You all be the judge and jury!

Before this A1 goes back to the retailer and gets swapped out for a replacement next week (whose preformance I hope is greatly improved over the 1st unit which was dismal) I decided to bring it to church and give it one more chance just to make sure.

The audio guy (who I work with closely) who also bought a HD camcorder earlier this year for himself (in his case it was a Sony) was surprised to see first hand how limited the A1 was in letting in light with the iris wide open with the shutter speed at TV 60 or in manual at 1/60th.The test enviroment was a well lit church sanctuary where I've shot many services successfully with a pair of GL-2's.He confirmed my concerns that all was not well.

With the A1 fully out & wide,I then proceeded to demonstrate how much more light was quickly lost (above and beyond the general shortage of it in the first place without adding lots of gain) as I zoomed directly in towards the pulpit.Both of us could see the stops going by like a freight train while zooming in on the LCD.Started at F-stop 1.6 & ended at about 3.8 (or something like that) which was too dark.

Keeping that in mind,hence here are my basic questions:

a)Is this normal,to be expected and is there any A1 shooting mode where one does not lose a substantial amount of light (the exposure level)while zooming in to the desired depth? Is this all the A1 does/can do?

b)I then gave up on the A1,used my 2 GL-2's (which had plenty of light to operate from whereas the A1 did not) and you can be sure I didn't lose light when zooming in with those which has been my long term experience in that location under the same lighting conditions.

So what gives...Is this a further problem with the A1?

The above is very crucial to my shooting needs.If the A1 is not capable of holding the specified/desired level of light when zooming in.. this unit will not work for my intended purposes & usuage.

That's about the best I can explain the problem.

Please help unravel & explain this phenomenon.

Thanks again!

Bruce

With the A1 fully out & wide,I then proceeded to demonstrate how much more light was quickly lost (above and beyond the general shortage of it in the first place without adding lots of gain) as I zoomed directly in towards the pulpit.Both of us could see the stops going by like a freight train while zooming in on the LCD.Started at F-stop 1.6 & ended at about 3.8 (or something like that) which was too dark.Take a look at the top of the lens, just in front of the focus ring right below the built-in stereo mic. You'll see some numbers there, and they look like this: 1:1.6-3.5 -- those numbers are telling you that the maximum aperture at full wide angle is f/1.6 while the maximum aperture at full telephoto is f/3.5 (also, I mentioned this in my XH Watchdog F.A.Q. page at http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxh/xhfaq.php).


a)Is this normal,to be expected and is there any A1 shooting mode where one does not lose a substantial amount of light (the exposure level)while zooming in to the desired depth? Is this all the A1 does/can do?It's perfectly normal and should be fully expected. The way to avoid it is to shoot in a manual exposure mode and set the exposure to f/3.8 to begin with, in order to avoid a change of exposure from occurring throughout the zoom range. Compensate for the light loss by adding gain if necessary, or shoot in an auto mode.

b)I then gave up on the A1,used my 2 GL-2's (which had plenty of light to operate from whereas the A1 did not) and you can be sure I didn't lose light when zooming in with those which has been my long term experience in that location under the same lighting conditions.Actually the GL2 works exactly the same way (in other words, just like the XH A1 it does not have a constant aperture lens), except the maximum aperture values are a little different: f/1.6 at full wide and f/2.9 at full telephoto. If you've never noticed that difference before, it's most likely because you had some other function automatically compensating for this change in exposure, whether it was shutter speed or gain. At any rate, just like almost every other camcorder, the GL2 does indeed lose light when zooming in, as has been previously discussed here: http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=37475

Before this A1 goes back to the retailer and gets swapped out for a replacement next week (whose preformance I hope is greatly improved over the 1st unit which was dismal) I can practically guarantee that you're not going to see any difference between the XH A1 you have now vs. a replacement camera.

By the way, what it so difficult about hitting the space bar after commas and periods and other punctuation marks? Your posts are hard to read because of this.

You need a Sony PD170.

(Out of curiosity, what was the Sony "HD" camera your sound man was using that was so much better than the Canon XH-A1?)

while zooming as you have stated, even so it was never noticed as it was so slight to the naked eye. I didn't need to intentionally set it to compensate (as I wouldn't know how to do it anyways) as it apparently automatically compensated somehow on its own or maybe it was preprogrammed in.I never fiddled around with the gain on the GL-2.

