Video University: Video University Forums: HDV: Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light

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:
Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light

1 2

View All

Mathew
Veteran

Jan 30, 2005, 12:29 PM

Post #1 of 37 (4357 views)
Shortcut

Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light	Can't Post

Somebody just picked up a Z1 and has posted his thoughts on it over on Creative Cow. I don't wish to dog the camera nor the format but the owner stated that the camera is pretty poor in low light. This doesn't bode well for the low end HD format in general because you need larger pixels w/ larger sensors to achieve better low light.

Mark Foley
Veteran

Jan 30, 2005, 12:33 PM

Post #2 of 37 (4344 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mathew] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Yep...clearly too early to jump formats now. However, these are the first generation of HD cams and I imagine they will dramitically improve in the future. Hopefully other issues such as delivery will have time to mature before we are forced to switch to stay competitive in our local markets....

_________________________
Mark

Jeff N
Veteran

Jan 30, 2005, 1:03 PM

Post #3 of 37 (4317 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mark Foley] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Well said Mark,
Until there is a viable delivery option and one that is widely accepted and intergrated, it seems going to HDV is for tech fans and those who have the funds to be academically curious.
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeff
www . eriekids . com

Mark Von Lanken
Veteran

Jan 30, 2005, 1:23 PM

Post #4 of 37 (4287 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mathew] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

We bought a VX-1000 in 97. When the VX-2000 came out it was amazing how much better it was in low light. I would expect the same thing will happen with Sony's line of HDV cameras.

A friend of mine has shot with 2000s and a DSR-300 for several years. He recently sold it all and went strictly with Sony's HDVs. He initially bought one new Sony to compare it with his DSR-300. He said while the new Sony is noticably worse in low light the gain up is extremely clean. He did gain up to 12 dB and the picture equaled the DSR-300 in brightness but it didn't have the noise of the 2000 at 12dB.

For those that aren't familiar with the DSR-300 it is better in low light than the VX2000.

I'm excited to see the development of HDV, but not ready to make the jump, yet.

All My Best,
Mark Von Lanken
Picture This Productions
www.TulsaWeddingVideos.com

Mathew
Veteran

Jan 30, 2005, 1:37 PM

Post #5 of 37 (4272 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mark Von Lanken] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Yeah the Sony gain circuitry is pretty impressive. Physically a camera needs a bigger sensor w/ bigger pixels to swallow up as much light as possible. What I don't like about the Sony image in low light is that it has that monochromatic look like a single sensor camera.

I always thought that a single 2/3" chip camera would be perfect for weddings and be economical. There was some talk about the future of CCD's over on dvinfo. One of the reasons our cameras cost so much is that they have the 3 sensors. If digital still cameras can utilize one sensor then I don't see why video cameras can't either. To be honost I think 3CCD's is partially a marketing gimick on us video professionals.

gl
Veteran

Jan 30, 2005, 2:13 PM

Post #6 of 37 (4247 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mathew] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Not suprised in the least. Something had to give on this and lowlight is usually first. I am still holding out for Panasonic on this front. The fact that Panny and Apple have worked so closely together is another reason. I am guessing the workflow with a panasonic solution will be much cleaner than the "HDV solution". You just can't get any cleaner than the way DVCPRO50 goes into FCP.

gl<-dreaming of a sub-$10K SDX900720P

Jenn M
Veteran

Jan 30, 2005, 4:29 PM

Post #7 of 37 (4214 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mark Von Lanken] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

We noticed enough of a difference between the Sony VX2100 and VX2000 to replace them this past year. The VX2100 is a 2lux difference and it does show in darker churches and venues.

Mark Von Lanken
Veteran

Jan 30, 2005, 6:55 PM

Post #8 of 37 (4153 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Jenn M] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Hey Jenn,

I didn't know there was a 2 lux difference between the 2100 and the 2000. Thanks for the info.

All My Best,
Mark Von Lanken
Picture This Productions
www.TulsaWeddingVideos.com

RustyB
Veteran

Jan 30, 2005, 7:21 PM

Post #9 of 37 (4143 views)
Shortcut

Re: Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think the VX2000 is a 2 versus the 1 of the VX2100. Amazingly, that 1 lux is a very noticable difference, IMHO.

