mvb
DVXuser Sponsor
720p add/remove pulldown is about as fast as a file copy, the noise reduction and image rotate can take up to 4 minutes per minute (on a 2G Core 2 Duo).
Noise Reduction for HVX200
- Thread starter mvb
- Start date
720p add/remove pulldown is about as fast as a file copy, the noise reduction and image rotate can take up to 4 minutes per minute (on a 2G Core 2 Duo).
Is a new clip created to preserve the original clip, or is this destructive?
mvb
DVXuser Sponsor
It's non-destructive, it always creates a new card image. In fact you can use it to consolidate several card images into one. All the metadata and auxiliary files are copied as well.
mvb
DVXuser Sponsor
The example on the MXFX web page was shot in direct sunlight with
no gain, it does not get any better than that with the HVX200.
You can still see noise on flat mid-tone areas and see the improvement
with MXFX.
The noise to me looks like film grain, which may or may not be the look you're
going for but at least now you have some control over it.
mvb
DVXuser Sponsor
Thanks for the education, mvb. To conclude this, if I was, for example, setting for a 50i sequence in FCP and selected "no fields", would this improve the motion rendering in said effects?
Thanks again for your time!
Looking to purchase the mxfx when its mac available (and pal compliant for 1080p and 25p
)
mvb
DVXuser Sponsor
Thanks for the education, mvb. To conclude this, if I was, for example, setting for a 50i sequence in FCP and selected "no fields", would this improve the motion rendering in said effects?
Thanks again for your time!
Looking to purchase the mxfx when its mac available (and pal compliant for 1080p and 25p
If you change a 50i sequence to "no fields" then its not 50i anymore, it's 25p.
Thanks! mvb, let me say again that these boards are blessed with the participation of people with such know how in the business.
I remember when I started working on video, 6 years ago, how everything was relegated to the high end, and communication and interaction was mainly established between the big production houses/companies and the big software houses. Nowadays, the internet has really made this industry grow. With the knowhow of the smaller, but extremely competent and inventive software/hardware houses (like mvb's dvfilm, Cineform, RED, Redrock, Cinevate, etc.), we have at our disposal tools we have never even dreamt of back then (when I say back then, I can even imagine what the folks working for 10+ years must be thinking!).
More and more, it ends up to how talented we are with these tools...
Thanks again for your participation and help, mvb. Keep those excelent products coming!
Pierre Petit
Well-known member
I have a project shot in 720p 24pn ntsc that i have to deliver to pal dvd. I use raylight with vegas. I see the new software also does ntsc to pal conversion. Will i get better results converting to pal using mxfx then converting with vegas?
DavidBeier
Veteran
Not to sound like an ass or anything but I looked at the first picture comparison you posted and I can't see much of a difference. The only thing I notice is a loss of detail on the concrete in the "noise-reduction" version. It kind of just looks like the result you'd get by lowering the detail in camera.
Is there something I'm missing? Is there an area that perhaps I'm not seeing properly?
Is there something I'm missing? Is there an area that perhaps I'm not seeing properly?
I've tried all the noise reduction software programs for digital still imagery, both as plug-ins and stand alone versions, and have never been really satisfied. I've tried them on RAW files, jpegs and tiffs. I've tried all sorts of scenes; dusk, morning, indoors, outdoors, etc.. I made my own profiles for each device (scanners and cameras) and used the developer's canned profiles when available.
My feeling is that they are a trade-off and not something that you would use all the time.
On a few files they do help with the noise but at the expense of detail. The tend to "smear" (for the lack of a better word) fine detail. In a very few instances they do help. But in the end, it's more of a band aid than a fix. The answer is in bigger and better sensors, of course.
YMMV, but noise reduction software is something for a "once in a while band aid" and not an answer. The only answer is hardware noise reduction, i.e., better sensors.
mvb
DVXuser Sponsor
If you look at areas with detail, for example around the fire hydrant, on the man's arms and legs, or in the trees, you can see it is about as sharp as the original, which would not be the case if you had turned down the detail in camera.
MXFX detects detail and tries not to blend out areas with detail present. It's not perfect but if you watch the video clip you can see better how it works.
It also does noise reduction through temporal blending (blending over time) but not in areas where things are moving so you don't get excessive motion blur
As I've pointed out that is not the case with MXFX, it avoids (for the most part) smearing over areas where the eye is drawn to and where the eye naturally registers detail.
MXFX reduces the noise to about what you would get with a 2/3" CCD sensor, which is a camera that would cost about double the HVX200. A $195 piece of software is also a perfectly valid "answer" and I think in many cases a better one especially to those who already own the HVX200.
Last edited: