The Footage from Leo's shoot...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Before I was running the video to my Pioneer Elite 60" plasma from my MacBook Pro using a MicroDisplay Port to HDMI adapter/cable. This time I pulled out my MXO2 Mini and ran that and it's very clean. Virtually no noise. Even the candlelit stuff is pretty clean. So now I wonder why it's so noisy on the computer or going through the computer's graphics output compared to other AF100 footage?

Either way, the footage looks awesome and I still can't wait to get the camera.
 
If I'm not seeing noise in the timeline, and some people are not seeing it in Vimeo or the Pro Res file, but some are seeing it in those files, then that would have to be a monitor calibration issue, right?
 
I will echo what was said about it being your monitor.

I've noticed with my HMC150 footage that it varies wildly depending on the display. On my old CRT, it looked clean as a whistle, fantastic in every way, with really rich colors. My my samsung 24in at work however, alot of the same shots looked downright ugly and full of noise up close, to somewhere in between on my new viewsonic LCD at home. Most desktop LCDs aren't the greatest of quality and will show alot of noise that isn't there. Same with TVs.

I do see *exactly* what everyone is talking about in the clips. The blacks are quite noisy. But I'd really chalk that up to my monitor more than anything. If people with properly calibrated displays are singing it's praises, then that's all that counts.

Well, not really... since a huge numbers of clients will be viewing things on **** displays... but you get my point.
 
Mike@AF said:
Before I was running the video to my Pioneer Elite 60" plasma from my MacBook Pro using a MicroDisplay Port to HDMI adapter/cable. This time I pulled out my MXO2 Mini and ran that and it's very clean. Virtually no noise. Even the candlelit stuff is pretty clean. So now I wonder why it's so noisy on the computer or going through the computer's graphics output compared to other AF100 footage?

Either way, the footage looks awesome and I still can't wait to get the camera.
Click to expand...
I would guess that the other AF100 clips were graded to look good on computer screens.
 
From my observation the noise in the shadows really stood out to me. Skin tones looked pasty and similar to the 5d. and footage looked a bit soft for my taste, but the softness may have been a result of lenses being wide open. Last shot that was keyed looked the best but overall underwhelmed by the footage on this. Thanks for putting this together.
 
Mike@AF said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is that what I said? I said "the footage looks good, and if you're seeing something that looks awful, then there's something wrong somewhere." And when people come back and say that a DSLR is producing better-looking footage than this, then I have to wonder where the disconnect is? Seriously -- what is the explanation? Because those of us who were there were absolutely not complaining. Those who worked on it were not complaining. The many people who have viewed it on their own systems in this own thread who have said "it looks awesome... it looks stunning... etc" aren't complaining.

So why can't people look at the whole issue as a whole, and realize that there's gotta be something wrong somewhere? Why blame the footage or the camera? Why not say "hey... if these guys who know what the heck they're doing says it looks great, and if all these other people think it looks great, but I'm seeing something awful, WHY is MY viewing environment looking so bad?"

But instead, no, it's all gotta be "a GH2 looks better than this" or "a 7D at 1250 ISO looks better".

What would you do, if you were in my position? Was it wrong to point out that the folks who made this footage knew exactly what they're doing, and have a ton of experience, and saw it and said it looks good? I'm not "putting anyone in their place", I'm saying that as an empirical base from which to begin the judgement, the people who made the footage are very skilled and they think it looks great. Therefore, the footage from the camera, de facto, is in my opinion to be accepted as not being the source of the problem.

We do not see the noise that you see. We do not see it as a problem. We see something that looks so good that Leo is putting his Varicam up for sale because the AF100 looks better. We are not upset or complaining or cancelling our orders or going off to buy a "real" camera like a 7D. I mean, it's exasperating. The footage looks fantastic, yet some of you are seeing "horrid" (yes, I'm quoting that word... "horrid") noise. Do you not see that there is obviously some manner of disconnect here?

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.
Click to expand...
Correct, there are some people saying that. And I'm trying to get them to figure out why. Because it seems like they all want to point at the camera as the source of the problem. Yet there are dozens of us who saw it and are saying that there is no problem and that it looks fantastic. And frankly, I find it incomprehensible how someone could claim that a GH2 looks better -- a stripped-down, basic-model GH2, which is probably sharing similar technology at the core level but is stripped down a hundred ways from sunday as opposed to the AF100, which may have similar core technology but is beefed up with processing hardware the GH2 can only wish it had. It's just not logical. It's not reasonable. It's not rational. So if that's what someone is seeing, then there's something wrong somewhere.

