XL-H1 = Great low light...No Grain.....Great for Videographers!
 

Farting around with my cameras last night in gloomy California.....(it rained like HELL early in the day and the rest of the evening was all grey and ugly! 1st time in 50 years that it rained on our beloved Rose Parade! *sad face*) ........I started to do some freaky camera-work with my wife after she got out the shower.
Sorry fellas, the footage will never be available. The tape somehow got smashed to bits & pieces when I was sleep *smile*

Setting both the XL-H1 and the Z1U @ 0db, the XL-H1 gets much better low light performance then my Sony Z1U does. I dunno? Maybe it's the lens or someting, but it seemed like the Canon could see in the dark whereas the Sony's was pitch black on the viewfinder. The canon was seeing small shimmers of light shinning in, and details on my wifes...ummmm....well, you know. But the Sony couldn't see that stuff.

I normally keep the Canon on 24f for 24p recording because that's all I shoot, but I put it on 60i to compare it with the Sony.
Both cameras on Manual - 1/60 shutter, f1.6 all the way wide. no picture profile or scene settings used.

I turned up the gain to +3 on both cameras....

The Sony started coming around. Still clear with no grain at all, and now it began seeing the things the Canon was easily seeing @ 0db. The Canon however, got even brighter with no grain. Things with color were clear.

I again turned up the gain to +6 on both cameras....

The Sony was still clear with no grain and so was the Canon. However now the Sony @ +6db was equal to the Canon at 0db. Scouts honor! The Canon was nice and clear at +6 and the picture was cool. I put the Canon back down to 0db and kept the Sony at +6db. They were now about the same. (honestly, the canon seemed a tad bit brighter still).

I put both cameras on +12db of gain....

Grainy days on the Canon! The speckles of noise were dancing like little jitter bugs. very lightly, but they were there for sure. The Sony however, even at +12, was no grain! Kinda crazy! It wasn't as bright as the Canon, but the Sony was a crystal clear picture.

MORAL OF THE STORY......

The Canon XL-H1 gets allot better low-light performance then the Sony Z1U. For those people shooting weddings or videographers who need to get a clean shot at a dark smoky night club, you'll be one happy shooter with the XL-H1.

The Sony Z1U gets good low light with gain turned up because whatever the hell they are doing in that camera, it seems like I don't see the dancing grain until I get up at +18db where it is obvious. Plus the Sony has that HYPERGAIN_+36db, setting which I have used and have saved my ass on two occasions. The Canon doesn't have that whatsoever!

ok. that's all folks!

- ShannonRawls.com

We tend to think of CCD sensitivity, but with the new generation of DSP, sensitivity is a "system" issue: the T-stop of the lens, the CCD (and its micro leneses), and the DSP.

I've been experimenting with the original JVC HDV camcorder. Everyone said the single CCD killed its sensitivity. Turns out it was the DSP. If you compare it to an FX1 and factor in the 6dB loss from progressive -- it is the Sony's ability to add 18dB and still have a good pix that makes its spec look good. Without that clean gain, the Sony 3 CCD is not really that much more sensitive than a 2 year old camera. Your findings indicate the year newer Canon seems to benefit from CCD/LENS enhancements.

If Shannon's right, Sony has been kicked of the trone of 'low light' kings... (in the HDV area that is)

Shannon can you post still frames from the HDV material. The Camera makes it easy via the SD card as you know.

Thanks

Mike.....Since the Sony Z1U doesn't have the ability to take snapshots as easy as the Canon can, why don't we wait until the shootout.

I am sure we will:

1. Put all cameras on MANUAL
2. Set all to f1.6 and pull back as wide as we can
3. White balance to the same card
4. Set all shutter speeds to the same speed
5. Set all recording formats the same
6. Set all Gains to 0db
7. Record some low-lit footage!
8. Take that footage and put it in a 4 screen split and stream it on the web so you can see them all at the same time.

That's the only FAIR way of doing it.

- ShannonRawls.com

If you do a test where all cameras are set at f1.6, all you're really testing is the comparative low light capabilities. And if you're zoomed back all the way, the image isn't going to be the same size in the frame because every lens will be different. Nothing wrong with either of those, but I'd prefer to see each camera set up on the same shot, filling the frame exactly the same, and with a proper exposure for each camera, with notes on what that exposure might be. Keep the lighting the same. And then change the lighting to low key, high contrast, etc. I guess I'm more interested in the look of the footage from each camera under different lighting conditions, with each camera tweaked optimally and exposed properly.

But that can also be a good thing, because maybe it can be interesting for people to see what effects the lens can have on the image. Well not on the image, in that case, but on your way of shooting.