How do you think the GL-2 is programmed/set-up so that no light loss is noticed when zooming in modes other than auto? As you know my preferred shooting mode is TV 60 w/exposure lock on. So, it is possible to set-up the A1 to automatically "compensate" the same way as the GL-2 does other than what follows immediately below?

If the f-stop is initially set to 3.8 (as suggested) in manual mode to avoid light loss while zooming, the key point is that at that level, it's already too dark to be usefull in the intended shooting environment so that defeats the purpose.It's a no win scenario because there is no control or constancy of the light levels while shooting if I choose to use the zoom which is vitally necessary without sacrificing & jeopardizing quality. Why should I have to add gain in order to have enough light?I don't get it.Why doesn't the A1 give one enough to start with?

Are you telling me that only the A1 auto mode won't do this to me?

I was hoping there were more options than this!

Thanks Chris for your informed and thoughtful response.

Jack,as soon as I know what the audio guy has I'll let you know.I've heard about it but he's never brought it to church yet.

HD needs more light because it has more pixels on roughly the same sized CCD chips, so it is to be expected. Make sure that you do not have the ND filter on.

All the electronic lenses on all the 1/3" chip cameras perform this way. The reason the XH A1 lens stops down more is that it zooms in more. You'd have the same problem with a PD170. A $10,000 lens will not do that, but they don't put $10,000 lenses on $4,000 cameras.

Make sure your ND filter switch is off. And you might want to try zero db gain instead of -3 if that's what you're shooting at. Or if you're at zero, try a +3 if things are still too dark. Make sure all the auto stuff is off. The only solution if you need more than an f3.5 is to not zoom in that far. If you must zoom and have to zoom in that far, then you'll have to use a higher gain, which will make things grainy.

In doing a comparison between the XH A1 and a DSR250 (which has the same chips as the PD150), I found them to be almost identical, with probably about 1/4 of a stop going to the 250. That was zoomed in fairly tight to a dark place under a table, to a cardboard box with fairly neutral reflectance. At different focal lengths and different light conditions, the cameras might be farther apart, I don't know since I only checked that one setup.

is turned off,what exactly were you refering too? Please elaborate & give detail. Thank you!

Yes, the ND switch is definitely turned off. Right now I have the setting in the low position to 0 db gain.What baffles me is the sizable difference in the amount of light coming into the GL-2 (which is more enough to do the job) as compared to a so-so amount of light coming into the A1 even when wide open at f1.6 which only gets worse when zooming.That's why I reffered to the A1 as a apparent light hog earlier on in the thread.

Here's why zooming is so essential & can't be ignored or minimalized in its importance in my particular case. When in the church shooting setting,I'm positioned in the back of the audience between the back pew and the wall. That means the speaker or other service participants are probably I'd say about 75 feet or so away from the lens on the platform. I film the main action and another volunteer on occasion does the close-ups and pans. That means in order to get some kind of "variety" & to try to make the program a little more interesting for the viewers (seeing that there's only 1 camcorder on the front at all times) I vary the depth every few minutes by zooming in or out to include more or less of the congregation.In addition, I vary the depth with just the pastor & the pulpit itself in the picture.That means every time I zoom one way or the other the light balance is affected and put out of whack for the environment and it sure would show up on film!

If I didn't do the above, (assuming I had enough light in the first place coming into the A1), it would be a lot more stagnant,the picture would tend to be too far away from the action and it would be too limiting & boring for someone to watch. So apparently I'm caught between a rock and a hard place now.So what are my choices:

Eiether I'm zoomed in with lotsa gain on in order to try to cope with light loss or not zoomed in with the picture being sort of a wide panarama-bird's eye view.IMHO its not a great choice especially as I aim for quality as one can only compromise so far.

I'd welcome a solution other than auto.

Thanks for your imput.

Bruce

If you are getting the desired results from the GL2, why don't you just stick with the GL2?

You need a Sony PD170.

(Out of curiosity, what was the Sony "HD" camera your sound man was using that was so much better than the Canon XH-A1?)

