steve phillipps
Veteran
But on the other hand a lot of people really like it, so don't take my word for it! You're right, try it in the store.
Steve
AG-HPX371E jello issue....
- Thread starter Roberto Tafuro
- Start date
But on the other hand a lot of people really like it, so don't take my word for it! You're right, try it in the store.
Steve
Roberto Tafuro
Well-known member
Thank you Henry! Good italian! Steve i'll try the 500... and then i will tell you my impressions.
This is my last try : http://vimeo.com/13073345
pass if needed : fabrica2006
I've set first shutter off, 1/50 on 25p. Then i use the ND filter 2 ,DSR 1. As you can notice if the picture is overexposed the effect is stiil there but it's minor. I think that shadows can't be recognized by the cmos. By the way my pedestal is 5 too. My thinking is this : if i look at the video a like so much the details and the look but i have to change the photography of the scene. With shutter set to 1/400 the picture is very high detailed. True! I've choosen this camera for this kind of look! I've tried the same settings on a 301 with a friend of mine. We shoot side by side. The 301 doesn't have this issue at all. So my question is this : May i have a camera with a defective cmos? Maybe it's possible. Or have my friend a 301 with a better cmos then other 301? I want a camera that can be used en plein air without problems. If i'll shoot a 1080 24p i know that i've to use more light than i can to reduce noise and trailing. I've corrected the tripod head shoot tweaking with gain ( -3 , 0 ) and the exposure. I've fixed that problem. But when i'm outdoor, shooting something with a lot of details like trees in a short time such as reportage or interview i can't stand that i can't eliminate this problem. We are talking about the sun light, the best friend of a camera! So if i overexpose an outdoor video i can't then reintroduce the color of the sky in post. I can only change levels, curves and tint. A white sky is a white sky. I'm glad to learn much more than i can about this camera to eliminate this strange effect, but at this moment i can't at all!
Maybe if you can post some 371's shoots of trees ( pines have more shadows than other trees ) without a tripod we can proove or not that my camera is flawed!
Tomorrow i'll start to shoot a new videoclip ( but i'm so tired! ) and then i'll go to the store to talk with the techs....
I hope to resolve this problems and finally start to shoot some amazing video!
Best regards to everybody!
Roberto
This is my last try : http://vimeo.com/13073345
pass if needed : fabrica2006
I've set first shutter off, 1/50 on 25p. Then i use the ND filter 2 ,DSR 1. As you can notice if the picture is overexposed the effect is stiil there but it's minor. I think that shadows can't be recognized by the cmos. By the way my pedestal is 5 too. My thinking is this : if i look at the video a like so much the details and the look but i have to change the photography of the scene. With shutter set to 1/400 the picture is very high detailed. True! I've choosen this camera for this kind of look! I've tried the same settings on a 301 with a friend of mine. We shoot side by side. The 301 doesn't have this issue at all. So my question is this : May i have a camera with a defective cmos? Maybe it's possible. Or have my friend a 301 with a better cmos then other 301? I want a camera that can be used en plein air without problems. If i'll shoot a 1080 24p i know that i've to use more light than i can to reduce noise and trailing. I've corrected the tripod head shoot tweaking with gain ( -3 , 0 ) and the exposure. I've fixed that problem. But when i'm outdoor, shooting something with a lot of details like trees in a short time such as reportage or interview i can't stand that i can't eliminate this problem. We are talking about the sun light, the best friend of a camera! So if i overexpose an outdoor video i can't then reintroduce the color of the sky in post. I can only change levels, curves and tint. A white sky is a white sky. I'm glad to learn much more than i can about this camera to eliminate this strange effect, but at this moment i can't at all!
Maybe if you can post some 371's shoots of trees ( pines have more shadows than other trees ) without a tripod we can proove or not that my camera is flawed!
Tomorrow i'll start to shoot a new videoclip ( but i'm so tired! ) and then i'll go to the store to talk with the techs....
I hope to resolve this problems and finally start to shoot some amazing video!
Best regards to everybody!
Roberto
steve phillipps
Veteran
It does make you wonder what they might have to the camera to make the 370 better than the 300 in terms of noise, sharpness and skew, all of which seem to be dramatically better. I did wonder at the start whether all of these improvements could just be down to a new sensor - after all only 12 months have elapsed since the 300!
