Noise eliminated in HVX

Yes, it looks like hi speed, or pushed 16mm. I used to shoot a lot of 16mm low light doc stuff and this shocked me at how good it looked, especially since I am concerned with noise. I think, but an no expert about this, that there is more range in this footage than in high speed or pushed film. Is that possible. I see richness everywhere, even in the black jacket. Of course the flames are blown out, but not by much. The hands looks great.

Also, thanks so much to all of you explaining the coring issues.

The illumination is 5 candles at about 3 feet. This would be 5/9ths of a footcandle, right?
 
Great work, this is the best low light HVX footage I've seen. The motion is a bit blurry but works in this case, maybe too blurry for some shots. I'll experiment with these settings too.
 
Thanks for reinstilling my faith in this camera's low light performance. Im outputting the 720p file to my HD CRT and it looks freaking fantastic.

I HONESTLY thought I'd see a LOT more smearing in this scenario but it doesn't look smeary at all dude. I think part of the smearing people are seeing is due to the choice of viewing: Computer screen. This footage looks dope as hell on my TV!!!

What were your shutter, iris, and other settings? I want to get this down to a hair so I can try it out myself.

Thanks for showing this footage. It is the best lowlight test/sample footage I have seen so far.
 
Antoine_Fabi said:
Overlook,

Dont you find your footage looks like high ISO 16mm ?

It looks very good for such a low light shot.
The grain looks good.
Doesn't look like video at all...

I'll experiment with your settings.

thanks
Click to expand...

Agreed, Antoine. This footage is only a sample/test and it looks as good as some of the lit stuff I see on here. I am very pleased with what I see. SO pleased that I laughed with excitement.

And Timur: I see you already brought the monitor point up!! I am not at work so I can't view on 23" and 30" apple monitors, but I notice that even still my HD CRT looks better than both. So I'll check this out at work but man... it looks great.
 
Overlook said:
Here you can get the candlelight sample thanks to the folks at Ramjet.

http://www.sharing.ramjetfilms.com/candlelight.mov

It's 220 MB. I kept it 720, used Motion JPEG B and made it as uncompressed as possible.

I think it does have noise, now that I have viewed it larger. But considering that it is such low light and the subject is wearing a black jacket in which you can just make out some detail, I'm pretty happy. Noisy is not the first thing you say when you see it. Jumpy maybe, but not noisy. Hey, it was cold out there and it's a doc.
Click to expand...
What do you mean MOTION Jpeg B? SOrry I'm not familiar with compression methods. It looks good, though.

Did you guys tweak in post at all? I'm very impressed.

This footage is now in the wrong forum. I think it would benefit a lot of people like me if you guys made a thread in the Footage forum for the HVX. It really is great.
 
Jason Ramsey said:
Cine D is going to have the most potential for noise, and also possibly the worst low light. You might try (if you want something kind of close to the look of cine d) Cinelike V. If you want something that is better suited for lower light situations, you might try High or B-Press Gammas.

Congrats on the results. I have been finding improving results recently too when it comes to less than optimal lighting situations.

Later,
Jason
Click to expand...

Wow!!! This statement has huge implications! First, This statement would suggest that the footage from Outlook has the potential to be 'better', relatively speaking, than what's presented here. This footage as it stands, is without question, the best low light footage that I've seen from the HVX-200. Very clean, very low noise, and rich looking (All this recorded in Cine D, the setting w/ the 'potential for having the most noise'). Second, if this is even close to being accurate, then we all have to re-evaluate our perceptions of the camera's capabilities concerning low light/low noise shooting! I can't help but to think back on ALL of the comments made by the users of Sony, JVC, Canon, and even HVX shooters of how bad the HVX was in low light conditions and the noise that it causes. Just based on this footage, and Jason's suggestions, it would imply that we didn't quite realize the full potential of this camera's abilities at all. What a difference a year makes huh? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that this may be the beginning of a paradigm shift in how the HVX is used in future low light projects. Outlook and Jason Ramsey's info......PRICELESS!!!! :dankk2: guys; Cookester7.:thumbup:
 
There is no color correction. Shots are raw. Iris was wide open. Shutter was 1/24 and 180 degrees.

