Low light footage

[Peter Moretti]

Originally Posted by Eddie Coates

I would like to thank everyone for posting XF footage for me to view.

After watching all the current on line footage, the only reason I would consider buying a XF series is the fast snap auto focusing.

I have watched several XF samples and I see there is clearly something wrong with the flesh tone detail.
The color is weird and off, can not put my finger on it.

It is not as bright and sharp as my EX1 not even close.

Here is a great example of just: that YouTube - Canon XF305 and Sony EX1R side by side tests

I really ? that footage as well. It looks like there might be some sharpening going on or a problem w/ the camera.

BTW, this noise pattern looks very much like a shimmering noise pattern that supposedly happens to Long-GOP nanoFlash files recorded above 100 mbps. Perhaps there is some issue with the Canon codec, and 50 mbps is too high for its Long-GOP "structure"? (I rather doubt this, but YNK.)

I think it's much more likely that there was some camera setting that could have been tweaked. But then again, Alister is always on top of these things, so who knows.

[Paul Cook]

He probably wasnt but still, Alister's statement kinda falls into the 'fudge' arena IMO. Given that I stated a shoot out should be performed with the xf300 and ex1 using their own native format and NOT an external nano - I just dont get how you can jump to the seemingly defensive stance of 'an ex1r + nano is only $1100 more than an xf305'??? As in we should be comparing a $9200 ex1r/nano combo with the $8k xf305 when realistically most people are going to go with the more affordable but still great 4:2:2 50mbit quality xf300 at only $6,800.

Im not a nano hater, ideally I'd be happy to get my hands on a nano combo with either cam, but the realist in me knows its just way too much of a stretch...and Im guessing Im not alone.

[Alister Chapman]

There was no fudge in my figures, they are accurate and correct. Even compared to an XF300 an EX1R plus NanoFlash is still not $3k more expensive. Many people will want the added flexibility, not every purchase is based solely on price. Sure price is important, but so is the feature set, connectivity and performance. Most people on here are sensible enough to realise that. Just because it may be a stretch for you doesn't mean no one else may need or prefer a different kit combination. I did a limited set of side by side native EX - XF clips for everyone to see. No tricks, no grading, stock settings and it's pretty clear there is little to choose between the two cameras.

[Paul Cook]

Alister the fudge I called wasn't to do with the figures being inaccurate, it was more your insistence that my apples and apples comparison test should be brought into the realm of ...well two fruits infinitely more expensive than apples (Im sure that varies depending on location)

Essentially all I was saying was that for the LARGE majority of people who buy either camera, the price tag for the ex1 or the xf300 - $6300 vs $6800 is already quite a leap so no matter they will likely NEVER spring for the additional $3,000 nano. Thats the category I know I fall into which is why Im not interested in nano footage, not interested in xf305 footage and certainly not interested in the 'small' price difference of two sets ups I originally DIDNT mention to begin with.

I think that in most cases reality would dictate that unless you're in a line of work that ABSOLUTELY requires that extra squeeze of quality AND you do said work routinely then $3k would see a much better ROI being spent on sound or lighting. I think as pixel peeping pros or semi pros or whatever class we fall into - we forget that its by far a class above 99% of the rest of the population which A) make up our clients and B) wouldn't know the difference between footage recorded on either an xha1, xf300 or ex1/3. They would however probably know the difference if the production was compromised due to sacrificing on mics or lighting.

[Peter Moretti]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

... I did a limited set of side by side native EX - XF clips for everyone to see. No tricks, no grading, stock settings and it's pretty clear there is little to choose between the two cameras.

Alister, Thank you very much for your test. You're one of the few who tested and posted a side-by-side of the two cameras. Rather than being conclusive, I think it shows that more tests need to be done by people very familiar with both cameras. Which will take time b/c the XF's are so new.

I envision someone like you doing the EX side and someone who's lived w/ an XF for some time doing the Canon side. Both cameras are very good, which means there's going to be a lot of pixel peeping going on. Stock settings often times do not bring out the best of any device. And to choose the best settings, you need to have spent a lot of time with the camera.

Thanks again. And hopefully something like that will happen.

BTW, I do think that the XF was aimed clearly at the traditional 1/3 user, e.g. sports & news. Its lens speaks of cinematography with its hard stops, but the sensor size does not. Not saying the XF can't be used for dramatic work, but the EX's seem aimed a little more in that direction (no pun intended).

[Tom Roper]

Originally Posted by Paul Cook

Essentially all I was saying was that for the LARGE majority of people who buy either camera, the price tag for the ex1 or the xf300 - $6300 vs $6800 is already quite a leap so no matter they will likely NEVER spring for the additional $3,000 nano.

That may have been the case for many Canon buyers, but the EX1 and hopefully the XF will appeal more to the professional, who for quite a while has been stuffing matte boxes, follow focus rigs and nanoflashes on the EX1.

