I shoot primarily dance concerts (so indoor, stage lighting). I've been shooting with a Sony NX5 the past few years, which itself was an upgrade from a Sony Z1 (i.e. I've been shooting with this line of cameras for a while). I've just purchased a Sony PXW-Z150, and shot with it for the first time yesterday - the results were not what I expected.

I shot with the NX5, I set the Z150 up to record the same show in 4K as a wide shot for a test, to review what it looked like later. Here's a still from the NX5:
http://www.dvnonstop.com/pxw-z150/20160918145101.m2ts.00_21_02_15.Still001.jpg

Obviously I was zoomed in on the NX5, here's the same frame extracted/cropped from the 4K recording:
http://www.dvnonstop.com/pxw-z150/Clip0006.00_03_10_17.Still001_Crop.jpg

Here's the original Z150 full frame wide shot for reference:
http://www.dvnonstop.com/pxw-z150/Clip0006.00_03_10_17.Still001.jpg

The NX5 was f3.7, no gain, shutter 50, focus 12m, white 4400K.
The Z150 was f2.8, 6db gain, shutter 50, focus 10m(?), white 4400K.

(The Z150 manual focus stops were 10m, and then 20m, nothing in between? The subjects in the shot are standing on marks at 12m, the stage was between 8m (front) and 17m (rear) from where I was).

I had read through various articles about the Z150 in low light, I was still surprised I needed any gain at all for stage lights. Looking at it now, I do think I had the gain a little high (I set the camera up before the show started, and couldn't adjust it during). Even so, there is a LOT of apparent noise to me in the Z150 image - which is historically what I would have expected on older cameras once you start ramping up the gain. But I've seen various examples on this forum from other Z150 shooters, without the same level of apparent noise. Please someone tell me I'm doing this wrong? I can see see there additional picture profile settings to the NX5, I'm hoping there's something in there I haven't learned yet that will help, but I'm still somewhat shocked that the Z150 apparently needs so much more light, compared to the much older NX5.

A comparison for you of my cameras and a x70 I tried a while back. All set on automatic in my living room as a simple test. All images look to be about the same brightness. The 1" sensor looses some of its size advantage because of the lens. I did not get the X70 but got the AX100. The stacked sensor in the Z150 is supposed to be better but I am sure your tests are correct that it cannot compete with the NX5. I am sure the newer NX5R would be even better. In my tests even the older 1/3" NX30U was a little better in low light and I now have the AX53 which is a little better than the AX100. However the AX100 has the edge in picture quality and full manual control but not by much considering it is twice the cost.

NX5U F1.7 9db
X70 F2.8 24db
NX30U F2.0 18db
AX1 F1.7 24db

Ron Evans

Sounds like I have just made a (very expensive) mistake. How can the camera that is 5 years newer be so much poorer? I've seen footage on this forum shot with it (at night with lots of gain), that doesn't have the apparent grain mine did, so I'm still hoping I can improve this. I wouldn't have bought the camera to shoot anything dimly lit, but it seemed for stage lighting it should have been fine (I would have actually thought this a fairly standard scenario for this type of camera).

As far as I could see, the NX5 was obsolete, and the Z150 was the replacement unit in the range. I wasn't aware of the NX5R, and it looks like it isn't quite out yet. If I can't get the Z150 looking a bit closer to the NX5, I guess I'm stuck now trying to sell it second hand, and picking up an NX5R.

The problem is that they are shoving more pixels into the sensor because people want higher resolution, which means smaller pixels, and less area to collect light photons. Can you imagine what a 1080p only FF A7sII sensor would be capable of? :-)

I find I can shoot ENG comfortably up to 27db without even really noticing anything horrible. 30db and 3db in a pinch, although on the X70, 27db looks like 33db on the Z150. I shoot ENG all the time at maximum 33db gain on the Z150. My station issued JVC ProHD cameras look worse at 9db than the Sony does at 33db, and the JVC's can go all the way to 36db, or what I call "grey snow". :-\

Paul

BTW, convert that Z150 4K footage into 1080p 4:2:2 and then pixel-peep the noise again. :-)

Paul

Thanks Paul, I've seen some of your videos posted, and that's what surprised me most. You've identified the gain used on some of those, and I could not particularly make out any noise, from either the gain or the low light - so this was a bit of a shocker. I'm thinking now the gain might not fully be the issue, but also the sensor itself with large blocks of solid colour.

