DVX200 Visual Echo

Well, at the very least there's an answer to my question. This is a DVX200 problem, not a problem with my unit. The review below mentions it briefly. Question is, will Panasonic release a firmware update that allows the user to control whether or not noise reduction is applied? A far as I can tell, there isn't an option in the menu. It might also fix the skin smear I've been noticing in my interview footage. Knee mode and skin tone dtl are off.

http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acqui...vx200-43-sd-to-4k-fixed-lens-camcorder.html/2
 
David Jimerson said:
OK, as no one asked --

Is that in the original footage (does it look like that if you play it back in the camera), or is that what you see on the timeline?

Because it looks like frame-blending ghosting to me.
Click to expand...

In the more extreme cases, you can see it happening right on the camera's LCD screen as the footage is being captured. Before I knew the camera was recording the image that way, I just thought maybe the LCD had some ghosting, or something.

After importing the footage and discovering this issue, I did double-check that my timeline and my source footage were running at the same frame rate, and even tried disabling frame blending anyway. No effect.
 
This is a DVX200 problem, not a problem with my unit. The review below mentions it briefly.

http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acqui...vx200-43-sd-to-4k-fixed-lens-camcorder.html/2
Click to expand...

It looks like the Sony FS5 has the same problem. Welcome to the most popular camera design flaw of 2016 - temporal noise reduction that can't be disabled!
http://www.eoshd.com/2016/01/illustration-sony-fs5s-faulty-noise-reduction/
Click to expand...

You can see in the eoshd.com Sony article photos some examples of the same kind of nasty fuzzy quality we're seeing on Pannys since the AC90... and now the DVX200. I'd rather have conventional noise on an otherwise clean image (if that makes any sense). The textured macroblocking look is kind of deceptive because it looks like a clean gained up image, but it is in fact a very unpalatable look to me. At least with conventional noise you can process with noise reduction. I'm not sure what you can do to clean up the fuzzy texture of macroblocking.
 
bluesgeek said:
You can see in the eoshd.com Sony article photos some examples of the same kind of nasty fuzzy quality we're seeing on Pannys since the AC90... and now the DVX200. I'd rather have conventional noise on an otherwise clean image (if that makes any sense). The textured macroblocking look is kind of deceptive because it looks like a clean gained up image, but it is in fact a very unpalatable look to me. At least with conventional noise you can process with noise reduction. I'm not sure what you can do to clean up the fuzzy texture of macroblocking.
Click to expand...

It's ugly and as a result it smears skin tones and renders movement horribly. It's been bothering me since the first week. Am I supposed to sit and wait for a FW update that might never come? It should be controllable in the menu!

I'm shocked by the FS5. Was expecting a lot more from that.
 
I have to say though, aside from that, I only just got around to trying Barry Green's scene files and I'm impressed. The cam really is paintable.
 
Hi all,
the problem with "Visual Echo" (ghosting) is still going on, even in firmware-version 1.65. Up to four echos are recognizable. The echos are visible also in good light condition. I often film moving trains. At this motive, moving edges are normal. So I know what I am talking about.

I do not compared the DX200 with the current FS5. I compare it with my old UHD-Camera the JVC GY-HMQ10. Yes, it's unfair ;-). The HMQ10 is 4 years older (!) than the DVX200.
This HMQ10 produced no „Visual Echo“, no ghosting, I mean nothing, null, nil !
I can not understand what Panasonic is doing here, particulary while the cause of this problem, the interframe-noise-reduction, is obviously known since December.



In this context some word about noise. At normal light situations (-6db to +3db) the perceived noise-level of the DVX200 is ok but visible. If you analyse the noise you can clearly see the problem. The Problem is not the sensor-noise it is the compression artifact! What do you do if you have to much compression artifact? I increase the bit rate, and everything looks better. The DVX200 is able to record 200Mbps (FHD-Modus ALL-I) but in the UHD-Mode you are only allowed to record with maximum 150Mbps.

Summary : Instead of increasing the bit rate, panasonic trys to reduce the noise by a non disengageable interframe-noise-reduction what produce "Visual Echos". Congratulation
 
I too am so disappointed in the lack of an update to fix this. I have had work all month where I need to pull still images from video for a client and have had to explain that even though I have this new amazing camera that I simply can't fix this. Really sad. Barry Green--any word on this?
 
Firmware-version 1.71 is out now, but the problem with "Visual Echo" (ghosting) is still going on! It's a shame !
 
I shot this over the weekend. F/W 1.65, 1080P, 59.94fps, 50Megabit, High Sens, +6db gain. I see motion blur, but no echo. Frame was exported from Premiere CS6 with no processing.
Close1.Still002.jpg
 
Larry Chapman said:
I shot this over the weekend. F/W 1.65, 1080P, 59.94fps, 50Megabit, High Sens, +6db gain. I see motion blur, but no echo. Frame was exported from Premiere CS6 with no processing.
View attachment 114224
Click to expand...

It's V-log that's the big problem. I see visual echo using scene files very rarely, but it's there. However it renders, for me, using v-log impossible. Still, I don't know how this looks when shooting with an external recorder in full 422 10 bit so, I can testify to that. I checked yesterday once again in v-log and it's still there. Not a terrible thing using the baked in scenes though.
 
Hallo,

I think we are talking about a 4K-Camera, not about FHD futage and surely not about a 498×280pix.

I made only a quick and dirty test for the Firmware 1.71, so sorry about the bad quality. On the picture you can see my moving hand and the motion blur. But on the left side of my fingers you can see the ghosting-effect.

For this test I did not use the V-log. So the problem is not the V-log, the V-log is only intensifying the visibility.


ghosting_snapshot_003_[2016.05.30_20.53.12].jpg,
 
rerdmann said:
Hallo,

I think we are talking about a 4K-Camera, not about FHD futage and surely not about a 498×280pix.

I made only a quick and dirty test for the Firmware 1.71, so sorry about the bad quality. On the picture you can see my moving hand and the motion blur. But on the left side of my fingers you can see the ghosting-effect.

For this test I did not use the V-log. So the problem is not the V-log, the V-log is only intensifying the visibility.


View attachment 114226,
Click to expand...

Which is absolutely my point. I can live with the above, but ghosting in v-log is intolerable.
 
rerdmann said:
Hallo,

I think we are talking about a 4K-Camera, not about FHD futage and surely not about a 498×280pix.

I made only a quick and dirty test for the Firmware 1.71, so sorry about the bad quality. On the picture you can see my moving hand and the motion blur. But on the left side of my fingers you can see the ghosting-effect.

For this test I did not use the V-log. So the problem is not the V-log, the V-log is only intensifying the visibility.


View attachment 114226,
Click to expand...

The forum s/w down sized the image, it was 1920x1080. Since nobody seems to care about non-Vlog FHD footage, I won't bother to find a way to upload the full res version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top