Isn't that just obvious? I mean, work with me here. I have never read a review that says that a $10,000 Toyota provides a smoother, quieter ride than a $50,000 Lexus. But that's the exact comparison that's being made here. Obviously, it just isn't reasonable to think that way. And in my experience with the footage, sanity and logic are being backed up with observable results.

So -- I don't know where the issue is. But I would rather see folks try to get at the root of the problem, instead of casting stones.

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.
Click to expand...
I spent $600 out of my own pocket to fly to Alabama specifically to get someone else's opinion. You can ask everyone there -- I didn't tell them what to like, or how to do it, I just went along to answer questions that they may have about the operational capabilities. I absolutely deferred to them in every question, in every decision. My purpose in going there was to observe someone else, taking the time to figure this thing out, to see what they saw, to understand how they would work with it. The attempt here was to get a totally second opinion on this. And now that I've gone and done that, and they'll tell you that they totally reaffirmed everything I already thought... you're telling me I need a third opinion now. And if I went and did that, and they came back and said the exact same thing that Group 1 and Group 2 said, would you say "go get a fourth, and keep trying until you find someone who agrees with me?"

Where does it stop?

Hence why I say ... I'm done with it. Y'all can do whatever you like, with whatever you want. I cannot make you see what we saw. And if all our collective viewpoints and opinions, and the nearly (if not completely) universal agreement of everyone who has shot with the camcorder, doesn't convince people that the core footage is solid, then ... nothing else can, I guess.
 
If it's my monitor, can you explain why the other 6 Af100 videos I've downloaded full res and played back on my 50" plasma look much cleaner, and the Sony F3 footage much cleaner yet? You may attribute it to another variable, but it is not the monitor. Its performance does not change every time I send different video to it. The F3 is super clean, the other Af100 tests are admirably clean, this video is for some reason showing more noise. It's not a slam, it's an observation made compared to other video shown through the same device.

And because one or two people make a difficult to support comment about a GH2 looking better, it doesn't invalidate what people are seeing as far as noise goes. It's a very good deal for the money, but I want to know what I give up in the trade off, and if it's OK to live with it and not upgrade to F3. It's reasonable to try to find out what it is we may be seeing.
 
Last edited:
HHL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, I could not have said it better! We all pretty much trust Barry's opinion. I wouldn't have been aware of the 7D's shortcomings without his opinion and this forum in general. Great people here!
 
DBP said:
I do see *exactly* what everyone is talking about in the clips. The blacks are quite noisy. But I'd really chalk that up to my monitor more than anything. If people with properly calibrated displays are singing it's praises, then that's all that counts.

Well, not really... since a huge numbers of clients will be viewing things on **** displays... but you get my point.
Click to expand...

This is a GREAT point. I think in this day and age, the argument of a "calibrated" monitor is kind of, well, not useless, but... less of a hard and fast reference. We have little control over how half the end users see our stuff, especially on web content. So it's all well and good to say that we see noise because our monitors aren't calibrated, BUT, if we're used to seeing that same amount of noise from different cameras on the same monitors, we'd probably never say anything. I don't know how perfectly tuned my computer monitor is (I haven't watched this on my Sony BVM at work yet), but if I watch an EX-1 file (granted source material) there is FAR less noise. So I am using that as my reference level, even if the monitor is not at broadcast calibration specs.
 
reem12 said:
From my observation the noise in the shadows really stood out to me. Skin tones looked pasty and similar to the 5d. and footage looked a bit soft for my taste, but the softness may have been a result of lenses being wide open. Last shot that was keyed looked the best but overall underwhelmed by the footage on this. Thanks for putting this together.
Click to expand...

On my broadcast CRT the skin tones look anything but pasty.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Calibrate your monitors ?
Click to expand...

They are calibrated, although the calibration device I use for my 17" MBP display I hear is not ideal for the glossy display so that could be it. Sort of makes me wish I had the matte finish, but I prefer the glossy display when I don't have to deal with bright rooms or sunlight. My 60" plasma is definitely calibrated properly.

I never thought display calibration (or miscalibration) could introduce so much noise. Any recommendation of calibrating devices or tools for MacBook Pro glossy displays?
 
Last edited:
Mike@AF said:
Before I was running the video to my Pioneer Elite 60" plasma from my MacBook Pro using a MicroDisplay Port to HDMI adapter/cable. This time I pulled out my MXO2 Mini and ran that and it's very clean. Virtually no noise. Even the candlelit stuff is pretty clean. So now I wonder why it's so noisy on the computer or going through the computer's graphics output compared to other AF100 footage?
Click to expand...

