AG-DVX200 4K Large-Sensor Handheld Camcorder

Bassman2003 said:
It is still early days with this camera. I am not an owner so I am not defending it but when I look at that footage and then hear "swarms of noise" it makes me think there is something else at play. But I do think that a $4,000 camera should not have any noise at 0 db in a studio lit environment. But this could be setting related. I have a friend you just got this camera and I told him we should set it up one day. So I look forward to twisting the dials and seeing how it compares to my PX270, the low noise champion. (at least for Panasonic video cameras under $20,000).
Click to expand...

That comparison will be very interesting.
 
pancam said:
I watch the DVX200 image through output SDI with video switcher, side by side other cameras (on 32coll display)
Click to expand...
Are you using the camera for a live broadcast, or recording the footage in isolation?

If you're using it in a live 1080 broadcast, I would highly recommend you put the camera in UHD 50P mode, and set the SDI to downconvert to 1080. The downconverted footage from UHD is notably sharper than the regular 1080 mode. That move alone should overcome any concerns about it looking "out of focus" or any other issues.

Is there any way you can test this, to see if it would make a difference?

If you can record UHD instead of 1080, you will always have a sharper image, even when downconverting and delivering 1080.
 
bluesgeek said:
Barry, here's a screen shot from my iMac 17" at fullscreen. What appears a fabric texture is actually noise.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that. Because that perhaps gets us closer to what the problem is. I took a still shot from the downloaded video, and split-screened it with your still shot, and it looks like there's a substantial difference in the way the two computers processed that footage. The photo you took looks like the gamma is quite different from the one I took. Especially the skin looks pasty white compared to the screenshot I took, and the background just looks quite different too, and the jacket is at a different level of black.
split-pancam.jpg
In the AF100 thread I'd mentioned previously, several folks mentioned that there were gamma changes depending on what software they were viewing it from. Perhaps those gamma shifts are what's causing an exaggerated perception of noise?

All I can tell you is this regarding my screenshot procedure: I can use the live camera waveform and vectorscope readings, and then import the footage and screenshot it and compare to the vectorscope and waveform in my NLE, and they match up exactly. So I'm pretty sure the image I'm showing is accurate.
 
Bassman2003 said:
So I look forward to twisting the dials and seeing how it compares to my PX270, the low noise champion. (at least for Panasonic video cameras under $20,000).
Click to expand...
I have asked someone to send me some properly-shot charts from a PX270 so I could develop a comparable scene file. Hoping to get that next week sometime. Don't know if that would help, or actually hinder your comparison (i.e., maybe you'd get better results starting from scratch) but you're welcome to use it if you want, once I can get it developed.
 
Greg Smith said:
Another "not all equal" factor is that it's more practical and economical to design fast lenses for smaller sensors. To bring this back on topic a little, I have both a PX270 and a DVX200. The PX has three chips at 1/16 of the area each compared to the DVX, but the lens is about 1.5 stops faster (varies a little through the zoom range). My (fairly repeatable) results are that the PX270 has just about exactly a one stop overall advantage over the DVX200 in low light given the same gain and high-sensitivity settings.

- Greg
Click to expand...
Are you sure it's that way round....? I'd expect the DVX200 to have the stop advantage - not the 270?

On the logic that with approx. 16x the sensor area that alone would give the DVX200 a 4 stop advantage - but the 270 should gain about 1.5 stops by being 3 chip, and about another 1.5 stops through a lens with faster f stop. So taken together to predict roughly a stop advantage to the DVX200....?
 
Thanks Barry. I do make them from scratch with a bunch of colors and a homemade color chart. Nothing scientific but based upon direct visual output which is most important to me.

I am very much on the fence with this camera and leaning away. Playing with the setup might help me to like it but soft 120p is just inexcusable when so many cheaper cameras do a good job and include audio (NX-1, RX10 II...).
 
Barry_Green said:
I took a still shot from the downloaded video, and split-screened it with your still shot, and it looks like there's a substantial difference in the way the two computers processed that footage. The photo you took looks like the gamma is quite different from the one I took. Especially the skin looks pasty white compared to the screenshot I took, and the background just looks quite different too, and the jacket is at a different level of black.
View attachment 107845
Click to expand...
I agree with what you say regarding level differences (in the still bluesgeek posted it did indeed seem the image was sat up), but that split screen is 800x450 resolution (so downresolved from the original) which itself seems to be hiding some of the noise I saw in the original. I still feel the level of noise is not too excessive - it's the "blocky" or "quantised" form it's taking that is catching the eye. (And it seems to be carrying through on the downconvert to an extent which wouldn't be expected to if it was "simple" video noise.)

