The Footage from Leo's shoot...

[Michael Carter]

I...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...

Mike@AF: your response to Barry's philosophy of finishing content to professional standards vs. trying to finish to all sorts of standards (or abandoning standards entirely) seems to boil down to the quote above... which deals specifically with presenting footage to potential users of a $4k+ camera system. I'm not sure how that addresses the original post regarding media conformity in the consumer market. I really can't imagine every consumer web site having multiple links along the lines of "click here if you're really into calibrating your gear... here if you have a lousy TV... and here if you just don't know".

Yes, content will be watched on more & more devices, from cinema screens to phones. Which (to me) reinforces the practice of finishing to set technical standards and using calibrated gear. When consumers begin to complain that a specific netbook makes all their apple trailers look washed out, the manufacturers should respond - and other than the bizarre in-store calibration of TVs these days, I find content looks from acceptable to amazing on a wide range of devices.

I know a woman who tunes her stereo to all midrange - she says "I like it that way". I mix sound in ProTools in a treated room on large reference gear and it drives me nuts, but... some consumers just don't notice. Those that do notice eventually look into viewing controls on their TVs or PCs (or they say "this TV is too green" and buy another one). Consumers are slowly being trained in "gourmet viewing" just as they have been in cooking, and my iPod touch looks pretty dang good, as does much of the media consumption gear out there. So... I say, deliver gourmet content.

 

[Joe Walker]

and here if you just don't know".

roflmao!!!!

 

[Rick Burnett]

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

Thank you for posting this, because I think a lot of people need to do this test. On initial watch for me, yes, the images had a lot of noise in them, and this is a monitor I use ALL the time so I know it well. I've watched A LOT of AF100 footage online and this has been the noisiest I've seen yet. That said, there was also A LOT of detail in the candle lit scene that I would have NEVER seen with my 7D, that's how I could see I needed to crush the image a bit more. Once I did this, it looked great.

I watch A LOT of videos/movies/etc on the same display I am using, so I know what level of noise I see in other productions. I think this is a case of just learning how to grade to get the best of both calibrated monitor world and everywhere else your content will be used. For instance, if you shoot for the web, OBVIOUSLY this grading isn't going to be the best since it's very unlikely much of your watchers are going to be calibrating their monitors.

That said, just play with the image yourself and you will see, I think it looks fantastic once I start pushing the image how I like it.

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

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.

Yup, it was ridiculously noise-free and clean footage.

 

[bhdfield]

I'm gonna make a couple more comments on this matter, and then try to leave it alone.

1 Changing black levels on your monitor is not a fix for noise. Take that piece of video to a film fest, where I can guarantee their projection black levels are not even close to being calibrated or correct, even on cinema DLP projectors where lord knows how the signal is getting in it....if your video footage is noisy, and uncorrected, it's going to show up again as soon as the black levels come up. And trust me, I've seen how pretty my HVX/Letus looks on my monitors, and then have seen the noise fiesta on a big screen with higher blacks. Then I've seen something shot on RED on that screen that looked good calibrated or not. If the noise is low to start out, it stays under control if it happens to be displayed with stretched blacks.

2. I have just read on another blog about a filmmalker reviewing the AF100, that he happened to discover the black balance hiding in one of the button functions. He had not black balanced, and was about to rate the camera at 320 ISO, because it started getting noisy at 400. Then, as he said "THEN EVERYTHING CHANGED" when he found the black balance. Now,he is "rating the AF100 very conservatively at a 640 ISO clean camera. 800 ISO looks spotless".

I don't know if Leo black balanced their AF100, but what I read is very similar to what I saw in the test I downloaded yesterday, and leaves me wondering if that's why that particular AF100 test looked so noisy.

Here's the link to the blog:
http://timurcivan.blogspot.com/2010/11/pre-production-with-af100.html?spref=fb

 

[Thomas Church]

This is great news bhdfield.

Perhaps this was the issue?

How do you balance the black on the AF100?

 

[Noel Evans]

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.

Firs off you are viewing the footage posted here incorrectly - not in its original form on a calibrated monitor - hasnt that already been said?

