Avoid Banding with external recorder?

That's where I was looking, as I figured the banding would appear in a gradual gradient. I still couldn't see it so I put a black cover over my head and the monitor and could just make it out.

I would try transcoding the footage into 10-bit or rendering it out as 10-bit. (I am almost certain that Avid Media Composer dithers when transcoding to any of the Avid codecs like Avid DV and DNxHD, but I can't talk about other codec or NLE's.) Maybe that would help.


P.S. I would think a nano would help, as higher bitrate 4:2:2 would give more resolution. It's hard to tell what's caused by 8-bit and what's caused by the codec barfing. That said, I have to say I could barely make out what's being discussed. If that's a testament to excellent quality of my monitor or the poor quality of my eyes, IDK, LOL.
 
Last edited:
PaPa said:
I thought the same thing too Editman. But then i compared a similar shot side by side with my 7D. The AF100 had more detail, but also a lot more noticeable posterization on any setting that i tried.
Click to expand...

I have had some issues with both my 7D and 5D so these are also prone to this. Somewhere along the production at Panasonic they must have settled on the basic settings to look good straight from the camera from a technical viewpoint. Maybe to achieve optimum performance one shouldn't deviate to much in tweaking.
 
Must be your monitor. I can see it standing 5 freer from my monitor. But I'm definitely interested in this dithering thing.
 
PaPa said:
But I'm definitely interested in this dithering thing.
Click to expand...

Dithering is just a form of adding noise. It's a "band-aid" and not a real solution. It's more of an "optical illusion", that covers up the real problem. A real solution is 10-bit workflow and delivery. But no common end delivery format is in 10-bit . Everything is 8-bit (flash for web, blu-ray , DVD etc...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither#Digital_photography_and_image_processing


Smart dithering uses masks to apply it in areas that are more prone to banding (instead of a uniform noise layer) - so it selectively applies to shadows or gradients (so you don't get excessively noisy over entire image)

This is nothing new , virtually every post production facility uses some form dithering in their final steps before distribution. The point I was trying to make is, you usually have more control over dithering in post, than in camera. You can for example control grain size, or chroma vs. luma noise etc....

I used avisynth filters in this example, but there are many "debanding" filters out on the market, the approach is the same - add either luminance or chroma noise in varying amounts selectively. Most of them have sliders where you can control strength, amount etc...


I' m interested in seeing olof's tests and what's causing it. If you can reduce the amount of "baked in" banding then the requires fewer post production "fixes". I'm also interested in seeing comparison of HDMI and various recorders vs. AVCCAM in these situations - i.e. how bad is it, and how much of a difference can portable recorder make ?
 
That kind of banding is an 8 bit codec issue. You only have 256 levels of gray scale to work with, so very low contrast image areas with fine gradations in value will posterize a bit because there are not enough discrete steps in value to create a smooth gradation. The cleaner the image, the worse the banding. Adding noise or grain (dithering) can smooth this over.
 
We'll wait to the olof tests. Buy an external recorder is a big cost if you only correct a bit banding issues.
ONE question: will be better add noise ( putting detail) in setting prestes to the a f101 before recordibg or put grain in post?
Thanks
 
PDR said:
Dithering is just a form of adding noise. It's a "band-aid" and not a real solution. It's more of an "optical illusion", that covers up the real problem. A real solution is 10-bit workflow and delivery. But no common end delivery format is in 10-bit . Everything is 8-bit (flash for web, blu-ray , DVD etc...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither#Digital_photography_and_image_processing


Smart dithering uses masks to apply it in areas that are more prone to banding (instead of a uniform noise layer) - so it selectively applies to shadows or gradients (so you don't get excessively noisy over entire image)

This is nothing new , virtually every post production facility uses some form dithering in their final steps before distribution. The point I was trying to make is, you usually have more control over dithering in post, than in camera. You can for example control grain size, or chroma vs. luma noise etc....

I used avisynth filters in this example, but there are many "debanding" filters out on the market, the approach is the same - add either luminance or chroma noise in varying amounts selectively. Most of them have sliders where you can control strength, amount etc...