I've converted it down to 1080p, and some other tests, it looks "better", but still not as clean as the NX5 - it's still snowing purple in the background, just a bit less. And it seems a bit pointless to have bought a 4K camera if the footage isn't useable at that resolution.

Apart from the solid colours in the backdrop, the rest of the image is at least equivalent to the NX5. And the footage looks much nicer in progressive than interlaced. So it's not all negatives, in fact probably just the one negative, but it's unfortunately a pretty big one.

I'm in two minds what to do. If I zoom/follow with the Z150, I'll obviously get a better result than what I did just leaving it on a wide shot. But I'm not convinced at this point that it is going to match the NX5. And anything further I film will effectively be testing live on customer jobs. If I can't find any way to improve this, I'm seriously considering trying to return the camera if I can (probably will still cost me something, but hopefully not much), or otherwise trying to sell it. I don't think I can film my customer's jobs this year, and deliver them something that doesn't look as clean as what I shot for them on the older camera last year.

The 3MOS in the NX5 should have better color reproduction than the single sensor in the Z150. Also, I advise against shooting anything in 4K unless you have a need for that footage in 4K. I typically found that all of the 3MOS Sony's I tried, including the X180, had better image quality than the X70/Z150, but the X180 just did poorly at high gain, lots of smearing and noise reduction at play. You might also want to mess with the detail adjustments, as detail levels on UHD on the Z150 are VERY ENHANCED. I use 0 on 720 and 1080, but when I got my 4K TV, I could see it was very over-enhanced at 0 level in UHD mode.

I considering an NX5R to replace my Z150, but I would need to play with one first. It checks all the boxes for 720p60, built in live streaming, and SDI out, but you know how Sony hides demons in the details, like no EVF when live streaming, or the camera explodes if you attempt to output SDI while recording, that stuff. :-D

Paul

If you are shooting dance at 50/60P on the NX5 then the 4K of the Z150 is only 25/30P. That is why I got a FDR-AX1 so that I could shoot at 60P UHD. I am sensitive to the slow frame rates so like 60P for all my cameras. I am looking at the Panasonic HC-X1 or AG-UX180 to replace my FDR-AX1 but will have to wait and see how they perform as they may have a Sony 1" sensor !!! My wife uses the AX100 for closeups and for that it works well. Things I liked on the Z150 was that it used the same batteries and Lanc controllers that I have a few of. But didn't like the fact that it was only 30P UHD, lacked touch LCD and all the nice touch functions of the AX100 or X70. We use touch focus on all the unattended cameras. Focus is super critical for UHD and if it is off it is very obvious. Most of the time I leave the FDR-AX1 when unattended in auto focus.

Ron Evans

Perhaps the hideous neon pink is messing with the sensor?

Thanks

Jeff

Both the AX100 and the AX53 overexpose easily ( typical Sony ) and I prefer to under expose a little and just raise a little in editing. I seem to always drop the chroma a little too so a combination of slight over expose and chroma too high with that pink may cause a lot of the problem. I set my unattended camera focus with spot focus and AE shift on - 0.7 most of the time.

Ron Evans

Jeff - the neon pink is certainly part of the problem, but that's not the only colour wash that had an issue. There's one item where the colour wash gets changed about every half second, a bunch of the colours come up fairly clean (not as solid as the NX5, but close enough), and a bunch of the colours come up with the same snow effect. I can post a clip online if anyone wants to take a look. Overall (for the whole concert) I would say it was about 50/50 between having a relatively clean image (almost as clean as the NX5), and having a snow effect going on.

Ron - mostly I shoot at 50i at this point, sometimes on multi-camera I have to match against a Z1 or Z7 shooting at 50i, and I also never sold myself on the resolution drop to go 720p. I was going to revisit that with some Z150 tests, but possibly not now (if it ends up going back!)

