Squeeze that film look!

Isaac_Brody said:
I think you're referring to me, "one of those moderators who finds the constant noise gripes annoying." I think I find it annoying that people don't use the same fine tooth comb to scrutinize HDV compression blocks and noise. From the JVC and Canon footage I've looked at I find the compression blocking from action scenes to be worse than the noise issues from all three cams. And I think it has the best color handling of all three cams.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to any one person in particular, just that it seems that the general consensus of the moderators/administration/whatever the titles are, is that the HVX just doesn't have any issue with artifacting or noise at all. It would be one thing to say "the camera has some limitations with its codec and does display significant amounts of noise in many situations, but with all of its other strengths it is absolutely still the camera for me." But that's not the message that's being delivered; a good deal of the posts related to this topic by people in the administrative group are replies like "I can't see the noise at all, people must be crazy!" and "the artifacting doesn't exist, don't believe what you're reading!" like it's some conspiracy that they are sworn to protect. The only reason the issue keeps coming up is that different people keep getting the camera and bringing up the issue that, "wow, the camera is pretty slow and noisy, and I wasn't expecting that." If the topic was made more clear from the powers that be, I think people would better know what the HVX is and isn't capable of and they'd be more prepared if they choose to buy it. Merely pretending the issue doesn't exist is only going to perpetuate the problem because then it keeps getting brought up. That's all I was saying.

Rhydon said:
Also, everyone knows theres a noise issue. Its there, yep, Panasonic will fix it, its something their people/customers dont like.
Click to expand...
Do they? Can you get Evin to make a post that says "we know there is a noise issue - it's there, yep, and we don't like it."? How about Barry? John? Jarred? Maybe I've just missed something. :) But yes, it would certainly help new users to hear it from the people with yellow tags that by association carry more weight in their posts. That's what I was referring to in the post that Issac quoted.

Isaac_Brody said:
All of the sub 10k cams have (pick your poison) issues and compromises.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree with you that the newest crop of "low-end" HD cameras leave a lot to be desired. Right now I don't feel that any of them really deliver. That's what is most unfortunate, because they (Panasonic in particular) have really done a great job of maintaining image quality throughout their entire range of SD equipment. With a DVX, maybe you won't find the 2/3" DOF or range of latitude that you'd get with an SDX, but you still get an amazing clear picture that delivers. The disparity between the higher and lower end HD cameras is far greater. Maybe 1/3" CCDs and HD just don't mix... that could very well be. But to praise a camera like the HVX as the second coming when it needs a lot of work doesn't do any of us any good. How is Panasonic supposed to make improvements on their CCD or codec if all they hear is that the mediocre performance is absolutely adequate for their base customer? By ignoring the problems, nothing gets fixed, and you slow down progression.

There's a lot about the HVX to be joyful of, but it isn't without its faults. Even if you like the camera immensely and it is doing everything you need it to, it can still be improved. It would be nice if the mods weren't so quick to dismiss the opinions and findings of longtime respected users (disjecta, in this case - I'm not referring to myself) just because they don't want anyone's perception of the HVX to be tainted.

One last footnote - I think a lot of the problem gets neutralized when you downconvert to SD. Pixels are blurred and a lot of the artifacting gets smoothed out. Since most of the footage people have been seeing online is shrunk down for the web, it's very difficult to see what people are talking about in the raw footage. And yes, most people only have SD viewing equipment right now so it's not a big deal. But why spend $6,000+ on an HVX with P2 cards if you can get even better (faster) SD performance from the DVX that now costs under $3,000? Along with fellow DVXUser CJ Roy, I was one of the camera operators on the "Shake That Ass" music video that Danilo posted in the clips section. And I can tell you, the shrunken-down, heavily crushed/corrected video looks night and day different from the raw frames we shot. We had a really long discussion about the usability of the footage at all for Hi-Def distribution because neither of us were satisfied with what we were getting. It is what it is, and for a clip on the web, it works. But as an HD camera, we're far from being where we need to be. Hopefully time will fix some of these issues.
 
Shooting a feature now and it looks awesome.

Have done a film out and it looked awesome.

Can it be improved - gosh - what cant?
 
Haakon said:
Do they? Can you get Evin to make a post that says "we know there is a noise issue - it's there, yep, and we don't like it."? How about Barry? John? Jarred? Maybe I've just missed something. :)
Click to expand...
Um, yes, you've missed something.

