Jeff, black compensation, knee point and gamma can all impact on the kind of picture you may be looking for. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a high contrast image like the ones you showed.

Getting a cooler image (which also can fool the eye into thinking there's more detail & contrast) is also relatively easy to adjust. Try your WB shift control that I believe is also on the FX1000.

The Z5 gives you more of these types of adjustments.

I'll play with those settings Ken, thanks.

Ron, I don't agree about the Sony being clean and sharp, at least not when the going gets tough. Overall the image from the camera, IMO is somewhat soft and noisy in low light. I have felt that way since I got my first one in October of last year.




To clarify, when I talk about noise I talk about the base noise with no gain added. The native camera noise that exists when the scene is properly lit. From what I've observed so far from raw files on the net, the hmc has horrid compression noise, and the fx1000 has more noise than I would have hoped for... but the fx1000 noise isn't destructive to the footage as the hmc noise..

Thanks for clarifying Ron. I own both cameras and I've shot three events with the HMC150, and the compression noise you mention, I don't see it. I'm not saying it is not there, but I haven't seen it.

When a scene is properly lit both cameras are so close to identical in image quality (differences is characteristics of course exist) I don't even see an issue with either one.

As a wedding videographer, virtually no scene I shoot in a 10 hour day is properly lit, so I am much more keen on low light characteristics of the cams then you might be, and less interested in how they look in perfect light, though of course I am interested, just not as much as maybe you are.

Jeff, you need to give shooting in HD, editing in HD and rendering to SD a try again. I'm not sure if that has anyting to do with grain or not. I can see grain when viewing the timeline on my HD monitor, but none when playing back the final dvd on the big screen. I have the 1000 set to 6db max for ceremony and 12db for receptions.

jeff,

yeah I don't do weddings and honestly I think I would prefer the hmc or jvc-hm100 for weddings over the fx1000 because of cdd, avchd, and color and contrast right out of the box.. I light my scenes and am all about resolution and the fx1000 puts out over 900 lines so I'm really happy with that compared to what I"ve used before(canon xha1, hv20, hf-s100). I just have to deal with the native noise in post.

I agree Tim. With gain limit set properly, there should be almost no visible noise. I've allowed the Z5 to go up to 18db and the noise is really minimal.

No Tim, it doesn't make any significant difference as far as low-light noise is concerned, as best as I can tell.

I did all my initial shoots in HD and converted to SD and the benefit was zero IMO.

Certainly not worth having a 90GB file baloon into 250GB with proxies.

I rendered them to HD and SD and watched them and the noise issue just didn't improve. Well lit scenes benefit from HD, but dimly lit scenes not so much.

Thats what happened with the wedding I shot the other day, it was about 90GB in m2t files and then I did the proxie thing and my 300GB scratch drive couldn't hold it all.

I don't know about you but I have ten weddings or more right now waiting to be edited, and more on the way. The benefit IMO is not worth the time and HD space. In fact I'm not sure there is any signifcant benefit to shooting in HD and converting at all.

And it doesn't matter really in the scheme of things in the sense that we are dealing with 1/3" sensors, so what can we expect from any cam in this price range?

But I could be wrong. If there is a benefit it is so small I cannot justify the extra drive space and conversion time.

These images are from an april wedding shot in HD right off of the timeline. BTW, my exposure was not set correctly for the outdoor portion, and I am aware of that. I was in auto, but should have been running at ae-6 or so. Even if I had turned on the Zebra I could have set things to be more pleasing and not so overexposed. I was running two cameras by myself though so it was a bit hectic.

I've allowed the gain up to 18db on two different FX1000s and its noisy. Not that I expect much better at 18DB gain.

Ken, can you post stills of video at 18db gain?

Do you have a website displaying your Z5 footage?

Tim, can you do the same?

Jeff, I'm really surprised by the amount of noise and softness in some of those shots. I'll ask a really dumb question and don't be insulted by it. Are you sure you had the ND filter off? I ask that because with the Z5, there have been a couple of times I left it in the #1 postiion as opposed to off. It's not that hard to make that mistake.

But I don't think my HD footage has ever looked that 'mushy'.

I don't have a site, but I'll try to post some stills in the next day or two.

I'm running 2 FX1000s and the HMC150 (and an HV30 for wireless) twice this weekend for weddings, once Friday and again on Saturday.

The first wedding is in a VERY dark catholic church, at least that is how I remember it. Typical Cincinnati type church. It was built in the 1800s and is also cavernous with a very long aisle. This will be a great test of the cameras. I've been there but not shot there.

The second wedding is in another catholic church and I have no idea of what the situation is there, I am praying it is not another cave.

