Good DV camcorder for low light?
Dennis
are good in low light situations. Can someone help with a recommendation
for a DV camcorder
in the higher range of consumer models? I'm not looking to spend beyond
US$1500 for the prosumer stuff just yet. I have been looking at
primarily Sony and Panasonic, and would prefer a nice compact model.
I know a lot of people are excited by new models such as the Sony PC100,
but to me, the most important is being able to capture my kids indoors
on video, and
my top-of-the-line consumer Sony that I bought 3 years was a poor
perfomer
(rated 4 lux, for what it's worth). The new TRV8 and TRV10 is rated at 5
lux,
while PC100 is 7 lux min illumination. I know that the lux rating
doesn't mean very much, but at least within Sony's internal relative
scale it should mean that TRV8 and TRV10 and the PC100 are probaby even
worst than my 3-year old Sony.
So can someone tell me if the TRV10 is okay in low light, like indoors?
I am now looking at the Panasonic TBA11E (PAL), any one knows about this
model (just introduced in the PAL countries). Thanks.
Dean Sensui
mention of the camera's low light capabilities was in the Nov edition of
Videographer. The article was about how a production company was doing a
lot of aerial shooting for a travel series and how the Elura handled low
light well.
Also, I saw a demo tape and was interested in the type of noise generated
in low light situations by the Elura. The noise is more like a graininess
to the luminance channel -- it didn't seem to have those same colored
specks that you'd normally find in video shot in low light. The result was
a lot less distracting than what I'd expect to see in those conditions.
Dean.
Craig Brandon
11/25/99 5:10 AM:
> I know that the lux rating
> doesn't mean very much, but at least within Sony's internal relative
> scale it should mean that TRV8 and TRV10 and the PC100 are probaby even
> worst than my 3-year old Sony.
Dennis,
Actually, anytime you shoot video in a dark room, you are going to get a
poor picture. Lux ratings are bunk. Sure, you can boost gain, but then you
have a trade off in clarity. No camera, I repeat no camera can shoot in low
light without picture degradation. These are all just sales hype, I don't
care what the salesman tells you. If you shoot indoors without proper
light, you just have to realize the quality is going to be less than
desireable. Think of is as the same thing as taking still photographs.
Sure, you can get a REAL slow speed film, but the trade off is quality.
Don't beat your head against the wall on this one. Focus on the other
features of the camera and ignore the lux rating for the most part.
Craig
--
Dennis
much
light as possible. Problem is, when I shoot indoors and try to catch my kids in
their once-in-a-lifetime smiles or antics, I don't have the reaction time to get
lighting up
properly.
My 7-year Sony TR705 is rated at Sony's 2 lux, and did a fairly good job, so I
just assumed
that all camcorders do okay at the light levels that I generally encountered at
home. So
when I got my Sony TR110E 3 years ago, I just went out and grabbed the
top-of-the-line
Hi8, and found that the low-light ability was *much* worse. Then I looked at the
ratings
and found that Sony rated that camcorder 4lux (again, for what it's worth). I
was very upset
with the camcorder, it was $1200 wasted.
I just read that the PC100 is rated at 7lux. I know that lots of enthusiasts
like the camera,
but the most important use of my cam is to capture my kids' moments (hopefully
for a lifetime).
Hence most of the Sonys are out. In fact I just bought a Panasonic NS33E (PAL)
and it is
*much* better than my two old Sony's. I am very happy with the camera so far.
Daniel H Lauring
to hell and everything is grainnnnnny.
I found out the hard way when I updated my old RCApro 8mm for a new Sony Hi8
a couple of years ago. The Sony was pitifully bad when I used it indoors
compared to my old RCA. Turns out, with further research, I learned why.
Older camcorders used larger sized CCD's. These larger CCD's were capable
of grabbing more light. My old RCA had a 1/2 inch CCD. My new Sony a 1/4".
Even though the Sony could film in infrared mode, using only its infrared
beam...it was a terrible performer in regular indoor lighting.
