HVX200A and HPX170 "noise" testing results

Barry,

Thanks for the footage. I am surprised by how much chroma noise I'm seeing in both on chips, is it due to the compression used for embedding the footage in this forum?

Even when coring is the same, the 200A is noisier with your footage. This is the opposite of my findings. At no time did I ever see the 170 quieter
than a 200A.
 
No, it's due to extreme magnification. There's always a little noise in anything, but fullscreen these cameras look extremely clean. Not absolutely noise-free, but then again neither's an EX1. But compared to an XHA1 or XLH1 or HD100 or HVX200, either of these cameras would almost qualify for the term of "noise free".
 
Just for grins, I'm now playing back this footage in its original OnLocation format, full-screen, full frame rate, on a 24" 1920x1200 Dell 2405 (in computer-monitor mode, so it doesn't suck.) So I'm looking at a 24" monitor from about 18" away, hyper-critically hunting for noise. Yes, on the color wheel, there's noise. On the CamBelles, there's a little noise on the -2 shot, but on the +7 I'd almost dare to call it noise-free. Especially the +7 coring shot from the HPX170, it looks practically like a painting. On the res chart, I pretty much defy anyone to point out any visible noise on a full-screen showing; I can only barely see any evidence of it on the diagonal lines in the upper left. And note, this isn't a tiny 7" monitor, this is 1920x1080 pixel-for-pixel full-screen two feet diagonally, and I'm getting up to maybe 12" away from the screen.

Can I detect noise if I dig for it? Yes, I can tell that there's a little shimmer in the image. But can I actually SEE any noise in these images? No way. In other words, sure, a microscope will show some noise, which would be to be expected in a camcorder in this price range. But as someone looking at the full screen image as an "image", not as a noise hunt, there's no objectionable noise to distract from seeing the actual image.

In the gray chart, I can see a bit of a swimming noise in the second-darkest chip, even at a reasonable distance. If I get up to 6" away, then yes you can detect noise in other chips. But from a reasonable viewing distance of 2' to 4', it looks practically noise-free over most of the picture. Compared to an HVX200 or HD100, I would expect any shooter to be thrilled with this noise performance.

I'd dare to say that on a CRT HDTV, these images would all look noise free. Well, maybe not the color chart, but all the rest of 'em would, I bet.
 
Last edited:
Barry,

I think my 170 is not the same as your 170. The fact that you didn't see a sensitivity difference and my camera just isn't reacting to subtle detail circuit adjustments or even gain boost makes me think there's something different. I hope Panasonic can find something about my camera vs. the other 170's they have on hand.
 
OK. I'm curious to see tests with other settings, since like many I'm not a big fan of the HD Norm, but as far as basic noise goes, I'm pretty convinced that the HPX 170 looks "quieter" and sharper than the 200a.
Hopefully Jeff's camera has some kind of aberration :-)
 
Thanks Barry! Glad to have the settings and the explanations behind them.

And thanks also to Dino and Kholi for keeping this ball rolling.

I am glad to have you guys going insane over details, then I can just come in later and reap the benefits with no work other than processing what you explain in your posts.

Barry... since you tested in HD NORM, the only thing I wonder is if I should then use CINE D at all. I suppose I could since I used it in my HVX-200 when we had enough light... but what I am trying to say is, under proper light conditions, how would you maximize CINE D for the best filmic look possible out of the 170? Or would you record in HD NORM and apply curves in post? How can I get the least noise while getting the most DNR possible?
 
Dino said:
Barry,

I think my 170 is not the same as your 170. The fact that you didn't see a sensitivity difference and my camera just isn't reacting to subtle detail circuit adjustments or even gain boost makes me think there's something different. I hope Panasonic can find something about my camera vs. the other 170's they have on hand.
Click to expand...

Same, same, same, same.

Not only that, Coring just turns the image to mush above +3. Check out the chics hair in the HVX200A Coring +2 vs HPX170 Coring +4. Her hair turns to mush, fine detail is sacrificed, just like in the original 200, for a "cleaner" image.

It's just not working for me. I'm back from le job and hope to get some side-by-side here in CineD, V, and B.Press with Cine-Like Matrix. That's what I use, personally.
 
I´m not sure but I think the DVCProHD codec hates noise.
If you output via component to a Black Magic card and record straight to Cineform it looks a ton better.
Not only less noise but a better overall picture.
I belive the codec sees the noise as motion and has to deal with it by sacrifying quality.

Maybe just because the components may cut some of the high frequencies - SDI may be an other beast.

Problem is, it´s a bit bulky for the field - hope Cineform finaly comes out with that portable recorder they anounced.

Having said that, great work Barry. Thanks a lot.