I used Motion JPEG B because that is what Jarrad seemed to use for the amazing "Milk Girls" clip. The unprocessed shots here in my FCP station look a tiny tiny bit better. In the processed clip you are all seeing there seems to be a little blockyness in the black jacket which I don't see in FCP. (If there are other better ways to make clips available please inform me.)

I am viewing on a Mac 15 inch power book and a 23" Cinema display.
 
I can't help but to think back on ALL of the comments made by the users of Sony, JVC, Canon, and even HVX shooters of how bad the HVX was in low light conditions and the noise that it causes. Just based on this footage, and Jason's suggestions, it would imply that we didn't quite realize the full potential of this camera's abilities at all.
Click to expand...
I've been trying to say this for about a year. At every HD BootCamp we show a reel that is virtually noise-free. I posted some noise-free footage way, way back in, oh, February or so from the HVX paired with a Sony FX1, showing some footage from the Las Vegas Strip where I specifically set out to get noise-free blacks and I think it succeeded quite well. Try this clip (right-click, save-as, and remove the "x" from wmvx when you save it):
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/HVX-vs.-FX1-on-LV-Strip2.wmvx
 
Barry -

I remember seeing that clip for the first time - what I don't remember is what settings you used for that. What were they?

markus
 
i'll admit my ignorance here and ask "tell me a little about the FX1, which side is which, and what are the settings you used or use now for best low light?".
jeff
 
Last edited:
I have to admit, I really thought the 1/24 shutter was going to be way off but it's just fine for extreme low-light. Totally changed my thoughts on the Cameras lowlight performance. Sheesh. I just suck at the settings I guess. LoL.

Need to do more work on exploring the settings and doing tests. Thanks you guys.
 
1/24th has always gotten a bad rap on these pages, It's a little smeary, but not very noticable except with fast movement. Ordinary footage generally looks fine.
Its never bothered me much when I'm stuck with a low light situation.

Overlook's settings seem to me to mainly depend on crushed blacks - yes that will always lower your noise. I wouldn't run detail at -7 though.
Unfortunately I am still waiting to load his scene so can't comment on the pictures.
 
For the footage, though, I think the -7 detail settings are working. What I don't understand is how Coring has anything to do with it since the detail is non-existant? I thought in Barry's book it said that Coring relied on the amount of detail? So wouldn't Coring actually have no effect on the image? I probably misunderstood the book, though.
 
Barry_Green said:
I've been trying to say this for about a year. At every HD BootCamp we show a reel that is virtually noise-free. I posted some noise-free footage way, way back in, oh, February or so from the HVX paired with a Sony FX1, showing some footage from the Las Vegas Strip where I specifically set out to get noise-free blacks and I think it succeeded quite well. Try this clip (right-click, save-as, and remove the "x" from wmvx when you save it):
http://www.fiftv.com/HVX200/HVX-vs.-FX1-on-LV-Strip2.wmvx
Click to expand...

Barry, I'd love to see this footage in light of what I've just seen so far but I can't seem to pull it up:Drogar-Evil(DBG): . I don't know how I missed that comparison. If I remember correctly, the FX-1 was suppose to be the low light king of the handheld HD cams. This is getting quite interesting.
 
sukram said:
I remember seeing that clip for the first time - what I don't remember is what settings you used for that. What were they?
Click to expand...
It's been 10 months or so, I certainly don't remember, but I would wager that it was lowered master pedestal, B.Press or cinelike-D gamma, and lowered detail level.

HVX is on the left, FX1 on the right.

Ah, edit -- found the original thread. cinelike-v, cinematrix, master ped -4, chroma level +2, coring +3. Looks like I didn't lower the detail level at all, although nowadays I would if going for the most grainless footage.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=45342
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top