If the Z1 can match that of my VX2000, then I'd be very happy. I could care less about not being able to deliver an HD DVD. Delivering a widescreen DVD that isn't simply a 4:3 video that's had the top and bottom hacked off means a LOT to me, however.

Not to mention, from the looks of Shane's latest post, his FX1 is still sharp with great colors in no light. The color on my VX2000 goes to crap in poor light as the gain goes up, and I have to bump up the color on the fly at the reception.

As for the single chippers...despite weaker colors, when comparing low light footage between my old Digital8 Handycam and my new PDX10 and TRV950 cameras, I honestly think the one chip does pretty darn well.

Mathew: I've wondered that myself. I'm not a technical wiz, but have always wondered why photographer's cameras aren't 3-chip, if 3 chips are needed for better color. No, they just go with large single chip cameras instead, and nice glass. Things that make you go, hmmm....

In Reply To

Hey Jenn,

I didn't know there was a 2 lux difference between the 2100 and the 2000. Thanks for the info.

All My Best,
Mark Von Lanken
Picture This Productions
www.TulsaWeddingVideos.com

faith poison wedding films
anger is an energy

kevin
User

Jan 30, 2005, 7:32 PM

Post #10 of 37 (4135 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mark Von Lanken] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Hum.. that sounds exactly like a guy I know down here in the Dallas area.

In Reply To

LAWMAN
Novice

Jan 31, 2005, 1:01 AM

Post #11 of 37 (4101 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Mathew] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

I wouldn't really call it HD but HDV. There is a huge difference between really high definition produced by the HDcam and DVCPro50 HD formats and this HDV format. Like night and day. Really !

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
In response to:
Somebody just picked up a Z1 and has posted his thoughts on it over on Creative Cow. I don't wish to dog the camera nor the format but the owner stated that the camera is pretty poor in low light. This doesn't bode well for the low end HD format in general because you need larger pixels w/ larger sensors to achieve better low light.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DSE
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 2:02 AM

Post #12 of 37 (4088 views)
Shortcut

Re: [LAWMAN] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Anyone expecting the HDV cameras of today to behave like a CineAlta is a fool. Monster difference in the two. 1.2m pix vs 2.2m pix, not to mention much better glass. Different sampling/compression formats. But in response to folks focusing on low light, either they are having exceptionally different experiences than the people I've worked with/talked to, or they just haven't had enough time to learn how to set up the camera. After all, it's only been a week. I suspect it's more the latter than the former. It does take time to know how to set this cam up.
http://www.cinemaminima.com/...ng/index.php?id=P419 has a few comments on the cam and what they saw projected on a 20' screen. More than a couple thousand saw it, and for the few that questioned it, the cameraman in question went out on the streets in Park City and shot more of it, then projected it right from the camera so no one could say it was processed footage.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

Joel
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 10:23 AM

Post #13 of 37 (4042 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DSE] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Douglas,

This is really pointless untli more people get their hands on these. But just a few comments - the cinematographer mentioned states that it was noise free at 12db. Another VUster mentions that he knows of an FX1 buyer that states that the camera at 12db is equal to a DSR300 at 0db. I've owned a DSR300 and know that it has the same light sensitivity as a VX2100, albeit with a cleaner picture, so the FX1 is going to have another click to 18db to get what the DSR300 or VX2100 shows at 6db. After 18db there is no where to go unless you have the Z1U. A post on Creative Cow said that the hypergain on the Z1U is all but unusable because of grain. You need to remember that in wedding videography low light ability is the most important feature we look for in a camera. The FX1 is a step backward.

