HVX200 Lowlight performance

Stevet

Stevet

Veteran
Based on the recent camera comparison, the HVX200 is almost neck to neck with the Canon XLH1 noise performance.

As Barry pointed out, along with gain, gama and detail also affect the noise performance.

Here's an example from onetensix: (using Cine Like_D)
Please note these files are HEAVILY compressed and have compression artifacts, especially the QT file.

http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/movies/060102_night_h264.zip
http://www.onetensix.com/hvx200/movies/060102_night.wmv

Note: the wmv file is 4:3 anamorphic, but does not appear to be flagged to have it viewed 16:9 unless you force it in your editor.

The night time tif files posted on his site are at +6db and +12db

I'm really hoping to see better low light examples with maybe normal gama settings.

If anyone knows of any other night clips or frame grabs, please let know.
Steve
 
Actually after further research, decoding the janglish, The first night tif file was at +6db.

Steve
 
It's pretty noisey at +12, but I would expect that. After reading through a lot of these threads, I've come to think that people had unrealistic expectations regarding this camera. When I first heard about the HVX, I thought, "How cool! A DVX on steroids -- Better color space, more resolution, native 16:9, true 720/24p, P2, and true over- and undercranking. And, all of this for between 6-10k. Whoohoo!" It appears to me that Panasonic has delivered on all of that. What they didn't do (and never promised) was deliver a $6,000 camera that could go head-to-head with a 2/3" $60,000 or $70,000 camera. And yet, from reading the threads, that seems to be what people have been expecting.
 
darwinandpaine said:
What they didn't do (and never promised) was deliver a $6,000 camera that could go head-to-head with a 2/3" $60,000 or $70,000 camera. And yet, from reading the threads, that seems to be what people have been expecting.
Click to expand...


Hmmm...
I don't thinking it should compete with a $60K camera, but I do think it should compete with say a Sony FX1 which IS a 1/3" camera and DOES produce a cleaner image.

Having said that, I am looking for REAL low light footage that will give us a better idea of what to expect for the HVX200. Ideally raw small MXF clips or frame grabs.

By the way, I'm sold on the HVX. It's an awesome camera with a lot of capabilites.
I have one on order.

Steve
 
I agree with you, D&P! For the price, the HVX delivers in an AMAZING way! And to me, I think that a 2/3" camera isn't even that much better looking. I think you can use the HVX (by knowing intimately how to operate the camera and manipulate lighting) to achieve similar results that will be virtually indistinguishable to most people.
 
+6db is about what I expected from this 1/3 camera. No dissapontment.

Yeah, I would be jumping up and down if it didn't need extra light, but that was not something I expected to get from a 1/3ccd camera.
 
SteveT,
Yours is a good point, the Sony is very clean -- almost too clean (if you're going for that "film" look). I wonder if any of that has to do with shooting half a frame every 60th of a second as opposed to shooting the full frame every 24th? I don't remember reading anything about that on the threads. Is there any reason 60i would be inherently less noisey than 24p? Curious.

I too am on the wait list. If I have to wait past February, I fully expect to attain sainthood, as Job will have nothing on me.
 
a $6,000 camera that could go head-to-head with a 2/3" $60,000 or $70,000 camera
Click to expand...

If you start including all the other production values that go into a $60k-camera production, you'll realize how close these machines really are.

almost too clean (if you're going for that "film" look)
Click to expand...

BS. Noise and grain can always be added - they're very difficult to remove.

-Spiff
 
Spiff 2,
I agree, these cameras look great --- I saw the footage at the DV Expo West, and you're totally right.
You're also right about the grain, but I don't like all the rendering involved (I've been holding off on a new Mac because of the Intel switch -- still on a Dual G4). Plus, I don't really like the artificial grain plug-ins I've tried. Do you have one you can recommend? Sometimes I like that ultra-grainy look. I'm on FCP. (I hope I'm not going too far off-topic -- new poster.)
 
Is this debate still going on?
The dvx was (a lot) noisier then the pd170 aswell. I always expected the hvx to relate about the same way. As a trade-off you get some extra lattitude and (normally) better colour. So pick what you want and stop fussing over it...
 
Brian Petersen said:
Really not a fair clip to judge by with all those compression artifacts.
Click to expand...

Exactly, As I mentioned in my post.

I'm just looking for better examples (not compressed, but raw MXF files) of low light footage.


Steve
 
Steve,

Totally. I didn't mean to say that you were misleading us.

Thanks for the footage! I get so excited with every new frame that is posted.
 
I might be completely off-kilter here, but a lot of this seem really petty --- particularly for indie filmmakers like myself. Last year, I saw a terrific little mockumentary called "Sons of Provo" at a film festival. The producer told me it was shot on a DVX100 without an anamorphic lens (so the resolution would be about 360 vertical?), and transferred to 35mm. I was blown away at how decent it looked, and the audience just sat there and laughed their a**es off. If you can't make something good with one of these cameras, it seems to me that you might be in the wrong business.

