A little disappointed with low-light - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic AVCCAM Camcorders

Panasonic AVCCAM Camcorders
AVCHD for pro applications: AG-AC160, AC130 and other AVCCAM gear.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 20th, 2009, 10:48 AM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 253
Yeah, I realize comparing an HD camera, even one good with low-light, to the king of SD cameras, pd170, the hmc150 will not compare. But I'm seeing that compared to other HD cameras, the hmc150 is great. My problem is that I have never used another HD camera. I do work with a guy sometimes that shows me his Z1 lcd screen, and just when I think it looks as good as my pd170, he says he's at 18db gain and I'm at 6db (+/- 3db).

Although, in Mark's latest comparison to the Z5 (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/panasonic...ison-clip.html), the Panny doesn't seem lightyears ahead at all. Now, take the rolling shutter into account, and the Panny is the clear winner.

I know the Panny is the camera for me, and I know I'll get used to it not being a pd170. I like Joel's idea of using a couple of external lights to light up the dance floor for the main events. I wonder how many brides would care about that.
Dan Shallenberger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2009, 08:02 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Shallenberger View Post
Yeah, I realize comparing an HD camera, even one good with low-light, to the king of SD cameras, pd170, the hmc150 will not compare.
I have the VX2100 (same low light capability as the PD170) and I have a Sony Z7 and I would rate the Z7 at least equal to the VX2100 in low light capability. And there is a direct comparison on this forum between the FX1000 and the HMC-150 and the FX1000 is clearly superior in low light. That same comparison also shows both cameras with a rapid series of flashes to demonstrate CMOS vs. CCD results. Honestly I didn't like the way either one handled the flashes. They both looked bad IMO.
Greg Laves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2009, 09:07 PM   #18
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ontario, Ca.
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Laves View Post
I have the VX2100 (same low light capability as the PD170) and I have a Sony Z7 and I would rate the Z7 at least equal to the VX2100 in low light capability. And there is a direct comparison on this forum between the FX1000 and the HMC-150 and the FX1000 is clearly superior in low light. That same comparison also shows both cameras with a rapid series of flashes to demonstrate CMOS vs. CCD results. Honestly I didn't like the way either one handled the flashes. They both looked bad IMO.
I've logged quite a few hours behind a VX2100 as well.

Do you have a link to the comparison between the FX1000 and the HMC? I've searched every keyword and phrase that I can think of and can't seem to find it.

I haven't had any problems with flashes with the HMC. Other than the momentary over-exposure (depending on the conditions) that will happen with any camera, it cruises through it.
Tom Alexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 20th, 2009, 10:57 PM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 640
See if this works.

Tips & Tricks
Greg Laves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2009, 10:13 AM   #20
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ontario, Ca.
Posts: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Laves View Post
See if this works.

Tips & Tricks
I've seen this one involving the Z5, it's a good comparison. I was searching for the comparison that you mentioned between the FX1000 and the HMC.
Tom Alexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2009, 08:15 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 640
Yeah. That was just a typo on my part FX1000 and Z5 have the same low light capabilities. I just remembered as being FX1000 vs. HMC150.
Greg Laves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 04:19 PM   #22
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Laves View Post
That same comparison also shows both cameras with a rapid series of flashes to demonstrate CMOS vs. CCD results. Honestly I didn't like the way either one handled the flashes. They both looked bad IMO.
Yes, flashes don't look good at any time, but the Sony looked more annoying and unnatural.
D.R. Gates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 05:30 PM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Laves View Post
That same comparison also shows both cameras with a rapid series of flashes to demonstrate CMOS vs. CCD results. Honestly I didn't like the way either one handled the flashes. They both looked bad IMO.
Greg, I think you should clarify your comment about the flashes, that is there should be no difference in the way flashes are recorded on the HMC vs all the CCD SD prosumer cams we've been used to.. you just don't like flashes in video, that's all. :)

CMOS sensors + flashes is where things get weird, the partially flashed frame is definitely not what we've been used to seeing in video given that CMOS sensors are relatively new to the industry..

Who knows, maybe in 10 years majority of all cameras will have CMOS sensor and would be accustomed to the way flashes look from a CMOS chip..
Yang Wen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2009, 08:36 PM   #24
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 640
I saw a paparazzi video the other day that was obviously shot with a CMOS camera. And as I watched it, I realized that the flashes only ruined part of the frame and you could actually still see the starlet's face when all of these flashes were going off. It occured to me that a flash on a CCD camera basically ruins the whole frame. While it only ruins a part of the frame with a CMOS camera. So while CMOS banding is different than what we have been used to seeing maybe it really isn't worse. I am not trying to start an arguement. I am just saying that for some reason, the other night, I just looked at it with a different point of view.
Greg Laves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 03:05 AM   #25
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yang Wen View Post
Who knows, maybe in 10 years majority of all cameras will have CMOS sensor and would be accustomed to the way flashes look from a CMOS chip..
I would certainly hope that within 2 or 3 years electronic flash won't cause CMOS to behave in this way. Pioneers always have to face a colder wind.
Tom Hardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 08:35 AM   #26
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 425
Greg, I agree 100%. I actually find some shots less annoying with CMOS than losing the entire frame with the CCD.
Rob Morse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 08:53 AM   #27
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 991
You'd think it's easy enough for them to add a flash suppression functionality in the image processor chip where they can take the immediate frame before and after the flash to compute the delta in luma change to effectively dial out or tune down the additional exposure from the flash... of course, it wouldn't for that well for paparazzi style shooting but for event coverage it could be useful...
Yang Wen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 09:08 AM   #28
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 302
Actually Im very surprised that a plug-in manufacturer for Sony Vegas or one of the other NLE companies hasn't come out with something that corrects this in post.

I wonder if they think its no big deal?
Steve Montoto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 09:17 AM   #29
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
In reality it's no big deal till you come to slo-mo a sequence that has a lot of electronic flashes going off. THEN it becomes much more of a big deal.
Tom Hardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2009, 09:33 AM   #30
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick View Post
In reality it's no big deal till you come to slo-mo a sequence that has a lot of electronic flashes going off. THEN it becomes much more of a big deal.
The weddings I have done don't have paparazzi super burst flashes. Its typically 1 photographer and then a few guest cameras. The examples I have seen look like they were all shot on the Red Carpet for the Oscar's or something.
Steve Montoto 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 > Panasonic P2HD / AVCCAM / AVCHD / DV Camera Systems > Panasonic AVCCAM Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:34 PM.


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