My HVX is giving me an ulcer! noise? low res? Argh!

[J.R. Hudson]

Hook up with a grab or footage instead of speculation and subjectivity please. I agree, maybe try and hook up with someone that isnt having this issue.

In one camp we have Noisewraiths and in the other we see killer footage with zero complaints.

 

[Rhydon]

I too had an image quality issue with my first camera. The CCD's were slightly out of allignment; This prodced a pink hue on the lower left side of the image. Compared to my replacement model, my current camera had a sharper image as well as an improvment in the latitude (colors seemed to be more linear as they went into over exposure). In regards to noise, both cameras were exactly the same. I liked how you identified the noise as being in the gray areas or anywhere where the camera struggles to produce a gradient- i find this also. As if the camera isnt having any issues with CCD noise, but rather more of a RAW image processing issue.

In addition, the noise is not noticeable on stills, and we can only subjectively review it if we use FULL resolution/uncompressed DVCPROHD files (no compression).

Also, id like to comment on CINElike D vs. Cinelike V: honestly i prefer V to D. Even tho its slightly darker, crushing the blacks, i find its rendition of noise is much better. To me it resembles the DVX noise in comparison (not totally, but closer). I find Cinelike D, is very cool, and greatly resembles the lattitude of unprocessed raw film, but to me it just looks odd- even after appropriate CC it still seems off compared to Cinelike V. However, one thing to note is that in my camera (which is in repair for this problem), there is a considerable increase in "macroblocking" when using Cinegamma V- huge blocks in flat surface areas that are lit underexposed, or having gradient. Looking into the issue more, it seems to resemble the early tests done on the HVX on the japanese site (cant remember the name). I just sent my camera in for repair today, i havnt seen any of this problem with any recent footage others are posting on this site, tho the trend here seems that everyone prefers Cinelike D with their initial test footage.

 

[icicle22]

I had an XL2 from June 2005 - Jan 2006, sold it, and got my HVX a month or so ago. While I was happy with the XL2, especially considering the price difference between the HVX (with 2 8 GBP2 cards) and the XL2, the few things I've shot, are in my opinion leaps ahead of the XL2.

The colors are far better than the XL2 for sure. There is no denying this thing has the patented "John Hudson" MOJO! BUt in direct comparisons the camera is noisier than the XL2. And to be blatantly honest I don't know if the high res looks that much sharper than the XL2 did. I know it is but the perceived difference is not as great as the numbers would indicate.

One additional note I got home and loaded up my footage on the TV and there is obvious noise but I am inclined to think it is a problem with the input on the back of the TV or something. Even when paused I can see a little "analogish" noise in the image.....I am going to switch the inputs with my HD cable box and see if it helps. I am also going to isolate all other equipment to make sure there is not a ground loop problem. I have family over for dinner so I won't get to it until later.

I am crossing my fingers that it is a wiring issue or at worst the tv has some bad inputs or something. I'd rather have a $600 TV have a bad input than the camera have a noise problem!

Peace All!

 

[DavidBeier]

It seems like some of the problems I'm seeing are the same I've seen with the DVX and is simply a matter of people not getting the most out of the camera.

In my brief time with the HVX I am finding that the only way to get a clean image (with little noise) is to dramtically overlight the subject.

Yeah but this is true of pretty much all nice digital video cameras. If you want it to look good, overlight a bit and then just bring it down. This will reduce the noise drasitcally.

As for the scene files, I can't stress enough how important messing with those is. At least with the DVX100, it always amazes me how wildly different the footage can be. I see some people shoot with it and it looks like regular video running in 24p. Then I see my stuff or that of other people who know how to use it and it looks great. I've been asked a couple times "what did you do?" and it's always a bunch of really simple things. I crush the blacks by lowering the master pedistal a lot. I up my chroma level if I want the colors to pop or lower it if I want less contrast. And I DON'T lower the detail since that just makes it look blurry to my eyes. Most importantly, I test the settings and watch the footage on something aside from the LCD display. All this makes a HUGE difference. I don't know if it's as important with an XL2 but it matters quite a bit with Panasonic's cameras.

It's also worth noting that it will look much better if you light it better. Save for the scene files, the biggest problem I've seen with some people's stuff is they really don't consider the lighting. They want just enough to get by but never really think about how it will look and the effect it will have. I've seen this kind of approach make 16mm look crappy so of course it's going to make video look terrible (since it's much less forgiving). Without fail, stuff looks MUCH better if you light it the way you would film. I mean using sunlight when outdoors (but using it with a plan) and using Fernels and such indoors. It makes all the difference.

 

[thefilmaddict]

I think that the noise issue people and the happy people should meet. We should find out once and for all if its a bad batch of cameras or if the cameras are all the same and people just disagree about how the image looks.

I've noticed the noise myself and would love to meet with a no noise issue camera owner. I'm in CT. Anyone near me?

I've also noticed that some HD monitors handle the noise better, but that doesn't mean that it's not there. Will our audience always have a HVX200 friendly monitor???

