CHROMA NOISE in HD10s

Eric Bilodeau · October 26th, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Alex Raskin:
"*Moving* images actually make this chroma noise *more*, and not less apparent, to my eye. Therefore posting *stills* makes much sense"

Once again the question has to be asked, on what material do you visualise those shots. I have (a few weeks ago) posted sequences (not stills), some of them do display those yellowish artefacts. You can download them and extract a frame if you want to see for yourself, they are located at: http://static.dvinfo.net/ericb/ . two of the shots that displays the most artefacts where not lighted (not artificially or in a controlled manner), it is the EBil_V1 and V2. When I look at these images on a computer screen or using VLC the noise looks like crap, but I had the chance to look at it on two HD monitors (a JVC 20" and a Sony 24") and a IDLA projector and the noise is nowhere near as apparent, the sequence is in fact gorgeous. It is IMPERATIVE that you see those images in a format by witch you want to distribute them before judging on these issues.

Of course the camera does not (as you stated) display in a professional manner the iris/shutter settings, but then again, it has been discussed over and over again on this forum, no need to get back on that. The level of noise in your 3 pictures is not the same, the third one (the best lit of the three) displays much less noise.

I have posted a picture at this adress: http://www.fictis.net/HD10expic.html . It shows the difference between a well lit surface and an uneven one.

Alex Raskin · October 26th, 2003, 09:15 PM

Now, this is helpful.

http://www.fictis.net/HD10expic.html

Eric, so your point is this: chroma noise shows not in the badly lit areas, but rather at the border between the lighter and darker areas.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

So it's not a question of lighting per se. There obviously will always be areas between the lighter and darker lit parts :)

Your other point is that it matters what screen to monitor the video on.

I have 22" LCD HD monitor. I obviously screened on both that and on my 19" CRT PC monitor. Chroma noise looked the same - except 22" one shows it larger and thus better :)

My intended viewership is people with large screen HDTVs, like 42" and up. And hopefully people who can see the video projected on theater-size screen, like in Landmark theaters that play WMP9 files.

Have you had a chance to see HD10's footage projected on either?

What was your impression?

Frederic Lumiere · October 26th, 2003, 09:33 PM

Darren,

For the life of me, I can't figure out how to lock the exposure and change the shutter speed. As soon as I change the shutter speed the locked exposure unlocks.

Alex Raskin · October 26th, 2003, 09:56 PM

Frederic, you can't.

That's probably the # 1 complaint about this camera right now.

Eric Bilodeau · October 26th, 2003, 09:56 PM

Well, my point is that the noise shows in borders between good lighting and bad lighting the most in the face, the skintones. But a bad exposure will expand it throughout the face. A lot of brown, orange areas, when unsufficiently lit, do display this annoying noise as well.

I've seen video on a fairly little screen compared to theaters (about 10 feet) with an IDLA HD projector and it looked great, but you could still notice a bit of these artefacts (nowhere as much as on a computer screen). Of course not all of my test footage displayed these artefacts in the first place. On the shots displaying light artefacting, it was totally unnoticeable without pausing the image or getting your nose to the screen (witch I did... one has to know right?), on those displaying heavier artefacting, it depended on the amount of artefacts and the zones displaying them.

Remember that there are focus areas concerning the eye's points of interrest regarding moving images. I was looking at the footage in a tech's point of view so I noticed the artefacting, but most of the artefacting would probably go unnoticed by the general public since it was displayed in unsufficiently lit areas, mostly bachgrounds and shadows, thus not being the point of the focal's interrest (example, the roof over the jeep in Frederic's example pics). We are filmmakers, thus, by definition, nitpickers (witch is not bad of course), but our intended public is not at all aware of all this.

For example when I saw 28 days later, the second it started I could see all the noise moving in the image and the lack of definition inherent to DV transfered to film (especially the XL1, because of it's low CCD pixel count). Than, in the end, the image suddently becomes crystal clear, in 35mm for the end sequence. To me it was more than obvious it was shot in video. I got out of the theater first and asked about 20 people (i don't recall exactly) of different ages if they knew the film was shot in video. No one did. No one noticed anything. And I was not really surprised. We see a lot of the glitches but we are probably less than 3% or so of the people looking at films.

As for your LCD HD monitor, my experience with LCD has not been pleasant. I have not found a LCD as good as a CRT yet because of an important factor, LCD has an ideal resolution (depending on it's physical resolution), most other resolution will not display an optimal image. Most LCD HD monitors do not have a true 720p resolution so it is difficult to evaluate clearly on those monitors. LCD is also much crisper in pixels than CRT so noise is generally more apparent. But than again I do not know, maybe your monitor is a true 1280X720 LCD.

