PDA

View Full Version : Low light sports footage from AG-DVX200?



Stillmotion5
03-07-2016, 08:26 PM
Can anyone provide a few clips of night football or indoor sports from the AG-DVX200? I understand this is not the perfect choice for sports (or low light), but I’m looking for the best “Jack of all trades” for run and gun news/sports/events for a daily newspaper/website.

Frankly I don’t need the 4K for this work, but it sure would be nice to have for other projects and future proofing my capabilities.

Looking for any recommendations, comments or critiques from pros using the AG-DVX200 in a “news” environment.

mapper65
03-08-2016, 06:10 AM
I know this won't answer your question exactly but I was watching the local news the other night and the channel that I was watching showed a few other news photographers in their shot. One of the other local news stations was using a DVX200. So at least in this instance there was a main stream news outlet using the DVX200. It was a daylight scene so that doesn't tell us that they would have also used that camera at night but it was good to see someone using one.

Vaughan Wood
03-08-2016, 04:14 PM
Not sure why you would think it's not 'the perfect choice' for sports or low light productions. I've done 15 concerts with it in Nov/Dec, and I'm very pleased with the results compared to our AG-AC160s.

Benefits, very clean picture, higher bitrates for more retained detail (for faces etc).

TIP: start with Master Pedestal on 0 or +1 to capture all action in shadows. Then you can drop blacks back in post if needed.

Here is a link to a concert I did with very poor stage lighting, all lights at front with no lighting at rear or wings of stage, and a school principal who has no grasp of lighting.

https://vimeo.com/156511075?utm_source=email&utm_medium=vimeo-cliptranscode-201504&utm_campaign=28749 (https://vimeo.com/156511075?utm_source=email&utm_medium=vimeo-cliptranscode-201504&utm_campaign=28749)


Cheers,

Vaughan

bluesgeek
03-08-2016, 11:59 PM
Here is an original camera clip for download (314MB) (http://www.mediafire.com/download/g8q9cf5d5gep88b/01210091.MOV).

You can see that I was struggling with the manual focus—which we know has no FINE ring drive control (and which was the reason I returned the camera). Otherwise I think that the DVX200 is not an ideal low-light sports camera because in order to get the depth of field on the 4/3 sensor reasonably deep I had to stop down to between 5.6 and 6.2, and that effectively challenged the light handling. I don't remember how much gain I applied but you can see that the footage is still a bit dark and I could have gained up even more. Stepping through even the first 4 seconds of the clip will reveal severe noise reduction macroblocking.

I would recommend a smaller sensor 3-chip camera for sports applications to make it easier to hold focus and for more efficiency in low light.

Once the manual focus issue is addressed in an expected firmware update, I would be more inclined to repurchase the DVX200 and even use it in sports settings where there is sufficient light to allow a noise-free image when dramatically stopped down.

(Update: This was shot at 1/100 and I could have done better with light with 1/60.)

pancam
03-09-2016, 07:48 AM
very low the pedestal setting
the black is black:)
They lose the details in the dark areas

I found that gain 6-12 dB is acceptable

Stillmotion5
03-09-2016, 09:06 AM
I know this won't answer your question exactly but I was watching the local news the other night and the channel that I was watching showed a few other news photographers in their shot. One of the other local news stations was using a DVX200. So at least in this instance there was a main stream news outlet using the DVX200. It was a daylight scene so that doesn't tell us that they would have also used that camera at night but it was good to see someone using one.

Thanks - I agree, good to see them being used in the wild.

Stillmotion5
03-09-2016, 10:02 AM
Not sure why you would think it's not 'the perfect choice' for sports or low light productions. I've done 15 concerts with it in Nov/Dec, and I'm very pleased with the results compared to our AG-AC160s.

Benefits, very clean picture, higher bitrates for more retained detail (for faces etc).

TIP: start with Master Pedestal on 0 or +1 to capture all action in shadows. Then you can drop blacks back in post if needed.

