Five minute short shot with HVX200

I'll add a few comments since I was making a general comment earlier and the download of this particular movie hadn't finished yet.

I agree with Stephenloe that it's difficult to get a feel for the quality of the original files when it's been compressed down to a file for the web. This movie actually looked quite good, I thought - it's nice to see something longer than 20 seconds in different situations for once! :)

I see now what you meant Isaac about "not lighting well"... the bedroom scene looks like it was barely lit at all (especially compared to the other scenes which are actually lit decently). The noise is certainly much more obvious there, but one would expect it to be. That is different in comparison to the "karate" footage which was lit, but still had lots of artifacting.

I assume this was shot in 24p... do you have any information about any of the other settings, Rob?
 
I am confused,
What makes you guys think you can tell whether noise comes from the original images or from compression for the web?

I am dubious, but willing to learn here.
How can you tell the difference?

I assume that anything over the web will be noisy, but maybe i don't do alot of web movie watching.

I know that compressing my own DV demo reel through Sorenson codec that some scenes (usually noirish dark scenes) just looked terrible, esp stuf that had some grain to begin, with the grain issues were magnified greatly.
 
By the way, I missed that shoot because I was ill, but the DP and Gaffer on this shoot were very experienced guys.
 
OK I just looked at it on my computer. Looked great to me except for the onviously underlit scenes.
Withouttalking to the DP about the images I can't say much, however the quality of the noise looks very much to me like some footage I compressed from dark footage I had shot in the past.
That was 35mm that only had a 3/4" dub of.
In my case the noise in the original was noticable but nearly as nasty looking as what I saw in the compression.

In my case stuff that looked fine in Beta or even VHS demo reels had to be chucked off line because of what compression did. (Of course I also had proble even puttingit on DVD.)
I guess I need to talk to the DP and see the original footage.

I think we probably do see an issue here, but how big it is remains to be seen.
Ther lit footage looks great to me , though again I don't what I'm looking at on the web.
 
stephenlnoe said:
...Now on to the technicalities. Noise does not compress well. It is a fact. I know how hard it is to host giant files and the wmv is already 303MB, but a daratate of 9 to 10Mb is required for 720p wmv. It would even out the banding and the noise would be (still there) but more representative of what it actually looks like. This would drive the wmv file size through the roof! An idea would be to encode in quarter or half size with the same 6Mb rate to get a truer representation of the final product.

It's tough to compress noise without the entire image falling apart...
Click to expand...

Absolutely !

Go to the Quicktime section on the Apple site, watch the "V for Vendetta" trailer, it has a lot of dark scenes...and YES, even if it's from film, and even if they preobably used the "best" possible setting for H264 encoding, you'll see many blocking and some noise in the dark scenes. These artifacts are from these codecs. They are heavily compressed, it is normal they show a lot of blocks and steppy lower grayscale that are non existent in the actual footage. ...and it "amplifies" the noise, no doubt.

I am not saying the HVX has no noise, but it seems it is amplified here.
 
Seriously, the only scene of this film that displayed noticeable noise was the bedroom scene where it was easy to see that it was lit poorly.....

Check out the last shot as they put the coffin into the hearst, that's also a low light shot and displayed no visible noise.

Still many questions to be answered, but you get what you give when it comes to lighting. If something is lit poorly, expect it to look that way.
 
The shot seems to be lit by two kinos or gelled fresnels, one from low on the floor on the guys side and one from high on the left corner at the end of the bed. I wouldn't doubt it if the gain was turned up on this shot as well.

If you notice the noise on the other shots, you're being overly critical. Also if it were too clean, it'd give off a definite sense of video if you ask me.
 
Mr blonde XlH1 file that you're talkin' about it's with Mini35 P+s Technik.
I've noticed from Dvinfo community there are problems with Xl H1 and Mini35.
I dunno if it's the last version (with the right support that P+S Technick claims with official photo in various site, ya know).
But, honestly I would to see some Mini35 footage with Hvx200, and I wonder why P+s Technick not realise some footage in its site, guys, I'm sure they have an Hvx200, why we must wait so long time, to see some clips or frame grabs?
More time going on, more time I think we live in a bizzare world.
This P+s Technick guys work in this field, but why we must wait SO LONG, SO LONG, guys to see only few samples?
I remember we've soon seen Jvc Hd100 with amazing footage from P+s technick, but despite all this hype of Hvx200, we've seen nothing.
What's happen with it? Evr'ybody is interested, evr'ybody talk and talk, but where's the footage?
We live in a very bizzarre world for sure.
 
