HVX Filmout Report

R Gale said:
This indicates to me that the noise was largely a function of the monitor. If it looks great on a big movie screen, I'm happy. :)
Click to expand...

The whole noise thig is a bit confusing.
We've been running a lot of tests with the HVX200 and HD100.

If there's noise in the video, the Dell 2405 really shows it.
At first I thought possibly the Dell was causing this issue, but I was wrong
after seeing similar footage that looks clean. It doesn't matter if you're using the Dell's component or coming in DVI, the noise level is about the same.

We also tried another LCD (1280x720 component inputs), and it also had similar results.

Here's where it get confusing, my Pioneer 50" plasma produces a much cleaner picture. Also the plasma looks even sharper, so I don't believe the image is some how being smoothed. Also note that I have turned off/down the sharpness on all my monitors and plasma. We also threw color bars up to get them as close as possible. The Pioneer really looks amazing.

As far as the HVX filmout goes, It makes me wonder if the noise in some how minimized in the conversion process. Maybe Barry or some others can answer this question.
 
pkendall - We did that - I posted a message here asking for anyone who wanted to attend - a few dvxusers were in attendance.
 
The Dell monitor amplifies the noise - dont know why but it does - and likely most lcds will. Has something to do with the contrast i think

Try viewing the same footage on a CRT tv - looks much better.
 
Yuval Shrem said:
you have a noise pattern (as film-like as it may look) when transferring to film you will have both the noise pattern of the video source AND the grain pattern of the film on to which the video is transfered. That is exactly what I saw at the first HVX200Film-out test in LA. This is also why the "overly clean" HD footage of the F900 and other high-end HD cameras looks good in film-out.
Click to expand...

This is no longer the case. As was explained at the first film-out screening in December, it was just that- the first time anyone had ever transferred HVX to 35mm. It was very useful to all who witnessed it, especially the people at Laser Pacific who used that print to make adjustments in the process for the second print.

As I posted in this forum weeks ago, the second transfer eliminated all objectionable noise, which was never really horrible in the first print anyway. Every camera produces noise. There's some in the HVX, and it tends to be more prevalent in the reds. Is this a big deal? No. It's only a problem if you're not technically competent and not aware of it. It can be further minimized both in camera and in post.

Originally Posted by smelni
Click to expand...
If you are overlighting and then bringing down in post - it is unneccesary, a waste of time, and can lead to not having the final look like you expect.
Click to expand...

This maybe true for you, but by and large, this is not true. Following this practice can reduce apparent noise/grain with any camera system, and is not specific to the HVX. It's most often used during professional commercials and music videos. If you're working with a camera that has a fully functional matrix and experienced DIT/ICE/Engineer (whatever you want to call it) on set, you can make adjustments on every shot in-camera. If your camera doesn't have the functionality, it's still possible to pre-viz the look on set. Real DPs know what's possible in post. People have shot film for 100 years without the WYSIWSG of video and have known exactly what the image will look like.

For narrative, if your shooter knows the camera being used, knows what stop they want to work, lighting to that stop shouldn't take any longer than any other. At the worst you're talking a slightly different instrument. The HVX is sensitive enough that it would NOT be a vastly different instrument and NOT a big deal.

The same benefits are derived from the DVX100 except to a much higher degree. Don't just take my word for it. Shoot the charts; it's really easy to do. I don't know a single pro that doesn't shoot charts before starting a project with a new camera. A Chroma DuMonde is probably the best (especially with a WF/VS). Otherwise, a Macbeth and Grey Scale will work for those on a really cramped budget.

I.
 
Last edited:
smelni, curious about a couple steps...

did you do a Di, or any color correction or grading to footage?

what was your workflow from NLE to film recorder?

thanks
 
I love the first hand account of the filmout; thank you smelni ! I wish I was there to see it.

-

I also love how those that have not seen the filmout for their very eyes are still making comments about the noise issue that has been put to rest as stated.

Quit stressing it guys. Content is your king. If you see noise it's because you are looking for it. I see noise in Kodak's Vision stock at the Cineplex.

Let it go.
 
smelni said:
If you are overlighting and then bringing down in post - it is unneccesary, a waste of time, and can lead to not having the final look like you expect.
Click to expand...
Illya Friedman said:
This maybe true for you, but by and large, this is not true. Following this practice can reduce apparent noise/grain with any camera system, and is not specific to the HVX.
Click to expand...

