Fuzzy Video / DVX100

[Mark Monciardini]

I seem to be getting a fuzzy picture, I don't know but it's bugging me. Is there anyone out there that has switched from a XL1s to a DVX100 and have you noticed any difference in quality?

The saturation and Lens is nice quality but I can never get a really smooth picture. Maybe I'm just being too picky or something (witch I am most of the time) But I have seen XL1S footage from a porno that looks better. It's really bad on super slow-motion shots.

Any tips on creating a clearer picture?

Here are some things it may be, not using an S-Video cable? Bad shutter speed for shot? What shutter speed do you guys usually shoot with?

The picture is sharp, but many times I see that quality of a single chip camera in some of my shots. Am I going nuts or could I possibly already be getting tired of the cameras quality. I'm about ready to go out and by an XL1s?

ok done yappen. It's late.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Tell us more about what exactly you are noticing and if possible post some sample shots with what camera settings you used.

Because of the range of settings and mode on the DVX100, there are thousands of "looks" to the camera.

Slo-mo is probably setting (both cam and NLE) related.

[Mark Monciardini]

I think one of my problems is lighting. When there is no light, everything goes to garbalish. That is one problem. And I think the faster the shutter the better the slo-mo.

Is there any quality loss recording to your computer then back to the cam? Because everytime I do it I always seem too "lose" somthing it seems like. It's just not as clear as playing the original. I'm using Vegas 4.0 but get the same results from Premiere.

Amzing how expensive videography can get. You have a good cam light =$200. 2 5400mAh batteries $300. Cordless Microphones = $600. Filters = $70 and the list goes on. Just buying the camera is the only begining!

[Peter Jefferson]

"Just buying the camera is the only begining!"

i hear ya... LOL

i did a full studio rebuild at abotu 25k AUD... LOL still have my old synths but bought afew new ones, then theres the Video gear which jsut doesnt seem to stop....

okies, as for teh camera, i have noticed the DVX doesnt really give you a good image on a cheap TV... lots of artifacts and a slight blur...

as for your slo mo... are u using an asymentrical gausian blur on the track or are you runign it neat?

low light, well, i dunno, if u keep the master ped under zero, and use a thin setting, with skin detail off, with gain boost of 12db, i find that gives a nice clear dark picture.
I would also suggest using the 18db gain up, then run it thru a softening filter or use the gausian blur double track technique mentioned in the Vegas forums...

*Reason i say "dark" is that many people expect daytime looking footage from a camera at night with no lights...

This aint gonna happen with ANY cam....

so if your left with dark shots, may as well make them good dark shots and soften them out a little later...

[Jesse Melchior]

I just recently switched from an XL1s also and I have been having some quality issues as well. The footage seems very pixelated when viewed on certain tv sets(SONY TRINITRON), while others make it look beautiful(SONY WEGA HDTV). The funny thing is, that footage from the XL1s looks great when viewed on almost all the the tv sets I tested, which had me thinking there was something wrong with the DVX100. The only real problem I did find was the presence of large color "macroblocks" in certain areas of the footage, mainly in solid flat colors like white walls or ceilings. I have since sent the camera to panasonic to repair or replace it. I should find out soon enough if the camera is defective, although I'm convinced that there is something wrong with it.

As for the "fuzziness" you mentioned...if you mean pixelation, then try switching monitors or tv sets, and see if you still get the same results. More than likely that is the problem. I do tend to agree with you on the fact that the XL1s had a better overall picture quality, in terms of pixelation and artifacts, unless that too was simply a defect in the camera that I purchased. Good luck!

[Matt Gettemeier]

Yeah, this is a funny subject. I have a Toshiba 14" flat panel CRT that I use for analog-out with my editing computer. The dvx footage is BEAUTIFUL on that... it's even MORE impressive on my brother's big screen Sony. His big screen isn't even a high-end one... I think it was under $2K but it's got a 60-something screen and the dvx footage would make you think a good theater's picture is lacking in comparison.

In MY family room however, the dvx footage is underwhelming. I've got a lousy 27" RCA crap-box. Previously I was satisfied with it because I watch very little tv, it's picture is "good enough", and I used to be obsessive with gear... so I chose not to upgrade the tv, but I might just because of the dvx. It deserves better.

I've also noticed that proper lighting is the difference between decent vs. "magical" footage.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

It's not the XL1s had a better picture quality, it's that the DVX100 image, especially with detail cranked up, is more than many NTSC sets can handle with grace. On cheap, small sets, 24pa thin looks pretty awful.

But the blame here is not the cam, just NTSC TV quality. The XL1s is simply not capable of (especially in frame mode) of enough resolution to cause problems on lower quality sets.

But plug both up to a hi-res digital projector and there differences between a DVX100 and XL1s are pretty glaring.

Note I sold my old XL1 to get an DVX100.

[Mark Monciardini]

I think one of my problems is I was using scene file 1 for the wedding video I recently did. And if you look at the detail setting for F1, the detail is set to 0. Which is in the middle. So the detail was actually some of the problem I was having. I kept thinking it was out of focus, but the detail was not enhanced so it gave it a softer look. I also had a polorized lens on the cam while taping inside the hotel. I took that off. I left the UV lens on though.

This is a pretty complex camera for how small it is. Know one would ever know by just looking at it. So many adjustments. I love it. I 'll be trying things until I get it right! I'll keep you updated.

-Mark

[Ralph Oshiro]

Well, I guess I thought I'd add my $0.02 here . . .

When shooting 24P in lit night interiors/exteriors, my DVX100 looks sharp (largely due to the progressive capture I presume). Sharper than my VX2000. In daylight exteriors, however, to me, the camera looks soft (I tested with various exposure settings, and sharpness settings were held constant). Am I simply seeing the limits of a 500-line prosumer camera? Why so soft in daylight? Internal flare? Nevertheless, the difference was pretty disturbing when I photographed my initial tests (also quite distrubing was the high amount of chroma noise evident in the blues).

If you take a look at some of my DVX100 high-res .TIF frame grabs posted on my website [zerobudgetfilms.com], you may be able to see what I'm seeing. There are also some DVX100 24P clips posted there, albeit, compressed for the web.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

It's a Cinegamma issue oft discussed here. Check the Adam Wilt article at the top or search here for detailed discussions, but I noted your grabs looked sharper when underexposed.

The chroma noise in the blue is the overexposure from cinegamma. You have to exercise lots of care shooting cinegamma outside in bright sunlight.

[Yik Kuen]

I am facing the same problem with my JVC GY-DV301 cam, which I believe has the same resolution as DVX100.

When I hook it up to my 14" low-end tv, I see lots of artifacts. But, switching to my 29" Sony, the images are superb.

Conclusion: Lower-end tv/monitors are not able to handle these higher-res cams well, due to their circuitry limitations.

[Mathew Evan]

Have you guys even bothered to calibrate your tvs? Resolution wise the footage should look much better on a smaller SD television. If you are inputing the footage via VHS coax then yes it will not look its best. This should be commen sense for those purchasing a $3500 camcorder.