Bill,

This is the reason I am a Producer and I say in my lane.
I leave all the expert techno-stuff to the shooters & DP's.

Have I ever told you my philosphy on the Cinematographer?

Wanna hear it? here it goes.......I BELEIVE, that the DP is the MOST IMPORTANT CREW PERSON on any set. I am willing to pay him more money then even my Director in some cases.
Am I crazy for thinking this? I don't think so.....The reason why is because if my Director is sick and can't make it to work then the Director of Photography can take over for him and continue the shoot if worse comes to worse. HOWEVER, if my DP is sick....we might as well send everybody home.

That's my philosophy on Cinematographers. (GOOD ONES, that is!)

- ShannonRawls.com

Why set all gains to 0db? Why not optimize the gain for each camera to each shooting scenario?

Best,
Christopher

It's always best to shoot with 0db if you have enough light.
Noise is really ugly and it betrayes 'VIDEO!!', so if you don't need it, by all means set up some lights and set it to 0db.

Because "0" is fair. Electronically enhancing one camera by increasing the gain to +6db while its competitors are at 0db is unfair to the cameras set at 0db.

If thats the case, then why not bring a Wafian HD raid recorder and connect it to the H1 via HD-SDI and then say "Ok, let's see who's image is the best!" lol
That would be flat-out unfair to the others.

Theorhetically, having the HVX-200 as a part of this shoot-out should be unfair.....but f***ck it! HDV can hold it's own. *smile*
(just imagine how good the picture would be if the efficient HDV codec was recorded @ 100mbps instead of 25...it' would be KILLIN' em!)

All cameras should be on the same exact settings. IMO

- ShannonRawls.com

Y'know, that's what I said when we did the DVX/XL2/FX1 shootout, and FX1 owners were very upset with the results. The DVX was two stops brighter, but noisier; the FX1 owners thought that we should have cranked up the gain to equalize them.

I can see arguments for both ways. I have always done as Shannon suggests, but if there's time we should try to accomodate both methods (i.e., this is base sensitivity at 0db gain; this is sensitivity at comparable noise levels, etc).

Hey Shannon, I've got someone who just got the call that his production model HVX200 is in. So once he gets it shipped in, we should be able to schedule the 4-way shoot thing.

Why? The numbers -3db, 0db, 3db, 6db, are a reference scale within a given camera, not across camera models and manufacturers. 9db on camera A is 3db less than 12db on camera A, but it's not an absolute measure like 9 inches. A camera manufacturer could subtract 3db from all settings on a new model, thus changing the range (0db, 3db, 6db) to the range (-3db, 0db, 3db). Another camera manufacturer could sell a camera that doesn't even include a 0db, electing to start the gain range at 6db. What then? Exclude the camera from testing?

Best,
Christopher

Sweet...Because I'm ITCHIN' to buy that camera and need to see with my own eyes how good the picture is.

- ShannonRawls.com

He'll get it in a couple of days, and CES is this week so -- maybe next week?

Gold Star for Christopher. He's right.

Increase the gain setting for the Sony until you get the same noise as the Canon. Then compare.

OK look, I think tis is the best way to solve this...

Since we are testing the "CAPABILITIES" of the camera to see in low-light.....

....then what we must do is simply create a dark shooting environment and I'm talkin' as dark as we can get it. And then see which camera can "SEE" the best in that place before 1-ounce of Grain is introduced in the image. If a smidget of grain is seen, back up to the next lower decibel until it's gone. Then compare the images.

How's that? Now THAT'S FAIR!

and also....record that same environment with all cameras on 0db as well. Won't take but a minute to do that too.

- ShannonRawls.com

I look forward to this day. Can't wait guys!

pappas

I did some none-scientific tests with the XL H1. Went out in the forest here in the darkest period during the year. The sun went down too early. Came finally to an old mill.

...

(I have nearly only been taking still photos before (with Hasselblad and Canon EOS-1n / D60). And one roll of 16 mm until I gave that up ...
I have waited with video until the quality should develop enough. Frankly, the resolution has been way too bad so far in my opinion.

I have driven twice through Africa from Sweden. Through the Sahara desert down in the rain forests. Sleeping on the soil for several months. Listening and photographing many of the animals. Wanted to project the great scenery and landscape of this wonderful continent back home. We were riding camels together with the touaregs. Carrying Hasselblad cameras because we considered the 35 mm SLR photos to be of marginal quality. We made slide shows with 4x4 m screen projecting 6x6 cm slides from Hasselblad projectors.

