which is better in low light, the Z1U or the new V1U. Also does the V1U do as good of a job at +9db gain as the Z1U. Which camera would you choose for low light capabilities and keep good picture quality.

The Z1U is I believe one stop faster than the V1U. That said, even at +6db the V1U picture is still quite good. I shot some interview tests last month using available light through a window at 0, +3, and +6. I sent the clips to a client for import into his Premiere system and he was satisfied even with +6. Of course I try to light well and keep the gain at 0 whenever possible.

The Z1U is rated at one stop higher than the V1U, as noted in the previous post. Owning several of both, you can see a notable difference in low light, but increasing the gain and utlizing the manual controls, the V1U image isn't that off from the Z1U - matching them up seems fine, too. I try not to go above 9 or so dB with the V1U, but have done 12 in certain situations and then soften it in post - it's really not that bad. In terms of choosing which camera, there are huge benefits for each camera and it really comes down to what you need...low light, zoom, weight, controls, and so much more. If it's based on the lux ratings only, then the Z1U would fair better...but the image of the V1U is really great as well.

When is gain considered gain. When it is visible? Gain on z1/ccd is visible at 6, gain on v1/cmos is visible at 12. So it is relative to the sensor. I think the v1 has more detail, contrast and color in low light. My point is that you have to compare the picture and not the settings.

At what point is it not worth shooting in low light? You simply need to add light or no matter what you shoot or your video will be compromised. So the setting are relative to the picture. I think the v1 has a 6db difference from the z1 if you are comparing settings numbers but it can produce a better picture in acceptable low light. In unacceptable low light the z1 can produce a better inflated image but it is compromised, for that matter the pd-170 beats them all in low light but I would never want to edit anything that the v1 could not handle in its range.

translated, if you need low light crappy video than the v1 is not for you but I have not personally had to deal with it because my clients would never want video that compromised by low light.

I have used the V1u daily since the first batch shipped in late Dec 06. It has blown my mind with how the CMOS sensors respond, little smear and contrast that will make you think you have a 2/3" pro cam. I will never buy another CCD prosumer camcorder, CMOS is the way on the lower end of the price range.

I totally understand your concern with adding light when needed, but there are situations where you will not have access to lights and thus depend on mother nature to furnish your lighting. Thanks for the clarification of low light features with the Z1 VS. V1. How about the new Canon G1 compaired to the V1 or Z1 in low light. Where does the G1 stand among the Sony's.

I'm going to be looking into something that may help V1 users. I have noticed that the noise on the V1 is mostly color information. The noise specks mostly look like red and green dots. There is video noise reduction software available specifically for chroma noise that may be useful for us. There is also temporal-based noise correction software that could be helpful. Since noise changes faster than normal images, pixels before and after noise may be used to extrapolate the correct values. Of course, this wouldn't be acceptable for use in many circumstances, it may be useful in those odd scenarios where adding light is not feasible and perfect image quality is not expected.

Also, look into 1/30th shutter at 30p to give you one more f-stop of exposure. My limited tests have me believing it is viable in most situations. A little motion blur is better than lots of noise. Progressive frames allow this slower shutter speed on the V1 where interlaced cameras would revert to 15fps when shooting 1/30th shutter. Just reduce camera movement a bit to keep the whole frame from blurring. People expect motion blur on fast-moving objects, but not on the whole scene.

I totally understand your concern with adding light when needed, but there are situations where you will not have access to lights and thus depend on mother nature to furnish your lighting.

There are clients who pay for the content, not for how pristine it looks. They are not going to pay you to carry lights and certainly not going to want to lose the content while you set up lights.

The idea that you'll get "crappy" video is only true if you think a bit of noise is crap. I used +15dB in a night market. The audience will never see the noise because the area under the sales tables is not the content they are looking at.

Discovery HD has shots on board a boat in the artic night. Who cares if the "image" has noise. The image is not the story. IMHO, the image tends to become content to the degree there is no real story. That's why Eye Candy is used for demos and commercials.

That said, once you learn HOW the V1 adds gain, you can use at least +12dB to +15dB gain without it being visible in the content.

I absolutly agree that the story outweighs the exposure of the video. So lets say, you are about to video the best story ever caught on video with the best audio equipment run by the best sound man in the buisness and you had to shoot it on HDV, and could use no artificial lighting and the opening scene was to be on a mountain top right before the sun rises over the mountain(low light). Best story, best audio, and you wanted the best HDV footage you could get in low light. What camera would you use in the HDV world that would compliment the best audio, best story, what camera is going to get you the best picture(low light fully wide). And also you must have it edited 4:3 for broadcast.

The idea that you'll get "crappy" video is only true if you think a bit of noise is crap. I used +15dB in a night market. The audience will never see the noise because the area under the sales tables is not the content they are looking at.

Discovery HD has shots on board a boat in the artic night. Who cares if the "image" has noise. The image is not the story. IMHO, the image tends to become content to the degree there is no real story.Absolutely agree with this. Its all about the content.
Yes try to keep noise low, but it's the content thats important and i personally don't really mind a bit of noise if it enables me to get an image.

I had assumed that the Z-1 would be better in low light due to the 1 stop difference.
At the Sony exhibit at this year's Sundance, the rep told me that the V-1 is a stop slower, but makes a "better" image than the Z-1 in low light. The exhibit area was quite dark and gloomy- definitely what I would call low light- they had tripod mounted Z-1 and V-1 side by side pointed out to the room. At least on the camera LCDs the images certainly looked comprable. Maybe the V-1 color was slightly better.
It was no substitute for comparing captured footage on a HD monitor, but I came away fairly impressed.

in the HDV world that would compliment the best audio, best story, what camera is going to get you the best picture(low light fully wide). And also you must have it edited 4:3 for broadcast.

