DVX200 Noise VS GH4

B

benne13

Member
Hello,

I'm in strong consideration about purchasing the DVX200 to go along side my GH4. So I rented the DVX200 over the weekend for testing. My only concern is the noise that is being generated while shooting at UHD 60fps for sporting events. The picture isn't as clear as my GH4 doing the same video shoots. I shot in automatic mode most of the time with the DVX200 and the rental until had the latest firmware.

This video was shot with DVX200

https://vimeo.com/190665521

This video was shot with GH4.

https://vimeo.com/188584899

I understand the location was different with the GH4 location having betting lighting but even when I shoot in dark places with my GH4 I don't get the same noise that I've gotten with the DVX200.. I really want to get this camcorder though so can someone tell me if I was doing something wrong.
 
Well, since "better lighting" means a whole world of difference, and with lack of technical information (camera settings during the shoot, lenses used, etc) it's impossible to tell for certain.

Both videos look fine. DVX200's video looks acceptable given the conditions it was used. DVX200 had ugly overhead industrial fluorescent lights. GH4 had a gym with large windows allowing ample pure daylight to illuminate the room. Not a fair comparison.

Plus, you're shooting at 60fps which kills low light capabilities on a lens that's basically a f/4.5 on DVX200. GH4 has a different sensor than DVX200 so that might have something to do with it. As far as I'm concerned, DVX200 is a superior camera to GH4 for ergonomic reasons, alone. GH4 has to be rigged out which, as you know, is a PITA for run-and-gun. I also never use any of the automatic modes. I always shoot full manual....except that one time I had to shoot myself and needed auto focus.

I wouldn't shoot a movie with DVX200 set higher than ISO 2000. In fact, I would prefer to use it at ISO 250 at f/4.5 and light it properly. DVX200 is not a super-clean, low-light camera. There are better sensors for that out there. GH4 might be slightly better in that regard. But, overall, DVX200 is a proper video camera. GH4 is a stills camera that gets used for video a lot. I'd personally prefer to use DVX200 for video shoots because it is a proper video camera, especially for reality work. GH4, because it needs to be rigged for proper video work, I would use it on more controlled sets or as a B-camera to DVX200.
 
Thanks for the reply.. My fault I forgot to mention I was using the Tamron 24-70mm lens w/ Metabones Speedbooster on the GH4. Everything was manual ISO was 400 with 2.0 fstop. I was talking to the Panasonic reps and the mentioned that the HCX-1 would be the perfect solution for me to go along with the GH4. But of course they're going say that..lol..

I also downloaded the GH4 Scene File 4 onto the DVX200 to make it look similar to the GH4
 
Last edited:
It just sounds like GH4 was in a better-lit environment with a good lens and lower ISO...sure that's going to yield a cleaner image. HCX-1 has a 1" chip which would be noisier than a 4/3" chip. lol

What were your settings on DVX200?
 
JRJphoto said:
Well, since "better lighting" means a whole world of difference, and with lack of technical information (camera settings during the shoot, lenses used, etc) it's impossible to tell for certain.

Both videos look fine. DVX200's video looks acceptable given the conditions it was used. DVX200 had ugly overhead industrial fluorescent lights. GH4 had a gym with large windows allowing ample pure daylight to illuminate the room. Not a fair comparison.

Plus, you're shooting at 60fps which kills low light capabilities on a lens that's basically a f/4.5 on DVX200. GH4 has a different sensor than DVX200 so that might have something to do with it. As far as I'm concerned, DVX200 is a superior camera to GH4 for ergonomic reasons, alone. GH4 has to be rigged out which, as you know, is a PITA for run-and-gun. I also never use any of the automatic modes. I always shoot full manual....except that one time I had to shoot myself and needed auto focus.

I wouldn't shoot a movie with DVX200 set higher than ISO 2000. In fact, I would prefer to use it at ISO 250 at f/4.5 and light it properly. DVX200 is not a super-clean, low-light camera. There are better sensors for that out there. GH4 might be slightly better in that regard. But, overall, DVX200 is a proper video camera. GH4 is a stills camera that gets used for video a lot. I'd personally prefer to use DVX200 for video shoots because it is a proper video camera, especially for reality work. GH4, because it needs to be rigged for proper video work, I would use it on more controlled sets or as a B-camera to DVX200.
Click to expand...


Small nit....changing FPS from 60 to 30, by itself, doesn't affect light gathering unless you pair that with a shutter speed change from, say, 1/60th to 1/30th. Right?

I often shoot low light dance performances at 60fps at 1/60th to get better slomo in post. I find that a shutter speed of 1/30th results in too much motion blur.
 
The DVX was set to auto.. :( So its changed a bit depending on what I was focusing on.. I'm thinking of going the JVC LS300 route so I could still use my lenses particularly the Tamron 24-70 lens.. That lens has outstanding clarity
 
Larry Chapman said:
Small nit....changing FPS from 60 to 30, by itself, doesn't affect light gathering unless you pair that with a shutter speed change from, say, 1/60th to 1/30th. Right?
Click to expand...
You are correct.

I often shoot low light dance performances at 60fps at 1/60th to get better slomo in post. I find that a shutter speed of 1/30th results in too much motion blur.
Click to expand...
Shooting 60fps at 1/30th is illogical, as it forces the camera to generate (effectively) 30 fps. You cannot have a shutter speed that's longer than the duration of each frame; if there are 60 fps then each frame lasts only 1/60th of a second; you cannot expose those frames for longer than 1/60th of a second. If you try, all that happens is you end up cutting your frame rate in half, and the system duplicates frames (so yeah, you'll be recording 60 frames per second, but you'll find that each frame is duplicated and there will actually only be 30 distinct motion samples).
 
Larry Chapman said:
Small nit....changing FPS from 60 to 30, by itself, doesn't affect light gathering unless you pair that with a shutter speed change from, say, 1/60th to 1/30th. Right?
Click to expand...

Right. I was assuming the shutter change and failed to mention it in my ramblings. Thanks for spotting that!
 
benne13 said:
The DVX was set to auto.. :( So its changed a bit depending on what I was focusing on.. I'm thinking of going the JVC LS300 route so I could still use my lenses particularly the Tamron 24-70 lens.. That lens has outstanding clarity
Click to expand...

There it is. DVX200 is pretty good in auto, but it is outstanding in full manual.

JVC LS300 is not a sexy camera at all, but on the inside, it's Micro 4/3 mount in front of a Super 35 sensor, with its reframing/crop/zoom feature is an incredibly refreshing thing. Because it's not sexy and no one talks about it, LS300's price has dropped significantly. JVC isn't exactly known for its cinema cameras (JVC makes cinema cameras?!?), but LS300 seems like a legit, capable little camera. However, I've heard it's a bit plastc-y or flimsy in places. I don't know: I'd need to play with one physically. People said the same thing about DVX200 and I found their opinion to be dead wrong as the DVX200 is exceptionally well made and has put up with everything I've thrown at it so far. Including beach weddings. Windy, salty-air, sandy beach weddings. LS300 would be more of a controlled-set camera, I think. I'd love to try one out and maybe own one as I'm not married to any one brand. But I'll say that using DVX200 on more and more commercial sets has slowed my desire to acquire a 4K+ cinema camera such as Ursa Mini, FS7 or LS300, for example. I am still on a mission to continue growing my collection of 6K+ PL-mount lenses, however.

And yes, that Tamron 24-70 is pretty good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top