That's it
- Thread starter DanHD
- Start date
Dino
Veteran
Here's what's been established in my mind:
1. HD SDI out is noisier than component out due to higher frequency signal.
2. 170 at +2 coring is the same noise wise as a 200A at 0 coring.(Thanks to Barry Green for this.)
3. There is no reason the same codec would exhibit more macroblocking in one
camera model vs. the other unless that particular camera is faulty.
I recommend you ingest footage from P2 of chips, Macbeth, Chroma Du Monde, and do a split screen using your NLE of a 200A and 170 side by side and monitor on a good display.
As far as the feature set of the 170, I would hate to live without things like HD SDI for monitoring, focus assists for 35mm DOF adapter, waveform/vector, extra ND for 35mm DOF adapter, wider lens, sharper LCD, etc.
Last edited:
Dino
Veteran
Well, I guess that would mean the HVX200A is too noisy for it's price, the HVX200 is
definitely too noisy, ditto a JVC HD-100. Besides the EX1, which is quiet but slow at
1080/24p and more expensive, which cameras at the $5K price point are quieter?
n8ture
Veteran
What defines way too much noise?
I find the 170 to be much cleaner than my original HVX-200.
I've sold HVX-200 footage to National Geographic, Animal Planet and AT&T to name a few. So, obviously the footage was acceptable to them.
In low light situations, I find my 170 to be leaps and bounds ahead of my old 200.
I think people spend so much time discussing if the 170 has too much noise and not enough time shooting good content.
My HVX-200 has paid for itself time and time again. So, to me, it's not important how clean or how noisy any particular camera is. What matters to me is if I can sell the footage taken with it.
I think it's safe to say that the 170 is cleaner than the 200 but all that really matters is that I get saleable footage.
Content is king. If you capture bigfoot with a cell phone, you're going to make a lot of money. Doesn't matter if the the image has a lot of noise or not.
I make sales because I have the footage that people want for their projects. I've never had anyone ever ask me if I had grizzly bear footage that had less noise.
My clients are concerned about the content of the footage. I get calls asking if I have certain behaviors or certain locations. I make sales because I have what it is they're looking for. I've never lost a sale because they said the footage was too noisy. I've lost plenty because the content wasn't what they were looking for.
Yet all I see here time and time again are people obsessed with how noisy their camera is or their competitors camera is.
BTW, I've made plenty of sales of footage shot with my Sony camera too. The Sony is a SD camera and I find that people who don't want to pay the higher prices for the HD footage are happy to buy a SD clip.
Nat Geo used a HD clip and a SD clip of mine on the same program. They used the SD clip because it showed behavior that they needed for the program. So once again, it was about the content and not if there was too much noise or not.
There's plenty of footage out there shot with the 200,200a,170. If you like the quality fine, buy one. If you don't buy something else. But no matter what you buy if you shoot shi*ty footage, doesn't really matter how clean or noisy it is, it's still shi*ty footage.
I find the 170 to be much cleaner than my original HVX-200.
I've sold HVX-200 footage to National Geographic, Animal Planet and AT&T to name a few. So, obviously the footage was acceptable to them.
In low light situations, I find my 170 to be leaps and bounds ahead of my old 200.
I think people spend so much time discussing if the 170 has too much noise and not enough time shooting good content.
My HVX-200 has paid for itself time and time again. So, to me, it's not important how clean or how noisy any particular camera is. What matters to me is if I can sell the footage taken with it.
I think it's safe to say that the 170 is cleaner than the 200 but all that really matters is that I get saleable footage.
Content is king. If you capture bigfoot with a cell phone, you're going to make a lot of money. Doesn't matter if the the image has a lot of noise or not.
I make sales because I have the footage that people want for their projects. I've never had anyone ever ask me if I had grizzly bear footage that had less noise.
My clients are concerned about the content of the footage. I get calls asking if I have certain behaviors or certain locations. I make sales because I have what it is they're looking for. I've never lost a sale because they said the footage was too noisy. I've lost plenty because the content wasn't what they were looking for.
Yet all I see here time and time again are people obsessed with how noisy their camera is or their competitors camera is.
