What am I doing wrong? Teach me!

i've noticed a bit of banding when i've been playing with my camera in my room at night.

i'am more than likely wrong straight away but it doesn't have anything to do with certain coloured light does it?

the grab you uploaded on page one kind of looks like the colour of light in my bedroom, just a thought i'am not tech at all but dumb things might give a clever guy a apple on the head.

SRGB? adobeRGB? i know the adobe one takes out a lot of over the top red, but i'am clutching at straws.
 
Azmyth said:
Also, if you want to see footage..

go here.. http://www.blackflightstudios.com/stills/

and download 0034.MTS for some untouched footage with the problem I am having. You can see it in the one thugs face, and the sheriff's hat. I've been told now that this isn't banding, but FNP....
Click to expand...

I see that banding on a lot of my footage as well - especially at low light levels, but STILL there when I slightly over expose.

I would certainly call this banding however... FPN is something quite different to my mind?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm

Gives a good overview of the 3 different types of noise....

Random noise, fixed pattern noise, and banding noise.... I think you will agree that what you and i are experiencing is definitely 'banding noise.'

Is neat video any good at banding noise I wonder?
 
Homunculus said:
wow I definitely see it very strong all over in that last vid. What ISO was that at? I'll be honest I've never heard of it being that strong you might just have a dud/lemon for a camera. I would strongly recommend renting or just getting someone from DVX to let you shoot with theirs for a few minutes/hours, find someone local in your area etc and see if theirs is better then perhaps return or exchange/sell your camera because I've never seen it that obvious before. I wonder if GH1 doesn't respond well to flourescent lighting or something since you said you used CFL softboxes
Click to expand...

I'm doing the burn in thing now. I actually know someone with a GH1, and he isn't having these issues.. gonna see if we can get together.
 
the doc said:
I see that banding on a lot of my footage as well - especially at low light levels, but STILL there when I slightly over expose.

I would certainly call this banding however... FPN is something quite different to my mind?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm

Gives a good overview of the 3 different types of noise....

Random noise, fixed pattern noise, and banding noise.... I think you will agree that what you and i are experiencing is definitely 'banding noise.'

Is neat video any good at banding noise I wonder?
Click to expand...

You got some examples?
 
the doc said:
I see that banding on a lot of my footage as well - especially at low light levels, but STILL there when I slightly over expose.

I would certainly call this banding however... FPN is something quite different to my mind?

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm

Gives a good overview of the 3 different types of noise....

Random noise, fixed pattern noise, and banding noise.... I think you will agree that what you and i are experiencing is definitely 'banding noise.'

Is neat video any good at banding noise I wonder?
Click to expand...


Interesting link.

Azmyth, what are your film settings and WB settings? The pics look fairly low in contrast and somewhat dark to me. The lack of contrast is why you see banding in this pic and not in the other still you showed. It's not simply being underexposed by 2.75 stops, but being underexposed without sufficient contrast. If you are shooting flat, try turning up your contrast in camera.
 
Svart said:
Interesting link.

Azmyth, what are your film settings and WB settings? The pics look fairly low in contrast and somewhat dark to me. The lack of contrast is why you see banding in this pic and not in the other still you showed. It's not simply being underexposed by 2.75 stops, but being underexposed without sufficient contrast. If you are shooting flat, try turning up your contrast in camera.
Click to expand...

Your going to laugh at me..

But, I haven't even touched the film settings... last night I was looking at a short by Todd Norris where someone asked what his film settings were and he used smooth, and he listed his other settings. That was the first I had enough thought about it. The white balance was just me pointing the camera at something white, and using the manual white balance feature where it snaps like its taking a picture.

Thanks for that info Svart.