Here is a link to a concert I did with very poor stage lighting, all lights at front with no lighting at rear or wings of stage, and a school principal who has no grasp of lighting.

https://vimeo.com/156511075?utm_source=email&utm_medium=vimeo-cliptranscode-201504&utm_campaign=28749 (https://vimeo.com/156511075?utm_source=email&utm_medium=vimeo-cliptranscode-201504&utm_campaign=28749)


Cheers,

Vaughan

Thanks for your post Vaughan. I'm a "stills" shooter, so I come into this rodeo with very little "video" experience under my belt. My reference to "not the perfect choice" comes from multiple web for reviews, where a common sentiment for "fast moving sports" is that maintaining focus would be (much?) easier with a 1/3” 3-chip HD-native camcorder. I've also read claims that some Panasonic 3-chip camcorders have a 1-stop advantage over DVX200 in difficult lighting conditions. I'm not sure if that's due to larger f-stop lens or 3-chip design (or both).

Your example is helpful, but it's a static focus scenario on a tripod. Whereas much of my shooting will be hand-held basketball/football with zooming/focusing up and down the field. I'm not overly worried about the low light/noise issues, as that's just part of the deal when shooting in these scenarios. But focus is a big deal to me, and the reported "reaction lag" of the "fly-by-wire" focus on the DVX200 combined with a shallow(er) DOF has me a bit concerned.

My other choices at this point would be the Panasonic AJ-PX270 (which is pricey in comparison), the JVC GY-HM650 (now at about $3200) or the newly announced Panasonic AJ-PX230 (same price as DVX2000). None of these offer the broad specs of the DVX200 or 4K or 120fps (all of which would be useful to me in other scenarios).

Bottom line would seem to come down to... Will I be able to maintain focus with the DVX200 on moving subjects in low light? I was hoping the answer is yes, and someone has the footage to prove it.

Stillmotion5
03-09-2016, 10:28 AM
Here is an original camera clip for download (314MB) (http://www.mediafire.com/download/g8q9cf5d5gep88b/01210091.MOV).

You can see that I was struggling with the manual focus—which we know has no FINE ring drive control (and which was the reason I returned the camera). Otherwise I think that the DVX200 is not an ideal low-light sports camera because in order to get the depth of field on the 4/3 sensor reasonably deep I had to stop down to between 5.6 and 6.2, and that effectively challenged the light handling. I don't remember how much gain I applied but you can see that the footage is still a bit dark and I could have gained up even more. Stepping through even the first 4 seconds of the clip will reveal severe noise reduction macroblocking.

I would recommend a smaller sensor 3-chip camera for sports applications to make it easier to hold focus and for more efficiency in low light.

Once the manual focus issue is addressed in an expected firmware update, I would be more inclined to repurchase the DVX200 and even use it in sports settings where there is sufficient light to allow a noise-free image when dramatically stopped down.

(Update: This was shot at 1/100 and I could have done better with light with 1/60.)

Thanks Bluesgeek - I appreciate the footage. That's exactly what I'll be facing, along with poorly lit football fields. The lack of true mechanical focus is disheartening for a camera slated for "run & gun". I'm guessing that's a cost reduction decision, but unfortunate. Your recommendation of the 3-chip camera seems to be a very common sentiment with those I talk to in the field although no one around here has tested the DVX200.

Can I ask what you currently shoot sports with, and if you HAD to buy a new camera (today) for sports/all around news - what would it be?
My top 3 choices at this point would likely be the Panasonic AJ-PX270 (which is pricey in comparison), the JVC GY-HM650 (now at about $3200) or the newly announced Panasonic AJ-PX230 (same price as DVX2000). Unfortunately none of these offer the broad specs of the DVX200 or 4K or 120fps (all of which would be useful to me in other scenarios).

photogjs
03-09-2016, 03:59 PM
I am by no means an expert in the video field, but I picked up a DVX200 for some dance competition work that we do each year. I also shoot stills professionally for a university. I dragged the DVX200 along one night and made this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLzKoYOY5BM

For reference, the building that we shoot hockey inside of requires me to shoot stills at 1/500, F2.8 at ISO6400-8000, so it is not a bright building at all

Stillmotion5
03-09-2016, 05:32 PM
I am by no means an expert in the video field, but I picked up a DVX200 for some dance competition work that we do each year. I also shoot stills professionally for a university. I dragged the DVX200 along one night and made this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLzKoYOY5BM

For reference, the building that we shoot hockey inside of requires me to shoot stills at 1/500, F2.8 at ISO6400-8000, so it is not a bright building at all

Thanks photogjs - Stills at 1/500, F2.8 at ISO6400-8000 is "spot on" for many of my venues. Can you recall the aperture/shutter speed/fps you used for the action footage? It certainly looks acceptable to me - considering the Plexiglas.

