CHROMA NOISE in HD10s

Alex Raskin · October 24th, 2003, 08:33 PM

Frederic, Mac solutions: sorry, can't help you here - I work exclusively on Wintel platform...

Butterfly pics indeed did not have any visible chroma noise as far as I can tell... BUT your image of the side of the moving car did.

It's alongside the whole side of the car, again looks like dark green blocks in random pattern.

I disagree that these artifacts are only showing in badly lit situations... just look at *my* pics - only the top one was badly lit, but the chroma noise propagated itself in all 3...

Also try shooting anything that is intensely red - say, building's canape or a car. You'll see some very lively chroma noise block movement where there supposed to be just a solid color... looks equally bad on both stationary or moving objects...

Eric Bilodeau · October 24th, 2003, 08:35 PM

These green/yellow chroma shifts are a problem related directly to the camera. As it was said over and over again it happens on scenes with insuficient light mostly. As to Alex's question, yes, it is a problem but it is not that apparent (even unnoticeable in 95% cases unless you freeze the image) in moving pictures on a true HD screen, even downconverted. So yes, we should live with it but I do not see that much of a problem with it in good lighting situations. I think you might be nitpicking a little here, it is not so problematic when you see the image moving, it looks nice (I am difficult in terms of quality, I guess the shots I posted on DVI are a good proof of that) but looking at your shots on computer is not as looking at them on a monitor or on a projector. I do a lot of color correcting/tweeking and it is easily correctable by selective level adjustment, of course bad lighting gives bad results... DV, to me is equally hard to work with because of the compression noise but it lacks definition.

The point is these artefacts exist in some specific areas (brown, orange, pink mostly) in unsufficiently lit surfaces. You either live with it, correct it or else this camera might not live up to your expectations. But looking at still images is not a good reference for a motion medium. We intend to produce moving images is it not? So the point would be to try to see those artefacts at 30p, ideally on a decent monitor. Anything else is unconclusive.

Just my 2 cents.

Steve Mullen · October 25th, 2003, 02:23 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : But looking at still images is not a good reference for a motion medium. We intend to produce moving images is it not? So the point would be to try to see those artefacts at 30p, ideally on a decent monitor. Anything else is unconclusive.

Just my 2 cents. -->>>

A valuable 2 cents. Anyone who has looked at a still of any motion medium can be shocked by what they see. Motion makes somethings go away.

When I was working with the DVX100 folks kept posting stills to compare to stills from something else. Drove me crazy.

Equally missing the point, IMHO, are those comparing the HD10 to a DV camera on a 27" NTSC monitor. Super 8 film looks great projected to a 1-foot screen. But try it on a 20-foot screen.

Frederic Lumiere · October 25th, 2003, 09:27 AM

I absolutely agree Steve.

The deal here is if you can capture a great image with the HD10U with some effort (lighting) and I think the butterfly stills I posted prove that you can (although there was minimal effort involved) this camera is without a doubt a better solution than DV. Simply because of the resolution. Even if you stay in NTSC!

720 X 480 DV simply doesn't compare with 1280 X 720.

People have been chasing the cinematic feel since DV came out by adding grain and scratches, taking out frames, progressive scan, saturating colors, adding letter box, short of adding 'chroma noise'... In my opinion, nothing beats having true 16:9 and high rez.

Everytime I open that LCD and shoot in HD I get that cinema feel just by looking at it.

Just an artist' point of view with modest engineering knowledge.

Ken Hodson · October 25th, 2003, 06:33 PM

"I disagree that these artifacts are only showing in badly lit situations... just look at *my* pics - only the top one was badly lit, but the chroma noise propagated itself in all 3..."

I would say all 3 pics lack in proper lighting. There needs to be more fill lighting. To the same level as when you see a film set and you can't believe how much light they have. That level of lumens I believe is what is needed for minimal chroma noise.

A good test would be an indoor shot, with the same subject in the same setting. No change. Then provide 3 distinct levels of lighting. Exposure levels should be noted. I think that is probably the only way for any conclusive comparison.
Ken

Frederic Lumiere · October 26th, 2003, 09:37 AM

No offense Ken but the three shots you showed us are badly lit.