When comparing these slides with SD video projection the video looked as it was slides from a Kodac Instamatic! Not usuable in our opinion for great detailed landscapes.

Now with HDV the time has come for affordable video in our opinion. The moving "film" adds so much that we can sacrifice the rest of the resolution and sharpness.
...

Based on previous still experience I assumed I was out too late to capture any shots at all of the mill with the running water.

Everything looked grey and dark. Anyway, I focused on the water wheel (please forgive me - I am no native English speaking) under the mill house. Increased the gain to 6 or 9. Hey, many details came alive!

Tried some shots. Even from the wall in the shadow at the backside of the house. The sun was below the horizon half an hour or an hour ago but some snow helped with reflected light.

Looked at it on the computer back home. It was shot in SD only because a lack of computer programs for HD.

I was impressed! Somehow it nearly looked as it was taken in daylight. Many details on the wheel under the house was visible. I remember that I could barely see them by my naked eye.

Anyway, with my still cameras I think I should have headed home without taking any shot and returned another day to get a decent photo.

With this great camera some of these cuts could have been used in a video. And I didn't have the slow shutter on. So there is more potential.

Conlusion: This camera impresses me (but I do actually not have any other HDV or better professional camera to compare with).

I'm sure all experts here will put these findings into numbers later. Good luck!

You could set the cameras up to record the dark scene, ALL SET AT 0dB. See which gives the "brightest" picture (i.e. which is most sensitive without gain) and then use gain on the other 3 to bring them to the same level.

Then when judging how they perform you factor in noise level. As we don't know what the DSP is actually doing, the gain setting is irrelevent - only noise level and sensitivity matter.

That would mimic a real life shooting situation best IMHO.

SOUNDS FAIR TO ME!!! IMHO *smile*

The 0db setting on most cameras is often a compromise between noise and dynamic range. Manufacturers will have the CCD and processing set up in such a way as to get the best dynamic range from the CCD's with an acceptable amount of noise. Most professional camcorders have a -3db setting, which does decrease the amount of noise BUT you will often find that there is a slight trade off with the dynamic range (contrast handling) becoming slightly reduced. This may or may not be why the H1 has a -3db setting, but at least Canon have given the user the option to choose sensitivity or noise.

If you look at most cameras with anything other than 0db gain you will also normally see the contrast and highlight handling drop away.

I can't wait for the comparison test! Especially since there's all this debate going on with the HVX and the noise in low light footage we've seen. Any ideas on when we'd be able to download the test footage?

Will there by any tweaking with the "detail" settings on these cameras? Barry has said that taking the detail down to -5 on the HVX takes the edge off the noise making it less noticeable, but the noise is still there, obviously, so those settings shouldn't be changed on the tests?

I'm kind of surprised that the noise issue doesn't get more attention. Noise is the single biggest issue with current content delivery technology. ANY noise is using up bandwidth, run out of bandwidth and the noise starts to look worse, much worse.
Using DVCProHD quite nicely avoids the issue during acquisition, your footage will not fall apart from the noise. That's all fine upto a point. The point where you have to deliver the content. Not too many viewers are going to be watching the content off a DVCProHD deck. More likely they're going to be watching a DVB broadcast or SD DVD or at some future date a HiDef DVD of some form, all of these use temporal compression schemes and as your footage goes through that process bingo, the noise starts to look worse.
I don't know about anyone else but I find jittery noise a real killer, it mostly shows up in the lowlights, not usually where you want the viewer watching but given how our eyes/brains work we're drawn to movement in the periphery of our vision and the result is we find it hard to remain focussed on the action, our eyes are drawn to the unintended stuff jumping around in the lowlight areas of the frame.
To date all low light footage that I've seen from all the HDV cameras has WAY too much noise to be acceptable and that's hardly surprising given the size of the CCDs, to do better would require a true miracle as you'd need to rewrite the laws of physics. Probably the HVX200 is going to be the worst of the bunch, that's to be expected, progressive scan CCDs result in more noise, it's all a compromise and a very tight one when you start off with 1/3" CCDs.

Bob,

I guess Canon is smarter then people think.

I wondered why they would seemingly go 'backwards' in technology with an interlaced sensor for their new expensive flagship camera right after they successfully mastered a progressive sensor in the XL2. Didn't make sense AT FIRST. But now it's starting to become clear.

Them guys are over at Canon are some cold-blooded geniuses.

- ShannonRawls.com

Shannon,

Can you report how they compare when you've zoomed in all of the way?

I've got the Z1 and was quite fond of it's low light capability (for HDV that is), certainly compared to my HD100. However, the Z1 loses a bit when zoomed in (which I thought was f/2.8). To use it on my second mini35 adapter, I need to zoom in almost all the way, which puts it around f/2.6.