Doesn't look like you had focus issues. Can I assume this is manual focus? I've not seen many comments on the auto-focus capabilities, but I wouldn't think it would fair well shooting through 1" Plexiglas.

bluesgeek
03-10-2016, 07:47 PM
Thanks photogjs - Stills at 1/500, F2.8 at ISO6400-8000 is "spot on" for many of my venues. Can you recall the aperture/shutter speed/fps you used for the action footage? It certainly looks acceptable to me - considering the Plexiglas.

Doesn't look like you had focus issues. Can I assume this is manual focus? I've not seen many comments on the auto-focus capabilities, but I wouldn't think it would fair well shooting through 1" Plexiglas.

Yes, please share the settings with us, including gain, if you remember. And did you make any adjustments in post? Nice work BTW.

However, I do not find the IQ acceptable. Step through the footage and see for yourself. Bear in mind this is a $4200 camera and IMHO the IQ looks pretty much on a par with what I get out of the AC90 at just over a third the cost.

And to answer your question regarding a good affordable 3-chip camera for sports, I haven't settled on anything. We are currently sending crews out with AC90s, and while they are great to operate, IQ in low light is less than desirable. (But by the time you stop down the DVX200 to 5.6-6.0 you are creating an image similar to the AC90.)

Here's a short camera file from the AC90 in a low-light gym for download (http://www.mediafire.com/download/nm0rtbtw32eqw9g/AC90_00017_h264.mov) for comparison.

thinkgines
11-17-2016, 09:11 AM
Did a test few months ago to see the capabilities, overall I'm impressed.

Manual mode
118593

V-log/DVX200 Lut
118594

Full Auto
118595

benne13
11-18-2016, 07:13 AM
Do you have the video of this footage? I'm looking for something that can match the football footage I shot with the GH4 and rented the DVX200 but wasn't overly impressed with the results compared to the GH4.. I found the DVX footage to be too noisy in low light sport situations. That's why I'm wondering if you have the footage because the still you've shown look nice

Footage shot with GH4 - https://vimeo.com/188321903

thinkgines
11-18-2016, 06:53 PM
Do you have the video of this footage? I'm looking for something that can match the football footage I shot with the GH4 and rented the DVX200 but wasn't overly impressed with the results compared to the GH4.. I found the DVX footage to be too noisy in low light sport situations. That's why I'm wondering if you have the footage because the still you've shown look nice

Footage shot with GH4 - https://vimeo.com/188321903


I upload the UHD file.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ezaf2pxbw5yj3p1/dvx.mov?dl=0

benne13
11-18-2016, 08:52 PM
Wow thanks this is exactly the kind of clarity footage I've been looking for from the DVX200. What were your settings and FPS? This looks amazing. Wish there was more footage..lol

thinkgines
11-19-2016, 07:49 AM
Wow thanks this is exactly the kind of clarity footage I've been looking for from the DVX200. What were your settings and FPS? This looks amazing. Wish there was more footage..lol

the DVX200 is quite capable as long as you know the camera. I was shooting at UHD 60P, 1/120, wide-open, and I think i was using Barry Green scene 4. On your GH4 clip what lens were you using?

benne13
11-19-2016, 07:05 PM
Thanks for the details. Yeah I had rented the DVX and only had it for a few days so maybe I was doing something wrong with my testing. On my GH4 I shoot a 60fps 1/120 and use the Tamron 70-200 for football recording. BTW what is wide -open?

thinkgines
11-19-2016, 07:55 PM
Thanks for the details. Yeah I had rented the DVX and only had it for a few days so maybe I was doing something wrong with my testing. On my GH4 I shoot a 60fps 1/120 and use the Tamron 70-200 for football recording. BTW what is wide -open?

Aperture wide open in this case f2.8

Design Media Consultants
12-06-2016, 07:05 AM
I am by no means an expert in the video field, but I picked up a DVX200 for some dance competition work that we do each year. I also shoot stills professionally for a university. I dragged the DVX200 along one night and made this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLzKoYOY5BM

For reference, the building that we shoot hockey inside of requires me to shoot stills at 1/500, F2.8 at ISO6400-8000, so it is not a bright building at all

Nice job - the content came out really well. The DVX worked and was able to capture good quality under the conditions.