Is there a lot of clever (or not so clever as it turns out!) processing going on that does show these improvements but has little side effects, one of which we are seeing here?
Hellooooo, Panasonic, anybody there????
Steve
Is there a lot of clever (or not so clever as it turns out!) processing going on that does show these improvements but has little side effects, one of which we are seeing here?
Hellooooo, Panasonic, anybody there????
Steve
Try this with a 370. Shoot in a room with a wood-grained door in the background. Let it fill 20 - 50% of your background. Try for the deepest DOF you can achieve. We did this in AVCIntra 1080 24pN on the 300 and the grain of the door shifted around - even in a completely static shot from atop a sandbag.
So, it isn't just in shadow details. It should be looked for where there is pronounced variegation in an otherwise like-colored area of the frame. The camera need not be in motion, but the effect is more pronounced when it is.
So, it isn't just in shadow details. It should be looked for where there is pronounced variegation in an otherwise like-colored area of the frame. The camera need not be in motion, but the effect is more pronounced when it is.
Roberto:
Your post suggests that you have the option to return the 370 in exchange for something else, an admirable position I might add. If that is indeed correct, given the fact that there are clearly "issues" with the 300 series (hpx 300 & 370) that you and others find unacceptable, why not simply return it, stop searching for answers, solutions and work-arounds that may not exist and buy something less problematic? After all, with the exception of the pure technophiles, I assume you are in the business of making video––not headaches.
Your post suggests that you have the option to return the 370 in exchange for something else, an admirable position I might add. If that is indeed correct, given the fact that there are clearly "issues" with the 300 series (hpx 300 & 370) that you and others find unacceptable, why not simply return it, stop searching for answers, solutions and work-arounds that may not exist and buy something less problematic? After all, with the exception of the pure technophiles, I assume you are in the business of making video––not headaches.
Roberto Tafuro
Well-known member
Right Ron!
Back to work and stop thinking about this.....no more headache!
Roberto
Back to work and stop thinking about this.....no more headache!
Roberto
Roberto Tafuro
Well-known member
Sorry Erik. Thank you for your opinion and your experience. I know that the 300 seems to have this problem more in 1080 24p... Next week i will know what my destiny will be!
Thank you so much,
Roberto
Thank you so much,
Roberto
Roberto Tafuro
Well-known member
Steve you're right... i don't know what they've done with the cmos... i think that the 371 is the same 301, with more lightness.... and more problems!
Ron gives me the right suggestion, don't think more on this problems and go ahead!
Now i'm leaving to shoot the new clip and i have to be calm and concentrated on the work!
See you next week,
Thank you all again for the support!
Roberto
Ron gives me the right suggestion, don't think more on this problems and go ahead!
Now i'm leaving to shoot the new clip and i have to be calm and concentrated on the work!
See you next week,
Thank you all again for the support!
Roberto
keylight
Veteran
Sorry, but that is a load of bunk. If that's what you think then either you've gotten a bad camera, or you don't have much experience or a lot of understanding about various acquisition formats.
Maybe you should spare yourself any more worry and just return the camera.
Roberto, what is your background with other pro cameras? What have you used previously, or is all of this fairly new to you?
I ask, because your posts make it sound like this is all new. Anyone with a fair amount of experience knows that ALL cameras, whether they be CMOS, CCD, Film (old tube cameras too) have drawbacks related to their technology.
All CMOS cameras exhibit the same general kinds of limitation (skew, flash). Some are better than others, and from everything I've seen, the 370 is currently the best implementation of CMOS.
All CCD cameras exhibit other types of limitations (especially the narrower latitude and the need for more light).
Film cameras - they limitations with shutter angle, fast panning, need for lots of light, film stock, cost, processing, transferring....
Let's face it, professionals choose a camera based upon the production needs. There is no camera that does it all. NO camera will ever be as good as the human eye. Since the first motion picture cameras, there has always been a need to compromise.
Working around the limitations of a particular format is where your art and craft comes in.
So in my opinion, and to be blunt, the "problem" you've found with the 370 is really not a problem.
But, if what you've identified is a problem for you, then this isn't the camera for you. Just return it and go with something else. Take a look at the GY-HM790 for a good, affordable, ENG style, CCD camera. It's a 3 x 1/3 chip camera, and you'll loose out on the low light capabilities of CMOS, and be stuck with MPEG-2 Long GOP.
There are always trade offs. Just decide which features you can and can't live without, and make your purchase based on that.
