|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 15th, 2010, 12:29 PM | #16 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,109
|
Wow, those are really weird looking captures. I would return the camera to a Panasonic service provider, something is wrong with it.
Dan |
July 15th, 2010, 03:44 PM | #17 | |||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
Quote:
My favourite story is about the V2000 video cassette system, developed by Philips and Grundig to try to rival Betamax and VHS. (See Video 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .) According to wikipedia: Quote:
Digressions aside, I agree with Dan. You need to take the matter up with Panasonic. |
|||
July 15th, 2010, 04:06 PM | #18 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
|
It's a different though possibly related effect being discussed here AG-HPX371E jello issue.... - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking
Steve |
July 16th, 2010, 05:40 PM | #19 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
I managed to get a quick look at a 371 yesterday - too quick to be scientific about any testing, but long enough to draw some conclusions.
Firstly, I was able to get an effect which matches something like Steve is noticing, and the fact that others on the link Steve provided above are also seeing similar problems seems to prove Steves isn't a faulty unit - it's something that affects all 371s. Secondly, I was able to see it via the HD-SDI output, so am sure it is nothing to do with the AVC-Intra codec - this doesn't surprise me at all. I note that other people on Steves link have come to the same conclusion I did. The front end doesn't seem to be inherently less free of noise than the 301, in spite of what panasonic claim. It's achieving it's final output via electronic noise reduction, and whilst that may improve matters most of the time, sometimes it looks very odd. The worst effect I saw was whilst panning across a textured wall - the appearance varied with pan speed, and at certain critical speeds there seemed to be a low-level "explosion" of noise. I would worry about buying this camera, never be quite sure when something would jump out to spoil things, even if it looked fine most of the time. I note in one of the posts one person actually swapped his 371 back for a 301 - although the noise level was worse, he felt it more predictable. I can sympathise with that. |
July 17th, 2010, 02:17 AM | #20 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
|
David, in the link I provided there was actually something a bit different, although most likely related. It was a shifting of certain parts of the image when the camera was still, rather than the moving effects I've seen.
I'm sure you'll agree that when you see "even if it looked fine most of the time" that's just not anything like good enough for a camera with a full Pro label like the 300 series. Steve |
July 17th, 2010, 03:52 PM | #21 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
That was two months ago. Maybe it’s time you posted again to that forum asking for an update, Steve? There is quite an irony about it. Panasonic make quite a lot about the 371 using AVC-Intra and the I-frame nature of it, stressing how that means there’s no chance of codec performance being at all affected by movement. Not much use when even slight camera movements can cause bad effects in the front end! It seems that most of the time, on normal pictures, no problem may be seen. But another question needs to be asked if it is indeed performing noise reduction. That can make a picture look cleaner – but destroy subtle low level detail at the same time. That may not be seen on the raw picture – but can severely affect performance if you try to push the images in post. A point I’ve made on another thread is that there is no point in 10 bit recording if the noise level swamps the least significant bits. There’s even less point in 10 bit recording if any noise reduction has destroyed the very slight changes that 10 bit could capture, but 8 bit couldn’t. |
|
July 17th, 2010, 04:29 PM | #22 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
|
There has been a response from Panny on one of those threads, yesterday. Says they are aware of it and working on it, that's about it.
Steve |
July 17th, 2010, 04:38 PM | #23 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Foster City, California
Posts: 192
|
David,
On another forum, Steve Cooperman, P2 manager for the U.S. posted that there is a problem with all 370's and a firmware update is due at the end of July. It's clear that Panasonic is behind the curve a bit vs. Sony with CMOS development. Just another reason why I'm happy to be shooting with CCD's most often. I had a client recently reject my EX1 and swap to an HPX170 due to some flicker artifacts that weren't present with the 170. My advice for those who are having issues with 300's or 370's is to find a used HPX2000 w/Intra board. Not easy, but they're out there occasionally. Obviously, a 2000 isn't a full raster native chip set, but it has a lot of other things going for it. Regarding 8-bit vs. 10-bit, your characterization of " the very slight changes 10-bit could capture", I don't agree. 10-bit has 4X as many gray steps as 8-bit, 1024 vs. 256, same as HDCAM SR. Jeff Regan Shooting Star Video |
July 17th, 2010, 04:52 PM | #24 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
|
Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2000 is a full raster camera, ie 1280x720 full raster, at least when recording AVC Intra.
