HVX200 and low light shooting

D

doolahrock

Member
This is my first real post here and I've been checking out all the threads here with great interest. This cam could be a real beauty.

Now, I know that we dont have any hard facts and figures but I was wondering if anyone had even the slightest idea of how the HVX will perform in low light.

I ask this as, although I'm starting to get a foot into the corporate market, my bread and butter is wedding videography. Obviously a big concern in this field is how a camera will perform in low light. I find that the DVX is pretty good and I chose it over the PD170. Althought the PD has a better low light function, I thought the picture that came out of the DVX won the battle.

I had the mis-fortune of buying an XL2 without looking into as fully as I should. Just saw the 16:9 function and that was it for me. Was gonna use the DVX as a second cam with ana adaptor, but again didn't research it properly in regards to it's limitations. However the DVX has become the main cam as it destroys the XL2 in low light and the picture (for me) is leaps and bounds ahead of the XL2.

So, with the HVX doing 16:9 in SD, I'm really excited about it. Then of course upgrading to HD wont a problem when it's needed (apart form wallet wise).

I've read a few posts saying the HVX looked one stop better than the DVX and also one stop worse. Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on this.

Thanks for ploughing through this post.

Jon
 
My only hands on test of the HVX was last Sunday at resfest in LA. The conditions were anything but low light (daytime exterior, available light) so it does not directly relate to your question. That said, I can say with confidence, that the noise performance of the HVX appeared to be noticeably better than the DVX and by a pretty decent margin. This would tend to make me think that the HVX could be as good or even better in low light situations than the DVX.

If you were just to use know specifications about the camera, then the fact that it is a higher resolution camera (and assumed high pixel count CCDs) with the same size sensors (1/3") then these pieces of information would lead most people to assume that the low light performance should be worse than a SD camera with the same sensor size.

So what do these conflicting pieces of information tell you? The best conclusion is that either the conditions didn't lend themselves to come to any conclusions about low light performance or perhaps Panasonic has made a real breakthrough in terms of the front end conversion stages of the HVX. Seems like for your situation you might want to wait for a real test of a production camera.

Hope this helps.
 
Thanks for that.

Yeah, my first thought was increased pixel density on the same size chip would be bad for low light (FX1 etc).

I really hope Panasonic pull a rabbit out of the hat with this one. They could sell a shed load of these cams to wedding videographers when the Firestore solution appears.

Thanks for now.
 
According to what I heard/saw at IBC....
Tenatively the camera is expected to be 1 stop better in low light than the HVRZ1U. I assume this is in 1080/60i....I assume less sensitivity in 24P.
Again, no one will know for sure until a final production version is completed.
Hope that helps. Personally from what I've seen you have nothing to worry about.
FWIW

Brian Broz
 
I was also at RESfest, Los Angeles, last weekend and did a side-by-side exposure test with the HVX200 protoype and the DVX100B. With both cameras at 0dB in 60i mode, the HVX200 is ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, UNDOUBTEDLY AT LEAST ONE STOP SLOWER than the DVX100B. And if you doubt my eyes, Jan from Panasonic was standing right beside me, irising the DVX100B, while I was irising the HVX200 and concurred with this conclusion. In my opinion, it seemed to be about 1.5 stops slower (Jan don't kill me, that's what I thought I saw). And remember, I was looking at a 60i ONLY version of the HVX200. Jan also mentioned, that in the shipping version of the HVX200, the camera may or may not be even slower in its eventual 24P mode compared to its 60i mode. Jan hopes that the HVX200 will NOT lose sensitivity when switched to 24P (since, she argued, that the Varicam does NOT lose sensitivity when switching modes), but of course, this remains to be seen.

Since the HVX200's native sensitivity is a bit too low for my needs, I'll have to wait until the shipping product comes out to test what it looks like at +3, +6, +9, and/or +12dB, since I will DEFINITELY need to throw some gain up for what I'll be shooting (night exterior streets with mercury-vapor street lighting). Yes, the camera is VERY clean. There is VERY little chroma noise in the picture at 0dB. Hopefully, there will be some headroom to use the gain without sacrificing too much of that noise-free image.
 
I would have been shocked if it wasn't slower than the DVX100B. Anyone expecting otherwise would be expecting far too much. If it's only one stop slower, that's great news -- the Z1 is of course two, maybe 2.5 stops slower than its PD170 predecessor.

Interlaced mode does give more sensitivity, and lower noise, than progressive does. I would expect that we will probably lose a stop in progressive mode, just like the DVX does. The noise performance in progressive remains to be seen; it was amazing in interlaced, so even if it's a little noisier in progressive it may still be plenty clean -- but again, that remains to be seen.

Don't understand the comment about the VariCam "switching modes" -- the VaricCam is progressive-only. What mode does it switch to?

Finally -- how were you measuring sensitivity? If it's just off looking at the LCDs, that's no way to tell, as the LCDs are obviously not going to be calibrated to each other -- I assume you set both cameras to the same zebra setting and used the zebras to gauge? The ideal way is of course with a waveform monitor or, at the very least, A/B switching off the same display.
 
Barry_Green said:
Don't understand the comment about the VariCam "switching modes" -- the VaricCam is progressive-only. What mode does it switch to?
Click to expand...
I didn't know that. That's just what Jan said. The SDX900 doesn't do 60i?

Barry_Green said:
Finally -- how were you measuring sensitivity? If it's just off looking at the LCDs, that's no way to tell, as the LCDs are obviously not going to be calibrated to each other.
Click to expand...
No, we just framed the same scene and got the irises to where the levels appeared to be matched by eye. We were judging by the appearance of the twin 17" LCD HD monitors that were on the table. Yeah, the zebra idea would've been the way to go without a waveform--didn't think of that at the moment.
 
NBCshooter, I know this is an HVX thread, and I don't mean to hijack it, but seeing as you did a side by side comparison of the HVX and DVX100B, I'd like to know if you were able to discern any improvements in the noise department of the latter. The b model is reputed to have a cleaner signal than the older model DVX cams.

It's great news that the HVX is cleaner, did you notice the same with the DVX100b?
 
lacuna said:
NBCshooter, I know this is an HVX thread, and I don't mean to hijack it, but seeing as you did a side by side comparison of the HVX and DVX100B, I'd like to know if you were able to discern any improvements in the noise department of the latter.
Click to expand...
Sorry, man. I was COMPLETELY focused on the HVX200. The DVX100B did look nice, but it was daytime when I was looking at the cameras. Really never looked at the DVX100B picture for more than a second or two.
 
NBCshooter said:
I didn't know that. That's just what Jan said. The SDX900 doesn't do 60i?
Click to expand...
Sure, the SDX does -- but the SDX isn't the VariCam. The VariCam is 720p DV100-only. The SDX is switchable 480/60i, 480/30p, 480/24p, DV25 or DV50.
 
Barry_Green said:
Sure, the SDX does -- but the SDX isn't the VariCam. The VariCam is 720p DV100-only. The SDX is switchable 480/60i, 480/30p, 480/24p, DV25 or DV50.
Click to expand...
Duhhh . . . I mistyped. Didn't know the Varicam didn't do 60i.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top