Evin, Jarred, and I have all said "yes there's noise in the signal. No it's not noise free. Lousy lighting will accentuate the issue, proper lighting will minimize it." We've all said it'd be nice if it was noise free, but it isn't. Every one of us has said that.

But every one of us has said that for us, it's NOT A PROBLEM. The pictures are fantastic. Yes there's a little noise -- so what? There's the same amount of noise in the Canon and the JVC. There's MORE noise in the Viper. SO WHAT? Shall we say the Viper is unusable or substandard? Do we say that about the JVC or the Canon?

No. We shoot great footage and we move on. There's more noise in the HVX than in the Sony. There's less noise in the HVX than in most any 35mm film print. It's not a problem, for the vast majority of us.

But yes, it would certainly help new users to hear it from the people with yellow tags that by association carry more weight in their posts. That's what I was referring to in the post that Issac quoted.
Click to expand...

The only yellow-tagger who hasn't made the same statement (as far as I know) is John, and that's because John doesn't have one of these cameras yet to put through its paces.

Haakon, I urge you to contact Evin and arrange a screening of the BootCamp footage. Perhaps then you'll see what we're all seeing. Or, perhaps you'll be able to point out all the faults in the footage that none of us saw. One way or the other, we should get to the bottom of it.

I don't know what type of monitor you're using, but I believe that the problems you're having are likely due to your monitor. If I view raw MXF files on my Dell laptop "tru-brite" monitor, I can see all sorts of crawling noise bits that just AREN'T THERE when viewed on any actual HD monitoring equipment. Why is that? Because the Dell's "tru-brite" so thoroughly amplifies the signal that it exposes all sorts of things that no proper monitor would show. And that means it is not a valid test.

If I finish a project on NTSC using a properly-calibrated CRT production monitor, and I take it and show it at someone's house and they have their tint control jacked up and they have their edge enhancement set to super-consumer-ultimate and my project looks like crap on their TV, do I blame my camera? Of course not. And while we cannot control what type of television consumers will choose to play our footage on, we also have to recognize: we cannot control what type of television the consumer will play our footage on! Nor should we bother! We can't go around having a race to the bottom; we should make it look right on a proper display. If their TV ruins it, it's their TV. And it will ruin everyone else's footage equally. There's nothing we can do about that. And I don't think we should even try. Make your footage look good where it should.

We had a really long discussion about the usability of the footage at all for Hi-Def distribution because neither of us were satisfied with what we were getting.
Click to expand...
Your experience does not parallel mine. Or Evin's. Or Peter Kagan's. Or Seth Melni's. Or Kevin Railsback's. Or BBDO's. Or NASA's. Or the BBC's. Or Pappas' or Illya Friedman's or Plaster City's or Moviola's. It is simply not a case of "is everyone in the world blind but Haakon"? Think about that for a second. I'm not saying you're blind, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying that there's something wrong here, I'll grant you that -- but it's not some vast conspiracy to shout down the freedom fighters. Instead I'd say it's likely whatever you're monitoring on.

Again, before we go through this all again, I urge you to contact Evin and see if he can make it possible for you to see what the rest of us are seeing. And then maybe you can show him what you're seeing, and there can be an actual RESOLUTION to this issue.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
I don't know what type of monitor you're using, but I believe that the problems you're having are likely due to your monitor. If I view raw MXF files on my Dell laptop "tru-brite" monitor, I can see all sorts of crawling noise bits that just AREN'T THERE when viewed on any actual HD monitoring equipment. Why is that? Because the Dell's "tru-brite" so thoroughly amplifies the signal that it exposes all sorts of things that no proper monitor would show. And that means it is not a valid test.
Click to expand...

That happens on my DVX files, when viewing on my laptop Brightview monitor too.
 
John_Hudson said:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=516161&postcount=3

Is that so ? :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) (Hate these new emoticons and I'm totally ribbing you.)

--

With all due respect my friend; you were not here in the old days. I mean that as respectfully as I can be.
Click to expand...

I can dig it. I understand where you're coming from and probably the only reason guys like me, Starway, #include and others were thinking about a separate forum is that there just isn't a very good place like DVXuser for people with Canon questions and a focus to get the most out of those tools.

Honestly, I hate the balkanization I'm seeing happen because all these forums boil down to is people wanting to do something exceptional with their kit. I understand the need to be focused on specific tools that are so essential, like the camera, because there's a real need for everyone invested heavily in a specific tool to get the most out of it by interacting with experienced fellow users in a place with good vibes and healthy discourse.
 
