low light compared to pd170
- Thread starter dvpixl
- Start date
J
Jestorius
Guest
Re: low light compared to pd170
Yes
Yes
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: low light compared to pd170
Yes, a little bit.
Now for the long-winded answer: The DVX is a little more light-sensitive, but the PD170 has a cleaner gain circuit, with less noise for the equivalent gain. So you can get a little cleaner picture.
Add a $20 video light and it will make a MUCH bigger difference in your picture than the difference between a PD170 and DVX in ultra-low-light.
Yes, a little bit.
Now for the long-winded answer: The DVX is a little more light-sensitive, but the PD170 has a cleaner gain circuit, with less noise for the equivalent gain. So you can get a little cleaner picture.
Add a $20 video light and it will make a MUCH bigger difference in your picture than the difference between a PD170 and DVX in ultra-low-light.
kecorcoran
Well-known member
Re: low light compared to pd170
As everyone said, the PD170 is better in low light.
As a former owner of the VX2000 (little brother of the PD170, but without XLR inputs and a few other pro features, but the lens and CCD are the same), I would say more than "a little."
But in non-lowlight conditions, I much prefer the images generated by the DVX100. I sold by VX2000 to by a DVX, and I have no regrets. The images generated by the DVX can be quite beautiful. If I need more light, I'll add it.
(Of course, if low light ability is you *primary* concern, I would go with the PD. But otherwise I'd take the DVX any day.)
As everyone said, the PD170 is better in low light.
As a former owner of the VX2000 (little brother of the PD170, but without XLR inputs and a few other pro features, but the lens and CCD are the same), I would say more than "a little."
But in non-lowlight conditions, I much prefer the images generated by the DVX100. I sold by VX2000 to by a DVX, and I have no regrets. The images generated by the DVX can be quite beautiful. If I need more light, I'll add it.
(Of course, if low light ability is you *primary* concern, I would go with the PD. But otherwise I'd take the DVX any day.)
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: low light compared to pd170
When thinking about "low light" performance, people frequently compare the PD170 against the DVX when the DVX is in 24P mode. That's completely unfair. If you're going to compare them, you should compare apples-to-apples, which means both in 60i mode, and both with the same amount of gain (if any). And under those circumstances they're extremely close, with the PD having a very small advantage.
Here's sample pictures taken by John Beale:
VX2000 at f/2.0, 0db gain: http://bealecorner.com/dvx100/compare/VX2k-open+0dB.jpg
DVX100, f/2.0, 0db gain, 60i mode:
http://bealecorner.com/dvx100/compare/DVX-f20+0dB.jpg
I would certainly call that "a little" advantage, and nothing more than a little tiny advantage.
When thinking about "low light" performance, people frequently compare the PD170 against the DVX when the DVX is in 24P mode. That's completely unfair. If you're going to compare them, you should compare apples-to-apples, which means both in 60i mode, and both with the same amount of gain (if any). And under those circumstances they're extremely close, with the PD having a very small advantage.
Here's sample pictures taken by John Beale:
VX2000 at f/2.0, 0db gain: http://bealecorner.com/dvx100/compare/VX2k-open+0dB.jpg
DVX100, f/2.0, 0db gain, 60i mode:
http://bealecorner.com/dvx100/compare/DVX-f20+0dB.jpg
I would certainly call that "a little" advantage, and nothing more than a little tiny advantage.
Re: low light compared to pd170
Video noise differences are difficult to estimate subjectively/visually on a still snap of a video signal. B.t.w. the difference seen in Beale's pics is not only representative for "low light" conditions but remains for all pic situations. So e.g.the darker shades in bright outdoor pics will show this difference.
Video noise differences are difficult to estimate subjectively/visually on a still snap of a video signal. B.t.w. the difference seen in Beale's pics is not only representative for "low light" conditions but remains for all pic situations. So e.g.the darker shades in bright outdoor pics will show this difference.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: low light compared to pd170
The noise circuitry is definitely where the PD has an advantage. I was trying to point out that in overall sensitivity there's basically no difference, but when you start cranking up the gain, that's where the PD gets an advantage. The DVX picture will be just as bright, but not as clean.