In an earlier post robweiner wrote:

AT NO TIME did I see any blocky artifacts when doing camera tests or on the set. And when we checked playback on set, the DVCPROHD codec looked terrific, basically transparent. So again, most of what you see is web compression.

Having said that, the camera is still a bit noisier than I would like it to be. I felt that before the shoot, during the shoot and during tests the next day.

--------------------------

So it sounds like a lot of the noise comes from the compression used to make the web file. That's the good news, but again, robweiner did say (like many others before him) that the camera was noisier than he would like it to be. This being said, some people that have this camera are/were testing it to find out how to lower the noise (the best settings to use -- I think Barry listed the best settings to use in another post).

It would be great if someone could do a basic test using these settings. Perhaps someone could shoot a short clip of someone sitting down (perhaps interview style) lit using 3 point lighting. It would be great if this (much appreciated) test person could post the test footage uncompressed in a file format that can easily be read by Final Cut Pro. Perhaps the clip could be 20 seconds long. The first 5 seconds could be with just the key on, in the second 5 seconds the key and the fill, in the third 5 seconds, add a backlight, in the last 5 seconds turn on a background light. Don't blast the background with light, light it, but keep it a little moody. With that much lighting, the entire 20 second clip should be pretty clean. If the clip is only clean when all the lights are on (and the camera is at a decent f-stop), then this adds some problems for those of us that want to use this camera to shoot moody scenes.

I'm hoping that this little test puts my mind at ease about the noise issue. Thanks a million for anyone willing to do this test!!! If I had my HVX200, I would be happy to do it. By the way, if you have lights, why would you ever turn the gain on? Could it be that no matter what you set the camera at, the camera automatically tries to boost detail in the dark areas causing noise? If so, how would I turn this setting off? Smetimes you just want part of your image to be black and nothing else, right?
 
Also, any word about the camera shootout test that was done weeks ago? Everyone was very excited about it, then no new info. I would love to see/hear about the final results (even if they only tell part of the story -- I imagine that you need to see the footage yourself to make the final decision on what appeals to you the most). How's that going, Barry? I'm not rushing you, I'm just interested in knowing where you're at with thie test. You are a great guy and offer so much to this site.
 
It could be a great test thefilmaddict. The problem is that who has bought Panasonic camera or is too busy at work, or is dead or something.
We must wait a LOT of time only to see few grabs of a camera so advertised by all medias. If someone that has bought this camera, I hope that has bought it to use it, so please help this community, with simple tests.
Sometimes I think someone was too scared from noise of Hvx200 to send back to Panasonic, because it's impossible that we can't see a new video at least ev'ry 2 days or more, we have filled this community with tons of message about it, and we've seen nothing! We're a nation here! Somebody post Light test! Thanks:)
 
I have to say, after watching this film project and reading the replies--

Most of you guys/gals are INSATIABLE!

Wtf? This little short proves that this camera is freaking awesome and being tagged below 7k with p2 cards is unfreaking real.

I didn't even LIKE the story behind this short (no offense, but it wasn't written very well, though I do understand it was a 48 hour film competition so whatever) and I STILL sat through the whole thing.

ALl this fuss about artifacts, noise, what the hell ever-- THe average viewer won't even NOTICE this crap you guys are bitching about.

You want everything for NOTHING is what it sounds like. There are only a few people that've posted that have any kind of sense about themselves.

Bottom line-- Save up for five to seven years and buy something else. You want too much out of this camera and it ALREADY GIVES PLENTY!

Wtf.

As for the footage itself. To have been complete in fourty-eight hours or less, this looks DAMNED GOOD. This pretty much solidifies my decision already on which camera I'm shooting my short with.

You want testing? Go out and rent one for a day or two and do the tests yourself. Sheesh.

Whatever. I'm new here, but I can tell when people are asking way to much out of something that's plenty.

Thanks for showing the footage.
 