I am currently playing with the settings of the FX1000s but so far being in the house I'm not finding good settings; not a good venue for camera settings. I'm going to set the white balance on the HMC 150 at the church but leave everything else on default.

No Ken, no insult taken, you ask a legitimate question, and remember I had two cameras running and both were the same result. I'm sure ND filters were off, but that is a good question. It was very dark in there.

Now those posts are really not meant to disparage the camera, that's just what I've been getting in dark rooms. But you see here in Cincinnati when I say dark I'm talking DARK. Even at these cheap weddings when they have no light show of any kind the house always wants to turn the lights way down low or off completely.

Now keep in mind there were virtually NO lights in the vicinity of the dance floor, and our cameras had tiny 40 watt lights and we were really far from the dancers.

NO camera would have produced great results under these cirucumstances. Let me dig up some footage from another reception where we were closer to the action, and you'll see a vast improvement.

First scene no light

Second scene, about the same shot with light just turned on.

3 and 4 misc shots with lights

i;m curious, why turn the gain up? i would think if the weddng was darkly lit for mood, then you would want to capture that type of atmoshpere on film, rather than everyone exposed...

nevermind, I was just doing some gain test and you pretty much need to crank gain to get what you see in lowlight..

Jeff

I am on your side re the whole SD/HD thing.

If its going to DVD then shoot and edit in SD and be done with it.

Considering how many weddings you do then it only makes sense.


Martin.

Jeff
I would say that images 1,3,5 are with HMC150 and 2,4,6 are with FX1000
If this is the case then the images from the HMC150 are better. I might add though that my Z5 produces images like the 1,3 and 5.

Stelios

What scene file are you using on yours Stelios or what settings are you using. Out of the box with scenefile 1 his photos look dead on.

Steve

I just shot these in the house. Two high hats off to the left and dimmed. Gain ran between 15db & 18db. I usually limit it to 12-15db.

One thing I should add, the grain on a still grab usually looks worse than the moving video from which it came.

your room is pretty light in color.. the grain will really show against dark areas.

I do not get as much noise with my Z5 as in the wedding examples shown here. I quickly made a few shots in my radio shack. Number one is 6 db gain and a very poorly lit scene, number two is 0 db gain with more light. I find the noise very acceptable.

your room is pretty light in color.. the grain will really show against dark areas.

That's not really what I've found Ron. If the cam is calling for 18db of gain, it's doing so because of the general lighting in the area...regardless of the color. It simply means that if the area was comprised of darker colors and the cam called for the same 18db of gain, it would simply mean there was more lighting in the room.

I haven't found a correlation between light and dark colors and how visible the noise is. The room I shot in is absolutely notorious for showing noise. A friend of mine (also a videographer) often joke that my living room is the true test for noise in a camcorder.

The Z5 beats anything I've seen for a combination of noise, color retention and the ability to produce a usable image in poor lighting.

I do not shoot weddings but can understand the issues. My projects are theatre shows. I have to take the lights that are there for the audience. I almost never use gain less than 9db on my FX1 and a lot of the time its 12db. I do this so that I can get the max depth of field for the stage ( aperture is usually F2.8 to F 5.6) so that I don't have to keep re-focusing all the time. The SR11 and XR500 that I also use spend most of their time at 12db or more. The XR500, in particular is very clean. I am beginning to believe that AVCHD produces a cleaner image than HDV. HDV may compound any imager noise. I would certainly be interested to find out the difference between the HDV recording and recording directly from the HDMI live to Cineform or Canopus HQ or even Matrox i-frame MPEG.
The NEAT video filter does a really good job at removing all sorts of noise but is slow!
Ron Evans

... I am beginning to believe that AVCHD produces a cleaner image than HDV. HDV may compound any imager noise. ...

Ron:

You are correct about that. The AVCHD codec is more CPU intensive than HDV, but there are lots of benefits. Here is a comparison;

Panasonic AVCCAM (http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/avccam-features.asp)

Ken, I agree with Ron that the light coloring is advantageous as it reflects light nicely. Nice looking room by the way.

At any rate the image is still very nice for as dark as it seems to be.

What scene file are you using on yours Stelios or what settings are you using. Out of the box with scenefile 1 his photos look dead on.

Steve


Steve, mostly I use the default settings (auto) and gain not more than 12db. I will try and post some screen shots ( I have to learn first how to upload pictures here) from the last wedding I did so you can see.

Stelios

Stelios, to upload photos:

when your are posting, go below the box where you type and click on the manage attachments button and you can upload.

That is an interesting video, Jeff.

It is good that you point out the AVCHD vs HD, as this is a critical reminder that there are major differences between these cams, and it really is apple to oranges in some ways. so many variables, CMOS vs CCDs, HD vs AVCHD, the lenses, etc.

