Low light...

[Flintstone]

OK! I'm going insane here! I'm having doubts about which camera to buy (again); and I need to buy reeeeeal soooon! Well the doubts aren't that bad, but I just need a slight nudge in the right direction. I've been caught in the low light trap, and the truth escapes me! And we all know the truth is out there! ;)

I've itemized the pros and cons between both the Sony PD170 and the Panasonic DVX100, the reasons why, came up with the workarounds to counter any cons, and gave a subjective weight to it (the mathematical way to do it ;D). Overall, and I mean that in the most general sense possible, on paper, the PD170 and the DVX100 are pretty much toe to toe (to my subjective weighing process). The difference though is in the essencials, what I feel are the most important features to me; and in that weight system, the DVX100 came out the winner, but one category remains to be illumated, and that is low light.

As you know the new Sony PD-170 is coming out in December. This new and marginaly improved PD-150 boasts a 1 lux rating. The DVX has a rating of 3 lux. Now, I've personally tested both PD150 and DVX100 cams side by side last spring, and my main beef with the DVX100 is the low light capability (not that it's bad, but it's not that good either). The PD150 was better, or rather less grainy. Naturally I wouldn't shoot a whole event in such conditions. Controlled shots are easy, just add water... I mean lights. Events where your environment is not under your control is the real problem.

So my question is this. As an event videographer, how do you deal with low light, say in wedding receptions where the DJ drastically lowers the lights for the dance? The idea is to avoid putting a harsh light on top of the camcorder, so as not to upset your subjects, and loose the wonderful kodak moments. Should I rent some lights and flood the ceiling to get the necessary light? Shoud I use an extremely diffused and not so bright on-camera light? Shower the room with Infra-Red floods? Any and all suggestions are welcome.

Fred

[J.R. Hudson]

Maybe the DVX is not the right camera for you. It sounds as if you will be shooting on the fly? I understand the DVX is more suited for shooters that demand CONTROL.

My vote is DVX.

But I also want to make films.

IF you are doing weddings and such, perhaps the other camera will suit you.

Anyone?

[Flintstone]

Funny... I was expecting a rather DVX biased answer. :D

You are correct John, shooting on the fly is what is mostly required in event videography such as weddings. But it's not the only type of videos I shoot. I also produce corporate videos, where shots can be planned and controlled. I was under the impression though, that using the DVX100 at 60i would allow me to capture moments on the fly just as easily as the PD-150/170 could. All the while giving me the freedom to choose other settings as the job requires.

[J.R. Hudson]

I was once very torn between the DVX and the XL1s. I searched and searched and asked and asked everyone and their mother about which I should get.

The DVX it was.

Someone summed it up for me: 24p

I have seen some amazing footage with the DVX. Whether you are doing weddings or Industrials isn't the final question:

Which one will look better?

So, why don't you qit playing games and run out and get your DVX. Go on now. Go. We'll wait here for you.

:)

Was that biased?

Really. Go DVX. Go 24p.

[24Peter]

I shot my sister's wedding recently with my DVX in 60i (I don't recommend 24/30p unless you can control the lighting or it is a daytime (outside) wedding.)

The camera did great in low light situations, at least from the graniness standpoint. Even at 12db gain, the image was very usable. I've gotten more graininess problems from messing with the color matrix or master ped settings. The Sonys are supposedly the low light kings and I've never shot with one so can't compare for you. But my experience was very good with the DVX at my sister's wedding. (I didn't bring any lights.)

Now my aspirations are feature film directing so in this price range there isn't another camera for me. If low light shooting live events is your bread and butter and you'll never be shooting 24/30p, get either the DVC-80 or the Sony and don't even bother with the DVX. On the other hand I've seen several people post wedding footage on-line they've shot with the DVX in progressive mode with great results. So I guess all that means you're still stuck in your quandry. ???