Joel

"Think of this business as a room with a huge table and a bunch of chairs around the table. There is a big pie on the table. Your mission is to take your place at the table, pick up your fork, and eat your pie. Do not look to the left and do not look to the right. Just eat your pie. There is plenty of pie for everyone."

starting | perfectionists

DSE
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 11:04 AM

Post #14 of 37 (4014 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Joel] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think you're right. It's pointless. Not because not enough people have their hands on the cameras, but more because there are apparently two camps on this one. There are those that don't like it either based on what someone else says, or based on legitimate reasons, such as some of those brought up here. There are those that are interested in the new format for the added potential it brings.
I can't say "Don't listen to the naysayers because they don't know what they're saying" and then turn around and say "Listen to me, because I've got as many or more hours on the Z1 than anyone else" because that's hypocrisy. So, all I can suggest is that the light situation mentioned by Shannon in his post, ISN'T the experience that I've had, nor the experience that others around me have had. Jody and Beto have both shot a lot of footage with the cam in extremely difficult situations where not only was it dark, but there were extreme contrasts in the dark to light dynamics. I've done the same. All three of us had footage on three different large screens at Sundance and here at our studio. (only 12' here) Everyone who saw the footage was blown away. But we all know how to set up the camera. Maybe that's the difference. Maybe it's not. I don't shoot weddings, obviously. I've been to many. Never seen one as dark as a bar lit only by neon lights half way across the room. Same with the Santa Monica Third Street Promenade late at night. Very dark, with only the closed store lights on, and twinkle lights in the trees. Very dark, with hotspots. Footage is great.
Seems to me the *real* issues for the wedding guy is the current lack of true HD delivery methods that are ubiquitous. You guys don't deliver on HDCam, so you're left with only a few options. On the other hand, as Shane pointed out in another thread, he also proved to himself that HD downsampled to SD and burned to DVD looks better (to his eye) than SD burned to DVD. That's been the experience of most who have had the camera for a while.
Again, I can't comment much on the FX1, as I've had limited time with the camera. I need the professional version for what I do, for the audio features alone.
The HDV camera format isn't for everyone. But it's good in low light, contrary to what some say, or at least in the opinions of myself and every pro who's used it. If you're not interested in HDV, then why bother reading the posts? If you're not considering buying one, if you don't own one, what's the value in making negative comments about a camera you've not shot pictures with, don't plan on buying, and have no interest in? Seems like it's a lot of effort for zero gain unless you feel the need to justify what you already own. What's the point?

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

Joel
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 11:29 AM

Post #15 of 37 (4001 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DSE] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

If you're not interested in HDV, then why bother reading the posts? If you're not considering buying one, if you don't own one, what's the value in making negative comments about a camera you've not shot pictures with, don't plan on buying, and have no interest in? Seems like it's a lot of effort for zero gain unless you feel the need to justify what you already own. What's the point?

The point is information. I am interested in HDV. I was going to buy a Z1U, partly because of your information that it's a viable camera for what I do. I've cancelled the pre-order though due to the contridictory reviews that have appeared after the first few units got into the hands of unbiased users. These are people that don't pick and choose what comments get passed along through PR channels. I think it's important for people to have access to objective opinions about subjects that affect our industry.

Joel

"Think of this business as a room with a huge table and a bunch of chairs around the table. There is a big pie on the table. Your mission is to take your place at the table, pick up your fork, and eat your pie. Do not look to the left and do not look to the right. Just eat your pie. There is plenty of pie for everyone."

starting | perfectionists

DSE
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 12:14 PM

Post #16 of 37 (3982 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Joel] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'm biased towards the format, not the camera. I've posted where I think the camera is weak. Unbiased opinions of those that have the Z1 in their hands? How many can that be? The cam started shipping last Thursday. How long does it take to get used to the camera? There are a few of us who've had access to the cam for a while. Not one person who has had access to the cam has found anything different than I have. When I first started shooting the cam, I too, found a lot of fault with the camera. And had to talk to people in Japan about it, because the folks in Park Ridge weren't fully up to speed either. Once I learned how to operate it, (there was no owners manual in November/December) I realized my previous prejudices were incorrect. I still feel that CF24 is not what it should have been/could be. That's the biggest weakness of the cam, IMO. I've posted dark footage shot with the cam, sunlit footage, and bright light footage. I don't know how to make that any more objective. I've also seen many reviews where the FX1 has been crippled deliberately to shoot against other cameras. That's less than objective, that's a disservice.
I've never said the Z1 is a "viable camera for weddings" because I don't shoot weddings. It's a very sweet cam, works in low light, and provides a very pretty image. It provides very cinematic images if you use the picture profiles to look the way you'd like them to. But as I've said many times, this isn't the camera for everyone. No camera is, film or digital.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

Storm Crow
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 12:19 PM

Post #17 of 37 (3981 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DSE] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

The only thing I can say is that this camera would either force you to have the reception or for that matter, the church venue keep the lights up some or force you to become somewhat un-obtrusive. It may be good for some but not for all situations unless you go to lights, lights, lights.
_________________________________________________

Good Friend, around these hearth stones, speak no evil of any creature.

