-
Will Panasonic have a solution for the noise
-
Hi all:
I did some testing yesterday and personally, I think that the macroblock issue that you are talking about stems from a playback issue with the camera’s analog outs. I too saw the macroblocks using the camera for playback into a Dell 2405. However, when I viewed the same footage played back from an AVID Symphony through a JVC 19″ HD CRT and a Pioneer Elite 55″ plasma via HD-SDI to the JVC and via analog HD outs to the Pioneer, I saw no macroblocks. This leads me to believe that many, if not all of the users who are seeing this issue might be viewing playback directly from the camera or migh be monitoring live through the camera on a shoot?
Try viewing your footage from you NLE using a high quality HD monitor via a digital connection and tell us what you see.
Best,
Dan
Providing value added material to all of your favorite DVDs
-
[Jan Crittenden Livingston] “The AG-HVX200 is not a noisy camera. It has a noise level that is to be expected from a 1/3” HD imager. In fact it is quieter than most of its competition.
[Taylor Wigton, DP] and [Rodney Charters, ASC; DP of Fox’s “24”] “[In our four-camera HD/V shootout] we did find the HVX200 the noisiest of the cameras. The fact that it has fewer pixels means more noise and lower resolution, but less heat.
Perhaps it’s not a simple task to determine exactly just what should be expected from a 1/3″ chip camera today, especially with numerous options and competitive products of different technologies saturating the marketplace. However, I would recommend doing extensive testing for yourself before buying a camera based on manufacturer claims. Professionals in the industry have voiced opinions on the camera quite different from the soundbytes Panasonic has put forth.
-
Hi Haakon,
I am sorry that you do not like your camera. I do know that there are a good number of people that would be willing to purchase and you can go and buy one of the other cameras that record HDV instead of DVCPRO. As far as the gentlemen above, I offered to have Barry Green on set as DIT since they would be unfamiliar with the camera, they didn’t take me up on the offer. That causes me to question their findings as I have images that prove quite the opposite of theirs.
I do believe that the camera performs well and as promised. And I am sure you can get your money out of it and buy one of the other cameras should they suit your purposes. I know that Evinsky over on DVXuser has a standing offer.
All I can say is that there are a good number of productions that are coming for that are using this including one for the History channel, or for a reality show or for a very cool Documentary on the Marines that utilized or are using this sweet little camera.
But I do agree with you, I think people should test the cameras and that they should buy from the dealers that they tested the cameras with. And that all of the cameras you are considering should be tested with the same images you want to shoot and then once you have finished the edit, make the decision. However, I find that in the video business, there is a line from a movie, “The Great Divide”, that so totally fits; ” Life is full of little trade-offs.” It is so true.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
[Jan Crittenden]”The AG-HVX200 is not a noisy camera. It has a noise level that is to be expected from a 1/3″ HD imager. In fact it is quieter than most of its competition…The HVX200 is a wonderful little camera, it just isn’t a $60,000 Varicam with a 2/3″ imager. Laws of physics cannot be denied.”
Best regards,
Jan
Why is it there’s very little complaint about this 1/3″ imager noise issue with the other cameras if the HVX is actually “quieter” than most of its competition? Like Toke said it seems to be that it’s creating large sized compression blocks and banding that some have termed “dancing pixels”. Spun any which way the camera is not performing as cleanly as people expected. Saying it’s not a 2/3″ imager and therefore “physics cannot be denied” is a bit of a cop-out. If anything, your Varicam comment would lend some credence to the theory that there was an obvious ceiling for the camera that it shouldn’t encroach upon.
People didn’t expect a miracle, but some feel they were sold a bill of goods that didn’t quite live up to the billing.
-
[Barlow Elton] “Why is it there’s very little complaint about this 1/3” imager noise issue with the other cameras if the HVX is actually “quieter” than most of its competition?
