NOISE - How does HVX200 do?

Deuceofspades

Deuceofspades

Veteran
Watched the movie "November" today, which was shot on the DVX-100 and noticed a lot of image noise in many of the shots. I also noticed same in my own DVX-100B footage done with same camera when in "lower" light. And not necessarily LOW light, just not bright light.

The noise is especially noticeable in the red colors it seems?

Is HVX200 (which I am about to upgrade to) as noisy? I believe it is even more light hungry than DVX so I am a bit concerned...

Share your experiences please...
 
The DVX100 is a glorified XL-2, it's not any better, of course a camera that cheap is going to be a bit noisy. There is a reason professional filmmakers don't use cheapo cameras, they spend lots of money on rental packages to get the best equipment they can.

The HVX200 is not noisy, I don't think, you can see many members here have taken excellent footage with it, but you have to light properly for anything you do. That is the art of cinematography. It's not a point-and-shoot camera, it requires a good camera team to achieve professional results, but I think if you understand how to get the best use out of the HVX200 you can achieve amazing images that you will be very pleased with showing to anyone.
 
DVCPRO HD is a noisy codec in the darks, especially on the "lower end" cameras.

Varicam and HPX - 2000 have another dialect of the codec, that allows bits to be shifted to the darks for less noise..

In addition, the HVX has a physically small sensor compared to the rez.

All in all, these factors make the camera potentially very noisy: BUT

No tool is good if you don't know its limits, and you can get beautifull noise-free images from the HVX, you just need to plan, light and shoot for it. And possibly tweak the beast a little...

First of all: The HVX eats light. The more the merrier. If you can throw vast amounts of well planned light at it, you're day of glory is secured.

There seems to be two main approaches to get noisefree darks.

1, for contrasty images, push the darks below the noisefloor with the pedestall.
2. For more dynamic images, lift the darks out of the worst noisemud, and push them down in post with a codec where the darks suffer less (like prores)

So:
Yes, the HVX can be super noisy, or a very noisefree light-eater.

You decide...

And just to be clear: I really like the cam, I just happen to think it's a bit of a struggle sometimes -;)

Gunleik
 
Yeah, you do need to light the HVX more than some cameras, that's true, but if you have a DP who knows what he is doing he can get great results from it.
 
Deuceofspades said:
Share your experiences please...
Click to expand...



I'm a happy HVX owner, but I will say to you clearly: if you are concerned about noise, and find the DVX too noisy, TRY THE HVX BEFORE BUYING IT. There are thousands of posts here on HVX noise (mostly from near the release time). Many people were extremely disappointed with the HVX's noise performance (both it's quantity and strange quality), some were extremely pleased with it. Much has to do, as has been said here, with the effort you're used to putting into lighting, and extensive testing.

As to November - the issue in the reds (the darkroom scene especially) has also been extensively discussed here... it's not noise, but a red-banding problem.
 
I said itbefore i'll say it again....

most of the HVX's "noise" is poor monitoring. watc h the footage on a real trinitron 1080i CRT, its practically spotless.

Laptop LCD monitors cant properly display the footage.
 
The hvx is only noisy when used to shoot with no lights. Since professionals use lights then one could assume the noise complaints are coming from amateurs shooting with their home 60 watt desk lamps. When using the ample light that even a single 2k light provides.

a dvx and a light kit would be a better investment than an hvx and no lights
 
JonathanLB said:
The DVX100 is a glorified XL-2, it's not any better, of course a camera that cheap is going to be a bit noisy. There is a reason professional filmmakers don't use cheapo cameras, they spend lots of money on rental packages to get the best equipment they can.

The HVX200 is not noisy, I don't think, you can see many members here have taken excellent footage with it, but you have to light properly for anything you do. That is the art of cinematography. It's not a point-and-shoot camera, it requires a good camera team to achieve professional results, but I think if you understand how to get the best use out of the HVX200 you can achieve amazing images that you will be very pleased with showing to anyone.
Click to expand...

lmao.jpg
 
TimurCivan said:
I said itbefore i'll say it again....

most of the HVX's "noise" is poor monitoring. watc h the footage on a real trinitron 1080i CRT, its practically spotless.

Laptop LCD monitors cant properly display the footage.
Click to expand...

Even though I agree with your point when producing for TV, one has to take into account these days that tons of what is produced is mainly monitored on sub-par computer equipment, even for screening. That makes the noise a point, nevertheless.

My panny 17" lcd broadcast is a charm and very good for what it's meant for, and as you may know, I've been bashing people for bad monitoring solutions, but still the noise in the HVX is a huge issue. Especially in a VFX workflow, if you choose to stay in dvcpro HD.