[Flintstone]

;D OK then. Concerning 24p. I've seen fast pans from a monitor connected directly to the DVX, and it appeared quite jittery. Is this misleading? Should pans and fast paced action be shot on still tripods? Or if pans & tilts are needed, should they remain slow and steady? Or is it a big fat misconception. And how come I don't notice this jitter effect at the movies (Film source, or DV source such as 28 days)?

As for editing, I'm presently crippled with the god forsaken Adobe Premiere 6.5 and Matrox RTX100 combo. I've made up my mind to switch for a more stable and versatile environment that is 24p friendly. Choices up to date: Vegas+DVD (PC) and FCP4 (Mac), both offer 24p editing. Any insights?

[24Peter]

I'm told the same issues arise when panning shooting 24p on the DVX that arise when shooting film. It's more a process of the 24fps than the camera. My experience: slow steady pans are fine in 24p. Faster pans are best done in 30p (which is a great middle ground between 24p and 60i.) That being said, I recently started shooting my next short film project. I'm shooting 24pN. I've been fooling around with different shutter speeds and I've settled upon 1/36th for two reasons: a noticeably brighter image at the same f-stops (or at least it *seems subjectively brighter to me since I'm not sure if that's possible) and less of that jittery look on fast camera movement/pans. The slower shutter speed ("standard" [normal] shutter speed for 24p is 1/50th) seems to take some of the edge off fast pans (though I must admit, even at normal or faster shutter speeds I've never been put off by the jittery look like some people. I've shot at 1/100th and even 1/250th and really like the look.)

I edit with Vegas 4.0. Not perfect but very good software for the price. Shop around. I paid $269 for the full, licensed version of 4.0 (no DVD-A) a few months ago and it makes editing 24p a no-brainer.

[J.R. Hudson]

It depends on what 'look' you are after. Check Saving Pvt. Ryan and Black Hawk Down. Both have a very jittery, doc style look. 45 degree shutters, Frantic.

In fact, I remember 28 days later having a similar look and feel in the rain scenes.

Hell, look at the scene in Three Kings where they shoot the iraqui soldiers in the town. They used a combo pan/push dolly/zoom trick. ON PURPOSE. It looks very jittery.

YOU can pull off what you want, you just have to plan for it properly. You can have control.

I think that question has to many variables. You can shoot hand held, steadicam, sticks, dolly or crane. Each one can have a very different aesthetic to it. You can use harsh available lighting, the mad Mole light kit, 24p, 60i, open iris, closed iris, ND, ana lens, mattes,.......

Okay, I'm doing that tangent thing. I think you can achieve the look you want with practice and knowing as much in advance about where and what you'll be shooting. Make sense?

I will be purchasing VEGAS btw.

[Flintstone]

Thanks 24Peter... I think! * ;D (on first reply)

Weddings, events, and corporate vids are only one aspect. *I like to keep my options open. As such, it is true that shooting standard 60i will be all that is needed or required for my main source of revenue. *It's just that I have not been properly immersed in the 24/30p realm, and I have yet to see the short and long term benefits of shooting progressive... *

Hmm... *As I am writing this, I guess I answered my own question. *In order to explore and express my artistic side, I must have the necessary tools at my disposal to freely express my ideas. *If 24p is the medium that best expresses it, the so be it. *If not, then at least I have the option to choose. *Having a versatile camcorder such as the DVX, should outweigh minor inconveniences that, in theory, be surmountable with proper training and practice.

My original question still stands though. *Let me rephrase it though. *In low light situations (60i), what would be the best lighting scheme as to not assault the subjects with overwhelming and intimidating lights.

[Flintstone]

Yes John, it make perfect sense. Thanks. As I've mentionned in the post right above this one. I've finally realized that keeping my options open is most likely the best policy, and overall, the DVX100 will provide the necessary options when the time comes.

Now that you metion it, I remember the 28 days rain scenes, this alone should fuel me to experiment with 24p. Now that I know what to look for, I will study the shots in other movies. Practice makes perfect.