Hey, did you have the camera on battery or power supply when you shot these?

Frederic Lumiere · October 26th, 2003, 09:40 AM

Sorry Ken, just realized that Alex showed us the pics.

I agree with what you said.

Alex Raskin · October 26th, 2003, 03:24 PM

I'd like to bring the discussion back on the productive track.

Namely:

- *Moving* images actually make this chroma noise *more*, and not less apparent, to my eye. Therefore posting *stills* makes much sense - it is not a pointless disassembling of the otherwise good image, but rather bringing the problem into focus so to ask why is this happening.

- There's a point raised here that chroma noise only propagates itself when scene is "badly lit". It is further suggested that the "properly lit" scene should have as much light as Hollywood productions. To put it mildly, this point seems to be unsubstantiated to me. If you think otherwise, prove it with your own images.
Also, 2 out of 3 images I posted had a lot of light directed onto the subject, with one being bright sunlight, and yet all show almost the same level of chroma noise.

Specifically: have a human face with the beard "properly lit" or whatever, post the pictures that show the difference your approach made in reducing chroma noise (before/after proper lighting was applied) and this will make your point.

Same with the butterfly image posted by Frederic (who is so far THE only person to even post any images of his own): show the "bad lighting" example where the noise shows up, and then the "after" image with no/reduced noise. THIS will help. A single picture will not (I also have some shots where noise is not apparent - and? What is the circumstance under which the chroma noise goes away? This is not clear to me, please illustrate convincingly if you have a proved point).

- If someone is to post a reply, I'd ask this person as much as have used the HD10 cam in actuality, and/or have actually looked at my posted pictures.

Because if they had had, then:

a) they'd know that the camera does NOT display its exposure settings... neither during, nor after the shoot... so you can't tell what was the camera-chosen aperture with your setting of shutter speed in shutter-priority mode;
b) my image page tells you about it.

http://fancyflix.com/hd10.htm

Thank you for posting your own images that show how did you reduce chroma noise in your own setting.

Frederic Lumiere · October 26th, 2003, 03:40 PM

Amen Alex! on all your points, especially the camera's inability to display exposure settings.

Hey, did you have the camera on battery or power supply when you shot the examples?

The reason I ask is that I just realized that my camera came with many noise reducers for cabling!? and I never thought of using them while shooting (DC powered) or while capturing.

P.S. I felt I had the right to post a reply since I've already posted pics...;)

Ken Hodson · October 26th, 2003, 04:10 PM

"There's a point raised here that chroma noise only propagates itself when scene is "badly lit""
"To put it mildly, this point seems to be unsubstantiated to me. If you think otherwise, prove it with your own images."

True this is unsubstantiated, but isn't that the point of the thread to get to the bottom of the chroma issue? It is clear to see Alex that your 3 snaps are lacking in lighting. The best of the 3 is your outside shot that uses only one light source (the sun) at what appears to be late afternoon. I would say this is very unsubstantiated as to your statement that this camera HAS chroma noise in well lit environments.
But to give credit where credit is due, you Alex are the only one who has posted any pics that at least try to demonstrate the chroma noise. (Thanks for your shots too Frederic, but they don't help resolve the issue)
I think we are all on the same side here. We all just want to know the exact limits of this camera.
Ken

Ken Hodson · October 26th, 2003, 04:11 PM

Frederic -"Amen Alex! on all your points"
but just two posts previous you discribe Alex's shots,
"the three shots you showed us are badly lit."

Ken

Frederic Lumiere · October 26th, 2003, 04:36 PM

Ken,

I still think that Alex's shot were badly lit but it doens't negate the fact that I agree with most of what he said especially >> -- "I'd rather have less replies to my thread, but of higher quality each. Thank you for being considerate and for posting your own images that show how did you reduce chroma noise in your own setting." -- <<

Let's get to the bottom of this with examples. Here's a good one I found:

http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/HDTV/enduser/4lanes.htm

Go to his site to view the footage.

It's always taken me at least a couple of hours per setup in studio. I don't think this camera will change that.

