Read the other thread. Leo Ticheli explains there that it was done on purpose because he liked the look and aesthetic of it. It's an artistic thing. I sorta like it.
The Footage from Leo's shoot...
- Thread starter Ticheli
- Start date
- Status
Read the other thread. Leo Ticheli explains there that it was done on purpose because he liked the look and aesthetic of it. It's an artistic thing. I sorta like it.
Joe Walker
Well-known member
Hey guys, okay, first thing first, our FTP is having issues so I've got to do some maintenance, I'm guessing you all crashed it with the downloads, LOL! Furthermore, I'm going to look into dropping 1 camera raw file on there as well. I should have all of this up and running in the morning. So you'll see a new post from me then. For what it's worth, and please hear me well, in FCP playing out of a Kona 3 to several monitors this stuff looks amazing!!! Period, point blank, end of discussion, contract terminated. Leo's Varicam is for sale for c#*@! sake!!! I know there is a new fervor amongst the troops these days for perfection, believe me, I understand. These are wonderful times, I still remember in 2002, to get the film look with shallow depth of field I had to shoot on film. So hang in there til the morning.
Barry if you read my entire post that you quoted you'll see that I asked if it was stock footage because I wanted to make sure. Keep in mind, it could be dangerous to use stock footage in a video like this because people will inherently think it was shot with that camera. So I don't see what the problem is with pointing it out. I sort of figured it was stock footage and that's why I asked if it was because I wanted to make sure.
Joe Walker
Well-known member
Dude that was some graphics I slapped together in After Effects, that smoke was CG, that entire intro/outro was totally made up in AE and output as pro res 422 hq 1080 @ 23.98, if that has banding...then...well....... I should probably move on from beer to Tequila now, LOL!!!!
Last edited:
derbrocks09
Well-known member
FWIW I just watched it on my laptop and it looked 1000% better vs my desktop so I would say there is some weird compression / goofy monitor stuff going on here.
I feel a lot better now. The noise was horrible watching it on my desktop for some reason. Windows 7 perhaps? Who knows.
I feel a lot better now. The noise was horrible watching it on my desktop for some reason. Windows 7 perhaps? Who knows.
Joe Walker
Well-known member
No worries chief! In one of my many deep conversations with our engineer and Leo, we all agree that now-a-days, there are WAY TOO MANY variables in play, from codec in camera, to ingest, to transcode, to edit, to output, to website re-compression.....heck we've seen (to be left nameless) several cable distributors take the most gorgeous of footage shot on 35mm and transferred in at Uncompressed HD 10 bit be crunched down so bad you would've puked!
OK....check this out. I'm not "emotionally connected" here. I'm not buying an AF100 at this time. I ~may~ purchase one in the next 3-6 months. I like what I have seen from this camera so far....looks very promising for us all. Thanks a MILLION for performing this test....VERY cool stuff indeed. I watched the video....loved it....and I am CONVINCED that there is something going on in the workflow to produce the "notable" amount of noise.
I watched it before I read ANY comments. The first thing I thought was: Wow....that's a lot of noise. NOW....I've read all of the things that we can do to NOT see the noise. HOLD UP. There is more noise here than I've seen in a video for a long time. HONESTLY....to the point that I think it's the workflow/process of POSTING to Vimeo. NO WAY could it "fool" industry experts like Barry. I COMPLETELY TRUST THAT FACT. That said: ~TRUST ME~ the video on Vimeo is *notably* noisier than other videos that have been posted (with the same camera). When someone else gets this thing downloaded PLEASE REPOST IT...and try a different workflow. I have posted videos with one workflow....changed it up....reposted and got TOTALLY different results.
This WILL NOT affect my decision to purchase....I trust Barry, that the image is MORE THAN WORTH the investment. Hey Barry....too many people are saying the same thing....this footage, on the Vimeo site is noticeably noisier. Let's find the culprit here....because I trust that it IS NOT the camera.