Well I would say that the difference is that the camera does have a different look to the video and that people are looking at a different compression algorithm and assigning something to the camera vs the compression and because they are new to HD, I don’t know. All I know is what I know. Maybe many are looking at the HD on inexpensive HD LCDs as Dan pointed out above. Note that Dan doesn’t have a complaint nor does the gentleman from Hawaii, and they own the camera.
The camera performs very well for its competive range. I mean the projects that are underway with the camera have been started by some pretty impressive names and some not so. A project for the making of a music video for the Red Hot Chili Peppers that will air on MTV is nearing completion. There is another project that is going to air on the History Channel that has a couple of HVXs on the scene, as a second camera to the Varicam. There is 18 month project being worked on by Marc Singer, who is headed to Afghanistan with the Marines and the HVX. He started his project with the JVC and found that the HDV algorithm did him in too many times.
>Spun any which way the camera is not performing as cleanly as people expected.
When we delivered the DVX100A everyone said it was noisy as well and yes the picture was indeed different that the texture of the DVX100. Why? Different Chips, different DSP, who knows but everyone was saying it was noisy, well it too has been used in so many wonderful projects, so what is the point?
>Saying it’s not a 2/3″ imager and therefore “physics cannot be denied” is a bit of a cop-out. If anything, your Varicam comment would lend some credence to the theory that there was an obvious ceiling for the camera that it shouldn’t encroach upon.
Actually because people have seemed to expect that a 1/3″ imager should be as quiet as a 2/3″, based on conversations I have had in the past week, and from your comment, it would seen that you believe that to be true as well. Laws of physics cannot be denied. It isn’t a cop out, it is reality.
>People didn’t expect a miracle, but some feel they were sold a bill of goods that didn’t quite live up to the billing.
But why would they spend $6,000 on a camera sight unseen. I know I wouldn’t, not if it was going to be my lifeline to employment. Where did Panasonic ever say that this camera was going to be as quiet as any 2/3″ camera out there. We haven’t. We have said that this will be a remarkable creative tool that people can use for a lot of applications and we still believe that to be true.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, AG-DVX100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
Perversely it could be lack of noise that’s the issue. Noise hides compression artifacts and 8bit banding. DVCproHD is pretty severe compression, more severe than DV and a lot lot more compressed than DV50. Compression can remove some of the natural noise that acts as dither to hid 8bit banding. Also, all these formats are more compressed in shadows than highlights, and that’s where banding is worst.
Never-the-less, I’m working on some noise reduction plugins that are doing a great job with my 720p30 HDV footage, but I think what people are seeing are compression artifacts, not noise.
Graeme
– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects and Standards Conversion for FCP
-
Graeme,
Great to hear your working on plug-ins for this issue. btw, isn’t there an issue in FCP with the 8bit rendering pipeline when all’s said and done?
As for the compression/noise issue…I’ve shot XL-H1 SDI straight to DVCproHD 1080i in low light scenes (sunsets of the Utah mtn. ranges, etc.) and the resultant DV100 files show nowhere near the same amount of blockies that people are complaing about from the HVX.
I think it’s a matter of signal processing, overall.
-
[Graeme Nattress] “Perversely it could be lack of noise that’s the issue. Noise hides compression artifacts and 8bit banding. DVCproHD is pretty severe compression, more severe than DV and a lot lot more compressed than DV50. Compression can remove some of the natural noise that acts as dither to hid 8bit banding. Also, all these formats are more compressed in shadows than highlights, and that’s where banding is worst.”
Yep, we got rid of tape with hvx200, I hope Panny will dump “the more than decade old” dv(cprohd)-codec with next model. No vtr’s, no need for legacy codecs. Bring out eg. 10b-jpeg2000! At least for an option…
-
[Dan Brockett] “I think that the macroblock issue that you are talking about stems from a playback issue with the camera’s analog outs.”
Check this out, if you still haven’t:
https://www33.tok2.com/home/hvx200/It has nothing to do with analog outputs.
Bad scaling in lcd can also lead to blocking, but those Saru’s pictures are fully digital.
By the way, quite a bit chromatic aberration in g5’s edges…
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up