Footage looks soft

P

PIMP

Well-known member
Hello:

So I haven't used my HVX200 for a longtime. Recently I shot some footage and I noticed it was really soft, regardless of what I did to get it in focus. Has anyone ever had issues with their footage looking suddenly soft? I look at my old hvx200 footage and its clearly much sharper then it is now.
 
Have you checked the back-focus? Sony camcorders have a special menu to automatically adjust the back-focus, but I don't know if the Panasonics have the same kind of thing.
 
I’ve been doing a few fun shoots lately for YT using two HVXs and the 720p is kinda soft, even when you nail focus 100%. Charmingly, pleasingly soft sometimes. When you don’t nail focus however, it’s an unforgiving thing; what might sometimes be considered soft is really out-of-focus imaging attributable, alas, to user error. For example, I was recently solo shooting a fairly static two shot which I needed to cover in a wide master (cam 1) and a roaming medium shot (cam 2). I operated cam 2 and the tighter shot was bang in focus all the way because I was operating and adjusting on the fly. The wide shot on cam1 was not in focus though as, on a silly whim, I set it to autofocus, checked focus and walked away to operate the other cam. I never use autofocus and conditions were not ideal for it in terms of the light available in the scene etc, so I deservedly ended up with a disappointing, poorly focussed image.

Lastly, a bit of tasteful sharpening in post really helps to lift the softness of well shot 720p HVX footage (though there are limits and nothing can save completely out of focus shots!)
 
norvan5 said:
I’ve been doing a few fun shoots lately for YT using two HVXs and the 720p is kinda soft, even when you nail focus 100%. Charmingly, pleasingly soft sometimes. When you don’t nail focus however, it’s an unforgiving thing; what might sometimes be considered soft is really out-of-focus imaging attributable, alas, to user error. For example, I was recently solo shooting a fairly static two shot which I needed to cover in a wide master (cam 1) and a roaming medium shot (cam 2). I operated cam 2 and the tighter shot was bang in focus all the way because I was operating and adjusting on the fly. The wide shot on cam1 was not in focus though as, on a silly whim, I set it to autofocus, checked focus and walked away to operate the other cam. I never use autofocus and conditions were not ideal for it in terms of the light available in the scene etc, so I deservedly ended up with a disappointing, poorly focussed image.

Lastly, a bit of tasteful sharpening in post really helps to lift the softness of well shot 720p HVX footage (though there are limits and nothing can save completely out of focus shots!)
Click to expand...

Update to my last post. Shot with two HVXs again last week for a fun project. I took my time to focus both cameras manually and the mid shot was fine, but my wide shot again was soft straight out of the camera. Post sharpening saved the day. Will try again but I’m seemingly not able to judge focus on the lcd/evf of the HVX as is.

My method should be fool proof: All manual settings. I frame my desired wide shot. I then zoom in on the subject’s face, set my focus (double checking with expanded focus), then zoom back out to original frame. Final check with EVF detail, then hit record. The footage should be sharp, but it ain’t....
 
There are a few contributing factors that I can think of for these camcorders:

1. The lens is soft to begin with.

2. It's not para focal so if you're doing the standard zoom in manually focus on the subject and zoom back out it will be off. The farther you have to zoom the greater chance of an issue. For instance zoom in 100ft to the center of a stage to set the focus and zoom back out. That wide shot will probably not be in perfect in focus. Although when zoomed out all the way the dof should be deep enough that even if it's within 10-20ft it should be ok.

3. Finally under strong led colored lights the sensor doesn't have the normal wave lengths to properly resolve resulting in a soft look washed out look.

I've received complaints from a colleague I film for and I'll be the first to admit the wide shot looks soft.

I also apply an sharpening filter which usually gets into the acceptable range.
 
Last edited:
norvan5 said:
Update to my last post. Shot with two HVXs again last week for a fun project. I took my time to focus both cameras manually and the mid shot was fine, but my wide shot again was soft straight out of the camera. Post sharpening saved the day. Will try again but I’m seemingly not able to judge focus on the lcd/evf of the HVX as is.

