The Footage from Leo's shoot...

[swanny]

Barry and D10S you are both wrong. The HVX is too noisy for professional use. It will be the end of Panasonic and major networks are only buying and using JVCs. Let's see, it's 2005 now you will both be proven wrong by 2010. No one will be using the HVX then. Stop telling us to calibrate our monitors as if you have professional experience and the problem could be that simple, or that we're just not aware of the normal amount of noise in all digital video.

Oh wait. Sorry. Wrong thread and I accidentally time travelled again. I just get confused with such similar arguments / comments / reactions to people looking at this footage on computer monitors to what they said about the HVX in 2005

Too bad Barry doesn't have a track record being proven 100% right over this exact same issue on Panny's HVX with 5 years of data / hindsight. Oh wait, never mind, he does:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...o-s-shoot...&p=2173961&viewfull=1#post2173961

Awesome!!! I'm sick of useless banter on here. Why can't we talk about useful info that will help us? I'm sold on the camera, but am still on the lens hunt. I'm switching forums for awhile so I can actually read something that won't waste my time. This is just annoying! If you don't believe Barry and the other reputable people. Just wait until it comes out!!!! I feel sorry for everyone involved with posting footage here. I think Panasonic should reimburse you guys or something. Geez

 

[Lyris]

"AVCHD aliasing sucks, I know this from my 7D"

Good grief, please tell me nobody has said that.
It's ignorant beyond belief, but I suppose it's to be expected given the industry's tendency to tie video processing together with the recording format (ex: "Beta SP needs lots of light").

 

[Michael Carter]

Lyris, if you've read all of the AF100 posts I have... I paraphrased, but the Canon/Gh2 comparisons (or the expectation that there's no difference and thus nothing to compare) are getting silly.

Now, what I want to know is:

What is the current lens situation: AF100 specific glass, existing lenses that fit with no adapter, and of these, which integrate completely with body electronics (incuding AF);

What's the current adapter situation: what's out there for XX-to-AF100, and what are integration options (particularly for those upgrading from DSLRs, and what's the DSLR AF & aperture situation on the 100);

And what's been announced regarding the avove or is upcoming - specific product announcements for next quarter or two... expected product releases vs. conjecture?

 

[eXe69]

OK...not to kill an already dead horse, but to be more specific: Did anyone use Adobe Premier CS4 to encode video? WOWSER WAS IT AWFUL!! I always had to encode on Adobe After Effects CS4 because the results were literally 10+ times better. So one day I accidentally exported a video using Adobe Premier CS5. Holy (*&^%!!! It was so much better than CS4. I don't know what they did...but I can tell you that it is MUCH improved. I tried so many different settings in Premier before....and nothing seemed to work. Now it appears that they "put a team" on this...because I just did the "default", export for YouTube upload....and it was fantastic. Anywho...

That is because when you render out of Premiere CS5 if you look under processes in your task manager (windows talk here) you'll notice that AFX is actually running in the background. It leads me to believe that AFX render engine is used to render out all your projects out of CS5.

 

[Barry_Green]

What is the current lens situation: AF100 specific glass, existing lenses that fit with no adapter, and of these, which integrate completely with body electronics (incuding AF);

Every Micro Four Thirds lens fits on the AF100 with no adapter. The only lens that works fully integrated as a video-style lens is the Lumix 14-140. All the rest are SLR lenses and so have various limited degrees of autofocus capability.

What's the current adapter situation: what's out there for XX-to-AF100, and what are integration options (particularly for those upgrading from DSLRs, and what's the DSLR AF & aperture situation on the 100);

I posted a thread elsewhere.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?224977-Lens-adapters-for-AF100

 

[Tommy K]

I'm looking at the footage on a calibrated CRT monitor, and it looks beautiful. With no color grading to boot. What else can be said? Well there is one thing- "Hello.. can you ship 2 of these to me asap?"

I would like to personally thank everyone on the test team. That is some nice work and seals the deal for me. Your efforts are appreciated by many.