24Peter, John, and other Vegas users: What prompted you to choose Vegas over other 24p enabled packages? Is Vegas THE 24p king in the PC world?

[SirAllen]

"Or if pans & tilts are needed, should they remain slow and steady?"

Slow and steady are the key words, both for film and the DVX. Why don't Hollywood movies look jittery? Slow and steady movements....If you treat the DVX like a film camera in terms of movements, it will give you the same film qualities.

To answer your low light question. Having used both the PD150 and now owning a DVX100, if the PD150 is 10 on low light I'd give the DDVX100 a 9. Now the new PD170 may be an 11 or 12, that is yet to be seen.

The good thing about the DVX is you can tweak the gamma, and color settings if you're gettting noticable grain while gaining. The blue channel seems to be the noisiest (at least on mine) so I tend to warm it up to remove some of the grain in real low light situations. I've been very pleased with it's low light performance.

[Flintstone]

Really? You can actually remove noise by tweaking the gamma and color settings? Wow! I suppose then, this could be done in post? Or is the gamma tweaks actually influencing the DSP processing?

[SirAllen]

You can also mess with the master PED to help control noise. I believe gamma comes after the DSP, but you can still use it to help control hightlighting of areas that may have a lot of noise.

I'm not sure if lowering the blue channel in post would have the same effect, would have to run some tests. I usually try to get it to look the best I can before post, and then if tweaking is needed post, fine, but I'd rather get it as close to perfect up front ;)

[Guest]

Why don't Hollywood movies look jittery? Slow and steady movements....If you treat the DVX like a film camera in terms of movements, it will give you the same film qualities.

This is exactly true. On a recent commercial job we shot everything with the DVX, but the client wanted to shoot film for some particular pieces. We shot the exact same material on film and on the DVX/24P. I then split-screen'd the footage to compare, and the motion rendering is identical. The DVX is amazingly filmlike.

[Neil Rowe]

yes if you want to see a hollywood movie with some bad camera movement resulting in jitter..watch S.W.A.T. in specific i remember one scene where the swat team is hanging out next to a pool, and the camera is panning. i noticed considerable jitter in th movement. i think theres more jitter in all films than you think, and it just goes unnoticed, because your watching whats going on more than your analizing everything about whats on the screen as we are tempted to do with our dvxs. last time i watched a movie in the theatre, i watched some of the previews critically, and youll noticed lots of things like jitter, camera shake, slight lense flares, and all sorts of stuff.. i think for the most part its always there, but you just have to be looking for it before youll notice it.---

anyway- about the original topic of this post.. the whole 1 lux thing.. not to be dvx biased, but do you know how dark 1 lux is.. very dark. i cant imagine that you would ever be asked to go into a room with the lights off, and no windows, and a lightning bug doing its thing in the center of the room, and walk out with an amazing video(corporate or noncorporate). so the idea that you made need that in a camera is somewhat ludicrous. and yes the dvx can get down to very low lit situations when in the interlaced mode, or even using 30p i believe is the same. so i think youd be selling yourself short to make the descision based on ("can i pick up the spark of a wintergreen lightsaver in your mouth if i need to " vs "do i have film like gamma and 24p options if i need them"). but thats just me. your also sacrificing the tele on the dvx for a wider lense- the dvx is really geared towards controlled situations , but can hold its own running auto as well. anyhow whatever cam you get , good luck, and well see you in the movies!

[J.R. Hudson]

24Peter, John, and other Vegas users: *What prompted you to choose Vegas over other 24p enabled packages? *Is Vegas THE 24p king in the PC world?

I have not yet purchased VEGAS, but will be. But my decsion is based on being familar with others available (at least ADOBE and FCP). Since ADOBE isn't hooking up with the 24p aspect and FCP is geared towards the Mac (I'm a DELL guy), Vegas seems like a no-brainer. Again, for me, I guess, it goes back o 24p, and if Vegas is 24p friendly, then that is what I want.

