Video University: Video University Forums: HDV: **Low Light Comparison** XH A1, FX1, VX2000: Page 2

VideoUniversity.com
Home	Free Library	Store
Free Catalog Please support VU by making your B&H purchases and links through this B&H ad. Doesn't cost a penny more.

See The New VU Postcard Catalog

To post in the forums see the Forum Guidelines.

Join or Renew Today.
New Benefits for all VU Members

Forum Guidelines and FAQ
Main Index	Search Posts
Who's Online	Log In

Home: Video University Forums: HDV:
**Low Light Comparison** XH A1, FX1, VX2000

1 2

View All

renniedj
User

Feb 25, 2007, 8:46 PM

Post #26 of 41 (2457 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Laura K] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

I have been shooting in HD for over a year now, but the fx1 does require more light. Prior to using the fx1 I used the DVX100 which is also a 3 lux camera, but the DVX100 had a brighter image using the same amount of light. Don't get me wrong, I love my fx1, but we are kidding ourselves if we aren't honest as admit that the fx1 needs more light.

Thanks,

David Rennie

Trinity Wedding Video

Laura K
Veteran

Feb 25, 2007, 9:40 PM

Post #27 of 41 (2451 views)
Shortcut

Re: [renniedj] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Well I'm going to using some new cams soon and I've used the DVC 30, DVX 100 and DVC 80,
so I guess I'll have to see for myself how they do. I just watched some footage from the new
Canon on my TV under very difficult conditions. It was pretty darn good. A lot of shots rivaled what I've seen on TV from much
more expensive cameras. I'll be getting in some footage from the different Sony cams soon to see
too, so I guess I'll figure out what will work best then.

However, if what you claim is true, then lux ratings really don't mean a darn thing after all.
We'll see.
L

"... it seems that if you're passionate about something, it freaks people out. You're considered bizarre or eccentric. To me, it just means you know who you are." - director Tim Burton

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

renniedj
User

Feb 25, 2007, 10:13 PM

Post #28 of 41 (2449 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Laura K] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Lux ratings can be used as nothing more than a general guide, at least in my experience. Each camera company seems to use their own "criteria". For example company "A" could say their camera is a 3 lux camera but only at 18db and 30fps, while company "B" also has a 3 lux camera but determines that rating using a gain of 15db and 60fps.

I love my fx1, and have no trouble using it at weddings you just have to plan on using more light than you might otherwise be accustomed to using. I will add I have not regreted going to HD for even 1 second.

Thanks,

David Rennie

Trinity Wedding Video

Laura K
Veteran

Feb 26, 2007, 2:49 AM

Post #29 of 41 (2440 views)
Shortcut

Re: [renniedj] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

Then don't go HD, they all require light. The best they currently muster is 4 lux.

I guess I don't understand, what you are saying is very oposite of
this previous statement. It seems like you are contradicting yourself.
What was your intent?
L

"... it seems that if you're passionate about something, it freaks people out. You're considered bizarre or eccentric. To me, it just means you know who you are." - director Tim Burton

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

renniedj
User

Feb 26, 2007, 9:56 AM

Post #30 of 41 (2421 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Laura K] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Not sure, I don't believe I reversed myself. I was responding to a poster that indicated he did not use a light at all during a wedding. I was simply telling that poster that unless he is willing to add a light to his process that HD is not for him - at least not yet. Perhaps someday (likely many years from today - if ever) HD cameras will perform as well in low light as the PD170, or PD2100.

Thanks,

David Rennie

Trinity Wedding Video

GmElliott
Veteran

Feb 26, 2007, 12:28 PM

Post #31 of 41 (2419 views)
Shortcut

Re: [observerXP] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Observer, I don't mean to offend you but something you did with this comparison is off kilter, big time. I know now first hand because I own an A1 now- great camera, I'll give you that but my PD-170 absolutely trounces the A1 in low light- which I expected.

My results are not even in the ballpark of your examples here. Maybe you have a faulty VX2000?

If anyone reading this is considering getting a Canon A1 because of this example showing better results in low light- BEWARE! It is most definitely NOT the case in any way shape or form. Low light performance is one of the weak points of this camera (as with many other HD cams).

I knew something wasn't right off the bat with this comparison. Glad to have finally resolved it.