 

[Marc Villafan]

There is the QuickTime gamma shift bug. Which I don't think was ever fixed.
But I believe the difference in noise etc., is caused by a combination of an uncalibrated monitor, as well as the fact that the footage isn't graded.

 

[PaPa]

I imported the footage into cs4 and it looks absolutely stunning. This isn't even the raw image. Very excited.

 

[10s]

This is the camera. I've been looking forward to this for 8 years now. My bellyaching is over, I'm thrilled.

 

[robertolopez]

this is the camera to purchase, it gives u lots of flexibility but if u don't like what u see, stick with whatever you have and tell compelling and engaging stories...i've done it from super 8, dv, s16, hd, svhs...it's all about the story people. rl.

 

[EidolonFilms]

I just saw the camera at the GV expo. It was outputting via HD-SDI to a Panasonic monitor. It was a well lit scene of a woman sitting at a desk. I saw NO noise whatsoever. I didn't check the ISO, and granted it was coming out of SDI not ACVHD, but it looked really, really good.

 

[Mark Williams]

Downloaded the vid from vimeo and dropped it on to an Edius timeline. Played it back thru HDSPARK card to HDTV. Really looked good.

 

[Michael Carter]

Every Micro Four Thirds lens fits on the AF100 with no adapter. The only lens that works fully integrated as a video-style lens is the Lumix 14-140. All the rest are SLR lenses and so have various limited degrees of autofocus capability.

Thanks for the quick info.

 

[Mike@AF]

Regarding monitors, variations in monitor setups, lousy monitors, and web streaming:

It is simply not possible to go chasing after every conceivable misalignment a consumer might do. Furthermore, I would argue that it's not the content creator's responsibility to do that. It is the content creator's responsibility to deliver content that looks excellent on a properly-calibrated, properly-configured monitor. If the footage looks different on someone else's un-calibrated monitor, that's their fault. You cannot possibly anticipate, judge, grade for, and re-grade for, a moving target like that. The reasons that color bars and calibrations exist, is because there can only be one possible interpretation of "good" -- and anyone's monitor that varies from that, will degrade the presentation of your image. We can't educate everyone in the world, nor can we accomodate every possible way that they screw up.

There are people out there with 6-bit LCD screens. On those screens, 8-bit or 10-bit or 12-bit footage is going to show horrible banding. Should we light for a 4-stop contrast ratio so that our footage won't show banding on their screens? No! If the footage looks lousy on their lousy screens, the onus is on them to upgrade their screens! And yes, I said it, and I mean it. The only way to accomodate the lousy screen, is to degrade the footage on everyone's screens. Is that really what you want?

I could probably go in post and crush this footage so that it looks absolutely noiseless on every computer monitor in existence. Would that make you happy? It shouldn't, because it would mean taking 10.5 stops of dynamic range and scrunching it down to maybe 4 or 5 stops. It would mean taking 256 shades of color per channel, and reducing it to maybe 64. That isn't the solution.

Disney/Pixar faced this same problem, because consumers have horribly misadjusted televisions out there. Their solution was to include the THX Optimizer program on their DVDs. As in, if the consumer's television is lousy, it's their responsibility to fix it.

If you recorded a symphony on a 96KHz 24-bit top-of-the-line audio recorder, it's probably not going to sound that brilliant on $2.99 Wal-Mart earbud headphones. Should we compress the dynamic range down to the point where the earbuds can reproduce it? If you do, you'll probably destroy at least 75% of the dynamic range of that concert. Is that a wise course of action? I rebel at the notion.

If your edited, finished production looks excellent on a high-quality, properly-calibrated display, then you've done your job. If someone has an NTSC TV with the tint so far off that The Incredible Hulk looks blue instead of green -- are you supposed to color correct the Hulk? Of course not. You shot him green, you edited him green, he's green on your properly-set-up display. The video recorded him as green. He's green. If the TV makes him look blue, then fix the TV, not the footage.

