Five minute short shot with HVX200

Yet if you look at Kaku's clips, recorded in poor or no lighting conditions there is nowhere near the amount of noise that is in this short.
 
To add to that, I've seen the footage of the bridge and the old man, along with the water and slow mo clips of the car rounding the corner and there wasn't any noticeable noise, or anything that really affected the viewing. And I looked at both on the 23" and 30" displays.

Damn, the artifacts in this one on the display made my skin crawl.
 
oh man.. i saw artifacts and noise even on a PC monitor.. now I am scared to look on a HD monitor (if i had one :)
 
I hear you..

We will probably never know the settings used in each shot.

I'm thinking this camera could of done better in noise if the settings were played with more. I do like the over all composition of the shot.

As Kholi mention, we have other low light examples that do not have this noise issue.
 
Hopefully the 4 way shootout footage will reveal a good comparison. All these cameras have noise. The F-900 has noise. There's "visible noise" in EVERY shot... but you have to decide which is the most pleasing to your eye along with the other characteristics of the image.

Pixeldance is one thing, but chroma noise - where colored snow is introduced into either shadows or skintones is not flattering. That's one thing I'll be comparing. As has been mentioned here noise does not compress well... SO if you plan on delivering compressed video on the Internet getting the cleanest camera makes some sense.

Adam's report will be interesting.
 
I'm thinking the same thing.

It's all about what you want out of your camera, basically. But shiet, I didn't notice the grotesque distortion/noise going on in this until I pulled it up on the other screen.

Can't have any of that.

Just have to wait to do my own two-way shootout this week. H1 vs HVX.
 
Kholi said:
Just have to wait to do my own two-way shootout this week. H1 vs HVX.
Click to expand...

That's the only way to fly. Check out some of Barry's recommended HVX settings. There must be some similar for the H1.
 
If we can have -3dB on Hvx200 maybe the problem will be resolved. I'm sure that if Panasonic or someone of the company as Jan, see this, well they surely think the same way. I'm very sad, because for example the colorimetry of the Skin it's beauty, specially if you try to low the gamma. This camera can very imitate the film.
It's only the damned noise that has ruined all the camera's revolution.
Guys, I think it's time that Panasonic oughta say simple "We're checking about this problem, soon we tweak with firmware, so don't worry."
I'd really respect Panasonic if they admit that something it's strange with this camera. Nothing is perfect but evr'ything could be improved.
But it's not a professional way, to be so silent about a problem we've noticed in a lot of footage.
Considering too, Hd norm, not cinegamma applied...so we're in a very big trouble!
I'm very worried about to color correct footage from this camera (I'm trying with various footage and I've noticed problems) cause the noise will pop out at minum error, it's a nightmare.
I'm sure that Barry Green also have some thoughts about it, it's impossible.
I'm worried that Barry don't say a thing about it. Only tweak here and there...
Barry this camera works or not? Be honest...
If this is the result, the noise has surpassed threshold's acceptability, not only for myself but for a lot of people.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Shouldn't this discussion be about the film? :huh:
Click to expand...

Yeah, why not! But it's only logical that we'd pick on the HVX issues, as this short is probably longer than all previous HVX footage we've seen, combined. I see some promise here, as the HVX can make an image full of luster and depth. I also worry that even a properly exposed scene will have noise dancing in the mid-tones. Very odd... I'm hoping that the optimum gamma/matrix setting will make that go away. No way to know unless someone actually posts some footage using the best settings. Hint, hint. So, post some short raw files with a nice set of settings, someone...

The film... first kudos to anyone trying to do something in 48 hrs start to finish. I'm sure I couldn't line up a hearst and/or coffin in that period of time, let alone actually write/shoot/edit it. And of course I'm sure that the filmmakers have a long list of things they'd change if given a bit more time.

A pleasing selection of actors, I like the funky gag about the main guy needing a shower all the time. The lighting was very spotty... rather nice on the priest, etc. When it was bad, it was VERY bad, and that ruined the overall effect.

The grey painted flat placed behind the main actor to catch the blood splatter needed to be "propped" up a bit with some pictures, etc.

BTW, one shot here is framed up off the actual painted area! Was this because the HVX doesn't show full raster top/bottom? I hope not. This is the PERFECT reason there should be full underscan in the viewfinder. A bit troubled by this.

Finally, the focus was a bit hit or miss... and just slightly off when it was off. I think you folks with the whole 35mm adaptor fetish will be hard pressed to nail your focus when using such a rig... as getting proper focus is hard enough on a small crew with a 1/3" chip... I'd rather see a bit more DOF than a shallow out of focus shot any day of the week.

However, some other post related technical nit-picks that wouldn't have taken any more time...

