Has anyone compared the low light images produced by the HVX200 with the DVX100 or other like cameras? Any images to post? I found the low light abilities of other HD units to be awful, but these were the Z1u and JVC HD100. Maybe Panasonic has done better?

Bill,

You'll find that no sub-$10k DV camera is optimized for low light situations which is why most productions that have many low-light segments either use plenty of lighting support, larger 2/3" chipset bodies or shoot film.

The HVX is no exception; although it is possible to get good looking low-light imagery, that comes mainly from using creative fill-light and tweaking in POST.

In a recent magazine camera comparo the Z1 actually edged out the HVX in low-light tests but none of the cameras tested could be considered a "good" low-lux camera.

Bill,

You'll find that no sub-$10k DV camera is optimized for low light situations which is why most productions that have many low-light segments either use plenty of lighting support, larger 2/3" chipset bodies or shoot film.

The HVX is no exception; although it is possible to get good looking low-light imagery, that comes mainly from using creative fill-light and tweaking in POST.

In a recent magazine camera comparo the Z1 actually edged out the HVX in low-light tests but none of the cameras tested could be considered a "good" low-lux camera.
In most ways I'm using SD cameras such as the PD170 as the benchmark for low light tests. I can't afford a 2/3" camera. Therefore I'm waiting for 1/3" HD cameras that can come close to the PD170, et al. I was hoping the HVX200 would come close. And, yes, I understand why HD cameras are going to have an inherently more difficult time in low light than SD cameras. At some point, I'm hopeful that continuingly improving technology will make it happen.

I'm finishing up a film right now with the HVX. We shot a fight scene under a pier in silhouette with no fill at all. I metered the backlight at less than 5 footcandles and the lights we pounded through the planks above were about 5 fc as well. (I did not push gain) The footage looked really good, and after boosting the highlights in post it looked fantastic. Yes there was noise, but it really didn't stand out to the point of detracting from the scene. It actually looks more like GRAIN than noise.

I couldn't really compare this situation to the other HD cams because I have yet to shoot material that was as dark as this scene was with the other HDV's, but hopefully this will help.

Sony is the CLEAR winner in low light. You can turn up the gain and get almost no noise. The XLH1 is second, it can get image in very little light although it introduces a little noise. The HVX is the back of the back, not only because it needs a lot of light but because the less light, the more noisy it gets. Anything above +6dB gain gets NASTY. I have not used the JVC enough in low light to comment. There are ways to work around these things but if you need a low light camera, the HVX just wont work... as Robert stated, no 1/3" CCD camera is going to be GREAT in low light...



ash =o)

And, yes, I understand why HD cameras are going to have an inherently more difficult time in low light than SD cameras.

How does the HVX do in low light when shooting in SD (480)? Is it comparable to the DVX100B?

There was a low light gain test comparison between the hvx and hd100 by Walt. The hd100 was significantly better. That was the thread that started the religious war between the jvc and hvx.

I dont know why people get so worked up... maybe its post purchase cognitive dissonance... dunno... Ask Panny themselves, they will say the HVX is not good in low light. You can use video gamma and stick in 24P and it holds up a little better but still the worst of all the HD 1/3" cams... Again, this is only a problem if you do a lot of low light shooting...


ash =o)