low light recording better on my old VHS than my new Sony

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by tonyjeffs, Aug 27, 2005.

  1. tonyjeffs

    tonyjeffs Guest

    I'm re-editing old vhs and super vhs tapes. In low light, the old
    tapes simply look dark and low contrast. Very acceptable when used
    carefully.

    With my new Sony, similar low light conditions create a 'starved of
    photons' look, whereby a face would be made up of fuzzy blotches of
    pink, purple and green, a result which doesn't look at all natural.
    I've seen incorrect colours on my old movies, reds too red etc, but not
    this bleached effect that I get with the new camera.

    Is the modern camera retina different to the old one?

    Tony
     
    tonyjeffs, Aug 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. tonyjeffs

    Unknown Guest

    wrote in @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
    You don't provide the model info for each camera, but I'll theorize based
    on what you've written that your new camera is a 1-CCD digital. Single CCD
    cameras don't perform well in low light. The first thing to go is color.
    Even in full light, some colors will look flat, and contrast can suffer.
    IMO, you'll have to step up to a 3-CCD model if you want better recordings
    in low light.
     
    Unknown, Aug 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. tonyjeffs

    ube Guest

    The CCD's used in inexpensive DV cam's are smaller and less able to process
    low light information then used in an older VHS camcorder.
    My Sony 8mm camcorder has a better CCD then my 2 Mini-DV cams when
    hooked up live to my HDtv.
    UB
     
    ube, Aug 27, 2005
    #3
  4. tonyjeffs

    PTravel Guest

    Manufacturers of consumer camcorders have decided that smaller cameras that
    can take still photographs are more desireable than larger cameras with
    better low-light performance. Modern consumer camcorders, as a rule, use
    smaller CCDs with higher sensor density. The smaller the CCD, and the
    denser the sensors on it, the poorer the low-light sensitivity.

    I have a prosumer miniDV camera -- a Sony VX2000 -- which does a spectacular
    job in low light. It, however, is a 3-ccd machine with compartively large,
    low density CCDs.
     
    PTravel, Aug 27, 2005
    #4
  5. tonyjeffs

    PTravel Guest

    That's not quite right. As a rule, a 3-ccd machine will do better than a
    1-ccd machine THAT USES THE SAME SIZE CCD, because a 3-ccd machine has three
    times the light receptors. However, a 1-ccd machine with a very large CCD
    will do better in low light than a 3-ccd machine that uses very small
    sensors.
    He'll have to step up to a machine with larger CCDs. Merely getting one
    with 3-ccds is not a panacea. For example, Panasonic has some low-end
    consumer 3-ccd models that use very small sensors and will not perform well
    in low-light.
     
    PTravel, Aug 27, 2005
    #5
  6. tonyjeffs

    tonyjeffs Guest

    Thanks, you've answered my question clearly even though I didn't
    provide much information
    The current one is a Sony Handycam, DCR HC120E

    The cameras 15 years back were, I don't know the details;
    a JVC sit-on-the shoulder super vhs camera
    and
    a Sharp, mid-range home use type VHS camera, about a foot long.
    .........................
    For my next camera, I want something that'll work ok without lighting
    inside a low-lit hall, such as a wedding reception/dancefloor.
    What is a good choice at the lower end of the price range?

    Thanks
    Tony
    [email protected]nyjeffs dot com
     
    tonyjeffs, Aug 27, 2005
    #6
  7. tonyjeffs

    PTravel Guest

    It depends on how you define "lower end of the price range." No
    currently-manufactured consumer camcorder has particularly good low-light
    response. Sony's machines use HAD ccds which enhance the low-light
    performance somewhat -- perhaps one of their upper-end consumer models would
    be worth considering. Canon's upper-end Opturas have better low-light
    response than some other brands, but I wouldn't call them good in low-light.

    I'm only an amateur videographer, but I'm pretty serious about what I do.
    My last camcorder purchase was a prosumer model, Sony's VX2000. I selected
    it precisely because of its spectacular low-light performance -- there was
    simply nothing else on the market that was even acceptable. Sony has
    replaced the VX2000 with the VX2100, which has the same great low-light
    performance. Unfortunately, this machine is not cheap -- street price is
    around $2200.

    If you'd consider a used machine, you might try to find a Sony TRV-900.
    This is an older consumer 3-ccd machine, much smaller and lighter than the
    VX2000/2100, but with excellent low-light sensitivity and capable of
    producing a gorgeous video image. I've seen them used in the $500-800
    range.
     
    PTravel, Aug 27, 2005
    #7
  8. The low-light capability of the 900 is crap (I have one,so I know).
    The 950 is slightly better.

    -martin-
     
    Martin Heffels, Aug 27, 2005
    #8
  9. tonyjeffs

    PTravel Guest

    The 900 and 950 are better, though, than the single-ccd consumer junk that's
    currently marketed.
     
    PTravel, Aug 28, 2005
    #9
  10. That's definetly true. But you already said that in general terms 3-CCD are
    better than 1-CCD of similar chip-size.

    -martin-
    (jealous of your VX2k ;-) )
     
    Martin Heffels, Aug 28, 2005
    #10
  11. tonyjeffs

    tonyjeffs Guest

    I want a VX 2100!!!
    Thanks
    Tony
     
    tonyjeffs, Aug 29, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.