DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic P2HD / DVCPRO HD Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/)
-   -   HVX200 + MPIC 35mm Imager (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-p2hd-dvcpro-hd-camcorders/59874-hvx200-mpic-35mm-imager.html)

Steev Dinkins February 4th, 2006 03:10 PM

HVX200 + MPIC 35mm Imager
Well I'm going to kick this off very briefly since I need to spend time practicing and shooting, but I'll be posting screengrabs, footage, pics, and info on this thread exclusively, and due to information overload on forums, quite possibly only this thread for awhile.

I received the HVX200 on Thursday and although the price drop thing had me down, I decided to focus on the almighty glory of the situation; I have this unbelievable camera in my hands. I shot some initial test footage at sunset hour before the all daylight disappeared and checked it out and was very jazzed with just simple test.


There's more footage but these files get huge. That file is encoded at a quarter of the original data rate in H.264, and is darker than my source due to my Cleaner settings.

So to race into my story, after being blown away by the bare camera lens, I threw on my 35mm imager hoping and praying for instant success, and this wasn't the case. The short story is for the last 48 hours I've been in optical experimental science nightmare land, and ironically all my tweaks with diopters and junk led me to using nothing but spacers and carefully placed distance and zoom/focus settings. I was able to more accurately perform this alignment last night after having a friend custom mill some parts for me. So cool! I'm realizing this is turning into an Alt Imaging type of thing, but I'm leading up to what is going to matter more here, the image.

Here's the folder of present test grabs and future test grabs:


Images after number 12 are with the new calibration.

In the screen grabs you can see the sharpness and clarity in HD.

I've encoded a downres'd 720 width version of some preliminary footage:


I think the HD clarity is very sweet, and the crispness when sized to SD is God like.

I know there are many skeptics around who may pick everything to pieces, but I want to let people know how incredible I think this all is, and I have no complaints.

So everybody continue griping about CCD specs, P2 workflow disasters, noise, pricing, and other adventures in FUD and unhappiness.

I'm F**N STOKED!!! YESS!!!! Amazing, simply amazing. What an insane powerhouse combo.



Cassidy Bisher February 4th, 2006 03:20 PM

That Is So Good. Can you make me one of those?

Barry Green February 4th, 2006 06:02 PM


Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins
and although the price drop thing had me down

Don't let that get you down. Call your dealer and ask for price protection. I believe Jan said that anyone who just bought the 8GB's should be eligible for the lower price.

Steev Dinkins February 4th, 2006 10:08 PM


Originally Posted by Cassidy Bisher
That Is So Good. Can you make me one of those?

Thanks Cassidy. :) Contact Dan about the MPIC at www.dandiaconu.com

Alternatively, you can contact Jonathan about the G35 at www.cinemek.com

John Benton February 4th, 2006 11:39 PM

Steev !
This Is what I have been waiting to See !
I am on the G35 Line and trying for the HVX
(although I am still quite curious about the Andromeda...?)

What DOF !!!

Finally Someone has posted Beautiful & even dark footage !



Steev Dinkins February 5th, 2006 01:13 AM


Originally Posted by Barry Green
Don't let that get you down. Call your dealer and ask for price protection. I believe Jan said that anyone who just bought the 8GB's should be eligible for the lower price.

Nice! Thanks Barry. I located Jan's statement. I'm in discussion with BHphoto about this, who at first simply stated, "The price is the same as it was sir." No, thanks, I'm not taking that for an answer. ;)

On with the show!!

More clips!


Stock lens shots (24p 1/48 shutter, then fast shutter, then slow mo), encoded at 720p:


Steev Dinkins February 5th, 2006 01:38 AM

Oh yeah, and 35mm test 2 in 720p:


Steev Dinkins February 5th, 2006 03:56 AM

Continuing on here, I did a test comparing HVX200 24pa to DV Tape upresed to 720p and even 1080, and I was surprised to see how good it looks. I had to do a double take here. So of course, the DVX100 has a slight lack of res on 16:9 as I can attest to, since I had been more acquainted with the XL2 prior to using the DVX. But now, the HVX200 is delivering an impressive DV 16:9 image, and this makes me totally rethink my sense of what I may shoot HD and what I may just tape to DV25 on tape for long roll times.

My post process would be the good 'ole log and capture, remove pulldown, color smooth 4:1:1 filter in FCP, then upscale to 720p. The image at that point is formidable and worthy. It's not as clear, crisp and colorful as the native HD from the HVX, that is for sure.

But hey, isn't that freakin cool?

John Benton February 5th, 2006 09:29 AM

I am totally impressed by this footage!!!
I am also excited about 35mm, but it is hard to find HVX footage with one.
The Micro 35 footage left me underwelmed
anf there has been no G35 footage + HVX yet
(Dan's Rig looks like the most equisite of them)

I feel the DOF almost cancels the Noise problem - what do you think?
What kinds of lenses are you using ?

Thanks and PLEASE Keep it coming,

Steev Dinkins February 5th, 2006 11:27 AM

Noise and Lenses

Originally Posted by John Benton
I am totally impressed by this footage!!!

:D :D :D


Originally Posted by John Benton
I feel the DOF almost cancels the Noise problem - what do you think? What kinds of lenses are you using ?