Barry_Green said:
It is simply not a case of "is everyone in the world blind but Haakon"?
Click to expand...
No, certainly not. But I am far from the only person who has been outspoken about the problem. Perhaps I've been the most vocal, because I think it's something that needs to be seriously looked at by Panasonic and it keeps getting denounced by particular users on this website, but there are several people who have also raised the issue. I thought I was done with it until it was brought up again (not by me, but by disjecta - who is someone that most people here really respect), and then John started back in with the familiar "Did I even see the same clip as the other guy?" attitude. Believe me, I wish I was the only one who took issue with the artifacting so I could just chalk it up to my own preferences and walk away, but unfortunately there are many others who agree.

Barry_Green said:
Again, before we go through this all again, I urge you to contact Evin and see if he can make it possible for you to see what the rest of us are seeing. And then maybe you can show him what you're seeing, and there can be an actual RESOLUTION to this issue.
Click to expand...
If he's up for it, I would be more than happy. I'm shooting a feature in 2 weeks and am going to be extremely busy until it's finished, but after that time there is nothing I would like more. I would actually really like to have a civil discussion in person about the issue anyway, because either we're getting different results or we just don't see things the same way and I'd like to understand his perspective. But either way, you're right, we'd have resolution.

I apologize for getting dragged back into this. I guess after disjecta's posts I was glad that not only are others still having the same issues that I am, but his opinion also carries weight here and it was nice to be able to come from the perspective that it is NOT just "fringe" people or "freedom fighters" that have issue with the camera's performance. You and I have spoken many times, even in person, about issues completely unrelated to this, and I think you know that I don't have any agenda against Panasonic or this camera. I bought one. I just find it frustrating that people accept whatever they're given and talk themselves into liking something just because there are no other decent options at the current time.

I will refrain from posting anything else about the HVX's problems with noise and/or artifacting from this point on; thanks for your discussion and insight.
 
John_Hudson said:
People around here are starting to sound like friggin Rainman; someone submit's some nice footage for our viewing plaesure and we get "Noise, definately noise." even though the footage is 'uberskool'


Do you guy's even realize it was not even 4 years ago 28 Days Later came out and we all saw an XL1 on the big screen and kicking ass ? It's all about the filmmaking now.


We can agree or disagree all day on the Film Grain / Video Noise issue all day long. Why split hairs on the subject ? Film Grain is noise. It is the silver's refusal to replicate an image 100% in the emulsion. The size of the grain usually dependant on the speed of the film. Video Noise is feedback from the CCD; a failure for the CCD's to replicate the image perfectly ...

Are they different ? Well, yeah ... But kind of producing the same/silmilar result in the end aren't they ? They're different monsters indigenous to their unique formats. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the truth. I remember looking at some footage of the HVX, thinking "that us just ****ing awesome." Next thing I know here come the noise comments. I've seen noise and I saw none in the clip in question. You want noise, watch my movie. It has noise but I like it, it gives that filmic look. Why is it so important here to show that the other guy's camera sucks? I'd like to look at the content as a whole, quality of picture, story and execution. If you watched Munich or (and I know you hate this one, John) The Constant Gardener, you will see movies with a lot of film grain. I love them and their look.

It has gotten more important to take a stand on a particular camera and forget about the filmmaking (okay, it's not film but you know what I mean)

There's nothing wrong with constructive criticsm, without it, how would we get better? But there is nothing wrong with supporting a fellow filmmaker (there it is again) either. Too many times, I feel jealousy and envy pouring into some of the negative comments on some of the clips I see commented on. Get real. Please.
 
Last edited:
and then John started back in with the familiar "Did I even see the same clip as the other guy?" attitude...
Click to expand...

What's on your mind Haakon ? I've been nothing but objective on these matters and if I am missing something it is due to me not having it at my own disposal as BG mentioned. I surely have not shown any mypopic opinion on the matter and would like to be pointed in that direction if I have! What does that even mean ? Familiar? Attitude ?

I have watched stuff and just thought 'Wow.' and someone chimes in with 'That has noise...' and I just do not see it. And I ask 'What are you looking at?' and get some halfass explanation on how they notice something on the fringe of the guitar in a black area or something ... and then your left going 'But where?'

-

I am missing this conspiracy.