I won a festival several years ago with a movie that looked like total crap (XL-1s, natural light). But the acting and story were top-notch. Those are the real make-and-break issues for the indie filmmaker. Not the bit of noise that the audience will never notice. Maybe these "tech boards" aren't the place to be making this point (or perhaps I'm being extremely redundant), but that's the truth of the matter.
 
darwinandpaine said:
I won a festival several years ago with a movie that looked like total crap (XL-1s, natural light). But the acting and story were top-notch. Those are the real make-and-break issues for the indie filmmaker. Not the bit of noise that the audience will never notice.
Click to expand...


I understand your point, but I'm not talking about small image imperfections, I'm more concerned of the obvious noisy amatuer video look.

I've seen a lot of recent low budget DVDs that look terrible.

I think this thread has headed the wrong way.

My original post had an example HVX200 night shot, but was not a decent example due to compression artifacts. I was hoping someone would happen to have some new low light footage examples. Once again, I'm sold on the HVX, I just happen to want to see how well it holds up in lower light (noise and detail).

Please no more "this is not a 2/3" CCD camera" stuff.
We ALL know this, BUT we also know there are differences in these 1/3" cameras.
NO they're not all the same. Do I expect 2/3" performance, NO. Do I expect performace close to other 1/3" CCD cameras, YES.

Kaku has some HVX200 examples, but I don't own a Mac. If they were MXF files, I could use Raylight to extract them for PC. By the way, Raylight is available for sale on 1/17/06. I received the message today.

Steve
 
darwinandpaine said:
(...) a 2/3" $60,000 or $70,000 camera. And yet, from reading the threads, that seems to be what people have been expecting.
Click to expand...
Yeah!... :embarasse :engel017:

:lipsrseal

:laugh:
 
noiseless

noiseless

Spiff_2 said:
BS. Noise and grain can always be added - they're very difficult to remove.
darwinandpaine said:
the Sony is very clean -- almost too clean (if you're going for that "film" look).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Regarding low light performance that I'm very worried too, I have been doing some experiences in order to know how to handle with it.

The first conclusion where I came, it was that Z1U is a better choice in order to avoid the noise.

[Parenthesis]

BTW, I'd like ask to Barry :) for to post some samples like he did about fast shutter water clips. With the Antoine's specs that Barry already said it works. :thumbup: After the production launch (now that the prototype/non-released model excuse is over), why so silence if we need it to see and decide!? It's not ONLY a toy and in this business, to be quick or not, it's not irrelevant! And not all the HD customers have the same age, needs, time to wait and so on... Maybe it's time to decide... [ who knows? Definitely, it must not be the buyer! It can't be (period) ] :angry:

'cause Pana has been lost customers, each day plus. For instance, now@my_office, we already decided to buy one HVX unit maybe two. And after the first news & noisy clips, I have now my two partners ask me why not Sony if that Z1U (better than FX1E according its more settings stuff and better audio) is cleaner, CineAlta's closest looking? How to handle with them? Is it possible to answer with a simple «I'm just a Pana fanboy»:kiss:?

POST SOME FOOTAGE, at least! With some important specs & shooting situations, FOR ONCE! Three weeks after the Mac (5%-15% of all the potential users!?...) Kaku's files (the same XL-H1 user tester...:laugh: if someone told me I would not believe! :shocked:) -- is it not ENOUGH?!

[end of Parenthesis]

But...'cause I'd love to buy & use HVX as my real PRO cam and not only as a pleaseful toy that I'm sure it is also, I'm trying to think how to turn around for night footage and if anyone is interested to see some of my experiences (and I can say where's the noise? :thumbsup:) from onetensix.com footage (BTW, someone knows the Okamura's e-mail? I was looking for but it's not easy since I'm not a japanese speaker), so please, send me a PM and I'll answer with a private link. I can't post it here 'cause for reasons of copyright.
 
The DVX in cine settings is prolly the noisiest 1/3" 3CCD cam on the market... didnt stop people from making great stuff with it. For the record, at -3dB the Canon has much less noise than the HVX and the Sony has even less than that. I have not messed with a JVC enough to comment.


ash =o)
 
One reason the Z1/FX1 is so noiseless is that it is a full stop slower than the Panasonic HVX. During our test the Sony got an ISO rating of 160, while the HVX200, F900, and Varicam are rated at ISO 320 (our Varicam in the test was adjusted for filmout, and so didn't give us the 320 rating that day). This has been a trade off since day one of TV cameras. If the HVX had a -6 db setting, it would be noise free like the Z1 and you'd have to add more light or open up a stop. If the Panasonic had been designed with a 160 ISO rating and the associated quiet picture, you would have a bunch of people complaining it was slow instead of noisy. You can't have everything at once.

Jay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top