DETAIL and noise, your opinion please
 

Next week we start preproduction with our HD100 and I need to nail down some settings, especially for the low light scenes. I was originally thinking that I should set DETAIL to at least -3 or -4 to help reduce or remove the “video look”. But now after reading the few threads I could find, and spending 2 hours shooting/reviewing test footage with the DELL 24” HD monitor, I’m now leaning towards turning DETAIL off all together!! I’m amazed at how additional noise is clearly visible when set to anything but off. If I’m shooting low light scenes with a fair amount of black or dark areas visible, adding any additional noise is of great concern to me. In fact, even shooting well lit I still would like to avoid additional noise as much as I can (okay so that’s a no-brainer). So has anyone figured out if DETAIL does in fact soften the image when set below -3 or -4, as was discussed in another thread? I noticed added noise on every setting but OFF. I admit it does tend to look a bit soft, but the image it produces is so much cleaner in my opinion.

Worth mentioning, we will spend a fair amount of time in post on this project doing our CC, and the final delivery is web based, therefore reduced down for streaming. The DETAIL set to OFF looks just fine in this case, I only worry that they may decide to broadcast larger at some later time. Does anyone have any solid information regarding DETAIL and added noise?

After reading other threads on this forum I was thinking about using the following for this shoot, any ideas or recommended changes?

MASTER BLACK... Normal
DETAIL... OFF
BLACK... STRETCH3
WHITE CLIP... 108%
KNEE... MANUAL 85%
CINELIKE... OFF
GAMMA... STANDARD

T.Dashwoods "warm" scene file was noise free for me when shooting at 0 gain around open to f 2.8. Try loading that scene file and test it to see the results.

Noise is simply random detail so you will have to trade-off eliminating noise verses more detail.

For web or any SD use, hi-frequency (very fine) detail is of no great importance because whatever you have in your HD video will be filtered out in the down-convert. So, of course, is noise. Nevertheless, noise is both hi- and mid-frequency grunge so while down-conversion will eliminate hi-frequency detail and hi-frequency noise --- it can still leave mid-frequency noise. So I'd go with less noise vs more detail.

Unless, your other use is for HD. Then i would would look at why you are seeing so much noise. Stephan is correct -- at 0dB gain there really should not be noise. In fact, not even at +6dB! In fact, that's probably the question I should have asked up front.

Stephen, I'll give it a run and see how it does, although it's low light settings that I'm looking for a good solution still. I rarely ever gain up if I can help it, I keep it to 0 (+6 on a rare occasion) and adjust lighting as needed. I still see the "hi-frequency (very fine)" noise Steve was talking about unless DETAIL is set to OFF, and even with perfect lighting I would like to keep it to a minimum. So I would still like to find out exactly what the JVC is doing in regards to the DETAIL settings. Does it soften the image when set low or off, or is it simply not adding detail?

Regardless, this luminance noise does not bother me so much, it's expected to some degree and very minor with the JVC, IMO. The type of noise I would like to avoid for this weeks shoot however is the chroma noise found in the blacks during the low light shooting we'll be doing, even when gain is kept at 0 I still see some. I can CC later and crush the blacks back down if stretching reduces the overall chroma noise. So, will stretching the black increase or decrease the chroma noise levels on the JVC?

I also see no noise at 0db. Can you post a frame grab with the worst example of noise you are getting with detail ON.?

When Barry and co were doing the HDV shootout between the Canon, Panasonic, Sony and JVC I think the general consensus was turn the detail off - you can always add detail in post (it's a post effect in camera).

I suggest trying either "OFF" or "MINIMUM" for detail, and using the one that looks best to you. I prefer "MINIMUM" as I find it gives just enough sharpness without the video look (IMHO). "OFF" is a bit too soft for my liking. But, as John mentioned, you can always add some sharpening later in post if needed.

I would also caution about making sure you still have enough light in the low-light scenes. Use the camera settings or post CC to make it look darker rather than keeping the light levels down. (You may already know this, but I've seen some people think a dark scene should be dark on set, which promotes noise in the camera.)

You can only do so much in post. If you want a dark scene and shoot it bright, doesn't matter what you do in post it will look fake, like day for night does. Unless I misunderstood what you said.

adding detail (sharpness?) in post
 

I've tried all the detail settings, and the image looks incredibly soft without some detail added in camera (-2 to 0 settings). I've expiermented with adding sharpness in FCP, using both the FCP and QT filters, both in native HDV and converted to DVCProHD codec. Although the DVCProHD codec is better, the noise comes back with the detail added in post, just like in the camera, maybe worse. And you can't go very far with the sharpness filters, begins to look like halos around everything.

