Grainy images on a PDW f350

Anton Strauss · December 12th, 2010, 06:00 AM

I can't remember, sorry, I deleted them

but I remember that 1.95 had something to do with dual layer

Luc De Wandel · December 12th, 2010, 07:16 AM

Just to be up-to-date, I downloaded and installed 1.99. There was no update of the AT-firmware, though. It's still 1.60. Is that the most recent one? Can't find it anywhere on Sony's sites. Diagnosis now reads: AT: 1.60 and Package 1.99

Leonard Lee · December 13th, 2010, 03:48 PM

Hi all,

After a bit of a detour around the preverbal houses, I am now definitely running the latest firmware. This update to AT 1.70 included the illusive 'Low Noise' setting. I have a shoot tomorrow so I suppose I'll see how well it reduces the graininess of the dark areas.
My other cameras are a DSR500 and a Z1 so I may have some unrealistically high expectations, who knows.

I managed to get the AT 1.70 file from Sony themselves. Not sure how it would sit with them but I am quite happy to pass it on.

Leonard

Luc De Wandel · December 13th, 2010, 04:06 PM

Hi Leonard,

could you mail it to me? This is my adress: luc (at) dewandel (dot) be. Thanks!
Best of luck with the new settings
Luc

Dimitri Liaos · December 16th, 2010, 05:37 PM

Could you please email it to me too? Same problem here, upgraded and its AT 1.60 PACKAGE 1.99
My email is d.liaos (at) hotmail (dot) com

Leonard Lee · January 11th, 2011, 06:27 AM

After updating the firmware and been working with the new settings, I have to say that it has made very little difference to the level of noise in the image. I would say that even with the new 'Low Noise' setting, it looks as if I am shooting with at least 6db of gain.

Anyone have any other ideas?

Alister Chapman · January 12th, 2011, 01:46 AM

What are you comparing the camera too and what monitor are you using? LCD monitors are notorious for having noisy dark area. The F335 (54db) etc does have about 9db more noise than a DSR-500 (64db), most HD camcorders are noisier than SD cameras, it is a fact of life when you have greater and greater numbers of pixels, each pixel produces noise, the more you have the more noise there tends to be. Even some of the very latest HD camcorders struggle to achieve the same noise figure as a DSR-500.

Leonard Lee · January 22nd, 2011, 06:47 AM

Hi there Alister,

I am using a Datavideo TLM 700 HD monitor over HDSDI and I agree that perhaps the monitor makes the image look somewhat noisier than, perhaps, it really is. Similarly, I appreciate that the more pixels there are the more noise there will be, but when even the editor comments on the level of grain on a brown jacket in an otherwise perfectly brightly lit interview shot, my feeling is that something is not as good as it could be.

I've a suspicion that the answer lies in the 'PAINT' settings, although even re-setting the camera back to its factory default doesn't seem to help that much.

The other possibility is that there is a fault with the camera. It would help if I could see some stills of f350 images to see if I'm being a bit too critical. If I can work out how to do it, I will try and post some images of the results I am getting.

Leonard

Alister Chapman · January 23rd, 2011, 03:17 AM

I think you need to be prepared to face the fact that at 54db the F3** cameras are noisy compared to most other pro HD cameras and especially SD cameras. Compared to a DSR-500 it is nearly 3 times noisier. Also the large size of the grain structure tends to make it look more visible. An EX1 will look less noisy than an F3**.

You can fiddle around with the paint settings and might make some very small differences. Increasing the detail frequency will help as will reducing the detail level. But the noise is not going to go away.

It is a 6 year old design and HD sensors have improved dramatically since then.

Luc De Wandel · January 23rd, 2011, 06:11 AM

This is a screenshot form a clip made with the PDW-F350, at -3dB

Alister Chapman · January 24th, 2011, 01:53 AM

What lens are you using Luc? Lots of CA. Looks like an SD lens or Canon KH20.

You might want to consider raising the detail frequency to reduce the thick black detail correction edges that are pretty typical of a F3**

Is it just that shot or is the image sharper on the left than the right? Could be the collimation is out on the lens. The CA is worse on the right than the left too.

Luc De Wandel · January 24th, 2011, 02:12 AM

Hi Alister,

the lens is the KH10e x 3,6 IRSE SX12, at it's widest angle, which is not the sharpest or best position, especially in the corners.
Sorry for my ignorance (my business is stills photography, in video I'm just an amateur) , but what do you mean by 'collimation'? Not the flange back adjustment, I presume, because that is perfect.

I'll certainly give it a try raising the detail frequency to reduce the detail correction edges. Any idea by how much? It's set to '0' no.

Alister Chapman · January 24th, 2011, 02:28 AM

Try +40 and see if that helps reduce those strong thick black edges.

Collimation would be a mechanical alignment of the lens, not something the user can do. It might just be the windows in the tram, hard to tell from a single shot.

Luc De Wandel · January 24th, 2011, 02:45 AM

OK, I'll give that a try. Detail itself is set to '2'.

The CA is quite present, even extremely so in the cars in the upper right corner. But as I said, that's at full wide angle and aperture almost fully open. Even zooming in slightly makes the CA go away. My 16-35 canon stills lens has the same problem when used on my full frame 5D mkII. In fact, most Canon wide-angles have as far as my experience goes.

I understand the KH10e x 3,6 is one of Canon's better lenses, and when I compared it to a Fujinon, it shure came out the best of the two...

Edit: added testshot, full tele, f8, detail frequency +40, gain -3dB,... looks better.