Everyone I can think of has acknowledged this 'so-called' noise issue and seems to welcome it. But it is not an issue. I see people embracing the camera while users of the other cameras lambast it (or the workflow). I see people saying 'Yes, there is noise. But it is not an issue." I have seen entire threads devoted to this topic saying IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL !

I see it and it feels kind of like Film Grain. 35mm Film has more noise. (And then we get the flamy tint of "It's grain, not noise! It's different!') Get my drift ?

It is 'something strange' that comes with the format. If the HVX replicated 35mm exactly, we would still get 'What is that nosie ? Is that grain?'

-

I have seen umcompressed footage and grabs and it has looked really damn good. I have been made privy to some HVX work that is not being made public due to being in-production (so-to-speak) and the stuff is phenomenal looking. I mean truly beautiful under a 'production environment'. I am so bitter I cannot have one at this current date in time.

-

I will refrain from posting anything else about the HVX's problems with noise and/or artifacting
Click to expand...

The noise is a limitation. It is not a problem. The JVC Split Screen phenomenon is a problem (Whoever is actually experiencing it), the HVX noise is not. It is what it is.

The macroblock issue is something I have only noticed when increasing the size of the intended viewing file (QT for example).

Here:

I know these grabs have been cross processed, blown-up, bleach bypassed, thrown away, color corrected, compressed and back again but it does not hide the simple fact that each of these formats has it's own unique canvas and these are the intended final results.

I think something we (Seems Issac and I) are trying to hammer across lately is 'accept these tools for what they are and let's make some magic'. If one cannot do that today, then they never will no matter what they're given.

rez9yn.jpg
 
John_Hudson said:
I have watched stuff and just thought 'Wow.' and someone chimes in with 'That has noise...' and I just do not see it. And I ask 'What are you looking at?' and get some halfass explanation on how they notice something on the fringe of the guitar in a black area or something ... and then your left going 'But where?'

I am missing this conspiracy.

Everyone I can think of has acknowledged this 'so-called' noise issue and seems to welcome it. But it is not an issue. I see people embracing the camera while users of the other cameras lambast it (or the workflow). I see people saying 'Yes, there is noise. But it is not an issue." I have seen entire threads devoted to this topic saying IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL !

I see it and it feels kind of like Film Grain. 35mm Film has more noise. (And then we get the flamy tint of "It's grain, not noise! It's different!') Get my drift ?

It is 'something strange' that comes with the format. If the HVX replicated 35mm exactly, we would still get 'What is that nosie ? Is that grain?'

I have seen umcompressed footage and grabs and it has looked really damn good. I have been made privy to some HVX work that is not being made public due to being in-production (so-to-speak) and the stuff is phenomenal looking. I mean truly beautiful under a 'production environment'. I am so bitter I cannot have one at this current date in time.

The noise is a limitation. It is not a problem. The JVC Split Screen phenomenon is a problem (Whoever is actually experiencing it), the HVX noise is not. It is what it is.

The macroblock issue is something I have only noticed when increasing the size of the intended viewing file (QT for example)I think something we (Seems Issac and I) are trying to hammer across lately is 'accept these tools for what they are and let's make some magic'. If one cannot do that today, then they never will no matter what they're giving.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was trying to get at, perhaps not as well as you did.
 
Ohye Vhey! Johny!! So much noise! lol thanks for putting that together.


Looking at my footage, everything looks so clean now!
 
I'm confused in the same way John is.

It seems like Disjecta is looking for noise in the HVX in a way he's not in the Canon or JVC.

I understand the claim that the Canon looks sharper than the HVX200 and agree that it does (I don't seem too much difference with the JVC).

However, I really don't get what people are talking about regaurding the noise issue. Just looking at the clip on this thread I have no idea what Disjecta is talking about as it's actually a prett clean clip for any camera. I've seen clips from the Canon and JVC that are far noiser. For that matter, I have NEVER noticed more noise in HVX200 stuff vs. the Canon and JVC stuff and I've really been looking.

I wonder if people are just more sensative to the noise in the HVX200 because it has noisier low light performance than the DVX100 which we're all used to.
 
I am not going to continue with this noise issue. I have said my piece. I find the DVX very noisy and now I see the exact same thing in the HVX.

The noise in this clip is very apparent to me. It was the first thing I noticed and, no, I wasn't looking for it. If someone else doesn't see it, well then good for them. I saw it, I don't like it. People post clips for comments and I gave mine.

