Z1E Viewfinder & LCD overscan/underscan setting?

[RayL]

At the Production Show yesterday I met David D., who runs a video facilities company. I mentioned my intention to buy a Z1E and his reaction was "Ah, good camera but I've had one since they first came out and the big problem is that the viewfinder and LCD pictures overscan and I've just been to the Sony stand and to a Sony seminar and they shy away from the question of setting the viewfinder scans so that you can see to the edge of the recorded picture".

In the days when our efforts were only ever watched on TV sets (which are always set to overscan), overscanning on the viewfinder was not a huge problem. You might see a mic just coming into shot during the edit, but the customer would not on his/her home TV. Now, however, our efforts are likely to turn up on all sorts of screens and displays which will show the whole recorded frame.

At a later encounter with Bob C at the show I mentioned this and (as you can probably guess) he asked me to put the answer on this forum when I had found out.

The next few hours (a curious zigzag journey around London by public transport involving Earls Court to Optex in New Barnet (Z1E purchased) to Aldgate (tapes purchased) to Mayfair (recce for job quote) to Carshalton (home at last!)) meant that by the time I finished playing with the new toy it was well into that time of night when only people called B. Crabtree are still awake.

But after all that, here's the answer.

Yes, you can set the V/F and LCD to underscan but ONLY in HDV mode.

You do it by setting an Assign button to 'Allscan mode'.

This feature is NOT available in DV/DVCAM modes. Why not?

Ray Liffen

[tom hardwick]

Congratulations on the new baby Ray! Got any VX2000s for sale?
As to the underscanning question my guess is that in the DV era we watched on overscanning TV sets as you say, but in the new HDV era we're much more likely to be viewing the full frame, and thanks be to our respective Gods for that.

Why not go with the flow and shoot everything in HDV, viewing it underscanned, downconverting to SD to feed the computers for now? Or is there some other reason that you want to shoot in DVCAM mode? For 4:3 for instance?

Also - in the underscanning mode, is the v'finder and top screen not filled with image?

tom.

[RayL]

Tom

I try to avoid playing back tapes in my cameras (reduces head wear) and use separate players. Therefore, for now, I'll be recording DV because that is compatable with my players. Also (and this coming Saturday is an example) I'll be recording the Z1 to the Firestore and (until the HDV firmware upgrade comes along) this is also DV only.

In the underscan mode, the picture is quite a lot smaller than the LCD or V/F screen so there is quite a wide black border round the underscanned pic.

Ray

[tom hardwick]

I thought as much. Come on Sony, let's fill the frame as every good photographer and artist is told to do.

[infocus]

Strange to come across this thread, as I've just come back from a week away, and as part of that had to cut rushes previously shot by somebody else on a Z1 - shooting HDV and downconcerting wasn't an option for various reasons.

All the way through the main interview, the furry mic windshield was well in shot top right against a bright sky - according to the producer it wasn't the first time this problem had happened (on a camera only a week or two old!).

Tom - you can't rely on overscan AT ALL anymore, at least top and bottom. The reason this Z1 had been adopted was it's true widescreen capability rather than HD, and when the story was broadcast it obviously got shown 14:9 on the analogue service. Hence, even on an overscanned 4:3 TV, (as seen by most viewers) the fluffy windshield was seen in it's full glory, right up to the very top of frame to where the letterboxing started. I've since looked at the story on my home widescreen TV, and here the problem is much less due to the overscan, though it's still visible.

The rushes had been shot by an experienced cameraman, and also notable was the framing being generally a bit odd - consistently far more headroom on interviews than would be considered normal. It all makes me wonder if the viewfinder is giving a very misleading idea of the framing, I'll try and get some feedback.

Compared to other rushes, it was noticeably softer than from the other (much more expensive) cameras though if I hadn't seen a side by side comparison it wouldn't have stood out at me. Generally the quality was quite good, though highlight handling was noticeably poorer than from the big cameras.

[Bruce]

Have taken up this thread with great interest. Have been shooting tests for the last week with a TLS Kestral Matte Box on the standard Z1 lens using TLS adaptor cone. Did not realise there is an underscan facility on the Z1! I now discover that the cut off is quite dramatic although I do have a clear glass safety filter fitted as well. Without the 72mm filter there is a smidgeon of cut off.

Still a great camera though.

[infocus]

Any thoughts as to whether the cutoff is symmetric top/bottom? From the framing I'm led to think the rushes I viewed were from a camera where it was worse top than bottom. Yes, it was very severe, presumably far worse than my home CRT tv for the cameraman not to have noticed the mic in shot.

[RayL]

A quick test standing a ruler against a wall suggests that the cutoff is symmetrical top/bottom (and side to side).

RayL

[Bruce]

Zoom in just a tad and all is ok. On domestic Tvs and any ordinary monitor it would be fine. It is only laptop or underscan viewing that will show up any errors.

[infocus]

On domestic Tvs and any ordinary monitor it would be fine.
Not for UK broadcast it wouldn't. (wasn't)

For this reason: "....when the story was broadcast it obviously got shown 14:9 on the analogue service. Hence, even on an overscanned 4:3 TV, (as seen by most viewers) the fluffy windshield was seen in it's full glory, right up to the very top of frame to where the letterboxing started. I've since looked at the story on my home widescreen TV, and here the problem is much less due to the overscan, though it's still visible."

Ok, if the cameraman had zoomed in a tad all would indeed have been fine - trouble is he wasn't aware of the problem and wasn't aware he had to.

[Alan Roberts]

I have consistently railed at every manufacturer I come across about overscan.

