HVX in low light: once more, with feeling

E

eclaire

Active member
Some personal background: I have wide-ranging uses/interests as a video producer. My money makers are dance recitals and small scale doc stuff, but I also want to shoot my own dramatic works. I have a short script now that I'm on the verge of prepping and shooting.

I own a DVX-100B and Sony DSR-300. After getting the DVX, it quickly became my favorite "look", though the selective depth of field, low-light sensitivity, dynamic range, and sharpness that come with a Canon 18X zoom on a 1/2" set of CCDs is superior. Bottom line, though, is that I want to shoot progressive all the way and be able to match footage perfectly in multi-camera settings. 16:9 would also be a huge asthetic plus.

After much deliberation, including flirting with the idea of an HPX-500 (which I really can't afford), my inclination is to buy two new HVX's and sell the Sony, retaining the DVX and adding an anamorphic adapter to use as static 3rd camera to match the HVX in standard def projects requiring 3 cameras. The ONLY issue holding me back is HVX low light performance, especially since dance recitals often feature low mood lighting to begin or end a number. In two different numbers one year, a solo dancer was not tracked with any spot at all, only lit on pockets of the stage by colored cans above. The DSR 300 handled that without having to bump up gain, though it probably was a little too dark in a couple of places.

I've read all the threads I could find here dealing with the HVX's performance in low light and how to maximize it, BPressGamma, Cine-V, detail coring, and shutter angle adjustments. But I'm still not sure how the camera would perform in a theatre with mood lighting on the stage and with people moving rapidly, meaning that shutter adjustments might introduce their own set of problems.

Ideally, I would love to try the HVX in this kind of environment for a couple of hours before committing to a purchase, but that isn't possible because the only dealer in my area just went through a distributor change and won't have any HVXs for a while. And the free P2 card offer from Panasonic expires this month, making me feel an urgency to buy or not NOW.

I'm hoping that someone here has used the HVX extensively in theatre type environments . . . for musical theatre, dance recitals, plays, etc. and can comment on what it can and can't do. In addition to opinions, illustrative frame grabs would be most appreciated.

Thanks in advance for reading and for any of you that feel like responding.

Elizabeth Lowrey (eclaire)
Amore Productions
 
Thanks for the link. I searched for "low light" but did not search for "ballet" or "dance". Duh. Also found some opera grabs that were helpful. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=54920&highlight=dance

In the opera shots, even the low light ones were entirely acceptable to me in terms of noise, not nearly as bad as I was expecting based on comments. I've seen far worse from a VX2000 that I used a couple times as a 3rd, unattended camera that I had to leave in auto exposure mode. I couldn't find a setting that allowed automated exposure without also automating gain, thus it bumped gain, sometimes a lot, in some low light numbers. Looked horrible.

From these grabs, it appears that most stage settings provide more than enough light for the HVX. Dynamic range is another issue, but that's to be expected. There probably won't be a camera in my lifetime that can begin to accurately capture the dynamic range of the average stage show. I would say the HVX looks as good or almost as good in that respect as my DSR300, with much less objectionable blowouts.

I feel better about the decision now. Thanks, mjjason, for your help.
 
One other thing you may be able to do is look around locally for any HVX owners and rent the camera from them for a few days. Try posting in the job post section of this site. There may be plenty of people around you that have the HVX and are able to rent it to you for testing.
 
Greetings! In the opera shots, I was indeed happy with the highlight handling and dynamic range. However, in terms of low-light, be warned that there is a world of difference from the DVX! And I'd suggest you see low-light footage IN MOTION before committing to the HVX... to see the typical blocky noise. As has been discussed around here, there seems to be a difference between scenes with low light everywhere and scenes with low light that have even a small area of bright light... I'm not sure whether it's human perception or the camera, but low light without highlights anywhere seems to have a lot of the dreaded "block noise".

I'm not saying it's unacceptable - I certainly live with it - but you should definitely check it out before buying!
 
Ullanta, thanks for weighing in, and thanks so much for those opera grabs. They seem to encompass the variety of lighting that I encounter in the dance recitals around here (NW Florida).