Am I using the filters correctly? Any suggestions?

Gary

Off, off, off. I was very dissapointed with the intial tests on a 23' HD monitor. Even with Detail at Minimun and Vand H set to low.
With detail off you're starting to see what this camera can do IMO.
My wife who is our art director immediately compared it to over sharpening in Photoshop...exactly right.
If you look at it sharpened for a while then it looks soft when you shut it off, but that's no different from producing music and having the treble turned up - when you first set it flat it sounds dull by comparison, but that's why you have $5k studio speakers to monitor flat and accurate.
This camera looks great once you start dialing in the look, but I would absolutely start with the Detail off.

The thing is, it's a known thing HD needs some edge enhancement. Any DP used to shoot on the F900 will tell you that and also that the F900 needs some edge enhancement. It's just a normal thing when shooting HD.

Well I'm just using my eyes as a producer and the Detail setting off is more pleasing to me than on. This isn't an F900 so I don't know that that's a reasonable comparison and I've yet to see where sharpening is a "known" in the industry.
Also it was apprently universal that the DPs at the recent 6 camera test all prefered the setting off.
Bottom line is how it looks and obviously to a number of us it looks considerably better off. Minimum would be the most I could imagine, but I've shot several hours of tests so far and it will stay off on my projects unless I see something lacking on set.

You can setup the camera for very little noise. Check this out. It is a wmv encode but still check it out. The thing it that the JVC is so customizable that you can find a combination that works in any given scenario. This was shot with the 'warm' scene file @ 0 gain. JVC delivers incredible quality.

Click here for WMV

Good points, all of you. I should clarify that, unlike all of you real DP's, my subjects are often various pieces of machinery like boats, trains and planes, and showing adequate detail is a must. I agree, shooting drama, interviews, etc, the softer look is much more pleasing, perhaps even more "filmlike".

I spent two years shooting in 1080i HDCAM, and never used detail enhancement, in the camera nor in post, and as long as I didn't screw up the focus, it looked great. I'm still getting used to the lower res image of 720p. But I hafta admit, the "p" is a real positive when compared to the alaising of interlaced, albeit higher res 1080i. Maybe I just need a little more time after looking at all those sharp images!

I guess it's a trade-off: sharper image, but with noise, vs. softer image and less noise. Kinda like airplanes: really fast, but lots of fuel and little weight, or really slow, stingy on fuel and lots of weight. Pick one.

Over.

Actually 720p should have as much or more detail than 1080i. 1080 24p is another story however.

Yes the increased sharpness is probably more a factor of the glass and the much larger sensor on the F900.

Native 1080 in 24p will be sharper than 720p, it's not only a matter of lens difference. But given the cheapest native 1080 capable of 24p is the F900, I don't even feel bad for not having a 1080 progressive camera.

Stephen, how was the detail adjusted in this shot? This is the kind of stuff I sometimes do, filmic look is not a priority to me in this situations. So, if you're shooting shows and stuff where the video look is natural, how do you set the detail level?

1080p will be bigger than 720p but not necessarily sharper. The potential for a sharper image is there.

John: your'e right; I can't do much about the sensor size, but my glass on the HDCAM was in the neighborhood of $25K, street price, and the glass on the HD100, is, maybe $800.

I've asked my dealer to get in a 13x3.5 lens for testing and possible purchase. I'll report back then.

Over and out.

There's no really such thing as 1080p, but 1080 in 24p, 25p and 30p. The 1080p term gives the wrong impression and or would mean 1080 60p or 50p which doesn't exist. Just out of curiosity

I used the warm scene file (a T.Dashwood recipe) which I believe is detail set to -3 (off the top of my head).

How about this shotClick here for wmv by our friend Pete over at VidProstudios


Where do you think the detail is set to on this shot? It could easily pass for super 16, I think.

BTW: Pete said this was his very first shot. He pulled the camera out of the box and shot this on "out of box" defaults.

1080(p)rogressive (ie 1920x1080) as opposed to 1080(i)nterlaced (ie 1440x1080)....

Thanks for pointing that out amigo..

Hey Stephen, nothing personal, it's just that people use 1080p loosely when it actually doesn't exist. 720p means 720 60/50p and anything in between or in other words that it’s available in full. 1920x1080 is only available in 24p, 25p, 30p and interlaced. When you are talking about let's say 1280x720 in 24p, you normally wouldn't say 720p. 1080p doesn't exist, at least yet. I'm not sure I'm making any sense here, but I know you know what I’m talking about. I was just pointing it out of curiosity to others, because as I said 1080p is used so loosely. 1080p is not the same thing as 1080 progressive, even though many think it is

By the way are those clips shot in 30p and with the stock lens?