I both agree with all of this and I disagree a little bit. This thinking and this method of finishing I don't think fully applies today. 5 years ago, absolutely. Today, not so much. I think it's highly important, almost crucial, to consider where the finished project will be viewed. If it's in a theater or on a professional display or to television (including DVD & Blu-ray for now), then absolutely. However, if it's Internet-based content such as webseries or otherwise, then it's important to finish with that in mind. We're in a different world now than we were 5 years ago, and the Internet rules all. It's plain and simple and it's going get bigger. And what people are going to watch Internet content on is mostly their computers, tablets, and phones. And I think what you're seeing here is a new crop of content creators (some will call them hobbyists, but they are the future) that will very likely be producing content that will be viewed on a computer screen. Heck, the professional video that was posted here was posted on an Internet forum. Really, what did you expect? That everyone would say, oh there's noise but it's because I'm watching it on my computer so it's okay? Sorry, but that's not going to happen especially when these same people are going to be putting their projects on the Internet in one form or another. Do you think they want their audience to go to them and say, "hey man, good stuff there, but why is it so noisy?" when there's plenty of other outstanding-looking content without noise?

So basically what I'm saying is that it's a different world now and the old rules don't apply 100% of the time anymore. I think everyone needs to understand that, including Panasonic and other camera manufacturers. Resolution doesn't matter anymore because the resolution of the finished content or the displays the content is viewed on is stagnant at 1920x1080 and is even dropping because of cell phones and tablets. I don't think we can just hold hard and fast to the old-school professional method anymore. We need a new-school professional method to finish the content so it looks good on all mediums or at least the medium(s) the content will be viewed on.

I think it's great that the video was put out there in it's original ungraded state. Everyone wants to see that. Part of the reason is because many probably want to see how much work it's going to take to get their project to look the way they want. When most content is viewed in its finished form it has been color graded and recompressed and so forth. Also, in the end, you typically don't see 10.5 stops of DR. So this lets us see how much work we have to do in post to get a clean image (if the noise is a problem for us) and get the look that we want. I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong, but if I had been the one putting this particular video out there I would have asked myself "What are they going to be watching this on?" Obviously, the answer would have been mostly the computer right off the Internet on Vimeo. And of course a lot of people will also put it through their TV in one way or another, via the computer, some I/O interface, PS3, or otherwise. So what I would have done then is test it on a bunch of computers and normal (not professional or broadcast) TVs. I would have seen the noise (As Joe Walker discovered when he went to his friend's house last night) and thought "huh, that's weird. What can we do to fix this?" In the end, I probably would have decided to put a disclaimer that there's noise in this video on some displays, but on a properly calibrated display or TV there's no noise. I would have also put up 2 versions: ungraded and graded. The graded version would have been the one that would look good on the computers so that people could see that in the end it looks clean with no noise. But that's just me and the process I go through because I finish my projects based on what they will be viewed on. I think that would satisfy both those that understand the calibration aspect of viewing the original and those that look for an example of what a finished project could look like. Again, that's just the way I'd do it. I don't think the way it was done was wrong or anything. From the existing professional standards aspect it was spot on. But like I said, we're in a different world now and the way I'm suggesting I would have done it and the way I've done things for projects I've worked on so far has worked for me without any issues at all. It may not be the proper or current professional way, but it works and it works well.

Also, the "noise" in Harry Potter 7 isn't noise. It's film grain. There's a difference between noise and film grain.

 

[Mike@AF]

There are two different worlds: Professionals and hobbyists. And we're getting quite an earful from the hobbyists these days.

That's a little ignorant and disrespectful to people here that are making these observations and are making a living doing this stuff. They aren't hobbyists. Consider that they are the future content creators, the future professionals in a world that is very different today than it was just a few years ago, and will be very different in the next few years.