BTW, I've made plenty of sales of footage shot with my Sony camera too. The Sony is a SD camera and I find that people who don't want to pay the higher prices for the HD footage are happy to buy a SD clip.
Nat Geo used a HD clip and a SD clip of mine on the same program. They used the SD clip because it showed behavior that they needed for the program. So once again, it was about the content and not if there was too much noise or not.
There's plenty of footage out there shot with the 200,200a,170. If you like the quality fine, buy one. If you don't buy something else. But no matter what you buy if you shoot shi*ty footage, doesn't really matter how clean or noisy it is, it's still shi*ty footage.
Well my original 170 had a laundry list of defects, that's probably why.
But man, the 170 I have now, i'm in love with it.
So clean with coring on +3
There is that descrepincy between the 200a's coring values, and the values on the 170, as Barry Green thankfully covered in that thread.
The 170 recieves the same coring benifit at a higher value, sometimes +3,4 or even 5
all in all, I don't know why this 170 looks so much better than the original I preOrdered, but there were a ton of problems with that cam.
But man, the 170 I have now, i'm in love with it.
So clean with coring on +3
There is that descrepincy between the 200a's coring values, and the values on the 170, as Barry Green thankfully covered in that thread.
The 170 recieves the same coring benifit at a higher value, sometimes +3,4 or even 5
all in all, I don't know why this 170 looks so much better than the original I preOrdered, but there were a ton of problems with that cam.
Dino
Veteran
What other problems did it have? Did you look at your new 170 side by side with your original?
First off, dead pixels on the lcd.
It also had some wierd problem with the DSP, the 5600k preset was way too yellow.
Also, there was alot of dust inside the lens, and the cam driven zoom ring felt like there was some grit or dust in there or something.
Idk, all around bad experience with the first. Little things like how the plastic was peeling off the p2 door. It just seemed like someone beat up on it at the factory, or something.
And my lens wobble was out of control.
But my new 170 is great. Not as many problems. And the one I was testing at AbleCine has +3 gain. That explains the noise. Stupid me.
But yeah, the camera is suprisingly clean, at least in my opinion.
It also had some wierd problem with the DSP, the 5600k preset was way too yellow.
Also, there was alot of dust inside the lens, and the cam driven zoom ring felt like there was some grit or dust in there or something.
Idk, all around bad experience with the first. Little things like how the plastic was peeling off the p2 door. It just seemed like someone beat up on it at the factory, or something.
And my lens wobble was out of control.
But my new 170 is great. Not as many problems. And the one I was testing at AbleCine has +3 gain. That explains the noise. Stupid me.
But yeah, the camera is suprisingly clean, at least in my opinion.
Chenopup
Well-known member
Personally on the whole noise issue is I think people are so critical that they look for the noise rather than focusing on the image / content. Having owned a Z1 / XHA1 / A1U / XLH1 / HV20 / HF100 and now the HPX170, I attest that the noise in the HPX is on par with all the aforementioned cameras. Going back and looking at prior footage, I'm not seeing anything that is any less noisy in like circumstances than the HPX. Maybe the Sony Z1 (the A1 was a muddy mess IMO) but I tend to like the image from the Panny / Canon cams better anyway.
I saw a side by side test at AbleCine with the HMC, hpx170, and EX1
and honestly, although the ex1 was sharper, The noise was comparable. This was on a sony broadcast monitor, as well.
Barry_Green
Moderator
My guess would be the gamma and DRS settings. There's a big difference in perceived sensitivity between HIGH and CINE-D gamma, and DRS can add a ton of noise. If you had those settings changed and then they re-set it, perhaps that would account for the difference?
Dino
Veteran
Barry, sensitivity wasn't perceived, it was obvious on chips with a scope side by side with a 200A. I'm used to the tonality differences between gammas and the camera came back from Panasonic in CINE-D, same as I sent it out. I also never turned DRS on as it can't be used with 24p. Please remember that I own an HDX900 and am used to film gammas and I'm a fan of DRS for exteriors and don't find that it adds objectionable noise with the 900, although I've seen it do some strange things to very saturated chroma phase wise.
My theory on my 170 is buggy firmware, but everything seems to be stable since the reset. If I hadn't looked at it next to a 200A, I may never have known, although the reason I did is because the 170 was too noisy in that state.