Noise and the Matrix

It's all the new AF100 footage of castles, the west, and kids, and blankets with stuff on them :P I really need to go take video of a waterfall this weekend, or something like that, it just isn't right no one has shot carnivals or waterfalls over cranked. :)
 
"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."

+1
 
The camera is plenty useable even with Cine matrix on. Light well and its not a problem.
 
I've had our HPX170 side by side with one of our AF100's for a couple of days. When I changed matrix settings on it from Cinelike to Norm 2 or Fluo, I don't see any change in noise level, which is what I expected. For whatever reason, Cinelike is just plain noisy compared to any other Matrix in the AF100, and I think Norm 2 will become our house default for rental. I just can't live with the chroma noise and shadow detail noise in Cinelike matrix. I'm also finding that -7 for detail may be a bit too soft for some clients, -4, -5 is probably a safer default. The 170 at 0 detail looks much sharper(however artificial), but turns to mush at -7 due to lack of real resolution.
 
PaPa said:
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
Click to expand...

Could you post up a screen grab of a waveform monitor of either of these images please. Better still...the original size image.
 
TimurCivan said:
The camera is plenty useable even with Cine matrix on. Light well and its not a problem.
Click to expand...

Timur, could you please explain? I've seen some footage that just had the worst noise in the blacks (that I think may because of the Cine-Like matrix). I mean black is supposed to be black, right?
 
I would, but I didn't save the footage our files after I made an mp4 to upload to vimeo, which is 30 seconds long which was uploaded to vimeo 9 hours ago, which isn't even live yet...

Cine like is very useable. I just don't like the noise that the image exhibits in the darker regions
 
Steve Kahn said:
Timur, could you please explain? I've seen some footage that just had the worst noise in the blacks (that I think may because of the Cine-Like matrix). I mean black is supposed to be black, right?
Click to expand...

Black is supposed to be black

Maybe I can try and explain.( And also the reason I asked for a waveform screen grab)

The image PaPa has posted appears to me to be incorrectly exposed ( and under lit).

It seems that the photgrapher simply exposed the image based on "getting an image showing on the screen" without any regard to what was in the image. ie a black case and a skin tone.

Both these have tonal values that one expects to see and in this instance one doesnt .
 
Have done more test shooting with Norm 2, I've decided that chroma should go back to 0 and master ped at 0 vs. -2 on both. I've reviewed footage on Flanders 17", MacBook Pro via AVCCAM Viewer and 100" projection via BD player. Norm 2 matrix has really made a big difference on all displays--not noise free, but very tolerable. Now the biggest issue I have with the image is when highlights are blown out, there is a ring around the object with a chroma clipped color, even if the highlight itself is white. This chroma clipping look is the number one giveaway(besides noise) of a low cost video camera, IMO. I've seen even the HPX500 go yellow or orange on overexposed objects that I don't see with Panasonic AJ series.

As I've told clients for awhile, if you are shooting in controlled lighting environments, use the 170/200A/500(and now AF100 as well), if there is no light control, that's when you really want the P2 Varicam or other Panasonic model with Film-Rec gamma and 600% Dynamic Range. The processing sophistication of the AJ cameras, plus AVC-Intra is what the extra money buys.

Edit: The other issue that's been bothering me is banding. I thought it was maybe the codec, but it's there in live E to E via HD SDI and on Ki Pro ProRes 422 recording on multiple display devices. I did a side by side spotlight test with the 170 and the banding was present as well--not unusual for 8-bit digital displays--but it's a bit more pronounced on the AF100. Regardless, at least AVCCAM is ruled out.
 
Last edited:
In the book I listed NORM2 as the cleanest of the matrices. I didn't make it be an overwhelming "oh my gosh you just have to go with norm2", but with all the talk about it I just re-did a test where I kept the other noise factors set to maximum noise magnification (detail level high, coring low) and under those cases, it does seem that the norm2 matrix does make a substantial difference. When you've already configured the camera for lower noise (dropping the detail level, and raising up the coring a bit) then the matrix makes much less of a difference.

Still, for those seeking a low-noise experience, I recommend detail low (at least -4, if not all the way to -7), v-detail lowered (-4 is good), coring upped (the more you can stand it, the more it will wash away the appearance of noise), the master pedestal lowered a tad (I do go with -2, I don't like the blacks at MP 0), and B.Press gamma or CINE-V, and the matrix set on NORM2.
 
Barry_Green said:
I recommend detail low (at least -4, if not all the way to -7), v-detail lowered (-4 is good), coring upped (the more you can stand it, the more it will wash away the appearance of noise), the master pedestal lowered a tad (I do go with -2, I don't like the blacks at MP 0), and B.Press gamma or CINE-V, and the matrix set on NORM2.
Click to expand...

With Barry's advice, I feel like I'm cheating; producing bettter footage than someone of my limited experience should :-). Thanks for the settings! I'm suprised how much changing the matrix really affects noise.
 
Barry_Green said:
Still, for those seeking a low-noise experience, I recommend detail low (at least -4, if not all the way to -7), v-detail lowered (-4 is good), coring upped (the more you can stand it, the more it will wash away the appearance of noise), the master pedestal lowered a tad (I do go with -2, I don't like the blacks at MP 0), and B.Press gamma or CINE-V, and the matrix set on NORM2.
Click to expand...

These are pretty close to the settings I came up with earlier while testing all day for tomorrows shoot.
 
Still, for those seeking a low-noise experience, I recommend ......
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be everyone? Who would want noise at default settings?

I cant wait to see exactly what this camera produces ..."OUT of the box". ie default.

Seems like you have to configure this camera to get any kind of acceptable result. Doesnt that point to an issue of some kind or other?

I never had to use the settings in the DVX or HVX ( or Red for that matter) for anything other than creative or technical reasons. ie great out of the box.
 
Wow, vimeo finally finished it. Took it close to 12 hours to upload and convert... Damn members.


A subtle look at the color tone difference in the four matrix modes.
 
same.

Norm2 had the LEAST amount of noise and the best color rendition without giving anything a cast.

I now use
Detail -5
V detail - 7
Chroma +2
Cine-d
Norm2

That setting works very well for my taste! Much less noise and great color. I'm ready to shoot :D
 
thanks for putting up the test. the noise really pops on the guitar case, is that due to Vimeo? also, what part of the image is suppose to be in focus?
 
Mark Kokkoros said:
thanks for putting up the test. the noise really pops on the guitar case, is that due to Vimeo? also, what part of the image is suppose to be in focus?
Click to expand...

The vimeo compression doesn't help, but that's exactly why I put that in frame. And yah, it's quite noisy in cine like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top