For anyone who is interested, I’ve uploaded some video files of one of the items to Dropbox if you want to take a more detailed look:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/h332vma5rh120pu/AADtYj2g29Usbwz8kLC3zspLa?dl=0

In this item from the concert, the colour wash changes throughout, which gives some additional insight into what the Z150 is doing. For some of the colour washes the Z150 is basically as clean as the NX5, but for all the purple/blue washes, the background becomes heavily corrupted.

“NX5.mp4” is the item filmed from the NX5. “Z150.mp4” is the wide shot from the Z150 in UHD. “Z150 Zoom 1080.mp4” is the item from the Z150, but cropped to HD (1080) – so basically you’re just seeing the centre of the UHD image, which is a bit of a better comparison pixel for pixel to the NX5 footage. Not as perfect a comparison as if the Z150 had been zoomed, but the closest I can do from what was shot.

I'm currently in the process of returning the camera. Likely to cost me a hefty restocking fee (close to $1000), but it's not a camera I can otherwise use for what I'm doing, if this is how it performs.

Peter, how would you compare the noise of the NX5 vs the Z150 at their maximum gain settings? Which is cleaner, and if the difference is substantial, please advise. Still thinking of picking up a NX5R.

Paul

It looks like the NX5R is an upgraded NX3 so comparisons there may be similar.

My NX5U is not a match for the clean image of any of my small Sony's though when gain is used. Above 12db the NX5U is just not usable even at 12db I use Neat to clean up image. I normally limit use to 9db. By contrast the AX53 or AX100 are good beyond 21db and shooting 60P have a noticeably sharper image than the NX5U too.

Ron Evans

Paul, for output results with images of comparable luminance, the NX5 & Z150 are pretty comparable in my eyes. I would say there is slightly less noise in the Z150. It's difficult to get a true comparison, as the NX5 takes in so much more light to begin with, and doesn't need as much gain to get the same level of light in the final image.

Here's some quick tests for you:
http://www.dvnonstop.com/pxw-z150/Z150_f3-4_gain33.tif
http://www.dvnonstop.com/pxw-z150/NX5_f3-4_gain21.tif
http://www.dvnonstop.com/pxw-z150/NX5_f1-8_gain21.tif

First image is Z150, f3.4 (as open as it will go), gain 33 (max).
Second image is NX5, f3.4 (to match Z150), gain 21 (max).
Third image is NX5, f1.8 (as open as it will go), gain 21 (max).

Sorry about the NX5 white balance, I will try to re-do this. If you compare the first and third images, the NX5 brings it up slightly brighter to me, with comparable noise (NX5 is noisier, but probably doesn't need 21 gain to match the luminance of the Z150 image at 33 gain). It will be useful to see the NX5 image with proper white balance though!

Ron, thanks for the info, I will have to check out the NX3 specs. So long as they're a close match to the NX5, particularly the sensor, the new NX5 will hopefully be the camera for me. I basically never have to use gain in any of what I shoot with the NX5, there is always more than enough light for that camera in what I do.

At 0db or even 6db the NX5U is fine and at these levels I agree that the AX100 or AX53 is closer to 15db or 21 db of gain but still as clean or more so than the NX5U. The NX3 has newer sensors than the NX5U and I expect these are the same in the NX5R together with XAVC-S codec will give a much better result than the NX5U. I had hoped for 60P UHD from a Sony but am now waiting to see what the Panasonic AG-UX180 or the HC-X1 perform like in the next few months. I expect they may have the same basic characteristics as the 1" Sony's but may give me the replacement for the FDR-AX1 I want.

Ron Evans

I love the whole NX5 does better than the Z150 in low light, except that it has 10x the noise. :-D

For my 720p60 broadcast purposes, most of the grain and noise even at 33db is "smoothed out" by the lower resolution of 1MP productions. That's a good name for a video company that can only shoot 720, "1 Megapixel Productions". :-)

Paul

Paul, it probably largely depends how much "low light" you have, and whether you need the gain. For the concerts I normally shoot, I never require any gain with the NX5, and have plenty of room to move - I'm usually 3 or 4 stops away from having the iris open all the way. For the Z150 that's not even an option, even with the iris fully open, I still required gain from the get go.