My method should be fool proof: All manual settings. I frame my desired wide shot. I then zoom in on the subject’s face, set my focus (double checking with expanded focus), then zoom back out to original frame. Final check with EVF detail, then hit record. The footage should be sharp, but it ain’t....
Click to expand...

I was discussing this with someone the other day, but are you sure the wide shot isn't soft like it's supposed to be?

Since the history of cameras, they always struggled to resolve more detail in wider shots than in closer shots. And when you're dealing with those older camcorders which likely can't fully resolve what they claim in the specs, how sharp is the image really going to be, you know?

If truly soft - like something is really off - then it's most definitely a back-focus problem like mentioned here already (this was common, and sometimes all it took was one drop or bump).
 
Peter C. said:
There are a few contributing factors that I can think of for these camcorders:

1. The lens is soft to begin with.

2. It's not para focal so if you're doing the standard zoom in manually focus on the subject and zoom back out it will be off. The farther you have to zoom the greater chance of an issue. For instance zoom in 100ft to the center of a stage to set the focus and zoom back out. That wide shot will probably not be in perfect in focus. Although when zoomed out all the way the dof should be deep enough that even if it's within 10-20ft it should be ok.

3. Finally under strong led colored lights the sensor doesn't have the normal wave lengths to properly resolve resulting in a soft look washed out look.

I've received complaints from a colleague I film for and I'll be the first to admit the wide shot looks soft.

I also apply an sharpening filter which usually gets into the acceptable range.
Click to expand...

Good point. The lens not being parfocal is a factor I hadn’t considered. All in all, maybe you’re right, the lens is just soft by today’s standards. I know that I felt that I had to apply sharpening in post to every bit of hvx footage, not just the wides. It ‘recovers’ enough to be acceptable, even to look nice, but damn....
 
NorBro said:
I was discussing this with someone the other day, but are you sure the wide shot isn't soft like it's supposed to be?

Since the history of cameras, they always struggled to resolve more detail in wider shots than in closer shots. And when you're dealing with those older camcorders which likely can't fully resolve what they claim in the specs, how sharp is the image really going to be, you know?

If truly soft - like something is really off - then it's most definitely a back-focus problem like mentioned here already (this was common, and sometimes all it took was one drop or bump).
Click to expand...

Yes, like I just replied above, maybe you guys are right about the lens and/or resolution quality simply being of its day. It’s just such a sinking feeling when you get back from a shoot, even a fun unpaid gig, upload your footage and your wides look really soft... You shouldn’t be starting your edit with image recovery foremost in your mind. I’ll try again at the next opportunity in case it’s my user error, but if I can’t get a sharper wide image outta these babies, it may be time to retire them from active service.
 
I don't understand why you just don't hook the camera up to a big screen TV and get to the bottom of it. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes looking at the live image direct from the camera to figure out where the problem lies. Why not do that?
 
Doug Jensen said:
I don't understand why you just don't hook the camera up to a big screen TV and get to the bottom of it. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes looking at the live image direct from the camera to figure out where the problem lies. Why not do that?
Click to expand...

Good suggestion, cheers Doug, so I have now followed your advice and done just that. I hooked the two HVXs up to a big screen, one after another. I applied my usual focusing method as detailed above and I can clearly see that the focus starts to soften soon after I zoom back out to my intended frame. By the time I’m settled on my wide shot, the point of original focus is soft to my eye. The EVF detail outlines the focus point in white as still being in focus, but it’s mushy soft focus on the big screen. When I zoom fully back in, the close up image is in focus again. This is the same on both cams. So, what should I conclude - do I have back focus issues on both cams or is all working well and it is just that the image in the wide shot produced by these cams is no longer cutting the mustard?
 
Certainly sounds like a back-focus issue to me, but here's the final test: When you zoom out and it goes soft, can you refocus the lens so it gets sharper on the wide shot? If you can make the wide shot sharper by refocusing then it is definitely a back-focus problem. However, If you are not able to make the wide shot sharper, no matter how you focus the lens, then something is wrong with the camera or it wasn't a good camera to start with.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Certainly sounds like a back-focus issue to me, but here's the final test: When you zoom out and it goes soft, can you refocus the lens so it gets sharper on the wide shot? If you can make the wide shot sharper by refocusing then it is definitely a back-focus problem. However, If you are not able to make the wide shot sharper, no matter how you focus the lens, then something is wrong with the camera or it wasn't a good camera to start with.
Click to expand...

