Last night I was shooting an important event in a candle-lit surroundings; it was really my first test of the V1 other than the 25p mode trials. The circumstancies forced me to go with gain as high as 18 dB sometimes, and I must say the output is a very nice surprise! With gain up to 12, the video is dark just as the scenery was; at 18dB it is actually brighter than the reality, and only then the noise is noticeable.

Even though the shooting was critical (I have people counting on a DVD from the event), I experimented a little and - since it was mostly static (authors reading their poetry in the candle light), I tried the shutter speed at 1/12th which allowed for just 6dB gain, an yielded very clean picture indeed.

Most of it I did with 1/25th and 9-12dB of gain, in progressive. Quite satisfactory!

PS. not even trace of oil paint or blockyness under these difficult circumstancies.

Post images! I know everyone is dying to see real-world results. Thanks for the report. What other settings did you use? Specifically, did you do something with black compensation?

Post images! I know everyone is dying to see real-world results. Thanks for the report. What other settings did you use? Specifically, did you do something with black compensation?

I had blacks stretched to get most of the dim surroundings. In spite of this, the dark areas simply remained dark, but noice is almost unnoticeable - like in this snapshot:

I had blacks stretched to get most of the dim surroundings. In spite of this, the dark areas simply remained dark, but noice is almost unnoticeable - like in this snapshot:

Was the only lighting source those candles? If so, the image is truly amazing. You have to love the way the V1 handles bright lights; the flames have a nice rounded soft look rather than the harsh star-like verticle smear of CCD type camcorders. Very nice... Thanks for the pic.

Was the only lighting source those candles? If so, the image is truly amazing. You have to love the way the V1 handles bright lights; the flames have a nice rounded soft look rather than the harsh star-like verticle smear of CCD type camcorders. Very nice... Thanks for the pic.

There's no way the candles are the only light source. Look at the shadows (or lack of).

There's no way the candles are the only light source. Look at the shadows (or lack of).

You're right Drew; I have uploaded another snapshot into my previous post above where you can see a lamp at the ceiling. There were a couple of lamps like this scattered around the room, but all very dim indeed.

It really looks like you have some on-camera light. There are shadows cast from the candelabra straight behind them and a few inches low. There is a similar shadow cast from the face of the man in the denim jacket. This means there must be a light in line with and above the camera pointing at the scene. Also, the shadows moved from the first shot to the second meaning that the light must have moved. The fact that the background isn't underlit usually means that the light near the camera isn't very strong, but it really looks like you have an on-camera light. Perhaps the overhead light just happened to line up with your camera?

Markus, this is funny:) Yes I can see the shadows you're talking about, but you're investigating as if I said there were just 10 candles there and nothing else. Of course there were lamps like the one on the second snapshot I added (not much brighter than the candles), and yes - there was a bar some distance behind me, where people were having drinks and listening.

But it is obvious that the place was generally dark, and when I was entering, my first thought was I couldn't probably make a watcheable video there. And yet, it's a nice surprise!

Yes, I can tell that it's dark as the candles look so bright. Candles don't seem so bright in a well-lit room and are barely visible in the sun. Regardless, I can't shake the feeling that it seems like there is an on-camera light. It's not the overall brightness, but the pattern of the light. Maybe one of the room lights just happened to line up to look like an on-camera light.

Maybe you brightened the image too much. That's hard to believe, but maybe the overall even lighting dampens the feel that it's in a dim room? I know the V1 isn't bad in low-light once it is tweaked properly, so I don't doubt this kind of shot is possible in the right person's hands.

I think we're so used to the "cinema" version of low-light (which uses well constrained strong light and strong shadows to create contrast), that "real" low-light can look a little washed-out. However, the V1 has created some impressive looking images here considering the lack of light.

Personally I'm not overly fond of the way it has rendered the candles - a little too "electronic" looking for my taste. For some reason they don't look very organic. But I'm very impressed with the lack of overall noise in the image.

Markus, I just scrolled through the timeline and found the moment when somebody was taking a still with a mobile phone from behind me; you can see the same scene with his flash (of course neither me nor the camera was fast enough to compensate for this additional light). But, it is not that much brighter at all, which means you're right saying I managed to lighten the scene as much as possible, using pretty low shutter speed and stretching blacks.

I think you can even do better in low light by turning down the saturation which suppresses the colour flecks of noise. Personally I'd have either pressed the blacks or left them untouched rather than stretched them.

I didn't find the V1 too bad in low light. If it was setup well.