Specifically with regard to that show and those grabs, did you encounter the blocky noise you were talking about? If so, do any of the grabs represent the kind of problematic lighting associated with it?
 
I own an HVX-200 but if I needed something primarily for low light situations- I would NOT go with this camera.

If the lighting situations you describe are decent, and not really that bad, then maybe I'd go with it, because it does so many other amazing things in great lighting.

Bottom line is that this sucker needs adequate or great lighting to shine. My DVX-100B blows it away in terrible light.

i just wouldn't want you to be surprised if you buy it and then are amazed how much to how much noise there is. For sure get one in your hands first.

Good luck!
 
Definately test first. You may be better off with the dvx's. You don't buy the hvx to handle low light, and i think the hdv cameras are similar light hogs. If you intend to use the camera for stuff other than your low light gigs, then it may be a good option. At the same time, i have seen footage with the gain up, and it still looks great. Your audience may be very different than the people who post here. chances are they won't be crying about the noise like everybody else.
 
The blocky noise is more of a temporal issue than a still one... so it doesn't really show up in grabs. But yes, especially in blue-ish low light, there was a lot. Not intolerable for me, especially when scaled down to SD, but not what I'd call a non-issue, either.

I love the HVX, but as I and others have said, if your primary work is long-form, uncontrolled- or low-light shooting, think very seriously about alternatives for now.

Another reason for this is the HVX's SD 60i performance - not great; it has a strange jaggy quality that is a second reason it's inferior to the DVX for certain situations. If you shoot and/or deliver your recitals in 480/60i, this will be another perhaps tolerable effect, but not quite a non-issue. In my dealings with classical musicians, everyone dislikes progressive footage; they want to see the smoothest mostion possible without judder; I'd assume the same might hold for ballet.

Maybe, at least, think only ONE HVX instead of two? And something else that handles the low light better? For your narrative film work, one will suffice; no reason to make a compromise choice for 2!

I'm in the same boat as you, with income coming from SD theatrical work and narrative/music video work taking a smaller role; I'm very happy to have my HVX, but it's definitely secondary/backup in theatrical work, and I wouldn't consider a second one; I'd still rather have another DVX instead, or even an HDV camera that can more easily shoot HD longform..
 
Thanks for your input, guys. I definitely WANT to try it before buying and am working to make it happen. But it's very hard where I live. The biggest city nearby is Pensacola, and I don't personally know anyone in the business with the HVX.

Question for you all: I forsee that for the next couple of years, possibly the next 3-4, my recital and theatre gigs will be distributed ONLY in SD, thus if I get the HVXs I will be shooting those events in DVCPRo50 mode. To my understanding, that is the least compressed of any format the camera uses. I will only use HD for select projects, mainly my own dramatic works.

Are the noise issues the same in DVCPro50 as in HD modes? In other words, are the problems primarily what compression is doing to uniformly dark footage or is it the CCDs themselves?

ETA: ullanta, we were posting at the same time. I have heard about the blocky 60i artifacts. That won't be a problem for me. The main reason for wanting to replace the DSR-300 is so that I can shoot all event stuff in 30P, which I find eons more aesthetically pleasing than interlaced footage. My clients will have to adjust.:-) Besides which, it will enable me to do better cover art work because the still captures will look a lot better.
 
Last edited:
eclaire said:
My clients will have to adjust.:-) Besides which, it will enable me to do better cover art work because the still captures will look a lot better.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....

Dare I say it, it's pretty easy to find someone who can set up a camera or two and get some footage these days. To hold a client, and especially to grab new ones, your footage really needs to stand out as instantly much better-looking. When my clients look at test material in 30p on their crappy old TVs, their initial response is often, "what the hell is wrong with it?!? My $199 camcorder is much smoother! This looks like web-video!" In fact, checking with 20 or so (albeit classical musicians!) customers, not a single one would stand for the progressive footage. One must put the instinct and aesthetics of a filmmaker aside, consider typical playback environments and such, and the goals of the project. As what you're shooting is all about motion, I'd be very careful thatthe motion was pleasing to clients. One "what the hell is wrong with that?" can cost a whole blossoming tree of clients over the years. So: it may be different in your case, but you can test, as I did, with your clients!