Glen Elliott
http://www.GmElliottVideo.com

GmElliott
Veteran

Feb 26, 2007, 12:30 PM

Post #32 of 41 (2416 views)
Shortcut

Re: [videobear] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

But is that fair? Full telephoto for the VX is 12X, but 20X for the A1.

Doug I did tests with this as well. The A1 has about as much of an effective zoom as the VX/PD cams. Reason being is it's much wider in wide end than the Sony cams. I zoomed into the same object across the room and they were aprox the same size in the frame (taking into account the 16:9/4:3 differences). The lense stops down considerably during a long zoom in the A1.

Glen Elliott
http://www.GmElliottVideo.com

GmElliott
Veteran

Feb 26, 2007, 12:35 PM

Post #33 of 41 (2415 views)
Shortcut

Re: [videobear] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

I have to disagree, Shane. I took both the XH-A1 and the FX1 images and added brightness and contrast to maximize visibility of the room, and let the TV image blow out. The A1 required much less processing to reach the same level of brightness, and exhibited much less noise. When both images were processed the same amount, the amount of noise was roughly similar, but the A1's image was much brighter.

Aside from the video noise, resolution seems to be about the same to me. But we can't tell much about that, since the posted images are not full resolution.

Sony FX1/Z1U= 940 x 1080

Canon XL-H1/HX-A1= 1440 x 1080

The Canons have higher res. Sony employs pixel shifting to reach the HD res where as the Canon is a true anamorphic HD resolution.

Glen Elliott
http://www.GmElliottVideo.com

Laura K
Veteran

Feb 26, 2007, 1:15 PM

Post #34 of 41 (2404 views)
Shortcut

Re: [GmElliott] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Sony FX1/Z1U= 940 x 1080

Canon XL-H1/HX-A1= 1440 x 1080

The Canons have higher res. Sony employs pixel shifting to reach the HD res where as the Canon is a true anamorphic HD resolution.

Glen do you have a full understanding of the way this works? If so please explain.
I've never read up on pixel shifting. Also, "true anamorphic" what is that?
L

"... it seems that if you're passionate about something, it freaks people out. You're considered bizarre or eccentric. To me, it just means you know who you are." - director Tim Burton

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

MLiebergot
Veteran

Feb 26, 2007, 1:16 PM

Post #35 of 41 (2404 views)
Shortcut

Re: [GmElliott] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Glen, have you done any setting preset tweaking with the A1's Knee, sharpness, gamma curve, or NR setting (NR1 works great with cuting down the noise).

Unlike the PD/VX line of cameras from Sony, which are customizable to a degree, they are really more of a pul it out of teh box and shoot camera.
As you know, the A1 is so customizable it will make your head spin. It is really a pro camera no prosumer camera if you ask me. But the A1 is anything but a pull out and shoot camera, as the full auto on the camera sucks. But once you create a few settings for your shooting situations, you can get some truly remarkable footage.

Now I don't own an HD camera yet, but have had my hands on an A1 a few times. I have seen some great footage in low light from it, and I believe there might be several useful presets floating around on dvinfo.com's Canon A1 forum.

Also, since you can share and load each other presets, via sd card, then you may want to ask some there for their low light presets.
Then you can just load them into your A1 to save time. Smile

Michael

Cameras: I do use them.
Audio: Yes, it does come with audio if you like.
Software: I am learning...
Support: I need all that i can get.
Computer: MAC BABY!

GmElliott
Veteran

Feb 26, 2007, 2:39 PM

Post #36 of 41 (2401 views)
Shortcut

Re: [MLiebergot] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Hey Michael. I agree the image out of the camera with stock settings is very bland and non-contrasty. Changing the settings can improve the look of footage in low light but it won't make it brighter. The black stretch/compress can help bring out details in shadows, and NR1 can help smooth out gain noise. NR2 is absolutely unusable as it creates very noticable afterimages/blur. NR1 does the same thing but to a much smaller degree.

The settings at which I said the PD-170 trounced the A1 was when I was using the A1's downloadable 12db low light preset from http://www.DVinfo.net/conf

Glen Elliott
http://www.GmElliottVideo.com

(This post was edited by GmElliott on Feb 26, 2007, 2:40 PM)

MLiebergot
Veteran

Feb 26, 2007, 2:45 PM

Post #37 of 41 (2396 views)
Shortcut

Re: [GmElliott] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

In Reply To

Ah understood. i sould have guessed that you would have already downloaded some presets. Crazy

Michael

Cameras: I do use them.
Audio: Yes, it does come with audio if you like.
Software: I am learning...
Support: I need all that i can get.
Computer: MAC BABY!