I would not worry too much about that noise If I where you, you can minimise it, even without an incredible amount of light. The image I posted was lit with 1 600K side (right) from about 10 feets and a sinle tube balanced thungstene neon from about 3 feets left. The screen was lit with two 4 tubes balanced neons. Nothing fancy really. I have problems with chroma artefacting in DV too, those formats are, indeed very compressed. But you can use them, even for features. You just have to get used to them, comprehend their strenghts and weaknesses and work with those basis.

My opinion is that this camera still is a very good alternative to pricey HD.

Alex Raskin · October 26th, 2003, 10:06 PM

Thanks Eric!

10' screen is pretty decent. I'm glad you liked what you saw. Do you know if the projector had true WXGA resolution?

Anecdotal evidence is that the video also held up after projecting on a large theatrical screen.

My LCD HD monitor is 1280x720, I purposedly *rejected* 1280x768 model because I never wanted any resolution conversions going on, just plain 1280x720p30 (my monitor is actually capable of 720p60).

Eric Bilodeau · October 26th, 2003, 10:18 PM

Oh, that should be a handy monitor indeed. What make and model? I have a friend who wanted one, maybe he still does :)

The projector could display true HD 720p.

Brad Hawkins · October 26th, 2003, 10:32 PM

This may be stating the obvious, but one way I've found to lock both the exposure and shutter speed is to lock the exposure then turn on the "sports mode". Of course this will lock the shutter speed at 250 or higher, and will proabably be useless for most applications, but I thought I'd bring it up because someone might find it usefull.

Alex Raskin · October 27th, 2003, 07:22 AM

Eric, that's Samsung LTM225W.

B&H has it for $1.2K.

It has 2 Component, one S-Video, one Composite, and one DVI input. (It also has audio, but I don't care about it. Also has TV receiver with PiP etc.)

I have my D-VHS recorder connected via Component. This allows me to monitor both D-VHS tapes and HD10's output when I connect it to HD30K recorder via firewire.

I used to have the cam connected separately, but there's no difference in quality while watching via firewire/HD30K, just 1 second delay while 30K decodes MPEG stream... so I now have an extra Component input available...

S-Video I used to have to monitor PC's video overlay via Matrox Parhelia, but now I just use Parhelia's DVI out to my HD monitor.

This allows me to move the application's monitor window onto my HD display, and watch playback in full-rez HD. (Video overlay seems to be visibly lower in quality, probably just SD NTSC, even when played over DVI.)

Hope this helps.

Eric Bilodeau · October 27th, 2003, 03:22 PM

Thanks Alex.

If I am correct, the Matrox DVI is SD, not HD, so you are right about the lower res output.

Is the input of the monitor HD SDI or just SDI?

Alex Raskin · October 27th, 2003, 03:35 PM

Actually, Parhelia pumps HD signal out of both of its DVI outputs.

One DVI output has an adapter that converts it to feed the standard PC monitor.

The other DVI output can accept a bunch of other adapters, including S-Video etc.

I use that 2nd DVI output straight-up, no adapter - just connecting it to the DVI-in on the HD monitor via the DVI to DVI cable.

Note that Parhelia cannot recognize my HD monitor because 1280x720 is *not* one of the resolutions supported by Parhelia. Therefore I have PowerStrip software installed that translates between the monitor and the video card just fine.

<<< Matrox DVI is SD, not HD >>>

Actually, Parhelia does *not* actually have an inherent SD limitation of its DVI outputs.

It's just what you run software-wise that matters.

For instance, if you use video overlay, then this software-driven solution does seem to be SD or at least visibly worse than HD.

All this sounds very convoluted... probably because it is :)

But in the end, I'm happy to have a large HD monitor with high-def real-time video on it, beside my main PC monitor.

Now if only there was a software that allowed to capture/process/output HD the same way we do now with DV (procedure-wise, I don't mean down-rezing), that'd be the day.

Darren Kelly · October 27th, 2003, 04:14 PM

One of the things i did, which worked was using my Laptop for Aspect HD editing, I connected an HD LCD from Samsung to the VGA out on the back of the laptop.

Then I expanded the desktop and put my program windo on it. The color was good and the resolution was excellent.

If you can, give it a try. It's an inexpensive way to see this in a color that is closer to real on an screen that is also pretty useful.

Hope this helps

Alex Raskin · October 27th, 2003, 04:41 PM

Correct, this is what I recommend - instead of video overlay, just ise the second monitor as an extension of your desktop, then Ctrl-Maximize your application onto the second window (HD monitor) and put your application's Monitor Window there.

Voila - you are looking at the full-rez HD playback.

I do this in both Premiere Pro and AfterEffects.

Darren, QUESTION: Premiere Pro has "Fit" setting in its Monitor Window, while AfterEffects 5.5 Production Bundle does *not*.

As a result, 100% setting cuts the bottom of the video in AE, while the next step - 50% - makes the video way too small.

