DV Info Net

DV Info Net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-pro-handhelds/)
-   -   XDCAM and low light (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-ex-pro-handhelds/105257-xdcam-low-light.html)

Steven Thomas October 8th, 2007 07:32 PM

XDCAM and low light
 
It appears that the EX is a noticeable step up from the 1/3" HVX200 cam with low light.

HVX200:
GAIN 0 dB
Lens set for equal frame composition as XDCAM EX.
Aperture: Wide open
http://www.slashcam.de/images/texte/...-HVX200Low.jpg

XDCAM EX:
GAIN 0 dB
Lens set for equal frame composition as HVX200.
Aperture: Wide open
http://www.slashcam.de/images/texte/...Sony-LowEx.jpg

Ray Bell October 8th, 2007 09:09 PM

Thats Killer...........

I'd almost like to see the test done with a PD170....

Chris Medico October 9th, 2007 12:11 AM

Wow.. thats all I can say.

Stephen van Vuuren October 9th, 2007 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Thomas (Post 756131)
It appears that the EX is a noticeable step up from the 1/3" HVX200 cam with low light.

Wow - both shot 24p 1/48th shutter? What iris?

Steven Thomas October 9th, 2007 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren (Post 756221)
Wow - both shot 24p 1/48th shutter? What iris?

It came from the German test link on the HVX200 vs EX thread.
The only reference I can see was the frame composition and gain.
That's a good question regarding frame rate and shutter speed.
It may be in there ,but I can't read german.
Having said that, I would believe they were set up the same.

Peter Jefferson October 9th, 2007 07:47 AM

In all honesty, and with personal experience with the HVX, I HIGHLY doubt this comparison. Something's just not right about it.

The HVX is about a stop shorter than a DVX100a.

With a lamp shot like this, I truly doubt that the HVX would have THIS MUCH trouble getting a decent image..

I don't know. All I say is, don't count your chickens just yet. Wait until a decent comparison is done.

Steven Thomas October 9th, 2007 10:38 AM

I hear you; though I can't imagine why this test would of been fudged.
It's not hard to do.
Set up both cams for the same frame composition.
Set bot cams to the same frame and shutter rate.
Set both to 0 dB gain.
Open the apertures on both and watch the show..

Now having said that, 0dB gain is a relative measurement within each cam.
Now, if the test was done correctly, what would the HVX200 look like with +3 to +6dB gain. If it produces the same luminosity and has the same amount on noise, then that's a different story. On the otherhand, by cranking the gain to +3 or +6 on the HVX200 and it matches luminosity of the EX, but the image is noisy.. Well, you know where I'm going.

You make a good point thought. We will have to wait and see. Although, we are hearing it fairs well in low light ( 1/2"), so I would not be surprised that it's better than the HVX200.

You would think the HVX would hold well here since it's true CCD capture prior pixel shift is 960x540. I guess it's possible that the signal processing is a miss on the HVX. I like the HVX, but I've found out your really need to light with this cam or you can end up with some busy backgrounds.

Piotr Wozniacki October 9th, 2007 11:04 AM

The actual gain factor must have played a dominant role in the output of this comparison - with the EX1 scale starting with the "negative" gain of -3dB, its 0dB does not necessarily correspond to that of other cameras.

Steven Thomas October 9th, 2007 11:22 AM

Good point Piotr.
I forgot that the EX offered -3dB.
But, if its 0dB reference is free of noise, I see why it maybe labeled as such.
Unless one designed the gain circuit in the cam, It' hard to know how the gain is configured and referenced.

Daniel Boswell October 9th, 2007 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki (Post 756399)
The actual gain factor must have played a dominant role in the output of this comparison - with the EX1 scale starting with the "negative" gain of -3dB, its 0dB does not necessarily correspond to that of other cameras.


This is true but we are talking about different chip sizes so its simple physics that its going to be considerably better in low light.

Piotr Wozniacki October 9th, 2007 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Boswell (Post 756437)
This is true but we are talking about different chip sizes so its simple physics that its going to be considerably better in low light.

Daniel, I never suggested it isn't - but in practical terms, I don't think the difference is as big as the pictures suggest.

Also you must remember that each individual pixel is of a much smaller size on the EX1 than on the HVX, because of its number.

Mike Williams October 9th, 2007 12:43 PM

Ssswwwweeeeeeeeeettt!
 
WOW.

Regardless of pre-set gain settings all I can say is WOW!!!

Super clean and there could have easily been less lit and the image would be usable. That just sealed it for me. I can't wait to buy one, now and maybe make this the workhorse cam!

What a joy it would be to need very little or no on camera lighting. Thanks for the comparo!

I would love to see this done with a few different cams too.

Z1, PD, V1

Any takers?

Mike

Steven Thomas October 9th, 2007 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Williams (Post 756455)
Regardless of pre-set gain settings all I can say is WOW!!!

That's how I feel about it. If it's clean and can offer this much light under those conditions, I'm a happy camper.

Steven Thomas October 9th, 2007 02:26 PM

Have a look at some more news from the Australian roadshow:
http://xdcam.com.au/modules/news/

There's a guess that the ASA may be around 800.

G.A. Kokes October 9th, 2007 03:41 PM

Hi,

We are impressed with this camera. We have several on order. Even with our REDs coming this December!

This test however, does not quite compute. I agree with the septics here. You can achieve the same thing even with the light loving Z1, so long as you put it on a tripod, lower the shutter speed to..... and don't move a muscle.

longer shutter speeds are great for certain effects, however it is no measure of the cameras true low light capabilities. The two photos here do not contain enough information about the shoot to make any real conclusions.

Looking forward to more detailed tests.

Cheers,
G


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:25 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2018 The Digital Video Information Network