Darren Kelly · October 26th, 2003, 04:59 PM

Because if they had had, then:

a) they'd know that the camera does NOT display its exposure settings... neither during, nor after the shoot... so you can't tell what was the camera-chosen aperture with your setting of shutter speed in shutter-priority mode;

You can the see the F stop (exposure) if you choose to see it when you record. As you can see the shutter speed. You can't see them both at the same time, but you can toggle between them, and while you can't set them both, you can lock one or the other.

The camera is best used in Manual mode, and in my opinion, you choose the shutter spoeed and let the camera choose the F stop, adjusting it with filters if you need to.

My DVD will show this clearly.

hope this helps

DBK

Frederic Lumiere · October 26th, 2003, 05:11 PM

Here's some interesting stuff.

If you have QTPro, download this MPEG4 which was shot with the HD10U:

http://www.4lanes.com/reel_523.htm

Then using your right arrow, take a look at the footage. Now, for the most part it looks great. It is MPEG4 at 104 Kb/sec so it's heavily compressed of course.

Take a look at 00:26 and you will see lots of green noise in the skin tone. It's hard to say because this video has gone through so many processes.

Interesting editing too,...could he be hiding something? like Chroma Noise?...just kidding. I bet you he color corrected the hell out of that footage.

Alex Raskin · October 26th, 2003, 06:57 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Haubrich : Hey, did you have the camera on battery or power supply when you shot the examples? -->>>

The camera was powered by the battery, not connected to any power cables at the time of shoot.

<<<--The reason I ask is that I just realized that my camera came with many noise reducers for cabling!? and I never thought of using them while shooting (DC powered) or while capturing.-->>>

I'm quite sure that power line noise would reveal itself very *differently* than in form of chroma noise. My guess is that power line noise would probably show itself in unexpected camera shutdowns, mode changes, signal dropouts and other failures on more general level rather than actual video noise.

4lanes.com: this spec commercial was advertised by its creator on other forums, so I did see it before and it looks very good... in its small size as presented on Web.

The name of the game is LARGE screen viewing - that's why we all need HD in the first place, right? :)

I cannot really judge chroma noise levels (or *anything* for this matter) without seeing 1:1 scaled video or at least stills.

My page:

http://fancyflix.com/hd10.htm

...shows you chroma noise area stills in 1:1 scale.

October 24th, 2003, 08:35 PM	#32
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	These green/yellow chroma shifts are a problem related directly to the camera. As it was said over and over again it happens on scenes with insuficient light mostly. As to Alex's question, yes, it is a problem but it is not that apparent (even unnoticeable in 95% cases unless you freeze the image) in moving pictures on a true HD screen, even downconverted. So yes, we should live with it but I do not see that much of a problem with it in good lighting situations. I think you might be nitpicking a little here, it is not so problematic when you see the image moving, it looks nice (I am difficult in terms of quality, I guess the shots I posted on DVI are a good proof of that) but looking at your shots on computer is not as looking at them on a monitor or on a projector. I do a lot of color correcting/tweeking and it is easily correctable by selective level adjustment, of course bad lighting gives bad results... DV, to me is equally hard to work with because of the compression noise but it lacks definition. The point is these artefacts exist in some specific areas (brown, orange, pink mostly) in unsufficiently lit surfaces. You either live with it, correct it or else this camera might not live up to your expectations. But looking at still images is not a good reference for a motion medium. We intend to produce moving images is it not? So the point would be to try to see those artefacts at 30p, ideally on a decent monitor. Anything else is unconclusive. Just my 2 cents. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

October 25th, 2003, 02:23 AM	#33
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : But looking at still images is not a good reference for a motion medium. We intend to produce moving images is it not? So the point would be to try to see those artefacts at 30p, ideally on a decent monitor. Anything else is unconclusive. Just my 2 cents. -->>> A valuable 2 cents. Anyone who has looked at a still of any motion medium can be shocked by what they see. Motion makes somethings go away. When I was working with the DVX100 folks kept posting stills to compare to stills from something else. Drove me crazy. Equally missing the point, IMHO, are those comparing the HD10 to a DV camera on a 27" NTSC monitor. Super 8 film looks great projected to a 1-foot screen. But try it on a 20-foot screen. __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