I watched it before I read ANY comments. The first thing I thought was: Wow....that's a lot of noise. NOW....I've read all of the things that we can do to NOT see the noise. HOLD UP. There is more noise here than I've seen in a video for a long time. HONESTLY....to the point that I think it's the workflow/process of POSTING to Vimeo. NO WAY could it "fool" industry experts like Barry. I COMPLETELY TRUST THAT FACT. That said: ~TRUST ME~ the video on Vimeo is *notably* noisier than other videos that have been posted (with the same camera). When someone else gets this thing downloaded PLEASE REPOST IT...and try a different workflow. I have posted videos with one workflow....changed it up....reposted and got TOTALLY different results.
This WILL NOT affect my decision to purchase....I trust Barry, that the image is MORE THAN WORTH the investment. Hey Barry....too many people are saying the same thing....this footage, on the Vimeo site is noticeably noisier. Let's find the culprit here....because I trust that it IS NOT the camera.
I'm not trying to disrespect anyone or stir anything up. But I really truly am seeing half the noise on my 7D in a very similar setting at the same f-stop on the same monitor. I'm cutting together the demo as I type this.
I'm also not doing this to knock one camera or another. I just feel that if I'm truly getting better noise performance on a 7D, than the community need to know that to make a more informed decision. Again the AF-100 looks like a great camera with great features. But I'm just not seeing low-light and noise as one of them.
John Caballero
Veteran
Well, there is one thing to do, ignore these complainers altogether. First the "blown hight lights" now the noise? Really, there is no time to waste here. If somebody sees noise and don't want to get the camera fine. A group of real pros got together used it, gave their opinion and shot some great footage. The complainers just sat in their houses and watched from afar. Thanks Barry and everybody involved. We know you are not blind! Keep up the good work.
I've had people ask me what I did to produce such clean footage on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EgITiOSOyk
I'm telling you (this isn't special in my eyes)....but this is a 400usd camera. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT IT PRODUCES LESS NOISE BECAUSE Panasonic can't be that DUMB. I'm telling you...it's the workflow when encoding and posting to the web. Check the comments here (on this video) and there's a guy asking me my workflow. (Incidentally it's all defaults on CS5) But...I'd better go back and check those settings because I've seen a significant difference on various occasions.
I'll tell you another reason why we all need to have this discussion: We can't be posting AF100 footy with a workflow that produces "noticeably" noisier results...then tell everyone to stick it on their plasma to see what it "really looks like". Hey....let's figure out an "online posting" workflow (for the AF100) that produces the best results (for web) for that camera...and go from there. There's no reason we should ACCEPT making a SUPERIOR CAMERA look WORSE, even with online videos.
EidolonFilms
Well-known member
I don't think anyone who isn't watching the original file or the first generation ProRes file can accurately judge how much noise is present in the original image. I just watched the downloaded vimeo clip on a FSI monitor driven by a Blackmagic Intensity SDI, and yes there is lots of noise. But I will not make any judgements on this because this is from a compressed h.264 file that I had to transcode back into ProRes to even watch via FCP. I assume everyone else is watching the same multi-compressed/transcoded image as well.
I will take Barry's word on all this until we can see the original file.
I will take Barry's word on all this until we can see the original file.
Seriously, you guys don't need to be taking potshots at those that are observing and giving notes on their observations. We're not insulting anyone, yet we're being told we're not as good or not knowledgeable enough to be saying what we're saying because we don't have 30 years of experience or haven't been nominated for an Oscar.
No one is really complaining. We're saying we see a lot of noise in the video. And it's nothing against the camera because more than one person is saying it's more noise than in other AF100 footage. Maybe it was introduced in the post workflow. Maybe it was camera settings, which is understandable considering no one has had much time with the camera. Maybe it's that all of our displays aren't calibrated right, even though they may appear to be. There's a bunch of factors at play. But what's clear is that multiple people are independently saying there's a lot of noise. You can't take that away. The best thing to do is try to figure out why.
We weren't invited to the shoot. We also weren't sent AF100's to shoot with. Give me an AF100 and I'll got shoot with it. Probably not going to happen, so I have to wait until the production cameras ship.
