This might be interesting to a few of you

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flotsam said:
I also have the ProResHQ file. We are a post production facility, specialising in finishing for broadcast. There is definitely excessive noise on that file. This does not actually prove there is anything wrong with the camera, of course but - viewed on a variety of calibrated, professional monitors (yes, including Sony grade 1 units) excessive noise is clearly visible on most shots - in the blacks.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I thought I was going mad. And Timur´s 1600ISO shot now finally confirms there is something wrong with the blacks in the footage from the Alabama test. Be it blackbalance or DRS turned on or whatever: this 1600ISO looks great and remarkably clean. Great test and I can´t wait to see more. Keep the stuff coming, Timur!
 
Cine D is not bad IMO its the most filmic/ filmlike of the gamma settings; especially good for grading .

I believe Timur has some seriouse experience with Panasonic and her mojo !

But we will know soon enough.
 
Gotta nail exposure.

The origional file is a mts. Yes you can upload mts files directly to vimeo.
 
timur common, you didn't answer the gamma question :P

with great power comes great responsibilities.
 
Flotsam said:
I also have the ProResHQ file. We are a post production facility, specialising in finishing for broadcast. There is definitely excessive noise on that file. This does not actually prove there is anything wrong with the camera, of course but - viewed on a variety of calibrated, professional monitors (yes, including Sony grade 1 units) excessive noise is clearly visible on most shots - in the blacks. Maybe the camera wasn't black balanced properly but that's just speculation. All I know for sure is that there is unacceptable noise in the blacks visible on all our professional/broadcast monitors and on our Hamlet and Tektronix scopes. It actually looks as bad to me in places as low light max gain footage from an older generation CCD small sensor camera. There are many possible explanations for this and I don't want to get into a fight with anyone here. I am - like others - extremely grateful to the team for taking the time to produce this material and to make it available to us all - even as a ProRes file! We'd need to have an uncompressed capture from HDSDI out as well as a thorough examination of the camera's settings before pointing any fingers in any direction at all. I just wanted to chime in to say that - no matter how much one discusses RGBvs601/709 levels, CRTvsLCD, professional vs consumer vs prosumer kit and experience, there are issues with noise not only in the Vimeo encode but also on the ProResHQ file posted on the FTP site. Period.
Click to expand...

He's referring, by the way, to the model shoot posted two days ago. This is exactly why I've learned to trust my own eyes, as I've done for the last 22 years and speak out when I know something's not right, whatever may be the cause. Making a simple observation, as I and others did about noise, should not have elicited the hateful flaming that took place toward me and others that simply reported what they were seeing. The herd mentality and blind allegiance to senior members of this website was disturbing. We simply said we saw it, and want to know where it came from, because this camera is something we must use for our profession, and as enticing as the price may be, we need to know what trade-offs there may be. Crushing the blacks doesn't fix noise, it hides it. If it's there you see it again on displays that stretch the blacks more - grandma's TV, the uncalibrated projector at the film fest, whatever. That's the way it is. Mentioning this is not "whining", and ought not bring about hostility.

There's plenty to be learned from the tests and observations of people here, and I'm thankful for it, and I hope these can be done free of the angry, emotional, even irrational responses they've elicited.
 
bhdfield said:
Making a simple observation, as I and others did about noise, should not have elicited the hateful flaming that took place toward me and others that simply reported what they were seeing.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right.

This is a new camera that we are all learning. I know Barry is a "guru" but guru's can make mistakes too and he is included in the all that is learning. And, that's okay. It should be.

One thing that is clear though, we should be very grateful Timur stumbled across the significance of diligently taking black balances.

This may not be all folks. There may be more to learn and this forum can be part of that but users must be free to state what they observe in a calm manner with civil ensuing debate.

Face it, most of us will buy this camera. It is just too good. Let us all be part of the process that makes it better.
 
bhdfield said:
He's referring, by the way, to the model shoot posted two days ago. This is exactly why I've learned to trust my own eyes, as I've done for the last 22 years and speak out when I know something's not right, whatever may be the cause. Making a simple observation, as I and others did about noise, should not have elicited the hateful flaming that took place toward me and others that simply reported what they were seeing. The herd mentality and blind allegiance to senior members of this website was disturbing. We simply said we saw it, and want to know where it came from, because this camera is something we must use for our profession, and as enticing as the price may be, we need to know what trade-offs there may be. Crushing the blacks doesn't fix noise, it hides it. If it's there you see it again on displays that stretch the blacks more - grandma's TV, the uncalibrated projector at the film fest, whatever. That's the way it is. Mentioning this is not "whining", and ought not bring about hostility.

There's plenty to be learned from the tests and observations of people here, and I'm thankful for it, and I hope these can be done free of the angry, emotional, even irrational responses they've elicited.
Click to expand...
All I know is that when I played the clip back on my computer screen at work, I saw the same noise that many people were complaining about, but when I played that same clip back through my PS3 to my calibrated LCD television, there was zero noticeable noise.

In my experience, moving the clip from a PC display to a normal LCD TV resulted in a stark difference between how the image looked. It looked absolutely beautiful on the LCD TV, and this wasn't any particular fancy set, but the normal kind of 32" LCD TV that any consumer might have, just one that has been calibrated to the best of my abilities with color bars.