I shoot a lot at work with a VX2100, and can tell you that in a well lit church--which I shoot tons of with my A1--there's truly a negligible difference between the A1 and the VX2100 which is the consumer version of the PD170. I just shoot on "Automatic" with both, and get simply beautiful results with the A1 every time--like today.

On my shoots I am constantly receiving comments on how great the images look. I do not apply any color correction or other than basic editing processes on my church shoots, I don't need to.

Bruce, there is simply nothing a GL2 will do better than an A1 in those conditions (well lit curch that you describe).

Similarly, there is simply nothing a PD170/VX2100 will do better than the A1 in those conditions you described, as well. It's fully comparable to any top SD cam when used in SD mode in a well lit stuation such as you describe. I know from first-hand experience from using both extensively in similar circumstances.

Whether it's the cam, or how the settings are, I don't know. I now suspect it's got something to do with how the settings are. . I guarantee you, when set up and used correctly--(which can be defined in this case, as just leaving it on "auto") even carelessly as I discovered--the A1 will deliver the goods. It is I have found, very flexible and not some super-finicky cam that only functions in a limited number of circumstances.

Maybe your cam does not function correctly in TV mode? Try another mode and see if you get the same results. Try going back and setting the cam to its factory default settings. Then try again. Just plain old "automatic" seems to work for me just fine in those conditions. Try it, just for the heck of it.

I'm with Bill on this one..

side by side a DVX100 at 9+ gain up the A1 with 12+ gain, comes mighty close (a tad brighter in fact) and just as clean. Ive never needed to shoot a ceremony at 9+ or even 12+ though..

With the A1, the fundamental element above all other uses for the camera is to ensure your scene files are tweaked out. There is soooooo much control available with the A1, it isnt funny.. it took no more than 5mins to set up and also, by having the ability to dial in WB in a numerical value, matching the A1 with any other camera is a no brainer.

OK, let's cut to the chase here.

May I suggest you beg, borrow (or, dare I say it) steal, a decent hand held light meter and go measure the incident light available at the target you are trying to shoot, and let us know what the reading(s) are.

This is the only independant source of hard info we will have on this problem.

Comparing this camera with that camera is such a circular argument it goes nowhere.

I assume (as you didn't say) that you are shooting SD not HD?

If you are shooting SD and the difference in the percieved light levels (or the reaction to same) is as extreme as you say, it would appear to indicate there is a problem with the camera.

It may, of course, indicate that problems not visible with the previous camera are now "in your face" with the A1 due to a major jump in resolution or the handling of material, even in SD.

I would ask one (or two) questions:

Why are you shooting at 1/60th in an obviously challenging light environment?

Why not flick the camera into "Auto" everything and see what it can do?

As I cannot forsee anything happening in the Church which will require a fast shutter speed, drop it to as low (in manual whatever) as is required and see if that suffices ?

[I realise some of these suggestions have been made previously, but for completeness can't exclude them].


I do hope you don't have a dud camera, but it would be heartening to learn that it was a dud camera and not a dud camera series that was the problem in your circumstances.


CS

Bruce.

Take the camcorder and a good monitor to the church some time during the week when you can experiment with various settings to find what works. If high quality video of the service is important, find a good location from which to shoot, not just from the back of the church, and consider adjusting the lighting.

Most A1 users would not want to lug about (or pay for) a HD lens that maintained f/1.6 through out the 20x zoom range. As a point of reference check out the Fujinon 18x zoom produced for a JVC camcorder with 1/3" CCD. It weighs 3.3 pounds, about 2.5x the weight of the XH-L1 lens, and is priced around $9000.

Bruce,

I hate to sound like a jerk, but I think your low-light expectations might be a little extreme. There are many people who feel that cameras should magically be able to see as well as the human eye in challenging lighting conditions.

The fact is, the Human eye has had millions of years of evolution to see as well as we do, and our brains have evolved to compensate for in these situations, giving us a clear, 'noise free' image even in the worst lighting (aside from pitch black).

The Canon XHA1 is rated with an ISO of around 320. This is a fairly decent rating. at 6db gain, it should double the apparent ISO to 640, which is very fast.

