Page 49 of 53 FirstFirst ... 39454647484950515253 LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 526
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member QuickHitRecord's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    761
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    Are your clients really that noise averse or are YOU that noise averse? Just curious.
    Personally, I like a little fine noise/grain in my images. But I've had been dinged more than once for a less than perfectly pristine image (now that I think of it, it was mostly from one director I used to work with). I try not open myself up to it. And my C200 has some fixed pattern noise visible at ISO 800. Some may be fine with it. I'm not.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    It's only some of the "artists" in charge whom take themselves and their video production jobs way too seriously that like things done a very certain way and/or may find issues with various randomness.
    Not sure if you're talking about producers/creative directors/stakeholders, shooters, or me in particular (it fits more than I'd like).

    The general point I am trying to make is that CRL on the C200 is kind of noisy. For those who find the same, the C70 might be a better option.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    8,733
    Default
    Not you, just in general.

    Haven't really looked into the C70, but it will probably be cleaner (besides having newer technology/hardware) because it will have noise reduction vs. C200's CRL and no noise reduction (or very little, or having an older process/tech).


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,131
    Default
    A raw file does not have noise reduction. NR is a process - raw is free of processes - it would be assumed that one noise reduces to taste in post.

    (something that should be 'instant' with once you have made yourself a few 'looks')

    Most noisy raw is a resulat of underexposure.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    407
    Default
    At least from these tests of the C300 Mark III, it seems like the dual-gain output (DGO) modes of the sensor (up to 60 fps) do have a fair bit less noise than the non-DGO mode used at 120 fps (tests begin about 3 minutes or so into the video):



    And the DGO modes also seem to be cleaner in the shadows than even the C500 Mark II (which lacks DGO). In those tests there also didn't seem to be a huge difference between XF-AVC and RAW at least in the shadows. By default in the C300 Mark III, noise reduction is turned off (even in XF-AVC modes) although you can enable noise reduction levels between 1 and 12 if desired. In the C500 Mark II, the default noise reduction setting is level 1.

    Obviously the C70 is a different camera, so there could be some processing differences even though the sensor is supposedly the same as in the C300 Mark III.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member QuickHitRecord's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    761
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    A raw file does not have noise reduction. NR is a process - raw is free of processes - it would be assumed that one noise reduces to taste in post.

    (something that should be 'instant' with once you have made yourself a few 'looks')

    Most noisy raw is a resulat of underexposure.
    Yes, but just as all sensors are different, not all raw files are the same. They have different noise signatures. For instance, the BlackMagic Production Camera 4K raw suffered from fixed pattern noise at all ISOs.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    146
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by QuickHitRecord View Post
    Personally, I like a little fine noise/grain in my images. But I've had been dinged more than once for a less than perfectly pristine image (now that I think of it, it was mostly from one director I used to work with). I try not open myself up to it. And my C200 has some fixed pattern noise visible at ISO 800. Some may be fine with it. I'm not.
    I'm with you. If others are comfortable with the noise profile of C200 CRL files at ISO 800+ that's all good. We have different tolerances. For me noise in the shadows at ISO800 and above on the C200 isn't pretty or organic, it's just dirty. The image responds very well to Neat Video but that's quite time intensive.

    For me it's not so much about the client (I agree they're generally not bothered) - I just personally don't find the image satisfying when the shadows are bouncing around. I generally shot at ISO 400 on the C200; this brings the noise down to an acceptable level in most instances, quite a pleasing texture.

    I now have the C300mkIII and with DGO enabled the difference is plain to see. ISO 800 on the C300mkIII is easily cleaner than ISO 400 on the C200.

    That said, I love the C200 image and in terms of outright image quality would prefer CRL files from the C200 (cleaned up) over 10bit XFAVC on the C300mkIII. The CRL files are more detailed and don't suffer from compression artifacts.

    I may pick up a C70 at some point as a b-cam because it's small, the AF is great, XFAVC is efficient and fast to work with, battery life is great and the adaptor sounds appealing; but I suspect if you've got the time and space to work with CRL files the C200 will still be capable of a better image simply because of codec limitations with XFAVC.

    One other quick observation (that I assume will apply to the C70). The C300mkIII image is sharper than the C200. Whereas I would always apply a touch of sharpening in post C200 CRL files generally don't add anything to CRL files from the C300mkIII sensor. I'm not a sharpness / resolution freak so the difference is neither here nor there to me, but it's there. If anything the C300mkIII is a little too sharp for my preferences (and I'll likely add diffusion for personal projects). In my brief time with it I've noticed aliasing (on rooftops in sunlight) and a touch of moire (on fine garments) more than once, which I don't recall ever experiencing with the C200.
    Last edited by lacuna; 09-29-2020 at 05:08 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,744
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    Yeah, I find most people are actually pretty easy to please. As long as the picture is "clear" and "bright" (as they say), and the sound is good, you're 90% there.

    It's only some of the "artists" in charge whom take themselves and their video production jobs way too seriously that like things done a very certain way and/or may find issues with various randomness.
    What?! You mean your clients don't run your footage through IMATEST to check your SNR before they pay you??? (Jk)


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,163
    Default
    This discussion has brought up some interesting points about who drives the sales of certain products for certain features. I have always suspected that this was the factor driving the SD to HD movement and later the HD to 4K, 5K, 6K, 8K movement. I'm convinced that most of the new features driving the sales of new cameras are mostly clever marketing to a gullible audience (us).

    Really almost none of the "innovations" of the past half decade in digital video have been client driven. It's all fine and good but it just cracks me up that as you read post after post here, so many of us justify buying shiny new gear "for clients", when clearly a good portion of clients, the vast majority in fact, don't even know what 4K and greater, HDR, HLG, FF, DGO, S/N ratio, FPN are. And if they did, they wouldn't care or be able to discern the difference. Looking at us objectively, we are a self-deluded lot, most of us. Most of what we shoot is consumed on crappy 4" phone screens in bad ambient lighting conditions, yet we actually sweat a lot of this stuff.

    Anyway, diverging too much from the topic at hand, the C70. I am eager to see what shipping models picture looks like in real world use. The test footage looks great.
    Last edited by puredrifting; 09-29-2020 at 12:16 PM.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,163
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    What?! You mean your clients don't run your footage through IMATEST to check your SNR before they pay you??? (Jk)
    Right? Reading the boards here, watching YouTubers, you would think so.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,123
    Default
    I run IMATEST on every DVXUser post. Then use Neat Video to reduce the FPN.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 49 of 53 FirstFirst ... 39454647484950515253 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •