The Footage from Leo's shoot...

Status
Not open for further replies.
On my Dell 30" in the FCP timeline...delicious. Can't believe how beautiful it looks - simply not seeing the noise issues that others are observing.
 
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!
Click to expand...

OK...so...it is what it is. NOW...DVXUSERS UNITE!! WHY? And what do we do to make it look its BEST. I DON'T CARE what that is. I just don't want to see/hear such divergent expressions about the same footage about something so matter of fact. Noise is noise...it's NOT subjective. When I get home if this keeps up I'll do a screen capture and enhance it to finish the "if" part of this discussion. I'll tell you this much too....this won't end until we've experimented and posted MANY MANY MANY iterations/tests with video posting workflows. I don't know...maybe I'm nuts...but...that's my opinion. New thread for this when the cameras ship...that's my view.
 
Barry_Green said:
Okay, this is about where I quit. If people are going to complain about the stock footage that they inserted, then there is no way to win.
Now, either we're all blind, or there's something haywire somewhere. And I'm pretty sure we're not all blind. I really don't care if anyone likes the footage or not, but when someone tries to tell me that the footage we were all drooling over, looks like they could have got it on a ******* 7D at 1250 ISO, then there's one hell of a disconnect going on.


Judging camera performance from footage seen in the internet is like judging photo quality from a color fax of the photo. My opinion is that half of this list has gone off its rocker over analyzing something that can't really be analyzed in footage seen on the internet. This situation is sort of a dark comedy to watch from where I sit. I don't freaking care if you downloaded the vimeo file and played it out to your 60" plasma. That's certainly more a test of the digital chain of events that is post camera than anything else. What is so hard to understand that that once a file is uploaded to vimeo, vimeo hammers said file in what ever way it does and makes it available on the net. That process has almost nothing to do with the camera. No one sits at vimeo and looks at every file that comes in and makes decisions on how to optimise its appearance, or perhaps runs a few tests with different compression settings to see which one looks the best.

I think its time for folks to take a stress pill. The AF 100 is only 5K. Go check one out in the show room before you buy it. The 100 might be pretty decent, or not, but its not going to steal work from an Alexa or Red, for those of you who have high hopes of buying some camera that might do that for 5000 bux. From what I've seen its probably going to be the best 5K you could spend on a camera at this point, but its not a Red , Alexa, 3700, F35. Accept that fact and make your choices.
Click to expand...
 
Barry_Green said:
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.

....

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?
Click to expand...

Barry, first I apologize if I took what you were saying the wrong way. It came after quoting me so I thought it was aimed at me, and it was also what John said (which I also quoted). I personally never compared this video to footage from other cameras other than saying it was more noise than in stuff I've shot with my GH1, but at the same time I said I didn't think it was the camera.

Yes, I used the word "horrid" to describe the noise in the candlelit shots. That's because that's how it looked on my displays. The lighting and everything else is beautiful. It just looks like a lot of noise, similar to the GH1 at ISO1600 or ISO3200 (just to give you a reference point).

Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. Maybe for a bang-for-the-buck situation the GH2 wins, but it will never be better than an AF100 in the same competent hands. It's like cars and horsepower. Horsepower costs money. More horsepower costs a lot more money.

Barry_Green said:
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?"
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that. At least I'm not. Like I said, I don't think it's the camera. I still have mine on order and can't wait to get it.

Again it's observations. And all anyone can do is compare to other observations. If they see more noise than in another video, from another camera or the same camera, on the same display, then something's up. Just need to figure out what it is and why. Maybe it's the color correction of the other videos or noise removal like you suggested before. Only way to tell is to try removing the noise in the video and maybe grading it and see what happens?

Maybe we can all just calm down (myself included) and try to figure it out. I think we can all agree that it doesn't make sense for a $1000 camera to be better than the AF100? So let's go with that notion and solve this one. We should start by realizing you can't really compare graded footage (footage from other cameras and other AF100 footage) to non-graded footage (this AF100 footage).
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Color grading? I think that's most likely it, as Barry said much earlier in the thread.
 
Mike@AF said:
...Any recommendation of calibrating devices or tools for MacBook Pro glossy displays?
Click to expand...
I use / like Pantone Huey Pro.
Not claiming this is the highest broadcast standard. But good for the money and gives you screens to manipulate black / gray levels, etc. Even has a sensor that adjusts your monitor as the light in your room changes if you set it to do so.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not a problem! :thumbsup: Hey, I'm invested in this too. I've got $5k in for the camera, a full set of Zeiss ZF primes, and about $3500 in other equipment I just upgraded to kit out this camera, so I want to make sure I know everything there is to know about it, what to look for, what to watch out for, etc., etc. That's the way to do it.
 