I use a 35mm adapter which takes 2 stops off the image (redrock.com) Even with this adapter gobbling up light, I managed to shoot an entire short film in the middle of the night in a moving car using very small kino-flo lights, and not much else.

I have always found the XHA1 to be superb in lowlight. Try upping your gain settings. The noise is fairly invisible up to 6db, and certainly acceptable at 12db. Try playing with your custom presets to boost your pedastal, add noise reduction (for higher gain settings), play with your gamma curves.

I don't think this is a matter of poor camera performance, but more an issue of too-high expectations.

Try these settings and tell us what happens?

F-stop: 3.6 (zoomed)
Shutter: 1/30 (double your light, good motion characteristic)
Gain: 6db
ND: Off
Pedastal: Bump up a few notches
Gamma: Default (less contrasty, more info in the darks)
Knee (blacks): Stretch
Shoulder (whites): Low

Shoot in HD, so that there is more info to post-process with, and so you can get the full dynamic range off the camera.

Give it a shot in at least 20 foot candles of light. Anything less, and I doubt you'll get what you're looking for.

Having owned a GL2, it handled lowlight very well, but only at high gain levels. The 1/4 chips it contained were rated lower than the XHA1, and trust me, the A1 handles low light much better and cleaner.

There is no way the GL2 under exactly the same conditions would be better than the XH A1 in light requirements. I'm not doubting your observations, but there is something else going on. If you're zoomed back to a wide angle, shooting 60i at a 1/60 shutter speed and the GL2 is set the same way, you'll see that the XH A1 will want less light than the GL2. If not, there's something not set right or some problem with the camera.

Hi Bruce:

I have read this and your previous thread, if you want your problem solved you gotta be more detailed and more systematic. No one knows your settings, no one can see the location, and no output has been provided, and what you write is vague and non-objective.

To give everyone something objective to work with, do this:

Set both cameras in all manual, disable everything auto, white balance and gain. If something runs auto, we have no idea how this influence the final result. For the moment forget about noise reduction, colour correction and other details.

Set f-stop, focal length, shutter speed, fixed gain, ND, etc. to same or comparable values on BOTH GL2 and A1, note down these settings. Set them as close as possible in the same location at the site where you will be shooting.

Record 10-30 sec with each. For the A1, record 10-30 sec in both SD and HD. Provide a frame dump from each sequence, labelling which is which. If possible also, get a light-meter reading as an independent reference.

This will allow everyone to compare objectively the performance of the two cameras.

Then try to change one setting on both cameras, and repeat the recording, produce frame dumps again. You should try this: Use the minimum zoom and max zoom you will be using at that location. Try max aperture and fixed aperture 3.x (whatever it is). Carefully note down all the changes in settings you do. If you don't care to write down at location, just say it as you record each sample. Then write it in your next post.

This will allow us to see the performance range of each camera. This, with the previous, will allow us to guess about general bad performance, or if you got unlucky with your A1 purchase.

Next. Change manual settings of the GL2 to achieve the desired result note down the settings you use. Try to set the A1 with equivalent settings. Post the result.

This will allow everyone to see what you're trying to achieve and give advice on how to achieve that. It will also allow everyone else to use this thread for future reference so they can learn how to solve similar problems.

Thanks, Erik

There is no way the GL2 under exactly the same conditions would be better than the XH A1 in light requirements.

I completely agree with Bill. The A1 is superior to the GL2 is every possible aspect …including low light capabilities. I don’t know why people insist on comparing these two cameras. Except for the brand name, there’s absolutely nothing similar about them.

The GL2 is decent but its low light capabilities really leave much to be desired.
I only find it to be “noise free” in extremely well light interiors and exteriors. If you want an SD Canon upgrade from the GL2 with better low light results, get an XL1-S.

Further, if you are shooting content for low-power religious/public access, no matter what you shoot on, it’s still going to be broadcast looking like SVHS circa ’92.

The A1 takes some serious time to learn. Regardless, coming from a GL2 ... I would probably pick up this video.

http://www.vasst.com/product.aspx?id=af5b083b-3102-4624-aafa-9d5315f4ee3d

Hi Bruce,

Struggling with similar issues, I discovered something today that many of you already know. This camera loves +12db. In low light situations, the camera surprisingly does best with 12db gain. I stayed away from going higher than +6db because I am used to the sony Z1u. Once I discovered that these cameras are not the same, and that the A1 needs +12db to match the sony +6db, things went great. The image, in natural house lighting situations does well with 12db. Very clean. I connected camera to my TV and played around for an hour to figure it out. For low movement scenes 1/30th juices up the light too. Church light with 12db should do it.