Warning: Exposure to the Son can prevent burn!
_________________________________________________

szerangue
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 12:37 PM

Post #18 of 37 (3969 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DSE] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Douglas,
Thanks for the posts. Maybe we need to start an HDV group so that we can begin to learn how to produce better pictures with these cameras rather than trying to convert the naysayers. Anyway, I am very interested in learning more about 'how to setup this camera to achieve the best picture'. Also, you said that the camera began shipping last week? Is that directly from Sony? BH says it will not be available for 2 - 4 weeks? One more thing, I am debating on purchasing another FX1 or biting the bullet and buying the Z1. Do you think the hyperzoom and the <black stretch?> are worth the extra money? I can do without the XLRs and the separate audio adjustments, but am looking for the ability to get the best picture I can from low light.
Miracle Pictures
"If it's a good picture, it's a Miracle!"

"Life Productions, coming out of the dark, into the light"
4EVER GROUP AFFILIATE

DSE
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 12:43 PM

Post #19 of 37 (3963 views)
Shortcut

Re: [szerangue] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

For me, Hypergain and Black stretch are worth it. I pay the same price for the cam as you do, FWIW. I bought one from BandPro, and the other is on order from B&H. The cams came in earlier than expected, so B&H might be shipping them now, or very soon.
The additional CinemaTone and CinemaGamma are worth it to me too, plus the 14 profiles. But mostly, the audio is the critical tool for me. By the time I attach a Studio Devices or Beachtek to the FX1, I'm only a couple hundred bucks less than the Z1, and I still wouldn't have the additional video features. The Instant Record is important to me too, but it might not be for everyone else.
I can see the color correction/color shift as being a benefit for some, although I'll likely not use it much. That's a post function for me more often than not.
[edit] there are HDV user groups, just that it's not nice to point to other sites.[edit]

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

(This post was edited by DSE on Jan 31, 2005, 12:45 PM)

szerangue
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 12:46 PM

Post #20 of 37 (3957 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DSE] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Thanks Douglas
Miracle Pictures
"If it's a good picture, it's a Miracle!"

"Life Productions, coming out of the dark, into the light"
4EVER GROUP AFFILIATE

LAWMAN
Novice

Jan 31, 2005, 12:46 PM

Post #21 of 37 (3958 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DSE] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

I definitely agree with you. However, there are a lot of people misinformed here thinking that they are really shooting the top high definition qualitywith this camera. I have seen the quality this camera produces. It is definitely quite sharp. (100% sharper than any DV camera) But it stops there. The colors are not the pastel like colors of a Varicam or AltaCine HD camera, neither the contrast rendition, colormetry, sharpness, etc. But again, as you even said, one must be a fool to try to compare an HDV $5k camcorder to an HDcam or DVCPro50HD High Definition camera.

Would I buy an HDV camera? Probably yes, to offer higher quality for the customers who demand that quality. We have to realize the limitations of each format.

