Who's used an HVX and has an opinion on (video) *noise*?

btw, the shutter speed was 1/100th on that tubing shot, I believe...in HDV.

For anyone who wants try this with 1080i stuff, here's the Compressor info:

"Inspector" window settings from Compressor:

Name: 1080ito60p conversion
Description: DVCPRO HD 720p60 with audio pass-through
File Extension: mov
Audio: multi-track passthrough
Video Encoder
Format: QT
Width: 1280
Height: 720
Pixel aspect ratio: DVCPRO HD 720p (16:9)
Crop: None
Frame rate: 59.94
Frame Controls:
Retiming: High quality Motion Compensated
Resize Filter: Statistical Prediction
Deinterlace Filter: Motion Compensated
Adaptive Details: On
Antialias: 0
Detail Level: 0
Field Output: Progressive
Codec Type: DVCPRO HD 720p60
Multi-pass: Off, frame reorder: Off
Pixel depth: 24
Spatial quality: 99
Min. Spatial quality: 50
Temporal quality: 0
Min. temporal quality: 50
 
Tony Torn said:
I thought Cine-D was listed by Barry as the 2nd noisiest setting.
Click to expand...
Actually I said Cine-D is *the* noisiest. Perhaps you're confusing it with Cine-V, which I said was the 2nd cleanest?
 
Justyn said:
I do also think that the Dell is showing the noise that I see as well.
Click to expand...
Oh, definitely -- check your sharpness settings in the Dell monitor's menus. On my dell the edge enhancement came default as maxxed out, so it will definitely enhance/exaggerate any noise.
 
"You can pull that info down and reduce noise but you can't pull something up out of info that was recorded lower into format noise."

This makes sense but who wants information that is dancing with bees.

If you push the blacks up via the ped adjust it does even out the areas of transition from light to dark thus showing less of that problem area. It all gets very low contrast. Like you fogged the room.

cine v- Any dark object under 40 candle shows a good bit of noise. red halo on black edge. Shadows on a white wall show noise below 20.

Dell sharpness set in the middle.
 
Last edited:
Geez, with all this talk of noise and pixels and stuff you'd think we were trying to film with Pixelvision or something.

I know noise is an issue for a lot of people, I'm sure Panasonic will do its best in the future to try and cut noise down in future products, whether it be an HVX200A or some new camera all together and the same goes for the other camera companies as well. But like everyone has been saying:

1. Noise is a big issue for these HD cameras due to the physical limitations of 1/3" CCD's.

2. Noise appears MOSTLY in low-light situations.

3. You can't expect the best out of a format that has only been available for about a decade.

4. Who will notice the noise and know what it is? The audience? Not likely.

And there's many other things to say, but as a filmmaker and film-goer, the way I see it is that as long as the film doesn't look like "21 Grams" did, then everything is all good. Heck, "My Date With Drew" got distribution and those guys just had everything on auto.
 
To me the major cause of the noise seems to be that the camera is trying to pull info out of dark areas (add compression and the picture suffers even more).

I just hope we figure out how to work within the limits of the camera to get the cleanest picture we can. I'm all for some evenly distributed grain type noise, but not for distracting noise that stays in just certain areas of the frame. Can the camera be set to make the dark areas just fall off into black?

Also, I have noticed that my 50 inch living room HDTV is more forgiving when it comes to noise than other type of monitors.

We also have to give this camera credit for the type of picture it does produce. It's pretty nice overall.
 
Last edited:
Noise is Just something to consider depending on your needs. Certainly not a deal breaker. It does give a film look but it does make lighting more difficult.

Could it be better? Yes. Does it make me regret my purchase? No. Do I need to adjust my style for this cam? Yes. But that just makes it all that much more exciting. Don't want to get complacent.
Can the camera be set to make the dark areas just fall off into black?

"Can the camera be set to make the dark areas just fall off into black?"

Yes you can adjust so the dark areas fall off to black. But I would advise doing it in post if at all possible. But if you must just adjust the ped down to -5 or below.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
Grain causes some problems with posting/compositing/etc., but other than that, grain looks beautiful. I hate a static image. Have you ever seen a panorama that was made into a still by the gop compression -- you could not tell it was a movie at all -- and what you say is "my god someone give me some grain". Yes it is a limitation and you can ad it in post if you want to, but I am SOOOOOO not worried about the grain for my HVX purposes. I always shoot with thick detail coring on the dvx because I prefer the grain over the horizontal artifacts. The res of he hvx has me a bit sombered, but the grain, NO. But to each his own. Grain haters go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You just tell yourself that, kid.
 
Like everyone here I am a little worried about the grain but not enough to cancel my HVX200 order. Once my camera arrives I will shoot some worst case test shots and put to the test all of the various post production noise reduction filters that I know are available. Some of the older denoisers worked by blurring pixels in a way that would be unacceptable for this use, but the newer ones are more sophisticated. It just may be in the end that a "denoise" filter will be a necessary part of the kit for some HVX200 owners.

Denoise Filters I know of:

Grain Surgery (now included in After Effects)
Composite Toolkit
Algolith
Key Correct Pro
Nattress
Native noise management tools in Shake (I have it so don't need to buy it to test)
Combustion perhaps? (Don't have it so I don't know)

If anybody can think of others that are not too expensive to try or have demo versions, please let me know.
 
"I'm just curious, does Doc Holiday have and use the HVX200 or is he just guessing that the noise will be beautiful?"

No I do not have an hvx200, but a colleague of mine does, and the footage looks great.

"You just tell yourself that, kid."

I'm actually a fetus.
 