Let me know what you think

Interesting. I found just the opposite. I didn't go as far as +12db, but found that shooting at zero db with the XH A1, the Sony Z1 wanted +3db; and at +3 db on the Canon, the Sony would be at +6. This was shooting both at 30fps (60i), at full wide angle, under very low lighting conditions. However, I also found that the Sony looks better at a high gain position than the Canon at the same one. In other words, at +6 the Sony looked better; however, in situations where the Z1 needed a +6, the XH A1 would be shooting at a +3, so the end result was the same.

Hi Everyone,

First I wanted to acknowledge & thank all of the new contributors to the thread.I'll have new things to try once the replacement unit arrives sometime early next week in all likelihood as I sent the original back to the retailer this afternoon.

Eric,This is why I bought an A1 instead of still sticking faithfully with known & tested equipment,Canon or otherwise. I value quality with a good price to preformance ratio. Canon has a good reputation for excellence & I have extensive hands-on experience &/or have owned Canon camcorders for about 6 years with GL-1's and 2's. The unit has excellent reviews from pros and amateurs alike. Like so many here I want the best I can afford and try to upgrade when feasible. The A1 looked to be a perfect match. The GL-2's are fine but I wanted something better to improve on the quality of my production as the cable station butchers the MPEG-2 DVD compliant file when transcoding it to their particular format for broadcasting. It's exciting for me to own newer,much more advanced technology and have a valued tool to work with going forward into the future.Movin' on and upward.......

Steve, Yes I did a hard reset and tried various modes but don't recall using plain auto yet but momentarily to be truthful. I thought it was reasonable to rightfully expect the A1 to have just as much or more light coming in as the GL-2's. The comparative loss of light levels occured in all of the other modes tried.When the replacement cam arrives you can be sure auto will get a full work out.I'd love to discover TV mode (even though its what I usually use) was the only culprit!

Peter, I'll experiment with the dialible white balance control and see if that helps combined with other suggestions.

Chris, Sorry! I strike out in regards to having access to a decent heldheld light meter as I don't own one and don't know anybody who has one since by circumstances I more or less work alone. Wish there were other A1 shooters close by in central Mass. FYI, all of the comparisons/tests were made with the A1 in 1080/60i HDV mode vs. the GL-2 in SD 4:3 mode. What shutter speed & frame rate do you reccomend I shoot in? At 1/30th,1/15th, etc. the footage starts looking jumpy and not smooth especially when panning. Is 30 either or 24F more suitable considering the situation? Please advise. Thank you.

Don, I agree with you. Access to the church other than on the worship day itself is limited in part because I have to take my wife to the chiropractors at night after work on various weeknights & get home too late. Unfortunately, resources are limited and don't have a pro monitor to use. The church has no equipment of its own,it's all mine such that it is. My selection of shooting positions is rather sparse as I have to stay out of the way to the extent possible & still have a clear, unobstructed shot to the front/platform over the audiences heads.Also, I don't want to distract the congregation form whats going on seeing its a worship service. The church is on the small side.

Matthew, Why would several GL-2's operate fine in the exact shooting environment & conditions if it were a "true" low light issue? Yes,I agree with you to some extent because apparently the A1 requires significantly more light to operate as others have stated. So, it's possibly a low light issue with the A1 and not with the GL-2's. I'm wondering just how much gain is "safe" and where an acceptable trade-off is between light/gain and grain? That too will need to be thoroughly tested ASAP when I get unit #2. Your specific reccomendation with settings is on my growing list to try.Thanks!

Erik, yes... I need to give more numbers when available so that contributors are not guessing to some extent and probably need to do a better job of trying to match up the paramaters and modes on both units.Sounds like your advice alone will keep me busy and posting!Anxious to get down to the bottom of it and to move on enjoying the A1.

Bill, Right now all I can say is what I saw thus far with 12-18db of gain needed to "match" with the A1 wide open. I'm hoping for an "dud" camcorder with issues but Chris Hurd my well be right when he doubts the replacement will be any different/better.

Eric, The VAAST video looks to be informative and promising with very well-known names.Will keep it in mind,however my next purchase is a carrying case that fits as right now I'm making do! I'm not even remotely pretending or thinking that the GL-2's are better in any respect. It's for that very reason that I bought the A1 as its state of the art and am trying to arrive to that very conclusion myself from personal experience.The cable station mangles the quality of my program when they transcode it for broadcast with their machine and I was trying to somewhat compensate for that significant quality loss by upping the qaulity to an A1.

Well thats all guys, I type slow, this took a long time to write and need to get some rest. Synergistically we will solve this mystery!

Good night and thanks again.

Bruce

Bruce

Sounds like your camera is perfectly operational, you need to just implement some of the generous, expert advice you've already been given here.

We'll see what "round 2" brings,hopefully within a week.

You've all been great!

More to come at a future date.

Bruce

Bill,

Thanks for the response. I used the Z1U for a wedding and leased the camera. I did some tests @ home. replicated those tests with the A1. I looked at the footage again from the sony. I was mistaken. Looks like the footage I thought was +6db on the sony was actually +12db. In 6db, the sony struggled but in 12 db, with good overhead lighting and some natural light from the window, it was clean. At the wedding, the sony struggled in 12db...little noisy. I had to use 6db and in then adjust gain in post for the reception. The church was good in 6db though.

Now with the A1, my camera struggles at 6db. At 12db, as long as there is moderate light, it is clean...unlike sony. A little overexposed but because the 6db is underexposed, I prefer the 12 db.

I am thinking that my TV may need replacement (20 inch CRT). I will review the same footage this week on an LCD HD TV and report back if you are interested.

I am wondering if this camera is tuned differently or if I have a defect if its so poor on light.

+6db Looks brighter on my computer LCD (imac G4) which is usually how it looks on my brother's LCD. Maybe its just my TV

You can't judge exposure on a monitor unless it's been properly adjusted with NTSC color bars.

I really think there's something turned on that shouldn't be with your camera, maybe a faster shutter speed, I don't know.

Here's what I'd do if you have access to the Z1 too:

Set up both cameras. Make sure both are on 60i (30fps), both set to 1/60 shutter speed, both in fully manual. Auto iris off, auto shutter off, auto white balance off. Make sure both have the ND filters off. Set the zebras on both cameras to 100 percent.

Get a Kodak gray card, or if you can't find one easily, use something like a basic light blue oxford cloth button down shirt. Doesn't have to be button down, but everybody has an oxford cloth button down blue shirt, right? That's pretty close to a standard 18% reflectance, like a gray card. Maybe a bit brighter, but close enough.

Put the shirt or card a few feet from both cameras, propped up, and a piece of white paper also in the shot. Zoom in to the same area with both cameras, but don't zoom in so far that the lenses stop down. Open the apertures of both lenses until you get zebras on the white. With zebras at 100%, you'll get zebras on the white paper. Then look at the aperture readouts of both cameras. Since these are electronic lenses, the apertures will read out in the viewfinders. If your XH A1 is functioning properly, it should be very close to the same reading of the Z1, perhaps stopped down just a little bit more.

That's just a test off the top of my head. Anybody else have a better idea, jump in.


Then, I'd move in so the shirt or gray card fills the frame, hit the auto iris button and look at the aperture reading on both cameras. They should be, again, very close. If the XH A1 reads, say, 5.6, the Sony will probably read 5.1 or something in that range.

You can also go online and do a search for NTSC color bars, and there is a tutorial you can probably find about how to adjust a monitor to color bars. But you'll need a professional monitor to do that. If it's just a TV, you can probably get close enough to get a rough idea of exposure, but I wouldn't trust it entirely. The idea of my simple test above is to see if there is a serious difference between the two cameras, using some type of consistency.

Oh yeah, light the shirt/card and white card with a tungsten light and set the white balance to the tungsten preset. Or if there is good, even daylight, do it with available light and set white balance to daylight preset. Or you could do manual white balance if you want. That shouldn't really affect exposure, but both cameas should be set up equally.