Steve Mullen said that AE for Mac doesn't have such problem. I have Windows. Any suggestions? Thanks.

October 26th, 2003, 08:24 PM	#46
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Originally posted by Alex Raskin: "Moving images actually make this chroma noise more, and not less apparent, to my eye. Therefore posting stills makes much sense" Once again the question has to be asked, on what material do you visualise those shots. I have (a few weeks ago) posted sequences (not stills), some of them do display those yellowish artefacts. You can download them and extract a frame if you want to see for yourself, they are located at: http://static.dvinfo.net/ericb/ . two of the shots that displays the most artefacts where not lighted (not artificially or in a controlled manner), it is the EBil_V1 and V2. When I look at these images on a computer screen or using VLC the noise looks like crap, but I had the chance to look at it on two HD monitors (a JVC 20" and a Sony 24") and a IDLA projector and the noise is nowhere near as apparent, the sequence is in fact gorgeous. It is IMPERATIVE that you see those images in a format by witch you want to distribute them before judging on these issues. Of course the camera does not (as you stated) display in a professional manner the iris/shutter settings, but then again, it has been discussed over and over again on this forum, no need to get back on that. The level of noise in your 3 pictures is not the same, the third one (the best lit of the three) displays much less noise. I have posted a picture at this adress: http://www.fictis.net/HD10expic.html . It shows the difference between a well lit surface and an uneven one. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

October 26th, 2003, 09:56 PM	#50
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Well, my point is that the noise shows in borders between good lighting and bad lighting the most in the face, the skintones. But a bad exposure will expand it throughout the face. A lot of brown, orange areas, when unsufficiently lit, do display this annoying noise as well. I've seen video on a fairly little screen compared to theaters (about 10 feet) with an IDLA HD projector and it looked great, but you could still notice a bit of these artefacts (nowhere as much as on a computer screen). Of course not all of my test footage displayed these artefacts in the first place. On the shots displaying light artefacting, it was totally unnoticeable without pausing the image or getting your nose to the screen (witch I did... one has to know right?), on those displaying heavier artefacting, it depended on the amount of artefacts and the zones displaying them. Remember that there are focus areas concerning the eye's points of interrest regarding moving images. I was looking at the footage in a tech's point of view so I noticed the artefacting, but most of the artefacting would probably go unnoticed by the general public since it was displayed in unsufficiently lit areas, mostly bachgrounds and shadows, thus not being the point of the focal's interrest (example, the roof over the jeep in Frederic's example pics). We are filmmakers, thus, by definition, nitpickers (witch is not bad of course), but our intended public is not at all aware of all this. For example when I saw 28 days later, the second it started I could see all the noise moving in the image and the lack of definition inherent to DV transfered to film (especially the XL1, because of it's low CCD pixel count). Than, in the end, the image suddently becomes crystal clear, in 35mm for the end sequence. To me it was more than obvious it was shot in video. I got out of the theater first and asked about 20 people (i don't recall exactly) of different ages if they knew the film was shot in video. No one did. No one noticed anything. And I was not really surprised. We see a lot of the glitches but we are probably less than 3% or so of the people looking at films. As for your LCD HD monitor, my experience with LCD has not been pleasant. I have not found a LCD as good as a CRT yet because of an important factor, LCD has an ideal resolution (depending on it's physical resolution), most other resolution will not display an optimal image. Most LCD HD monitors do not have a true 720p resolution so it is difficult to evaluate clearly on those monitors. LCD is also much crisper in pixels than CRT so noise is generally more apparent. But than again I do not know, maybe your monitor is a true 1280X720 LCD. I would not worry too much about that noise If I where you, you can minimise it, even without an incredible amount of light. The image I posted was lit with 1 600K side (right) from about 10 feets and a sinle tube balanced thungstene neon from about 3 feets left. The screen was lit with two 4 tubes balanced neons. Nothing fancy really. I have problems with chroma artefacting in DV too, those formats are, indeed very compressed. But you can use them, even for features. You just have to get used to them, comprehend their strenghts and weaknesses and work with those basis. My opinion is that this camera still is a very good alternative to pricey HD. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

October 26th, 2003, 10:18 PM	#52
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Oh, that should be a handy monitor indeed. What make and model? I have a friend who wanted one, maybe he still does :) The projector could display true HD 720p. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

October 26th, 2003, 10:32 PM	#53
Brad Hawkins Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Edmond, OK Posts: 38	Exposure Lock This may be stating the obvious, but one way I've found to lock both the exposure and shutter speed is to lock the exposure then turn on the "sports mode". Of course this will lock the shutter speed at 250 or higher, and will proabably be useless for most applications, but I thought I'd bring it up because someone might find it usefull.