 

[sherenescloset]

I just got my hvx200 pal about two weeks back and have recently shot a short film with the camera. All i can say is that...... I LOVE THE NOISE. Images that are too clean freaks me out..looks to fake for my liking. Burn a dvd and playback on a sdtv and it looks awesome. The noise dissappears about 80% but i honestly wish it had not.

 

[icicle22]

All this makes a HUGE difference. I don't know if it's as important with an XL2 but it matters quite a bit with Panasonic's cameras.

It's also worth noting that it will look much better if you light it better. Save for the scene files, the biggest problem I've seen with some people's stuff is they really don't consider the lighting. They want just enough to get by but never really think about how it will look and the effect it will have.

These are all really great points but you have to remember that my frame of reference is from other "video" cameras. It is a fair statement to say that my DVX or my XL2 were far more forgiving to lighting issues than the HVX. I could light a scene creatively and have areas moderately lit and create shadows and the XL2 and DVX produced great images. Even the darker areas were clean when comparing to the HVX. In the same scenario with the HVX we need, more light and in my opinion more overal coverage.....can't really leave a lot of dark areas in the frame.

The bottom line is that at 0db gain on the DVX and HVX I never had the noise problems in shadow areas like I do with the HVX. Can I work around it? I sure hope so. But the issues at hand are not just "inherent" to how video cameras behave in a given lighting setup. I think most would agree that the HVX behaves differently than most in the gradient and shadow areas of images.

I would love to see how an XL-H1 handles this as well as the HD100.

 

[Ralph Oshiro]

In one camp we have Noisewraiths and in the other we see killer footage with zero complaints.

Yeah, I've noticed that, too. But that's what bugs me, John. Doesn't that just seem weird? That both camps seem to be so diametrically opposed in their perceptions? Well I just brought home my friend's HVX200 (he bought three, imported from Japan) with two 8GB cards. But no HD monitor. I'm dying to set it up and start playing with it, but I haven't slept in like 24 hours.

 

[Justyn]

I'll be shooting some tests comparing the HVX and the JVC on Friday-Sunday.. and I'll post some results.

The camera certainly isn't a run-n-gun low light camera... plain facts. I don't even pop it out for stuff like that. For that kind of shooting, I'm buying the single chip sony HD cam which looks awesome in low light and even has night vision. At 1100, quite a steal....

This forum certainly has been an outlet for me and most here, and it's cool to get an honest and quite heartfelt feelings about a cam... and your unhappiness. On the first day I got it.. right out of the box.. I was so upset.. I was that way when I tried to shoot in my office which is dark and erie... I would have got something with my GL1, but probably not that great looking.. and the XL1 wouldn't get much of an image at all. With the HVX I saw major noise and chroma squiggles and gack all over the image. Then, when I brought out my 2' kino and turned on the overhead light.. BINGO.. There's the money!

Keep up the faith and it'll come together. But yes.. the camera loves light. As Chris said too.. a bit of overlighting really pays off. I use Barry's suggestion at 105 percent zebras and I just dial it back a bit when I get them.. and it looks fabulous.


Also, Icicle.. have you hooked it up to a SD monitor.. just like a regular TV to see if the noise is even there downconverted?

And one final note. I have put a piece of tape over my gain control as that thing is friggin absolutely USELESS. 12db of gain looks terrible. Ended up ruining a timelapse I did.. Really does make there be too much noise.

and lastly.. as there's never a final note there. Has Jan or Panny commented at all on the noise in murky areas.. and the gain?

 

[SPZ]

I have a PAL HVX, and am very happy with it. Its a LOT better tahn my DVX, looks great on my Panasoni HDTV (CRT), and absolutely no noise on MXF output.

Encoding is a different animal altogether, tough. Try printing to tape (back to P2) and connect your camera to your HDTV. Be sure to connect to the HD component input, and not the SD component input that many HDTV's come with. My HDTV as a SD and a HD component input side by side- its hard to notice! Also, make sure to check out your camera's output mode. It can output your footage trough sd NTSC (or pal, depending on where you are), and you should change this on the AV IN/OUT menu (I'm not sure its in this one, but it should be somewhere close )

The HVX is great. Color is fantastic, picture solid, and the noise is NOT an issue. Have you checked out my footage? Its the "Macau By Night"thread. Be sure to view it on Quicktime 7.03 or Higher, tough. In Quicktime 7.00 there's a bug in viewing DVCPROHD footage.

 

[Terence Lehane]

I have a PAL HVX, and am very happy with it. Its a LOT better tahn my DVX, looks great on my Panasoni HDTV (CRT), and absolutely no noise on MXF output.

Can you say which HDTV you have (the reference) as I'm in the market for one to use as an editing monitor. Any ideas?

 

[DavidBeier]

These are all really great points but you have to remember that my frame of reference is from other "video" cameras. It is a fair statement to say that my DVX or my XL2 were far more forgiving to lighting issues than the HVX. I could light a scene creatively and have areas moderately lit and create shadows and the XL2 and DVX produced great images. Even the darker areas were clean when comparing to the HVX. In the same scenario with the HVX we need, more light and in my opinion more overal coverage.....can't really leave a lot of dark areas in the frame.