Then theres an inherent issue with how you are comparing these. Firstly if I take your shots and adequately expose the mids they are far noisier than the AF shots in this thread. You'll note that the shots posted in this thread on a waveform monitor show exposure across the entire IRE scale whereas yours are mostly in the 0-20 ire range and the upper range, very little in the mid section at all. So basically a bunch of crushed blacks with little gradation to the highlights. Subtle gradations are the first thing vimeo or youtube compression messes with. The other thing is the shots posted here are very static for the most part, yours that do show as mildly more even on the waveform are all moving - motion blur kills noise. I did however notice some large flat black sections on many of your clips - crushed black. Give me a noisy camera with manual control and Ill shoot under the same conditions as you and make it look even cleaner, crush the blacks, leave only the highlights and bam clean.

I have no reason to defend the AF100, I dont work for the company. But please if you are going to do comparisons, make sure all your variables are exactly the same and view them on a rec.709 calibrated monitor in the original file format - not a compressed version on a computer monitor with shots undertaken in ridiculous polar opposites in shooting conditions.

On another note - all this pontificating made me take a really close look at that candle shots (yeah first few times I was just looking at the girl I admit it) - look at those beautiful gradations from the candle light. Would love to see this in all its uncompressed glory.

 

[bhdfield]

This is great news bhdfield.

Perhaps this was the issue?

How do you balance the black on the AF100?

Yes Thomas, this sure could be a black balance thing, and very encouraging news. I'm looking forward to hearing whether Barry thinks they happened to black balance their camera before their test. I have to admit that it's not something I do as often as I probably should.

 

[Lyris]

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.

It's funny you say that, because computer display is actually in a much better shape than television is. Computer monitors don't ship with *completely* stupid picture settings, because if they did, they'd be unusable for computer tasks like reading fine text.

Most TVs come set up to do unbelievably dumb things to the image (Panasonic's included!). HDTV's white point and colour gamut are standardised, and typically ignored by manufacturers. Although the situation is improving.

As for computers? It's the same. sRGB was agreed upon for computer display, and it shares the same colour points as HDTV. It even goes one step further and specifies gamma.

Standards exist for both HDTV and Computer playback, and are both frequently ignored. Barry is totally right - we have to be realistic and expect that it will look like crap on a crap display, but who's fault is that? It's impossible to hit a moving target.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

This is great news bhdfield.

Perhaps this was the issue?

How do you balance the black on the AF100?

If it's anything like the DVX/HVX you just hold down the whitebalance button until the image goes black.

 

[Ozark]

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

+1

 

[mrmoonay]

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.

+1

I'm so tired of the whole "I'm professional, so therefore correct" talk here. It's sickening and offensive. Besides, the word "professional" is quite irrelevant in field regarding constantly changing technology. You have 30 years of professional experience... So what? What if next year iphones are recording RAW 10k footage up to 150fps? Things have changed again. All of your experience with Beta-Cams, Varicams, 35mm, and yes even DSLRs, ect... is irrelevant. Now you're on the same level as 20 year old undergrads again. Any experience learned with obsolete equipment is now also obsolete. This is why editors/colorists were pissed off 10 years ago... That's why recording studio professional were pissed off 15 years ago... And it's why video professionals and cinematographers are pissed off now. Technology is amazing if you're a amateur and life-threatening when you actually become a professional. Some of the worst advice you will ever get as an aspiring professional is from professionals... because they are trying to protect their careers and fields in the way that they learned them. No professional cinematographer is going to steer you towards cheaper/better technology that could put them out of work. It's an unspoken mindset that is based on the amateurs faith in a professional, and the professionals fear of new talent.

So as much as I respect professionals and are thankful for the work they put in... the issue of trust is always in the back of my mind. Is the advice they're giving best for me? ...Or best for their business? Nobody is going to give away free advice that could possible make you more successful than them unless they are profiting from it or close family. This is the real world. Be mindful amateurs. Which is why I'm done debating this noise issue. It's stupid to argue with fans and professionals on an obvious agenda. It's akin to a Honda car salesmen telling you that Honda is the best car in the world an choosing any other brand is dumb. Why would he lie? He's a professional car dealer... right?. Does that mean that the AF-100 won't be a great camera? No. But I'm going to wait to hear what the masses, amateurs, and end viewers have to say. For their opinions are equal... if not more important.

So to all you professional that I've been arguing with with. I'm sorry. It's not a respect issue. I respect you guys and your work very much. It's trust...

 

[Rick Burnett]

Well I think context is important. I cannot count the number of people who look at RAW output from the Red One or Epic prototype and call the image lifeless and flat without realizing that they aren't actually looking at what is important to see in the image, and that's the pre-graded lattitude you get out of the camera, which is phenomenal.