Dare I say it, you sound like you're trying to justify an HVX purchase instead of really weighing what people are saying. And, that's fine. It is a good tool, with some unique characteristics that make it especially useful for some things. But I'll say straight out: don't buy two. No reason for it, and you'll be unhappy. Fighting the theatrical environment every day with one less-than-ideal camera, in order to have that camera for other things on the side, might be OK; fighting two, whent the second one does not benefit you for anything else, will really grate. And disregarding your customers wishes to do so would just lead to extreme frustration.

You like new toys... fine, we all do! But as you've said, your income is coming primarily from SD for the next few years. When you need a second HD camera, the HVX will be obsolete and there will be many choices tempting you. Or, a used HPX-500 might be in your reach. Whole new formats (AVC-intra?) may dominate - even Panny is already moving in that direction with P2. Buying 2 HVX's will hobble you now, perhaps cripple you later. Don't do it! (Sorry Jan!)
 
ullanta said:
Hmmm....

Dare I say it, it's pretty easy to find someone who can set up a camera or two and get some footage these days. To hold a client, and especially to grab new ones, your footage really needs to stand out as instantly much better-looking.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to find someone to set up a camera, even where I live. It is NOT easy, especially where I live, to find someone to set up 3 cameras for a dance recital, have two of them manned getting a variety of close and medium framed shots, have the footage meticulously cut together by someone with with highly evolved musical sensibilities (I have an undergraduate degree from Berklee College of Music) and an eye for how editorial choices can enhance the look of the performance on video. It is harder still to find someone who spends 3-4 weeks doing elaborate intros and titling in compositing programs like Boris RED, and another week doing DVD menus, labels, and covers.

It's these qualities, far more than what camera I'm using or whether it's progressive or interlaced, that has impressed my clients and resulted in word of mouth about what I do. I'm fairly confident they would accept any footage that was competently shot with a decent 3 chip camera because they aren't primarily buying my camera but the totality of what I present to them as a finished product.

I certainly wouldn't volunteer all this to brag. It's just fact and an explanation of my own priorities. I'm in the fortunate financial circumstance where I don't HAVE to do a lot of projects to manage a living, so, even though I greatly undercharge for the amount of work I put into these things, I go the extra mile because I want to present something that's as close to a genuine commercial production as I can get it.

Dare I say it, you sound like you're trying to justify an HVX purchase instead of really weighing what people are saying. And, that's fine. It is a good tool, with some unique characteristics that make it especially useful for some things. But I'll say straight out: don't buy two. No reason for it, and you'll be unhappy.
Click to expand...

The only reason for wanting two is because all dance recitals I do involve 3 cameras, and I really want to be able to match footage well. I don't know anyone (haven't checked with the one commercial production company in town because I flat out cannot afford to hire them -- they charge way more for shooting than anyone else) that's using the HVX. The guy who I most often hire as second camera moved to HD, but he went the Sony HDV rout. I want no part of that. I could still hire him to run second camera, though, if I had another HVX for him to use.

Buying one HVX does not solve my 3 camera problem. In fact, it would only complicate matters. I would suddenly have ONE native 16:9 progressive cam that I would be trying to match to a DVX and a DSR 300, both 4:3, the latter interlaced only. On the other hand, I can offset the majority of the cost of one HVX by dumping the DSR (one in the condition of mine would bring around $3,700 on ebay). I invest in a second so that I now have three cameras. I buy an anamorphic adapter for the DVX to make it 16:9, and now I have 3 cameras shooting widescreen progressive all the way and producing images with identical or nearly identical gamma characteristics.

The added benefit is that I now have two identical cams to use in my dramatic pieces, which is a workflow that (from what I read) is very underused IMO in the film industry. I definitely would find plenty of uses for two cam setups in those kinds of projects, saving cam setup times and also minimizing continuity issues with different takes.

All this said, I do appreciate your perspective on this, allanta, and I will certainly consider your cautions carefully. I'm not ready to plunk down the $ today or tomorrow. I'm still hoping to find a camera locally to try early next week. If not that, I'm hoping Spec Comm or one of the other reputable dealers might do a conditional sale where I'm charged a minimal restocking fee if I buy the cams now (to snag the free P2 cards) and find out in my first trials afterward that the cam will not perform as I need it to in the dance recital environment.