As I read the specs on the Canon, I thought it was f/3.5 zoomed in, so even slower, but certainly more zoom capability than the Z1.

So, I'd be curious how it's doing in a lower light scenario when zoomed all the way in (presuming f/3.5, rather than f/1.6 wide), and what your confidence would be in taking it into a lower light venue every once in a while, without lights (live event, say a concert, wedding balcony, etc). Having the nice gain structure you reported would certainly help things...

Lastly, can you confirm the gain setting capabilities as it's currently shipping - is it every 3db (-3, 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15)? I thought there were gaps in the numbers on the spec sheet, and would like to know what you thought of the picture at higher gain levels, while still zoomed in. I hate gain like everyone, but sometimes its a necessary evil, and would like to know what the threshold levels are for decent pictures. I've used the Z1 around 12db in a pinch, and been very impressed - don't care for much gain on the HD100.

Thanks very much for your reports,

Shawn Alyasiri

Well, there are two ways to test -- you can test based on the defaults, but that doesn't really tell you much other than how the manufacturers set up their defaults.

Or you can test by matching each as best you can to a certain standard. Such as the detail/edge enhancement. Pick an optimal point that you're aiming for, and then attempt to calibrate each camera so that it's delivering comparable results to the other. That way you're measuring real resolution, rather than artificial sharpening.

Same with noise, like I said earlier: brightness with a comparable noise level is probably what we're wanting to see, so a 0dB gain test on each is valuable in and of itself, but the more important test, for low-light considerations, would also factor the effects of noise and gain in.

If I were to conduct such a test, I would set all the cameras to deliver comparable results, and have multiple sets of eyes verifying what they're seeing. I'd also like to have an advocate of each camera there to make sure that the best is being gotten from each unit. And for viewing the results, I'd have those same people watch the footage back, but not tell them which camera the footage came from, so they'd have to give their opinions completely brand-free, just based on the image they're seeing on the screen.

Great idea, maybe if they can do the test, they first can get the footage up without saying which footage came from which camera, and the first days or week people can guess which footage came from which camera :-D
Then, the winner can get a price or something, the best camcorder :-D

It doesn't help that our Australian DVB HD channels are compressed mpeg2 crap. e.g. C7 dont even broadcast on "real" HD, they broadcast on 1280x576p. Since when did that become an HD format? The "quality" (noise) shows when I play the 7 HD Showreel on my 24 inch Dell 1920x1200 16x10 display...

Sorry for taking the thread off topic... Now back to running the sony cameras on 12db while the canon is on 0db and then comparing *smile*

(flipping through my papers) I don't see where you paid your licensing fee to use that Ms. Ashley!

- ShannonRawls.com
*smile*

Hmm umm yeah ahh... Blame the free trade agreement the US and Australia have *big grin*

Umm whats up with the Ms Ashley?!?!? I think you ment to put Mr Ashley. If I upset you with the whole "*smile*" thing you could at least keep my gender intact LOL

Mr Shannon you can just call me Ash. *smile*

Shannon, you can't make a fair assesment of the two cams by just lookin through the lcd's and saying...hey this one looks brighter and this one looks grainy. On camera lcds are always strangely different from one another in the brightness department. So this is an unfair assesment unless you actually check this footage out in an NLE. Also, it'd be real nice if you posted a shot from the comparison, pereferably a shot of a female laying on a bed so we can also have a fair ASSesment ourselves.

I agree. Shannon you have both of those camera's on hand and are posting quite often, throw us all a bone with a clip or two. It seens as if you are playing with those cameras alot and have some spare time. Do DVi a little extra service
and lets see what those babies got. We might even settle for a clip without your fine lady on the bed :)

Alex & Jim,

I'm not some bonehead who owns two brand new cameras that never ever get hours put on the drum. I'm a bonehead who knows what they look like like the back of my hand (especially the Sony Z1) *smile*

My cameras are dialed in so that when I look at the lcd...I KNOW EXACTLY what they will look like on my HD monitor AND in Sony Vegas and ultimately a DVD. I know the Z1 so well I can look at the LCD and tell someone --->"you need to turn down the brightness a notch because that's not what it's going to look like when you capture the footage"...yea, I'm that in-tune with the Z1U after owning it since January 28th, 2005.

Same goes for the XL-H1. I don't know it like I know the Z1, but my 'fresh out the box' tests have shown the LCD to actually be a tad bit 'darker' then the actual footage ends up being on my HD monitor, but exact on my computer monitor. So now I have matched the LCD to my field monitor that is matched to the footage.

