Should footage be this noisey? at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds
Sony PMW-300, PXW-X200, PXW-X180 (back to EX3 & EX1) recording to SxS flash memory.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 9th, 2008, 01:00 AM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 107
Should footage be this noisey?

I've been starting to notice noise in the picture, and not gainey noise, it's showing up at 0db. (please don't tell me to shoot at -3db, it limits superwhites to ~90IRE, and obviously drops exposure)

The attached picture is straight from an EX1 sitting on my desk, 1080/24p shutter off 0db gain, f/1.9. The picture profile is Bills TC2, detail off, with blacks at -2. Do you see all that noise in the shadows, specifically the wall? Should that be there?

Also completely unrelated, I've been having trouble in general getting that ridiculously good looking look out of the camera that people seem to effortlessly get. (Yes, including grading) It's like I have something in the picture profile set horribly wrong.


http://fohdeesha.com/data/pictures/other/noise.png
Jon Sands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 01:06 AM   #2
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
Can you set up a shot for F4 and post that? Also on your other issue, are you seeing the same problems on the stock profile settings??
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.
Perrone Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 01:39 AM   #3
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 107
No problem, thanks for the response. To get any exposure at all at f4 I had to use a 500 watt halogen, so it's obviously going to be hard to judge the difference with there not really being any shadows or "low light". I'm still seeing that odd noise in certain areas though.

http://fohdeesha.com/data/pictures/other/noisef4.png


As for the standard profile, I'm not sure as I've never really shot with it. I guess I should experiment.
Jon Sands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 01:59 AM   #4
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
Jon,

I am about as far from an expert as it gets. I was curious about something which is why I wanted to see the F4 image. Out of curiousity, are you shooting with tungsten light? I am wondering if you'd see a difference with 5600k light. Tungsten light is particularly noisy in dark scenes.

I'd be curious to see if you'd see a difference with the standard profiles, and also with 5600k light if you had it available.
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.
Perrone Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 11:41 AM   #5
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 1,866
Noise doesn't jump out at me as much as the severe "stairstepping" on the power cord for the charger in the lower left corner of the picture.

Could the noise (and stairstepping) be in the frame grab itself?

The picture also looks grossly oversharpened to me.
Tom Roper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 12:38 PM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrone Ford View Post
...<snip>...Tungsten light is particularly noisy in dark scenes.
...<snip>
Huhhh!!?? Are you saying........huh????
Dave Morrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 12:40 PM   #7
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Morrison View Post
Huhhh!!?? Are you saying........huh????
I am saying that due to the design of most video cameras, the blue channel tends to be the noisiest, and when using tungsten the relative lack of blue in the light tends to make the problem worse than when using daylight balanced light.
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.
Perrone Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 12:59 PM   #8
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nuremberg, Germany
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perrone Ford View Post
the blue channel tends to be the noisiest, and when using tungsten the relative lack of blue in the light tends to make the problem worse than when using daylight balanced light.
Exactly. Whitebalance technically isn't more than per-channel-gain. And a low whitebalance-temperature means a lot of blue-channel-gain.
Try this:
1. Set detail to off.
2. Use cine1 or cine3 instead of std-gammas (because std-gammas have some "built-in-gain" for leaving headroom for their knee-feature).
(3. don't deinterlace progressive footage ;) )
Dominik Seibold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 01:10 PM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 762
Thanks Perrone. I learn something new every day here!! ;-)
Dave Morrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 01:15 PM   #10
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
Beautiful discussion on it here:

Demystifying Digital Camera Specifications Part 7: Single Sensor Cameras Continued
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels.
Perrone Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 02:00 PM   #11
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: West Central Florida
Posts: 762
Thanks again, Perrone. I just watched the segment you linked to and now I'm going back to the first segment and watching the whole thing. This should be required viewing for all of us.
Dave Morrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 03:53 PM   #12
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominik Seibold View Post
Exactly. Whitebalance technically isn't more than per-channel-gain. And a low whitebalance-temperature means a lot of blue-channel-gain.
Try this:
1. Set detail to off.
2. Use cine1 or cine3 instead of std-gammas (because std-gammas have some "built-in-gain" for leaving headroom for their knee-feature).
(3. don't deinterlace progressive footage ;) )


detail was off, I was using cine 1, and oops LOL. Was wondering why the bmp output was all jaggedy
Jon Sands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 04:10 PM   #13
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 107
heres the f4 properly exported without "deinterlace" checked (oops)


http://fohdeesha.com/data/pictures/o...sef4proper.png

also, why does it look like details on cranked all the way up when it was clearly turned off in the PP menu?

edit: going back into the pp menu, detail was turned on. What in the world? I give up
Jon Sands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 05:27 PM   #14
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 3,865
Thanks Perrone great link.
__________________
Paul Cronin
www.paulcroninstudios.com
Paul Cronin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9th, 2008, 06:01 PM   #15
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Sands View Post
heres the f4 properly exported without "deinterlace" checked (oops)


http://fohdeesha.com/data/pictures/o...sef4proper.png

also, why does it look like details on cranked all the way up when it was clearly turned off in the PP menu?

edit: going back into the pp menu, detail was turned on. What in the world? I give up
Jon,

I'm not really seeing a noise problem with this new screen grab or the other one. Where should I be looking?

As far as appearing "sharpened" f/1.9 (the first post's screengrab) vs. f/4 will get you a lot more depth of field and therefore more objects will be in focus in your video. Between f/2.8 and f/8 is the "sweet spot" of video lenses and you're there.
Adam Reuter is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:49 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network