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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)