Low light performance?

[ARRIguy]

I'm a film guy new to video so excuse me asking about what may be common knowledge among video techies.
If I get this camera, I expect to shoot HD most of the time. However, I will sometimes work in low light. Might this camera yield an increase in sensitivity (over the HD setting) when used in the DVC Pro 50 or 25 setting? Hopefully yes. I don't want to buy a second camera to shoot in low light that say a PD 170 can.

One way this seems possible is to "lump" the HD pixels into small groups to form the equivalent of larger pixels and thus gather more light. Anyone know how feasible this is from a camera/chip design perspective?

In film larger grain size = more sensitivity.

(I mistakenly posted a similar question in the dvx 100 section last night)

[10s]

I don't have this camera yet so I'll just blab away off the top of me head w/o 1st hand experience. :happy:

It might be easier to just bring lights into your production and light according to cinematic standards rather than try to redevelop CCDs & software. Since you know film already just keep your SOP lighting routine. You can make adjustments in post in video that is really a lot of fun. Over time you'll learn what is acceptable & not for the look of your production style.

[NoahK]

We don't even know the name of the camera yet. How would we know it's low light capabilities? The fact that it's HD is not going to be the deciding factor in how light sensitive it is. The corollary to film grain doesn't really apply.

[ARRIguy]

We don't even know the name of the camera yet. How would we know it's low light capabilities? The fact that it's HD is not going to be the deciding factor in how light sensitive it is. The corollary to film grain doesn't really apply.

From reading many posts (including some by Barry Green if I'm not mistaken) about HD in a 1/3 inch chip, my understanding is that the small pixels can't pick up as much light as a larger (standard def) pixel can. As a result they aren't as able to produce an effective "exposure".

In this way I believe it *is* similar to grain size in film. i.e. Both larger pixels and larger film grains allow more photons to strike their surface to produce a change.

So I'm still hoping the standard def setting on this camera will give us an improved low light option (regardless of how good or bad the HD option is).

Unless someone else is more tuned into this, I think you're right.. in that I'll have to wait for the official specs.

[ARRIguy]

I don't have this camera yet so I'll just blab away off the top of me head w/o 1st hand experience. :happy:

It might be easier to just bring lights into your production and light according to cinematic standards rather than try to redevelop CCDs & software. Since you know film already just keep your SOP lighting routine. You can make adjustments in post in video that is really a lot of fun. Over time you'll learn what is acceptable & not for the look of your production style.

I will light when possible but much of my shooting is Doc. and Nature. By the way, I still expect to shoot film for much of what I need to capture and to integrate the two media in the same show.

Thanks for the encouragement 10s. It whets my appetite to get into this new way of "filmmaking".

[ccroo]

It is my understanding too that a megapixel chip equals less light sensitivity and less latitude. Isn't that what came across in Barry's review of the FX1? It was also my understanding that packing more pixels into the same 1/3 inch chip requires smaller, less light sensitive pixels.

It seems that once you have a megapixel chip you have decreased sensitivity in all settings, DVCPRO25 and DVCPRO50 included. Is it not the case that the FX1 is less light sensitive than the DVX in both DV and HDV mode?

There is a nagging suspicion that a great new Panasonic HD camera will give you amazing resolution at the expense of latitude and light sensitivity. Is this neccessarily the case?

Also, a camera with better low light response allows you to light with fewer and/or less intense lighting fixtures -- which is a blessing on a tight set.

Raoul

[Barry_Green]

You can't predict how a new product will perform until you know all the tech that goes into it. Sony produces FIT CCD's, and HAD CCD's, and SUPER-HAD, etc... there are technological innovations all the time, so until we see how the new JVC and Panasonic perform, you can't generalize and say that they will have better or worse performance, etc.

What you can say, and what has traditionally been true, is that smaller pixels = lower light response and less dynamic range. That has proven to be the case in every camera that's employed them, that I can think of. The XL2 is less sensitive, with a little less latitude, than the DVX. The FX1 is less sensitive, with a little less latitude, than the XL2. The XL2 has smaller pixels than the DVX. The FX1 has smaller pixels than the XL2. The PDX10 has smaller pixels than the PD100, and it has less latitude and less sensitivity than the PD100 it replaced. Using comparable technology, the smaller pixels have resulted in less sensitivity across the board.

However, there was a big shift from the VX1000 to the VX2000 and PD150 have much better sensitivity than the VX1000 had, and the pixels are also a little smaller than the VX1000's. Obviously some technology allowed them to produce better results. Going forward, we may see similar innovations. The smaller pixels = less light performance argument holds true when comparing comparable technology, but as things go forward and technology changes, there may come a time when megapixel CCDs outperform today's non-megapixel CCDs.

[10s]

Here's more gasoline for the fire: enjoy!

here's some interesting info how both large and small sensors of irregular shape can help enhance the image. I'd like to get one of these and play with it...build a camera!!! it is capable of handling 30fps.

http://home.fujifilm.com/news/n030122.html

And here's something about the new Panavision Genesis camera that is the best at approaching a film like image. I find the over & under exposure concept blending to be a creative and possible approach for gaining better latitude out of our current technology.

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lofiversion/index.php?t5571.html

[TimurCivan]

since were in the CCD discussion... let me propose an idea. Lets say you could design the CCD to have active gain ability. For example, youre shooting a shot with extreme light contrast, from bright to dark. like shooting out from the interior of an unlit cave, with direct daylight out side. Would it be possibe to make it so that you expose for , the daylight, but then, the processorchips would employ gain to the parts of the CCD ( or the signal) that arent as exposed. to get some detail in the dark cave. in effect giving you rediculous amounts of dynamic range. Maybe even as much as film, maybe even more.

is such a thing fesible?????

Would it look good? or like flat?

Jan C, Barry, Jarred? anythoughts?

[TimurCivan]

oh wait i just read that Panavision thing........ nevermind..... its not the same idea, but its close enough.

[ARRIguy]

Good info 10S! Lots to look forward to.

Once this technology is incorporated into a $20 - $30K camera body with a 2/3 inch chip I will get serious about selling my film camera. In the meantime I will try to integrate one the new prosumer HD cameras (24P) into my film shooting.

[10s]

Yes the R/S pixel design ( these big & little Octagon shaped Fuji fellows) seem to address the situation fairly well. The Human eye, from what little I understand, also has a similair design using rods & cones of differing size that help in covering the vast latitude of light. This area of design will probably become more exploited. If so, we will have affordable chips that deliver Super HD results nearing film's 4k resolution. :happy:


Don't sell your film camera!!!....Kodak proves every decade that you camera is the latest model (even when it's all chipped up) when you put in that new stock. Vision2 made a huge leap! I don't think Kodak is sleeping..they're pushing ahead. I think of this as complimentary tools for an art form that can afford inclusion of many tools and approaches and more, maybe 3-d will be possible soon. It has with animation.

[Shaw]

It's also possible to have the camera take two simultaneous shot and combine them together (one for highlight and one for shadows). This has been implemented in security cameras in some cases.

[10s]

Shaw, I think that is basically what is occurring here with the double photodiode design. The big one takes a picture specializing in dark areas while the little guy specializes in bright areas. Then they are combined through the magic of math to give us extended stops. This approach could change everything in digital photography.... dramatically.

I would like to see these sensors come in even more different shapes and sizes (like film grain) to see how much this affects the image.