October 25th, 2003, 06:33 PM	#35
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	"I disagree that these artifacts are only showing in badly lit situations... just look at my pics - only the top one was badly lit, but the chroma noise propagated itself in all 3..." I would say all 3 pics lack in proper lighting. There needs to be more fill lighting. To the same level as when you see a film set and you can't believe how much light they have. That level of lumens I believe is what is needed for minimal chroma noise. A good test would be an indoor shot, with the same subject in the same setting. No change. Then provide 3 distinct levels of lighting. Exposure levels should be noted. I think that is probably the only way for any conclusive comparison. Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 26th, 2003, 04:10 PM	#40
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	"There's a point raised here that chroma noise only propagates itself when scene is "badly lit"" "To put it mildly, this point seems to be unsubstantiated to me. If you think otherwise, prove it with your own images." True this is unsubstantiated, but isn't that the point of the thread to get to the bottom of the chroma issue? It is clear to see Alex that your 3 snaps are lacking in lighting. The best of the 3 is your outside shot that uses only one light source (the sun) at what appears to be late afternoon. I would say this is very unsubstantiated as to your statement that this camera HAS chroma noise in well lit environments. But to give credit where credit is due, you Alex are the only one who has posted any pics that at least try to demonstrate the chroma noise. (Thanks for your shots too Frederic, but they don't help resolve the issue) I think we are all on the same side here. We all just want to know the exact limits of this camera. Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 26th, 2003, 04:11 PM	#41
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Frederic -"Amen Alex! on all your points" but just two posts previous you discribe Alex's shots, "the three shots you showed us are badly lit." Ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

October 24th, 2003, 08:33 PM	#31
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Frederic, Mac solutions: sorry, can't help you here - I work exclusively on Wintel platform... Butterfly pics indeed did not have any visible chroma noise as far as I can tell... BUT your image of the side of the moving car did. It's alongside the whole side of the car, again looks like dark green blocks in random pattern. I disagree that these artifacts are only showing in badly lit situations... just look at my pics - only the top one was badly lit, but the chroma noise propagated itself in all 3... Also try shooting anything that is intensely red - say, building's canape or a car. You'll see some very lively chroma noise block movement where there supposed to be just a solid color... looks equally bad on both stationary or moving objects...

October 25th, 2003, 09:27 AM	#34
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	I absolutely agree Steve. The deal here is if you can capture a great image with the HD10U with some effort (lighting) and I think the butterfly stills I posted prove that you can (although there was minimal effort involved) this camera is without a doubt a better solution than DV. Simply because of the resolution. Even if you stay in NTSC! 720 X 480 DV simply doesn't compare with 1280 X 720. People have been chasing the cinematic feel since DV came out by adding grain and scratches, taking out frames, progressive scan, saturating colors, adding letter box, short of adding 'chroma noise'... In my opinion, nothing beats having true 16:9 and high rez. Everytime I open that LCD and shoot in HD I get that cinema feel just by looking at it. Just an artist' point of view with modest engineering knowledge.

October 26th, 2003, 09:37 AM	#36
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	No offense Ken but the three shots you showed us are badly lit. Hey, did you have the camera on battery or power supply when you shot these?

October 26th, 2003, 09:40 AM	#37
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Sorry Ken, just realized that Alex showed us the pics. I agree with what you said.

October 26th, 2003, 03:24 PM	#38
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	I'd like to bring the discussion back on the productive track. Namely: - Moving images actually make this chroma noise more, and not less apparent, to my eye. Therefore posting stills makes much sense - it is not a pointless disassembling of the otherwise good image, but rather bringing the problem into focus so to ask why is this happening. - There's a point raised here that chroma noise only propagates itself when scene is "badly lit". It is further suggested that the "properly lit" scene should have as much light as Hollywood productions. To put it mildly, this point seems to be unsubstantiated to me. If you think otherwise, prove it with your own images. Also, 2 out of 3 images I posted had a lot of light directed onto the subject, with one being bright sunlight, and yet all show almost the same level of chroma noise. Specifically: have a human face with the beard "properly lit" or whatever, post the pictures that show the difference your approach made in reducing chroma noise (before/after proper lighting was applied) and this will make your point. Same with the butterfly image posted by Frederic (who is so far THE only person to even post any images of his own): show the "bad lighting" example where the noise shows up, and then the "after" image with no/reduced noise. THIS will help. A single picture will not (I also have some shots where noise is not apparent - and? What is the circumstance under which the chroma noise goes away? This is not clear to me, please illustrate convincingly if you have a proved point). - If someone is to post a reply, I'd ask this person as much as have used the HD10 cam in actuality, and/or have actually looked at my posted pictures. Because if they had had, then: a) they'd know that the camera does NOT display its exposure settings... neither during, nor after the shoot... so you can't tell what was the camera-chosen aperture with your setting of shutter speed in shutter-priority mode; b) my image page tells you about it. http://fancyflix.com/hd10.htm Thank you for posting your own images that show how did you reduce chroma noise in your own setting.