The noise circuitry is definitely where the PD has an advantage. I was trying to point out that in overall sensitivity there's basically no difference, but when you start cranking up the gain, that's where the PD gets an advantage. The DVX picture will be just as bright, but not as clean.
Re: low light compared to pd170
Barry also at reference (0db) gain the sensitivity is basically different. The thing is that if gain is being cranked up, the noise differences become more detectable. It's generally accepted that from 40 db S/N ratio's on, pictures look allmost noiseless. . So, if the PD has e.g. 45db SN @ 0db gain and the DVX has e.g. 40db @ 0db, both pics will look allmost noiseless. If both get 12 db gain up, the PD will have a 33db figure while the DVX will get only 28 db. Both pics will look noisy but the difference will be defintively visible.
Barry also at reference (0db) gain the sensitivity is basically different. The thing is that if gain is being cranked up, the noise differences become more detectable. It's generally accepted that from 40 db S/N ratio's on, pictures look allmost noiseless. . So, if the PD has e.g. 45db SN @ 0db gain and the DVX has e.g. 40db @ 0db, both pics will look allmost noiseless. If both get 12 db gain up, the PD will have a 33db figure while the DVX will get only 28 db. Both pics will look noisy but the difference will be defintively visible.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: low light compared to pd170
On max gain there is a difference. On John's pictures he did the DVX a disservice, he compared 12db against the VX2000's 18db, so the VX2000 looks a lot brighter. He could have used 18dB on the DVX and gotten comparable brightness.
But brightness is only one factor in low light performance. The DVX can deliver a picture that's equally bright, but noise is another issue, and the PD150/VX2000 picture will be cleaner.
Still, I contend that a $20 video light will do far more for making better-quality low-light video than the difference between a DVX and a PD150.
On max gain there is a difference. On John's pictures he did the DVX a disservice, he compared 12db against the VX2000's 18db, so the VX2000 looks a lot brighter. He could have used 18dB on the DVX and gotten comparable brightness.
But brightness is only one factor in low light performance. The DVX can deliver a picture that's equally bright, but noise is another issue, and the PD150/VX2000 picture will be cleaner.
Still, I contend that a $20 video light will do far more for making better-quality low-light video than the difference between a DVX and a PD150.
Hector_Johnson
Member
Re: low light compared to pd170
These things you say are interesting.
What if I do use an "NLE" to make my images brighter and not a "gain" in the camera. (So that now I have 0db of "gain.")
Would this make there more of the noise or less of the noise than using the "gain" in the camera?
These things you say are interesting.
What if I do use an "NLE" to make my images brighter and not a "gain" in the camera. (So that now I have 0db of "gain.")
Would this make there more of the noise or less of the noise than using the "gain" in the camera?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: low light compared to pd170
I wasn't talking about any specific $20 video light... there are many cheap lights on the market... the point I was trying to make is that adding a little light will do SO MUCH for your video, way way way more than the tiny difference between a DVX and a PD170.
But I think I misspoke about a $20 light, what I MEANT to say was a 20-watt video light. Sorry!
I wasn't talking about any specific $20 video light... there are many cheap lights on the market... the point I was trying to make is that adding a little light will do SO MUCH for your video, way way way more than the tiny difference between a DVX and a PD170.
But I think I misspoke about a $20 light, what I MEANT to say was a 20-watt video light. Sorry!
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: low light compared to pd170
Anything that adds light will add incredibly to the picture quality. No videocamera performs "well" in dark conditions. The more light, the more color and the less grain. So starting with a cheap little 20-watt light you can tremendously increase the ability of your camera to gather a decent-to-good-looking picture.
No light = no quality, that's pretty much the rule.
Anything that adds light will add incredibly to the picture quality. No videocamera performs "well" in dark conditions. The more light, the more color and the less grain. So starting with a cheap little 20-watt light you can tremendously increase the ability of your camera to gather a decent-to-good-looking picture.
No light = no quality, that's pretty much the rule.