I agree with Alex the candles might be rendered without smear but the sharpening halo round them shouts "electronic" unfortunately.

TT

I think we're so used to the "cinema" version of low-light (which uses well constrained strong light and strong shadows to create contrast), that "real" low-light can look a little washed-out. However, the V1 has created some impressive looking images here considering the lack of light.

Personally I'm not overly fond of the way it has rendered the candles - a little too "electronic" looking for my taste. For some reason they don't look very organic. But I'm very impressed with the lack of overall noise in the image.

I think you've got the point here, Alex - the camera was not using any "cine" settings (gamma or colour), and the blacks were stretched (rather than compressed) on purpose. All this contributed to a more evenly lit atmosphere, which you may not like, but my point in posting those snapshots was just to show the level of noise.

Here is another lo-light snapshot, with quite the opposite settings: cinegamma, cinecolour and black compressed. The result is a contrasty video.

In EYP Evening5.jpg there's something very odd happening with that double bass.

In EYP Evening5.jpg there's something very odd happening with that double bass.

Let me guess: the oil paint effect!

Let me guess: the oil paint effect!

I thought it looked like two people were trying to play it, one of them the wrong way round? :D

I think you've got the point here, Alex - the camera was not using any "cine" settings (gamma or colour), and the blacks were stretched (rather than compressed) on purpose. All this contributed to a more evenly lit atmosphere, which you may not like, but my point in posting those snapshots was just to show the level of noise.

Here is another lo-light snapshot, with quite the opposite settings: cinegamma, cinecolour and black compressed. The result is a contrasty video.

I agree absolutely - I wasn't criticizing your videography. Just observing that sometimes what we "expect" doesn't reflect reality.

Let me guess: the oil paint effect!

If you want to see the oil paint effect just look at EYP Evening6. Take particular notice of the bearded gentleman's jacket. I bet that looks dreadful in motion.

Then look at the wall to the left of the accordion player on the right of the screen. The oil paint/macroblocking effect is clearly seen on the wall.

TT

Then look at the wall to the left of the accordion player on the right of the screen. The oil paint/macroblocking effect is clearly seen on the wall. TT

Accordian? Where's that? I don't see an accordian in any of these stills.

Bill

*edit* ooops! Now I see the keyboard of it in the 3rd pic.

If you want to see the oil paint effect just look at EYP Evening6. Take particular notice of the bearded gentleman's jacket. I bet that looks dreadful in motion.

Then look at the wall to the left of the accordion player on the right of the screen. The oil paint/macroblocking effect is clearly seen on the wall.

TT

I can see those artefacts clearly, Tony. Let me remind you though that this particular snapshot was spoiled by the photographer's flash, superimposing for a split-second on the lighting that my camera was adjusted to - I guess you cannot blame the encoder for not being able to cope with that.

Please help me find similar spots on the other snapshots.

I can see those artefacts clearly, Tony.

I think this might just be the inherent noise-print of this camera. I've noticed that in V1 clips there is no real "grain", but the image almost shimmies. I think this becomes (in still grabs) the oil-paint effect. In Piotr's clip grabs here we're seeing this effect perhaps because this is pushing the exposure quite far.

It looks similar to the macroblocking effect seen in the shadows in the HVX.

Hi,

let me contribute to this thread with a couple of still grabs of my low light footage. Pls comment.

Zsolt

Lovely images but any reason why they are so soft?

TT

Zsolt

Lovely images but any reason why they are so soft?

TT

Tony, it looks great and sharp when its a clip. However, avoiding hassle and artifacts I have shot them interlaced. Then to get a proper still, I did a fast deinterlacing with QT, and they became soft - but at least no "mice teeth" or what the heck the name for the interlaced artifact is.
Can you suggest a GOOD deinterlacing method or FCP plugin that renders sharper images?

No I don't Zsolt. But that explains things.

TT

PS that also explains why there is no oil paint effect. 50i is always superb.

I also find Piotr's stills pretty soft, except for the lady in front of the keyboard - thats sharper.

To be honest, the only sharp still from V1 I have ever seen was the "famous" one in Coffee Bean, shot by Steve Mullen. But thats V1U....

I also find Piotr's stills pretty soft, except for the lady in front of the keyboard - thats sharper.

To be honest, the only sharp still from V1 I have ever seen was the "famous" one in Coffee Bean, shot by Steve Mullen. But thats V1U....

Zsolt, mine were shot progressive with sharpness 3.

Zsolt, mine were shot progressive with sharpness 3.

I used interlaced with default sharpness (is it 7?)