arrestthisman
Well-known member
Okay here are some stills illustrating my frustration with the HVX200 for the last year.
I don't know if this kind of macroblocking is normal or what. I'm selling my HVX200; that's for sure. I was going to buy the HPX170 without question. With the lens and midtone noise issues, I'm now thinking more and more about the EX1.
Before I buy into Sony--(Note: I have been a Panasonic loyalist for 6 years running)--I would greatly appreciate if someone explained to me exactly what I'm losing in practical terms going from DVCPRO HD 100Mbits I-Frame to MPEG long GOP 35Mbit. I'm more interested in 4:2:0 versus 4:2:2. I don't do a lot of chroma keying, and when I do it doesn't need to be perfect. I do like to do a lot of color correction, generally. So more play helps me when it comes to color.
I understand about editing horsepower, and motion artifacts. I use FCP so the workflow should be the same.
The thing is that I do 90% of my shooting in low light. I don't mind grainy noise at all, it goes with the territory, but macroblocks drive me insane. I can't stand the look of them, and for some reason, comparing low light footage, EX1 to HVX200, panny shows ALOT more blocking in low light areas than the EX1.
Check out the gradients in the following pictures. Ugly, Ugly legos. The pic with Cinelike-D has less of it, but it's still there if you check under the window.
I guess the question(s) is this: I know, as I listed above, the obvious reasons DVCPRO HD is considered to be a superior codec, but I would think macroblocking would be an area where it should remain superior? Shouldn't the footage be self-evident?
So, is the low light blocking a function of the camera as a whole, or the specifically the compression? I can't imagine a Varicam offloading those kinds of blocks (even in a severely underlit scene).
Anything to elucidate this for me would be greatly appreciated. I would rather stay in the panny camp. But I don't want to set myself up for more disappointment with the artifacts I hate the most, in the conditions I shoot in the most.
(We all have our little things that bother us obsessively, and other things that we don't mind looking at, at all. It's all part of the subjective nature of imagery.)
I don't know if this kind of macroblocking is normal or what. I'm selling my HVX200; that's for sure. I was going to buy the HPX170 without question. With the lens and midtone noise issues, I'm now thinking more and more about the EX1.
Before I buy into Sony--(Note: I have been a Panasonic loyalist for 6 years running)--I would greatly appreciate if someone explained to me exactly what I'm losing in practical terms going from DVCPRO HD 100Mbits I-Frame to MPEG long GOP 35Mbit. I'm more interested in 4:2:0 versus 4:2:2. I don't do a lot of chroma keying, and when I do it doesn't need to be perfect. I do like to do a lot of color correction, generally. So more play helps me when it comes to color.
I understand about editing horsepower, and motion artifacts. I use FCP so the workflow should be the same.
The thing is that I do 90% of my shooting in low light. I don't mind grainy noise at all, it goes with the territory, but macroblocks drive me insane. I can't stand the look of them, and for some reason, comparing low light footage, EX1 to HVX200, panny shows ALOT more blocking in low light areas than the EX1.
Check out the gradients in the following pictures. Ugly, Ugly legos. The pic with Cinelike-D has less of it, but it's still there if you check under the window.
I guess the question(s) is this: I know, as I listed above, the obvious reasons DVCPRO HD is considered to be a superior codec, but I would think macroblocking would be an area where it should remain superior? Shouldn't the footage be self-evident?
So, is the low light blocking a function of the camera as a whole, or the specifically the compression? I can't imagine a Varicam offloading those kinds of blocks (even in a severely underlit scene).
Anything to elucidate this for me would be greatly appreciated. I would rather stay in the panny camp. But I don't want to set myself up for more disappointment with the artifacts I hate the most, in the conditions I shoot in the most.
(We all have our little things that bother us obsessively, and other things that we don't mind looking at, at all. It's all part of the subjective nature of imagery.)