While the HMC footage from the wedding I shot Sunday is impressive with out of the box settings, I still like to be able to shoot SD 16:9 when I want to, and I cannot do that with the Panasonic.

Yes Martin, we seem to feel the same about shooting in SD for SD delivery. It just makes sense for me with a busy schedule. And as I've said rendering HD footage to an SD template in Vegas just didn't look significantly different to me.

First scene no light

Second scene, about the same shot with light just turned on.

3 and 4 misc shots with lights

I see very little to no motion blur in these screengrabs. What shutter speed are you using?

I I would certainly be interested to find out the difference between the HDV recording and recording directly from the HDMI live to Cineform or Canopus HQ or even Matrox i-frame MPEG.


You can see for yourself by just connecting your cam to an hdtv via hdmi. I do see less grain this way. But is the cost and bulk of direct capture worth it versus neat video? For the price of and fx1000 plus the cost of a capture system, one could just get an ex1 with better low light and codec.

The XR500, in particular is very clean. I am beginning to believe that AVCHD produces a cleaner image than HDV. HDV may compound any imager noise.

Ron, I think you'll find that the clean image of the XR500 is due primarily to the backlit sensor used in the cam. This is the first time this approach has been tried and it certainly has payed off. I've never seen a cleaner image in any cam I've ever owned.

On the other side of the coin, the Z5 will produce a brighter image with richer colors in the same lighting even though it has some minimal grain.

Ken, I agree with Ron that the light coloring is advantageous as it reflects light nicely. Nice looking room by the way.

At any rate the image is still very nice for as dark as it seems to be.

Thanks Jeff. I really haven't found a correlation between the colorings of the surroundings and the amount of grain. Light colored objects do reflect more light, but that ultimately reduces the lighting requirements of the camera and therefore the gain.

More importantly, even the grain seen in my still capture is almost totally gone when the video is put in motion.

That's why still images are sometimes a bit deceiving when it comes to noise.

Ron, I think you'll find that the clean image of the XR500 is due primarily to the backlit sensor used in the cam. This is the first time this approach has been tried and it certainly has payed off. I've never seen a cleaner image in any cam I've ever owned.

On the other side of the coin, the Z5 will produce a brighter image with richer colors in the same lighting even though it has some minimal grain.

yes I realize the advantage the XR500 has with its sensor that is why I upgraded from the SR11 too. Just wish Sony would put that in an AVCHD version of the FX1000 or Z5!!!! I may change my FX1 for a FX1000. To Ron Weber comment on cost. The Matrox MX02 mini is less than $500 and plugin into a laptop is really no cost. This is a lot less than an EX1, much as I would like an EX1!!!

Ron Evans

^
the matrox mini doesn't capture 1080/24p, which doesn't meet my needs at all.. so for me, at least, the only cheap alternative is the black magic intensity card which isn't really mobile.
EDIT: now I just read a spec that states the matrox mini supports 1080i at 59.94, which I assume is 23.98 in a container... so confusing.

Jeff, may I repeat my question: at which shutter speed was the Sony working when you were filming in these dark rooms? I'm really curious to find out.

^
the matrox mini doesn't capture 1080/24p, which doesn't meet my needs at all.. so for me, at least, the only cheap alternative is the black magic intensity card which isn't really mobile.
EDIT: now I just read a spec that states the matrox mini supports 1080i at 59.94, which I assume is 23.98 in a container... so confusing.

I am not a fan of slow frame rates and look forward to the day I can get 1080P60 but until then 1080i ( 60 interlace) will have to do. I like smooth natural motion and the judder of 24 p or 30p really upsets me. The upscale of SD DVD's on the PS3 to 1080 30P really bothers me too. I think the Matrox will take whatever comes in from the HDMI and convert to Matrox MPEG2 i frame on the PC and lots of choices on the Mac or if the system is fast enough on either platform, uncompressed. At least that is the way I read the spec.

Ron Evans

60, I always run 60.

Ron mentioned wishing for 60p, which I suspect could be a standard in the future.

The HMC150 does shoot in 60p, and it is pretty darn smooth.

there's something unnatural to me about 60fps. I think it's too smooth, actually smoother than real life to my eyes.. maybe it's the way it handles motion blur or something like that. I wonder what the science is behind this, because really neither frame rates are what I would consider true to the human eye's peception of movement.

Oh yeah, 60fps explains your bad lowlight.. check out 30fps or 24fps, you'll get back at least a couple stops.

Ron, do you mean 60p or 1/60?

If I remember correctly what I have read in some technical articles everything will be progressive at some time in the future (that may while, of course).

