HVX200A and HPX170 "noise" testing results

Kholi said:
Coring isn't the answer.
Click to expand...
It's made me happy.

Barry, so that we're on the same boat: would you agree that the HVX200A and HPX170 are the same image?
Click to expand...
Nope. Not identical. It took a while to get them to even match reasonably close. I was surprised by that, because I expected them to be much closer; must be the lens difference?

They definitely have slightly different signal processing. The coring difference, the slight sharpness difference, and the master pedestal difference all contribute.

With that said, I do think the 170 looks better than the 200A.

The image was supposed to be the exact same, though. Perhaps with a few minor details being off like the speed because of the lens diameter. That would have been a-okay.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know that the image was supposed to be exactly the same; I mean, obviously we all assumed that it would be because we were assured it's the same chips and the same DSP. But it appears now that they've tweaked the image on the 170 (and perhaps the 150? Don't know, but I'd guess that the 150 matches the 170 since they appear to be otherwise identical hardware).

Shooting between yesterday and today constantly there is no longer any doubt in my mind that the 200A produces a cleaner, more-pleasing image with largely the same camera settings on both. Even with Gain on the 200A STILL looks cleaner than the 170. No Exaggerations on my end, there are people working with me that see it plain-as-day as well.
Click to expand...
That is, frankly, bizarre to me. With coring at +2, the 170 looks cleaner than the 200A to me, and as shown by the footage I posted. I've been out all day and haven't had a chance to try other gammas, but in HD NORM I can vociferously assure you that that's not what's happening over here, as the footage shows.
 
the footage posted for the 170 loses detail with higher coring. The best examples are the figures of the females. Hair detail is sacrificed along with gradients. Same thing I see in my footage. Coring is a good way to sweep the noise under the rug but that just means the 200A with higher coring looks even better.

It's an oh well were just gonna have to live with it situation. Shoulda gone EX1 or just stayed at the 200A.
 
No, not noisier. Same level, but Softer, smudgy, and victimized by processing equals yes.

You said it right, it looks like a paintig, oil or acrylic.

So, if someone wants an image with less apparent noise and is willing to sacrifice dine detail and even gradients, coring is great. If you want to match the clarity of the 200A or Ex1 it's probably time to invest in denoising software. Just like the 200.

Or shoot zombie movies.

But thanks for confirming that they are not the same image. I guess the majority of us that thought we were getting the same image will just have to grin and bear it.

Go Panasonic.
 
This has me wondering how my 170 would stack up against the 200a now... it seems like the results are across the board for different users?
 
DNR is VERY important to this coming project especially because we'll be doing tons of winder exteriors with snow all over and I don't want it to look like video if we end up shooting with the 170 as opposed to Scarlet.

So, what I'd like to know is what the best settings are for Cine D... I used CINE D all the time before with my 200, and with the heaps of noise that are no longer, then I am sure I will end up shooting Cine D a lot more... HD Norm might still come out for night stuff of course. But would I treat Cine D the same way?

Add a pinch of coring and try to throw as much light on set as possible? Just want to ask the obvious so that I can feel my settings will have the seal of approval from the tech gods from DVX. :)
 
The Panasonic engineer who I spoke to at length told me the processing in the 170 is completely different from a 200A, basically everything behind the sensors.

Putting aside possible noise differences between 200A and 170, there is the mystery of my 170 being a good bit faster than a 200A. Yet Barry's 170 is not. Differences like this in a production digital firmware programmed camera should not exist.

The subtlety of noise differences between gammas are not obvious with my 170, ditto a couple of clicks of coring. Turn coring up all the way, I just have softer noise and image, but the noise is always there.

Barry's footage clearly shows the 170 as being quieter than the 200A, even when coring is the same. This is good, hopefully Kholi and I have problematic cameras. Jan will have my camera tomorrow afternoon.
 
Is it possible that you guys are running into personal preferences where if you were together in a room looking at the same material you would each walk away with different opinions on what's good & acceptable?

Barry seems to like the oil painting look (I do too) others want electron microscope detail to inspect the pores of an actor's face, others want 0 noise, others don't see or like & want noise/grain, etc... to each their own! This is why some artist will want to select appropriate tools that give a certain look according to the demands of the project at hand.

I hear alot about folks wanting ever sharper resolution (RED 4k & 5k) yet in many 35 film out situations 1080p is often too sharp, so pro-mist filters are used on the lens while shooting to soften the look, (too much detail, actors skin flaws show up too well -- not good, they want to appear beautiful!)