Bless you for trying that. What you are now seeing, is what we saw live from the camera head, and what Joe saw in his editing suite. And what it's supposed to look like. I don't know why it's getting noisy on the computer output, but I do appreciate you taking the extra effort to try to hunt down where the disconnect is, between what we've been seeing, and what you were seeing. Thanks for going that extra mile.
 
John Caballero said:
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.
Click to expand...

Guess which is more important in this industry? A bunch of real pros got together and made 10,00 BC also. People got together from afar and decided that it sucked. ...Guess which opinion decided how much the movie made.
 
bhdfield said:
If it's my monitor, can you explain why the other 6 Af100 videos I've downloaded full res and played back on my 50" plasma look much cleaner, and the Sony F3 footage much cleaner yet? You may attribute it to another variable, but it is not the monitor. Its performance does not change every time I send different video to it. The F3 is super clean, the other Af100 tests are admirably clean, this video is for some reason showing more noise. It's not a slam, it's an observation made compared to other video shown through the same device.
Click to expand...
I cannot explain what you're seeing, no, as I'm not seeing it. But as has been suggested earlier, it's entirely possible that the footage you've been downloading has been graded to make it look better on computer monitors, whereas Joe said this stuff is basically raw and ungraded.
 
Where does it stop?

Hence why I say ... I'm done with it. Y'all can do whatever you like, with whatever you want. I cannot make you see what we saw. And if all our collective viewpoints and opinions, and the nearly (if not completely) universal agreement of everyone who has shot with the camcorder, doesn't convince people that the core footage is solid, then ... nothing else can, I guess.
Click to expand...

I TOTALLY hear ya, Barry. I agree some posts were making statement that PRESUMED the AF100 was THE problem. Please don't assume that we are all so RASH. I heard Phillip Bloom say that it performed EXCEPTIONALLY at 3200iso. Again...I'll take that at face value, from a professional THAT HE IS RIGHT. So when I see this video....I say: Hey...this looks like a workflow issue. I've seen this before. I'd REALLY like to see us get to the bottom of it by experimenting with the POST TO WEB WORKFLOW. In fact....I say we make a thread for it as soon as these bad boys start shipping. NO WAY can this be the OPTIMAL outcome. I trust you...I trust your expertise and your eye...so this is something AFTER the footy is out of the camera, before it gets posted. (Love the lighting DVD btw....love it!)

...but PLEASE BARRY....don't get too discouraged...because we're NOT ALL BLAMING THE AF100! Hang in there man!
 
Wow!!!!! Okay kids listen up! I just drove all the way to a friends house and watched the vimeo clip on his Dell 23" monitor and holy crap, yes it had noise! On my Apple 30" it looks spectacular but over here on this Dell 23" it looks grainy, it's like this thing has a whole different gamma curve or something. The plot is thickening!
 
Barry_Green said:
I cannot explain what you're seeing, no, as I'm not seeing it. But as has been suggested earlier, it's entirely possible that the footage you've been downloading has been graded to make it look better on computer monitors, whereas Joe said this stuff is basically raw and ungraded.
Click to expand...

Very possible. I've noticed color temperature on my HVX effect noise levels dramatically. Most of what I have observed in tests from Japan has been pretty high color temps. This was presumably around 3200, so that may be a factor. Answers will come. We'll make the right decisions for our needs and tastes. It's all good.

VERY important variable, I should add, is black levels. If you're seeing video at RGB levels, that was posted to play back 601/709, it's going to bring up the blacks, and all the noise that always hides in the blacks, video or film. So computer monitors have wildly different black levels, and should not be trusted unless they're calibrated for proper output levels.
 
Last edited:
It does look very noisy, and it also looks like the skin tones in the bright areas go to red quite a bit.

I'm going to have to agree with Barry here and say that this footage can't be as noisy as it appears. Even my 7d gets cleaner images at the same iso. So there must be something at play here that is interfering with the mov image we are looking at. plus, we've already been told that this camera has dropped some jaws so really the only thing to do here is give leo and barry the benefit of the doubt here and try and figure out what the issue at hand is instead it trying to convince ourselves or anyone else that this cam is inferior to the gh2, etc...

Selling a varicam for this, that's a huge deal, not something to be taken lightly least of all ignored.

Anywho, I really can't speak for anyone else barry, and am sorry you are probably feeling that your time and money have been wasted on trying to help educate the boards, but i hope you know it's not a waste. Just a few concerned people who have already made deposits for a camera and are now jumping to certain false conclusions that are sure to br settled once the camera is out.

Thanks home boy!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top