Last edited:
Roberto Tafuro
Well-known member
Hallo Keylight, when i say that 371 is the same of the 301 i was joking! I have use BETACAM for a long time. The real thing is this : this morning i've shoot the same trees with a friend of mine. He has a 301. Well the 301 DOESN'T HAVE THIS ISSUE! I've all the shoot on my P2 cards and i'll show them in the store on wednesday. Only a bindman can't notice that! The other thing is that my 371 has a sort of "flou" on the image that 301 doesn't! You have to consider that i'm filming in a native format, not 24p, but 25p in 720p. I have choose this camera after i've seen the 301 shoots and a lot of study of the features of this camera. My friend is an old cameraman, with much experience. When he saw the clips this morning he said to me : " this camera has something strange! " . I don't want to make controversy. If my camera has a bug i will change it with another one. If it's not maybe i'll choose a 301 saving a lot of money! I know all the issue of the CMOS, CCD etc. What i see in my footage is not a common CMOS problem at all! On vimeo you see a compress low quality file. On my monitor the problem is more detailed.
I hope that on wednesday i will resolve all my problems and come back with a good camera and much happy then now! And the important thing of this thread is this : If any other 371 owner will have the same problem maybe can change the camera because is flawed too.
Thank you for the support!
Roberto
I hope that on wednesday i will resolve all my problems and come back with a good camera and much happy then now! And the important thing of this thread is this : If any other 371 owner will have the same problem maybe can change the camera because is flawed too.
Thank you for the support!
Roberto
keylight
Veteran
Perhaps you can link to an uncompressed AVC-Intra 50 or 100 clip for people to download and view using a free file sending service like yousendit or dropsend. (I'd suggest something shot on a tripod, not hand held.)
It really sounds like it may be your camera. But seeing an original clip straight from the camera would drive home just how dramatic a problem it is.
This is a relatively unknown issue in the 300 and 370 series that we're trying to put in front of other operators and Panasonic for analysis. Having entire tonal / textural areas of the frame shift is not a common CMOS issue. Skew and flash banding are well-documented and anyone coming to a CMOS platform is likely aware of them.
Having operated a large number of the broadcast CMOS / 3MOS / 3CMOS cameras in the market today, I can tell you that I've only seen the HPX300 and HPX370 exhibit this shifting issue.
We're actively researching what might be the cause of this issue. Through other users, we might be able to discover what environments contribute most to the effect.
I'm going to ask that everyone please keep the "switch to a Mac" or "get another tool that's right for you" type of commentary to yourselves. They don't move the research forward and only inflame the forum.
Consider that fair warning.
Having operated a large number of the broadcast CMOS / 3MOS / 3CMOS cameras in the market today, I can tell you that I've only seen the HPX300 and HPX370 exhibit this shifting issue.
We're actively researching what might be the cause of this issue. Through other users, we might be able to discover what environments contribute most to the effect.
I'm going to ask that everyone please keep the "switch to a Mac" or "get another tool that's right for you" type of commentary to yourselves. They don't move the research forward and only inflame the forum.
Consider that fair warning.
steve phillipps
Veteran
Spot on Erik.
Steve
Steve
keylight
Veteran
Erik,
Okay, so moving forward, I've tried to replicate the problem with my 370 and can't seem to do it. I've shot some pine trees in as close to a similar environment as I have near me, and I can't reproduce the problem. Maybe I'm doing something wrong (or right) but I just can't get the problem to occur with my camera. But I'll keep playing with it.
Obviously Roberto has seen the problem in his original footage and I don't doubt that there's something going on. But I wonder if the issue is compounded by the low bit rate compression of the clips he's uploaded.
As to your post giving warning to keep on topic:
Does suggesting that he return the camera and try something else go off topic or inflame the situation when Roberto brought up possibly switching to the EX1/EX3 or the 350 in several posts? It hardly off topic to respond to Roberto's posts about other formats that they too have their own unique problems. Discussing these things should inflame no one.
Moving on.... Roberto says his friend with a 300 doesn't exhibit this problem:
I find it interesting that in your post you write something that Roberto's side by side test contradicts:
To be sure, tests of one 300 isn't enough to say that other 300s don't have this problem (just like a test of one 370 isn't enough to say that other 370s do have this problem). But you've now raised the issue that the 300s you've seen have this before unheard of problem as well. So it begs the question, how long have you seen this problem with the HPX 300? What might muddy the water a bit is this:
So is this a relatively unknown issue OR is it an issue that you've seen in the 300 for a while?
