Trouble with picture quality

E

Ed Ng

Active member
Hello everyone,

I am very new to FCP and using the HPX170 but I just completed a video and the quality is very poor. These were the basic settings of the HPX and FCP workflow.

HPX was set at 1080P30 with 6 db gain and shutter set at 1/60. I believe the lens was wide open at F2.4

I used the log and transfer then exported to H.264 at 720P.

Here is a link to the results

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXvOykBDvVM&feature=player_embedded

It looks like my college editing on Hi-8 with the Sony editing station from the mid 90's.

Could someone please help me to understand why I could not get a clean video such as this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdCBcHDxD9M&feature=player_embedded


Are my settings wrong or is the lighting very poor?

Thank you for any help.

Cheers

Ed
 
the lighting is poor. the setting is poor. the composition is... meh.
and comparing what you shot to the other example you provided is comparing apples to oranges. there is a whole different set of variables between the two types of shooting.

with 6 db gain
Click to expand...
gain is always going to add noise. but i didnt find your clip particularly noisy.

not really sure what you were hoping for...
 
Ed,

Your interviewee looks like it was lit with overhead room lighting and there was some attempt at artistic lighting on the second scene. What were you using for a scene file? Scene files on the HPX are pretty important.

To answer you specifically, overhead lighting that makes the interviewee's bald spot glow nuclear compared to the rest of his face isn't good. Yes, your settings such as scene files do make a difference, but I suspect are secondary in this case.

Could you ask more specific questions and maybe we can help you more.

Grant
 
The question was about the noise and not composition. Lighting poor and setting poor does not assist me.

I have seen low light shots on the 150 and 170 with better quality so I was just asking.
 
ggrantly said:
Ed,

Your interviewee looks like it was lit with overhead room lighting and there was some attempt at artistic lighting on the second scene. What were you using for a scene file? Scene files on the HPX are pretty important.

To answer you specifically, overhead lighting that makes the interviewee's bald spot glow nuclear compared to the rest of his face isn't good. Yes, your settings such as scene files do make a difference, but I suspect are secondary in this case.

Could you ask more specific questions and maybe we can help you more.

Grant
Click to expand...

Hello Grant,

Thank you for the help, the scene file was set at 3 which was just what someone told me to do.

I was just wondering about the focus as it is not sharp nor does it appear to look of quality. I will test with my lighting system but I am a photographer so my 200 watt modeling lights may not help that much but I could crank the strobe to 2400!!!!

Cheers

Ed
 
The question was about the noise and not composition. Lighting poor and setting poor does not assist me.

I have seen low light shots on the 150 and 170 with better quality so I was just asking.
Click to expand...

what you shot and how you shot it wasnt a good test of the camera. if you ask broad-brush questions. you shouldnt be surprised when you get broad-brush answers...
 
wgzn said:
what you shot and how you shot it wasnt a good test of the camera. if you ask broad-brush questions. you shouldnt be surprised when you get broad-brush answers...
Click to expand...

Thank you once again for you time and energy! As a new member I feel very joyous of your comments.

I just came here to ask some questions and maybe get some advise so relax and don't complicate things.
 
Ed, the quality between the two clips looks pretty much the same to me. I noticed a small amount of artifacting in both images (to be expected with the HPX170). Was there one aspect in particular in the image that you were referring to?
 
I think what you're reacting to is the focus. The shots at the start of the second video you posted were all extreme closeups, and the focus was sharp (and then fell off into the bg).
It's hard to compare that to the interview clip you shot, which was completely wide.
Also, it's difficult to tell on a youtube clip, but I get the impression that the focus on your interview was a bit off. The people moving in the background seem to be sharper than the interview subject.
If you were shooting wide open then we should see a little bit of softness in that background - but it seems pretty sharp, which makes me think your subject was soft.
But like I said, it's hard to tell from the clip.

All in all - I'm not certain what exactly you're referring to in your clip - but I suspect the focus is probably the biggest culprit.
The HPX170 may not be the sharpest camera out there, but it can definitely be sharper than your interview seemed to be.
Also, keep in mind that no camera is going to do it's best shooting wide open and +6db gain.
Even the most expensive lenses in the world will look their worst at either extreme of the focal range.

It might be helpful if you can zero in on what caught your eye - and possibly upload a full resolution still from the interview so we can see what you are seeing.
 
Thank you everyone for your help. Honestly, the first clip of the interview looks like Hi-8 because of the sharpness and grain or the focus as some people have stated.

My problem is that I was not able to meter for lighting as j would in photography and the focus. Should I use an external monitor?

Could some of the member please let me know about the ISO and maybe thief own settings. It may help menwith my next shoot in two weeks.

I am new to FCP and wonder if I should have used Apple Pro Res in 1920 by 1080 for exporting. Does that matter or just H264?

Thank you again, it has been very helpful.
 
I'm not much of an editor so I can't help you out with the FCP settings.

