Is that a problem with FX1000?

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Ron Wilber

your room is pretty light in color.. the grain will really show against dark areas.

That's not really what I've found Ron. If the cam is calling for 18db of gain, it's doing so because of the general lighting in the area...regardless of the color. It simply means that if the area was comprised of darker colors and the cam called for the same 18db of gain, it would simply mean there was more lighting in the room.

I haven't found a correlation between light and dark colors and how visible the noise is. The room I shot in is absolutely notorious for showing noise. A friend of mine (also a videographer) often joke that my living room is the true test for noise in a camcorder.

The Z5 beats anything I've seen for a combination of noise, color retention and the ability to produce a usable image in poor lighting.

[Ron Evans]

I do not shoot weddings but can understand the issues. My projects are theatre shows. I have to take the lights that are there for the audience. I almost never use gain less than 9db on my FX1 and a lot of the time its 12db. I do this so that I can get the max depth of field for the stage ( aperture is usually F2.8 to F 5.6) so that I don't have to keep re-focusing all the time. The SR11 and XR500 that I also use spend most of their time at 12db or more. The XR500, in particular is very clean. I am beginning to believe that AVCHD produces a cleaner image than HDV. HDV may compound any imager noise. I would certainly be interested to find out the difference between the HDV recording and recording directly from the HDMI live to Cineform or Canopus HQ or even Matrox i-frame MPEG.
The NEAT video filter does a really good job at removing all sorts of noise but is slow!
Ron Evans

[Jeff Kellam]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

... I am beginning to believe that AVCHD produces a cleaner image than HDV. HDV may compound any imager noise. ...

Ron:

You are correct about that. The AVCHD codec is more CPU intensive than HDV, but there are lots of benefits. Here is a comparison;

Panasonic AVCCAM

[Jeff Harper]

Ken, I agree with Ron that the light coloring is advantageous as it reflects light nicely. Nice looking room by the way.

At any rate the image is still very nice for as dark as it seems to be.

[Stelios Christofides]

Originally Posted by Steve Montoto

What scene file are you using on yours Stelios or what settings are you using. Out of the box with scenefile 1 his photos look dead on.

Steve

Steve, mostly I use the default settings (auto) and gain not more than 12db. I will try and post some screen shots ( I have to learn first how to upload pictures here) from the last wedding I did so you can see.

Stelios

[Jeff Harper]

Stelios, to upload photos:

when your are posting, go below the box where you type and click on the manage attachments button and you can upload.

[Jeff Harper]

That is an interesting video, Jeff.

It is good that you point out the AVCHD vs HD, as this is a critical reminder that there are major differences between these cams, and it really is apple to oranges in some ways. so many variables, CMOS vs CCDs, HD vs AVCHD, the lenses, etc.

While the HMC footage from the wedding I shot Sunday is impressive with out of the box settings, I still like to be able to shoot SD 16:9 when I want to, and I cannot do that with the Panasonic.

Yes Martin, we seem to feel the same about shooting in SD for SD delivery. It just makes sense for me with a busy schedule. And as I've said rendering HD footage to an SD template in Vegas just didn't look significantly different to me.

[Luc De Wandel]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

First scene no light

Second scene, about the same shot with light just turned on.

3 and 4 misc shots with lights

I see very little to no motion blur in these screengrabs. What shutter speed are you using?

[Ron Wilber]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

I I would certainly be interested to find out the difference between the HDV recording and recording directly from the HDMI live to Cineform or Canopus HQ or even Matrox i-frame MPEG.

You can see for yourself by just connecting your cam to an hdtv via hdmi. I do see less grain this way. But is the cost and bulk of direct capture worth it versus neat video? For the price of and fx1000 plus the cost of a capture system, one could just get an ex1 with better low light and codec.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

The XR500, in particular is very clean. I am beginning to believe that AVCHD produces a cleaner image than HDV. HDV may compound any imager noise.

Ron, I think you'll find that the clean image of the XR500 is due primarily to the backlit sensor used in the cam. This is the first time this approach has been tried and it certainly has payed off. I've never seen a cleaner image in any cam I've ever owned.

On the other side of the coin, the Z5 will produce a brighter image with richer colors in the same lighting even though it has some minimal grain.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

Ken, I agree with Ron that the light coloring is advantageous as it reflects light nicely. Nice looking room by the way.

At any rate the image is still very nice for as dark as it seems to be.

Thanks Jeff. I really haven't found a correlation between the colorings of the surroundings and the amount of grain. Light colored objects do reflect more light, but that ultimately reduces the lighting requirements of the camera and therefore the gain.

More importantly, even the grain seen in my still capture is almost totally gone when the video is put in motion.

That's why still images are sometimes a bit deceiving when it comes to noise.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Ron, I think you'll find that the clean image of the XR500 is due primarily to the backlit sensor used in the cam. This is the first time this approach has been tried and it certainly has payed off. I've never seen a cleaner image in any cam I've ever owned.

On the other side of the coin, the Z5 will produce a brighter image with richer colors in the same lighting even though it has some minimal grain.

yes I realize the advantage the XR500 has with its sensor that is why I upgraded from the SR11 too. Just wish Sony would put that in an AVCHD version of the FX1000 or Z5!!!! I may change my FX1 for a FX1000. To Ron Weber comment on cost. The Matrox MX02 mini is less than $500 and plugin into a laptop is really no cost. This is a lot less than an EX1, much as I would like an EX1!!!

Ron Evans

[Ron Wilber]

^
the matrox mini doesn't capture 1080/24p, which doesn't meet my needs at all.. so for me, at least, the only cheap alternative is the black magic intensity card which isn't really mobile.
EDIT: now I just read a spec that states the matrox mini supports 1080i at 59.94, which I assume is 23.98 in a container... so confusing.

[Luc De Wandel]

Jeff, may I repeat my question: at which shutter speed was the Sony working when you were filming in these dark rooms? I'm really curious to find out.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Ron Wilber

^
the matrox mini doesn't capture 1080/24p, which doesn't meet my needs at all.. so for me, at least, the only cheap alternative is the black magic intensity card which isn't really mobile.
EDIT: now I just read a spec that states the matrox mini supports 1080i at 59.94, which I assume is 23.98 in a container... so confusing.

I am not a fan of slow frame rates and look forward to the day I can get 1080P60 but until then 1080i ( 60 interlace) will have to do. I like smooth natural motion and the judder of 24 p or 30p really upsets me. The upscale of SD DVD's on the PS3 to 1080 30P really bothers me too. I think the Matrox will take whatever comes in from the HDMI and convert to Matrox MPEG2 i frame on the PC and lots of choices on the Mac or if the system is fast enough on either platform, uncompressed. At least that is the way I read the spec.

Ron Evans