 

[mrmoonay]

4. The Canon 7D footage posted here as comparison shows clear FCP workflow issues that are very common, significantly increasing the contrast and saturation of the footage, so its black level and noise content is not to be trusted

Please refrain from accusations like this. I have gone to great lengths to ensure that my FCP work-flow issues regarding gamma shifting have been taken care of. This is exactly how it looked shot in camera. Would you like the original H.264 files? Or better yet... would you like to see how it looks graded when I actually try to hide the noise?

Again here it is... Unaltered and ungraded besides going to proress for editing.

http://www.vimeo.com/17356308

Original File:


Version I downloaded from Vimeo:



I don't know why this is so unbelievable. I don't work for Canon. I don't work for Panasonic. I am not sponsored or endorsed by either one of them. I have the money to buy a AF-100... so it's not like I'm jealous that I can't buy one or something. These are just my findings and observations. I just feel that allot of cameras around get a bad reputation (obviously cause this is DVX user) for no good reason. People need to make their own desicions insead of mindlessly fallowing what others say... No matter how "pro" or "experienced" they may be. Remember, anyone who make a living in this industry has an agenda... You're only going to get unbiased opinions from 15-year old girls or hipster indie dudes.

Just because something is more expensive or purpose built doesn't mean it's going to perform any better. Look at the Subaru WRX STi... 4-door sedan... yes. But that didn't stop it from smoking Porches and Vetts 4x the price.

I had to bring that up... These conversations here remind me of the discussions that used to go on all the time in my car forums.

"There is just NO WAY a 4-banger can smoke my V8 MUSTANG!... It's just IMPOSSIBLE."

Back on topic though... Is the level of noise acceptable compared to other camcorders? Of course. It's not terrible noise.
But is it better than DSLRs which are known mostly for noise and low-light performance? At he moment it appears not. But that could change.

 

[Joe Walker]

I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong, but if I had been the one putting this particular video out there I would have asked myself "What are they going to be watching this on?" Obviously, the answer would have been mostly the computer right off the Internet on Vimeo. And of course a lot of people will also put it through their TV in one way or another, via the computer, some I/O interface, PS3, or otherwise. So what I would have done then is test it on a bunch of computers and normal (not professional or broadcast) TVs.

Just for the record we did this: we watched back the Vimeo clip on a MacBook Air, a MacBook Pro, a Macbook, two Mac Pro's with 30" Cinema displays, my tiny personal sh_tty Compaq laptop, ..... and of course we watched back our Pro Res HQ footage on a barrage of professional broadcast monitors, namely the Panasonic BT-LH710, the Panasonic BT-LH2600W, a Sony BVM20E1U, and a Sony LMD-170W, all fed via an Aja Kona 3 from an 8 core Mac Pro. It was at this point, after seeing the demo look good, we proceeded forward to post it.

 

[Mike@AF]

Just for the record we did this: we watched back the Vimeo clip on a MacBook Air, a MacBook Pro, a Macbook, two Mac Pro's with 30" Cinema displays, my tiny personal sh_tty Compaq laptop, ..... and of course we watched back our Pro Res HQ footage on a barrage of professional broadcast monitors, namely the Panasonic BT-LH710, the Panasonic BT-LH2600W, a Sony BVM20E1U, and a Sony LMD-170W, all fed via an Aja Kona 3 from an 8 core Mac Pro. It was at this point, after seeing the demo look good, we proceeded forward to post it.

Okay, sorry I assumed you didn't. I'll have to download the ProRes HQ file in a while and see how that compares to the H.264. I can't imagine that's what added the noise as I haven't seen that happen before, but maybe it did.

 

[mrmoonay]

Okay, sorry I assumed you didn't. I'll have to download the ProRes HQ file in a while and see how that compares to the H.264. I can't imagine that's what added the noise as I haven't seen that happen before, but maybe it did.

It usually doesn't. It didn't add any noise to my test. Usually I'd see compression artifacts that HIDE noise if anything. But it never adds fine grain noise.

 

[Andrew J. Allsbury]

After 5 minutes spent color correcting to my laptop screen and all the visible noise is gone, excellent job gents...can't wait to get my hands on this beast