PDA

View Full Version : Boxing shot with DVX200



JRJphoto
10-11-2016, 07:21 AM
I shot some boxing this past weekend with my v1.81 DVX200. I was standing on a large apple box right against the ring. I want to show how clean this image is at +12dB gain 1/60 shutter at 1080/60i, scn4 (still-like) custom WB, with NR Control at -7. Manual zoom and focus. Aperture was at f/4.5 to prevent ramping whilst zooming. Audio is split, btw: ch1 is shotgun with deadcat with manual settings, ch2 is internal mic on auto for backup. That's Shane Mosely, Jr. in the ring, his dad is in the corner.

117613


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWS-vI03CsQ

GordonL
10-11-2016, 07:59 AM
Excellent footage Jason. Thanks.

MichaelA
10-11-2016, 09:28 AM
Damn! That looks good! Quick question - you state you turned the noise reduction down. I would think that shooting in low light one may be inclined to turn it UP. Now, my logic on this could be backwards, and I haven't found any good guidance on using the NR control. Wouldn't turning it down risk inducing more noise and turning it up supposedly reduce the noise (at the risk of flattening the colors)? Any comments are most welcome as I am really unsure of tweaking this feature but would love to get more clear low light shots like the one you posted up!

robfilms
10-11-2016, 10:40 AM
Footage looked good.

Image was nicely sharp and contrasty.

White balance solid.

Don't tell me an "ancient" camera with a slow fixed lens shooting interlaced footage can still be relevant.

Next thing you know, DVX100 footage will be retro and in vogue!

Good job!

(And nice to see Shane Mosley who always had a rep as a banger.)

Be well.

Rob
Smalltalk.Productions

JRJphoto
10-11-2016, 01:24 PM
I failed to mention the f-stop was f/4.5 to prevent ramping. Fixed.


you state you turned the noise reduction down. I would think that shooting in low light one may be inclined to turn it UP. Now, my logic on this could be backwards, and I haven't found any good guidance on using the NR control. Wouldn't turning it down risk inducing more noise and turning it up supposedly reduce the noise (at the risk of flattening the colors)? Any comments are most welcome as I am really unsure of tweaking this feature but would love to get more clear low light shots like the one you posted up!

Well, until v1.81 NR was still present in even the most manual settings such as when using V-Log L. This created an unwanted ghosting effect most pronounced in low light situations or low contrast situations where highlights would remain in place for several frames after the surface causing the highlight moved quickly across the frame. NR Control in the latest firmware addresses this by giving us said control over the NR. I would prefer NR to be completely off so I can manage the image the way I want it.

I've said before I find the DVX200 noise to be film-like and pleasing up to ISO 2000 (which is +12dB considering the camera's base ISO rating of 500), the extra 2 stops being very necessary considering the loss of nearly 2 stops irised down to 4.5. In 1080/60i (because sports), the slowest shutter rate I deemed acceptable was 1/60. So, given the parameters of the technical shooting situation combined with the need for it to look like a legit boxing match a la HBO Sports, etc, I decided that the ghosting effect was absolutely unwanted at any level and basically shut NR completely off. This gave more noise for sure, but, again, I find it acceptable at +12dB, especially for reality/documentary, and I personally prefer a little digital noise in my shot with sharp edges, defined faces and solid contrast with details in both the shadows and highlights, than have a mushy, soft image that the camera decided to create without my input.

The image from the camera was often a mushy mess...especially in VFR over 96fps...until 1.81 showed up. Now, we can have that pleasing noise that reminds us we're watching a show and looks appropriate (and can be tweaked in post if need-be) and not have any of that disgusting ghost artifacting. That's why I say DVX200 is certainly a formidable little movie camera now and I will liken it to a mini Varicam. As you can see from the clips, the noise is quite nice and more akin to film grain than the ugly noise seen in earlier, smaller-chip (2/3" and 1/3") broadcast EFP video cameras.


Excellent footage Jason. Thanks.

Thanks! I hope it helps bring back potential buyers who were reluctant to buy the camera based on the quality of the image from earlier firmware.


Don't tell me an "ancient" camera with a slow fixed lens shooting interlaced footage can still be relevant. Next thing you know, DVX100 footage will be retro and in vogue!

