Noise and the Matrix

L

Ljung

Member
As some of the other forum members are beginning to discover, it turns out that the matrix used on the AF100 has a surprisingly huge effect on noise levels. (A lot of this discussion is going on over in Barry's thread meant to investigate differing noise levels as seen under different decoding workflows and/or viewing environments, but I thought it might be helpful to start a new thread just about noise and matrix.)

Personally, I was shocked at what a differencing switching to Fluo or Norm 2 made. I had been doing most of my testing with the Cine-Like matrix, and was seriously disappointed by the massive levels of noise. Even with detail dialed all the way down and coring in effect,the AF100 looked like an awful noise maelstrom when put side-by-side with my 7D at the same ISOs. In addition, I think all that noise was taxing the codec, which was making me see lots of nasty compression artifacts. It looked worse, to me, than my old non-hacked GH1 used to look. I was ready to start the grieving process.

Then I stumbled across the advice of switching the matrix, and it was like night and day. Sooo much better! Haven't had a chance yet to explore the nuances in differences of color rendering that this also involves, but was curious what others are finding...
 
Especially for those of us still awaiting our cameras, maybe those with good experiences by adjusting setting can let us know the results of different setting and what exactly those settings are. Will be very useful for those turning on their camera for the first time
 
TimurCivan said:
matrix 1 is best. looks neutral and has less grain.
Click to expand...

LOL,

i shot a video about an hour ago and waiting for vimeo to finish converting it. Specifically for the task of comparing the matricies.


From less grainy to more grainy
Norm 2
Fluo
Norm 1
Cine-Like

In preference of the nicest quality image ( colors )
Cine-Like
Norm 2
Norm 1
Fluo

Going to post the video in a moment.

I will be sticking with Norm2 with a slight higher chroma level. WAY cleaner than cine-like matrix and looks almost identical.
 
Last edited:
Fantastic thread! I've been going through Barry's thread for days, trying to figure out what would be best. . . buy a Ki Pro Mini, consider a different editing system. Nothing seems perfectly clear there yet.

But something just to focus on what the color matrix does for this would be excellent! After my HVX200, I'm really hoping for a camera with very little noise. It was my only real complaint from that camera. So thanks for doing that testing. Can't wait to get my AF100 on Monday to try this out!
 
PaPa, totally agree with your rankings. These same matrices are in the HPX170 and I don't remember such a difference in noise levels between them, I'll look again. I've never seen a matrix profile have such a large effect on noise in a camera, but I think Norm 2 will work for many, although I agree with Timur that Norm 1 is the most neutral. I plan on studying the color points on a chroma du monde chart and vectorscope more and shooting test footage. I've spent a lot of time with my nose up to a 100" projection screen the past week and was getting depressed--I think Norm 2 is going to make me happy!
 
I think Timur was making a joke :P
Matrix 1, not norm 1. As in the film... lol

Still waiting for the video to upload to vimeo. Man vimeo is slow when you don't pay to be a member..

Here is Norm 2 and Cine-like. Can you guess which one is which? All other settings remain the same. It's a 200x blowup in premiere and the focus is not on the case so this is really just to look at noise.

noisecomparison.jpg
 
I too found the horrible noise in the initial settings where the camera was trying to boost mid ranges. Fortunately, I have also found a way out of those settings. Here's what I have had good results with on the AF100, with a variation noted at the end:

Detail: -6
V Detail: -6 (this is with my Nikon primes, which are a bit softer than the 14-140 or Zeiss)
Detail Coring: +2
Chroma Level: -5
Master Ped: -1
DRS: OFF
Gamma: CINE-LIKE V
Matrix: FLUO (this is the big one)

This works well, so far in daylight conditions with some higher ISO used. But for the ultimate in reduced noise storm effect, switch Gamma from CINE-LIKE V to B.PRESS. I found that, at night, with higher ISO/Gain, to be the very best at reducing noise. Try these settings at share your thoughts!
 
Dino said:
PaPa, totally agree with your rankings. These same matrices are in the HPX170 and I don't remember such a difference in noise levels between them, I'll look again. I've never seen a matrix profile have such a large effect on noise in a camera, but I think Norm 2 will work for many, although I agree with Timur that Norm 1 is the most neutral. I plan on studying the color points on a chroma du monde chart and vectorscope more and shooting test footage. I've spent a lot of time with my nose up to a 100" projection screen the past week and was getting depressed--I think Norm 2 is going to make me happy!
Click to expand...