So I think the points made for the nanoflash in the hands of a professional are quite valid. If you have the nanoflash, you can use it with any rig with SDI, not married to just one. So if you wanted to upgrade the EX to 50/100 mbps, it's a viable option, but if you wanted to upgrade an XF to have 1/2 sensors, what would you do?

[Peter Moretti]

Enroll in M.I.T.?

[Eddie Coates]

Originally Posted by Paul Cook

Alister I never mentioned the XF305 - so forcing a comparison into that price range is a fudge. My point is I dont want footage via the nano on either camera meaning just out of the box ex1 vs xf300 which realistically is what most people will be shooting.

Ediie - do you really think if there was 'something wrong' with the flesh tones and detail to the level you proclaim that just one of the many professional reviewers would have picked it up as an issue? You do know that you can tweak the hell out of each camera to get the 'look' you are after?

All these random shots of streets and mannequins under random varying lighting and conditions with no indication of camera settings isnt doing either camera any favours. We need a professional shoot out now more than ever to sort out fact from fiction.

Paul,
I do not about your eye sight and perception, but I can clearly see as I have 20/10 that the XF300 and XF305 are NOT as bright and as clean as the XD cams. I forgot to mention I just played with both series side by side as i always do when I compare items to one another.
The XD cams are much brighter at any of the same settings, the aspect ratio is cleaner and larger as well due to the bigger chips.

I am looking to buy a new HD cam for what I shoot as the XD cams auto focus is slow. Now the Auto focus beats the crap out of the XD cams hands down! But is that truly worth stepping down my image quality? NOT!

I seen other threads where people argued the chip size doesn't matter, and one guy used a v6 engine vs v8 and tried to convince everyone a v6 can out perform a bigger engine. I just let that person be an IDIOT.
Not one 4cylynder or V6 will ever achieve the great horse power of a top fuel V8 ever! I use facts and logic not speculation.

The XF series is a sweet camera indeed, but i see it lacks low light performance and and over all quality in most situations. I seen a $700 HD video camera shoot incredible quality outside in bright sunshine. LOL

Again no matter how you set the XF setting something looks off with its color, reds are way overkill like bam in your face, too much! Sure we can dial it down in post, but being a professional photographer I do my best to get it RIGHT in the cam first.

Look at my list of gear... I love Canon products as I am a Canon shooter. But when Sony delivers better video products well I go for the better product.

[Alister Chapman]

The EX1R and XF300/XF305 are extremely close image wise. There are differences between the two, some positive some negative. IMHO if you put the XF305 lens and codec on an EX1R sensor you would have the best of both worlds (from an image quality point).

As has been well proven over the last couple of years the EX 35Mb/s codec is pretty good and capable of great images, but the XF300 codec is just that little bit better so there is a little less blockiness in the image where you have lots of very fine detail. The XF305 lens is optically very good, not perfect, exhibiting a bit of barrel distortion and some corner softening when wide but being realistic this is to be expected at this price point. Chromatic Aberration is very well controlled. However sensitivity and noise are largely a function of pixel and sensor size so it's no surprise to find that the EX1 is more sensitive and IMHO the noise at 0db less visible/objectionable from the EX. At +12db the XF305 produces a picture that is visibly very noisy compared to an EX at +12db. The noise from the EX and XF cameras looks different. The XF has a very fine very busy noise structure, the EX exhibits a coarser but less busy image noise. The very fine high frequency noise of the XF will put more stress on codecs than the course low frequency noise from the EX. It will also present possible problems with image grading although this is somewhat mitigated over a stock EX by the higher bit rate codec. It's also common for some people to mistake the very fine noise in the XF images as picture detail, you do need to look carefully at the video clips to determine what is "real" detail and what is actually noise.

[Glen Vandermolen]

So...

I used to own the JVC HD200, which had terrible low-light capabilities. I did one shoot in a skating rink and the video images were so bad, the footage was unusable. I sold the camera soon after. I also used a Sony Z1, which also had terrible low light performance. I've never trusted 1/3" cameras since.

Now, to the present: how much better would 2010 1/3" CMOS chips be compared to 2005-ish 1/3" CCD chips? I've worked with the EX3, and the video looked very good in normal office lighting (I know, 1/2" chips).

[Dane Stahlman]

I film for a Outdoor production Company and I have been using the XHA1 for about a year, I'm looking for the best setting for filming low light on my XHA1 anyone have suggestions??

Thanks in advance!!

[Steev Dinkins]

Post deleted. I misread Glen's question.

[Glen Vandermolen]

Originally Posted by Dane Stahlman

I film for a Outdoor production Company and I have been using the XHA1 for about a year, I'm looking for the best setting for filming low light on my XHA1 anyone have suggestions??

Thanks in advance!!

I have none, but there is another section of this forum site that deals exclusively with the Canon XH cameras. You might want to try posting your question there.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xh...dv-camcorders/