Overscan was a necessity when tv set power supplies were unstable and picture dimensions could change with brightness content. But modern tv sets are very stable, and pixel based displays are inherently stable, so are pixel based cameras. So there's absolutely no reason for overscan at any point in a digital programme chain. Including overscan in a modern camera or display is a piece of crass stupidity that should have been stamped out ages ago, professional cameras and displays don't do it, so why should the consumer have to suffer from it? My message is very slowly starting to get through, but it's very hard work :(

[Phil Knox]

I've been thinking about getting this camera for a while, so when the opportunity came to use this on a job, I hired one in to get used to it.

Had it for a day or so before heading out on a 4-day shoot. The shoot was a fly-away in a remote location, so kept the kit minimal and didn't take a seperate monitor with me.

Bizzarely, one of the reasons I landed the job is that a previous cameraman had filmed for this company before, and they complained to me that there had been a mic in shot in over 50% of the rushes, and so hence didn't want to use him on the next job. This was a fairly experienced operator, so I should have heard the alarm bells, but failed to take this on board!

Carefully checked the framing and mic position all through the shoot. Was working as single camera, so wanted a good rifle-mic and softie on board. Did not see a whisper of the edge of the softie on any of the shots, even when fully wide. Checked footage on the LCD in the evenings - looked fine.

Was therefore immensely naffed off to discover the edge of the softie in shot when footage viewed on a quality monitor back in the studio. As inFocus says above - this would not be acceptable for broadcast standard. Like RayL, I was filming in DVCAM mode, as the camera was a hire and we only have DVCAM decks at present. Using the camera was more for my benifit to get used to the feel and use of the camera.

Beyond the issues raised above re a decent underscan that fills the screen, the other issue is why Sony have not mounted the mic holder far enough above and slightly back on the camera to decrease the chance of this happening? I wonder if there is an extension mount you can buy for this. Also why is this underscan facility so poorly documented in the manual?

Having trawled the web after the event - I've come across a number of threads that have complained of the same - and from a number of other professional cameraman. These are not just your average Joe - but guys who are used to full -size DigiBetas etc. In fact, it's more likely to happen to a pro/ semi-pro who cares about sound quality enough to want to mount a decent rifle mic.

Ho Hum, lesson learnt by me, but not by Sony it seems

Rant over - take care!

[mooblie]

...... I wonder if there is an extension mount you can buy for this....

We use these Rycote Multimounts (http://www.rycote.com/products/softie/softie2.asp#MM) all the time for exactly this reason.

[NickHampson]

Similar to above problems with DVX100 mounting (altough luckily it did show up on the screen) the answer for me was initially a Rode NTSM5 suspension mount which puts the mic and softie up and back a bit, its a bit wobbly for ME66/K6 and softie but it was the only item I could get delivered next day. Rycote do a better item as per URL below, but I cant find anyone in the UK who has one in stock. Its just the trick for this situation and a lot easier than getting Sony to Listen :-)

http://www.rycote.co.uk/products/softie/mount/cca/

[Alan Roberts]

The problem is rather less to do with mic mounts and so on, but far more to do with the on-camera monitoring. In all professional cameras, the viewfinder shows you the whole picture, while in most consumer cameras the viewfinder overscans. The manuafacturers' reason for this is that the pictures will be viewed on overscanning tv sets, so why would you want to see anything else?

There are some cross-over cameras in which you can choose the display; my A1 viewfinder normally overscans, but I can switch it to full-scan which shows me the entire picture albeit shrunk somewhat. I've never understood why any camera manufacturer would sell a camera with a viewfinder that overscans, but that's one of the things that marks the line between pro and consumer kit.

[NickHampson]

yeah but a 30 quid mount is easir to 'solve' the issue than a teletest monitor or a new pro camera, what you say is right of course but it wont help people who already have a camera.

[Alan Roberts]

Agreed that it doesn't help, but it's a warning to all.

[tom hardwick]

We should note I suppose that the switchable v'finder is only over/underscan when filming in the HDV mode. In DV and DVCAM you only get the one option: overscan.

And why is the Z1's underscan mode such a small picture? Is to constantly warn you that you're viewing the underscanned mode?

tom.

[Alan Roberts]

Same in the A1, and I reckon you're right.

[Phil Knox]

Yeah - but why would you need a warning.

All you need is an on screen marker to indicate safe zone and any cameraman worth his organic sea salt would recognise this and frame accordingly.

It's the age old problem of the mid-range cameras being marketed as pro gear without the full work up on details.

Shame though - because in all other respects, the Z1 is great and produces great pictures and has a lot of functionality that pushes it towards the pro end. I like using it - but this is an annoying issue - don't want to get caught again! Incidentally, am filming today (for the same company - they wanted me back!) with the Z1 in a portable studio setup - so will see how goes!

[DVdoctor]

So are we some how implying that for the low end consumer having framing that does not match is acceptable? Are you saying that all consumer Displays in Pal land are overscanning?

Sharyn

[Alan Roberts]

You need a warning because not all camera material is bound for display on an overscanned tv set. Some it goes straight to internet output, and the full image is seen.

[tom hardwick]

Thing is, overscan is a relic of the past and should be confined to the trashbin. Wide-angles cost lots of money, and to lose 10% of the lenses coverage to this antiquated 'standard' is unacceptable in my view.

I've accessed the service controls on my Sony's 16:9 remote and set the CRT to show the full image. I'm sure yours can be done too.

tom.

[paultv]

interesting thread - shooting HDV on the Z1 gives an added advantage if final product is to be SD 16x9, which I guess most is at present; digitise in HDV, run your project in SD 16x9 and you can increase image size and therefore crop and remove out small edge problems if not detected during shooting, without any quality loss.

The ability to slightly re frame shots in this way is seriously useful, I've found the Z1 "overscan" viewfinder is way off, always run with underscan for safety, framing with overscan is often "out"

All very simple with Edius 4 and the handy layout tool.

Paul