I think more testing needs to be done. On all our parts. Because I am reading a lot of conflicting ideas and reports on theses forums. There is a lot of development going on and no standards in place. I think we have to take it back and look at it on a photographic level. We need to find a true latitude for the camera, before we start messing around fixing stuff in post. I think the question is how much information is in the images. And how far over and under can you push the image before noise and grain are introduced.

I participated in the closed door testing at cinegear last year, with the cream de la cream of HD cameras. The panasonic was not even considered in testing. And we determined the latitude and how much we could push these cameras. And we were blown away by the results. I feel the same principle should be applied to the HVX200. We need to test it from a photographic stand point and standard.
Here is a link to the article of the shootout.

http://www.arri.com/news/newsletter/articles/267485/d-20_masterclass.htm

The article is focused on the Arri product, but being at the session proved one thing to me. And that was we need to evaluate the HVX200 on its exposure & latitude capabilites and no just how it looks on a monitor. And really have yet to read a post that is investigating that part ot it.

I read a post earlier where someone said that a gray card was "theory." I beg to differ. A gray card is a standard that we all can calibrate to.

Let me recomend this link to read:
http://www.spectracine.com/Spectra_Pro_4_artical_2.html


I do this same type of calabration on every HD & DV production that I shoot, and it works. I know how far I need to go with my lighting and exposure. It set a standard to shoot by, and my images are consistant.
 
Barry_Green said:
Actually I said Cine-D is *the* noisiest. Perhaps you're confusing it with Cine-V, which I said was the 2nd cleanest?
Click to expand...

Right, just poining out the setting which was called less noisy in the shoot in question can't really be cine-d, which is def. noisy plus ultra (see first post). Perhaps it was cine-v with crushed blacks...it would be nice to know.

also, where is jarred's post on this shoot? I'm searching for it through the thick underbrush of the search function...(damn this is a hot board! Hundreds of posts a week, it seems. Y'all a loquatious bunch...)
 
I suspected the Dell might be too sharp and too bright which would accentuate the noise of the cam. DVD's do show noise but it is clearly film grain. But just because you can't see noise on other monitors doesn't mean it's not there but it would really on be a problem for compositing and keying.

Doesn't anyone have a calibrated HD Studio Monitor and HVX footage to add to the mix. I would love to know how it looks.

Lighting ratio tests are fine but I am interested in eyeball opinions too.
 
I don't know about that being to sharp. My dell 24" is excellent.

Barlow brought over all his original XLH1 HDV tapes and we watched all the Sundance footage via the component out of the H1 to my dell in glorious 1080P 24fps. It was clean, beautiful and friggin sharp as hell.

It was a 24" window into Park City.

Later we went to my 50" Sony HDTV and it was just mouth watering too! When you pump sub par res into a higher res display the noise comes from the system trying to fill the empty pixels with duplicated uprezzed data. That's why people are seeing noise when viewing 720p HVX on a 1080P display.

As i have said, shoot 1080P people, that's where the HVX200 starts, 720P is a down rez of the 1080P frame. Why are you wanting a down rez image of your work which starts at 1080P. That would be like shooting with my medium format film, and then making 35mm film scans of that and then discarding the medium negs and going with the 35mm versions.

Doesn't seem to smart.

Keep the master at the best possible, and work down from there.

Just some good advice IMHO....




Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
 
mattsdp said:
I read a post earlier where someone said that a gray card was "theory." I beg to differ. A gray card is a standard that we all can calibrate to.

Let me recomend this link to read:
http://www.spectracine.com/Spectra_Pro_4_artical_2.html
Click to expand...

ok. You set a digital camera using a grey, a single point on an unknown (and variable from camera to camera and setting to setting) dynamic curve. Then what? You let highlights clip into white and the low intensities lost into format noise? You don't touch the camera from that point on, no matter what happens to the highs and lows? You don't change any control that would affect your grey point?

You can't afford to do this. This reminds me of engineers that set audio levels sent to ADs based on what they see on a VU meter. This worked for analog tape and the method above worked for film. They are not practical in digital mediums with limited dynamic range lots of noise and zero tolerance to overexposure. You can't go for average in digital formats. The key to making the most is to always have in mind the format noise and clipping point. If somebody works with a grey point and tries to avoid post manipulation by doing that he should at least make sure the dynamics of the scene are very limited. There will still be a compromise though. A gradient will break to distinct tones here, noise will appear there, something will clip elsewhere.
 
PappasArts said:
I don't know about that being to sharp. My dell 24" is excellent.
Click to expand...

Like people use to say: Get a real monitor:) A real monitor is supposed to be an analog monitor with low contrast ratio that shows nothing in shadows and is pretty low resolution (not 1:1!). So any camera will look better:)
 
limo991 said:
You don't touch the camera from that point on, no matter what happens to the highs and lows? You don't change any control that would affect your grey point?

You can't afford to do this. If somebody works with a grey point and tries to avoid post manipulation by doing that he should at least make sure the dynamics of the scene are very limited. There will still be a compromise though. A gradient will break to distinct tones here, noise will appear there, something will clip elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Ansel Adams developed the zone system for Black & White Photography. If you metered a field of snow your meter would adjust exposure so that the white snow was 18% grey. If you did not open a few stops your white snow would turn grey. If you were shooting black bats in a dark cave the meter would say to open up more so the black cave was 18% grey. You need to close a few stops so the black cave is black. Most videographers do not carry a waveform monitor around or understand what the funny white lines are that are dancing around in the viewfinder. The best to assure exposure levels is practice and knowing your equipment, and then viewing that video on a properly set monitor. Believe me, I just finished a post session where most of the footage shot was from a BetaSP camera that the shooter had rented, all the shots were either over or under exposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top