Soft-looking video, or am I expecting too much?

I'm not a fan of the sharp image, so i repeat i've bought the 301 because i like the cinematic look that this camera produce and his extremely versatile codec.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely with you on that one, there's something I really like about the Panny's overall "look". Most people probably won't even notice the differences in sharpness and it already looks better than footage from the 5D2, so I'm happy with that.

Edit: just noticed that the macro ring has some play to it, so if you apply some torque you can actually throw off the back focus, talk about loose tolerances!
 
Edit: just noticed that the macro ring has some play to it, so if you apply some torque you can actually throw off the back focus, talk about loose tolerances![/QUOTE]

Yes, that's right! I love to play with the macro a lot to give a cinematic look and to get a poor but efficent low depth of field to emulate DSLR's depth. But i've noticed that while i was doing the backfocus if i don't lock the lens properly moving the macro will cause the loose of the focus setting in wide position. But the macro option on the lens is very powerfull! Fringing lens but professional too! Just right for the price!

Roberto
 
I love to play with the macro a lot to give a cinematic look and to get a poor but efficent low depth of field to emulate DSLR's depth.
Click to expand...

Does using the macro ring to manipulate focus create a different focus / out of focus effect than using the regular focus ring? I know it it more sensitive but other than that does it do anything different
?

Is the idea to shove the camera right up to the persons face and use the macro focus?
 
Last edited:
The macro ring alters the "back focus" aka flange back adjustment the same way the back focus does. I recommend rechecking the back focus every time you use the macro ring. This is especially critical on a small chip camera like the HPX 300.
 
I know what the macro ring does I just wanted to know if it defocuses any different than the regular focus ring. Maybe it was a dumb question but since I am no expert on optics I figure I'd ask.
 
Using the macro ring is generally less effective at reducing depth of field than simply zooming in and focusing closer. Say for example you have a subject 3m away, you have the option of either just focusing to 3m or setting macro to full and focusing to almost infinity to compensate, between the two cases, #1 produces a smaller DOF. So it's really only useful if you can't focus any closer or want to lose some depth on the wide end, although you have to be practically pressed up against the subject for it to work.

One neat trick is to set the macro to full, zoom the lens to just under 20mm, and focus back and forth a bit - you'll be able to clearly focus on the dust on the front of your lens :laugh: useful for cleaning I suppose.
 
Yes, good tip! What i really like to do when i can, is set a lot of objects on a table and set camera lens near to the nearest object. Then set the macro to this object and use the zoom to change focus. Really like this effect!
 
Another nice advantage of macro is changing focus from one object to another. Set Focus on the object in the Background. Then use macro to set focus to the object in the foreground. Then push record and slide the macro-ring back in normal Position. So youre save to hit the exact focuspoint for the backround-object. AND: You have no Breathing/Zoom-Effect like you would have using the normal Focusring. I LOVE Macro! :-)
 
Oh, I've seen that video alright, it's one of the things that pushed me to get the 370! and I have no doubt that a lot of what made that video great was the amount of skill and experience behind the camera either.
But as I've written in the title of the thread, I was expecting greater overall sharpness/clarity than what I got, probably spoiled by watching too many blu-rays and the level of sharpness than can be had with a still-camera. I'm guessing now you have to move to really high-priced gear if you want to get anything close to "moving photograph" quality...

Edit:
Another nice advantage of macro is changing focus from one object to another. Set Focus on the object in the Background. Then use macro to set focus to the object in the foreground. Then push record and slide the macro-ring back in normal Position. So youre save to hit the exact focuspoint for the backround-object. AND: You have no Breathing/Zoom-Effect like you would have using the normal Focusring. I LOVE Macro! :-)
Click to expand...
Wow, I'll definitely have to try this out, thanks for the tip!
 
Last edited:
chancenorris said:
Yes your video looks good.... I would be curious if you could do the same with my HPX300. Evidently Panasonic had its reasons to discontinue the HPX300.
Click to expand...

I did not shoot that video. It was from Mr. Philip Bloom, a very talented DP. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I just provided it to show the 370 is a very capable camera.

Panasonic did have issues with the 300, but I don't think soft video was one of them. It had more to do with noisy images and terrible skew issues. The 370 was supposed to correct the flaws. Although perhaps the problem some of you are experiencng with the 300 has to do with the noise levels in the video?
Mr. Bloom also shot video with the 300. I think you'll be impressed with his efforts with that camera, as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSP2U79a1bE
 
They were supposed to correct the noise "flaw" but instead made it worse by introducing another problem. The 370 added a temporal noise reduction method that tracks changes between frames and stacks them, leaving detail and erasing noise that exists in one frame, but not in another (since digital noise is always 100% random between frames). This works wonderfully in photography and can be done manually using just Photoshop, though it requires that the camera doesn't move between frames, but Panasonic tried to go ahead and apply that to video in the 370.