If I was shooting something darker (i.e. what you do), and needed gain either way, then the NX5 will reach a point where it is going to lose out to the Z150 as far as the noise goes. So for me the NX5 is the better camera, as it never needs any gain on what I'm filming, but for others it may not be the camera to choose.

With that said, I also wanted to post that I've now returned the Z150, and the root cause of my original issue is apparently LED lighting. It turns out the Z150 doesn't like it, and apparently it's not the only camera with this limitation. Quite an issue for me, as LOTS of theatres have LED lighting installed. I'm looking into getting the new NX5, but I'm trying to get it confirmed that it captures images similar to what the original NX5 does, before putting myself out of pocket again. Otherwise I'll be scouring the second hand market!

Peter , all my shoots are in the theatre too with the AX53 or AX100 the ATW will result in a really bad image with excessive colour and noise with these LED lights. I always set all my cameras to the Sony indoor preset. I use my NX5U, AX53, AX100, NX30U and occasionally the FDR-AX1 or CX700. No point in setting a WB as the colour temperatures can change with scenes with the LED lights.

Ron Evans

In all my experiences with these low cost handheld cameras, the ones with 3 sensors ALWAYS have beter color accuracy and handling than the 1 sensor ones. If you want things to look as accurate as possible, meaning red is red not pink, and cyan is light blue not neon green, then choosing a camera with full color matrix adjustments such as the X180/X200 Panny UX180 should be a priority.

Paul

Unfortunately UX180 doesn't have 10bit color sampling.

Sorry, was thinking UHD.......it doesn't have 720p60 except for 8Mbps or live streaming capability either, or it would be on my "must have" list for that sweet 24mm 20x lens and multi-matrix adjustment menu!

Paul

It is also a single 1" sensor too.

Ron Evans

The attached pic demonstrates what that Panasonic can do that the X70 and Z150 CANNOT. The color correction menus for the X70 and Z150 allow adjustments of only 2 colors. The UX180 allows adjustments to 16 of them!!!!!

Yes much more adjustments than on my Sony's. I look forward to some reviews when it comes out later in the year. Could definitely be a replacement for my NX5U and/or my FDR-AX1.

Ron Evans

From the experience of older and newer models of Sony and Panasonic which is the best in low light shots and noise reduction?

Thanks everyone for all the additional info you've posted. I have to say I've always stayed out of the next level up in the Sony cameras, as it means new memory cards (SxS), new batteries, accessories, etc - it's just not in my budget for what I do at the moment. Plus, the NX5 has always been a great camera, and the Z1/Z5/Z7 prior to it were all quite similar - it was just total surprise to get caught out on the Z150 like this. Sounds like for the next purchase I need to look up in the range though, or start looking at other manufacturers (again, I've stuck with Sony due to a large stockpile of existing accessories - once I move away from that, it doesn't matter which way I go really).

Ron, one additional point/question on white balance. I've user the Sony indoor preset on concerts, but it seems to gear more towards less bright tungsten lighting (like in a home), and seems a bit off for most theatre lighting (does depend on the theatre, and the lighting used). I used AWB a few times too, the NX5 is generally good at it, but hates purple (comes out blue), and once or twice went completely off colour for me, so I stopped using it. I generally preset to 4500K these days, and find that to be the closest match to most of the lighting I'll hit in a concert/theatre. Generally in most concerts, the lighting style & colour changes so much that no single setting is likely to catch everything exactly as it was I guess, but I've just found that setting to work best for me.

I use the indoor preset on all the cameras because not all can dial up the level but all have the indoor preset and since all are Sony they are close. I always end up balancing colour in editing anyway but at least that way each camera will stay fixed for the show. Even at the fixed indoor they all in fact do not respond the same so I have preset for each to change in editing. I find the NX5U does not like purple too and the single chip version also do not produce the nice deep red the NX5U can produce. Nothing's perfect !!! As far as resolution detail my NX5U clearly does not match any of the newer single chip cameras I have and I will look at both the Panasonic AG-UX180 since it will do UHD 60P but may also look at the NX5R too.

