Do the compression caveats you detail explain the large blobs of noise seen throughout the "Matrix" footage?

There is chroma noise that I believe is from the source. Anything else I believe is due to post compression. I clearly prefer the look on the JVC camera for the Matrix clip, yet is has some significant chroma noise that I would want suppress.

I've posted a few stills, which should remove the MPEG recompression question from the equation.

i.e., I took the .m2t file (as directly captured from the JVC capture utility), put it on the timeline in Vegas, and exported a few still frames.

I saved them as uncompressed .BMP's, rather than JPG's, so there would be no question about any form of recompression. That does mean that they're nearly 3mb in size though, so it'll take a few moments to download them. They're grouped in pairs: the JVC shot, followed by a roughly-comparable DVX shot (after up-rezzing).

Matrix moving pan shots:
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...ll-Matrix1.BMP
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...trixPan036.bmp

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...ll-Matrix2.BMP
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...trixPan116.bmp

Matrix shot at end of pan, camera stationary:
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...ll-Matrix3.BMP
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...trixPan160.bmp

Old West, walk-up shot, at widest (detail all the way to the mountains):
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...WalkUpWide.BMP
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...WalksUp003.bmp

Same setup, but at the end, close-up shot:
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...alkUpClose.BMP
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC...WalksUp092.bmp

Interesting how these BMPs clearly show the JVC has more chroma noise, yet these also clearly shows the DXV has more luma noise.

Okay, one last set of clips, this time a wide shot outside.

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/JVC-West-Wide.mpg
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/DVX-West-Wide.mpg

(man, I've gotta be near my bandwidth limit this month!)

One can clearly see that resolution is not a problem with the JVC shots. Again, my problem with using the JVC is the large blobs of chroma noise. In trying to match the looks of the "Matrix" shots I noticed that as I adjusted a levels filter in Photoshop I came up with even more pronounced blobs of noise (something that's never occured in shots I've adjusted in DV.) I don't think I'd have as much trouble with the chroma noise if it was more "grain-like" as in the DVX shots, but then that's probably a result of the Bayer-type filter used to acquire the color information on the JVC.

My Mac says, "Cannot open file because it is not a file Quicktime understands"?????

Anyone having this message?

Luckily- VideoLAN was able to open it.

The "blobs" of chroma noise can be greatly reduced with this VirtualDub filter. http://www.ifrance.com/freevcr/virtualdub/cnr-en.html

<<<-- (man, I've gotta be near my bandwidth limit this month!) -->>>


No doubt. Thanks again for your time and bandwidth.
Ken.

The JVC looks more 'film like' than the DVX, especially in these two. The DVX details look too 'modeled' and blobby. The JVC quantizing does look a bit bizy on my computer monitor, but still the material looks less 'electronic' because of the textures being represented more faithfully.

Thanks for posting these Barry! JVC should send you a cheque :)

-Les

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Okay, one last set of clips, this time a wide shot outside.

http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/JVC-West-Wide.mpg
http://66.78.26.9/~fiercely/DVXvsJVC/DVX-West-Wide.mpg

(man, I've gotta be near my bandwidth limit this month!) -->>>

jvc noise.
 

hey,

ure right about the chroma noise on the JVC. but i dont think its a problem of the camera itself!!!!!

ive seen a lot of night footage with the jvc and the real `WOW` from the people who saw it (and they post it on the forum) was that it has NO NOISE at night. they dont produce noise like the dv produce - can you people remember it?

ciao

Guys DO NOT FORGET BARRY HAS THE HD1. You cannot take this footage as a basis to evaluate the HD10. Differences are too noticeable. The HD1 has way too much edge enhancement and lacks in certain bright areas some of the subtelties of the HD10. Maybe you should take a look at Darren Kelly's DVD witch made comparisons between the HD10 and other cameras.

"The "blobs" of chroma noise can be greatly reduced with this VirtualDub filter. http://www.ifrance.com/freevcr/virtualdub/cnr-en.html"

Unfortunately, chroma noise reduction (or luma for that matter) works at the expense of resolution, reducing the only advantage the JVC camera has.

<<<-- Originally posted by Kenn Christenson : Unfortunately, chroma noise reduction (or luma for that matter) works at the expense of resolution, reducing the only advantage the JVC camera has. -->>>

This is incorrect. With the suggested filter, luma is only used as a key channel to determine where chroma noise reduction should be applied (it is quite clever.) The resolution for chroma and luma is not reduced. I have used this filter with a fair degree of success, however it does inspire me to develop a version for Aspect HD. Give it a try.

Was the footage uprezzed from a Pal DVX100 or NTSC