KevinShaw
Veteran

Feb 27, 2007, 3:49 AM

Post #38 of 41 (2356 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Laura K] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Laura: the Sony FX1/Z1U use some form of digital interpolation to generate 1440 horizontal data points from a sensor with 960 physical pixel elements per row, to yield recorded HDV resolution of 1440x1080 pixels per frame. This in turn is an "anamorphic" representation of the full 1920x1080 pixels required to display 1080i/p footage on a square-pixel monitor, like a 1080p LCD HDTV. That's similar to how DV can be used to generate a widescreen image corresponding to 854x480 square pixels, even though DV by definition only has 720x480 recorded pixels for NTSC recording. Anamorphic means the recorded pixels aren't square, which requires them to be interpreted (i.e. stretched) when displayed on a square-pixel monitor.

The Canon HDV cameras have a sensor with 1440x1080 physical pixel elements, meaning each sensor pixel maps directly to the 1440x1080 recorded pixels without interpolation. The end result is more "real" resolution than other low-cost HD cameras, as measured in various comparisons including the Texas HD Shootout.

GmElliott
Veteran

Feb 27, 2007, 8:25 PM

Post #39 of 41 (2326 views)
Shortcut

Re: [kwshaw1] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Thanks Kshaw- couldn't of said it better than that myself...litterally. Smile

Glen Elliott
http://www.GmElliottVideo.com

Postal Boy
Veteran

Feb 28, 2007, 9:37 AM

Post #40 of 41 (2297 views)
Shortcut

Re: [GmElliott] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

It also looks like - in the example images - that the VX images is stretched (873x480) instead of 720x480. That could account for some of the extra fuzzyness.

-Postal

fr0gm@n
Veteran

Mar 16, 2007, 7:21 PM

Post #41 of 41 (2070 views)
Shortcut

Re: [GmElliott] Low Light Comparison XH A1, FX1, VX2000 [In reply to]	Can't Post

Glenn,

I have checked this thread occasionally and since I have been playing around with the A1 a little I thought I would pipe in a little.

Quote

NR2 is absolutely unusable as it creates very noticable afterimages/blur. NR1 does the same thing but to a much smaller degree.

I think you got this statement backwards. The NR1 creates ghosting. The ghosting at the low setting isn't too bad and would be usable if the movement is not too fast. The med and high settings are just ugly. Would be good for a talking head and not much else. NR2 basically softens the image a little to smooth out the grain.

Someone recently uploaded a preset on dvinfo.net for a vivid color setting. I downloaded it tried it out...yea it is very saturated. Looks good outside but not inside. I studied the settings a minute and toned them down a bit and played with the stretch/compress, knee, setup and stuff and created a new low light preset. I took it upstairs where it was much darker and snapped a few stills. When I opened them in PS and cranked up the levels the new version had a little more color and a little less ugly noise than the one copied from dvinfo forums.

The vivid preset had cranked up the color gain for each color and also for each color matrix. I scaled those back to about half what the downloaded setting was and then set the black to press to make the blacks richer and used the setup and knee settings to bring out the detail a little in the black. I basically tried to up the brightness of everything but the blacks with the knee and setup controls and then pressed the blacks to make everything else pop a little bit. I set the NR1 to off and the NR2 to medium. I figured that with low light a little softer image would be preferable if I could get nice colors and the main detail looking good. I figured the trade off would be worth it.

I haven't tried it yet on real footage and then messed around with in the computer but it seems like a pretty decent preset. I sent you a PM with the preset attached it if you want to try it out and see what you think of it. I know the A1 is not going to be PD like in low light but I do think it is going to be very sufficient for the job. I think it is better than a GL2 (which I own a few of) and there are plenty of event people working and making money with one of those. After seeing the VH Video peoples footage in Jax I am convinced HDV cameras of today are up to the task.....if you don't mind using a light in a non-obtrusive way.

Why does a gorilla have big nostrils.......cause it has big fingers.

frog blog

(This post was edited by fr0gm@n on Mar 16, 2007, 7:22 PM)

1 2

View All