Ha! Thanks for the kind words, Rob. That reminds me: I think I want to buy that app that makes iPhone videos look like crappy VHS.

MichaelA
10-11-2016, 01:41 PM
Thanks for sharing the backstory on the setting , Jason!

Bassman2003
10-11-2016, 01:54 PM
Thanks for sharing. After seeing the progression of footage from the DVX200 I still think the shadows on this camera are too crushed. It is part of the sensor's DNA and I just can not get past it. The images always look heavy to me even though the rest of the image is very pleasing. This camera came very close for me but I see it as $1,000 or $2,000 short of my ideal for this form factor - 1 more stop of sensitivity and a constant f2.8 lens.

JRJphoto
10-17-2016, 12:33 PM
Thanks for sharing. After seeing the progression of footage from the DVX200 I still think the shadows on this camera are too crushed. It is part of the sensor's DNA and I just can not get past it. The images always look heavy to me even though the rest of the image is very pleasing. This camera came very close for me but I see it as $1,000 or $2,000 short of my ideal for this form factor - 1 more stop of sensitivity and a constant f2.8 lens.

Did you do your own tests with whatever the most recent firmware was of the camera at the time, or are you judging the camera sensor's DNA based on videos found on the internet?

DVX200 is quite good, even before the updates. Now it is extremely solid. I can only imagine what a DVX200 with 13 stops of sensitivity (or simply full V-Log support) and a constant f/2.8 (parfocal) lens would be like. Maybe even with a Super 35 sensor? How big it would be. And heavy. How expensive. At that price, I'm sure users would scoff at the inability to change lenses...as they do already with the actual DVX200. Maybe because they like being tortured on run-and-gun jobs? lol

It's too bad about your perception of the blacks...I think it's fine. I should have done more thorough tests between firmware updates. But, I have seen nothing but improvements. The noise pattern is quite acceptable, I feel.

Bassman2003
10-17-2016, 01:41 PM
The DVX200 image judgment is my personal opinion based upon years with Panasonic cameras and a day tweaking the camera along side my PX270. I found that below a certain frequency there is hardly any information to recover. I could not find a way to un-crush the blacks without affecting the grays. When I tried to lift in post it just did not happen. No information. My PX270 is a dream in terms of image manipulation and I guess all I wanted was a P2 level DVX200. I believe the camera industry often values its products based upon end image quality. The $1,000 - $2,000 more imho would yield a better sensor. The DVX200 has a ton a menu controls but that does not help you if the sensor has limitations.

I think the 2.8 lens is possible and the 1 stop of sensitivity is not about dynamic range but how far you have to go into gain to operate in lower light situations. If the camera is not in HIGH SENS mode one would live with some sort of gain applied all of the time unless you were in a bright studio environment. In my experience (indoor or evening) event style work happens at ISO 800 and above. How fast your lens is determines where you fall. I guess I am old school but I only want to apply gain when conditions are difficult.

It is great you like the camera. We all have different needs, work and desires.

Design Media Consultants
10-29-2017, 10:08 AM
Nice work as usual JR - not sure how I missed this post. Mosley kicked butt.

The noise reduction worked really well. Great images. Was the apple box made by Panasonic?

JRJphoto
10-29-2017, 01:06 PM
Thanks, DMC. No noise reduction. Big apple box was a DIY wooden crate the client set up for me.

Mike Mas
10-29-2017, 04:50 PM
Good stuff thanks for sharing - good clean exposure and clean sound!


Mike

Charles Wing
10-29-2017, 07:55 PM
Beautiful footage! Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by "Aperture was at f/4.5 to prevent ramping whilst zooming." ? Thank you.

JRJphoto
10-30-2017, 02:52 AM
Good stuff thanks for sharing - good clean exposure and clean sound!

Thanks, Mike!


Beautiful footage!

Thanks, Charles!


what do you mean by "Aperture was at f/4.5 to prevent ramping whilst zooming." ?

DVX200’s affixed lens has a variable maximum aperture. It’s fastest setting changes from f/2.8 at the widest field of view and closes to f/4.5 somewhere in the middle of the zoom range. The gradual changing of the aperture across this zoom range is called ramping. Because I don’t want the exposure of my image to change while changing the focal distance of the zoom during recording, I keep the lens’ aperture at f/4.5, even at the widest field of view.