October 26th, 2003, 03:40 PM	#39
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Amen Alex! on all your points, especially the camera's inability to display exposure settings. Hey, did you have the camera on battery or power supply when you shot the examples? The reason I ask is that I just realized that my camera came with many noise reducers for cabling!? and I never thought of using them while shooting (DC powered) or while capturing. P.S. I felt I had the right to post a reply since I've already posted pics...;)

October 26th, 2003, 04:36 PM	#42
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Ken, I still think that Alex's shot were badly lit but it doens't negate the fact that I agree with most of what he said especially >> -- "I'd rather have less replies to my thread, but of higher quality each. Thank you for being considerate and for posting your own images that show how did you reduce chroma noise in your own setting." -- << Let's get to the bottom of this with examples. Here's a good one I found: http://pro.jvc.com/pro/attributes/HDTV/enduser/4lanes.htm Go to his site to view the footage. It's always taken me at least a couple of hours per setup in studio. I don't think this camera will change that.

October 26th, 2003, 04:59 PM	#43
Darren Kelly Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 351	Because if they had had, then: a) they'd know that the camera does NOT display its exposure settings... neither during, nor after the shoot... so you can't tell what was the camera-chosen aperture with your setting of shutter speed in shutter-priority mode; You can the see the F stop (exposure) if you choose to see it when you record. As you can see the shutter speed. You can't see them both at the same time, but you can toggle between them, and while you can't set them both, you can lock one or the other. The camera is best used in Manual mode, and in my opinion, you choose the shutter spoeed and let the camera choose the F stop, adjusting it with filters if you need to. My DVD will show this clearly. hope this helps DBK __________________ Darren Kelly

October 26th, 2003, 05:11 PM	#44
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Here's some interesting stuff. If you have QTPro, download this MPEG4 which was shot with the HD10U: http://www.4lanes.com/reel_523.htm Then using your right arrow, take a look at the footage. Now, for the most part it looks great. It is MPEG4 at 104 Kb/sec so it's heavily compressed of course. Take a look at 00:26 and you will see lots of green noise in the skin tone. It's hard to say because this video has gone through so many processes. Interesting editing too,...could he be hiding something? like Chroma Noise?...just kidding. I bet you he color corrected the hell out of that footage.

October 26th, 2003, 06:57 PM	#45
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	<<<-- Originally posted by Frederic Haubrich : Hey, did you have the camera on battery or power supply when you shot the examples? -->>> The camera was powered by the battery, not connected to any power cables at the time of shoot. <<<--The reason I ask is that I just realized that my camera came with many noise reducers for cabling!? and I never thought of using them while shooting (DC powered) or while capturing.-->>> I'm quite sure that power line noise would reveal itself very differently than in form of chroma noise. My guess is that power line noise would probably show itself in unexpected camera shutdowns, mode changes, signal dropouts and other failures on more general level rather than actual video noise. 4lanes.com: this spec commercial was advertised by its creator on other forums, so I did see it before and it looks very good... in its small size as presented on Web. The name of the game is LARGE screen viewing - that's why we all need HD in the first place, right? :) I cannot really judge chroma noise levels (or anything for this matter) without seeing 1:1 scaled video or at least stills. My page: http://fancyflix.com/hd10.htm ...shows you chroma noise area stills in 1:1 scale.