Low light footage

[Nick Wilcox-Brown]

Al Woodard has posted some great low light footage from an XF300 to Vimeo.

Shot at a wedding, there are real world, low light comparisons with different gain settings and camera flash is going off in the background.

Well worth a look:

Canon XF300 - Low Light Reception on Vimeo

Nick.

[Al Woodard]

Hey Nick,
Thanks for taking the time to post the Vimeo link of my footage here at DVinfo. I'm a huge fan of these forums and although I rarely post comments, I do follow many of the pertinent discussions. I posted this footage online to because after using the camera at two events last weekend I was extremely pleased with its handling and even more so, the image quality. The important point here is that after using the Sony EX1 for more than two full years, I decided to sell it and all related SxS equipment to finance the bulk of the XF300 purchase. It was an "all in" decision for me. Fortunately, as of today I am 100% pleased with my decision to purchase the XF300.

[Tom Bostick]

id love to see more clips from you Al!

[Al Woodard]

Tom, what's your preference? Very busy week, but I'm editing anyway so i might be able to post something else soon.

[Tom Bostick]

really just some variety i suppose (i understand you just got it)
and thanks for posting all these clips on vimeo!

[Tans Mark]

Dear Al,

Thank you for sharing this low light clip. May I ask what sharpness and noise reduction setting were used ? Also I would like to know if is it the quality directly from the camera, or you have used any video editor to improve it.

Also thank you for sharing this clip, too:

Canon XF300 - Church Lighting on Vimeo

Some board members were afraid of that f2.6-2.8 will not enough in low light places. Your video proves: it is enough. I really like the low noise / good sharpness of the video you have made at the church

[Al Woodard]

Hi Tans, thanks for posting the church clip here. Regarding the settings, this was the first time I used the camera, therefore all of the settings were @ factory default. That means, the sharpness was at 0 and NR was at Automatic. I use Edius 5.5 to convert to 1280x720 .wmv for Vimeo upload, but no other brightness of noise reduction of any kind was applied to footage. I will point out that the center of the alter was very well lit, the readers podium had much softer and indirect overhead lighting. At full zoom the lens will stop down to 2.8, but as can be seen in the low light reception footage, f.2.8 plus, +6db - +9db gain has very good results. I not a purist by any means when it comes to adding gain. My position has always been, if it looks good to me, then 99% of the time it will look great to my clients. With this camera I can confidently use +9db gain, and when necessary, +12db gain without any hesitation.

[Jeff Anselmo]

Hi Folks,

Thanks to Nick and Tans for linking Al's Vimeo clips!

And a big thanks to Al himself for his work in uploading those XF clips.

@Al--You certainly have a unique perspective, as being a past owner of an EX1, and now an owner of an XF camera. I'm in a position of buying either camera, and your clips is certainly helping me guide my decision (whatever that may be :)

But as Doug Jensen said in another thread (who also owns both cams), you can't go wrong with either one.

Best,

[Al Woodard]

Hey Jeff,
Doug is certainly correct. And I'm not going to argue that point for one moment. The EX1 served me well and greatly improved the look of my finished productions over the past couple of years. It was a great camera in many ways and the EX1r improved upon most of the original versions biggest flaws. I did consider the EX1r briefly, but decided to go in another direction with the XF300. The Canon advantage for me has a lot to do with the fact that I also use a 7D much of the time as my B camera. As expected, these two Canon cameras match very closely in color without much tweaking. No matter how hard I tried with picture profiles on the Sony, I could not get the Sony images to look remotely similar to the 7D. Plus, I've always favored the highly saturated images that are so characteristic of all Canon video and still cameras. For the money, either camera will be great. Buy the one that works best for you, use the heck out of it over the next 2-3 years, then sell it, trade up, and repeat the process.

[Paul Cook]

These clips are great and definitely an interesting perspective on the ex1 vs xf300. Id really love to have a shoot out between the xha1 / ex1r / xf300 in good light / low light / indoor and outdoor. AND be able to look at the raw files as converting to wmv at 720p and then having that converted again by vimeo into H264 will never be good enough to compare in any detail.

Also ideally all clips should be in the cameras native format as for me I dont really care how the ex1 handles recording to a nanoflash given I would never be able to spring for the extra $3k.

[Alister Chapman]

An EX1R plus NanoFlash is not $3k more than an XF305. It is only around an extra $1100.

XF305 $7999, EX1R + NanoFlash $9194 according to B+H

Don't forget that adding a NanoFlash to either camera can give much improved HD, very high quality SD (IMX50), Dual HD/SD recording and many other advantages. The XF305 really benefits from using 100Mb/s or more as all the fine noise has less of an effect on the codec at the higher bit rates.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Don't forget that adding a NanoFlash to either camera can give ........, very high quality SD (IMX50), .......

Maybe not the XF305 - I didn't think it had any SD mode?

Interesting that Sony didn't think an SD mode was necessary with the EX1 - then introduced it to the EX1R - maybe Canon have made the same mistake?

[Eddie Coates]

I would like to thank everyone for posting XF footage for me to view.

After watching all the current on line footage, the only reason I would consider buying a XF series is the fast snap auto focusing.

I have watched several XF samples and I see there is clearly something wrong with the flesh tone detail.
The color is weird and off, can not put my finger on it.

It is not as bright and sharp as my EX1 not even close.

Here is a great example of just: that YouTube - Canon XF305 and Sony EX1R side by side tests

[Paul Cook]

Alister I never mentioned the XF305 - so forcing a comparison into that price range is a fudge. My point is I dont want footage via the nano on either camera meaning just out of the box ex1 vs xf300 which realistically is what most people will be shooting.

Ediie - do you really think if there was 'something wrong' with the flesh tones and detail to the level you proclaim that just one of the many professional reviewers would have picked it up as an issue? You do know that you can tweak the hell out of each camera to get the 'look' you are after?

All these random shots of streets and mannequins under random varying lighting and conditions with no indication of camera settings isnt doing either camera any favours. We need a professional shoot out now more than ever to sort out fact from fiction.

[Peter Moretti]

Paul, I don't think Alister was trying to fudge anything. A XF nanoFlash configuration closest to an EX-1R means stepping up to the XF305. This is b/c the 305 (but not the 300) has an HD-SDI output port, like the EX-1R.

While the nanoFlash can take HDMI input, HD-SDI is more robust in terms of signal and connector.