The only other thing I can think of is the internal custom presets of your camera. You probably should go in and reset it to the factory preset to make sure something weird hasn't happened, like you have a setup programmed that is pressing blacks all to hell or something like that.

I think at this juncture I'll just shut up, butt out and await the next exciting episode. I'm really agog to see what the new camera brings to this particular party.

I'll say one thing for you - you're a methodical SOB, and no mistake.

I'm having my doubts this is operator error.

Keep us posted.


CS

Bill,
Awesome advice. Unfortunately, I dont have the Z1 available. After reviewing some of the wedding footage on the Z1, and now that I have gotten used to watching footage on the A1, there is no doubt the A1 is clearer. I think its a better camera from my preliminary tests. Thank goodness!

I did do a hard reset (reset button under the LCD monitor). Nothing happened. Was I supposed to hold it down longer than a few seconds? Is there some sort of confirmation sign?

Anyway, the major concern is low light capability. I am just using sony as an example because I have used it before and wanted to make sure I made the right decision by going with the A1. Looks like I need to be in 12db when shooting inside the house, and have my regular house lights on. This is the only way I get adequate exposure. I think I am too used to my travel 1-chip sharp which always cranked up the exposure.

As for settings., I do keep it all manual @1/60, 60i HDV, iris open. +12db.
In 24f, it gets a bit dimmer.

Appreciate all the input.

If you're shooting 24fps, you need to go to a 1/48 shutter.

Bill,
Looks like I need to be in 12db when shooting inside the house, and have my regular house lights on. This is the only way I get adequate exposure. .


Hi Michael. Are you using Normal gamma setting? It gives better mid range low light performance compared with the Cine settings. A few months ago I was doing a shoot alongside a pro with an XL-H1. I couldn't understand why I was always having to use gain for certain conditions and he wasn't. When I got the chance to compare settings, the main difference was the gamma, and when I set mine to Normal instead of Cine I was finally able to switch off the gain and still get the exposure I wanted. BTW, this was under controlled lighting conditions, not house lights, but the set was deliberately made pretty dark so I think this would apply generally.

Richard

Don't own a light meter? Photography/Cinemaphotography is all about light, quantity, quality (hard, diffused), contrast ratios, color temerature (white balance in video/digital imaging speak).

Even a cheap incident light meter will vastly improve your ability to read and understand light. B&H sells the Sekonic L-398A Studio Deluxe III - Analog Incident and Reflected Light Meter for $180. I cannot imagine anyone spending three grand on a HDV video camera and not owning such an important basic tool as a light meter.

I cannot imagine anyone spending three grand on a HDV video camera and not owning such an important basic tool as a light meter.

Well, included in the three grand is a viewfinder, zebra stripes and an exposure meter. What you see is what you get.

If you're working with film or trying to get a very specific look or exposure, I see your point. But, for most video applications a light meter isn't that important.

I can see both sides of the light meter argument, but I have to agree that any basic camcorder is already its own light meter.

I own 3 or 4 light meters from my film days. When I first got into video, the first thing I did was, using a gray card, calibrate the camera to the meter because I didn't like reflective meters. However, after I learned the way the cameras I was using worked, I'm able to light fine by using the camera's metering system. It's easy to zoom in to different areas of the frame and get a reflective reading (using an 18% gray card when necessary). But shooting with a specific video camera is like using a specific film stock. Different cameras handle highlights and contrast differently, and you have to have experience with the camera you're using to learn what it likes and doesn't like in terms of lighting. One nice thing about the newer cameras is that we can light for about any look we want, versus the old flat lighting we had to do back in the dark ages of video.

The only thing about the XH A1 that's a little difficult in this regard is that it's harder to keep the viewfinder properly adjusted for different conditions than with a bigger camera with a high res B&W viewfinder. Even though you don't use that for judging exposure, it's good to keep it tuned with your color bars so you can get a good idea of what things look like in the camera.

Off hand there are two things a light meter can be very helpful for:

1. Evaluating a location before videotaping* (will there be enough light? etc.)
2. Getting an idea of the contrast ratio at a location or in parts of a scene.