1.) Pick a better font, put a little more effort into the titles. There's probably +6,000,000 fonts on the computer it was edited on, at least mouse down the list a bit before selecting.

2.) Don't scroll your 24p end credits. Just put up page after page of static. Or at least scroll them at the proper speed to avoid strobe.

3.) Never, ever, ever, ever, ever use a page wipe in a dramatic production.

4.) Did I mention the page wipe? No really.

5.) Didn't like the white flash frames used for gunshots.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs
 
Jim Arthurs said:
Yeah, why not! But it's only logical that we'd pick on the HVX issues, as this short is probably longer than all previous HVX footage we've seen, combined. I see some promise here, as the HVX can make an image full of luster and depth. I also worry that even a properly exposed scene will have noise dancing in the mid-tones. Very odd... I'm hoping that the optimum gamma/matrix setting will make that go away. No way to know unless someone actually posts some footage using the best settings. Hint, hint. So, post some short raw files with a nice set of settings, someone...

The film... first kudos to anyone trying to do something in 48 hrs start to finish. I'm sure I couldn't line up a hearst and/or coffin in that period of time, let alone actually write/shoot/edit it. And of course I'm sure that the filmmakers have a long list of things they'd change if given a bit more time.

A pleasing selection of actors, I like the funky gag about the main guy needing a shower all the time. The lighting was very spotty... rather nice on the priest, etc. When it was bad, it was VERY bad, and that ruined the overall effect.

The grey painted flat placed behind the main actor to catch the blood splatter needed to be "propped" up a bit with some pictures, etc.

BTW, one shot here is framed up off the actual painted area! Was this because the HVX doesn't show full raster top/bottom? I hope not. This is the PERFECT reason there should be full underscan in the viewfinder. A bit troubled by this.

Finally, the focus was a bit hit or miss... and just slightly off when it was off. I think you folks with the whole 35mm adaptor fetish will be hard pressed to nail your focus when using such a rig... as getting proper focus is hard enough on a small crew with a 1/3" chip... I'd rather see a bit more DOF than a shallow out of focus shot any day of the week.

However, some other post related technical nit-picks that wouldn't have taken any more time...

1.) Pick a better font, put a little more effort into the titles. There's probably +6,000,000 fonts on the computer it was edited on, at least mouse down the list a bit before selecting.

2.) Don't scroll your 24p end credits. Just put up page after page of static. Or at least scroll them at the proper speed to avoid strobe.

3.) Never, ever, ever, ever, ever use a page wipe in a dramatic production.

4.) Did I mention the page wipe? No really.

5.) Didn't like the white flash frames used for gunshots.

Regards,

Jim Arthurs
Click to expand...

Oh I forgot-- To add to Jim's Comments :

The editing seemed to be a bit off. More so where the gunshots were concerned. The pauses in between cuts were too far apart, and made the bullet hit seemed very lagged. If this was done on purpose for an effective "dream state" scene, that's fine. But, it seemed staggered to me.
 
It seems that several of those who have access to the HVX already are reporting noise. That is not good, but until we have more to confirm this the jury is still out.
 
Kholi said:
The sooner people like you get ahold of the camera to test away, the better off the forum will be.
Click to expand...
Believe me, no one wants the camera to arrive sooner at my house than I do. :-P
 
Kholi said:
All this fuss about artifacts, noise, what the hell ever--The average viewer won't even NOTICE this crap you guys are bitching about.
Click to expand...
First of all, a huge THANK YOU to Rob Weiner for posting the short (I'm still downloading)!

Kholi:

I see your point, but I really disagree. I shot my zombie short with my DVX100, and in one shot I have a KinoFlo wrapped in blue gel to create a soft blue wash over the background of the shot. This was NOT an example of a "low light" scene. That Kino was putting out about 40 footcandles or more (the Kino was on a table, washing about a two-square foot area on a wall that was just inches from the Kino source). Once that shot got compressed to MPEG-2 for DVD authoring, it was a snowstorm. Both my mom and my girlfriend, neither of which are technically astute in any way, said, "Why does that look so noisy?" If you saw the footage, I'm sure you would agree. This was not a case of something "being lit poorly." It's simply a case of a 1/3" imaging system that's unable to reproduce heavily saturated hue without a LOT of chroma noise. Remember, straight out of the camera is one thing, but we all have to eventually dub to some sort of distribution medium, and at this time, it's typically a DVD or VHS tape. Once you compress to MPEG-2, or dub to VHS, any noise in the picture becomes multiplied several-fold.

Maybe this example states the case even more plainly . . . VHS sucks, right? Well, any commercially duplicated VHS movie will have LESS noise than anything I've ever shot on a 1/3" camera--and that's simply not acceptable. And this is footage shot in broad daylight, at f/11 or greater, at 0dB.

