Noise and the Matrix

Mike@AF said:
Good tip on using a light with barn doors, so that could solve the dynamic range aspect well enough for me. However, the CamBook is still stuck at 800 resolution, right?
Click to expand...
Yes, the CamBook maxxes out at 800. Which is what the AF100 is supposed to be rated at anyway, according to the tech specs in the brochure.

I suppose I can go with the CamBook 5 or 6 and barndoor the light. Do you think 800 might be enough resolution to test the detail and coring settings?
Click to expand...
Well, it's plenty enough, considering that a) the camera's only rated to 800 lines in the first place, and b) you can make it be higher-res if you need, by quartering it. This is a silly technique but hey, it's a technique... if you frame up the chart so that it only takes up 1/4 of the screen, then you've quadrupled the res lines on the charts... :thumbsup:
 
Barry_Green said:
Yes, the CamBook maxxes out at 800. Which is what the AF100 is supposed to be rated at anyway, according to the tech specs in the brochure.


Well, it's plenty enough, considering that a) the camera's only rated to 800 lines in the first place, and b) you can make it be higher-res if you need, by quartering it. This is a silly technique but hey, it's a technique... if you frame up the chart so that it only takes up 1/4 of the screen, then you've quadrupled the res lines on the charts... :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Another fantastic tip Barry! Thanks for that. But wouldn't it be double the resolution, not quadruple? You're only using half the vertical and horizontal frame/resolution of the sensor when you fill a quarter of the frame.
 
Any conclusions chaps, it seems to me the AF100/101 is not coming up to scratch and we are all chasing our tails trying to get the best picture. I personally have seen some fantastic lit footage and the next day, outdoors some very basic footage with noisy blacks (my dog is black). What are Panasonic saying to this has anyone spoke to Jan. I doubt this camera will pass the BBCs quality control at this rate, Nonoflash or not.
I repeat myself, indoor lit footage seems far superior to outdoor footage and 9dBs is stunningly noiseless, in my opinion. Is there a definitive answer or are we looking at "putting up" this camera at it's price point.
 
I don't know if this is too simple-minded or not, but couldn't you expand the range of the resolution chart by framing it to fill only half the image area? Then, the 800 TVL pattern would represent 1600 TVL, etc. You'd need to move it around to test the center and corners separately, of course.

- GDS
 
Thinking about it I think I will run some side by side tests with my Sony PMW-350K, it seems to me that we are all blinkered by the AF100/101. I will report back to you with my findings. I think we also know what the extra £8000 buys when you go for a Sony F3.
 
HDWarrior said:
Any conclusions chaps, it seems to me the AF100/101 is not coming up to scratch and we are all chasing our tails trying to get the best picture. I personally have seen some fantastic lit footage and the next day, outdoors some very basic footage with noisy blacks (my dog is black). What are Panasonic saying to this has anyone spoke to Jan. I doubt this camera will pass the BBCs quality control at this rate, Nonoflash or not.
I repeat myself, indoor lit footage seems far superior to outdoor footage and 9dBs is stunningly noiseless, in my opinion. Is there a definitive answer or are we looking at "putting up" this camera at it's price point.
Click to expand...

I think we've all seen a lot of great footage from the AF100 that was shot outdoors, at least I have. Keep in mind that there's different scene files for a reason. I'm going to have different scene files set for different situations. Probably for the following circumstances: Indoor day, Indoor night, Outdoor day, Outdoor night. Maybe it will change as I do my testing, but I think you definitely need different settings depending on what you're shooting.


Greg Smith said:
I don't know if this is too simple-minded or not, but couldn't you expand the range of the resolution chart by framing it to fill only half the image area? Then, the 800 TVL pattern would represent 1600 TVL, etc. You'd need to move it around to test the center and corners separately, of course.

- GDS
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what Barry suggested. But if you're filling half the image AREA, then it's not 1600. It should be 1200. Quarter of the AREA should be 1600. Unless I'm wrong about how these res charts work.
 
Mike@AF said:
But wouldn't it be double the resolution, not quadruple? You're only using half the vertical and horizontal frame/resolution of the sensor when you fill a quarter of the frame.
Click to expand...
Well, quartering would quadruple, halving would double. You just got me caught in my semantics so I checked it. Set up the chart across the room, zoomed in to 140mm and framed it so that 700 was clear and 800 was just almost completely resolved. Then I cut the focal length in half (went from 140mm to 70mm) and now the 400 line was readable, but nothing above it was (meaning, at that point, 400 was equiv. to the prior 800). Hence doubling the number. I then zoomed out to about 35mm, and at that point the chart looked like it would take up about 1/4 of the screen, but 200 was barely readable, so ... yeah, forget quartering it, that's too much. Just frame it up at one focal length, then cut the focal length in half and double any of the numbers you see. It won't be 100% perfectly accurate, but it should be pretty close.
 