And, in an effort to help pinpoint the problem, if you HAVE seen it in the 300, was that before or after the firmware fix that was issued related to the CMOS flash issue? Do you see where I'm going with this? Maybe the problem isn't actually with the CMOS. Maybe it's the firmware. Maybe the fix for the flash problem created a new problem. Adding to the possibility that it's a firmware problem is the fact that the 370 has an entirely new CMOS. So if the problem appears in both models, then that would point to an issue with firmware or even the compression codec.
Or, perhaps you have NOT seen the problem in any 300s, in which case it may very well be a problem with the 370s new CMOS chip. So either way, could you please clarify whether or not you have seen the problem in the 300? And if it was pre or post flash firmware fix? The more info you can provide, the better....
We should be trying to eliminate as many variables as possible, including Vimeo compression problems, firmware issues, in camera codecs, and possible operator error. (Another question for Roberto.... What happens if you record in DVCPRO? Do you see the same issue? That's an entirely different codec so if you don't see the issue we would really advance this troubleshooting.....)
Finally, in my opinion your post giving us fair warning" does more stop the research from moving forward than anything else anyone has posted here. Censoring others (or threatening to censor) hurts more than it helps.
Hopefully we'll hear back from Roberto on his visit to the store today to compare his camera with another 370.
Okay, so moving forward, I've tried to replicate the problem with my 370 and can't seem to do it. I've shot some pine trees in as close to a similar environment as I have near me, and I can't reproduce the problem. Maybe I'm doing something wrong (or right) but I just can't get the problem to occur with my camera. But I'll keep playing with it.
Obviously Roberto has seen the problem in his original footage and I don't doubt that there's something going on. But I wonder if the issue is compounded by the low bit rate compression of the clips he's uploaded.
As to your post giving warning to keep on topic:
Does suggesting that he return the camera and try something else go off topic or inflame the situation when Roberto brought up possibly switching to the EX1/EX3 or the 350 in several posts? It hardly off topic to respond to Roberto's posts about other formats that they too have their own unique problems. Discussing these things should inflame no one.
Moving on.... Roberto says his friend with a 300 doesn't exhibit this problem:
I find it interesting that in your post you write something that Roberto's side by side test contradicts:
To be sure, tests of one 300 isn't enough to say that other 300s don't have this problem (just like a test of one 370 isn't enough to say that other 370s do have this problem). But you've now raised the issue that the 300s you've seen have this before unheard of problem as well. So it begs the question, how long have you seen this problem with the HPX 300? What might muddy the water a bit is this:
So is this a relatively unknown issue OR is it an issue that you've seen in the 300 for a while?
And, in an effort to help pinpoint the problem, if you HAVE seen it in the 300, was that before or after the firmware fix that was issued related to the CMOS flash issue? Do you see where I'm going with this? Maybe the problem isn't actually with the CMOS. Maybe it's the firmware. Maybe the fix for the flash problem created a new problem. Adding to the possibility that it's a firmware problem is the fact that the 370 has an entirely new CMOS. So if the problem appears in both models, then that would point to an issue with firmware or even the compression codec.
Or, perhaps you have NOT seen the problem in any 300s, in which case it may very well be a problem with the 370s new CMOS chip. So either way, could you please clarify whether or not you have seen the problem in the 300? And if it was pre or post flash firmware fix? The more info you can provide, the better....
We should be trying to eliminate as many variables as possible, including Vimeo compression problems, firmware issues, in camera codecs, and possible operator error. (Another question for Roberto.... What happens if you record in DVCPRO? Do you see the same issue? That's an entirely different codec so if you don't see the issue we would really advance this troubleshooting.....)
Finally, in my opinion your post giving us fair warning" does more stop the research from moving forward than anything else anyone has posted here. Censoring others (or threatening to censor) hurts more than it helps.
Hopefully we'll hear back from Roberto on his visit to the store today to compare his camera with another 370.
steve phillipps
Veteran
I think these may be the inflaming type of statements, I thought they were a bit harsh myself, though I'm sure it was more the wording than intent
rogar-BigGrin(DBG).I seem to remember this or the other post talking about seeing the problem in different codecs.