Ron Evans

Ron, that is why I always used fixed xxxxK manual white balance. I want to be able to easily correct any on camera color issues on the entire shoot, instead of messing with each clip as I try to push to white using an on camera LED....we all know how well that works at a large venue or outdoor scene at night!

Paul

With that said, I also wanted to post that I've now returned the Z150, and the root cause of my original issue is apparently LED lighting. It turns out the Z150 doesn't like it, and apparently it's not the only camera with this limitation. Quite an issue for me, as LOTS of theatres have LED lighting installed.

Yes, LED lighting, particularly cheap LED lighting, is the very devil! My Z5s are happy with it, but my EX1s don't like it at all, particularly the saturated blues. Most of my work is in theatres too, so it's a real issue as venues trade their tungsten lights in for LEDs. Here in London the main theatres are sticking with tungsten for the moment: talking to lighting designers and head technicians I get the feeling that they don't think current LED lights are good enough to light skin well, but that as advances from the cinema world trickle down to theatre's level of affordability, good LED lights are just over the horizon.
So how do we deal with this? Hang on to old kit that works, until good LED lights arrive, or start to carry out experiments to see which current cameras will happily record shows lit with LEDs?

FWIW I am now shooting anything lit with LEDs at a manual WB of 8000, and a flourescent light matrix setting on the EX1 cameras. It's not perfect, but I can get a better grade starting from there.

Mark, it's concerning that the EX1 doesn't like LED lights, my info so far was leading me to believe that it was the single sensor cameras with issues primarily, but the EX1 is a 3 sensor camera I believe?

I used a Z1 prior to the NX5, and never had an issue with that either. The Z5 would be quite similar to both those cameras, it seems all of these have quite similar sensor systems, and they don't have an issue. Without testing cameras specifically, it's hard to come up with a rule at the moment that tells me which cameras are good for this, and which aren't. You'd basically need someone with access to the appropriate lights, and access to a variety of cameras, to go and run some tests. It sounds like even the Sony service guys here (Australia) don't have access to a setup where they can replicate this to test, to provide more info.

It seems to me like it is the newer sensor system in the Sony cameras that is having the issue, the real test I guess will be against the new NX5, depending on exactly what it has in it. Other than that, perhaps this is a Sony issue specifically, and time to look at another manufacturer?

Yes, the EX1 has three 1/2" sensors.
The EX1 was a troublesome camera regarding how it recorded colour towards the IR range: there was a genuine issue with the colour spectrum it recorded. Many black clothes made of synthetic fibres would record on this camera as a purple/brown, which was unfixable in post. So many of us EX1 owners were forced to invest in a IR-cut filter to fix this.

Sony resolved this issue with the EX1R.

I don't know if the EX1R also has this problem with LED lights... perhaps not.

An interesting thought about testing a range of cameras against LED lights... I might run that past the broadcast hire company I use, see if such a thing could be arranged. I certainly need to make sure it's not an issue, as I will have to look at investing in new cameras in the next couple of years.

Though it may seem like a good idea to test a bunch of cameras simultaneously, I think you'd need to at the same time be testing against a wide spectrum (pun intended) of LED lights as well.
I've been running into these issues ever since venues started replacing their old tungsten stage lights with LEDs and have found that there are some LED lights that can produce proper colors and others that just create bleeding and mush. This has been with a pretty wide variety of camera models - mainly Sony, but also some Panasonic and Canon.

If you've bought/used any of the higher end 1x1 LED panels, you may have noticed that aside from the fact that some brands may produce slightly pinker, bluer or greener lignt, if the camera is color balanced to them the resulting image can be excellent (no matter what camera.) I normally use some color correction gels (such as 1/4 or 1/8 minus green and 1/8 CTO) to provide a better match with normal 3200 Tungsten, and keep a number of precut gels with each LED to be able to adjust better to match available light if necessary. (I even keep 1/4 plusgreen in the kit in case I'm trying to get a match with some overly green overhead fluorescents.) Of course when buying LEDs for video lighting, I always check the specs to make sure that the CRI is at least 90+, and preferably 95+.

