Poor Low Light SO FAR - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XH Series HDV Camcorders

Canon XH Series HDV Camcorders
Canon XH G1S / G1 (with SDI), Canon XH A1S / A1 (without SDI).


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 6th, 2006, 04:23 PM   #31
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida
Posts: 1,418
As far as my limited use of both cameras- I'll have to agree the FX-1 is better in low light video retaining a smooth video albeit darker as where the A1 video becomes noisy and grainy......I've tried 24F and 30F (on the Canon) and the Sony is definitely better at 0-3-6db of gain- at higher gain the FX shows it's advantge even more.

As much as I like this new A1- the FX-1 seems better at equal settings to that of the A1. At room light and higher levels- they produce good video but the FX1 is noticeably smoother and noise-free as the light drops off. There's a switch on the Canon to turn off the AGC circuit and this easily reveals the FX-1's superior low-light shooting abilities (when comparing db levels)

If anyone shoots allot of low-light video- look at the FX-1/Z1-U (bars, clubs, concerts etc) the XH-A1 gives the better lens range and possibilities but only in decent light and up.
I prefer the A1 as it suits my needs and is a general better fit for me- the Sony is large and long and can't trigger a Firestore FS-4HD remotely whereas the Canon does.....the Canon is a keeper!
__________________
Steve Nunez-New York City
www.stevenunez.com
Steve Nunez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2006, 04:24 PM   #32
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Scherperel
In HD, there is no difference of resolution in PAL or NTSC cameras, and I do believe that he is using an NTSC camera.
That would be true Scharkey.

Looks like I am going to have to get out and do some more lowlight stuff. With due respect - Why would I be shooting in a small street with crappy lighting at night again?
Noel Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2006, 04:32 PM   #33
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hamden CT
Posts: 470
Noel Evans, very funny. I just stepped out my door, in the cold, in my robe, and started shooting. I didn't think too much about it except, maybe an example and comparision would be interesting.

Last edited by Richard Zlamany; November 6th, 2006 at 05:33 PM.
Richard Zlamany is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2006, 05:33 PM   #34
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Zlam
Noel Evans, very funny. I just stepped out my door, in the cold, in my robe, and started shooting. I didn't think too much about it, except, I thought, maybe an example and comparision would be interesting.
I thought it was an excellent sample and well done and i thank you for doing it and posting it Richard.
Stu Holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2006, 08:51 PM   #35
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Hamden CT
Posts: 470
You are welcome. I was hoping someone would post something similiar for comparision. The city clips with cars passing by are too bright for comparision IMO.

It is dark where I live and we complain about it all the time. It is so dark that I had my car stolen because the thieves feel comfortable playing in the shadows.
Richard Zlamany is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2006, 09:47 PM   #36
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Nayman
Daniel, not meaning to critisize you. I appreciate that people who already have the cam (Mine hasnt shipped yet) are trying to post stuff. I am thankful...

I just think people might be expecting a BIT much from the lowlight... I mean, what is a camera but a device designed to capture light? Even a $500,000 35mm camera with 500 ISO film will NOT be able to shoot in the dead of night... I have never really seen a camera where lower light doesn't equal higher grain... kinda just the real world...

I would. however, try to boost the in camera saturation, turn on noise reduction (medium maybe), turn on any grain reducers you can, check the knee and shoulder, maybe crush the blacks and expand trhe whites, try the cinema settings... Canons are notrorous for their customization...
No worries Matthew. Not taking it as criticism.

I am not expecting miracles in lowlight but I am expecting it to be at least as good as my FX or else it is not worth switching over for me.

I have been experimenting with the different settings that some have posted and it has definitely improved the picture overall in terms of saturation etc but not the lowlight performance as much.
__________________
DBoZ
Daniel Boswell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6th, 2006, 10:58 PM   #37
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Nunez
As far as my limited use of both cameras- I'll have to agree the FX-1 is better in low light video retaining a smooth video albeit darker as where the A1 video becomes noisy and grainy......I've tried 24F and 30F (on the Canon) and the Sony is definitely better at 0-3-6db of gain- at higher gain the FX shows it's advantge even more.

As much as I like this new A1- the FX-1 seems better at equal settings to that of the A1. At room light and higher levels- they produce good video but the FX1 is noticeably smoother and noise-free as the light drops off. There's a switch on the Canon to turn off the AGC circuit and this easily reveals the FX-1's superior low-light shooting abilities (when comparing db levels)

If anyone shoots allot of low-light video- look at the FX-1/Z1-U (bars, clubs, concerts etc) the XH-A1 gives the better lens range and possibilities but only in decent light and up.
I prefer the A1 as it suits my needs and is a general better fit for me- the Sony is large and long and can't trigger a Firestore FS-4HD remotely whereas the Canon does.....the Canon is a keeper!
Steve, have you tried to import any 24f or 30f footage into FCP?

I am having trouble with it.

I am using 5.1.2 and import it with the 1080/24 easy set-up and it is really buggy and I am getting bad tearing of the video.
__________________
DBoZ
Daniel Boswell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006, 02:26 AM   #38
Old Boot
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noel Evans

Noel! HELP! - I can't download your JPG? How BIG (mbs) is it?