Illya's right. Overlighting (even slightly) and bringing down in post does have a purpose, in all formats. On my last feature, which was shot in 35mm, we overlit some night forest scenes, and brought them down in post. It's a good way to make sure you don't lose too much detail in the shadows, by dialing in the best low-key look in post. It also reduces grain/noise. For darker scenes, this technique gives you more options to get the look you want.
If you don't do this, and shoot a scene too dark, you're screwed. :(
 
My comments about overlighting were only specific to reducing noise - yes it can be done. And I am sure "pros" do it. But my point is that most productions using the hvx will like WYSIWYG. Of course overlighting to get details in shadows is useful but my point is that overlighting to avoid noise is unnecessary based on the results I watched on a big screen.

Of course this is only my opinion based on my experience and preferences. Others will likely disagree based on theirs.
 
endmarks - no DI at all. Created a timeline in Avid and then handed it to postworks - no CC either - I cant really speak to the process they used to get it onto film.
 
smelni said:
My comments about overlighting were only specific to reducing noise - yes it can be done. And I am sure "pros" do it. But my point is that most productions using the hvx will like WYSIWYG. Of course overlighting to get details in shadows is useful but my point is that overlighting to avoid noise is unnecessary based on the results I watched on a big screen.

Of course this is only my opinion based on my experience and preferences. Others will likely disagree based on theirs.
Click to expand...

I got what you were saying ! :laugh:
 
John_Hudson said:
If you see noise it's because you are looking for it. I see noise in Kodak's Vision stock at the Cineplex.
Let it go.
Click to expand...


Hmm...
That's a bit of a stretch.
 
smelni said:
The Dell monitor amplifies the noise - dont know why but it does - and likely most lcds will. Has something to do with the contrast i think

Try viewing the same footage on a CRT tv - looks much better.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how the Dell would selectively be able to amplifiy just the noise.
I originally thought the same thing until I played back similar footage on the Dell that does not show as much noise.

By the way, I'm not saying this is particular to the HVX, the Dell does seem to bring out the noise levels regardless.
As I mentioned before, I have another LCD (17" 1280x720) that also shows the same amount of noise.
 
Last edited:
it doesnt ampilfy just the noise but all other edges are already there so you dont see the enhancement by the monitor - but the noise get enhanced and you see it more. Its not selective - its uniform - but the change for the noise is more.
 
The M2 seems to lessen the noise also. But I really think that noise is not a big issue with the HVX and I am super happy to hear about the film out testing looking so good.

I did notice the footage Smelni shot for the test was well lit. Take it from a guy who shot a feature at the lowest possible levels possible- you don't want to do it. I was locked into the footage and could not even adjust the saturation without things going wonky. If you shoot at the bottom edge of light be prepared to live with your images forever!

I too have noticed very grainy film in the theaters lately. SAW II was sick with grain. Even Oceans 11 was gainy to me. If you watch a lot of TV or DVD's on NTSC you are not accustomed to grain because the resolution is not there. If you have HD the compression is so bad you are not really able to judge it there either.

I think with the HVX and a sharp LCD we are just seeing much more detail than most of us are used to. At this point in time there is not reason to worry. In 10 years when standards and such arrive... maybe. Anyone watched a VHS tape lately. OUCH! How did we ever survive the 80's and 90's?
 
smelni said:
Hello all,

We recently conducted a film out test with footage from the HVX. A very special thanks to Postworks New York for their incredible help and expertise. I promised to report back the results so here they are.

Film process:
Postworks was nice enough to print it using a CRT process (cheaper) and a laser process (more expensive). They both looked great. But the laser process
looked much better (and it should for approx 20K more for a feature transfer). THe CRT process was slightly soft and contrasty. At first I was concerned that the filmout was soft. But it turned out the be the process. The laser process was sharper but still soft enough to hide the video edge. It looked really good - and from the ideal distance (something like 2.5 times screen height away) it looked to my eye like film.
Click to expand...
Do you know if the CRT filmout was from a Celco or MGI CineII? Also what film stock?
CRT's [especially Celco] tend to balloon a bit which is why if they shot out on 5244 it would seem a bit more contrasty. But a CRT film recorder can produce a very nice image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top