December 12th, 2010, 06:00 AM	#16
Anton Strauss Major Player Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 201	I can't remember, sorry, I deleted them but I remember that 1.95 had something to do with dual layer __________________ Anton Strauss www.videoproductions.com.au

December 16th, 2010, 05:37 PM	#20
Dimitri Liaos New Boot Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Denmark Posts: 12	Could you please email it to me too? Same problem here, upgraded and its AT 1.60 PACKAGE 1.99 My email is d.liaos (at) hotmail (dot) com __________________ Dimitri Liaos, DoP Sony F350, Fujinon XS17X5,5, FC Studio 2

January 12th, 2011, 01:46 AM	#22
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	What are you comparing the camera too and what monitor are you using? LCD monitors are notorious for having noisy dark area. The F335 (54db) etc does have about 9db more noise than a DSR-500 (64db), most HD camcorders are noisier than SD cameras, it is a fact of life when you have greater and greater numbers of pixels, each pixel produces noise, the more you have the more noise there tends to be. Even some of the very latest HD camcorders struggle to achieve the same noise figure as a DSR-500. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

January 23rd, 2011, 03:17 AM	#24
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	I think you need to be prepared to face the fact that at 54db the F3 cameras are noisy compared to most other pro HD cameras and especially SD cameras. Compared to a DSR-500 it is nearly 3 times noisier. Also the large size of the grain structure tends to make it look more visible. An EX1 will look less noisy than an F3. You can fiddle around with the paint settings and might make some very small differences. Increasing the detail frequency will help as will reducing the detail level. But the noise is not going to go away. It is a 6 year old design and HD sensors have improved dramatically since then. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

January 23rd, 2011, 06:11 AM	#25
Luc De Wandel Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium Posts: 963	This is a screenshot form a clip made with the PDW-F350, at -3dB Attached Thumbnails

December 12th, 2010, 07:16 AM	#17
Luc De Wandel Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium Posts: 963	Just to be up-to-date, I downloaded and installed 1.99. There was no update of the AT-firmware, though. It's still 1.60. Is that the most recent one? Can't find it anywhere on Sony's sites. Diagnosis now reads: AT: 1.60 and Package 1.99

December 13th, 2010, 03:48 PM	#18
Leonard Lee New Boot Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK Posts: 7	Hi all, After a bit of a detour around the preverbal houses, I am now definitely running the latest firmware. This update to AT 1.70 included the illusive 'Low Noise' setting. I have a shoot tomorrow so I suppose I'll see how well it reduces the graininess of the dark areas. My other cameras are a DSR500 and a Z1 so I may have some unrealistically high expectations, who knows. I managed to get the AT 1.70 file from Sony themselves. Not sure how it would sit with them but I am quite happy to pass it on. Leonard

December 13th, 2010, 04:06 PM	#19
Luc De Wandel Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium Posts: 963	Hi Leonard, could you mail it to me? This is my adress: luc (at) dewandel (dot) be. Thanks! Best of luck with the new settings Luc

January 11th, 2011, 06:27 AM	#21
Leonard Lee New Boot Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK Posts: 7	After updating the firmware and been working with the new settings, I have to say that it has made very little difference to the level of noise in the image. I would say that even with the new 'Low Noise' setting, it looks as if I am shooting with at least 6db of gain. Anyone have any other ideas?

January 22nd, 2011, 06:47 AM	#23
Leonard Lee New Boot Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK Posts: 7	Hi there Alister, I am using a Datavideo TLM 700 HD monitor over HDSDI and I agree that perhaps the monitor makes the image look somewhat noisier than, perhaps, it really is. Similarly, I appreciate that the more pixels there are the more noise there will be, but when even the editor comments on the level of grain on a brown jacket in an otherwise perfectly brightly lit interview shot, my feeling is that something is not as good as it could be. I've a suspicion that the answer lies in the 'PAINT' settings, although even re-setting the camera back to its factory default doesn't seem to help that much. The other possibility is that there is a fault with the camera. It would help if I could see some stills of f350 images to see if I'm being a bit too critical. If I can work out how to do it, I will try and post some images of the results I am getting. Leonard

January 24th, 2011, 01:53 AM	#26
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	What lens are you using Luc? Lots of CA. Looks like an SD lens or Canon KH20. You might want to consider raising the detail frequency to reduce the thick black detail correction edges that are pretty typical of a F3** Is it just that shot or is the image sharper on the left than the right? Could be the collimation is out on the lens. The CA is worse on the right than the left too. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

January 24th, 2011, 02:12 AM	#27
Luc De Wandel Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium Posts: 963	Hi Alister, the lens is the KH10e x 3,6 IRSE SX12, at it's widest angle, which is not the sharpest or best position, especially in the corners. Sorry for my ignorance (my business is stills photography, in video I'm just an amateur) , but what do you mean by 'collimation'? Not the flange back adjustment, I presume, because that is perfect. I'll certainly give it a try raising the detail frequency to reduce the detail correction edges. Any idea by how much? It's set to '0' no.

January 24th, 2011, 02:28 AM	#28
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	Try +40 and see if that helps reduce those strong thick black edges. Collimation would be a mechanical alignment of the lens, not something the user can do. It might just be the windows in the tram, hard to tell from a single shot. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

January 24th, 2011, 02:45 AM	#29
Luc De Wandel Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Knokke-Heist, Belgium Posts: 963	OK, I'll give that a try. Detail itself is set to '2'. The CA is quite present, even extremely so in the cars in the upper right corner. But as I said, that's at full wide angle and aperture almost fully open. Even zooming in slightly makes the CA go away. My 16-35 canon stills lens has the same problem when used on my full frame 5D mkII. In fact, most Canon wide-angles have as far as my experience goes. I understand the KH10e x 3,6 is one of Canon's better lenses, and when I compared it to a Fujinon, it shure came out the best of the two... Edit: added testshot, full tele, f8, detail frequency +40, gain -3dB,... looks better. Attached Thumbnails Last edited by Luc De Wandel; January 24th, 2011 at 12:20 PM.