[shAi]

it was probably lost in the last server crash dvxuser.com experienced, but zoomforce made a great example of low light, with frame grabs, side by side, showing how low light looks in 60i comparing to 24p.
zoomforce.... can you bring it up again???

[J.R. Hudson]

Are you referring to the MASTERPED shots?

Anyway, those were great as well!

[shAi]

no.. something with candle lights in his bathroom...

[shAi]

anyway, bottom-line was that in low-light, like in lots of things in life, quality beats quantity. in other words, getting a lousy picture in low light (noisy video with full gain up) is not such a hit. getting a nice DARK picture, with some details in shadows is already something. so exposure latitude might save you in most reasonable low light conditions. underexposing with DVX/cine-gamma, not like with most other cameras, is possible.

my extra 0.02, if you shoot your documentary and find yourself in a very precious moment, with a very low-light condition, switch to 60i, hit full gain and get it on tape, same like with other cameras!

[J.R. Hudson]

You make a really good point. Like the great paintings by the 'masters':

Dark does not mean bad. Higlights work. Splashes of light work.

Now everything has to look like a sitcom.

[24Peter]

Re:low light frame grabs - yeah - Jarred was showing his romantic side - candles around a tub (with bubble bath?) ;D

Re: Vegas - for me it was a combination of things: Vegas was an early (perhaps the first) widely used NLE to support the DVX 24p modes. It's reasonably priced. It's relatively stable. And it's got great features. FCP is obviously a great NLE. But you have to buy a Mac to use it. Not for me.

[Flintstone]

Thank you for all your insights. My mind is made up. I'm going with the Sony... JUST KIDDING! ;D Seriously, I'm definitely going with the DVX100. Ultimately, my choice is based on the fact that the DVX is, overall, and by far, the most versatile camcorder in it's price range. Thank you again for making me realize that one has to look at the big picture, and not the minor details.

I know that Vegas supports 24p now, but aren't you affraid that Sony might hinder future developments in that arena?

By the way, I tried the eval version today... Being a Premiere user, I felt completely lost. Actually, it's the third time I've tried Vegas over the year. I find the UI is really awkward. Now that I've decided to purchase the DVX100, I feel I must dig more seriously into Vegas. Any insigts? What's the learning curve like?

[SirAllen]

Vegas to me was by far the simplest to use NLE I've ever gotten a chance to use. But, I wasn't carying any bagage, so I guess if you're used to one thing for many years, any change is going to be hard.

Now, back to low light. Seeing a lot of posts on other boards, many people seem to think that the DVX can't come near the PD150/V2K in terms of low light. Well, I figured I'd share my low light settings since I find this totally not the case. These settings are to minimize grain and work well for my camera - they may or may not work for yours since theorectically each camera can be a bit different.

First, make sure the shutter is 1/60 (I bet 1/2 the people who test the low light of the DVX for the first and only time leave it at it's default of 1/100). Then in your scene settings:

DETAIL -4
CHROMA LVL -3
CHROMA PHASE -4
COLOR TEMP -2
MASTER PED -4
A. IRIS LVL 0
GAMMA CINE-LIKE or LOW
SKIN TONE DTL OFF
MATRIX NORM

This is with no setup. With setup you'd need to take the master PED down another 3 or 4. I usually keep it in CINE-LIKE gamma because over all this seems to give the least grain. LOW also works well and better then CINE in some situations. You'll need to experiment to see which you like better or when you should use it.

With this, I can run 12db and see very little grain even in the lowest light situations. Even in 18db there is little grain. YMMV.

[Flintstone]

SirAllen, I'll try those settings (and some variations) in a week or two, when I get my camera. It's really interresting that this camera has so much control over the image to compensate for all sorts of situation. This really boosts my confidence in this camera.

