DVCPro50 WMV from the HVX200

stephenlnoe

stephenlnoe

Well-known member
These encodes were done directly from the MXF's. The encoding method was with WME 9 using the Quality VBR routine set to 100%. What you'll see is exactly what I see on my timeline. I compared the encodes with the raw footage very carefully and what you see is what it is.

Server is UP.

Here is all the info I have about the original clips.


details.jpg


The first provided full quality wmv represents the first MXF referenced on the screengrabs list.

Click here for progressive WMV (15MB)

Here is the accompanying frame grab. The frame grab is a raw native frame uncompressed and lifted from the sequence.

hvx200.bmp






Next is an interalaced sequence (60i). DVCPro50. This full quality wmv represents the BEST of the provided MXF's and is the last on the screengrab list of files.
Click here for the interlaced DVCPro50 clip(16MB)

60i.bmp


Anyone can log onto Kaku's site and download the raw MXF's for yourself by going Here and registering to download the clips.

I think the low light performance is very poor from these clips. I was afraid of it for this camera because the chips are very small and something had to suffer. This may destroy chromakey altogether. I'd like to see a full lit green screen shot with DVCPro50. The camera will need very ample light and I don't see any way from the supplied clips to salvage the images when gain is used or in low light. Turning detail down doesn't help much. The noise is still evident. The images sent from my timeline out to broadcast monitor and to a regular TV are... well... I just can't believe my eyes they are so noisy.

Noise is very dissapointing after all the hype but the low light images do not lie.
 
stephenlnoe said:
The low light performance is very poor from these clips. I was afraid of it for this camera because the chips are very small and something had to suffer. This may destroy chromakey altogether. The camera will need very ample light and I don't see any way from the supplied clips to salvage the images. Turning detail down doesn't help much. The noise is still evident. The images sent from my timeline out to broadcast monitor and to a regular TV are... well... I just can't believe my eyes they are so noisy.

Noise is very dissapointing after all the hype but the images do not lie.
Click to expand...

As pointed out, the link is protected. Did you shoot this footage? With a production or pre-production camera. What settings was it shot at and in what level of light?

Your statement send hyperbole laden - why?
 
Sorry guys, FTP just went down. Ouch... That's what happens when you're hosting 2 Gigs worth of files across the internet.

@stephenvv - no I did not shoot the clips, however, I wrote Kaku specific request for the shots, which he oblidged. The MXF's were taken from a production model directly off the P2 card.

I'll bump when the FTP comes back online
 
The noise nightmare is back! :(
From this screen grab (and others we have seen) I'm beginnin' to call this camera"NoIsE-HVX200"! Guys the noise pattern is like a cheap webcam, what the hell Panasonic did?
What password and username i must put, maybe when footage is in movement, it's not "SO" cheapy webcam effect...I still hope...I still hope...
 
Danilo Del Tufo said:
when footage is in movement, it's not "SO" cheapy webcam effect...I still hope...I still hope...
Click to expand...
It's worse.

We're working on the FTP. Please check back.
 
stephenlnoe said:
Sorry guys, FTP just went down. Ouch... That's what happens when you're hosting 2 Gigs worth of files across the internet.

@stephenvv - no I did not shoot the clips, however, I wrote Kaku specific request for the shots, which he oblidged. The MXF's were taken from a production model directly off the P2 card.
Click to expand...

What settings and what light level? Any cam can display noise, but I don't see what this clip tells us.

Basically until there are A/B tests conducted in controlled setting with a variety of gain/detail with the HVX, XL H1, HD100 & Z1 production models, we don't know much of anything yet about how the cams stack up. I've seen very noisy, artifacty and very clean clips from all 4 cams (no disrespect to Kaku as he is a really nice guy, but plenty of his other cam clips also suffered from artifacts).

I think posting a single clip and then making global pronoucements does not help inform but merely contributes noise, pun intended :laugh:
 
stephenlnoe, I've a fear about it, I'm sure that I'm not alone thinking that 1/3 ccd could not good to resolve dvcpro...I bet also you thinkin' in this way...

I'm thinking about it, maybe Hdv can work on tiny chips, this is the truth. So Sony, Canon know the limits...and the heroic way of Panasonic revelead a sadly reality.
Dvcpro it's a good codec, but on 2/3 ccd!
Do you think what happens when you put a 35mm adapter on it? What noise garbage could be produced?

I really hope that Pal version is better than Ntsc, because they have much time to tweak this electronics, it' not easy.

My father was a industrial designer for long time, he know very well how many bugs, errors, the companies made, so we can wait they fix this problem, because now we are as guinea pigs for Panasonic.