Does it seem to anyone else that we shouldn't have to worry so much about finding matrix's and settings to try to get rid of noise? Seems like they should have made a camera with cine matix modes that looks clean enough in the engineering process and not have us try to work out settings to make the camera useable. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be adjusting settings in camera, of course as cinematographers we should be dialling in settings to get the look we want, but we shouldnt have to be going out of our way to make the camera useable noise wise.
 
The Fluo matrix reduces green and noise exspecially in colours. Blue is the channel that you can observe this the best. Fluo is a bit noiser than Norm 1 in blacks but much less noisier in blue so I would prefer Fluo and as a bonus it reduces the usual green spike you end up removing in post very often.
 
vcfilms said:
Does it seem to anyone else that we shouldn't have to worry so much about finding matrix's and settings to try to get rid of noise? Seems like they should have made a camera with cine matix modes that looks clean enough in the engineering process and not have us try to work out settings to make the camera useable. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't be adjusting settings in camera, of course as cinematographers we should be dialling in settings to get the look we want, but we shouldnt have to be going out of our way to make the camera useable noise wise.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I had this concern going in, expressed it here after looking at test footage posted, and knew there were issues, despite all the flaming and howling I received from people who refused to see what was right in front of them, I knew it was going to be an issue and knew I had to deal with it. A trade-off for a $5000 which is capable of the very nice images and full function of a video camera which this unit offers. I have this feeling, just a gut feeling, that the AF100 was rushed through the process of engineering, perhaps for competitive reasons or for cost control. But there are some rough edges on this camera, but, I have seen some remarkable footage shot with it, from people who know what they're doing.
 
Billygoat said:
Absolutely. I had this concern going in, expressed it here after looking at test footage posted, and knew there were issues, despite all the flaming and howling I received from people who refused to see what was right in front of them, I knew it was going to be an issue and knew I had to deal with it. A trade-off for a $5000 which is capable of the very nice images and full function of a video camera which this unit offers. I have this feeling, just a gut feeling, that the AF100 was rushed through the process of engineering, perhaps for competitive reasons or for cost control. But there are some rough edges on this camera, but, I have seen some remarkable footage shot with it, from people who know what they're doing.
Click to expand...

For sure, and that's the way I see it too. There's always problems with the first-gen cameras, just wish the engineers had taken care of this prior to release. if I didnt have films to do that would benefit from the AF I would just wait to see if it get's worked out. But at the end of the day we can make it work well, just a shame we have to take these extra steps.
 
Fluo is nice for noise reduction but it's definitely way too magenta. Looks like the XH A1

Still waiting for the video to upload... What's up with this prestigious vimeo line?
 
PaPa said:
LOL,

i shot a video about an hour ago and waiting for vimeo to finish converting it. Specifically for the task of comparing the matricies.


From less grainy to more grainy
Norm 2
Fluo
Norm 1
Cine-Like

In preference of the nicest quality image ( colors )
Cine-Like
Norm 2
Norm 1
Fluo

Going to post the video in a moment.

I will be sticking with Norm2 with a slight higher chroma level. WAY cleaner than cine-like matrix and looks almost identical.
Click to expand...

Wait... i dont have an AF100, i forgot the matrix settings i used on Verse. I'll find it ....
 
PaPa said:
Fluo is nice for noise reduction but it's definitely way too magenta. Looks like the XH A1

Still waiting for the video to upload... What's up with this prestigious vimeo line?
Click to expand...

Chroma Phase is a quick and dirty way to shift the color points away from magenta or green. It's a bit of a sledgehammer doing a scalpels job, but it could work. I used Chroma Phase when I was trying to match colorimetry of the AF100 to an Alexa or when I've needed to match an HPX170 to an HVX200A.
 
Whats the upside of the cine matrix? Someone somewhere along the QC line must have seen the noise and opted to included it for some reason, wondering what that reason is. Or was it just blindly ported over from the hvx/hpx line?
 
Good question. I guess they try to reach a certain image out of the sensor without compromises. When they reach that they run out of budget to really clean up the curves. But that's my guess only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top