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

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

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

 

[Unknown]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

tonyjeffs@aol.com wrote in news:1125141831.418017.263170
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> 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
>
>

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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

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
9@tonyjeffs dot com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

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



<tonyjeffs@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125141831.418017.263170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 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
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<tonyjeffs@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125141831.418017.263170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 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?

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.



>
> Tony
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Unknown" <parts@unknown> wrote in message
news:Xns96BF5983B769Bchunk@216.196.97.131...
> tonyjeffs@aol.com wrote in news:1125141831.418017.263170
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<tonyjeffs@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125160817.240211.260070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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?

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.


>
> Thanks
> Tony
> 9@tonyjeffs dot com
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:42:50 GMT, "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com>
wrote:

>The 900 and 950 are better, though, than the single-ccd consumer junk that's
>currently marketed.

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 ;-) )
--

"Beer is life!"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I want a VX 2100!!!
Thanks
Tony