Unfortunately when shooting in bars that have a stage off to the side where they probably bought the absolute cheapest colored LEDs available, I sometimes run into lights that have exceptionally low color rendering qualities -- and no matter what cameras are being used my only real solution has been to turn off the offending house 'stage' lights and light the band myself.

My only suggestion when you're stuck with 'unusable' lighting is to shoot with a camera that can do Log recording for both exposure range and for color gamut (such as s-Log & s-Gamut). Then at least you may have a little more range to try to get it to work in post...

In terms of the 'no problem with the Z-1' comment -- I'm wondering if you're talking about footage shot during the last two years with the same lighting conditions? (it seems like the market has been flooded with the cheap, low-CRI 'stage' lights in the past two years, so anything shot before that might not be a proper comparison.)

Dave, good point about the Z1 - I haven't used it a lot recently. I still use it occasionally as a secondary camera to the NX5, and it really does match it very closely when editing - I'd be quite surprised if they are in fact much different. But I can't say that I've used it at any of the venues that I know have cheap LED lighting specifically, so I can't be sure about exactly what it does there.

I did pick up the new NX5R last week, and I can tell you straight up that it does appear to have different sensors in it - it seems to need a little bit more light than the original NX5, and the image I'm seeing is a little different. I will try setting up a side by side comparison as soon as I can, and will post some images on here.

Hi, how's your test of NX5R? I'm considering between this cam and UX180. The only factors for me to get nx5r is its 40X clear image zoom compared to ux180 30x i.zoom. Having a narrower focal length on the wide side also means the absolute telephoto length side is much longer at a staggering 1152mm compared to 762mm for ux180. I'm referring to FHD mode as I'm doing lots of live event projection thus having a long reach is pretty important. However the sensor is smaller compared to ux180 1". Thus I'm concerned about the low light capability of it. UX180 is not out so there's no comparison at this moment.

Another con of NX5R is the lack of switchable pal and ntsc system. In this modern era, why can't Sony give us a global system?

There are a few things you are not taking into account.

1: The larger sensor in the UX180 is irrelevant, because it is packed with 9 megapixels worth of 4K dots, and has f4.5 aperture at telephoto. Panasonic does spec the UX180 at f11@2000 NTSC/f12@2000PAL, the same as any newer FHD video camera.

2: The digital zoom on the NX5R would give you SD or maybe 720p resolution as it crops into the 2MP sensor. The iZoom on the Panasonic is for lossless FHD, it also has digital zoom, so you will get much better and crisper and longer zoom capability with the Panny.

Digital Zoom (2x, 5x or 10x)
The AG-UX180 is equipped with 2x, 5x and 10x digital zoom. Using
the 20x optical zoom and i.Zoom together, it gives you supertelephoto
magnification equivalent to a 300x zoom without dropping in
light intensity.

Paul

Hi Paul, thank you for your inputs. Do you mean both sony and panny have the same capability in low lights. Even though panny has larger sensor but because of the high pixel density, the light capturing is the same as sony?

Sony clear image zoom and panny i.zoom uses the same kind of technology isn't it? Why do you say panny is lossless whereas sony is lossy?

Someone who bought an R who has the original NX5 said the R is slightly LESS sensitive.........I have never owned an NX5, so I cannot testify to the low light sensitivity of it, and Sony refuses to list fx@2000 figures for these cameras. The whole lux rating is useless.

I would not think twice to get a UX180 over the NX5R, unless I really needed live streaming, which I do.

Paul

I have no idea how to interpret the fx@2000 figure....

Standard camera sensitivity rating...the target is illuminated with exactly 2000 lux, and the first number is the f stop (aperture) the camera must be closed down to achieve 100% video signal level at 0db. Basically, the smaller the number, the wider the camera lens must be opened up to get the same brightness. An old Betacam from 1990 would be f5.6@2000. The newer cameras like the PXW-X200 are f12@2000. So you can close the iris down to f12 on the PXW to get the same brightness of the old cameras at f5.6.

Is that a good enough explanation? If you browse big shoulder cameras on B&H, you will find that f@ rating on all of them, back to the 80's at least.