I will note, I was using neatvideo with some success.
 
keep in mind to my knowledge noise is affected by which white balance setting you use. try different ones like halogen etc and see if it's as bad. I never use the manual whit ebalance yet so I'm wondering if maybe that's part of the reason. also play around with noise reduction at +2, or -2 etc etc
 
Homunculus said:
keep in mind to my knowledge noise is affected by which white balance setting you use. try different ones like halogen etc and see if it's as bad. I never use the manual whit ebalance yet so I'm wondering if maybe that's part of the reason. also play around with noise reduction at +2, or -2 etc etc
Click to expand...

This is gonna be on a per the situation basis I'm guessing.
 
try nostalgic with everything turned down first, then change your contrast settings up and see it if helps.

Also, turn OFF intelligent exposure and try it too.

I generally run nostalgic with everything down and Iexposure off and don't see much banding.

And if you are up near Atlanta sometime we can compare cameras and footy.
 
Last edited:
Svart said:
try nostalgic with everything turned down first, then change your contrast settings up and see it if helps.

Also, turn OFF intelligent exposure and try it too.

I generally run nostalgic with everything down and Iexposure off and don't see much banding.
Click to expand...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=222669

Yup, you can use contrast to try and hide banding. It's good to do this onset rather than in post because then you can adjust your lighting accordingly...if you do it in post your image might be too dark.
 
I think you guys may have solved it for me!

about to post some of my latests tests.. NO banding, or at least VERY little of it.
 
Azmyth said:
I think you guys may have solved it for me!

about to post some of my latests tests.. NO banding, or at least VERY little of it.
Click to expand...

honestly it depends what you shoot. after reading this thread i wanted to test my camera out i put it at the highest 1600 ISO with a dimly lit room that I was sitting in. just some light coming in from a window in a overcast low lighted afternoon. when I point the camera at my white piano keys of my keyboard in front of me at 1600 ISO i see absolutely zero noise. when I point it at the white closet door right next to me for some reason even at 320 and 400 ISO is unusable banding absolutely atrocious and unusable
 
here we go..

NOSTALGIC contrast +2 Noise reduction +2 Shutterspeed 50

Lighting = 1 desklamp with adjustable arm, 60w bulb.

200 ISO

nobanding.jpg


160 ISO

nobanding2.jpg


200 ISO

nobanding3.jpg


320 ISO - overhead lights on + desk lamp + don't mind shirtless crazy hair.

nobanding4.jpg
 
Would love to see Image 4 with

Dynamic, Contrast +2, Sharpness +2, Saturation -2, NR +2.

Just to see how badly we can nuke that noise in the black and on the face (there's a bit but the show looks good) even if it means the image doesn't look quite right (at least in that light.)
 
gotcha. I still think its a vast improvement over what I was seeing previously. I don't want to chunk the camera out a window anymore. I was hoping it was more user error than anything.
 
Can you point it out for me? I'm not seeing it. I will say that I did also mess with the contrast in Vegas on these. I'm uploading some untouched MTS of these shots so you can see what they actually look like. I'm not saying there isn't any.. but if there is its tough for me to notice, where as before it was like an eyesore. I showed my wife and 4 or 5 other people and none of them pointed it out either. Again, not saying it isn't there this time.. but its much better in my eyes than it was.
 
It's what I would expect to see. That pic is still somewhat dark/underexposed to my eyes. Since there is a bright spot in the center, the GH1 might tell you it's exposed properly but it might not be.

The GH1's meter system can play tricks on you. Depending on the meter mode, you can get vastly different measurements I've found. I tend to believe the ( * ) meter setting more than the others. It's closest to what my handheld meter says but it can still change a lot depending on *where* the light in the frame is.

I also found that aiming for the +1 mark generally gives the best exposure.

I also set my LCD brightness and color down a tick or two. The LCD tends to make things seem really bright which makes people tend to underexpose because things *look* like they are overexposed. Once you get a feel of the camera and how much you can overexpose safely, you'll get much better results. I calibrated mine by hooking up the camera to the HD tv I watch all my movies on and then adjusting the LCD on the GH1 while playing clips from the camera to match what I was seeing on the TV.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top