Optura Xi / MVX3i at DVinfo.net

Yuriy Novoselov · July 15th, 2004, 09:44 AM

Hello everyone.
Optura Xi in US has 1230 active video pixels.
Optura MVX3i in Europe has 1770 active video pixels.
MVX3i is great in low-light, XI is not.
I read that if you are in NTSC country it is better to use NTSC camcorder.
But I am wondering, if MVX3i (PAL) is much better in low light, maybe it is worth it to go through difficulties of PAL/NTSC conversion?
Please help!

Kevin A. Sturges · July 15th, 2004, 03:37 PM

I live in the US and my Phillips 624 DVD player plays PAL disks fine thru my HDTV.

So, if I get a PAL camcorder, what, if anything would be the difficulty of working with PAL video? Would there be any problem in converting my timelines in Vegas Video to NTSC for other people's use?

The output from my Xi looks sharper than anything I see on SD broadcasts now. Would all those extra pixels in PAL format really make that much difference?

Thanks.

Glenn Gipson · July 15th, 2004, 04:56 PM

Check out http://www.dvfilm.com/atlantis/index.htm

Dave Perry · July 15th, 2004, 06:30 PM

I have an XI NTSC and have yet to see what people are talking about when they say it has poor low light performance. I've used it for much concert footage in various lighting conditions and just spent 2 evenings at the local anual fair, filming people, lights rides, and colors from late evening, throug sunset and into the night.

Soon I'll post some clips. The more I use this camera, the more I like it and am glad I bought it...even though it it has no LANC and is a bottom loader.

Tommy Haupfear · July 16th, 2004, 08:58 AM

Quote:

MVX3i is great in low-light, XI is not.

What proof do we have of this? Any examples? Don't they have the same CCD, DSP, and pixel configuration apart from their NTSC and PAL differences?

The Xi is no VX2100 in low light but it handles it ok and its no worse than the other single chippers on the market today.

Dave Perry · July 16th, 2004, 09:04 AM

Yes Tommy, we have proof. I just haven't posted it yet...will do so soon. I'm not a spec hound so with out doing to the respective web sites, I can't give you pixel configs, chip sizes, etc, and frankly, it doesn't matter that much to me. Specs are a good place to start, but the actual output is what I'm more interested in.

I'll try to get some samples online today.

Tommy Haupfear · July 16th, 2004, 09:25 AM

Specs are always to be taken with a grain of salt but I was just thinking that they are the same cam and that any difference in low light performance would be minimal.

Looking forward to your frames.

Dave Perry · July 16th, 2004, 12:41 PM

Here's my sample. Maybe it's not low light enough though, now that I think about it:

www.daveperry.net/movies/salem_fair.mov

It was shot in 16:9 at 1/30 shutter speed in TV mode.

Tommy Haupfear · July 16th, 2004, 01:04 PM

Dave, I think you misunderstood my original post. My question was directed towards Yuriy Novoselov when he said that the MVX3i (PAL version of the Xi) was better in low light than the NTSC Xi that you own. I'm not saying that the Xi is bad but that I don't understand how these two cams could be different.

Nice footage but I think you're right about the light levels. Maybe some minimal controlled indoor lighting would be better.

Yuriy Novoselov · July 16th, 2004, 01:46 PM

Specification fact is stated in my question:

"Optura Xi 1230 active video pixels.
Optura MVX3i 1770 active video pixels."

With everything else being the same.
Since full CCD is not utilized, it is logical that video quality and especially low-light video quality of XI is worse than MVX3i.

I read different reviews American and non-American (Russian and UK) All American reviews mention that low-light quality is not good. While european professional organization say that MVX3i is the best 1 CCD camcorder ever. Never complaining about low-light. My general feeling from reviews is that NTSC model is worse than European and it is proved by OFIICIAL SPECIFICATIONS.

European Tests proved that MVX3i low-light is better that trv80 (trv75e).
American Tests mention that Sony is still better in low-light conditions.

Tommy Haupfear · July 16th, 2004, 02:15 PM

Gotcha, I thought there might have been a head-to-head comparison which would be needed to prove this theory.

I'm also a little confused by the claim that using more pixels for video increases low light performance. The 16:9 mode of the Xi uses 1.5MP but I could not see a low light performance hit between 4:3 and 16:9. Usually less CCD pixel cams do better in low light.

Any other Xi owners notice a difference?

Yuriy Novoselov · July 17th, 2004, 07:16 AM

Tommy Haupfear
You don't know what you talking about.
"Usually less CCD pixel cams do better in low light"
This is a true statement, you know why?, because more pixels on the same CCD means smaller size of the pixels, and therefore less low-light sensitivity.