Paul

I think the NX5R is basically an NX3 with some extra NX5 features. The original had a sensor with large sensor sites, less than 1920x1080 and interpolated to 1920x1080. The NX3 has a full raster so the sensor sites are smaller than on the NX5U and thus may not be as sensitive. However my NX5U is useless above 12db of gain but the AX100 I have ( 1" sensor with lots of 4K pixels ) is a lot quieter at 27db of gain. Side by side though the NX5U is more sensitive if somewhat unusable at times. I expect the NX5R has this characteristic meaning not as sensitive as the original but with an image with less noise. You may need more gain but the image is then usable. Until the UX180 is out and tested we will just have to wait but I am going to consider it as a replacement for my NX5U as a better option than the NX5R as I do not need streaming or to use as a HD multicam but want UHD 60P.

Ron Evans

Standard camera sensitivity rating...the target is illuminated with exactly 2000 lux, and the first number is the f stop (aperture) the camera must be closed down to achieve 100% video signal level at 0db. Basically, the smaller the number, the wider the camera lens must be opened up to get the same brightness. An old Betacam from 1990 would be f5.6@2000. The newer cameras like the PXW-X200 are f12@2000. So you can close the iris down to f12 on the PXW to get the same brightness of the old cameras at f5.6.

Is that a good enough explanation? If you browse big shoulder cameras on B&H, you will find that f@ rating on all of them, back to the 80's at least.

Paul

Thanks! That's a good explanation! It simply shows modern cam are a lot more light sensitive.

Really old 1985 tube cameras, f4@2000
Last gen tube/first gen CCD cameras 1990, f5.6@2000
"HyperHAD" Betacams 1993, f8@2000
Sony DVCAM cameras 1996, f11@2000
Panasonic DVCPRO50 cameras 2006, f13@2000 (I love you SPX800!)
Fist gen Sony PDW XDCAM HD 2006, f9@2000
First gen DVCPROHD P2 2007, f10@2000

Recently...
PMW320 f10@2000
PMW300 f12@2000
PMW400 f12@2000
PXW-X180 f9@2000
PXW-X200 f12@2000
PXW-X400 f12@2000


Those figures, along with the signal to noise ratio, allow you to better understand how these cameras will look as you gain up. We know that every stop is 6db of gain, and that ever 6db of gain introduces 3db of noise, so it's easier to figure out how cameras perform when the manufacturer gives out these numbers. Sony gives us "1.2 lux auto iris/gain". How useful is that? They tend to give those figures when the cameras underperform in low light against the expensive cameras. Also, see drop in light sensitivity when HD hit the chips?

Paul

Figures given in NTSC, PAL default slower shutter speeds add f1 to each figure. Results typically expected top be 1/60 shutter for NTSC, for 60i. Fun note, the HPC27H DVCPROHD camera was f10@2000 in 60i, but f12@2000 in 24p due to shutter speed, they were playing with the rating, but listed both.

One last note about those figures. Due to the loss of light sensitivity with increased pixel count, several manufactures have begun blatantly making up figures, FALSE FIGURES. These would be Panasonic and JVC. Both of these companies have introduced standard and "extended" modes to their line of cameras. The extended or "low light" modes add 6db of gain to the readout, so when the camera says 0db, it is actually at 6db. Because the figures are taken at 0db, they get a rating of f11@2000, when in fact their cameras are a full stop less sensitive. Remember, every 6db is a stop. The HPX370 and HM890 cameras are rated at f11@2000, but at 0db on extended mode where they receive this rating, they are noisy, and the image is identical to their standard setting at 6db of gain. Sony uses REAL image sensitivity, no games. When you see Sony say f12@20000, that is a real number, with no fake or hidden gain tricks applied.

I have owned and operated HPX and JVC camera with these modes, so this is from real world experience, not just guessed about.

Paul

Paul you are a great wealth of useful information!