Most people I've seen using cameras like the 7D or t2i shoot with the stock settings. The camera is already crushing the blacks into oblivion. I've seen stuff posted from the GH2 that looks AMAZING and I've seen stuff that looks like absolute CRAP, because the person behind the camera just didn't use the best settings or grade their footage for the appropriate viewing mechanism. People TRY to get the settings that best pleases everyone but that doesn't seem to happen very much.

Take ANY camera and start searching for footage and you are going to see a HUGE range of results.

 

[Coolbreeze]

Thank goodness.

 

[dmpsk8]

looks great. nice to see some sharp footage starting to surface.

 

[Andrew J. Allsbury]

Yea, you are correct. Professionals who make their LIVING from video production don't want higher quality cameras at a lesser cost. I can't believe I never thought of that before now...LOL

 

[Matt Gottshalk]

Yeah, I would much rather pay 4-5 times as much for something with less features.

The stupid has reached critical in this thread.

 

[mrmoonay]

Yea, you are correct. Professionals who make their LIVING from video production don't want higher quality cameras at a lesser cost. I can't believe I never thought of that before now...LOL

Sure they want better quality for cheaper... but they also don't want 16-year-olds running around making skate videos that look like a $100k production. That hurts their business.

 

[TimTheFoolMan]

Any experience learned with obsolete equipment is now also obsolete. This is why editors/colorists were pissed off 10 years ago... That's why recording studio professional were pissed off 15 years ago... And it's why video professionals and cinematographers are pissed off now. Technology is amazing if you're a amateur and life-threatening when you actually become a professional. Some of the worst advice you will ever get as an aspiring professional is from professionals... because they are trying to protect their careers and fields in the way that they learned them. No professional cinematographer is going to steer you towards cheaper/better technology that could put them out of work. It's an unspoken mindset that is based on the amateurs faith in a professional, and the professionals fear of new talent.

With all due respect, -1.

I jumped into Desktop Publishing back in the mid-80's, when anyone with a toaster Mac (512 Mac or Mac Plus) and PageMaker 1.0 thought they were a pre-press house. I know I did. What I soon realized is that there are things that crafstmen have learned, little factoids and processes, along with their craft, and sometimes confuse those things for the craft itself. With less than $10,000 of equipment, I was able to produce files that shocked the old pre-press guys when it came off the Linotronic. At the same time, I started to realize that in addition to all the factoids and processes that my new technology had made obsolete, these guys understood fundamental principles of design that I just didn't fathom.

The same thing happened when I taught myself C++, and started competing with Comp Sci majors who were using straight C. I had productivity out the wazoo, but no deeper understanding of design. The democratization of media that technology makes available is a good thing, but putting the camera in my hand doesn't instantly make me Alfred Hitcock.

One of the huge differences here, in my experience, is that film/video professionals remember recent technology waves well enough that they DO NOT fear new talent. This visible everywhere, in that editors, colorists, recording engineers, camera ops, and other creative professionals are not threatened by a noob like me who picks up some new technology. I haven't seen any of these people "pissed off" at the onward march of technology.

If anything, the more skilled and experienced pros seem to be the first to reach out and give me a hand. Why would they do this? Because they know that the value they bring to the equation isn't knowledge of the menus in the HVX or EX-1, or the idiosyncrasies of a Cooke lens. What they bring is knowledge that trancends technology.

Or, as Lee Trevino once said when asked about a specific brand of golf clubs, "It's not the arrow, it's the Indian."

When Warrior Chief looks at the results and the workflow that created it, and THEY are impressed, I will challenge and disagree with their assessment with great caution, lest I be rushing in where angels know not to stumble. - Tim

 

[dillont]

Sure they want better quality for cheaper... but they also don't want 16-year-olds running around making skate videos that look like a $100k production. That hurts their business.

Ilve been a member of dvxuser well over 5 years. Thanks to the dedication, knowledge, and kindness of those who started and maintain dvxuser (looking at you, Barry Green), I feel I've learned an immense amount of information, more than I could have gotten at most film schools. And I'm a film school grad.

I for one trust the deep knowledge that the likes of Barry G share with us. Lucky to have their expert opinion so freely given. I trust their opinion because they have taught me so much.

How long have you been on dvxuser? Stick around, you'll learn more than you ever thought possible.

Regards,

Dillon