I am putting this issue to bed because it's just my observation and opinion...I'm not dictating anything or trying to sway people one way or the other. The footage should be able to speak for itself. After that, it's up to each individual to make their own judgements.

Amen people. :love4:
 
"I just find it frustrating that people accept whatever they're given and talk themselves into liking something just because there are no other decent options at the current time."

Again, what do you care what other people do? If they're blind and talk themselves into liking something, what do you lose? And how does what people think inhibit your ability to shoot the best footage you can?

I mean, what are you, the HD police? Can't have people out there thinking what you feel to be false?

Trust me, just worry about yourself. The world is the world.

(And if what you say is true, that there aren't any other decent options at the current time, then what exactly do you suggest they do? Aside from shutting up, getting out there and filming, of course...)
 
John_Hudson said:
What's on your mind Haakon ? I've been nothing but objective on these matters and if I am missing something it is due to me not having it at my own disposal as BG mentioned. I surely have not shown any mypopic opinion on the matter and would like to be pointed in that direction if I have! What does that even mean ? Familiar? Attitude ?

I have watched stuff and just thought 'Wow.' and someone chimes in with 'That has noise...' and I just do not see it. And I ask 'What are you looking at?' and get some halfass explanation on how they notice something on the fringe of the guitar in a black area or something ... and then your left going 'But where?'

-

I am missing this conspiracy.

Everyone I can think of has acknowledged this 'so-called' noise issue and seems to welcome it. But it is not an issue. I see people embracing the camera while users of the other cameras lambast it (or the workflow). I see people saying 'Yes, there is noise. But it is not an issue." I have seen entire threads devoted to this topic saying IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL !

I see it and it feels kind of like Film Grain. 35mm Film has more noise. (And then we get the flamy tint of "It's grain, not noise! It's different!') Get my drift ?

It is 'something strange' that comes with the format. If the HVX replicated 35mm exactly, we would still get 'What is that nosie ? Is that grain?'

-

I have seen umcompressed footage and grabs and it has looked really damn good. I have been made privy to some HVX work that is not being made public due to being in-production (so-to-speak) and the stuff is phenomenal looking. I mean truly beautiful under a 'production environment'. I am so bitter I cannot have one at this current date in time.

-



The noise is a limitation. It is not a problem. The JVC Split Screen phenomenon is a problem (Whoever is actually experiencing it), the HVX noise is not. It is what it is.

The macroblock issue is something I have only noticed when increasing the size of the intended viewing file (QT for example).

Here:

I know these grabs have been cross processed, blown-up, bleach bypassed, thrown away, color corrected, compressed and back again but it does not hide the simple fact that each of these formats has it's own unique canvas and these are the intended final results.

I think something we (Seems Issac and I) are trying to hammer across lately is 'accept these tools for what they are and let's make some magic'. If one cannot do that today, then they never will no matter what they're given.

rez9yn.jpg
Click to expand...

I have a question about these stills...

Are these from the DVD? Or an actual HI-DEF source? because remember.... DVD's are not hi-defintion. When these stills come from a hi-def DVD source such as Blu-ray or HD-DVD... and all of that noise is apparent, then maybe the noise issue won't be an issue?

The best DVD quality I think I've ever seen is Sin City on DVD. When that movie is released on a hi-def disc... do you think it'll be as noisey as it is now?

THat's literally a question, not a statement. I'd love to know.
 
Barry_Green said:
I don't know what type of monitor you're using, but I believe that the problems you're having are likely due to your monitor. (snipped for brevity) . . .
Click to expand...

Barry, this is probably the most frequently overlooked (and one of the most important) aspect of judging the final product. Thanks for bringing it up (again).

This statement should probably be inserted between every other (however passionate) post regarding noise.
 
Yeah... if your project is headed to TV, or HD-TV. Get some footage (preferablly uncompressed) and watch it on there.
 
John , your post is so right ! no one looks at those film clips and says "oh they are so noisy, how teriblle I can't shoot with those formats, I can't possibly tell my story with film." Now you have these (noisy/just like grain but estheticallly different) camearas that are under $10K and deliver images that are pretty close to what the zillion $ cameras can do and some people see the glass half empty ! I just don't get it ! and don't tell me that I have lower standards because that is bullshit. The HVX is not pertfect , I don't think anyone thinks that, but it is way more perfect than the others and I can't wait to see the cameras we are going to be bitching about two years from now.
Aloha
-A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top