For example, recently I shot in a very large room that was light by skylights on one side, some kind of big overhead lights on the other (with a couple burned out) and some flourescent lights.

Using a light might I was able to add some lowel tota lights and bring of the darker areas to get a fairly even room. Also, two corners stayed darker, and the light meter gave me an idea how much I would have to open the iris when people went into those two areas.

I chose the actual exposure, though, based on the camera's metering system.

*Since filming is for film and taping is for taping, are there any new terms" like Disking? Carding? Peetwoing?

The ability to evaluate light, available or studio, is a skill you learn, not by looking through a viewfinder, especially a video viewfinder.

Although I learned photography and cinematography using cameras without meters, I readily adapted to new tools as they became available. However, I never rely solely on what an internal camera exposure system tells me. I would say that with today's technology, internal exposure systems are right the majority of the time. Knowing when they are potentially wrong or when they will not produce the dramatic results that you are looking for, is something that can give you a professional edge.

Additionally, as someone pointed out, each video camera (or digital still camera) handles color balance, contrast ratios etc differently. Knowing how to use a handheld light meter and evaluate light without looking through a viewfinder provides you with a common reference which can be applied to the equipment and lighting for any giving situation.

Appreciate all the feedback. A couple of replies.

I do switch to 1/48 when in 24f. Will experiment some more. Right now, I just want to push this camera to the limits in low light in 60i.

I did notice the difference when switching to gamma normal & was aware of the dimming created in cimenatic mode.

As for the light meter, It certainly can't hurt. However, my father was a professional photographer for 30 years and we were in business together (16 years for me). We took light readings for him @ every location. I pretty much can eye ball it at this point.....and if you read your camera carefully, you can get the look you want regardless of what the meter tells you. Agree it can't hurt so I will pull it out. Thanks guys

Right now I'm sorting through options,testing them out and the elimination process has commenced in my quest to improve picture color quality, get enough light into the A1 while within its intended shooting environment and not lose appreciably more light while zooming. Those are the goals.

First of all a few comment on gain. I wish there was a dialible gain control with 1 step increments which would be better than choosing between 6, 12 or greater. It would have been nice if Canon had included a 9 db setting which would have offered more flexibility. One can fine tune the white balance that way, I think gain is pretty important too!

Here are a few more questions which hopefully will help me figure the issues out and come to a final conclusion.

1) How do I set up the A1 with the computer so I can see how the colors look on the monitor as being fed in by the A1 while the unit is on and live,in real time and be able to adjust the color settings accordingly as desired and needed? Do I need a software progam to accomplish that? Please enlighten.

2) How much light gain is there when one switches from 1/60th to 1/30th? Is it double or some other ratio? Can this change be measured in decibels?

3) Will factoring the AE shift-gain function into the equation/mix improve matters at all in regards to incoming light levels?

4) Still looking for the best vivid,vibrant & warm combination of settings specifically tailored & suitable for a church interior shooting as the factory neutral settings are unusable in my case. Anybody care to offer a possible solution which emulates the GL-2 out of the box look? Something that's nice & pleasing but not saturated?

Thanks all for continuing to participate in this revived thread.

Bruce

Hi Bruce. Does this mean that you got the replacement cam and the performance is similar to the original one? Or what?

1) Best way to do this is use a TV, not a PC monitor, and feed it from the composite or Y-C output from the A1. If you must use a PC, run a firewire cable from the cam to the PC and monitor the preview picture in your NLE software's capture function.

2) If you double the exposure time you will double the light reaching the CCDs. +3dB usually represents a doubling of power, but not sure if this applies to light levels or not. And it is not usually called gain when it is light in this context. The gain is applied (or not) as electronic amplification after the CCD and A-D conversion stage.

3) Setting AE Shift to a +ve value will not help if your exposure settings are already maxed out. And it will not operate at all in manual mode.

4) Don't really understand what makes the out of the box image unusable for you. It actually allows the camera to capture a lot of data. I agree it is not very impressive in camera, but if you apply an S-curve in post it can really pop out (assuming the exposure is OK). BTW, when you use "vivid, vibrant and warm" and "not saturated" in the same requirement, I cannot really picture what you are looking for. Maybe you can post a screen grab from the GL-2 in the church environment so that we can understand better?

Richard