XH-A1, V1U, FX1 low light comparison

Dennis Murphy · December 29th, 2007, 03:15 PM

Thanks for the feedback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

how about this? HDV sucks equally in low light....

Amen to that.

Kevin Shaw · December 30th, 2007, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

i am sooo not interested in a pissing contest between sony and canon.

No pissing contest intended, but I can see how my last post might have sounded that way. I'd just genuinely like to see an example of how changing settings on the Canon HDV cameras reduces the gain, as 'out of the box' they are clearly noisier than the Sonys in dim light. The example posted here is confusing because it doesn't show how to maintain a bright image on the Canons without getting undesirable image noise, and I think many of us could benefit from hearing more about that and seeing more examples.

Chris Hurd · December 30th, 2007, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

Canon HDV cameras... as 'out of the box' they are clearly noisier than the Sonys in dim light.

Canon HDV camcorders "out of the box" have AGC switched on.

Quote:

I think many of us could benefit from hearing more about that and seeing more examples.

I think many of us could benefit from hearing more about how it's the person operating the camera that makes the biggest difference. Try to raise above the measurebator mentality. Meryem said it best: they're both great cameras and they play well together.

Kevin Shaw · December 30th, 2007, 01:30 AM

I was hoping to try to raise a useful point here but it looks like that's getting lost in the vagueness of forum communication. Agreed that any camera can be used effectively if you learn and respect its limitations, and for the benefit of those trying to make a buying decision it helps to know what that's going to involve. With Sony HDV cameras you need to learn how to manage footage which tends to look dull in dim light; with Canon cameras you need to learn how to minimize image noise. 'Nuff said.

Peter Jefferson · December 30th, 2007, 01:52 AM

Kevin, I think you've assumed a point which is inaccurate. Much like a DVX and HVX, the A1 is clean @ 6+, compared to the Z1, in my opinion, the A1 retains a colour set and level of noise and image sharpness which is far more accurate, without the inherent red colour shift bought on by gain increase on the Sony CCD chipset.

The question then is what is more important o the shooter/producer?

Clarity of colour rendition, or being able to see in darker environments, albeit miscoloured? Do not forget that once you begin to push the HDV codec in its respective colour range, you will lose a LOT of information which cannot be salvaged.

With DV and DVCProHD, I can salvage up to 3 or so stops be it colour or luminance, XDCam up to 2, HDV maybe one stop if I'm lucky. This is purely how the codec responds to the image hitting the sensor, how it handles compressing those colours within that colour space and more importantly, what headspace remains to be able to tweak it later in post.

Of which , with HDV there is not much headspace, hence one reason why Vegas now offers 32bit float rendering. Its the only way to salvage something out of almost nothing. Sony know this. Sadly not many others do.

We had a discussion about this on the Sony boards, when someone decided to compare a PD to an EX. Absolutely pointless, as are most comparisons of this type. Why are they pointless?

This issue comes down to how the camera is set up and how it is operated. It DOES NOT MATTER what camera is used, and if ANYONE decides to purchase a camera, for the explicit reasoning of its "low light performance" then they are misinformed fools buying into something for the wrong reason.

I can run a halogen 35w lamp and make the Z1 look pretty and the A1 look like rubbish. Or I can run the same setup within cameras, running a 35w fluro and get VASTLY different results.. or maybe I'm in an environment running 1000w mercury vapours and again, get vastly different results, even though the cameras are set almost the same.

Meryem's comment in regard to shifting the tweak according to ones needs is probably the most profound comment within this thread.

There is no "Magic Bullet" (pardon the pun) to low light filming or performance.

Consider it music. Would the mixer/engineer or DJ run the same EQ set up for every venue they play at? Or would they tweak it to get an all round clear sound, to cover all frequencies based on the environment in which they are performing? So what then makes Video any different?

December 30th, 2007, 01:30 AM	#19
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	I was hoping to try to raise a useful point here but it looks like that's getting lost in the vagueness of forum communication. Agreed that any camera can be used effectively if you learn and respect its limitations, and for the benefit of those trying to make a buying decision it helps to know what that's going to involve. With Sony HDV cameras you need to learn how to manage footage which tends to look dull in dim light; with Canon cameras you need to learn how to minimize image noise. 'Nuff said.

December 30th, 2007, 01:52 AM	#20
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	Kevin, I think you've assumed a point which is inaccurate. Much like a DVX and HVX, the A1 is clean @ 6+, compared to the Z1, in my opinion, the A1 retains a colour set and level of noise and image sharpness which is far more accurate, without the inherent red colour shift bought on by gain increase on the Sony CCD chipset. The question then is what is more important o the shooter/producer? Clarity of colour rendition, or being able to see in darker environments, albeit miscoloured? Do not forget that once you begin to push the HDV codec in its respective colour range, you will lose a LOT of information which cannot be salvaged. With DV and DVCProHD, I can salvage up to 3 or so stops be it colour or luminance, XDCam up to 2, HDV maybe one stop if I'm lucky. This is purely how the codec responds to the image hitting the sensor, how it handles compressing those colours within that colour space and more importantly, what headspace remains to be able to tweak it later in post. Of which , with HDV there is not much headspace, hence one reason why Vegas now offers 32bit float rendering. Its the only way to salvage something out of almost nothing. Sony know this. Sadly not many others do. We had a discussion about this on the Sony boards, when someone decided to compare a PD to an EX. Absolutely pointless, as are most comparisons of this type. Why are they pointless? This issue comes down to how the camera is set up and how it is operated. It DOES NOT MATTER what camera is used, and if ANYONE decides to purchase a camera, for the explicit reasoning of its "low light performance" then they are misinformed fools buying into something for the wrong reason. I can run a halogen 35w lamp and make the Z1 look pretty and the A1 look like rubbish. Or I can run the same setup within cameras, running a 35w fluro and get VASTLY different results.. or maybe I'm in an environment running 1000w mercury vapours and again, get vastly different results, even though the cameras are set almost the same. Meryem's comment in regard to shifting the tweak according to ones needs is probably the most profound comment within this thread. There is no "Magic Bullet" (pardon the pun) to low light filming or performance. Consider it music. Would the mixer/engineer or DJ run the same EQ set up for every venue they play at? Or would they tweak it to get an all round clear sound, to cover all frequencies based on the environment in which they are performing? So what then makes Video any different?