Optura XI and MVX3i have same size CCD and same amount of gross pixels. Therefore size of the pixels is the same.
But Optura XI has less pixels used for 4x3 video. Size of these pixels is the same as in MVX3i, but MVX3i uses more of them.
Because of that techniques of interpolation work better with more pixels, that means less noise.
In addition when more pixels of the same size are used, this also improves low-light sensitivity, in comparisson to less pixels of that same size.

Conclusion: low-light sensitivity for MVX3i is better. Noise is usually more visible in low-light, and since noise of the MVX3i is less, than low-light of the MVX3i is deffinetly better than Xi

Tommy Haupfear · July 17th, 2004, 12:21 PM

Quote:

You don't know what you talking about.

Thanks for the support. :)

Yuriy, I think an actual test would be better at resolving your claim. Otherwise you may be investing in a PAL cam unnecessarily.

Yuriy Novoselov · July 17th, 2004, 02:02 PM

Sorry about that. :)

I don't need any tests. I pretty sure that MVX3i is better than Xi.
It is proven by Specs and other tests that I read.

My question was, if MVX3i PAL great footage converted to NTSC will be better than Xi not that great footage without conversion.

PS Panosonic and Canon are known for bringing striped down consumer models to America. Somehow nobody wants to beat Sony in that department.

Optura MVX3i is the best 1 CCD camcorder in Europe. This knows any professional there. MVX3i is even better than 3 CCD MX500 (943). It is even close to Sony 950/940 in Europe.

Optura Xi is fighting for leadership with Sony's top line, trv 80 and Panas 943.

But the landscape is changing with new consumer lines. Let's see what happens.

I have always been a Sony fan. But 950 is too heavy for me. So I am left with trv 80 or older trv 50/30 models. If XI was better than MVX3i, I would buy it right away. But Xi is worse in low-light than Sony, and I can't go less than Sony. So I am stock with this compromise.
I am afraid I will end up with trv 50 from eBay fo a few years. Until something comes up where I wouldn't have to compromise

Tommy Haupfear · July 17th, 2004, 03:33 PM

Yuriy, I think you're referring to the DV953 not 943.

You might want to take a look at the upcoming Panasonic PV-GS400 which if it follows the PV-GS100 path will be a significant improvement over the MX500/DV953. I found the low light performance of the GS100 to be better than the Xi and the GS400 has larger CCDs and an improved Crystal Engine.

Another used camera to consider is the Panasonic NV-MX8 which has better low light performance than any of the single chippers mentioned so far. Its been discontinued for awhile.

July 15th, 2004, 09:44 AM	#1
Yuriy Novoselov New Boot Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 6	Optura Xi / MVX3i Hello everyone. Optura Xi in US has 1230 active video pixels. Optura MVX3i in Europe has 1770 active video pixels. MVX3i is great in low-light, XI is not. I read that if you are in NTSC country it is better to use NTSC camcorder. But I am wondering, if MVX3i (PAL) is much better in low light, maybe it is worth it to go through difficulties of PAL/NTSC conversion? Please help!

July 15th, 2004, 06:30 PM	#4
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	I have an XI NTSC and have yet to see what people are talking about when they say it has poor low light performance. I've used it for much concert footage in various lighting conditions and just spent 2 evenings at the local anual fair, filming people, lights rides, and colors from late evening, throug sunset and into the night. Soon I'll post some clips. The more I use this camera, the more I like it and am glad I bought it...even though it it has no LANC and is a bottom loader. __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

July 16th, 2004, 09:04 AM	#6
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	Yes Tommy, we have proof. I just haven't posted it yet...will do so soon. I'm not a spec hound so with out doing to the respective web sites, I can't give you pixel configs, chip sizes, etc, and frankly, it doesn't matter that much to me. Specs are a good place to start, but the actual output is what I'm more interested in. I'll try to get some samples online today. __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

July 16th, 2004, 12:41 PM	#8
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	Here's my sample. Maybe it's not low light enough though, now that I think about it: www.daveperry.net/movies/salem_fair.mov It was shot in 16:9 at 1/30 shutter speed in TV mode. __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

July 15th, 2004, 03:37 PM	#2
Kevin A. Sturges Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 167	I live in the US and my Phillips 624 DVD player plays PAL disks fine thru my HDTV. So, if I get a PAL camcorder, what, if anything would be the difficulty of working with PAL video? Would there be any problem in converting my timelines in Vegas Video to NTSC for other people's use? The output from my Xi looks sharper than anything I see on SD broadcasts now. Would all those extra pixels in PAL format really make that much difference? Thanks.