Can't wait to start playing with my very own pro camcorder instead of always renting them and ultimately not being able to master all the ins and outs because of rental time restrictions. The fact that I rented different models everytime doesn't help either.

[Guest]

I´m not a DVX 100 user (yet) but a (happy) GY-DV 500 user.
I´ve been edititing with Vegas for a year (3.0 and 4.0): a feature film and some corporate videos.
NEVER crashed. 100% stable.
Fast learning curve - I´m far from being a computer fan and expert.

Best regards

[tawsy]

I've used the PD-150 and now own the DVX and in my opinion there is bugger all difference in low light. That is also the opinion of the mate who owns the PD-150. I think Sonys claims of 2lux(150) and 1lux(170) are probably slightly weighted in there favour. I would be surprised if an independent test would give such favourable results. As was previously mentioned in this thread 1lux is very very dark.

[skyy38]

*Events where your environment is not under your control is the real problem.

So my question is this. As an event videographer, how do you deal with low light, say in wedding receptions where the DJ drastically lowers the lights for the dance? *The idea is to avoid putting a harsh light on top of the camcorder, so as not to upset your subjects, and loose the wonderful kodak moments. *Should I rent some lights and flood the ceiling to get the necessary light? *Shoud I use an extremely diffused and not so bright on-camera light? *Shower the room with Infra-Red floods? Any and all suggestions are welcome.

Fred[/quote]

***********************************************

Check this out-

http://www.cool-lux.com/docs/new_products.html

[24Peter]

When I did my sister's wedding I told her before-hand how important good lighting is for her video. On the day of the event, I found all the light controls for each room and reception staff who could help me. I told them what kind of lighting I needed, when. And since I had prepped my sister ahead of time, when the house staff balked, she told them to give me whatever I had requested. That being said, I didn't blow the place out all night with lights. But for most "special" moments I was covered.

All that being said, the DVX 100A has gain control in progressive modes, along with focus-assist. Big help for live events.

[Guest]

Flintstone: If you have Vegas verson 4.0, the latest, keep in mind that you don't have to accomplish the low-light effect totally in-camera. The big studios have long shot "day for night" which here would mean establishing your candlelight, shadows, etc., at a much brighter exposure on the set, then bringing down the light in post. You can do a lot with Vegas' color correction, light effects and supersampling.

[Flintstone]

The SL3000 on-camera light seems an interresting option. I guess you can clip on gels if need be, right?

[Guest]

Low light isn't really an issue with the DVX...for instance, just check out --

http://www.spiritsthemovie.com/Trailer.htm

[Guest]

And, no...it's not my film...saw it the other day...thought it handled low light quite well.

[Carlos_E._Martinez]

My plan is by January 2004 make up my mind between buying the DVC80 right away (and later on the DVX100 to shoot with both) or to wait for the DVX100a, which should be available in February.

Today I was making a comparison, through the manuals, between the 80 and the 100. The most important difference in setup between the two seems to be the Gamma-Cine adjustment the 100 allows. Apparently there will be some changes here on the "A" type. But if it takes noise away from the resulting image is certainly very important.

One thing I noticed is that these Panasonic cameras do not seem to bring a Lanc output, like the Sonys do. Is that so?

That's one thing I was counting on as a way to output the internal TC to jam-sync an external audio recorder for double system sound. Is there a way to take the TC from the Panasonic cameras during recording?


Carlos

[Barry_Green]

"Today I was making a comparison, through the manuals, between the 80 and the 100. The most important difference in setup between the two seems to be the Gamma-Cine adjustment the 100 allows. Apparently there will be some changes here on the "A" type. But if it takes noise away from the resulting image is certainly very important. "

Gamma is just one of many, many differences between the two, and the DVX100A will add even more differences. Slow shutter speeds, viewfinder Peaking, ability to daisy-chain and control an external recording deck, there are all sorts of niceties in the DVX100A that you'd miss out on with the 80. The 80's a nice camera, but if you can afford it, the price difference is well worth it to step up to the 100A.