I did some more research and found the some of the 3 CCD cameras fared
better. The Sony TRV900, the Canon XL-1 (though too big for me), the
Panasonic EG30u and the new Canon GL-1. The only problem is you are talking
some serious bucks....3 times as much as a high end Hi8.
--
Daniel Lauring
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalow/9795/
Digital Camera and Video Camera tidbits
.
Dennis wrote in message <3844AF32...@yahoo.com>...
Keith Wiebe
noticed that the TR9 dv cam has the same low light problems my dig 8 has!
Namely, a bluish tinge in chrome or bright areas such as the pictrure frame
and generally a decrease in low light color accuracy. I also noticed a
banding of yellowish lines in the one indoor shot. I guess you get what you
pay for! For the most part I'm still happy with my digital 8 and sometimes
the picture looks outstanding! Give it a little light and it looks perfect.
(at least the color problems aren't noticed when viewed on a 27inch TV about
8 ft away but maybe a bigger TV would show them up). Good work David!
Keith Wiebe
Neuman - Ruether <rp...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:385ada22...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 02:48:02 -0500, "Daniel H Lauring"
> <dlaurin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >I did some more research and found the some of the 3 CCD cameras fared
> >better. The Sony TRV900, the Canon XL-1 (though too big for me), the
> >Panasonic EG30u and the new Canon GL-1. The only problem is you are
talking
> >some serious bucks....3 times as much as a high end Hi8.
>
> If you want to see comparison frame grabs shot with the
> camcorders above (and others), I just posted some on
> my web page - one of the five situations shot is a
> low-light room (beyond the capabilities of any to
> shoot successfully, so revealing of how far down
> in light each camera will go relative to the
> others, and what the bottom-end image looks like).
> Look under "I babble" for the Mini-DV camcorder
> comparison at the URL below...
> David Ruether
> rp...@cornell.edu
> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Neuman - Ruether
Daniel H Lauring
I'd seen your postings before and your comparison but somehow missed the
captures.
By the way, I went for the Canon....for two reasons.
1st, the added zoom capability. 20x vs. 12x is a big advantage.
2nd the larger pixels which should give it an advantage in lower light. By
using pixel shifting technology Canon is able to make CCD's that have larger
individual pixels. Larger individual pixels translate into better light
capabilities.
Other things I like but which are a smaller factor. The handle and overall
ergonomics are better on the Canon. The mic is better.
Things that I miss on the Sony. $300 dollars in my pocket!!! The larger
LCD screen. The reliability assurance of something that has been on the
market a long time.
Thats about it for now. I'll post more when I've had time to run it around
the block.
--
Daniel Lauring
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalow/9795/
Digital Camera and Video Camera tidbits
.
Neuman - Ruether wrote in message
<385ada22...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...
John P. Beale
: using pixel shifting technology Canon is able to make CCD's that have larger
: individual pixels. Larger individual pixels translate into better light
: capabilities.
Yes, all other things being equal. However they are apparently not equal,
because my (so far, casual) testing indicates the TRV900 is 1/2 stop more
sensitive than the GL1. That is, with both cameras at 0 dB gain, pointed at
the same image, the GL1 will need 1/2 stop wider aperture to give the same
brightness image. This was unexpected, but if you look at the f/stop
settings listed on David's page for the same scenes with different cameras
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder-comparison.htm you will note his
results agree with mine.
Has Canon perhaps used less gain after the CCDs, which might give better
signal qualities? Perhaps the GL1 has less noise, although truthfully I
don't observe a lot of difference here although my tests have not been very
careful so far. Both cameras have visible amounts of noise in dimmer
lighting. With the GL1 sharpness at center setting (default) it's similar
to the TRV900 noise levels. Increase the sharpness and it gets considerably
worse, reduce and it becomes better (although, of course, softer overall).
As far as I can tell, based on these two instances, Sony has better CCD
technology.
-john