You're absolutely right Micheal, my oversight. Anyway, those shots were taken 24p with the stock lens. I think the stock lens is much maligned. Take a look at the pan down the neck of the guitar. You can see the grain in the wood on the fret board as the camera moves down the neck. The 1280x720 CCD's are providing the incredible resolution as the camera is in motion. This is a feather in the cap of JVC because full resolution CCD's are what make the camera have such great detail in static as well as motion shots.

JVC gambled on the 2 CCD per block solution but it is worth it when you see the results of retained resolution when the camera is in motion. Now that the SSE has been "tamed" to a large degree and people are starting to see the quality of the camera's image, I believe we'll see more adopters of ProHD. Don't You?

Something I keep seeing people throw out there is HDV has trouble with action type shots. Since the HD100 samples fewer frames I'd guess it would be better than the others.

I just saw the lacrosse footage -- it does seem a little "Gladiator-ish" at times... but that may have been the shutter speed. Anybody have thoughts on this topic?

Also - do you know if the promos at http://www.vidprostudios.com are HD100?

^

Wise words my friend.

What footage?

The lacrosse footage Stephen linked to.
http://www.vidprostudios.com/media/R...20Lacrosse.wmv

I agree. I wouldn't turn it off completely (unless you are doing a 35mm blowup - make sure you test first!!!)
MIN is as low as I would ever go, or the softness level may exceed what you can pull back by adding detail in post. Just make sure you are using a good HD monitor when establishing your ideal detail setting.
I've gone as high as +4 for high-contrast "bleach-bypass" style looks and as low as MIN for candlelit romantic scenes. My general suggested compromise setting is -6 or -7. You will still have enough edge enhancement that any image will look sharp, but not so much that it stands out as "video."

I'm not actually sure what the detail was set to for that scene file as those were my "beta" scene files for testing. I think I now have most of them set to -6.

As soon as I am happy with the second batch of scene files I will "publish" them here for everyone to download and play with. I still consider the second batch to be "a work in progress." I'm glad some people are using them as a starting point and then tweaking them. This is one of the coolest aspects of this generation of cameras.

Well we spent a lot of time since my last post in the studio testing on a pair of HD monitors shooting some really varied material and lighting and I would have to say I was wrong and that a bit of sharpening does in fact help the HD100 in many/most situations.
I'm still wary of much more than the minimum...again depending on the subject material.
Straight lines and edges with contrast can very quickly get an outline with sharpening and raised highlights can become very digital pretty quickly.
But in two settings we've built in the last couple of days I've got detail set to minimum which seems analagous to judicious sharpening in PS Raw.
Anyway, I'm willing to eat a little crow in the name of better film making <g>.

Don't worry, I won't say " I told ya " LOL.
Glad to know you are finding the settings to fit your needs with this camera. It's a great little piece of gear.

Well we really neeed to get it tweaked for a fairly challenging shoot. I'm leaving right now to shoot the last pre-Olympic warm ups...this one with Apollo Ono and the US team versus the Canadian team at the Olympic Center.

Not much chance for mistakes or technical issues and I'm alway a bit concerned about going on set or in the field with new technology so I did tons of testing and calibrating in advance.

I'll be back tomorrow with the footage and I'm really psyched to see how it looks in this type of fim making.

What framerate do you intend to use Jim?

Hey Stephen....just got back into town.
I shot 30/60.
With the up close speed skating action I wanted to minimize any panning issues.
I really want to get some time now to first see how it's all going to work in FCP...counting on that going well.
Second to get a couple of clips up online because holy shnikeys...it performed beautifully.
I'm sold.
I'll do a separate thread on this because there's a lot I'd like to talk about from how wonderful it was under faster than real time challenges and how virtually every aspect exceeded my cautious expectations.
Then there's the SSE issue and the low light handling that are great stories in and of themselves.
So it's definitely a keeper.
I was very seriously considering getting and XL-H1 in the next week and possibly keeping both with the JVC more the second camera if they matched well.
Fagedaboutit...I'm getting another HD100.
How did this thing stay under the radar for so long?

Jim,

I was going to suggest 480p60. I've had excellent results with that framerate and uprezzing to 1280x720 at very little cost to image quality.

Hope to see some footage on the Olympic coverage from you.