HD generally performs worse than SD lowlight?

[Owen Meek]

Do HD DVCams have inferior low light performance compared to SD DVCams?
I know the Sony FX1's performance is bad in low light but have no idea about the other models..

is it just the FX1?

[Boyd Ostroff]

Originally Posted by Owen Meek

I know the Sony FX1's performance is bad in low light

Bad compared to what? See the following threads which deal with this topic:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=44458
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=39865
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=48020
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=47434
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=45114
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=40368

[Steven White]

Fundamentally, you need more light to create the additional information recorded in an HD image... so all things created equal, HD cameras will always perform worse.

Of course, all things aren't created equal.

-Steve

[Chris Hurd]

Certain types of uncontrollable situations not withstanding, if HD forces its new adopters to take a more serious approach to proper lighting, then I think that's a *good* thing.

[Owen Meek]

Originally Posted by Steven White

Fundamentally, you need more light to create the additional information recorded in an HD image... so all things created equal, HD cameras will always perform worse.

Of course, all things aren't created equal.

-Steve

Steve, thank you, that makes a lot of sense, even to a nooby like me.. Thanks for the universal touch. :)

However when making comparason in the usability of Gain, then it gets clear for HD.
I think FX1, might be the better option for me over DVX100 then..

Thanks for the link Boyd, cheers

[Jeremy Rochefort]

One thing one has to remember is that as technology progresses, so does the quality of the CCD and CMOS devices through which the latest cameras capture their images.

Whereas the FX1 and Z1 (and other) HD cameras do have a higher lux rating than their earlier DV counterparts and do require a higher level of ambient lighting, the introduction of lower levels of gain does not adversely affect the captured images, making the later generation of HD cams better options when taking their other features and quality into consideration.

In a test i did a few months back with the FX1 and PD170, I found that the FX1 performed better for me than the PD170 in the lowlight situations I sometimes find myself in.

Cheers

[Barry Green]

That may be true for the FX1/Z1, but you can't yet lump all next-gen HD cameras into the same basket, because the JVC HD100 appears to be just as noisy under gain as the current 3-CCD standard-def cameras.

The FX1/Z1 are exceptionally clean in gain.

[Jeremy Rochefort]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

That may be true for the FX1/Z1, but you can't yet lump all next-gen HD cameras into the same basket, because the JVC HD100 appears to be just as noisy under gain as the current 3-CCD standard-def cameras.

The FX1/Z1 are exceptionally clean in gain.

Being an ardent loyalist, I was referring to the FX1/Z1 - lol. I can't comment on the JVC but it would seem I made the mother of all f$%k-ups - I assumed the JVC would fall into the same equation - ah well - as Steven has said

Of course, all things aren't created equal

Cheers

[Sean Hansen]

I like the results I have recieved from my FX1 in lowlight just like Barry Green said.. Nothing like my GL2 at all. And as Chris Hurd said, good lighting is key. Unless your situation doesn't allow you that. Even then, these cameras look good.

My 2 cents,

Sean

[Ken Hodson]

All things equal, the progressive image will have a harder time with low light.