Frank
 
Kholi said:
It's just not working for me. I'm back from le job and hope to get some side-by-side here in CineD, V, and B.Press with Cine-Like Matrix. That's what I use, personally.
Click to expand...

Sweet.


Postmaster, remember that from the HD-SDI you will be able to record the full picture, and P2's record a smaller count. I can't remember the numbers now but I am sure you know what I am talking about and probably just forgot.
 
Kholi said:
Same, same, same, same.

Not only that, Coring just turns the image to mush above +3. Check out the chics hair in the HVX200A Coring +2 vs HPX170 Coring +4. Her hair turns to mush, fine detail is sacrificed, just like in the original 200, for a "cleaner" image.

It's just not working for me. I'm back from le job and hope to get some side-by-side here in CineD, V, and B.Press with Cine-Like Matrix. That's what I use, personally.
Click to expand...

Kholi,

Yes, nothing seems to tame the ever present layer of noise with my camera. When you look at chips at 0db and see things dancing around in the darker chips, you know you've got a noisy camera. Taking coring up to high plus values just takes the enhancement edge off the noise and high frequency/low frequency transients, but the noise is still there.

My 170, in no way looks like a 200A. It's just noisy no matter what the settings.
It's on the way to Panasonic again.
 
Barry_Green said:
I'm now playing back this footage in its original OnLocation format, full-screen, full frame rate, on a 24" 1920x1200 Dell 2405
Click to expand...



One thing for sure, if there's noise, the DELL 2405 will show it! LOL
I'm not sure why, but that monitor has a way of making noise real obvious, so I agree with your played back on a CRT HDTV statement.

Based on Kholi and Dino's findings, I wonder if there may be a difference with your camera Barry? I realize it's hard to quantify without equally testing these cameras under the exact same conditions and tests.

I have heard good things about the image quality from the HPX170.
 
Last edited:
most people have never touched a 200A and are coming from the original 200. Anything is better than that. (exagerrating)
 
Kholi, yes, the HVX200 is irrelevant to me. The only thing that matters is that my HPX170 needs to match an HVX200A in signal to noise and be as sensitive. It is no match in noise but it is more sensitive than a 200A. The cameras are advertised as twins, but my 170 is not.
 
Ok so I'm trying to figure out what the best thing to do here is, Barry are you saying that we should pump the coring up a little and that's it? I've been playing with all sorts of settings and haven't noticed much of a difference.
 
Coring isn't the answer. It's a good effort and will probably placate some, glad that it was reported on and someone else took the effort to figure this out with a bit more structure than I would probably have patience for.

Barry, so that we're on the same boat: would you agree that the HVX200A and HPX170 are the same image? Not which one is better or what amount of this or that is acceptable or distracting, would you agree that the 200A and HPX170 do not have the same image like they were supposed to?

The camera body? Rocks. I can't find anything to be disappointed with in the camera body, a few "changes" in the menus make me go "Wtf did you do that for?" but that's fine. The image was supposed to be the exact same, though. Perhaps with a few minor details being off like the speed because of the lens diameter. That would have been a-okay.

I couldn't post the footage I have because they were both blown out due to time constraints. I'll still have the camera at my disposal all week, though, so it'll come as soon as I can grab it.

Shooting between yesterday and today constantly there is no longer any doubt in my mind that the 200A produces a cleaner, more-pleasing image with largely the same camera settings on both. Even with Gain on the 200A STILL looks cleaner than the 170. No Exaggerations on my end, there are people working with me that see it plain-as-day as well.

Dino's camera is supposed to be heading off to NJ, let's hope someone out there will tell us if it can even be adjusted to match the 200A shot-for-shot through whatever magic service techs can do.
 
Stevet said:
One thing for sure, if there's noise, the DELL 2405 will show it! LOL
I'm not sure why, but that monitor has a way of making noise real obvious
Click to expand...
That's why I specified I was using it in computer mode, not in analog component input mode. The component inputs are horrible and basically unusable. But as a straight computer monitor, playing the captured footage, it doesn't exaggerate noise or solarize the image or otherwise ruin it like it does when you try to use it as a video monitor!

Based on Kholi and Dino's findings, I wonder if there may be a difference with your camera Barry? I realize it's hard to quantify without equally testing these cameras under the exact same conditions and tests.
Click to expand...
I am really puzzled by the various reports. My 170 is a stock unit right off the shelves, shouldn't be any different than anyone else's. The 170 preproduction unit I tested performed the same as my production unit does. Next to a 200A, it just plain looks better. A little tiny bit sharper, with better color accuracy, and once the coring was adjusted to match, it looks cleaner.

I'm very happy with the 170, it's a big step up from the HVX200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top