Thanks again to everyone for their input.:-)
 
Yes, even if you're shooting in DVCPRO 50 the low light is horrible.

My DVX blows it away. And the screen on the HVX is really bad. The BVX blows that away too. I think you'll be unhappy with a HVX because it sounds like the bulk of your work will be in SD, perhaps viewed on 4x3 tv's, and kind of run-and-gun, or at least, set-up-with-a-little-time-and-hope, with bad lighting. That kind of application is not for the HVX.

I think Ullanta said the smartest thing so far:

One must put the instinct and aesthetics of a filmmaker aside, consider typical playback environments and such, and the goals of the project.

What he/she? is saying is so smart. We can all get blown away and 'caught up' with quality, but some clients don't give a cr*p about 'native 16:9' and HD and whatnot, and they don't care if your camera can make a hollywood movie, they just want their recital recorded the best way a camera can record THEIR recital. And the HVX is not even close to the best camera for that.

What it sounds like is that you want a camera for your personal movie short (My recommendation- HVX), your documentaries (My recommendation- HVX) and your low light well paying recitals (My recommendation- I have no idea maybe canon or sony) But different cameras do different things. One area might suffer.

So maybe buy the HVX for your docs and movie short. Then just add another affordable DVX for low light shooting. How about that?
 
Well, it sounds like you're pretty set on the HVX, regardless. If you truly don't really need the clients, and are doing this primarily for your own satisfaction, that indeed is not such a worry. I still think buying two HVXs is not a good idea - as I said, I love the HVX, but I know full well that it has some flaws and issues, and something better will be along... in fact, even now, there are other cameras I would buy to add to the HVX rather than another HVX... I mean, I've got about 35 microphones; four of them (two stereo pairs) are so useful they go everywhere with me; the rest are beautiful tools but application-specific. If it means anything to you, the HVX is like a ribbon mic - a great tool, but needing much more care, placement, light, and support equipment than any other. Beautiful response pattern that really lets you carve up the soundspace, but far from ideal in 90% of situations. If I set myself up to rely on a ribbon mic for every gig, I'd end up wanting to smash it, or give up. However, when I can use it in the right situation, it's pure joy. The HVX is similar - for narrative work, with total light control, it's great. But in theatrical work, you'll be missing your Sony every time. If you buy two, you'll hate 2/3 of your low-light shots when comparing to the DVX.... and you'll REALLY HATE having to match your beautiful DVX imagery to that!

Color matching is one thing, but in low-light, noise-matching and sensitivity-matching become much more critical. The HVX and DVX are not very close in these regards.

Anyway, like I said, you seem pretty set. And that's not something I'm foreign to. The HVX is not junk, and if you do get a couple, with effort, you should be able to work something out. Good luck, and keep us posted!
 
Too much good advice, not enough action. test it, then talk. Who care about a second camera until you know the first will do? Call your' competitor,call whoever you have to to test the camera. Sell your' interlaced camera anyways. When you are filming art, you should make it feel like art, I don't see where 60i is improving anyones performance. The way i see it you have one camera and possible cash from a second. You want to keep the dvx, and add 2 more cameras for what you feel is a necessary setup. First,the hd workflow on the hvx is not really suited to performance work. Are you planning on adding a firestore to each of your hvx's? And even if you add an anamorphic lens to your dvx, your are still in a different rez than the hvx. If you are planning on shooting in dv, then why get the hvx? If 16:9 is your main goal, does your viewer really need that? Maybe invest on 2 good cheap low light cams where the client doesn't care about 24p, and save for the montster low light hvx coming out in the future
 
Will there not be theater lights?

I've shot bands using just the clubs lights and it has been enough for the hvx. Looked better than the sony footage the local cable guys shot the same night.
 
I would work with the lighting director to ensure production quaity lighting for HVX shooting. Are you shooting dress rehearsals or actual performances? It sounds like you may have some input as you have been contracted to tape these shows.
That's my $.02

chris/bethesda MD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top