Maybe the camera isn't very fast at tracking these changes or something, but it causes small details to get blurred, creates occasional after-images that can be seen by zooming in or out on a subject, and finally leaves noise-filled trails/areas behind moving objects since it doesn't have the data yet to fill the detail in from another frame, and this adds up to a softer-looking image. With the firmware update you can turn PAP off, turning the 370 into a 300 with less skew, or maybe leave it on in cases where the camera will be stationary on a tripod and you need maximum sensitivity...
 
I am looking to buy an hpx370, I have seen few threads about focus problems with the fuji lens and some video with too soft/flat video problems. Is this a good camera to buy? Is the fuji lens a decent fit, any recomendations to cameras in the same price range?
 
Hallo Ken! If you read the forum "Soft looking...." and "Need expert..." you will find a lot of infos about the 301-371 cameras. There are mentioned all the flaws and the good things about this products. But, just to be simple, what are you looking for? What kind of work do you do? If you work with interlaced footages the 301 is the right choice. A lot of codecs, format and solid state cards with a small power consuming. If you work like me with progressive footage you have to consider all the limit of the mos sensor. Consider that you have to change settings and all the stuff to work with progressive modes. Basically what i say to you is this: try the camera in a store, use it not on a tripod in progressive mode at 1080. See the low light response and if you want a 371 ask if the camera has the new firmware update. If so try the PAP filter on and off.

By the way... i think that Phillip Bloom can do a good video with a telephone camera!

Roberto
 
Ken, for me the issues are limited budget and absolutely needing the shoulder mount form factor for my current project. There's really not much for me to choose unless I spend a lot more. The Sony 320 with lens is $5K more than the 370 with rebate.
 
Ken1212 said:
I am looking to buy an hpx370, I have seen few threads about focus problems with the fuji lens and some video with too soft/flat video problems. Is this a good camera to buy? Is the fuji lens a decent fit, any recomendations to cameras in the same price range?
Click to expand...

Hi Ken, whilst a few people are having problems, theres many many more who are happily using both the 300 & 370 series cameras with no problems at all. I have a 371 and i am very happy with it now, it balances nicely on the shoulder and isnt too heavy.

The standard lens is quite sharp but not wide enough for me so i bought the Fujinon 13x wideangle lens, a lot wider and sharper.

With regards to image settings there seems to be several ways to do it.... Most people i know like to use the cine style gamma to get the most dynamic range but it will give a flattish image, you then colour/ change it in post.

I often dont use cine gamma at all (i normally use the vivid scene file) and by altering the pedestal setting i get a punchy look straight out of the camera.

To comment on the soft video/backfocus issues, I have only ever had a soft shot once and that was totally my mistake ( i shot at f8 once by mistake)..

I was setting my backfocus last night and i can confirm something that was mentioned earlier..... After i had set my backfocus and locked down the screw, if i gently twisted the backfocus collar, there is a very slight amount of play by the macro lock.. it is enough to show a change in backfocus on my camera... its slight but there (maybe this is a cause of some problems?)

The new 370's should have the new noise firmware "BUT" by default they use the old PAP noise setting, you need to manually toggle it to the new PAP2 one.

With regards other shoulder mount cams in this price range, closest is probably the sony 320. I looked at it but for me it was a dearer option and i prefer the Panasonics look over the sony for some reason.

Last note on the 370, if you demo one, ignore the skew you see in the viewfinder/lcd. They both have a lowish refresh rate and show skew where there is none in the recorded footage. freaked me out when i demo'd mine lol.

best thing ken is to go to a local dealer and try a few out on your shoulder and see what cam suits you personally :)
 
I was trying out various scene file settings today and it seems that the lower contrast Cinelike D seems to produce less noise than Cine V, even after boosting contrast in post. In general it seems that you should try to shoot as bright as possible and refrain from having to boost the exposure in post.
I was also looking at the PMW 320 at one point, but to get a better codec (it's only 35mbps long-gop) I'd still need to buy the $3000 Nanoflash, which makes the price difference even greater.
 
There's a saying that no photographer is as good as the simplest camera, and surely great works in film were made on hardware vastly inferior to even a lower-end modern camcorder, but it doesn't change the fact that expectations also advance with technology, and not necessarily the operator's. Being an art and a craft, I'm interested in the craft being it's best so that no one loses focus off the subject to say "footage sux", that is all...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top