The bottom line is that at 0db gain on the DVX and HVX I never had the noise problems in shadow areas like I do with the HVX. Can I work around it? I sure hope so. But the issues at hand are not just "inherent" to how video cameras behave in a given lighting setup. I think most would agree that the HVX behaves differently than most in the gradient and shadow areas of images.

I would love to see how an XL-H1 handles this as well as the HD100.

I guess it really depends on what you're doing with the camera then. This certainly isn't the best one for weddings and stuff like that but if you're going to take the time to really light a scene, I don't think there should be too much of a problem.

 

[John Rivers]

My girlfriend put this into pretty good perspective the other day: I streamed some SD and HD footage from my camera into FCP, same content, standard room lighting (NO lighting kits or anything, just my ceiling light with a couple 60W bulbs in it), and at +6 Gain. I asked her to take a look at each clip and tell me if she see's anything.

From MY perspective (at the monitor), I could see a small bit of noise in the 720p footage, but nothing too bad. I turned and asked her if she could see any noise and she said no. I said she should come closer to the monitor to get a better look, and she replied "Why? When would I ever watch something that close?"

How true...

For me with noise, I only find it a problem when it becomes distracting to the audience, thereby taking away from the storytelling. But I still think there's a possibility that through rushing to get the HVX to the market, some models might have issues. I wish there was a test that could be done to determine if everyone's HVX was up to spec with standards. Any ideas?

Oh yea, and I'm not sure if this might make a difference, but I heard somewhere that heat sinks in the HVX lens housing dissipate heat to reduce noise in deeper shadows. Call me crazy, is it possible that either a) some heat sinks might not be working as well, or b) that noise level might be differing because of the temp of the environment people are shooting in? Just a thought.

 

[Justyn]

icicle22:
Your problems with the HVX200 might be in part due to the fact that only has
a true resolution of 960x540 pixels CCD...
You might want to read this article: http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?category=Archive&articleId=177103305
I am a Panasonic user (own DVX100 and DVC80) but I think the HVX200
needs some improvments.
Cesar.

And the beautiful footage that I've been shooting and that others have been shooting is just a mirage. Besides it really can't look that good. Maybe it's all because of that Blue Pill that I took that came with the camera.. or is it maybe the red one. Ohhh shoot I can't tell until I whip out the HVX which has colors that make me think of old technicolor prints...

Spin ya yarns elsewhere... Specs are specs and real world results are another. The cam is fickle for sure.. a pain in low light.. for sure, but an absolute BEAUTY when dealt with corrrectly...

 

[rubiocesar83]

Justyn:
So you are saying that ALL the People involved in the review of the HD cameras
are wrong?....I dont think so my friend.....I know how it goes...when a boy has
a "new toy" in the block he swear that it is the best...right?....(it is less painfull than accept the truth)
I myself am in the dilemma of getting an HD camera or a 2/3 SD camera...
And if you are doing a lot of low light work the winner is the 2/3 CCD camera
Check this one: 750 lines of resolution and is a beauty in LOW LIGHT:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...911&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Sorry if I've cause bad fellings....but the truth is always the best policy...
Cesar.

 

[ksteiger]

icicle22:
Your problems with the HVX200 might be in part due to the fact that only has
a true resolution of 960x540 pixels CCD...
I am a Panasonic user (own DVX100 and DVC80) but I think the HVX200
needs some improvments.
Cesar.

...Your problem with the HVX200 might be in part due to the fact that...YOU HAVE NEVER USED ONE !!!

Why do I prefer the images of the Nikon D50 over the Digital Rebel XT? Damn there must be 30% more pixels on the Canon. I don't care if there is twice as much "native resolution" I just like the image better.
Cheers !

 

[soarprod]

no 24p on the low light champion. rubiocesar83, with the 960x540, they pixel shift to = 1440x810. That is an analog capture device and you can extract more info from an analog device before you go to the digital image. If you record @ 720p, you are getting 1280x720 easily from 1440x810. 1920x1080p recording only gets you a few hundered extra lines of rez tho.

 

[rubiocesar83]

Ksteiger:
Have you ever own an CineAlta or a Varicam perhaps?...
You DONT have to own those cameras to know that they are the
best in their field right?
With ALL the cameras and people involved in the test....I ...and many.many people
dont have to buy ALL those cameras to make comparisons among them ...do you?

 

[ksteiger]

...I said USE not BUY....
I saw one in action at Birns and Sawyer...Also saw the Canon XL-HD1 at Samys with the Canon demo footage...hated it!!

 

[Barry_Green]

With ALL the cameras and people involved in the test....

We're not doing this again.

First of all, I organized the first test. And if you want to talk about ALL the cameras and people there, note that six of the eight of us there saw the results, saw the charts, and saw the performance... chose the HVX.

Second, this has been done to death and we're not doing it again. If you want to whine about specs or about the results of the comparison tests, feel free to wade through the 200,000 posts already on the subject.

If Icicle wants to post some frames, or better yet some footage that we can download, then that will be a productive use of this space on the web. But someone who's never used it trying to claim that the pixel count is the problem is not gonna fly here.