Again, I do see your point. I mean what can you expect from a sub-$10,000 camera anyway? However, I've examined HVX images for a total of about six hours between DV Expo West and RESfest L.A. on both HD CRTs and HD LCD displays and it was difficult to determine what the noise levels were. I just went down to Birns & Sawyer's new location this afternoon to check out an HVX, but to no avail. They were prepping one package to go out on a rental, and the other was in rental inventory. No one was available to demo the camera, and apparently, they only have two. And by the way, the day rate on the HVX rental there was $450/day. I did see the Canon XL-H1 on display. I pointed the H1 at a translight that had a New York skyline with a twilight blue sky image on it. At least on the LCD display, the blue portion of the translight was very noisy.

Last week, I happened to shoot some very cool footage at work with a Sony BVW400A analog BetacamSP camera, and did a composite dub to miniDV. You know what? No noise. I mean ZERO noise. This, coming from a 10-year-old analog camera, recording to an even older analog format, with no TBC, using a plain ole' COMPOSITE video BNC-to-RCA cable! I've decided that there's only so much that can be expected from a 1/3" system. I'm now pretty dead set on getting the Sony PDW-F330 1/2" XDCAM HD when it comes out.
 
A)

Thanks for your noise report NBCshooter! Your POV is one of my favourites.

NBCshooter said:
Last week, I happened to shoot some very cool footage at work with a Sony BVW400A analog BetacamSP camera, and did a composite dub to miniDV. You know what? No noise. I mean ZERO noise. I've decided that there's only so much that can be expected from a 1/3" system. I'm now pretty dead set on getting the Sony PDW-F330 1/2" XDCAM HD when it comes out.
Click to expand...
Why not a FX1E/Z1U...OK, that's 1/3" CCC cam but there's no noise, too...

B)

And for Christ's sake, why not this noise test ??!!!... :
http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=43940
 
Well, now that I've seen the short (well, not all of it, the file apparently got corrupted), but I did see the infamous "bedroom scene." First of all, you can't tell much from compressed web footage. But from what I could tell from the bedroom scene, I'm GUESSING that it was keyed with perhaps 15-25 footcandles of light. It's not that it was "poorly lit." I thought it was lit quite nicely. It was just underlit for this camera. You could pour an 18K into that window, and adequately stopped down and ND'd, you could still effect a "low key" look.

Nevertheless, that scene still helps to underscore my point. Highly compressed web footage is what we've got as one of our primary delivery channels. MPEG-2 compressed DVDs, VHS tape, and compressed files via the web is how many of our "clients" will see our narrative work samples. If I produce a short film worthy of any serious consideration, you bet I'm going to submit a compressed web version to ifilm.com and atomfilms.com. I'm also going to drop off a DVD to CAA, ICM, NBC/Universal, Artisan, Lion's Gate, and any other high-powered place where I can shove it under the door. And like it or not, that DVD is going to be MPEG-2 compressed.
 
Danilo Del Tufo said:
I'm sure that Barry Green also have some thoughts about it, it's impossible.
I'm worried that Barry don't say a thing about it. Only tweak here and there...
Barry this camera works or not? Be honest...
Click to expand...
I've said my piece a hundred times already. The HVX does *not* have a noise problem. Yes it has noise in its signal; about the same (yes, the SAME) amount of noise as the XLH1 does. Put them in the same circumstances, shoot the same scene under the same lighting, and you'll get the same amount of noise.

I again reiterate -- the HVX has the same amount of noise as a DVX100B. It has more noise than the Sony, less noise than the JVC, and the same noise as an XLH1. It is not noise-free. Neither is the DVX. Neither is the Canon. Its pictures look fantastic. Look back on the basketball footage, or the desert footage, or the kitchen table footage.

Why do I need to weigh in again? Do people somehow think that the noise will magically magnify if they don't keep track of it? It is what it is, and it works very well. Go read Evin's report, where he had a chance to use it in a professional production environment, where he said something like (Evin's words, if I remember correctly) "all you noise freaks are on crack" :) or something. Yes there's noise. No there's not too much. It's the same as a 100B (which is lower than a 100A!) It's the same as the XLH1.

If you don't like any noise at all, your only choice is the Sony. It's the only one out there with less noise than the HVX.
 
I'm more worried about the state of the footage itself. I'm assuming it was in 24P and in one of the cinegamma things or Cine-Like, right? For some reason, the "filmic" quality didn't look as good as I have seen with DVX footage.

Can this be changed to better look like the DVX stuff I've seen?

And I know there are a lot of variables to account for, but any answer would be nice, thanks.
 
When handled like a DVX, it produces DVX-like results. It looks basically exactly like the DVX, but with 3 to 4 times as much resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top