I' m interested in seeing olof's tests and what's causing it. If you can reduce the amount of "baked in" banding then the requires fewer post production "fixes". I'm also interested in seeing comparison of HDMI and various recorders vs. AVCCAM in these situations - i.e. how bad is it, and how much of a difference can portable recorder make ?
Click to expand...

I guess the question really is what filters are available that work within premiere so we can apply this to the footage in the editor. I really hate hate hate having to open up stand alone programs to just import files, let it spit out something new and hope it's acceptable.
 
Hi Guys and Gals,

Coring is Noise Reduction aimed specifically at detail. So as you add detail, you add coring and that should bring the noise down. To have a setting like -7 detail and +coring makes little sense unless you are shooting in a higher ISO and you want to use the coring to help remove some of the High frequency noise that can happen at 800 and up, but this is at the sacrifice of picture sharpness. I went into the lab yesterday and just shot a chart as I played between the detail settings and the coring, and I found that the coring in this extreme setting actually was working against me with the ISO at 200 and 400. Still playing around with the settings but I personally would steer clear of such extreme settings as these in the frame grabs above.

Best,

Jan
 
Jan, there was a purpose other than noise and detail in my frame grabs. It was to help begin finding a solution to the posterization of gradients in light. Not for detail. This was simply to see how detail played an effect on the posterization.
 
PaPa said:
Jan, there was a purpose other than noise and detail in my frame grabs. It was to help begin finding a solution to the posterization of gradients in light. Not for detail. This was simply to see how detail played an effect on the posterization.
Click to expand...

Papa, the problem is that wasn't my take away from the discussion. My point in posting was to point people away from such extreme settings as they ultimately work against you.
 
yeah definitely. I think there will be a lot more tests to find the "sweet spot" which doesn't really exist, but still a setting that gives us the best bang for the buck.
 
It's a pitty there is no solution for the banding issues. I'm really disappointing with it panasonic :( You avoid the moire/aliasing (ok guys) but you introduce a new player in the league: banding.
I really wanted to substitute DSLR cameras and I bet for new Panasonic AF101 (like the olds DV100 & HVX200 I bought in the past) but I think until you solve the problem I can't consider the AF101 like a winner.
Please, real solutions!
 
brigadoon said:
It's a pitty there is no solution for the banding issues. I'm really disappointing with it panasonic :( You avoid the moire/aliasing (ok guys) but you introduce a new player in the league: banding.
I really wanted to substitute DSLR cameras and I bet for new Panasonic AF101 (like the olds DV100 & HVX200 I bought in the past) but I think until you solve the problem I can't consider the AF101 like a winner.
Please, real solutions!
Click to expand...
Of course there's a solution! Sheesh, I hate it how people always have to paint things in such a "doom and gloom" light.

What's the solution? Don't tweak the camera to where it has zero noise. It's the exact same situation that happened in 1996 with the Canon XL1. This is nothing new. There is and will always be, as long as 8-bit recordings exist, a tricky dance you have to do between noise and banding. It has always been this way and it will always be this way.
 
Barry_Green said:
This is nothing new. There is and will always be, as long as 8-bit recordings exist, a tricky dance you have to do between noise and banding. It has always been this way and it will always be this way.
Click to expand...

Barry, I don't quite understand how the 8bit output of the F3, branded to be uber clean, skirts the banding issue.
 
I agree. I feel I hear this all too often: It is not my fault I forced the camera to look like crap. Why can't the manufacturers make a perfect camera that reads my mind, has perfect focus, sets the perfect exposure and makes me a hero without any work on my part including understanding the limitations of my camera and creatively coming up with realistic workarounds. +7 -7 is a pretty big range on most settings. It is okay to push the camera to find it's limits, but don't complain when you find the point of diminishing returns. Especially at $4800.00

IMO, too many people spend too much time doing tests and measuring this or that. just go out and create and fix as you go. Get 80% of what you need then tweak 20%.
 
Steve Kahn said:
Barry, I don't quite understand how the 8bit output of the F3, branded to be uber clean, skirts the banding issue.
Click to expand...
Haven't seen it. Maybe they do some internal dithering as part and parcel of their image processing? I wouldn't be surprised, the unit does cost 3x what the AF100 does, and frequently spending more does get you more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top