I think that's possible, but I don't know. I trust the camera is good, that's why I still have it on order.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
wow looks incredibly noisy to me even at low ISO's. It's something I noticed in other videos as well especially the japan videos out doors in low ISO, Bloom's South video also, all the 'clothes' on people especially when they're even mid tones or slightly darker are incredibly noisy
powervideo
Well-known member
Well I had a Canon 7 and I have to disagree and say that I found the noise at high ISO's on the 7D quite bad; bad enough for me to sell it and get a GH1.3. And that's without all the moire and aliasing. I just downloaded Leo's video from Vimeo and watched it on a broadcast Sony CRT (downrez to SD SDI via a Kona) and it really looks stunning. The skin tones and overall tonality looks fantastic. Yes I see some noise in the darks and on the candlelit girl's arm, but this is a 2.8mbs compressed QT. Even my Varicam shows noise; in some ways it gives the Varicam that organic, less than perfect, grain that displays the filmic look. There are too many really really silly comments here at the moment.
I've prepaid for my AF100.....and I'm selling my Varicam too.
Seriously.
Last edited:
As Barry requested before, here's where I'm seeing more noise than I would expect. There's really no reason for the angry responses to these questions. There are several people reporting the same thing. It's a legitimate inquiry, it's not a slam and it needn't generate defensive responses . I'm looking at this footage compared to probably 8 or 9 other Af100 test clips, (plus the F3 Short film), on a PH9UK Panny 50". One thing about my Panny plasma, is that it's not like the usual consumer plasmas and LCDs, that seem to process out, and soften noise and compression. Although it's a beautiful monitor, it's very precise and fine, you see everything. Black levels, color levels, all look good, and where they should be, on these samples, and everything else I feed the monitor this way. If it's coming from the compression process, I look forward to seeing the less compressed samples.
Noise:
:19 Midtone greys in background, especially upper right
:24 Lemon Squeeze WS, dark background, lots of very fine grain noise.
1:00 Midtone Greys, lower right especially noticed.
All the low light stuff was surprisingly noisy, obviously 800, which I thought looked unusable as is. Neat Video might help, but it also tends to soften quite a bit on that much noise.
Btw - your lighting on the Girl for the green screen shot was particularly beautiful, very soft. Nice!
Noise:
:19 Midtone greys in background, especially upper right
:24 Lemon Squeeze WS, dark background, lots of very fine grain noise.
1:00 Midtone Greys, lower right especially noticed.
All the low light stuff was surprisingly noisy, obviously 800, which I thought looked unusable as is. Neat Video might help, but it also tends to soften quite a bit on that much noise.
Btw - your lighting on the Girl for the green screen shot was particularly beautiful, very soft. Nice!
Last edited:
groveChuck
U-matic Member
That's it! I'm never buying AE! What, is that AVC AE? Hah! Never!!! :happy:
Pour me a shot too, Joe!
Thomas Church
Active member
I think I was the first to bring up the noise issue and I'm sorry that this thread is getting a little bitter.
First of all I just want to say that I trust and respect Barry's view very much.
I might be wrong, it might be my display, but from where I see it the AF100 looks just as noisy (or noisier) than the HPX-170 (I'm editing 170 footage right now as a comparison)
I also found the ISO 800 completely unseable, I found the image so degraded that I think it can't be a monitor issue. I expected to be able to get away with using ISO 1600 on this camera, having some nice filmic noise. It just isn't the case apparently.
Again, this is purely a subjective view and I might be completely wrong.
Let's keep our heads cool guys.
First of all I just want to say that I trust and respect Barry's view very much.
I might be wrong, it might be my display, but from where I see it the AF100 looks just as noisy (or noisier) than the HPX-170 (I'm editing 170 footage right now as a comparison)
I also found the ISO 800 completely unseable, I found the image so degraded that I think it can't be a monitor issue. I expected to be able to get away with using ISO 1600 on this camera, having some nice filmic noise. It just isn't the case apparently.
Again, this is purely a subjective view and I might be completely wrong.
Let's keep our heads cool guys.
Last edited:
- Status