Regarding the noise problem, I wouldn't say the DOF helps or hurts the noise. Although perceptually the noise and bokeh may just all seem to lump together as being the parts of the image to not pay attention to as much. ;)

One final note about the noise situation. Here's an inside secret (okay well it's inside because I haven't really heard it mentioned anywhere). Psst.. everybody... psst... *whispering* the camera.. it does have noise... *in certain situations*. When I finally could test the camera out, warts and all, there is potential for:

A) Grain noise in low light and in incorrect white balancing.
B) Block noise in dark areas in low light

If ya do have noise, here's what I've found. Cinelike D can eliminate any Block noise and turn it into the Grain noise type, with more overall grain in the dark areas. Cinelike D also acts as what I'd call black stretch as it is on the XL2. Compare:

Cinelike V

Cinelike D

I like the look of Cinelike D more though. So I tested if I could generally match the Cinelike V look with Color Correction on Cinelike D. And I'd say, yes, close enough. So why use Cinelike V at all? I decided to keep Cinelike V for my test shots because I didn't want to have to screw with CC on every clip to get the look I wanted. The look I want is Cinelike V for the most part. And the trade off is some block noise in areas at times.

*Key point here* The block noise or grain noise is an issue for the picky perfectionist looking at footage under a microscope. The reality is with actual content within motion picture, any noise that may seldom occur is organic and isn't going to matter to an audience. But I think it's important to be aware of it, and if you personally can't stand block noise, go with a different setting and crush blacks later on all your footage.

Additionally if I needed more detail out of dark areas, I'd use Cinelike D.

Man I almost forgot - lenses. Nikon primes - 35mm f/2, 55mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4, and a gorgeous 105mm f/2.8 micro nikkor which produces mere slivers of dof as seen above, and at the end of this clip.

John Benton February 5th, 2006 02:53 PM

the 105mm f/2.8 micro nikkor is SWEEEET!
Thank you so much for posting this !
Keep it up - it is the most hopefull footage I have seen !

BTW: I think you should post this footage to the Cinemek site
/ J

Steev Dinkins February 5th, 2006 03:00 PM


Originally Posted by John Benton
(I hope it's okay if I post this on the G35 forum, We aint seen no HVX/35mm footage yet, and even thoug it is using Dan's SuperDuper MPIC, I think it is valuable for folks to see)...Now if only the G35 will compare favorably :?

Posting elsewhere is totally okay with me. Regarding G35 quality being on par with this, I'd say you'll be in for the same adrenaline rush. And to be honest, RedRockMicro users are going to be freakin out with joy as well. Gotta keep it real here. They all kick ass - MPIC, G35, M2, Letus35, and even SG35 from what I've seen. Build quality, design, and ergonomics is the main difference beyond image quality variation.

Just gotta get the device calibrated correctly and working with the camera and get familiar with all the little tweaky things that will be standing in the way - there are lots. It's worth the tweak though.

Steven Thomas February 5th, 2006 03:13 PM

thanks for uploading these files.
Man, I can't believe how tight that DOF is on the 35mm, nice.

I'm concerned and this has been brought up many times, but after seeing some of your footage, I have to ask:

Noise, and compression artifacts.

First of all, I realize this is compressed internet mov files.

Looking at your HVX200_35mm_Test03.mov clip.

The shot was in moderate light, but it appears to have excessive noise and compression artifacts. Are you seeing this in your raw footage?

Is it possible to take like a shorter clip of the phone footage and upload just the raw file?

thxs, Steve

Steev Dinkins February 5th, 2006 03:49 PM


Originally Posted by Steven Thomas
Noise, and compression artifacts.

Thanks for the good words. :) So this is probably going to be the first and last time I address the noise situation with raw footage, so here it is.

Two clips - 1 decent lighting (snowball clip), and 1 with lower lighting and heavily shadowed areas (phone booth clip). Both of these have gone through the flop filter in FCP and recompressed to DVCPRO HD. Personally I don't see much of a difference between these and the original. So the "generational loss" is minimal. I could not and would not do this with HDV. It would not be worth showing you. I'd have to do uncompressed or somethin, and the files would be 200-300MB, instead of 20-30MB.

*note* These are about 30MB each and probably won't progressively download well - download to disk.



So at this point, with everything I've seen, and you've seen, I think we can all agree that encodes for web distribution on H.264 and WMV can't let you critically evaluate noise. It's a nice way of sharing footage in HD, at a quality level that would have been impossible 2 years ago. Most likely I'll be encoding at 720x504 at most for web distribution because it just looks nicer. It's a big stretch to get 720p not to mention 1080p (YEAH RIGHT) looking good for web distribution.

Final word (I keep saying that don't I?) - I'm cool with it all. To quote Public Enemy and Anthrax, Bring The NoiSE!! Yeah, y'all come on here we go againn..

Nikial Kabel February 5th, 2006 10:19 PM

Perosnally I think it looks great. The thing I've noticed is, the average viewer isn't going to give a damn. They'll say something like, wow those are nice colors or, wow I like that rack focus, not, oh that looks noisey and full of artifacts. I couldn't be more happy with the footage I've seen so far and especially your 35mm attempts, It's truly inspiring.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:59 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network