Looking at the footage closer, the image from the camera is fantastic. Best, and the only camera in its price range. The additional features of this camera (NDs, XLRs etc) over DSLRs make it well worth the money, even if the image isn't "perfect."


Footage/Camera Pros:
No aliasing or moire
Higher resolution than Canon DSLR models
HVX HMC colorimetry (Panasonic Pro look? should ease editing concerns between these cameras)
natural looking "grain"
camera is adjustable for many types of looks

Cons (from looking at this footage from vimeo download - not my final verdict until seeing more footage)
yellow/blue shadow noise at high iso (like gh1)
still have not seen highlight shoulder comparable to (gh1 smooth setting)
have yet to see sharpening completely turned off (again comparable to gh1)
again, this may just be due to the compression for vimeo, but I see gh1 and gh2 mud artifacts in the blowing hair shots

Even if these are real problems, which they most likely aren't, the value of the camera is well worth the asking price. It would be the only "dslr" camera I would use for ENG purposes or any other budgeted time-critical shoot. It's not an F3, nor is it a RED. It is an amazing camera though, at an amazing price point.
 
Joe Walker said:
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!
Click to expand...

Interesting. How do we adjust/calibrate gamma curve on a computer monitor?
 
Interesting. How do we adjust/calibrate gamma curve on a computer monitor?
Click to expand...

Hey Guys. I sincerely believe that this will be a great thing to learn about. (Monitor calibration) (No if's/and's/but's) So don't let my comment DERAIL your pursuit. As a Computer Science freak and techno bone head, my trouble shooting skills are kicking in...so bear with me.

Although it will likely ~help~ what I see on this computer....it doesn't CHANGE the fact that I'm watching the other videos on this SAME monitor...and they don't look HALF as severe (as far as noise)....therefore....although it will help what I see....it doesn't change the fact that OTHER VIDEOS on this SAME monitor don't look as noisy. So...we can concluded that there is ALSO something else at work here. That doesn't mean that calibration won't help...so don't stop that pursuit....but the facts point at something else ALSO.
 
Just thought I'd throw this out there.

My desktop looked horrible frankly. I'm running windows 7 64bit.

My laptop looked 100 times better running 32bit XP.

But yeah, something very weird is going on here.
 
Mark Smith said:
Judging camera performance from footage seen in the internet is like judging photo quality from a color fax of the photo. My opinion is that half of this list has gone off its rocker over analyzing something that can't really be analyzed in footage seen on the internet. This situation is sort of a dark comedy to watch from where I sit. I don't freaking care if you downloaded the vimeo file and played it out to your 60" plasma.
Click to expand...

You should care. And if you don't then in the near future you're going to be in a world of hurt, because that's the way everything is going. Not too far down the road all content will be streaming from the Internet. There's already hundreds of web series that are very popular and have large audiences and some even make money. Your DVD and Blu-ray players? Say goodbye to them. You'll watch movies streaming over the Internet from various outlets (Netflix, iTunes, Hulu, Amazon, etc., even YouTube and Vimeo and whatever else comes out in the future). And they'll be viewed on computer screens in addition to TV's, and even phones and tablets like the iPad. You may not like it, but that's the way it's going. So yes, it's very important how the footage performs when viewed online.
 
Last edited:
Just thought I'd throw this out there.

My desktop looked horrible frankly. I'm running windows 7 64bit.

My laptop looked 100 times better running 32bit XP.

But yeah, something very weird is going on here.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Troubleshooting from all angles. I'm on XP Pro 32 bit. Noise is very noticeable. So...this is not likely a direct cause (OS). Good input though.
 
HHL said:
Hey Guys. I sincerely believe that this will be a great thing to learn about. (Monitor calibration) (No if's/and's/but's) So don't let my comment DERAIL your pursuit. As a Computer Science freak and techno bone head, my trouble shooting skills are kicking in...so bear with me.

Although it will likely ~help~ what I see on this computer....it doesn't CHANGE the fact that I'm watching the other videos on this SAME monitor...and they don't look HALF as severe (as far as noise)....therefore....although it will help what I see....it doesn't change the fact that OTHER VIDEOS on this SAME monitor don't look as noisy. So...we can concluded that there is ALSO something else at work here. That doesn't mean that calibration won't help...so don't stop that pursuit....but the facts point at something else ALSO.
Click to expand...

Like I said before: Color grading? The other videos you viewed before were color graded. This video wasn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top