I think you're probably right about Panny not quite being up with Sony on the CMOS front, and wanting to keep up they've used software trickery to make up the distance, but it's backfired. Steve |
July 17th, 2010, 05:16 PM | #25 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Foster City, California
Posts: 192
|
Steve,
Yes, full raster 720 chip set when using Intra. I should have written full raster 1080X1920 camera. Panasonic seems to have done a good job with their 4/3" CMOS DSLR's and VDSLR's, although there will have to be a lot of massaging if the AF100 is to be free of aliasing artifacts and excessive skew. Let's see what the 370/371 firmware update looks like. EX1 and 3 have been out too long for Panasonic to be having these issues with the 300 successor. Jeff Regan Shooting Star Video |
July 17th, 2010, 05:37 PM | #26 | |||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
Quote:
We'll have to wait and see what the firmware upgrade promised brings. But it was to reduce the high noise levels of the 300/301 that the 370/371 was introduced, so there must be a huge question mark over whether Panasonics technicians can solve this problem without reverting to the high noise levels of the 300/301 this was intended to cure. I think it would be extremely unwise to buy one of these cameras until an acceptable fix has been demonstrated. It also raises the question of why such a fault was not spotted in the lab before it went on general sale? Or were they aware of it, but just hoped everybody would say how much quieter it was, and nobody notice the new fault? Quote:
And 10 bit recording will only give you "the full gallon" of quality if the front end of the camera is up to it. |
|||
July 17th, 2010, 06:24 PM | #27 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,130
|
Quote "t also raises the question of why such a fault was not spotted in the lab before it went on general sale? Or were they aware of it, but just hoped everybody would say how much quieter it was, and nobody notice the new fault?"
Hmmm., doesn't it just! Surely if that's the case, on this, a professional product, then they've really shot themselves in the foot. Or it could be that we're all just barking up the wrong tree, we'll have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Agree 100% with everything in your last post David. Jeff, yes the full raster 720 thing was me being a bit pedantic - it's one of my pet hates people confusing "full raster" with 1920x1080 when that's not what it means (not you Jeff, I know you know!) Steve |
July 17th, 2010, 07:43 PM | #28 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Foster City, California
Posts: 192
|
David,
Yes, in another thread you brought up the noise in the front end of the camera making 10-bit acquisition moot. I just don't want people to think that 10-bit is always a "very slight change" over 8-bit. My editor showed me graphic evidence of 10-bit AVC-Intra 100 over 8-bit DVCPRO HD using my HPX2700. Much more range in post for grading and color correction before seeing banding and added noise. 4:4:4 color space record option isn't the only reason HDCAM SR is used. I almost always shoot at -3db gain with my 2700, as I did with my HDX900, to enable the recording of the cleanest signal possible. AVC-Intra 100 is a big step over DVCPRO HD due to full sample recording using square pixels, twice as efficient in compression and 10-bit depth. 10-bit recording was not available in a one-piece camcorder until Panasonic came out with the HPX2000 in early 2007, and then the HPX3000, 2700 and 3700 as well as HPX300 and 371. Sony's 10-bit camera solution is HDCAM SR using tape and large, six figure cameras. Panasonic's putting 10-bit into camcorders for under $20K is a breakthrough. Now they need to get their CMOS act together to make full use of it for under $10K camcorders. Jeff Regan Shooting Star Video |
July 18th, 2010, 08:43 AM | #29 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 2,231
|
This has been an elightening thread. The HPX-300/370 has not been the best of launches for Panasonic.
I was watching "Expidition Great White" on Discovery last night and the images from most of the cameras were just beautiful. A lot of detail, great color range and accuracy. I did a quick internet search to try and discover the cameras being used and found an artcle mentioning the HPX-2000 as the main cameras. I would guess by the look they were shooting 720p60. 1080p is often the buzz but to my eyes, 720p deilvery is plenty for now and some time to come unless you are aiming for the theatre production. |
July 18th, 2010, 03:40 PM | #30 | ||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,699
|
Quote:
And I was quite clear in that other thread [ http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...ml#post1547088 ] that 10 bit recording was desirable for high end cameras. The evidence is that it is far less relevant (if at all) for lesser models. In the other thread I quoted from the EBUs tests - "The 8-bit bit-depth is sufficient for mainstream programmes, but 10-bit bit-depth is preferred for high-end acquisition." I consider the HPX371 a very long way from "high-end acquisition" - especially after what's been learnt in this thread - and hence the recording being 8 or 10 bit is totally irrelevant. Quote:
In the cold light of day I find Steve Coopermans posting even less comforting than it seemed last night. Maybe it's just careless wording, but he says that "We plan to have a free firmware upgrade at the end of July", then "At that time, we'll have further information". He never actually states that the firmware upgrade will solve the problem, though it's what everybody is assuming. "Further information" is nothing like "the firmware upgrade which will solve the problem", is it? Perhaps he'd like to clarify the matter directly on this forum? I've also just been shown another instance of the fault occuring, this time on test raw chromakey footage, daylight and 0dB gain. Yet again, moving objects show a noise trail, and there seem to be random bursts of occasional noise on the background. Just what you want for chromakey? And that's at 0dB, what will it be like at 12 dB or more? Steve Coopermans assertions that the problem "occurred infrequently and was not very noticeable" just don't seem to agree with what I, Steve, and others are finding in reality. When the 371 was first released, Panasonics claim was that it's 1/3" chips were "Rivalling the image quality and sensitivity of ˝” imagers". This saga has done nothing to substantiate those claims. |
||
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|