If that is accepted, it does mean it may well be due more to a lining up issue than an inherent problem. I'd be looking very closely at adjustments which have the effect of putting digital gain in to the signal close to black level.......
 
harddrive said:
Are you sure it's that way round....? I'd expect the DVX200 to have the stop advantage - not the 270?

On the logic that with approx. 16x the sensor area that alone would give the DVX200 a 4 stop advantage - but the 270 should gain about 1.5 stops by being 3 chip, and about another 1.5 stops through a lens with faster f stop. So taken together to predict roughly a stop advantage to the DVX200....?
Click to expand...

It surprised me a little bit too, but definitely, the overall advantage is to the PX270. It is possible that some of this may be due to higher electronic gain in the PX270 and therefore maybe the DVX200 is producing a quieter picture when at the same video levels. (That would be a sensible design compromise in a camera intended mainly for broadcast ENG type work.) So far, I haven't gotten the scene files close enough to be able to judge this on real subject matter.

- Greg
 
In the brief testing I did between the PX270 and DVX200, both on default scene file 1, the DVX200 was way, way cleaner when the light got low. At 4000 or 8000 ISO (vs. 12 to 18db on the PX270), IIRC, the DVX200 was a dramatically cleaner picture. Might give that a try and see what you find?
 
This has just been uploaded: http://youtu.be/SuXZYwDn4gw
I have watched it on my iPad Mini 3 and think it looks allright regarding colours. Especially I was almost kind of impressed by the skintones. Looks far better than lot of other footage I have seen from the DVX200.
 
Last edited:
I dont see that on my ipad. Besides this is shot with the old firmware according to the posts below the video Maybe it would look even better with latest firmware?
 
Last edited:
Okay, here it is -- a package of scene files designed to deliver approximately the same look as a GH4 would do. They're different sensors, different controls, so it's not easy to make them match exactly, but some of these are pretty darn close, and some are... not as close, but closer than the stock scene files would have been.

These scene files were created using a GH4 on all zero settings. If you like to boost the noise reduction or cut the saturation or whatever, you can do those same things on the DVX200 using the appropriate controls. I set the GH4 on auto-exposure, with all parameters at 0, levels of 0-255, and swapped among the various color profiles.

In this package are an emulation of the GH4's Natural, Scenery, Portrait, Cine-D, Cine-V, and Standard profiles.

This is saved as SCENE2.TXT. Within SCENE2.TXT are six scene files:
SCN1/SCENE1 is Natural
SCN2/SCENE2 is Scenery
SCN3/SCENE3 is Portrait
SCN4/SCENE4 is Cine-D
SCN5/SCENE5 is Cine-V
SCN6/SCENE6 is Standard

Note, I didn't try to match noise levels or sharpening or anything like that; I was strictly working on gamma and color, and overall exposure. These were tested against three standardized charts: the ChromaMatch, the CamBelles, and a Chroma DuMonde, using both cameras in tungsten preset and auto-exposure.

Download the GH4 scene files here, experiment, and adjust them to see if they can get you the results you're looking for.
 
Josh Bass said:
I think I see it too.. .the little boy? Second closeup? near his left chin and ear? Yeah. Guess it's my monitor too, then.
Click to expand...

On my monitor that is closer to a grey brown and something that looks reasonable as a shadow reflection off the dark blue jacket. Not the same colouring as on his right cheeks with the same shadow level.
 
Hey Barry, thanks for the scene files! I'm going to give them a whirl tomorrow. I apologize if this has been answered already but which combination of controls would address noise reduction?
 
Brad Forman said:
Hey Barry, thanks for the scene files! I'm going to give them a whirl tomorrow. I apologize if this has been answered already but which combination of controls would address noise reduction?
Click to expand...

Lower the ISO/gain as much as possible. If you need gain, use HIGH SENS.
Then, lower the detail level to minimize sharpening the noise; once you have the detail where you want it you can consider using detail coring to overcome any residual noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top