TIA - g
Graham Bernard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006, 03:14 AM   #39
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 157
My webserver is currently offline, Im waiting for my host to get in touch so I can give me a dose of why is this the fourth time in four weeks, get your *$#& together.

With reference to the low light, the pd170 only shoots 60i so I will do some shots at that level. 0 gain, +6 gain and +12 gain.

Should be able to throw something up later.

I have one serious issue overall here when comparing apples with Bananas. When we talk about low light performance there is more to it than just lux rating. How about other functions available within the camera itself to handle dark areas?
Noel Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006, 03:19 AM   #40
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Boswell
Steve, have you tried to import any 24f or 30f footage into FCP?

I am having trouble with it.

I am using 5.1.2 and import it with the 1080/24 easy set-up and it is really buggy and I am getting bad tearing of the video.
Daniel I am using FCP 5.1.2 and using the easy setup as stated. I am not having any issues at all.
Noel Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006, 06:13 AM   #41
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Portugal
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Nunez
As far as my limited use of both cameras- I'll have to agree the FX-1 is better in low light video retaining a smooth video albeit darker as where the A1 video becomes noisy and grainy......I've tried 24F and 30F (on the Canon) and the Sony is definitely better at 0-3-6db of gain- at higher gain the FX shows it's advantge even more.

As much as I like this new A1- the FX-1 seems better at equal settings to that of the A1. At room light and higher levels- they produce good video but the FX1 is noticeably smoother and noise-free as the light drops off. There's a switch on the Canon to turn off the AGC circuit and this easily reveals the FX-1's superior low-light shooting abilities (when comparing db levels)

If anyone shoots allot of low-light video- look at the FX-1/Z1-U (bars, clubs, concerts etc) the XH-A1 gives the better lens range and possibilities but only in decent light and up.
I prefer the A1 as it suits my needs and is a general better fit for me- the Sony is large and long and can't trigger a Firestore FS-4HD remotely whereas the Canon does.....the Canon is a keeper!
Steve, if you try to match the picture on the cameras, in room light, for instance, to make brightness of both equal (even if the gain value isn't the same), does the A1 still reveal more noise/grain? Have you followed the advice from some people round here, concerning black stretch and noise reduction?
Thanks for your time... Looking forward to more footage from this camera!
Sergio Barbosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006, 10:14 AM   #42
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida
Posts: 1,418
I'll try the settings people are recommending and perhaps post a vid cap.....my observations so far indicate the Sony FX-1 produces smoother video at lower light levels than the Canon- but I'll try to even this out by tweaking the A1 to compete.

~~The Sony can also be tweaked to further improve noise (detail coring etc) so this can go on forever ~~

I believe the sensors on the Canon are 1/4" and the Sony 1/3" meaning all things being equal (which they're not) normally light sensativity is better with larger sensors meaning the Sony "should" produce better video. You really can't measure these 2 cams directly as they're made by 2 seperate companies so a direct comparo isn't technically valid.

I'm happier with the Canon for reasons stated earlier......I'll be happiest when these HD cams record directly to internal HD's with NLE friendly file format choices and when they approach the "best" size for me which is the size of the JVC's HD10U/1: which I found to be perfect!

Let the games begin~
__________________
Steve Nunez-New York City
www.stevenunez.com
Steve Nunez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006, 10:36 AM   #43
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atlanta, Ga USA
Posts: 110
HD=PAL and NTSC!!!????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan Scherperel
In HD, there is no difference of resolution in PAL or NTSC cameras, and I do believe that he is using an NTSC camera.
Wow...never knew that. i guess thats better being that i can screen a HD film here in Atlanta...as well in Japan without format change.
This stuff is getting so easy now...
__________________
I'm in love... With my Panasonic AG-DVX100B.
Triple M.
Garrison Hayes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006, 11:05 AM   #44
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Nunez
I believe the sensors on the Canon are 1/4" and the Sony 1/3"
Maybe you'd better check the specs. again, Steve. IIRC, Sony FX1/Z1 and Canon XL-H1/XH-A1/XH-G1 all use 3 x 1/3" CCDs. (I've seen comments elsewhere that Canon buy their CCDs from Sony, so maybe the chips in these cameras are actually the same??) Are you perhaps thinking of the old XM2/GL2 which uses 3 x 1/4" CCDs? This is an oft-mentioned difference between the XM2 and Sony's VX2100/PD170...
__________________
Steam Age Pictures - videos in aid of railway preservation societies.
Mark Fry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2006, 11:53 AM   #45
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Coalville America
Posts: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Nunez

I believe the sensors on the Canon are 1/4" and the Sony 1/3" meaning all things being equal (which they're not) normally light sensativity is better with larger sensors meaning the Sony "should" produce better video. You really can't measure these 2 cams directly as they're made by 2 seperate companies so a direct comparo isn't technically valid.
~
I think you have these switched around the canon has the bigger sensors
Holly Rognan is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XH Series HDV Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:16 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network