Low Light Noise Solution?

J

JayMitchell

New member
I was wondering if anyone has tried white balancing in low light conditions with the gain up, to see if any noise was reduced?

I think most ENG shooters that I know, white balance in good light conditions - before, actually shooting in low light conditions.
 
Unless I'm trying to do some wacky arty thing, I just use the presets. That way, I know (even without a monitor) exactly what the color of each lighting instrument is going to do, how they mix, and how I can augment or negate them with gels or filters.

But, I don't know what color balance has to do with noise reduction. Am I missing something?
 
I've noticed the noise of the HVX is mostly in the red channnel. If you balence on a slightly warm surface (For a cool image) you can reduce your loow light noise slightly.
 
I can't explain how it works. But it was discussed in a edition of Videography Magazine, last year. I believe it was in a tips to remember, section. I will see if I can find the month.

Maybe, someone of has a HVX200 can test this.
 
I just joined this forum...am experiencing a bit of disappointment in the low light performance of my new HVX200. I'm waiting for the Focus HD for storage so right now I'm shooting in DV/tape mode. And since I had a two camera shoot and the 'B' camera was an XL1, I used the 480i mode common to both cameras.

I must admit, I was surprised that the XL1 DV footage looked noticably better in very low light. The gain was boosted (pretty much maxed) on both cameras and the white balance seemed to match. On the reasonably lit areas of the stage, the HVX200 was fine. I'm guessing - but probably since the CCDs of the HVX are native 16:9, when shooting in 4:3 DV mode they might be 'cropped'. Hence the XL1 CCDs were able to take in more light.

Having said all that - I recorded a segment in 720P/24PN mode on the HVX and it looked GREAT. Very cool look and it handled the low light MUCH better.

If anyone comes up with a setup that lets you record to DV tape in low light (I shoot mostly jazz performances) I'm all ears.
 
The HVX isn't going to be as sensitive as a dedicated DV camera; the DVX is a stop faster than the HVX (meaning it can deliver comparable brightness by using 1/2 as much light) and if you go in interlaced mode, the DVX gets another stop faster still.

So for dim illumination DV scenarios, there are other better choices. That's not where the HVX shines. Play with the gamma settings and raise the master pedestal a bit and you can get a brighter image out of it. But it's not going to deliver the brightness level of an interlaced DV-only camera.
 
More pixels = less light per pixel, for one thing. The XL1 has 250,000 pixel CCDs, the HVX has 550,000 pixel CCDs, so the pixel size is half; that means less light gets through. It has bigger pixels than its competitors, but smaller pixels than many SD cameras.

Second, it's primarily because the HVX is a progressive-only camera. It only ever scans progressive. Interlaced scanning results in a 6dB improvement in signal intensity, which is why a DVX is 1 stop faster (brighter) in 60i than it is in 30P. But the HVX is a progressive-only camera so it doesn't get that interlaced "boost".
 
Barry_Green said:
More pixels = less light per pixel, for one thing. The XL1 has 250,000 pixel CCDs, the HVX has 550,000 pixel CCDs, so the pixel size is half; that means less light gets through. It has bigger pixels than its competitors, but smaller pixels than many SD cameras.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking about the whole pixel density thing, and I wonder, shouldn't a third-inch imager at 960 x 540 have about the same pixel density as a two-thirds-inch imager at 1,920 x 1,080 (about the pixel count of, I believe, the Sony F900) and therefore comparable light sensitivity?
 
JazzNET said:
I just joined this forum...am experiencing a bit of disappointment in the low light performance of my new HVX200.
Click to expand...

This camera has two personalities: in low light it can exhibit some noise, but once you bring the light levels up it creates a beautiful picture and I've seen it virtually eliminate all the noise in the darker areas... with proper lighting, of course.

The best thing about the 200? It's forcing us to light the scene like we should have been doing anyway! Everyone got lazy with DV cameras and used less light than they should have... now we're just going back. It's an immutable law of physics, that to get color reproduction, requires light to reflect that color. This has nothing to do with cameras. As I've told Roy Chapman at WEVA on countless occassions, "I couldn't give a damn less about which camera has the best low light performance... I'm interested in the camera that will produce the best image at a given light level... one that both my clients and I will accept". If all we want is the best low light performer, then let's all buy a security camera with a green image.

Personally, the 200 will allow us to shine, as we know how to light, which is something you can't buy like a box of software, which gives us an edge...
 
Well, I'm sure everyone here agree's on proper lighting to create a certain scene and hopefully reduce noise levels.

Unfortuantely, most movie productions are not all shot with "game show" lighting. There are going to be scenes that will require less lighting, although selective.

I would like to see the HVX perform under those conditions. Can someone point to some HVX footage that shows these conditions?

By the way Chris, I'm really impressed with your work. The HVX is really working great for you.
 
Stevet said:
By the way Chris, I'm really impressed with your work. The HVX is really working great for you.
Click to expand...
Steve,

Thanks a lot.

I think I mentioned I had to scrap my entire first day of shooting with the HVX (6 hours of work), because it was all too dark. BTW, don't even think of trying to raise the light level in post, it was ugly.

I like dark scenes and lots of shadows, but I am finding with the HVX you need to light those areas as well, just not as strongly as the bright areas. When you are shooting it feels like you are working in some overlit lab, but once you set your iris and play with it a bit in post you have a lot of control and can real get the mood you are after.

Chris
 
CMessineo said:
When you are shooting it feels like you are working in some overlit lab, but once you set your iris and play with it a bit in post you have a lot of control and can real get the mood you are after.
Chris
Click to expand...

True, It's all about making the best of the tools at hand.
One can do a lot in post.
 
CMessineo said:
I like dark scenes and lots of shadows, but I am finding with the HVX you need to light those areas as well, just not as strongly as the bright areas. When you are shooting it feels like you are working in some overlit lab, but once you set your iris and play with it a bit in post you have a lot of control and can real get the mood you are after.
Click to expand...

Well said... you're right about lighting the darker areas as well. As you suggested, we just have to get creative... put some light on the darker areas and more on the brighter areas. Looking at the footage, we can achieve what we want... it just takes some getting used too... just like the light levels on television and film sets...

Sorry about you having to scrap the footage... that never makes anyone happy...
 
thanks for the feedback Barry. I shot a couple sets again last night - again in unfavorable low lighting conditions. After seeing at the results, I think I'll have to plan on using another camera for low light SD/DV mode shooting. Obviously, that's just not the HVX's forte. I did shoot a couple segments in 720/24PN mode again...and it really does have a beautiful look.

So I'll stop complaining and realize that I should use the right tool for the low light jobs. One of the editors at the post facility where I work has quite a bit of experience shooting - his comment was 'you can't have both man, SD or HD. And HD's where it's at'. I'll wipe the slate clean and use the HVX for only HD situations that I can light properly. From what I've seen so far, it's a pretty amazing camera for the $$.

Curious - would your recommendation be a DVX100 for my low light gigs? Not sure if moderators generally post personal preferences like that - but thought I'd check :)
 
DVX is 410,000 IIRC. Don't know about the PAl version.

A DVX would be better for a low-light shoot, and a PD170 would do very well also; if you want a filmlike look and better low-light performance the DVX will get you about 1 stop more performance than the HVX when shooting 24p. In interlaced mode both the PD170 and DVX will be yet another stop faster too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top