October 27th, 2003, 03:22 PM	#55
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	Thanks Alex. If I am correct, the Matrox DVI is SD, not HD, so you are right about the lower res output. Is the input of the monitor HD SDI or just SDI? __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

October 26th, 2003, 09:15 PM	#47
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Now, this is helpful. http://www.fictis.net/HD10expic.html Eric, so your point is this: chroma noise shows not in the badly lit areas, but rather at the border between the lighter and darker areas. This makes a lot of sense to me. So it's not a question of lighting per se. There obviously will always be areas between the lighter and darker lit parts :) Your other point is that it matters what screen to monitor the video on. I have 22" LCD HD monitor. I obviously screened on both that and on my 19" CRT PC monitor. Chroma noise looked the same - except 22" one shows it larger and thus better :) My intended viewership is people with large screen HDTVs, like 42" and up. And hopefully people who can see the video projected on theater-size screen, like in Landmark theaters that play WMP9 files. Have you had a chance to see HD10's footage projected on either? What was your impression?

October 26th, 2003, 09:33 PM	#48
Frederic Lumiere Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Point Pleasant, NJ Posts: 437	Darren, For the life of me, I can't figure out how to lock the exposure and change the shutter speed. As soon as I change the shutter speed the locked exposure unlocks.

October 26th, 2003, 10:06 PM	#51
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Thanks Eric! 10' screen is pretty decent. I'm glad you liked what you saw. Do you know if the projector had true WXGA resolution? Anecdotal evidence is that the video also held up after projecting on a large theatrical screen. My LCD HD monitor is 1280x720, I purposedly rejected 1280x768 model because I never wanted any resolution conversions going on, just plain 1280x720p30 (my monitor is actually capable of 720p60).

October 27th, 2003, 07:22 AM	#54
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Eric, that's Samsung LTM225W. B&H has it for $1.2K. It has 2 Component, one S-Video, one Composite, and one DVI input. (It also has audio, but I don't care about it. Also has TV receiver with PiP etc.) I have my D-VHS recorder connected via Component. This allows me to monitor both D-VHS tapes and HD10's output when I connect it to HD30K recorder via firewire. I used to have the cam connected separately, but there's no difference in quality while watching via firewire/HD30K, just 1 second delay while 30K decodes MPEG stream... so I now have an extra Component input available... S-Video I used to have to monitor PC's video overlay via Matrox Parhelia, but now I just use Parhelia's DVI out to my HD monitor. This allows me to move the application's monitor window onto my HD display, and watch playback in full-rez HD. (Video overlay seems to be visibly lower in quality, probably just SD NTSC, even when played over DVI.) Hope this helps.

October 27th, 2003, 03:35 PM	#56
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Actually, Parhelia pumps HD signal out of both of its DVI outputs. One DVI output has an adapter that converts it to feed the standard PC monitor. The other DVI output can accept a bunch of other adapters, including S-Video etc. I use that 2nd DVI output straight-up, no adapter - just connecting it to the DVI-in on the HD monitor via the DVI to DVI cable. Note that Parhelia cannot recognize my HD monitor because 1280x720 is not one of the resolutions supported by Parhelia. Therefore I have PowerStrip software installed that translates between the monitor and the video card just fine. <<< Matrox DVI is SD, not HD >>> Actually, Parhelia does not actually have an inherent SD limitation of its DVI outputs. It's just what you run software-wise that matters. For instance, if you use video overlay, then this software-driven solution does seem to be SD or at least visibly worse than HD. All this sounds very convoluted... probably because it is :) But in the end, I'm happy to have a large HD monitor with high-def real-time video on it, beside my main PC monitor. Now if only there was a software that allowed to capture/process/output HD the same way we do now with DV (procedure-wise, I don't mean down-rezing), that'd be the day.

October 27th, 2003, 04:14 PM	#57
Darren Kelly Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 351	One of the things i did, which worked was using my Laptop for Aspect HD editing, I connected an HD LCD from Samsung to the VGA out on the back of the laptop. Then I expanded the desktop and put my program windo on it. The color was good and the resolution was excellent. If you can, give it a try. It's an inexpensive way to see this in a color that is closer to real on an screen that is also pretty useful. Hope this helps __________________ Darren Kelly

October 27th, 2003, 04:41 PM	#58
Alex Raskin Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,435	Correct, this is what I recommend - instead of video overlay, just ise the second monitor as an extension of your desktop, then Ctrl-Maximize your application onto the second window (HD monitor) and put your application's Monitor Window there. Voila - you are looking at the full-rez HD playback. I do this in both Premiere Pro and AfterEffects. Darren, QUESTION: Premiere Pro has "Fit" setting in its Monitor Window, while AfterEffects 5.5 Production Bundle does not. As a result, 100% setting cuts the bottom of the video in AE, while the next step - 50% - makes the video way too small. Steve Mullen said that AE for Mac doesn't have such problem. I have Windows. Any suggestions? Thanks.