Again low light capability of the HVX

Cees Mutsaers

Cees Mutsaers

Veteran
Reading the review of the HVX against the JVC I am very worried about the low light capability of the HVX. All footage in this test looked real dark compared to the JVC. I am wondering if it is possible at all the shoot acceptable footages indoor. Most footage I have seen is outdoors (sometimes at night) and even than it does not convince me. Can someone explain me why to my opinion the HVX is worse in low light than others (the HVX has bigger pixels than any of the other HD cams).

Can someone reasure me that it is not that bad:dankk2: :dankk2:
 
Because it doesn't have a garbage in... beauty out mode.... but then again neither does the JVC, at all. These cameras aren't low-light, no frills, shoot in any piss poor kind of lighting situation cameras. For what marginal difference their maybe between the two cameras... the JVC looks bad in low-light as well. I've shot 2 weekends with the JVC on a TV pilot.. and I was so thankful and happy the day I saw major noise in the JVC shots.. under similar conditions that produce grain in the HVX. These two are more similar than they are different in those low-light situations.


The HVX... loves light. Chomps it up, as does the JVC.... But after 2 weeks of shooting with the JVC, the DP who rented the JVC is leaning heavily towards buying the HVX. If I get permission from the director I'll post some comparision footage... and you'll see why most of us here on this forum chose the HVX. The ease of use, the comfort level a client gets when they can view their footage back 1 second later... and just how much more mojo the HVX has. Variable frame rates.... NO TAPE.... instant gratification... and just a much better camera layout. Did I say NO TAPE... Please never give me tape again... I know that on those shots we did with the HVX.. the director treated the footage and the camera differently... After a JVC shot and scene it was onto the next stuff.. but with the HVX... it was the director yelling cut, then play back.. then it was hearing him go WOW. The more we went along the more he called for the HVX to be used... The more he talked about the HVX.. the more he asked me how much I liked it the HVX after 2 months... The more the director wanted to know how much it was... the more it pissed off the JVC camera... and I think I saw the JVC camera shed some watery electronic tears..... but I consolled the JVC camera and told her that plenty of wedding videographers would love you... and that you'll have a place in the world...albeit maybe the world of yesterday... but some people like retro tech.... LOL. Did I mention the HVX has MOJO, bro.

Sorry if I'm rambling and for all and any bad grammer.... Today will be the 3rd day in a row and 50 hours in 3 days will be a reality.... but overalll, if you want a low-light HD cam.... buy the Sony. It is the best for that..... but only that. The camera looks like video and doesn't come close to the HVX...


But again if you are wanting to shoot beautiful HD footage in low-light poo-poo situations.... you'll be left with some garbage footage... and then all you could do would be bronze it.. because you can't polish a turd....


I'd recommend checking both out... One is the swiss Army Knife and one is the PHillips Head... as Barry eloquently put it....
 
Ahhh.. shooting is done with the JVC. Another day dealing with the camera. For quite a while today we couldn't play back the tapes. The firestore was fine... but the tapes would play back a blue screen with audio... but that's it. We have quite a few squirelly things happen with the playback.. and the overall operation of the JVC...

Happilly the HVX performed like a CHAMPION. NO tape problems... Instant access for the director and LIGHTYEARS of inprovement in color representation and smoothness.... Maybe this is why the 250 is coming out.... Just my opinion... not to start a flame.. but it just isn't the camera for cinematic projects.. It just doesn't look as good at any time.

Now I have to get permission to show some footage... but we did do an entire scene with both cameras shooting pretty much the same OTS shots of the actors with identical lighting setups... For pure research and education I'll tell him and he was pretty happy with my Gaffing ability... so what the hell..

I can tell you what though... production for other people sucks. 50 hours in 3 days.. just makes you old and gray and not good for much but crashing hard... I now realize why I went into business for myself.. and why I'd rather be an editor... bring on the A/C...

I'll post some stuff soon.. I hope.
 
I'd love to see that stuff Justyn (not that it really matters are far as which I'll get as my HVX200 should arrive soon but just for my own piece of mind).
 
The HVX performs very well in low light. I have shot a couple of tests and they don't give me any problems at all. Its better than the DVX 100A (not dvx original). That's more than enough for me.
 
SPZ said:
The HVX performs very well in low light. I have shot a couple of tests and they don't give me any problems at all. Its better than the DVX 100A (not dvx original). That's more than enough for me.
Click to expand...

are you sure?

The HVX's i ve used ( only twice) were like a stop and change behind my 100a in all modes, that still says alot though, cause the DVX does pretty darn well in Lowlight. of course not, PD-170 well, but still good nonetheless.
 
TimurCivan said:
are you sure?

The HVX's i ve used ( only twice) were like a stop and change behind my 100a in all modes, that still says alot though, cause the DVX does pretty darn well in Lowlight. of course not, PD-170 well, but still good nonetheless.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you download the video I posted on the screen grabs section. You can see that in some of the shots it was very low in light, but the HVX still performed very well. The thread name is Macau By Night shot with the HVX.

Here's the link

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=53734

Than tell me what you think of the low light capabilities. I would also suggest you to install quicktime 7.04. Quicktime 7.00, 01 and 02 do funky things to dvcprohd footage.
 
Last edited:
Cees Mutsaers said:
Reading the review of the HVX against the JVC I am very worried about the low light capability of the HVX. All footage in this test looked real dark compared to the JVC.
Click to expand...
Can you give the link of that particular review? :dankk2:
 
Check out the booty section I put in the screen grabs for something high key... the low-light stuff is getting better for me as I'm dialing in the cam setting and also knowing more of what not to get involved with... but this camera LOVES light and rightly so....
 
im not saying its bad in low light, i know its good in low light, ive used it, but the DVX is a stop faster.
 
i just did a low light test with the hvx, and honestly i was surprised. In 1080 24pa with the only light being a 60watt house lamp bounced of a side wall, the room had a gradient from light to dark, and it handled that amazingly well. Much better than the dvx-a, not sure about the dvx-b, dont get to use one of them till friday.
 
How is everyone dealing with the low-light? Monitoring on in HD or SD? I've been pretty disapointed with the low-light when I view it in HD .. but that's partially due to the DEll... but when it's on a nice HD monitor or in SD a lot of the noise disappears...


Settings?
 
Yeah, settings would be very helpful. How about low-light scene files posted in that section?
 
I'm not sure if this is true as I haven't fully tested this yet, but Evinksy mentioned in a post a while back that the HVX at the first gain setting is basically the same as the DVX100b in similar low light conditions, meaning that the picture quality is equal (equal amounts of noise). Does this sound right, can this be confirmed by anybody?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top