DSE
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 1:09 PM

Post #22 of 37 (3931 views)
Shortcut

Re: [LAWMAN] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think they're comparable, it's just knowing what you are comparing and then putting things into perspective.
4:2:2 uncompressed is clearly far better than shooting 4:2:0 MPEG2 compression. Then again, MPEG 2 compression is far more robust than DV compression, so that's a benefit.
2.2 million pixels in a CineAlta vs 1.2 million pixels in the HDV.
MUCH larger CCD's in the CineAlta, vs 1/3 chips in the HDV.
CineAlta provides a TRUE image in every sense, where the HDV cam takes advantage of the weaknesses in the human eye. As an experiment, I put HDV with a .03 saturation boost on a split screen against very well shot CineAlta footage on a 20' screen. No one could tell the difference visually. But as soon as it came time to key, or even just viewing on a waveform, the difference was immediately noticable. But that's what people miss about the whole HDV concept, it's designed to work with the weakness of the eye, not be the technical perfection that the CineAlta offers. And it does a pretty good job. It doesn't key quite as well, it's color depth definitely isn't as rich, and it's not quite as sharp. On the plus side, the MPEG makes the macroblocks seem less obvious whereas the sharpness of CineAlta makes them VERY obvious when zoomed in, and the MPEG's smoothing features are more forgiving of a less professional shooter than HDCam is.
Most importantly, it matches up, or can be made to match up very well with the HDCam footage, so lots of Hollywood guys are buying these for crash cams or for use where they can't get a 700/900 due to space, and intercutting. They've tried for years to do this with DV cams, and it simply can't be done. For the Hollywood and episodics, or even for Nightline, this is not a primary cam, but a secondary cam. On the other hand, it's using similar technology as Beta SX and IMX, with double the resolution, only in a different compression depth. The cam provides very pretty pictures, and at the end of the day, that's what it's all about, IMO.
All this is aside from whatever NLE is used, how it manages color, and if it's truly HD ready. (ITU 709) Few NLE's are. That'll make a big diff in quality of output too.
But you're right, there are people thinking they can compete with the guy that owns a 100K cam by only spending 5K, and while the images can be made very similar, they aren't the same images. Sony would be slitting their own throat if they did something that dumb. Not to mention bleeding money.
The grail is still CineAlta or ViperCam.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

Joel
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 1:13 PM

Post #23 of 37 (3930 views)
Shortcut

Re: [DSE] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

Quote

"Not one person who has had access to the cam has found anything different than I have."

Here is the post from a guy who has a different opinion of the low light abiilty of these cameras:
http://www.creativecow.net/...3822&forumid=162

In particular:
" shot you a low-light test clip.... When I reviewed the footage, I couldn't beleive it...it was like I was staring at a black wall. But with my own eyes, it was clear. The room was bright guys, trust me. Even when I closed all the doors, I could still see EVERYTHING. I wouldnt have bumped into anybody if someone else was in there with me. And then towards the end, when I opened the door back up, it became bright enough in there that I could have sat down and read a freaking novel! Seriosuly.

So....Low-Light....is not happinin' on this camera. Not like a PD170 or VX2100. No way no how!"

Joel

"Think of this business as a room with a huge table and a bunch of chairs around the table. There is a big pie on the table. Your mission is to take your place at the table, pick up your fork, and eat your pie. Do not look to the left and do not look to the right. Just eat your pie. There is plenty of pie for everyone."

starting | perfectionists

DSE
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 1:18 PM

Post #24 of 37 (3925 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Joel] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

So, seems to me you take the math of:
Jody Eldred (DP of the Year/Directors Guild of America)-loves the cam in low light
minus
Poster on the COW who has had the cam for 3 days-hates the cam in low light

Equals---you can't draw any conclusion.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
Author, producer, composer
www.vasst.com
"I enjoy music, long walks at sunset on the beach, and poking dead things with a sharp stick."

szerangue
Veteran

Jan 31, 2005, 1:26 PM

Post #25 of 37 (3911 views)
Shortcut

Re: [Joel] Interesting thread concerning Z1 and low light [In reply to]	Can't Post

My God, Joel. I posted a clip on here that was shot in what sounds like much lower light than what that poster on the Cow was shooting in and, if you disregard my poor shooting ability and just concentrate on the picture, you can see that it is very capable of shooting in low light!! What makes you think this guy using the camera correctly? Did you see the footage he shot? Those are just words. I feel sorry for this guy who spent so much money on what he thinks is a dog of a camera. Perhaps he would have been better off buying another VX2000.
Miracle Pictures
"If it's a good picture, it's a Miracle!"

"Life Productions, coming out of the dark, into the light"
4EVER GROUP AFFILIATE

1 2

View All