Best low light performance in "prosumer" camcorder?

[wkulecz]

I might be in the market for a new camcorder come Xmas, HDV is a plus, I don't think AVCHD has usable work flow for me at present, but SD is fine if the price/perfomance is right.

Non-linear media would be a big plus, but the best low-light performance I can afford is paramount!

From what I've read at www.camcorderinfo.com it looks like the Canon HV20 shooting 24p is the low light leader in the under $1500 price range.

Agree? Disagree?

--wally.

[Jerry Jones]

Agree.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

I agree as well. That cam has a 1/2.7" sensor and that's a big plus for low light. There are quite a few 3 CCD cams out there now with those tiny 1/6" sensors. I'm sure they're fine for outdoor work or bright indoor shooting but I have to wonder how grainy they get as the gain is cranked up for low light shooting.

[Mikele]

Beware with de 24F of Canon HV20. Very difficult to edit.
Better record on standard mode, DV or HDV 50i or 60i.
Few programs still use 24F.

[wkulecz]

While I've no experience with edititing HDV, I'm not sure I understand how 720p/24 could be more difficult to edit than 720p/30 or 1080i/60 would be?

Let's turn the question arround, how much more would I have to pay to get at least 1-stop better than the HV20 in 720p/24 mode at its lowest usable light level? Is the Sony VX2000/2100 still the best low light prosumer camcorder?

I had hopes of getting a VX2000 "closeout" deal but never found any, seems when the VX2000 sold the new stock was VX2100.

--wally.

[Hulk]

Wally,

I've edited HDV 1080i and with a moderns Core 2 Duo computer it's really not a problem unless you are doing extremely deep edits and FX. I'm also curious as to why 24fps would be more difficult to edit?

That Canon camera is HDV 1080i not 720p right? Does it have a 720/24p mode?

As for low light I haven't compared cameras side-by-side so I can't comment there.

[Mikele]

It's difficult because it isn't a standard and few apps gets this frame rate.
Bad, many internally still works at 25 or 30 frames, doing pulldow techniques, but not progressive, still INTERLACED.
Worse, directly, the computer don't recongnise the cam if you have record at 24 Frames.

The camera is HDV = 1440x1080i. No real HD, no 720p, no REAL progressive mode.

http://www.canonhv20.com/

http://www.hv20.com/

[wkulecz]

I'm going mostly on what I read at www.camcorderinfo.com which doesn't state the recording format in 24p only its superior low light performance in this mode that other models lack.

The Canon web site says the sensor is 1920x1080 and list supported playback modes as: 1080/60i, 1080/24P, 1080/30F, 1080/24F without actually specifing recording formats other than 4:3 SD and HDV 1080i and 24p.

--wally.

[Mikele]

More info.

http://www.hv20.com/

http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=3180

http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=2524

As you can read, there are a lot of questions about REAL progressive modes. All modes, seems, interlaced.

[Brian Ellis]

FWIW, I have two Panasonic 3-CCD cams. The older one has 1/3" CCDs of ~400 kpix each. The newer one has 1/4" CCDs of 2 Mpix each. Most of the parts, except the optics, are similar or identical. The min illumination of the older one is 4 lx and 10 lx (1 lx with a noisy 10 x amplifier) with the youngster. Moral of the story: the larger the area per pixel, the better the sensitivity, all other things being equal. This makes sense, with the way CCDs work.

[Hulk]

FWIW, I have two Panasonic 3-CCD cams. The older one has 1/3" CCDs of ~400 kpix each. The newer one has 1/4" CCDs of 2 Mpix each. Most of the parts, except the optics, are similar or identical. The min illumination of the older one is 4 lx and 10 lx (1 lx with a noisy 10 x amplifier) with the youngster. Moral of the story: the larger the area per pixel, the better the sensitivity, all other things being equal. This makes sense, with the way CCDs work.

Brian I think that is correct but it might be a little more complicated. If the area of the sensor remains the same and the resolution increases then the area of each photosite must decrease. That will give each photosite less sensitivity at a given illumination level.

So pixel-for-pixel the camera with the larger photosites will look better at a given illumination, assuming all things equal. But the real issue is to compare the total area of the photosites of one sensor to another. There is a bit more boundry area between sites when you pack more on a sensor so there is a decrease in total photosite area but the overall decrease in sensitivity isn't that much when you look at the entire picture or frame or field.

For example. The Canon 30d camera is 8MP but the new 40d is 10MP. Same size sensor. If you look at photos from each camera scaled to something less or equal to pixel for pixel for the lower resolution camera, the 40d high ISO performance is actually better than the 30d. This is because as I indicated above the actual loss of photosite area isn't much AND the fact that the newer models usually have tweaks in the sensor and software to make up for the increased resolution and smaller photosites. So pixel-for-pixel the 40d is actually nearly as good as the 30d. Overall when looking at the entire image the 40d is better.

Now I'm not saying to ignore photosite area. I think it's ridiculous that they are making point and shoot digital cameras with 8MP or higher resolution. Those sensors are way too small to have that many photosites and unless you are outdoors in extremely bright sunlight you'll never effectively use all those pixels. But the point and shoot market is driving more by the megapixels numbers game. Canon nor anybody else could get away with such foolishness with the DSLR cameras.

I even think that 10MP is as far as Canon should go with 1.5 crop factor DSLR's.

So my point is that I personally look at the physical size of the sensors and lens as an indication of possible low light performance. As well as real world subjective performance ratings of course.

[Hulk]

I'm really having trouble buying an interlaced HD camcorder. I can actually deal with the 1.33 PAR of the 1080i these cameras do. Okay so the pixels have to be remapped.

But to deinterlace the video for viewing for no reason seems ridiculous to me. Let's face it for all intents and purposes nobody has an interlaced HD monitor. LCD, plasma, rear projection, front projection, they are all inherently progressive devices.

I am still waiting for a 720p AVCHD camcorder that will record at an average bitrate of 15Mbps or more. At 720/30p I think 15Mbps will provide really good, edit durable video.

And as Brian noted above for the size of the sensors in these affordable camera 1920x1080 is probably packing too many photosites onto them anyway.

Jeez it just makes so much sense.

No deinterlacing and field orders to worry about.
Better video quality at the same bitrates.
Easier and snappier editing in the NLE.
Possibly better low light performance given the same size sensor.

[ND66]

Wally.

Still in the camcorder market for this X-mass or did you postponed it for next?

I was thinking of grtting one for myself, but...
.

[wkulecz]

Still thinking about it, Fry's has had the HV20 on sale lately so maybe something to replace it is on the way which will fix the video flag issues that seem to cause editing workflow issues.

--wally.

[ND66]

....fix the video flag issues .....

Yeah, I forgot about that already......

Just purchased DSLR Camera instead.

Thanks.

.