Midtone noise in HPX170

Kholi, I'm not telling you you're not seeing what you say. I'm just saying that I've had the two side by side, and I certainly didn't notice any substantial difference whatsoever. I think I even have some old test footage of the two (170 and 200A) that I can try to dig up. But I don't understand why you'd be seeing such a difference. It's the same basic camera, same chips, same processing, same DSP, same codec, same everything. They SHOULD look the same, and from my recollection of the two side by side, they basically do look the same. So it's weird to hear otherwise.

The 170 isn't "noise free", but it's about the same level of noise as the EX1 under the same circumstances.
 
Yeah, I know! That's why I'm confuzzled. I am pretty sure that, when I get the 200A back, I'm going to look at it and go...

"Oh... yeah they're the same.", then curse myself because I went backward and wasted time and a little money.

The bottom line, however, is that I'm being way too picky and there are already several happy campers using the 170 without issue. It's DEFINITELY cleaner than the 200, that's for sure and the camera in general rocks.
 
I'm looking at a 170 and 200A right now, using DSC Labs Chroma DuMonde, Chips, MacBeth, Fleshtone and Wedge charts. I've shot at 100 ire and underxposed whites at 50 ire. I've tried Cine V and Cine D, all other values at 0, live and playback. I am using component out on both cameras as well as downconverted SD composite so I can use my SD waveform and vectorscope.

My preliminary observations are not showing differences in the cameras with noise in blacks or mid-tones in either gamma D or V. I am seeing a slight phase difference in composite, just a few degrees, I am seeing the 200A preset being more plus green, but it white balances a bit tighter than the 170.

So far, there isn't anything to tell me that they are different cameras image wise. I will keep doing tests, use different gammas. I tried detail from -7 to +7 and the difference was minor in noise. The cameras are clipping the same when overexposed.

My take at the moment is they are both noisier than I'm used to with 2/3" cameras, but no surprise there. The EX1 is definitely cleaner, but it's cleaner than my HDX900(and slower).

I'll keep looking. If anybody has settings they want me to try, let me know.
 
Thanks for the field report Dino. I had my old HVX and my new 170 around for my article but I have not laid hands on an HVX200a to test.

I am not seeing anything that I don't like on the 170 after all of my tests. But I am not as picky as some people around here are about noise in the first place.

The EX1 is clean. Almost too clean for my taste sometimes.

Dan
 
I have a request: Take it off of those charts and into the kitchen.

use the 5600K preset on both.

For the 200A set these settings:

Cine D
Cine-Like
-2 Detail
-2 V-Detail
+2 Coring
-2 Chroma
-7 master ped
-7 Iris

0 for everything else

Do the same for the HPX170 or match as closely as possible with the crazy Master pedestal majigger that Pana's got going on.

Post stills from both at high resolution.

More interested in what it looks like in the NLE as opposed to the monitors.
 
Thanks for the footage, Barry. One thing I noticed about that specific clip is that there's a lot of detail in the HPX170 image that just isn't there at all in the 200A. Were the scene files the same?

If you bump the brightness up you'll see what I'm talking about.

I spent a few more hours with the HPX170 trying to figure out what could have went wrong and I am almost positive the HVX200A is slightly cleaner than the HPX170. There's something incredibly weird going on in the midtones and more-so in shadow gradients. This was barely present in the 200A and is much more prevalent with the HPX170.

It's hard for me to want to let this thing go because the extra tids and bits added to the camera are things that I really like. So far my favorite feature? 1/4 Internal ND. Best Addition to the camera where adapter uses are concerned, hands down.

But, I'm very disappointed. I can't provide side-by-side footage of it but I am willing to bet that if you take identical images into an NLE from both cameras and look at it you'll see the difference. Even the whites on the HPX170 are having issues.

So far the cleanest settings I've found are:

Detail Level -2
V Detail Level -2
Detail Coring +2
Chroma Level -3
Chroma Phase -0
Color Temp ACH -0
Color Temp BCH -0
Master Ped -2
A.Iris Level -9
Gamma CineLike D
Matrix CineLike
Skin Tone DTL OFF

And Manually White Balancing instead of using the Presets. Something else that I find strange: the 200A's 5600K and 3200K Presets were pretty much dead-on. The HPX170? Not so much... kinda sucks but it's probably nothing major.