Kholi said:
ALl this fuss about artifacts, noise, what the hell ever-- THe average viewer won't even NOTICE this crap you guys are bitching about.

You want everything for NOTHING is what it sounds like. There are only a few people that've posted that have any kind of sense about themselves.

Bottom line-- Save up for five to seven years and buy something else. You want too much out of this camera and it ALREADY GIVES PLENTY!

Wtf.
Click to expand...


Well, than I guess I'm not the "average viewer".

Nobody will disagree that the footage looks good, especially since it's a compressed clip for the web.

The noise issue may may not be an issue for YOU, but it is for some others.
We all know the HVX produces a very decent 24P image. If they could improve on the noise floor comparable to other cameras such as Sony, it would be a hit all around.

I would of thought the -3dB gain option would of been a great addition.
 
Stevet said:
Well, than I guess I'm not the "average viewer".

Nobody will disagree that the footage looks good, especially since it's a compressed clip for the web.

The noise issue may may not be an issue for YOU, but it is for some others.
We all know the HVX produces a very decent 24P image. If they could improve on the noise floor comparable to other cameras such as Sony, it would be a hit all around.

I would of thought the -3dB gain option would of been a great addition.
Click to expand...
No, you aren't the average viewier and neither am I. I can see what you all are pointing out and while it may be a travesty for this six-to-seven thousand dollar camera to produce noise... your average audience and more than likely a festival audience won't be concerned with such an issue. Your purpose might not be the same, but my purpose is to produce a short film to show to those average people and festival goers.

Either way, the only way people will be pleased is if they were to save for that Sony or other low-noise camera.

If people want tests, better footage, etc. They should rent the camera from their local rental house and do them. Sitting around and whining about noise levels, p2 cards (I know this thread wasn't about that) and all the other "issues" isn't doing this forum or this thread in particular any good at all.
 
Kholi,

I've never said that this camera is not a good value, but the camera is a much bigger investment than under seven thousand. It's a new way of working. To do work with this camera in the real world shooting HD, you're going to need 2 8GB P2 cards (or some other portable storage device), some way to back up the footage in the field (like a portable computer if 16GB of footage is not enough for you in a days shoot), an extra battery, a field monitor (optional, but many have said that focusing in HD is critical, so a HD monitor is recommended), a way to archive your footage in post (perhaps a Blu Ray Burner when it comes out) and a HD distribution method (perhaps Blu Ray will solve that problem, too). I won't go into the cost of lighting equipment, sound gear and post equipment (that's not really relevant -- if you want to do good work you need these things), but I hope you understand that this all adds up to a big investment.

Perhaps you are rich and this is chump change, but for me it's a pretty big deal. I think that many of us just want to see what this camera can do. When we see footage that raises some questions/concerns, we like to post those questions here, so that as a group we can help each other out to do better work. If this site is just about blindly praising a camera, then it will not benefit anyone.

Also, there are other HD cameras out there under $10,000, so critical comparisons help people make informed decisions. I ordered the HVX200 months ago. I visit this forum often to read about the camera so that I can use the knowledge to make better looking films.

You say that "ordinary people" won't notice things like noise, but I disagree. Perhaps they won't be able to point out what's technically wrong with our shots, but they will feel it. The average person gets to watch films that cost millions of dollars. I don't expect a six thousand dollar camera to look like a $100,000 camera, but with knowledge and experience, we can all push these little cameras to make them look closer to the big guns. What's wrong with that?

Is it wrong to ask for people to test out the camera? I don't think so. If I had the camera now, I would run some tests. Are you not interested in seeing what this camera can really do?

As you said in your post: wtf (just kidding)!
 
The HVX is just as noisy as the XL H1, that being said, make your decision based on everything else besides the noise factor.

In my book, the HVX wins hands down!
 
Kholi said:
Sitting around and whining about noise levels, p2 cards (I know this thread wasn't about that) and all the other "issues" isn't doing this forum or this thread in particular any good at all.
Click to expand...

Here again, I disagree.

Face it, if everyone had this mentality, there would be NO advances in technology.
The "it's good enough" doesn't work for me.

If everyone thought this way, including the design engineers, there world NEVER be improvements in noise levels, or anything for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top