Design Media Consultants
12-06-2016, 07:07 AM
Not sure why you would think it's not 'the perfect choice' for sports or low light productions. I've done 15 concerts with it in Nov/Dec, and I'm very pleased with the results compared to our AG-AC160s.

Benefits, very clean picture, higher bitrates for more retained detail (for faces etc).

TIP: start with Master Pedestal on 0 or +1 to capture all action in shadows. Then you can drop blacks back in post if needed.

Here is a link to a concert I did with very poor stage lighting, all lights at front with no lighting at rear or wings of stage, and a school principal who has no grasp of lighting.

https://vimeo.com/156511075?utm_source=email&utm_medium=vimeo-cliptranscode-201504&utm_campaign=28749 (https://vimeo.com/156511075?utm_source=email&utm_medium=vimeo-cliptranscode-201504&utm_campaign=28749)


Cheers,

Vaughan

You captured some good stuff considering you were not that close to the stage. Good job. Also like your vid "Son of a Singer" - excellent

cookinghusband
12-14-2016, 06:47 AM
For few years, I have been using the FZ1000 which have a similar sensor, in much worst environment(lighting and distant) than a sports event, which perform satisfactory , footage are very usable. Sure the DVX200 can do as good or better then what u see below. Due to the Size(form factor) I do use my DXV200 less in these worst situation, than my FZ1000.

FZ1000 A club event( hand held).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI9MPaDIqGM
FZ1000 Concert (hand Held)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNIGcezKyMc

Camera testing during a event, The left rear cam is DVX200 right rear is FZ1000, Centre is 1DX2, Left is A7s2, Right is 1DC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNRVTsLiyNs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6LLB0Zgxeo

bjewett
02-04-2017, 08:28 AM
For few years, I have been using the FZ1000 which have a similar sensor, in much worst environment(lighting and distant) than a sports event, which perform satisfactory , footage are very usable. Sure the DVX200 can do as good or better then what u see below. Due to the Size(form factor) I do use my DXV200 less in these worst situation, than my FZ1000.

FZ1000 A club event( hand held).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI9MPaDIqGM
FZ1000 Concert (hand Held)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNIGcezKyMc

Camera testing during a event, The left rear cam is DVX200 right rear is FZ1000, Centre is 1DX2, Left is A7s2, Right is 1DC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNRVTsLiyNs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6LLB0Zgxeo

Hello, I've come across your post a month+ later. Thank you for uploading this! In the camera testing clips at the bottom - first of them - it wasn't clear to me what you meant by left-rear and right-rear: as seen from the front of the stage, or behind? For example, in the snapshot below at 2:36 in the first "Camera testing in event" clip, when you had split screen from rear views, which was the DVX200 and which was the FZ1000? The left-half seen here was somewhat more clearly in focus and a bit brighter.

120718

Thank you!

wbrock001
02-16-2017, 11:45 AM
For few years, I have been using the FZ1000 which have a similar sensor, in much worst environment(lighting and distant) than a sports event, which perform satisfactory , footage are very usable. Sure the DVX200 can do as good or better then what u see below. Due to the Size(form factor) I do use my DXV200 less in these worst situation, than my FZ1000.

FZ1000 A club event( hand held).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI9MPaDIqGM
FZ1000 Concert (hand Held)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNIGcezKyMc

Camera testing during a event, The left rear cam is DVX200 right rear is FZ1000, Centre is 1DX2, Left is A7s2, Right is 1DC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNRVTsLiyNs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6LLB0Zgxeo

What's causing the video glitch in the club footage (your first fz1000 link above)?

cookinghusband
07-26-2017, 06:57 PM
What's causing the video glitch in the club footage (your first fz1000 link above)?

Sorry for the late reply, I check the original film ( is fine), seems to be my logo and the lighting causing a problem in Adobe's encoder.

cookinghusband
07-26-2017, 06:59 PM
Hello, I've come across your post a month+ later. Thank you for uploading this! In the camera testing clips at the bottom - first of them - it wasn't clear to me what you meant by left-rear and right-rear: as seen from the front of the stage, or behind? For example, in the snapshot below at 2:36 in the first "Camera testing in event" clip, when you had split screen from rear views, which was the DVX200 and which was the FZ1000? The left-half seen here was somewhat more clearly in focus and a bit brighter.

120718

Thank you!

Sorry for the late reply
Is as viewed from the front, in this screen shot is the left side