As far as the camera goes, I'm pretty sure the ISO rating on the HPX170 is 500 (correct me if I'm wrong). When I used to shoot with this camera I would leave it on Low gain and shoot at 720 24pn (I used it for short films and web series). If you're wanting to shoot at 30 fps, more power to you if you like the look. As far as focusing, you can either use the focus assist on the camera (which will crop in so you can see the detail) or you can physically zoom in the lens, adjust your focus, and zoom back out.

I rarely trust auto focus unless I'm in a tight crunch, 1-man crewing with a fig rig or steadicam, and am having to be on the move. Otherwise I focus manually and adjust as needed. Hope this helps!
 
Ed,

I can't tell much about your issues on a tube video, but if your concern is focus, the HPX does have some focus assist options which work pretty well.

What Luis said: avoid any +gain and shoot from f/4 to f/8 for max sharpness.

The best way to judge exposure on a 170 is using the wave form monitor (WFM). If memory serves, the HPX is around iso 400.

In the case of your interviewee, you might need some pancake makeup to help his shinny bald spot, or turn him a different direction. Fill lighting would really help give him highlights compared to the bright background. Make sure the fill lighting is color corrected to the room.

Your scene files will make a big difference and I would recommend you experiment to find your own look. If you spend a half day doing this it is a great way to learn about your cam and see the looks you can achieve. To get some background on this, there is a good white paper on the Pro Panna website and the HPX book by Barry Green is a great resource. On the HPX, you have a balancing act between sharpness and noise. The more you crank up the detail, the more noise you will have. You will need to decide whether you want to shoot very flat images in cam and bring them to life when editing, or adjust your scene files as close as possible to your desired look. Both methods have merit.

Grant
 
This is great advice and I really do need to go out and shoot on video more. I still do not feel that my focus work is good as stated, I feel more natural behind a camera.

I will need to pick up the Barry Green book!

It was much easier when I was only doing still photography!

Thank you again everyone!

Cheers

Ed
 
Ed,

Focus, for me, is also difficult do to older eyes. My day is approaching where a hd monitor will be mandatory. More practice, using all the available focus aids, and good lighting will really help.

Grant
 
Another good tip to chime in, always use the viewfinder to set your exposure. Using the LCD alone will cause you to capture a slightly overexposed image many times, due to it being SD, and lower resolution than the viewfinder. From your clip it looks like this might have something to do with it as his face looks a little blown out to me, making me wonder why you used gain in this situation? The noise isn't terrible on the HPX, but gain is a last resort option, to me I even prefer correcting exposure settings in post to using gain in many situations.

For Final Cut Pro my workflow is to import the P2 cards through log and transfer, then bring them directly onto the timeline. This will prompt a dialogue box asking if you want to change your timeline settings to mirror the clip settings, click yes. Edit away. Then I export a full quality DVCPROHD master file under export-> QT Movie, using the same settings as the sequence (highest quality possible). I then take that file and put it in compressor and punch it down to a 720h264 for vimeo. I have been extremely happy with this workflow to date.
 
Note: If you are using an HPX, the WFM is by far the best way to set exposure. The HVX does not have this feature.

Grant
 
Hello everyone,

I just tested with a 500watt halogen soft box, it was not corrected but wondering if the quality is okay? I see artifacts on the rim of the glasses and the back ground.

This is my clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIueoG7mTmw

This is the clip I would like to achieve:

http://www.3rdlight.com/movies/movie_mktg_01_orson.html

I used the waveform monitor and set to the peak setting while maintaining a sharper aperture of F5 or it may have been F6.3. 0 gain was set with no ND filter.

Thank you for any advice or input.

Cheers

Ed
 
Reflections won't be eliminated by the type of light, that is a function of placement. In the second video, they were using more than one light, and if that is the look you want, you should too.

Grant
 
im having a hard time understanding what youre after? here again, the clip you showed of yours is a whole different ballgame compared to the clip youve provided as your goal.

in your clip with "artifacts on the rim of the glasses and the back ground." the "artifacting" is minimal, and im not even sure youd see it if you werent trying to - especially online.
heck, broadcast digital hd tv is far more artifacted than any clip youve presented : )

if youre this worried about this level of detail. maybe a smaller camera isnt for you...?

just my 2¢
 
wgzn said:
im having a hard time understanding what youre after? here again, the clip you showed of yours is a whole different ballgame compared to the clip youve provided as your goal.

in your clip with "artifacts on the rim of the glasses and the back ground." the "artifacting" is minimal, and im not even sure youd see it if you werent trying to - especially online.
heck, broadcast digital hd tv is far more artifacted than any clip youve presented : )

if youre this worried about this level of detail. maybe a smaller camera isnt for you...?

just my 2¢
Click to expand...

In the second clip (interview) there is no artifact at all but I do understand there was a second light which I will have but I do know that the second clip was using a HVX 200. I am using the HPX 170 but really having trouble with the settings.

I just don't want all of my video work to look like it was shot on SD with a Hi 8 camera from a mid nineties porn shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top