So rest assured. When I look at the viewfinders on my cameras....I know what I am seeing.

and SPARE TIME?
what the hell is that?? *smile* I have NONE of that...I am here prepping for upcoming shows. I just pop in here every 30 minutes or so and stay abreast of the discussions. Plus I type 55 words per minute, so It's easy to seem like I have a bunch of time, but honestly, I'm on the phone most of the day. *smile* No time to capture cars driving up and down my street or birds perched on my neighbors roof. Everybody is providing plenty of that kinda stuff. When you see my clips...you will see a MOVIE.


- ShannonRawls.com

I don't mean to insult you Shannon you do offer some great advice around here, however you are the proud owner of a $9000 camcorder that is cutting edge. You must have used it around the house (like you said in the bedroom) and loaded some sample footage into your NLE system just to see what your money got you right. All I am saying is to post some of that raw unedited footage even if it is only 10 seconds. You hold in your hands something new that most of us are extreamly eager to see samples from and those samples are very few. You post how great the HL H1 is but a lot of us can not SEE this since we don't own one. Those clips I long to see may help many actually buy one fo these cutting edge cams. I can't wait to see what this camera will do movie wise for you I bet it will be great but by then some of the wow factor will be gone. All I am saying is let our eyes see what your eyes see. Over in the HVX200 forum the guy from japan is busting his butt to bring some very helpful clips for all to see. I know you post in that forum as well since you are considering purchasing one and I am sure those clips will help you make up your mind. Help others make up thier mind on the XL H1

Jim,

My brutha. You got the wrong guy. I'm not the Black version of Kaku. I'm sorry.
I just don't have the time, patience, web space or bandwidth to go out and shoot some random footage, capture it with my trial version softwares, Open Vegas, cut it, down convert it, upload it to my server and stream it on the internet. Plus, I use 4 lines of Vonage here at my office bro! *smile* I need as much of my DSL bandwidth as I can get for my incoming/outgoing phone calls. No time to upload 100 megs of corny birds i shot in front of my office. download from you guys, YES, upload, no.

Look at Barlows footage: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56677
or peep some of Lauris footage: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56642

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE GIVE THIS MAN SOME FOOTAGE!!! *smile*

I'm sorry Jim. Please don't be mad at me.

- ShannonRawls.com

No worries Shannon and I am sorry for seeming a little harsh. I get a bit techno crazy at times. I look foward to your future projects since you peeked my interest. And like Shannon said someone get me some footage :)

I took my stuff down for a while.

There are 3 clips, 2 are 24F, one is 1080i. They will be obvious. This is just me goofin' around with my kids at the local dealer. They let me take the H1 out in the parking lot and shoot a little before they closed. I was hunting focus in manual mode, so forgive the sloppiness. It was my first time with the camera, and I didn't have time to fiddle with the focus assist stuff.

You'll need the VLC player or if you're on PC, the latest WMP works also

www.homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton

zoomed in - light loss
 

The thread took a couple of Uturns - I was hoping to get some insight on a previous post. I'm going to resubmit it, all respect to the forum intended:



Shannon,

Can you report how they compare when you've zoomed in all of the way?

I've got the Z1 and was quite fond of it's low light capability (for HDV that is), certainly compared to my HD100. However, the Z1 loses a bit when zoomed in (which I thought was f/2.8). To use it on my second mini35 adapter, I need to zoom in almost all the way, which puts it around f/2.6.

As I read the specs on the Canon, I thought it was f/3.5 zoomed in, so even slower, but certainly more zoom capability than the Z1.

So, I'd be curious how it's doing in a lower light scenario when zoomed all the way in (presuming f/3.5, rather than f/1.6 wide), and what your confidence would be in taking it into a lower light venue every once in a while, without lights (live event, say a concert, wedding balcony, etc). Having the nice gain structure you reported would certainly help things...

Lastly, can you confirm the gain setting capabilities as it's currently shipping - is it every 3db (-3, 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15)? I thought there were gaps in the numbers on the spec sheet, and would like to know what you thought of the picture at higher gain levels, while still zoomed in. I hate gain like everyone, but sometimes its a necessary evil, and would like to know what the threshold levels are for decent pictures. I've used the Z1 around 12db in a pinch, and been very impressed - don't care for much gain on the HD100.

Thanks very much for your reports,

Shawn Alyasiri

Shawn,

I'm not a test junkie and if I start doing personal tests now...they wil start flowing in like i'm a support center or something. So let's wait until the shootout for specific requests.

The random tests that you get from me, is just stuff that I happen to be curious about at the time.

- ShannonRawls.com