And again:
This comes from a guy who really likes the camera and is making a (good) living from it.

It's important to know a tools limit to make it work well...

Gunleik
 
Last edited:
Arson said:
The hvx is only noisy when used to shoot with no lights. Since professionals use lights then one could assume the noise complaints are coming from amateurs shooting with their home 60 watt desk lamps. When using the ample light that even a single 2k light provides.

a dvx and a light kit would be a better investment than an hvx and no lights
Click to expand...

Exactly. A professional would have the lighting equipment to make it work.

I know I'm on DVXUser.com so I don't want to bash the DVX, as I understand it's basically the best selling digital camera ever for the filmmaking community, and low budget filmmakers have had a great time with it, but to me that camera is a joke. I'm sure it was great when it came out, but it's 2007, using a DVX on a professional shoot is like bringing your XL-2 to a professional shoot. Just because a few professional movies (28 Days Later, which looked great, and Full Frontal, which looked beyond terrible) have been shot with the XL-2 doesn't make it a professional camera. It's a prosumer camera. It's basically a POS. The DVX is not superior to the XL-2 in any meaningful ways, except if you're a huge Panasonic fan instead of a huge Canon fan. Canon glass is much better, anyway, though, so I'm not sure what the argument is in favor of the DVX nor do I care or want to be told what is so great about an old, outdated camera. Sentimentality has no place in business. If you think the DVX100 is totally professional for any presentation format, well shoot, I guess we don't need more expensive cameras, let's just all use something with resolution about 25 times worse than the RED and worse than 35mm, and we'll all blow up our little amateur work from an old camera onto 35mm and see what happens. Now if we're talking about filming for the Web, that's difference, something like the DVX100 is plenty sufficient; everything has its place. But in professional filmmaking? Only for n00bs.

If I was a client and I paid for a shoot and saw someone pulling out a DVX100 I'd laugh first, then realize it was my money at stake and demand a refund. You can't acquire footage in SD, it has no place in the world anymore. Although a lot of presentation is still SD, you MUST acquire at a higher resolution than that to make it look really good for SD. This has been true for a long while, there is no present or future for SD acquisition. Already I would say if you're doing budgets above $25,000 for a one or two day shoot, like a commercial or music video, and using the HVX200 that's pretty laughable. You should be renting something like the F950 anyway, getting true 1080p footage, and you're still getting 4:4:4 with that camera, which is nice too. The HVX200 is a wonderful tool at a certain budget level. Without that camera we'd have to spend too much money renting better tools or we'd have to wait for our REDs to arrive, so the HVX is a lifesaver. I totally love it actually. But it has its limitations and its niche, like anything. I wouldn't pull out the RED to shoot a $10,000 music video, either, frankly. I'm not risking an extremely expensive camera package on a low budget video. You need to bring the money to the table before I pull out the big guns, otherwise the HVX200 is going to get the job done well for that level of budget. I guess by the same token you could pull out an XL-2 or a DVX100 if the budget was $2,000, because the client was insulting you by offering you such a lousy budget and you're insulting them back by using such outdated POS cameras.
 
Last edited:
No one can argue the impact High-Def is having on the industry or the future but decrying the DVX100 is the joke.

You made the point stating 28 Days Later "... looked great" (both films were shot using an XL1 in fact) ; if the same film was shot today, using the DVX100 and a 35mm Adapter, it'd still be great and look even better.

If we're getting PAID, then it's professional.

A POS ? Put the camera in the hands of a professional and you'll still get magic; albeit SD.

-

So if I own a RED and am offered a Music Video (and I get $1,000) I should turn it down ?

-

I'm with the HD market personally, but slamming the DVX in todays market is really funny; no really. It still has a place, whether in docu work, skate or surf, music video or even in the lowly hands of student filmmakers.

Oh, and it still is great.

(Runs to tell Rob Zombie and Joel Schumacher not to use S16 to shoot their films, I mean, isn't that far inferior to todays modern 35mm ? )

Oh, and welcome to DVXUSEr; we need some new blood around here.
 
JonathanLB said:
You need to bring the money to the table before I pull out the big guns, otherwise the HVX200 is going to get the job done well for that level of budget. I guess by the same token you could pull out an XL-2 or a DVX100 if the budget was $2,000, because the client was insulting you by offering you such a lousy budget and you're insulting them back by using such outdated POS cameras.
Click to expand...

In many ways I agree with you... but slamming someone back with crappy quality because they aren't paying you what you want is BS. If your name is on something it represents you and your work everywhere it is shown. You always put your best foot forward. Start putting out a ton of crappy work because you dont feel your getting paid enough and watch how quickly your RED gathers dust and your iphone stops ringing.
If you're not happy with what someone is paying you, its better to not do the job than to do it half assed. I turn down work all the time because I think that certain things may be detrimental to the quality of my work. Sure it sucks to pass on the buck, but it keeps the value and respect of my work high.
Not that we haven't all gotten to a point in a shoot day where we think to ourselves"Why am I doing this? I'm getting paid how much? Man I'd rather be in Bed."