John,
The quick answer is you simply would not use HDV, but since you put the scenario out there, here's my thought.

I would go with the Sony V1u... greater latitude, richer color, less verticle smear than what you can get from Canon and JVC. As far as audio goes, it wouldn't make a difference; they're all compressed MPEG 1.

John

... but makes a "better" image than the Z-1 in low light.

That's why it's so hard to use numbers or even use words like a "stop slower" to compare cameras.

That's why it's so hard to use numbers or even use words like a "stop slower" to compare cameras.

So what do we use then? I am still confussed on how a cam can produce a better image in the dark when it is a stop slower. How does this work? Is this because of the CMOS sensors?

great question Ken, is it the CMOS of the V1 that makes it a better low light camera than the Z1 3CCD. Which would have a cleaner look at +9db gain, fully wide, low light, no artificial light, the Z1 or V1. From what I have gathered so far the Canon or JVC isnt in the league of Sonys for low light HDV. I hate to harp on such a small issue but I know all the HDV cameras work great when light is bright, which one works the best in low light just might make the purchasing difference. Little differnces matter. Thanks

Well i did work with both cameras in recent events ,(weddings & bar mitzvah's)
the Z1 is the better camera then the V1 in low light , we are 4 crews in the company and we all agree on that one , we returned the V1's ...

Ruben, what other issues made you stick with the Z1's and return the V1's or was it only the low light capabilities of the V1's that prompted the return.

Hi, we do only events 90% present at night inside hotels and country clubs ,
the v1 is a great camera , but we returned it just becouse of low light
capabilities

I have an FX 7 and my sub contractor uses a Z1.

I have just finished editing one of his weddings and am looking at one of mine, both in very dark receptions.

Coming from VX 2000's, both cameras have very dark coverage after the camera light gives up at about 6 feet, but they honestly look VERY similar, and watching the both camera's footage on various weddings, I don't feel the Z1 has an advantage.

I am waiting for my Sony light to come this week, and am planning to think a bit outside the square!

No-one likes bringing big lights to a reception, so I'm thinking of rigging my old Sony 10/20 watt camera light to a lighting or mic stand, so I can place it near where the speeches will be, to give me a bit more light when I have to put the tripod 10 -12 feet or more away from the subject.

It'll will get me through, but I'm not as comfortable as using the old VX!

Cheers Vaughan

So this is wide open with opinions from both sides. As usual ;>)

Anyone want to step up and explain why they think the V1 produces a better low light image?

Anyone want to step up and explain why they think the V1 produces a better low light image?

When I look at a medium contrast low-light V1 image -- it looks like on a pixel-by-pixel gain is added as needed. Which means the bright areas look perfect.

At the same time--pixels that are nearly black, get no gain and so do not get noise. If anything, they go full black.

So if you shoot in a typical mixed illumination situation noise is confined to the dark shadows.

By using Compress or the Gammas -- you can force the shadows to black.

Obviously, this will not work in a totally dark situation or where the subject itself is in the dark. Which means the LED lite may be great.

So this is wide open with opinions from both sides. As usual ;>)

Anyone want to step up and explain why they think the V1 produces a better low light image?


I don't quite understand how anyone can look at the two cameras side by side in the same lighting environment and suggest the V1 is "better."
It's more cohesive/intelligently processed, that's easy to see. But it is more noisy, which is easy to see.
Given that we've purchased half a dozen of each, and I've compared shots with identical lighting from each, it's (for me) a no brainer. The V1 has a slightly more useful coloration, but has more noise in the same space as the Z1.
I see it, Sony says it, I'd imagine most folks that know both cameras/have used both side by side or not necessarily side by side would agree.

Even without comparing the V1 to the Z1 I have to say that I'm impressed with the quality of the video even at +9. I typically shoot with a 2/3" Sony DSR-450. While the V1 can't compete with the 450 I find it quite reasonable as a backup or alternative depending on the situation (mostly in SD). This past weekend I taped my son's high school jazz band performing in a college music hall (in SD). Under stage lighting I selected +9 which gave me proper exposure at f1.8. When I played it back that evening I was very pleased with the quality and didn't notice any objectionable noise in the darker areas.

I'm still getting used to the handy cam form.

I'm a newbie with cameras but just bought the V1 and been finding lots of noise on indoor shots with standard 100 watt tungsten bulbs lighting and outside on dull over-cast days.

Not quite what I had expected as had done a training course with a Z1 and I don't recall it being so noisy. Wondering if anyone can say what the difference in low light performance there is between Z1 and V1 say as a % as I don't really follow all this +6db stuff.

Also been doing all my tests with the V1 on automatic; so any simple step-by-step procedures for adjusting camera to get more light in without getting more noise?

TIA

Kevin

Put the cam entirely in manual mode, set your shutter to 60, and go from there. Aperture wide, be sure you have no gamma applied, drop shutter to 30 if need be, add gain if need be.
Automode on the V1 is decent in good light, but it suffers some in low light. Manual is always better.
Same story with the Z1.

Manual all the way, I am not a pro with the Z1 but have several years of experience with it and have noticed and heard when you put either the Iris, gain, shutter speed, or whitebalance to auto then that auto setting will interfere with the manual settings you have. So if you have gain manual, iris manual, and whitebalance manual and you have just shutter speed auto then that auto setting on shutter speed will affect the other 3 you have set manual, very much different than a mechanical ENG style lens. Hook your camera to a good monitor and set your viewfinder and LCD screen as close to the monitor as you can then you can have confidence in your exposure without second guessing yourself and pressing auto over and over. Best advice i ever got was to get your camera set up as good as you can and trust it, thats its job.