One thing I noticed is that these Panasonic cameras do not seem to bring a Lanc output, like the Sonys do. Is that so?

No LANC.


That's one thing I was counting on as a way to output the internal TC to jam-sync an external audio recorder for double system sound. Is there a way to take the TC from the Panasonic cameras during recording?

Not easily. You can find products like the Miranda DVBridge that can read the firewire signal, extract the timecode and convert between LTC and DVITC. There may be other products, maybe even affordable ones, that can do it, I've never looked into it. But there's no built-in capability to extract time code, you'd have to do it through decoding the firewire data stream since that's the only signal output by the camera that includes timecode.

[Carlos_E._Martinez]

Not easily. You can find products like the Miranda DVBridge that can read the firewire signal, extract the timecode and convert between LTC and DVITC. There may be other products, maybe even affordable ones, that can do it, I've never looked into it. But there's no built-in capability to extract time code, you'd have to do it through decoding the firewire data stream since that's the only signal output by the camera that includes timecode.

What I am looking for are affordable, portable ways to pick the TC from the camera. Miranda is probably neither.

It amazes me how little double system audio possibilities are taken care for in DV.

Perhaps I should get back to the system I was proposing, which was recording a TC stripe on one of the DV audio tracks, that the NLE program would later be instructed to recognize as TC.

That track would be jammed to an external TC generator recording TC on an external audio recorder.

The idea is to make this system cost less than $500.


Carlos

[Barry_Green]

Hmm, that's probably not only the best way to go for sync'ing to an external recorder, it's probably about the only way to go -- use one of the DVX's audio channels for a scratch track, and the other as a TC track, matching the TC generated from your external recorder...

You're right in that there seems to be little in the way of double-system recording options for miniDV cameras -- which would be a significant limitation with just about any other miniDV camera. Trying to record production audio through a 1/8" minijack on a GL2 or something would be a serious compromise. However, the DVX has by far the best recording system of any miniDV camera, and so the % of people being interested in double-system sound is going to be lower for the DVX/DVC than just about any other camera.

One of the primary benefits of going double-system is the ability to unchain the camera from the audio system, but you'd lose that advantage if you're feeding a TC stream to the camera (unless you were thinking of using some form of wireless xmitter?)

[Carlos_E._Martinez]

Hmm, that's probably not only the best way to go for sync'ing to an external recorder, it's probably about the only way to go -- use one of the DVX's audio channels for a scratch track, and the other as a TC track, matching the TC generated from your external recorder...

I'm afraid so. Using the Lanc output seemed like an interesting option, but I didn't realize it's only a Sony choice. I don't think there's a cheap way to use the 1394 output to pick the TC from it.


You're right in that there seems to be little in the way of double-system recording options for miniDV cameras -- which would be a significant limitation with just about any other miniDV camera. *Trying to record production audio through a 1/8" minijack on a GL2 or something would be a serious compromise. *However, the DVX has by far the best recording system of any miniDV camera, and so the % of people being interested in double-system sound is going to be lower for the DVX/DVC than just about any other camera.


As long as people keep a limited attitude towards your audio end, you will be right. If you want to go serious on your sound you will need to do double system. That is the right way to go about it. The reasons why the film industry started using double system sound in the '30s and stayed with it until today, even on projects using video cameras, are unequivocal. Most people using these new DV cameras still look at the audio end with amateur eyes. It's time to end that. This is something I also strongly stand for on my audio tutorial:

http://www.preciseaudio.com/Technical_1.htm


One of the primary benefits of going double-system is the ability to unchain the camera from the audio system, but you'd lose that advantage if you're feeding a TC stream to the camera (unless you were thinking of using some form of wireless xmitter?) *

There would two ways to do that:

1) Using portable generators, like those by Denecke or Horita

2) Sending a wireless signal to every camera from the TC generator by the audio recorder.


Carlos