I do agree with what you are saying otherwise though. Every job has a tool, and there's certain levels you hit where your $5,000 camera is no longer the right tool for the job.
 
I was joking about bringing a lousy camera to a shoot, clearly if you own a better camera you can bring it, but that also depends on quite a lot.

If the budget is really tiny, but we still feel like doing it at this point, maybe we hire a DP and two grips, but don't have the budget for a 1st A.C. and we can't really use a camera like the HVX200 because it's too hard to pull focus accurately on a camera of that quality with just a DP being the camera op and the DP.

If I brought a RED to a shoot, I wouldn't bring just one guy to do all of the camera department work because that really defeats the purpose of having a high-end camera. You need the support staff with a camera like that to get the results of even using it.

Also what you're saying may make sense for your business model, but not for mine. We will have two corporations setup, one is a production company, one is a camera and camera support rental company (reference monitors, laptops, lenses, tripods, etc.), so the production company must rent from the rental company. It will get a price break for being a "frequent renter," no doubt, but the RED and its equipment is an $85,000 package and will rent accordingly at $1,500 per day minimum. The HVX package will be more like a $400/day package, so it may not fit into the budget on a $10,000 project to use anything but the HVX200. There's no point in spending huge sums of money on equipment and then lowering yourself to the level of doing work where not only is your time not paid, but your equipment isn't either.

If I could make a music video and make a $1,000 profit, or rent out all of my equipment for a day and make $2,000, it's not rocket science which one I'm going to choose. My time and my equipment is worth money. At some point you have to set your value accordingly otherwise you're just not going to make it. You can't bring $125,000 total production equipment you own to a shoot that's paying you so little your profit is under $1,000. That makes no financial sense. Now if it's your own project, that's different, but if you are creating a product where the rights to that product will be sold entirely to the client, they need to pay for the tools being used.

The RED won't be collecting dust, the RED will be out on rental making money while the HVX200 is used on the low budget music video, that way I make money on both of them. Use the camera that fits the budget, then if you have lots of other cameras you need to make them work for you, too, that's the point of having lots of cameras. Now if it's the last minute and we say, ok, the RED is available tomorrow, change of plans, we have the crew already, let's talk to the DP and see if he wants to work with the RED, give the client a value-added experience, and he'll be appreciative. That's an option we have, but there will never be any promises weeks in advance unless the money is spent to use that type of camera. I'd sure feel like a moron if I reserved the camera on a low-budget project where my equipment profit was tiny and then get a call a week later, before the music video shoot, and someone wanted to pay for the RED for a week and I had to turn that down because I already told a client of the production company I'd use the RED. That's the kind of situation we want to avoid.

And J.R., yes, you should turn it down. Unless you have a very basic RED package, i.e. no prime lens set, not a professional tripod, etc., then your RED is worth more than $1,000/day to rent out, and your time is worth something too, so you better be very passionate about that music video. Anyway financially speaking we can't make a music video for less than $5,000 and still have any sort of profit. It's just not possible. At this time we'll do a video or two for $3,500 if possible if we love the music, love the band, and think we can make something pretty special for the reel, but there's no profit to be made on that type of work at a professional level. You start factoring in location costs, crew costs (at least $1,000 even shooting non-union), editing, paying for our overhead (production insurance, office space, insurance for our equipment truck), my time, my producer's time, and all of our equipment, even $5,000 is almost pro-bono work because there's not much room for profit there. For now we're fine doing the $6,000 to $10,000 range, because you can make a small profit and gain clients.
 
Last edited:
JonathanLB said:
You can't acquire footage in SD, it has no place in the world anymore.
Click to expand...
Dude. Seriously.

Do you have any idea how many cable networks shoot on the DVX today? I think you'd be surprised.

Although a lot of presentation is still SD, you MUST acquire at a higher resolution than that to make it look really good for SD.
Click to expand...
Er, no, I think I'll tend to disagree with this statement. So would MTV, Turner Networks, and many other massive broadcast organizations.

Already I would say if you're doing budgets above $25,000 for a one or two day shoot, like a commercial or music video, and using the HVX200 that's pretty laughable.
Click to expand...

Don't mean to be picking on you, but why are you saying preposterous, ridiculous, indefensible things like this? I've done multiple $350,000+ shoots on an HVX. National spots get done on the HVX all the time. Charles Papert just talked about some spots he did for NBC, which aired during the National League Championship Series, on an HVX. Of course, he had to talk them *up* to the HVX, because the original spots they were doing were on the DVX...