One last note about those figures. Due to the loss of light sensitivity with increased pixel count, several manufactures have begun blatantly making up figures, FALSE FIGURES. These would be Panasonic and JVC. Both of these companies have introduced standard and "extended" modes to their line of cameras. The extended or "low light" modes add 6db of gain to the readout, so when the camera says 0db, it is actually at 6db. Because the figures are taken at 0db, they get a rating of f11@2000, when in fact their cameras are a full stop less sensitive. Remember, every 6db is a stop. The HPX370 and HM890 cameras are rated at f11@2000, but at 0db on extended mode where they receive this rating, they are noisy, and the image is identical to their standard setting at 6db of gain. Sony uses REAL image sensitivity, no games. When you see Sony say f12@20000, that is a real number, with no fake or hidden gain tricks applied.

I have owned and operated HPX and JVC camera with these modes, so this is from real world experience, not just guessed about.

Paul

But this is what happens in all cameras. When the voltage readings are measured at each pixel, (they are extremely low voltage readings) the circuit just does't take whatever it gets and calls that baseline "0db". Instead, that is all "amplified", deBayered and processed. The final result of all of that is what the camera companies will call "0db" for that model.

So, yes, all cameras have plenty of "pre-amp" work going on long before it ever reaches what the camera guy sees as "0db" in his settings. And of course, it gets even more complicated when you consider the pre-amplification needed to do a LOG curve read-out and mapping from those photosites on the sensor. LOG mapping requires additional gain processing before you ever see it on your screen/switch settings as "0db".

So, I think it's fair to say that "0db" can never be taken literally on any camera of any kind from any company. It really doesn't mean allot, it's sort of a false indicator for what is really happening behind the scenes.

CT

Cliff, what I meant specifically for the JVC and Panasonic cameras, is that they have TWO DIFFERENT 0db modes, the ones they cal extended and high sensitivity add 6db underneath that 0db you see in the viewfinder. The s/n, such as 58db they claim in specs, is for their standard modes, so you have to deduct 3db from those s/n ratios for how clean a 0db image you will get at their claimed f11@2000. It's tricks like that that piss me off. Sony doesn't do this, if they say f12@2000 with a 62db s/n ratio, that is what you get, so you can add 18db of gain and know how clean your image will still be.

My work JVC HM890 stores separate gain settings for each mode. I have standard set to 0/9/18 and extended to 0/6/12. When I toggle between modes at high setting, the image stays exactly the same, meaning 18db at standard is as bright and noisy as 12db on extended. Might as well just add 18db of extended gain and put 0db on it, call the camera f32@2000 :-)

Paul

My NX5U starts at -6db but becomes very noisy almost unusable at 12db. I too always assumed that this was really 18db and the noise then would make sense !!! If you are outdoors in manual the "set ND " often appears but of course in auto the camera will go to -3 or -6 before giving this message. A case where manual may not give as good an image if one doesn't realize that 0 is not really 0.

Ron Evans

See page 9 starting with section 2.4 in the below PDF. Testing of the JVC HM650 and it's pretend f11@2000 extended mode. Tester shows that standard mode is only f7.5@2000, which is less sensitive than a 1993 Sony Betacam. JVC states in their brochure that standard sensitivity of the HM650 is F11@2000, which is a flat out lie. For reference, the PXW-X180 is f9@2000 with a real 60db s/n ratio, and I found it to be as bad as the X70 in low light.

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3335_s08.pdf

JVC still will not provide signal to noise ratios for their cameras, and their brochures state just "excellent!" or some other nonsense.

Sorry to rant, but these stupid things make it hard for us to make educated camera purchase decisions. Short of buying every damn camera on the market to test, which I seem to actually do, there is no way to know what you will get in low light. About as annoying as drivers who do not signal with their blinker before cutting into your lane...grrr.

Paul

PS: Grrrrrrrrr!

I'm glad I saw this thread. I also film theatrical performances and was considering this camera (z150) not for the 4k but bigger sensor for low light and maybe more dynamic range but now I see I avoided a costly mistake.

To add my 2 cents judging from your pictures. It seems most of the noise/grain issue are due the 1 sensor not being able to render saturated color more specifically red which always has been difficult to reproduce. At the end of the day real world performance trumps all. It's tricky making purchasing decisions on specs and assuming imagine quality improves with each generation, larger sensor, more pixels etc

I think under less colorful performances it would perform fine. It be tricky for me to quantify how many performances would cause what you experienced. Though the benefits don't seem to warrant the risks for this application.