MX-500(0) still shots of low light situations?
 

Can someone post some video-stills (not the 3mpix photo's) from the MX-500(0) when used in a low light situation like a room in the evenening with one light at the ceiling?

Stills from another cam's like the TR-950 and/or the GL2 in the same situation for comparision would be great!

Thnx in advance!

hi
i can do that but tell me how much watt should the light be.
it will be difference if i'll use 75W or 200W.

do you wand to disable the auto flash?

Eli

If you can make a short movie (and take a still-frame out of that movie) in a room with just one 75 watt lamp that would be really great! If you have the webspace and can post a few seconds of the video that would be even better :)

Also can you shoot the movie when it's dark outside so no extra light is in the room? This way I can finally see for my self how this cam performes in low light conditions

Thnx in advance!

Bram, video cams need light. Motion film cams need light. Still cams need light. The more light, the more you have to play with. Too much light, we have ND filters for that.

A cam with 1/6" CCDs will need more light than a cam with 1/3" CCDs. 1/6" CCDs with 1 million pixels will need more light than 1/6" CCDs with 270K pixels.

Professionals use light. Lighting is both a craft and an art. With the MX500, you need a tad more light than the MX300 and MX350 for acceptable footage. But acceptable footage is subjective.. That's the way it is. The trade off with the MX500's 540 playback lines is a higher LUX requirement. If LUX is that important for you, I suggest going with a VX2000. The MX500 is a great cam, but not a great cam in low light. Read here about LUX:

http://www.dvfreak.com/lux.htm

Cams and LUX are always a concern for me too. When I shoot in lower light, I leave my MX300 at home, and use my DVL9500s instead. With my still cams, I use 100 asa film for outdoor daytime shooting and shooting with a flash/flashes. For most other times, I find 400 asa film to be just the ticket---good low light, yet not too much grain. Oh, yeah..., whether film or DV, the less light the more grain!

Thnx for you reply. Of course I'm aware of the fact that cam's just need light. However (as you say) some need more than others.

The thing is there are almost no examples on the net like a short mpeg movie or a still photo so people can see for themselfves how big the differences are. I did find a short movie where a Canon Gl-2 was compared to a ZR45 ($450) and I personally found that very usefull.

Anyways: Eli supplied me with some photo's taken by the MX-500 in low light conditions:

http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/100W.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/200w.jpg
http://home.planet.nl/~snuve011/bram/200Watt.jpg

p.s
Are it photo's or still images from a movie???

hi
those are photos stills are much better .
it is important to notice that it was taken with auto mode and without tripod alsi the light was indirect from spot source .

thanks
Eli

Wow, I see the light! That's quite an improvement of image quality from 100 Watt to 200 Watt light. Thanks for posting these pics!

Light source distance
 

Eli,

How far from the subject was the light in these shots?

about 1.80cm from each 100 w light source.
the distance between the two light sources are about 3m.

Stills from TRV-950E.

http://www.hourglass-production.com/...ght/pict01.jpg

http://www.hourglass-production.com/...ght/pict02.jpg

http://www.hourglass-production.com/...ght/pict03.jpg

http://www.hourglass-production.com/...ght/pict04.jpg


(Not frame grabs, they were taken as stills in Memory stick mode in native 640x480 mode. No touch-up, not resized)

Higher res for your reference (about 200KB each) :

http://www.hourglass-production.com/...ing/pict01.jpg

http://www.hourglass-production.com/...ing/pict02.jpg


(1152x864 still captures. No touch-up, not resized)

Thnx for those still's!