In the end, I want to keep the camera but I don't want to keep the image. The 200A was seriously just-about as clean as the EX-1 but still retained some good ol' Panasonic. The 170 isn't as clean as the EX-1.

I would have been fine with using 9dB on the 200A, I won't go above 6dB with the HPX170... which, again, is still better than the original 200.

Oh well, I guess it will be as it is...
 
The HPX's different/more compact body shape might mean less venting, causing the CCDs to heat up slightly more then on an HVX in the same situation, which would account for more noise.
 
There could be all sorts of theoretical reasons, but... I didn't see any noise of any objectionable level in the 150 either, which uses the same body & same chips (unless I put on DRS, at which point the blacks did get noisier).

Another potential source would be because of the smaller-diameter lens between the 170 and 200A. If the 200A is getting more light naturally, then I could imagine the engineers tweaking the gain slightly on the smaller-diameter lens to bring them to comparable sensitivity.

Even so, without having both production models side by side I can't say. But, IINM, I do have some +12dB gain clips of that same scene, so I'll try to split-screen those and upload 'em.

But I wish I could put 'em both side by side, because there'd have to be a HUGE difference in image to make me give up all the 170's fabulous new improvements and go back to a 200A.
 
ChrisA said:
The HPX's different/more compact body shape might mean less venting, causing the CCDs to heat up slightly more then on an HVX in the same situation, which would account for more noise.
Click to expand...

Pack your camera in dry ice and try the noise test or at least wrap one of those frozen gel packs for head aches around the part of the camera with the ccd's that heat up. He he he

I can hear it now, Camera Cuzy's :)
 
Barry_Green said:
There could be all sorts of theoretical reasons, but... I didn't see any noise of any objectionable level in the 150 either, which uses the same body & same chips (unless I put on DRS, at which point the blacks did get noisier).
Click to expand...

I can't say it's too objectionable, either. The thought was that I was going to get a 200A image with all the bells and whistles, that's where the disappointment lies. It's not THAT far off, but far off enough to where I could see it the second I turned the camera on.

Another potential source would be because of the smaller-diameter lens between the 170 and 200A. If the 200A is getting more light naturally, then I could imagine the engineers tweaking the gain slightly on the smaller-diameter lens to bring them to comparable sensitivity.
Click to expand...

This is what I and others are betting on. That the 170 was "pre-amped". This would mean that they're largely the same image when the 200A is at say 3dB of gain. Now, that's not bad but I would like the option to shoot without being stuck at the +3dB from the get go...

Even so, without having both production models side by side I can't say. But, IINM, I do have some +12dB gain clips of that same scene, so I'll try to split-screen those and upload 'em.

But I wish I could put 'em both side by side, because there'd have to be a HUGE difference in image to make me give up all the 170's fabulous new improvements and go back to a 200A.
Click to expand...

That's the dilemma right now. The 170 is just a really great camera overall and I would hate to lose the features... I guess this might just be the time to get over the noise or ask Panasonic if we can turn down the pre-amp. I would be ecsatic if there was something we could do about that!
 
Kholi said:
I guess this might just be the time to get over the noise or ask Panasonic if we can turn down the pre-amp
Click to expand...
that would be great.
i will asking the people from osaka, i will meet on the 07-11. its no joke!
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
It's not THAT far off, but far off enough to where I could see it the second I turned the camera on.
Click to expand...
Okay, BUT (as I posted in the other thread) you do realize that there's a big difference in the EVF DTL sharpness as displayed on the camera's LCD, right? I would expect that based on the LCD you'd see what looks like a grainier picture on the 170 as vs. the 200A, because the LCD is a lot more sharpened on the 170. So make sure that you're seeing it in the footage and not just what you're seeing on the LCD.
 
Absolutely in the footage. That's why I'm saying to take it to an nle and look at them. I am very very sure about it at this point. Whether it's neglibile is a different story but if you grab a 200A and compare you'll see it.
 
I find that the midtone noise only shows up in certain, specific shooting situations, and is more noticeable with CineV for some reason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top