July 15th, 2004, 04:56 PM	#3
Glenn Gipson Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Plainfield, New Jersey Posts: 927	Check out http://www.dvfilm.com/atlantis/index.htm

July 16th, 2004, 09:25 AM	#7
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Specs are always to be taken with a grain of salt but I was just thinking that they are the same cam and that any difference in low light performance would be minimal. Looking forward to your frames.

July 16th, 2004, 01:04 PM	#9
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Dave, I think you misunderstood my original post. My question was directed towards Yuriy Novoselov when he said that the MVX3i (PAL version of the Xi) was better in low light than the NTSC Xi that you own. I'm not saying that the Xi is bad but that I don't understand how these two cams could be different. Nice footage but I think you're right about the light levels. Maybe some minimal controlled indoor lighting would be better.

July 16th, 2004, 01:46 PM	#10
Yuriy Novoselov New Boot Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 6	Specification fact is stated in my question: "Optura Xi 1230 active video pixels. Optura MVX3i 1770 active video pixels." With everything else being the same. Since full CCD is not utilized, it is logical that video quality and especially low-light video quality of XI is worse than MVX3i. I read different reviews American and non-American (Russian and UK) All American reviews mention that low-light quality is not good. While european professional organization say that MVX3i is the best 1 CCD camcorder ever. Never complaining about low-light. My general feeling from reviews is that NTSC model is worse than European and it is proved by OFIICIAL SPECIFICATIONS. European Tests proved that MVX3i low-light is better that trv80 (trv75e). American Tests mention that Sony is still better in low-light conditions.

July 16th, 2004, 02:15 PM	#11
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Gotcha, I thought there might have been a head-to-head comparison which would be needed to prove this theory. I'm also a little confused by the claim that using more pixels for video increases low light performance. The 16:9 mode of the Xi uses 1.5MP but I could not see a low light performance hit between 4:3 and 16:9. Usually less CCD pixel cams do better in low light. Any other Xi owners notice a difference?

July 17th, 2004, 07:16 AM	#12
Yuriy Novoselov New Boot Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 6	Tommy Haupfear You don't know what you talking about. "Usually less CCD pixel cams do better in low light" This is a true statement, you know why?, because more pixels on the same CCD means smaller size of the pixels, and therefore less low-light sensitivity. Optura XI and MVX3i have same size CCD and same amount of gross pixels. Therefore size of the pixels is the same. But Optura XI has less pixels used for 4x3 video. Size of these pixels is the same as in MVX3i, but MVX3i uses more of them. Because of that techniques of interpolation work better with more pixels, that means less noise. In addition when more pixels of the same size are used, this also improves low-light sensitivity, in comparisson to less pixels of that same size. Conclusion: low-light sensitivity for MVX3i is better. Noise is usually more visible in low-light, and since noise of the MVX3i is less, than low-light of the MVX3i is deffinetly better than Xi

July 17th, 2004, 02:02 PM	#14
Yuriy Novoselov New Boot Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 6	Sorry about that. :) I don't need any tests. I pretty sure that MVX3i is better than Xi. It is proven by Specs and other tests that I read. My question was, if MVX3i PAL great footage converted to NTSC will be better than Xi not that great footage without conversion. PS Panosonic and Canon are known for bringing striped down consumer models to America. Somehow nobody wants to beat Sony in that department. Optura MVX3i is the best 1 CCD camcorder in Europe. This knows any professional there. MVX3i is even better than 3 CCD MX500 (943). It is even close to Sony 950/940 in Europe. Optura Xi is fighting for leadership with Sony's top line, trv 80 and Panas 943. But the landscape is changing with new consumer lines. Let's see what happens. I have always been a Sony fan. But 950 is too heavy for me. So I am left with trv 80 or older trv 50/30 models. If XI was better than MVX3i, I would buy it right away. But Xi is worse in low-light than Sony, and I can't go less than Sony. So I am stock with this compromise. I am afraid I will end up with trv 50 from eBay fo a few years. Until something comes up where I wouldn't have to compromise

July 17th, 2004, 03:33 PM	#15
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Yuriy, I think you're referring to the DV953 not 943. You might want to take a look at the upcoming Panasonic PV-GS400 which if it follows the PV-GS100 path will be a significant improvement over the MX500/DV953. I found the low light performance of the GS100 to be better than the Xi and the GS400 has larger CCDs and an improved Crystal Engine. Another used camera to consider is the Panasonic NV-MX8 which has better low light performance than any of the single chippers mentioned so far. Its been discontinued for awhile.