Maybe you're having a bad night or something, but seriously, amp it down a notch please. You sound like you have some good things to say, but it's buried under so much hyperbole it's hard to tell.
 
JonathanLB said:
Exactly. A professional would have the lighting equipment to make it work.

I know I'm on DVXUser.com so I don't want to bash the DVX, as I understand it's basically the best selling digital camera ever for the filmmaking community, and low budget filmmakers have had a great time with it, but to me that camera is a joke. I'm sure it was great when it came out, but it's 2007, using a DVX on a professional shoot is like bringing your XL-2 to a professional shoot. Just because a few professional movies (28 Days Later, which looked great, and Full Frontal, which looked beyond terrible) have been shot with the XL-2 doesn't make it a professional camera. It's a prosumer camera. It's basically a POS. The DVX is not superior to the XL-2 in any meaningful ways, except if you're a huge Panasonic fan instead of a huge Canon fan. Canon glass is much better, anyway, though, so I'm not sure what the argument is in favor of the DVX nor do I care or want to be told what is so great about an old, outdated camera. Sentimentality has no place in business. If you think the DVX100 is totally professional for any presentation format, well shoot, I guess we don't need more expensive cameras, let's just all use something with resolution about 25 times worse than the RED and worse than 35mm, and we'll all blow up our little amateur work from an old camera onto 35mm and see what happens. Now if we're talking about filming for the Web, that's difference, something like the DVX100 is plenty sufficient; everything has its place. But in professional filmmaking? Only for n00bs.

If I was a client and I paid for a shoot and saw someone pulling out a DVX100 I'd laugh first, then realize it was my money at stake and demand a refund. You can't acquire footage in SD, it has no place in the world anymore. Although a lot of presentation is still SD, you MUST acquire at a higher resolution than that to make it look really good for SD. This has been true for a long while, there is no present or future for SD acquisition. Already I would say if you're doing budgets above $25,000 for a one or two day shoot, like a commercial or music video, and using the HVX200 that's pretty laughable. You should be renting something like the F950 anyway, getting true 1080p footage, and you're still getting 4:4:4 with that camera, which is nice too. The HVX200 is a wonderful tool at a certain budget level. Without that camera we'd have to spend too much money renting better tools or we'd have to wait for our REDs to arrive, so the HVX is a lifesaver. I totally love it actually. But it has its limitations and its niche, like anything. I wouldn't pull out the RED to shoot a $10,000 music video, either, frankly. I'm not risking an extremely expensive camera package on a low budget video. You need to bring the money to the table before I pull out the big guns, otherwise the HVX200 is going to get the job done well for that level of budget. I guess by the same token you could pull out an XL-2 or a DVX100 if the budget was $2,000, because the client was insulting you by offering you such a lousy budget and you're insulting them back by using such outdated POS cameras.
Click to expand...

DVX outdated POS???

Search for my Andromeda DVX100 footage, and I think you'll reverse that comment.

I think what you really mean is that MiniDV is an outdated format, or at the very least, you don't think that the signal processing inside the stock DVX is very good. That I can totally understand, in fact, I totally agree with that point of view, especially after seeing first hand just how good the MiniDV footage could have been... but hey, if you were Panasonic, you wouldn't want a cheaper camera outperforming your larger more pricey ones would you?
 
Deuceofspades said:
Watched the movie "November" today, which was shot on the DVX-100 and noticed a lot of image noise in many of the shots. I also noticed same in my own DVX-100B footage done with same camera when in "lower" light. And not necessarily LOW light, just not bright light.

The noise is especially noticeable in the red colors it seems?

Is HVX200 (which I am about to upgrade to) as noisy? I believe it is even more light hungry than DVX so I am a bit concerned...

Share your experiences please...
Click to expand...

A lot of the signal noise you see in digital footage has a lot to with light levels being to low, BUT, it also has a lot to do with:

1.) signal processing (both in camera and in post)
2.) White balance settings (channel gain)
3.) Optical filtering being used, if any
4.) Compression codec used

I guess what I'm saying is theres lots of reasons, so you really need to sit down with the camera and work with, test it, etc... I spent a good three months testing my Andromeda, it was a big learning curve, and I'm still improving the performance today. I don't have too much HVX200 footage I'm really jumping for joy over (well, the very last things I did were pretty good...), but then again, I never got to spend three months figuring out the best way to create the images I wanted either.

Hope that helps!
 
DVX outdated POS???

Every time I'm shooting on the red carpet all I see are DVXs.

And... I have an HVX wishing for DVX light sensitivity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top