Panasonic make the miracle for the Pal version! Work hard on it! It's a shame that you can't fix this problems, the camera could be very good, if you still tweak on it.
 
redindian said:
is this a 100% crop? or a resized clip?

it does look like webcam screengrab :)
Click to expand...
It is a raw uncompressed DVCPro50 SD frame. :cry:

When the FTP comes back up and you can get the file, then you'll understand.

@stephenvv - please wait for the clips and you'll get your answers.

Benton said:
it's Kaku's (?)
here is a compressed png
of the same still, but looks better

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/HVX/KAKU_DVCPRO_50.png
Click to expand...

That still is a different still with the detail adjusted. The footage I encoded is raw MXF which you'll get to see.
 
stephenlnoe said:
It's worse (...)
Click to expand...
Stephen, can you explain better to us PC users that didn't watch the Kaku's night footage?

To every one that are a little bit :laugh: concerned about noise, I reccomend the Stephen's wonderful HDV footage here. It's a good CINEmatic possibility. At least to me. How it will be marvelous see it as HVX footage!...that's why JVC PROHDV is an open option.

For 35mm film-out purposes, maybe, the only problem will be the resolution@720. But, of course, just theoretically because I'm not sure!...what's your wise opinion, Stephen?

EDIT - Oops you beat me with your answer regarding the first part of my post but please say it something more, if possible, anyway. Because I'm one of your fan-readers of ALL of your expert posts.
 
Emanuel, I'm a PC user myself. I cut on Liquid Broadcast and import the HVX200 DVCPro50 MXF's directly onto my DVCPro50 timeline. Liquid cuts DVCPro50 MXF natively (even directly on the P2 Card) without a transcode so I get to see what the raw footage looks like. In low light it isn't pretty, and it's unfortunate that the FTP server went down just now. It will be back up and then you can download the WMV and judge for yourselves.

I'm sure if anyone would feed the HVX200 plenty of light the CCD's will come to life but in low light there may have to be some compromises in detail. It seems like you can forget about using gain. Those CCD's are very small so it stands to reason that some compromises/decisions had to be made.

For something like noise you do not need a side by side comparison between camera's. The camera is either noisy or it isn't and all indications so far are that the camera suffers from noisy CCD's. In my test with the DVCPro50 MXF's I have available confirm what people are saying. It is very noisy.
 
Stephen,
I don't think I can access the MXF file in Final Cut without the accomplanying text file from the P2 card -
I am super happy you bring this up. I wonder how I can access this
 
So many different examples. Kaku had one scene inside a taxi cab and it looked great I didn't see any noise, this shot looks like crap. I've seen both ends of the seems we have to learn lighting thats all.
 
I've not seen crappy footage from Canon Xl H1, details and colours seem more good despite 4:2:0 compression.
It's very hard to realize what we gonna choice between the amazing image quality of the
Canon Xl H1 (http://imagecloset.com/1/12380123-SIMPLE GRADING.jpg) or Hvx200 "good, more filmic..." (http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/img/060103_evening03.tif) with framerates and other option, but crappy noise image resolving with additional 10.000$ of electric lamp's lighting .
Variable framerate of crappy webcam it's not my dream.

If I'd have money I'll buy all of them. But I can buy only one, so I must analyze ev'ry problem...:(
 
stephenlnoe said:
It will be back up and then you can download the WMV and judge for yourselves.
Click to expand...
Thx Stephen! I appreciate SO MUCH the tone of your posts. You are a gentleman!

I'm sure if anyone would feed the HVX200 plenty of light the CCD's will come to life but in low light there may have to be some compromises in detail. It seems like you can forget about using gain. Those CCD's are very small so it stands to reason that some compromises/decisions had to be made.
Click to expand...
And the others? Canon, JVC or even Sony, is it not the same 1/3 size? So?!

For something like noise you do not need a side by side comparison between camera's.
Click to expand...
You're right!

The camera is either noisy or it isn't and all indications so far are that the camera suffers from noisy CCD's.
Click to expand...
If so, maybe I will be out or must I need two cams? Other one to low light?! I'm talking seriously regarding 35mm film-out purposes I'm considering XL-H1, too, as effective B camera. Or JVC ProHDV, for instance after seeing your stuff if 1080 uprez well as intermediate to blow-up.

In my test with the DVCPro50 MXF's I have available confirm what people are saying. It is very noisy.
Click to expand...
Came from you, it's very concerning because you are a reliable expert one.

Last but not least, and about the TIFF from Mr. Kaz Okamura. The noise of the Quick Time H-264 or wmv CANNOT be even a reference with the TIFF posted, isn't it? Or @motion_picture there will be noise? Of course, we - the PC users - without other sample of reference unless the Okamura's TIFF, can we to guide from there? Shall we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top