easy to control with proper lighting and correct exposure settings. But if you were not in a controlled setting you could run into some problems with too much gain. Keep in mind that I am new to this camera and I have a lot to learn. There may be some settings that I'm unaware of that could resolve the lowlight issues. But not completely because of lux in this camera. This is not the correct camera to choose for an event videographer under minimal lighting conditons. I know sony sells a light to help with this but I don't have first hand experience with that. For a filmmaker it does a very nice job. Again, it depends on who the dp is.
Last edited: