My NanoFlash footage looks HORRIBLE

T

TornFusion

Member
Alright, so I don't know what I am doing wrong, but my NanoFlash footage looks terrible.
Every object in the frame is pixely, there seems to be noise flying around the whole image.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62413835@N04/5680642227/in/photostream/lightbox/

I have the camera set to the following settings:

Film Cam
Detail Level -4
V Detail Level -4
Detail Coring -3
Chroma Level -2
Master Pedestal -2
Gamma CineLike D
Knee Low
Matrix Norm 2
NanoFlash @ 220mbps I-Frame

I have NO idea why the footage is turning out the way it is. Has anyone encountered similar issues?
 
Last edited:
That has nothing to do with your Nano. The Nano, especially at that bit rate, is going to very faithfully reproduce every nuance of the image which is sent out the SDI, including noise. The onboard codec just masks it by grouping clumps of pixels together to create bands. This is one of the few weak points of the AF100, and different settings, in different conditions, produce drastically different levels of noise, particularly in dark areas. You may want to adjust that Knee setting. I might be mistaken, but I think "Low" setting is actually the most aggressive setting for bending the gamma.
 
bhdfield said:
That has nothing to do with your Nano. The Nano, especially at that bit rate, is going to very faithfully reproduce every nuance of the image which is sent out the SDI, including noise. The onboard codec just masks it by grouping clumps of pixels together to create bands. This is one of the few weak points of the AF100, and different settings, in different conditions, produce drastically different levels of noise, particularly in dark areas. You may want to adjust that Knee setting. I might be mistaken, but I think "Low" setting is actually the most aggressive setting for bending the gamma.
Click to expand...

I just adjusted it and, although it does look a little better, the noise is still very dominant in the blacks. A couple of the members recommended I use those settings with the NanoFlash, which is why I was using them. Still messing around with settings and getting noisy results. Really bizarre,
 
I just hooked the NanoFlash up to my 46" Sony Bravia to see if it would recreate the problem i'm having on the big screen and it looks flawless. The blacks are pure, no noise is shown in the image, etc. I took the card out, put it into my computer, and found that the blacks were noisy, the darker colors (blues, reds) were noisy. Could it be that this is an issue with the card I am using, given the results of the current test??
 
TornFusion said:
I just hooked the NanoFlash up to my 46" Sony Bravia to see if it would recreate the problem i'm having on the big screen and it looks flawless. The blacks are pure, no noise is shown in the image, etc. I took the card out, put it into my computer, and found that the blacks were noisy, the darker colors (blues, reds) were noisy. Could it be that this is an issue with the card I am using, given the results of the current test??
Click to expand...
It's just the way your computer is displaying it. Trust the Sony. In fact, edit it, output without color correction, then watch the edit on the Sony TV and you'll see that fantastic image.
 
If you haven't adjusted the gamma yet on your macbook, go into the display color settings and go through it and set the gamma to 2.2 as this is what you should be using. 10.6 defaults to 2.2 now (finally!) but anything older defaults to 1.8 and it's always been wrong.
 
Oh boy, here we go again. This discussion particular discussion about the AF and noise, and display type, and all the variables that go in to all of that created quite a storm here about 7 months ago. This camera can look very different depending on settings. Certain display types reveal noise in different ways. But this camera can be very noisy, or very quiet. Changing gamma or monitor types only hides or exposes what's there. And still frames really show more noise too, especially on a computer monitor.

Bottom line, your Nano and AF are functioning normally. Learn its vices and assets and live happily ever after.
 
Rick Burnett said:
If you haven't adjusted the gamma yet on your macbook, go into the display color settings and go through it and set the gamma to 2.2 as this is what you should be using. 10.6 defaults to 2.2 now (finally!) but anything older defaults to 1.8 and it's always been wrong.
Click to expand...

I checked and it seems that the computer was already set to this setting. It's a lil' frustrating if I can't see how my footage REALLY looks on my computer while i'm editing it :/
 
All that said, gamma has been an ongoing issue for mac users for a long time, and it has been an absolute pain in the neck. I agree that the noise is what it is, but when I edit video or audio, I like to run with my system as close to what I expect the playback will be. Now that Apple has FINALLY decided to use the same gamma as everyone else, 2.2, this significantly changes the way my AF100 footage looks. This is why I recommend that people with older OSX versions, ie, 10.5 and back, should switch to 2.2 and use that as their reference.
 
TornFusion said:
I checked and it seems that the computer was already set to this setting. It's a lil' frustrating if I can't see how my footage REALLY looks on my computer while i'm editing it :/
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that is strange then. I have both a 2009 Macbook Pro 2.93Ghz and a new 2011 Macbook Pro 2.2Ghz and most of my footage from the AF100 that others have shot with the nanoflash have looked great. (I don't own a nanoflash myself). Your image has a lot more noise that I would expect looking at the screen shot. Of course, I use different settings then you so that's probably the reason. My settings are almost identical to the settings for 'clean' used by Abelcine. Have you tried those to see what it produces in that case?
 
Is it the Quicktime X thing? Lots of folks reported that their footage looked awful when played in Quicktime X, but looked great in QT7.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Hmmm, that is strange then. I have both a 2009 Macbook Pro 2.93Ghz and a new 2011 Macbook Pro 2.2Ghz and most of my footage from the AF100 that others have shot with the nanoflash have looked great. (I don't own a nanoflash myself). Your image has a lot more noise that I would expect looking at the screen shot. Of course, I use different settings then you so that's probably the reason. My settings are almost identical to the settings for 'clean' used by Abelcine. Have you tried those to see what it produces in that case?
Click to expand...

I haven't tried them yet but will do that at some point tonight. I'll keep you posted.
 
Barry_Green said:
Is it the Quicktime X thing? Lots of folks reported that their footage looked awful when played in Quicktime X, but looked great in QT7.
Click to expand...

Berry, there is an extremely good chance I do have that version. I'm assuming that the X stands for 10, as I have QT v 10.0 on my computer. If this is the case, do you know how I would go about re-instaling QT 7, assuming that I upgraded to QT X at some point?
 
TornFusion said:
I checked and it seems that the computer was already set to this setting. It's a lil' frustrating if I can't see how my footage REALLY looks on my computer while i'm editing it :/
Click to expand...

I think it is good practice to think about how your footage will be viewed by the end user. TVs and computers use different color spaces (YUV and RGB respectively) along with 16-235 or 0-256 shades. These display video in different ways. If you are producing for the television it is wise to have a YUV output device/card hooked up to an external YUV device lke a broadcast monitor or at least a television.

If you are producing for web delivery then it is wise to use the computer screen as your main editing monitor. I use PCs so I do not know how MACs handle this but with my Edius system the difference is visible from PC to YUV broadcast monitor. My workflow is to adjust to my broadcast monitor (Blu-ray & DVD) then bump up the same footage for internet viewing as the conversion to RGB dulls the overall exposure. Please excuse if you already know this :)
 
I will be doing some more tests the second I get home and will take some screenshots of the footage in my FCP project to see if the issue is related only to QuickTime or if there is a bigger problem at hand. I plan on using a ton of different settings, although I have before, and will keep everyone posted to this bizarre issue I'm having.
 
For your purposesd, I would suggest that you do your tests at DEFAULT settings.

Its a basic trouble shooting process. You will end up chasing "ghosts" otherwise.

This camera is entirely capable of out puting perfect images at Default to the standard internal card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top