Tried that on both cams and I am not able to make the wide shot sharper by re-focusing. Refocusing on the wide makes it softer. Here’s the edit of the fun YT shoot I did with the two HVXs. Everything had to be post sharpened.
 
norvan5 said:
Yes, like I just replied above, maybe you guys are right about the lens and/or resolution quality simply being of its day. It’s just such a sinking feeling when you get back from a shoot, even a fun unpaid gig, upload your footage and your wides look really soft... You shouldn’t be starting your edit with image recovery foremost in your mind. I’ll try again at the next opportunity in case it’s my user error, but if I can’t get a sharper wide image outta these babies, it may be time to retire them from active service.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with the 200s, even back when they were new, was the fact that their native CCD resolution was only 960 x 540. To deliver a perceived higher resolution back then, a "fudge" was used by both Sony and Panasonic. The fudge was a technique called "Spatial Offset". Sony used a horizontal 1/2 pixel CCD offset on its 1920 x 1080i chips to minimize aliasing and pseudo-increase resolution. In Panasonic's case, they used both vertical and horizontal spatial offsets to pseudo-increase both horizontal AND vertical resolution. On a 960 horizontal sensor, this is going to be a struggle to deliver any real resolving power above that, regardless of the fudges used. The wider the scene the more detail has to be resolved, meaning more pixels is better and there just wasn't enough of them.

Another thing, many cameras back then were designed to deliver their best at a horizontal resolution of 1440 with rectangular pixels for the tape-based HDTV format. Early HD was defined as twice SD resolution. SD was 720 pixels wide with rectangular pixels. 1440 HD was just a doubling of SD's 720 rectangular pixels. To convert this to 1920 square pixels required a process of aspect ratio converting these 1440 pixels by a factor of 1.3333. So a lot of fudging was going on to get from 960 to 1920. A mathematic "hash" algorithm lookup table in the camera's output processor was used to do this onboard in real-time. Take a look at Alan Robert's BBC analysis of the HVX cameras back in 2006, updated in 2008. Kind of explains it all. Notwithstanding their performance, they were used pretty widely back then. You are pretty right when you say, "... resolution quality simply being of its day."

Chris Young

Specifically, pages 8, 9 and 10 relate to resolution.

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/other/WHP03...nic_hvx200.pdf
 
cyvideo said:
The biggest problem with the 200s, even back when they were new, was the fact that their native CCD resolution was only 960 x 540. To deliver a perceived higher resolution back then, a "fudge" was used by both Sony and Panasonic. The fudge was a technique called "Spatial Offset". Sony used a horizontal 1/2 pixel CCD offset on its 1920 x 1080i chips to minimize aliasing and pseudo-increase resolution. In Panasonic's case, they used both vertical and horizontal spatial offsets to pseudo-increase both horizontal AND vertical resolution. On a 960 horizontal sensor, this is going to be a struggle to deliver any real resolving power above that, regardless of the fudges used. The wider the scene the more detail has to be resolved, meaning more pixels is better and there just wasn't enough of them.

Another thing, many cameras back then were designed to deliver their best at a horizontal resolution of 1440 with rectangular pixels for the tape-based HDTV format. Early HD was defined as twice SD resolution. SD was 720 pixels wide with rectangular pixels. 1440 HD was just a doubling of SD's 720 rectangular pixels. To convert this to 1920 square pixels required a process of aspect ratio converting these 1440 pixels by a factor of 1.3333. So a lot of fudging was going on to get from 960 to 1920. A mathematic "hash" algorithm lookup table in the camera's output processor was used to do this onboard in real-time. Take a look at Alan Robert's BBC analysis of the HVX cameras back in 2006, updated in 2008. Kind of explains it all. Notwithstanding their performance, they were used pretty widely back then. You are pretty right when you say, "... resolution quality simply being of its day."

Chris Young

Specifically, pages 8, 9 and 10 relate to resolution.

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/other/WHP03...nic_hvx200.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris for that. Super helpful and the BBC link is super detailed as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top