The noise was just plain gone on the TV.
 
agcohn said:
All I know is that when I played the clip back on my computer screen at work, I saw the same noise that many people were complaining about, but when I played that same clip back through my PS3 to my calibrated LCD television, there was zero noticeable noise. The noise was just plain gone on the TV.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good discussion to have. As I mentioned in my post, the thing about noise that is resting in the lower levels near black, is that on monitors that have those black levels pushed lower, the noise will seem to go away, because it's pushing those black levels lower. Shadows look darker and deeper, and you see less detail there. Put the same piece of footage on a monitor which is running at different black levels, like a computer monitor, or whatever it may be, and the blacks are not as pressed. The blacks are stretched, so all those pixels that were previously down in the deep blacks you cannot see, now become visible, and they're dancing, and you can see that. But the noise was there all along.
Problem is, in the real world of poorly calibrated monitors, old TVs, remotes that your 8 year old was playing with, or video projectors at film fests, you're going to see your beloved piece of art decimated by displays, projectors, laptops playing files, in all kinds of horribly wrong calibration. But, the stuff that started the cleanest, will stay the cleanest everywhere, because noise was minimal to start with. That's why so much money is spent on really amazing equipment and post production that cleans it up before it gets out there. But the less noise reduction you have to do to your original the less you're changing the pixels you had to work with.
 
There are some intrinsic problems with forums in general; I think we can all agree that the written word can produce a distorted meaning. Throw in the pack of fan-boys, trolls, and general malcontents, and we are often left wondering if sharing is worth it. I think it is. I think we can quickly find out who the posers are and weigh their contributions accordingly.

I don't like ad homonym attacks; they are uncalled for, unprofessional, and detract from doing what the forums are supposed to do. We did not see the noise on the set, we did not see it in the edit, but that does not mean there is no possibility of noise being generated by any number of factors further down the chain. It is interesting that some professionals using good equipment see it and others do not. Since it's not in the camera original or the edit, I would suspect compression. I don't think everyone who says they see objectionable noise has some negative agenda.

Footage from the AF100 is going to multiply like books after the invention of moveable type, so we'll very soon have all we need to evaluate.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
bhdfield said:
He's referring, by the way, to the model shoot posted two days ago. This is exactly why I've learned to trust my own eyes, as I've done for the last 22 years and speak out when I know something's not right, whatever may be the cause. Making a simple observation, as I and others did about noise, should not have elicited the hateful flaming that took place toward me and others that simply reported what they were seeing. The herd mentality and blind allegiance to senior members of this website was disturbing. We simply said we saw it, and want to know where it came from, because this camera is something we must use for our profession, and as enticing as the price may be, we need to know what trade-offs there may be. Crushing the blacks doesn't fix noise, it hides it. If it's there you see it again on displays that stretch the blacks more - grandma's TV, the uncalibrated projector at the film fest, whatever. That's the way it is. Mentioning this is not "whining", and ought not bring about hostility.

There's plenty to be learned from the tests and observations of people here, and I'm thankful for it, and I hope these can be done free of the angry, emotional, even irrational responses they've elicited.
Click to expand...

You and a few others made good observations about noise that you were seeing. And I don't believe most people objected. But I think at least one person posting on the issue had an agenda or was just plan ignorant and that's what riled up some folks. Either way let's move forward with constructive discussion.
 
ransom said:
You and a few others made good observations about noise that you were seeing. And I don't believe most people objected. But I think at least one person posting on the issue had an agenda or was just plan ignorant and that's what riled up some folks. Either way let's move forward with constructive discussion.
Click to expand...

Agreed! Looking forward to these tests coming up. I really am enjoying the footage. Exciting times.
 
Barry_Green said:
The Alamo.

You don't perchance happen to have a Nikon to C-mount adapter, do you? I know that's a one-in-1000 shot, but hey, I figured I'd ask... :)
Click to expand...

I have a Nikon to c-mount, genuine nikon, not cheap chinese. Is that worth a ticket to the shoot? But why? don't you guys have a nikon to m4/3 with you.
 
Ticheli said:
There are some intrinsic problems with forums in general; I think we can all agree that the written word can produce a distorted meaning. Throw in the pack of fan-boys, trolls, and general malcontents, and we are often left wondering if sharing is worth it. I think it is. I think we can quickly find out who the posers are and weigh their contributions accordingly.

I don't like ad homonym attacks; they are uncalled for, unprofessional, and detract from doing what the forums are supposed to do. We did not see the noise on the set, we did not see it in the edit, but that does not mean there is no possibility of noise being generated by any number of factors further down the chain. It is interesting that some professionals using good equipment see it and others do not. Since it's not in the camera original or the edit, I would suspect compression. I don't think everyone who says they see objectionable noise has some negative agenda.

Footage from the AF100 is going to multiply like books after the invention of moveable type, so we'll very soon have all we need to evaluate.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
Click to expand...


+1
 
dop16mm said:
I have a Nikon to c-mount, genuine nikon, not cheap chinese. Is that worth a ticket to the shoot? But why? don't you guys have a nikon to m4/3 with you.
Click to expand...
Because I'm not using it on the AF100 or other m43 camera... :)
I brought along a Super16 c-mount film camera, but I sold all my M42 lenses, so... I don't have any proper lenses, just the few little Bell & Howell c-mounts. If I could get a nikon to c-mount I could use the ZF's on it. But, no worries, that's probably not the film camera I'm gonna use anyway.
 
Barry_Green said:
Because I'm not using it on the AF100 or other m43 camera... :)
I brought along a Super16 c-mount film camera, but I sold all my M42 lenses, so... I don't have any proper lenses, just the few little Bell & Howell c-mounts. If I could get a nikon to c-mount I could use the ZF's on it. But, no worries, that's probably not the film camera I'm gonna use anyway.
Click to expand...

curious as to what camera is super16 and c-mount, old modified eclair or what. Just curious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top