You're absolutely right about ruling out variables, flash band compensation being a good thought - you can turn it on or off, be interesting to know if all the problem shots were one way or the other, same with other settings (including shutter speed).
Steve
Roberto Tafuro
Well-known member
Hello to everybody, i'm here again! Ok yesterday i've been to the store and see the clips with their techs... well they take my camera back and give me a 301 with no waste of time! Now i've saved about 2000€ in this change. Erik is right, i've shoot the same trees this morning with the 301. First the sliding effect is noticeable only if you're trying to see it in 1080 Avc 100 25pn ( 50i is sweet! ). In the other format ( well i think that there is a scaling in the picture ) is so low and not on the center of the image that you don't see it at all. What i mean is this ( sorry i'm a bit confused because i've drive for 1200Km in a day yesterday! ): If the effect is in the center, on the right, on the left of the video you see it A LOT! We've open another new 371 yesterday in the store, and we have noticed that: 301 IS MORE,MORE,MORE,MORE detailed than 371. We reach the same detail with coring at 5 on 371 and coring at .... 0 on the 301! I was so surprised about this! I repeat, this is from my experience, 301 doesn't have the same sliding of 371. This is not a statement, we have tried only two 371. But the 301 is more detailed and more clear of the 371. We've seen the images on a big plasma tv. If you're looking images on an LCD you will notice that the effect is more pronunced than a normal tv monitor. I hope that this thread will give us a lot of information about this cameras and a lot of information on what you can do or not with this series of cameras.By the way Keylight i've changed the camera because the issue was still there in any codec. The only one that seems to not have the sliding so noticeable was the standard DV. For the firmware... i don't know wich firmware has the 301 of my friend. Mine is 9.28-00-0.00. I think that the last one is the 9.34-00-0.00. I don't know if i will change it or not... Maybe i will change it only if i can return to the original one!
Now i'm going to sleep for about 24 hours!
Thank you so much for your opinions and for the big support! I've find a thing in this short story that gives me a lot of positive energy, when people talk about their own experiences with other people something positive happening. Thank you again,
Bests from Italy!
Roberto
Now i'm going to sleep for about 24 hours!
Thank you so much for your opinions and for the big support! I've find a thing in this short story that gives me a lot of positive energy, when people talk about their own experiences with other people something positive happening. Thank you again,
Bests from Italy!
Roberto
steve phillipps
Veteran
Interesting about the detail, I wondered about this after seeing AbelCine's tests with the 370. They were showing a noise comparison, where the 370 was a lot less noisy than the 300, but it seemed to me that it was also a lot softer, implying that there was a software noise reduction algorythm as you'd use with digital stills (like Noise Ninja). This has the effect of reducing noise at the expense of sharpness.
Steve
Steve
GaryNattrass
Veteran
Hmmm I always suspected this as the 370/371 came out very quickly after the 300/301.
Bet it actually has the same sensor and this has just been a re-marketing exercise with a software mod or as with hair products "extended increased serum and pepticides":2vrolijk_08:
steve phillipps
Veteran
You're not alone there Gary!
They do state explicitly that it's a new sensor though don't they? Surely they couldn't say that if it weren't true. But just how new and radically different I wonder.
Steve
They do state explicitly that it's a new sensor though don't they? Surely they couldn't say that if it weren't true. But just how new and radically different I wonder.
Steve
Otis Grapsas
Carbonite Member
This is not a CMOS issue. An horizontal pixel line is exposed at the same time. It's impossible that rolling shutter can produce this effect.
My guess is that it's a bug in the preprocessing, it could be in some form of motion adaptive noise reduction. This is a common algorithm, the pixel values of different frames are compared and the algorithm uses current and past values in order to discard what it considers to be noise. Small changes are considered noise and large changes are considered true motion. It can freeze motion in some parts of the frame for a while if the change is detected as noise. The error is usualy only noticable in full resolution. On a scaled format like SD it can be masked because it's less than a pixel after downsampling.
My guess is that it's a bug in the preprocessing, it could be in some form of motion adaptive noise reduction. This is a common algorithm, the pixel values of different frames are compared and the algorithm uses current and past values in order to discard what it considers to be noise. Small changes are considered noise and large changes are considered true motion. It can freeze motion in some parts of the frame for a while if the change is detected as noise. The error is usualy only noticable in full resolution. On a scaled format like SD it can be masked because it's less than a pixel after downsampling.