I think the situation is at the point where all the cameras are "Good", now it's just a matter of taste.

For me I personally want the full frame 35 look the new Canon & Nikon SLRs are creating. Hopefully Panansonic will make an affordable HPX same small body, with larger sensors, interchangable lenses , blah blah blah -- the same repeated mantra everyone has been chanting for the past 5 years. Wake up Panny!
 
I think Panasonic has met a lot of the users requests and needs. The footage off the first generation DSLRs isn't really quality. It's cool, but it's not professional quite yet.

Nevertheless, that's the point of posting footage. Everyone can look at it with their own eyes and see the differences.
 
I'm a little underwhelmed by the 170 too.

I thought the whole point of the 170 was to address issues people had with the 200.

Seems like some of the targets were hit... but others are falling a little short.
My 2 year old HVX-200 improvement list was something this:

1. More Light Sensitive
2. Lower Noise
3. Higher Resolution LCD
4. HD-SDI

To me Panasonic has only really hit the mark FIRMLY on one of the four (HD-SDI).... I'm not saying there weren't improvements on the others .... to me though they're underwhelming.

IMO - low light sensitivity has improved SLIGHTLY (still not like the EX1)... but the noise is still there. I did the coring test, a small improvement but really more of a band aid. My heart sunk.


Also, I always wanted a higher resolution LCD... and although Panasonic provided a couple different focusing assists they never really addressed the root of the problem (the low resolution of the LCD). After you've seen the EX1 or EX3's LCD there is really no turning back. To me there is NO REASON why panasonic couldn't have used a higher rez lcd !

I wonder if the 170 firmware can be updated to help the noise out?
 
Last edited:
reem12 said:
has anyone else tested these two cams to confirm barrys findings?
Click to expand...

While I understand your skepticism, as much as Barry understands about these two cameras and all the inner workings, if he says it's so I'd believe him. :)
 
I can't confirm what he's saying is accurate between my camera and an HVX200A. Neither can Dino. I just haven't had the chance to get some very controlled footage outdoors and indoors to post up high res footage which is the real tell-tale.

Like I said, I saw it and several others that were working with me the past two days saw it.

There's a lot to be happy about with the HPX170, regardless. Some really good features as far as operating goes. The image is still a step back for whatever reason.
 
10s said:
Is it possible that you guys are running into personal preferences where if you were together in a room looking at the same material you would each walk away with different opinions on what's good & acceptable?
Click to expand...

There is not question that most of the "handles" present on the many menu layers come down to subjective taste, however, all I want is my 170 to look like a 200A from a signal to noise standpoint. Even with detail at -7 and coring way up, there is too much noise, and the image turns into mush.

I don't like too much enhancement, I also use Soft FX 1, Diffusion FX 1 and Black Pro-Mist with my HDX900 for some head shots and detail down, but not off.
 
TedRR said:
While I understand your skepticism, as much as Barry understands about these two cameras and all the inner workings, if he says it's so I'd believe him. :)
Click to expand...

I certainly believe Barry's findings about his 170, he has done a very thorough evaluation and certainly knows his stuff. However, that doesn't mean there couldn't be some variation amongst cameras--it surprises me, but it could happen. There's a thread here about a 170 that keeps crashing, so anything is possible, especially in the first batch of any new complex electronic device.

Here's a list of the cameras I've owned over the past 30+ years:

Sony DXC-1610, JVC KY-2000, Sharp XC-700, Ikegami HL-79DA, Ikegami HL-79EAL, Sony BVP-30, Sony BVP-50, Sony BVP-70IS, Sony BVW-400, Sony BVP-90, Sony BVW-D600, Sony BVP-550, 550WS, Sony DSR-500WS, Sony DSR-450WS, Panasonic HDX900.

In many cases I had two of each at any given time. My point is that Barry is not the only one who has years of camera evaluation experience. Kholi and Willis and I are very sure that our cameras are noisier than a 200A, no matter the settings.
 
I am tuning into this very carefully before I make my camera decision. As much as I respect Barry and own his books and DVDs, to me he basically works for Panasonic. I am inclined to believe these other reviewers who have nothing to gain at all by the success or failure of this camera.
 
markyf said:
I am tuning into this very carefully before I make my camera decision. As much as I respect Barry and own his books and DVDs, to me he basically works for Panasonic. I am inclined to believe these other reviewers who have nothing to gain at all by the success or failure of this camera.
Click to expand...

That's a very serious statement, Barry has done a lot for us to be acused like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top