Yes I mean 60p progressive. It should have the temporal motion of 60i but with full frames rather than fields so conversions and display will be better for flat panel displays that are able to show 60P as are most of the modern flat panels. The sports networks already transmit 60p but this is 1280x720P60( the HMC150 will shoot at this rate) so is not what is now called Full HD at 1920x1080. 60p at that resolution is not in any of the current standards although most displays will show this full rate over HDMI. I think the only cameras that shoot at this rate now are Sanyo VPC-FH1 and the VPC-HD2000.

Ron Evans

I had to laugh yesterday since we've discussed this endlessly. I was watching "Extra" or something like that on CBS and there was a video of someone while he was being snapped by a bunch of photographers.

Well guys, there it was in all its glory, unmistakable rolling shutter!!!! So, apparently CBS IS using cams with CMOS imagers.

I would suspect the footage was shot by a freelancer, not by a network employee.

It's possible Jeff, but it apparently didn't bother CBS enough to not air it. Most networks can be very particular about the quality of footage aired. Discovery HD won't take more than a small percentage of HDV footage per hour of footage submitted. Of course if it's something like a disaster, murder or something like that, the networks will take almost any footage.

But this was not much of an 'event' and they could have been fussy if they had so chosen.

you mean networks won't take cmos footage? I thought the ex1/3 are used a lot in tv shows.

Ron, that's my point, apparently the networks are quite willing to accept CMOS footage.

yeah i agree. they're quite willing to accept it becuase my guess is there really isn't an issue with it.

From my vantage point I don't see a big issue. Yes, I don't encounter flashes with the work I do, but even if I did, it wouldn't prevent me from using CMOS-based cams.

The networks accept footage and photos from many types of camcorders and still cameras. They take what they can get. Whatever freelancers are using to get footage of stars and events for show like "Inside Edition" is what you will see.

They are looking for content, not footage shot on one camera type or another.

To interpret anything you see on these shows as an endorsement of one kind of camera over another doesn't make sense. I've seen really bad footage on those shows shot on what appeared to be a home camcorder. It doesn't mean anything, but if you guys say it does I certainly won't argue.

I too am at this crossroads.
My Z1 won't last forever and I delighted at the announcement of the Z5 and Z7. I was right on the verge of choosing between the two, and the Z7 seemed to hold the ace card because of it's much better low light capabilities as soon as you zoom to telephoto.

But but but. I've shot two weddings on an EX1 now and two things really bother me. First off is its feeble wide-angle coverage (and even more feeble, heavy, bulky 0.8x wide converter) and the CMOS rolling shutter. The latter is just ghastly under electronic flash, and although acceptable to many a client, certainly wouldn't be in slo-mo.

Of course the EX1 can shoot proper (mute) slo-mo, but I always need the sound (confetti, twirls, cake-cutting and so on), and my events happen in real time.

So the EX1 is out I'm afraid (and anyway, my clients don't pay for anything better than the Z1's most excellent footage - and I'd need two of them).

The Z7 doesn't work well with my Bolex super-wide, and although you can buy Sony's wide-angle zoom, it's not dramatically, frighteningly wide, it's just usefully wide. Yawn.

The Z5 is the biz except for one thing - and that's those CMOS chips. Sorry Sony, you've lost a long-time customer here.

I'll not go to smaller chips than 1"/3. The world is moving to ever larger chips for their low light capabilities and dof control, and I too am a believer. The PDX10 was a complete no-no with minuscule 1"/5 chips. So however clever and well reviewed the JVC 100 is, it's still sports a feeble zoom with an appalling wide-angle, feeding tiny chips. CCDs though, so thumbs up there.

Panasonic are really showing the way forward with their 4/3 (four thirds) format, and I'll wait awhile. Meanwhile the 151 appeals except for the fact that it's now become too expensive for it's own good. The build quality is nothing like a Z5 and the side-screen is silly, but the CCDs appeal. It needs two card slots, slow shutter speeds and more telephoto reach for my work, and when you can see the spec for the 151A you know it's best to hold on. The DVX100 was quickly replaced by the DVX100A for the same reasons.

I'm not so bothered by SDHC gathering, as you can downconvert in camera if needs be. Archiving is a different matter though, and dead easy with the Z1, 5 & 7. The Canon XH-A1s is still a very good camera indeed, although it will be Canon's last MiniDV cam.

tom.

Jeff, I agree that for 'must have' footage, the networks will and do accept most anything. But, as Ron pointed out, CMOS-based cams are indeed used in shows where they have a choice.

We obviously disagree on the severity of the issue, but that's fine. As I said, I would still get the Z5 again even if I did weddings, but only because I don't see the issue as you do.

It's great that we have a wide choice of cams for different needs and tastes. :)