DVX/ to HVX200 (both original) noise

[arrestthisman]

I ran across some old footage from my DVX, which I sold to buy the HVX200. I found some footage of my old room from when I was younger.

I've always struggled with the HVX and its noise. But just out of curiosity I took some clips of the same room with the same lighting.

I used ALL 6 of barry's main scene files (drange LONOIZ,etc.) and took 9 clips total. Not ONE OF THEM were as clean as the DVX footage.

I know this has been covered before, but I did search after search, and could not find any real consensus. Most of them concluded that the DVX was noiser than the HVX, and this was an orginal dVX, mind you!

I don't understand this. Now, don't get me wrong, the HVX footage, to me, is better because of the rez, and more filmic image. But the cleanliness is no contest.

The best way to put it is that MY DVX is far cleaner than MY HVX. I used the same player to watch the clips. I also know that the DVX footage had been recompressed into DV several times, and the HVX footage was 1st gen.

I'm planning on selling my HVX soon for an HPX anyway, but it'd be nice to know why there is such a difference. Is it because the DVX does well in low light and the HVX does not? (I know my well lit HVX footage is fantastic, but the low light stuff is weak. On the DVX I though the low light footage looked almost as good as the well lit footage.)

(I should note that both were in 24p. The HVX footage was shot in 720 and 1080p. Everything was lit with a single 60 watt bulb.)

Thanks for anyone who can illuminate this. No pun intended. Alright, maybe a little. Thanks. - alex

[TedRR]

You will have plenty of people here to confirm, but I'm pretty sure the DVX was/is better at low light. Especially with only a 60w light source.
Others?

[puredrifting]

More pixels on small 1/3" CCDs=more noise. I still shoot with my DVX for a client who does web, he prefers me to shoot 4:3 Mini DV. I have shot thousands of P2 cards on my HVX and I sold it to afford the HPX170. I even did a shoot using the HVX200 and two other DVXs for a church. Outdoor, bright light. The HVX footage was MUCH cleaner and clearer.

Keep in mind that at 24P, the DVX is rated about ASA 640 vs. ASA 320 for the HVX200. Yes, in low light, the DVX probably is cleaner. As long as we have HD and above resolution on 1/3" and smaller imagers, we will have relatively noisy images. The Sony EX1 is extremely clean, but that camera has 1/2" CMOS imagers so there you go.

Dan

[arrestthisman]

Yeah, thanks for the feedback.

I was kind of astounded at the difference comparing the two. It could also be that there is some major smoothing going on because of the 4:1:1 in the miniDV, that makes the image appear cleaner.

That said, I'm still selling my HVX, because even if the HPX is noiser in low light than the DVX, it'll be better than the HVX. Which is just too grainy for almost all of the work I do. Even a small improvement will go a long way. Also the HVX is kind of fat. I never use the tape deck, and I miss the ergonomics of the DVX.

Grain aside the panny images are pretty gorgeous. So I think the HPX will suit me fine. I considered the EX1...... I still am, a little. I don't know. The chroma edges are night and day, and I prefer a softer look. So....

Anyway, thanks again.

[Barry_Green]

because even if the HPX is noiser in low light than the DVX,
Huh? Did you see my side-by-sides? The HPX170 is shockingly cleaner than even a DVX100B (the lower-noise variant of the DVX).