HDWarrior said:
Any conclusions chaps
Click to expand...
The conclusion is that it's fantastic. :thumbsup:

it seems to me the AF100/101 is not coming up to scratch and we are all chasing our tails trying to get the best picture.
People are learning what they like with it. Most folks have had it for at most a couple of days. And there's probably only a few cameras in the world. Way premature to be drawing too many conclusions, other than... if you want good-looking outdoors footage, I suggest you look at this:


Or this:



Is there a definitive answer or are we looking at "putting up" this camera at it's price point.
Click to expand...
I think the prior videos are quite definitive. It's all about the shooter, the camera holds up its end of the bargain. I've seen noisy lame footage from the Red One, but when used properly it shines. AF100's the same way.

I have no idea if it'll pass the BBC's evaluation or not; only they can answer that question. Is Alan Roberts working on it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
We know that XDCAM EX doesn't pass BBC specs, so I wouldn't expect AVCCAM to do so either, question is will it pass with an outboard recorder?

A regular client of mine planned to rent a DOF adapter for a three day shoot. He owns an HVX200. I told him that he should come check out our AF100's. He did and took one of the cameras with him--yes, he was impressed! I've got no doubt that a Sony 350 is quieter, so is an EX1 at lower gains, and I expect the F3 to be very clean, but the 350 and F3 are very expensive to have such a limited CODEC. I think Sony is a bit ahead of Panasonic with CMOS and noise reduction. At this point, I feel like the Af100's are similar in noise to our hpx170 at 0 db, better at higher gain/ISO's. Cinelike matrix should not be adding so much noise, but there several cleaner matrix options. It should be remembered that Sony won't be launching their AF100 competitor until summer, so That puts Panasonic ahead of the game overall at the $5K price point.
 
Last edited:
HDWarrior said:
Thinking about it I think I will run some side by side tests with my Sony PMW-350K, it seems to me that we are all blinkered by the AF100/101. I will report back to you with my findings. I think we also know what the extra £8000 buys when you go for a Sony F3.
Click to expand...

Side by side with a $18000 camera? I mean let's not get to hasty and think this cam is better than every-other-cam... I'm betting that it's dang close in terms of noise/picture quality. And that means ALOT. $13000 less, 90-95% of the performance, PLUS 1080p/60 overcrank, 4/3 depth of field, and interchangable lenses.

I think there is a clear winner for the average joe with the AF100!
 
TheReverend said:
Side by side with a $18000 camera? I mean let's not get to hasty and think this cam is better than every-other-cam... I'm betting that it's dang close in terms of noise/picture quality. And that means ALOT. $13000 less, 90-95% of the performance, PLUS 1080p/60 overcrank, 4/3 depth of field, and interchangable lenses.

I think there is a clear winner for the average joe with the AF100!
Click to expand...

Well i can comment a bit here...

Im DPing a weekly gossip show on HDnet, and we were shooting on F350's. This past week we've changed to EX3/EX1... The difference between the cameras is huge. Even though its the same "chip", the quality of the XDcam Encode and DSP is massive. I have had to relight the show, to combat the narrower dynamic range. In this business, you get what you PAY for. No one is ripping anyone off in the Digital Video World. Each manufacturer is trying to put is as much as humanly possible in to each unit for the price point. its more like the EX3 has 90% of what the F350 has. That 10% is the difference between, it looks good, and "Aww hell, now we have to order another Kino for more fill."
 
TimurCivan said:
Well i can comment a bit here...

Im DPing a weekly gossip show on HDnet, and we were shooting on F350's. This past week we've changed to EX3/EX1... The difference between the cameras is huge. Even though its the same "chip", the quality of the XDcam Encode and DSP is massive. I have had to relight the show, to combat the narrower dynamic range. In this business, you get what you PAY for. No one is ripping anyone off in the Digital Video World. Each manufacturer is trying to put is as much as humanly possible in to each unit for the price point. its more like the EX3 has 90% of what the F350 has. That 10% is the difference between, it looks good, and "Aww hell, now we have to order another Kino for more fill."
Click to expand...

Agreed that 10% can be the difference between Grade AAA work and Grade A/B work for sure. But really, whose counting at $5K? Those of us that use the higher end cameras and know the difference, typically cause we have to work harder/different or adjust shots away from problem areas. The audience is DEFINITELY NOT who notices. And with proper technique, you can get Grade AA every time. I'm all for that, especially since my work is on tight, tight budgets.
 
In the end it comes down to all of it. Content, technical, talent, and pre/post production competence. There is no "Magic Bullet" in film making. Great content with poor execution doesn't work. Name me a good show or movie that looks terrible that isn't a documentary. Unfortunately it is very difficult to make a good film. You have to have all the elements in place, and those elements aren't cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top