Filming in 24P mode on a camcorder improves low light performance?

I have read with interest an article titled: "The Great HD Shoot-Out - Canon
HV20, Sony HDR-HC7, Panasonic HDC-SD1, JVC GZ-HD7" by David Kender and John
Neely.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...erformance.htm

It says in this article that: "In 1080/60i, the Canon HV20 and Sony HDR-HC7
had nearly identical low light performance. The sensitivity (ability to
produce 50 IRE) for both was 7 lux, which is a very low light level. Color
accuracy and saturation levels were similar. The Canon produced slightly
less noise, which was evident by simple looking at the image. But the Canon
HV20 became hands-down champion of low light by virtue of a simple trick:
24P. By switching the HV20 into 24P, the sensitivity more than doubled,
dropping all the way down to 3 lux. What's more, the color accuracy improved
and the noise dropped. The ability to shoot in 24P is one of the strongest
selling points of the HV20, and the results of this test prove how valuable
that can be. Filmmakers should take note, however, that your project should
probably be start-to-finish in either interlaced or progressive. The
difference is jarring, even to the untrained eye."

Apparently, the Sony HDR-HC7 doesn't have the ability to film in 24p and
therefore can't match the Canon's low light performance when the latter is
filming in 24p.

In this article:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...der-Review.htm

John Neely says that:

"Sony's HDR-HC7 ($1399 MSRP) was to be one of the best, if not the best,
consumer camcorders of 2007. It was certainly priced as such. But it didn't
work out that way. First off, while the video quality in bright light was
great, we have once again discovered a high-priced camcorder with seriously
deficient low light performance (the last being Canon's HV10)."

But it seems that it's only when filming in 24p that the low light
performance of the Canon HV20 is better than that of the Sony HDR-HC7? Can
anyone tell me their experiences of filming in 24P on a camcorder like the
Canon HV20 and whether a full project in this format would be as good as one
filmed in other formats available to the owner of a Sony HDR-HC7?

Thanks, David

"David C" <davidc@movie.org> wrote in message
news:4692f354$1@clear.net.nz...
> I have read with interest an article titled: "The Great HD Shoot-Out -
Canon
> HV20, Sony HDR-HC7, Panasonic HDC-SD1, JVC GZ-HD7" by David Kender and
John
> Neely.
>
>
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...Canon-HV20-Son
y-HDR-HC7-Panasonic-HDC-SD1-JVC-GZ-HD7/Performance.htm
>
> It says in this article that: "In 1080/60i, the Canon HV20 and Sony
HDR-HC7
> had nearly identical low light performance. The sensitivity (ability to
> produce 50 IRE) for both was 7 lux, which is a very low light level. Color
> accuracy and saturation levels were similar. The Canon produced slightly
> less noise, which was evident by simple looking at the image. But the
Canon
> HV20 became hands-down champion of low light by virtue of a simple trick:
> 24P. By switching the HV20 into 24P, the sensitivity more than doubled,
> dropping all the way down to 3 lux. What's more, the color accuracy
improved
> and the noise dropped. The ability to shoot in 24P is one of the strongest
> selling points of the HV20, and the results of this test prove how
valuable
> that can be. Filmmakers should take note, however, that your project
should
> probably be start-to-finish in either interlaced or progressive. The
> difference is jarring, even to the untrained eye."
>
> Apparently, the Sony HDR-HC7 doesn't have the ability to film in 24p and
> therefore can't match the Canon's low light performance when the latter is
> filming in 24p.
>
> In this article:
>
> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...der-Review.htm
>


I can't speculate on why the 24P mode on the HV20 would be less noisy, but I
have done some tests on the Sony HVR-V1U that indicate that noise is lower
in INTERLACED mode than in progressive mode. According to my informal tests
using the subjective awareness of the threshold at which I could notice
noise in the viewfinder image while shooting general images in-studio, it
seemed that I could add 3dB more gain to the interlaced mode before noise
became visible in the VF than I could in progressive mode.
Now, there is an acceptable argument for better quality MPEG from
progressive images than from interlaced, which MAY play a role in this
difference that many are noting about the HV20.
I have one on order from B&H and it should be here in a couple of days, at
which time I will conduct some of my own evaluations. It will serve as
B-roll to my two V1Us.

Mark Weiss, P.E.
http://www.basspig.com/hvrv1u_HDV_artifacts.htm

"Mark Weiss" wrote ...
> I can't speculate on why the 24P mode on the
> HV20 would be less noisy,

The standard explanation is that 24 FPS gives the
pickup chip longer to collect photons which raises
the video signal ****her up from the noise floor.
The difference is 24.9% longer integration time
(1/24 vs 1/30)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:13974dnie4aupe6@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mark Weiss" wrote ...
>> I can't speculate on why the 24P mode on the HV20 would be less noisy,
>
> The standard explanation is that 24 FPS gives the
> pickup chip longer to collect photons which raises
> the video signal ****her up from the noise floor.
> The difference is 24.9% longer integration time
> (1/24 vs 1/30)

Thanks Mark and Richard for your replies. The review by John Neely of the
Sony HDR-HC7 said that:

"Our new test showed that the HDR-HC7 was capable of producing 50 IRE at
approximately 7 lux, which put it on par with the Canon HV20 (Review, Specs,
Recent News, $903) (review in process now) in 1080i. However, the HV20
easily outperformed the Sony when shooting in 24P mode, going all the way
down to 3 lux. There was a also major qualitative difference in how the
image looked. Compared to the Canon HV20 in both 1080i and 24P, Sony's 1080i
had considerably more noise. There was really no contest. The Canon HV20
won, hands down."

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...erformance.htm

John Neely also said that:

"All in all, the 24P mode is reason enough to choose the HV20 over anything
else on the market in this price range, because it’s presented as an option.
"

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...erformance.htm

Do you agree that the ability of the Canon HV20 to film in 24P mode is
sufficient reason to choose it over anything else on the market in this
price range? It seems that once you start filming a project in 24P mode, you
shouldn't change over to 1080i. But John Neely says that "shooting fast
motion, like sports, however, would be better in 1080i." So from a practical
viewpoint, how many "average" home video users would really benefit from the
consistent use of the 24P mode, rather than using 1080i? If the 24P mode is
so great and is such a huge advantage over 1080i, why wouldn't Sony have
included a 24P mode option in the HDR-HC7? If it weren't for the 24P mode
issue, I would purchase the Sony HDRHC7, but if it really is a big advantage
to be able to film in 24P mode as John Neely suggests, then I may purchase
the Canon HRV20. However, the ability of the Sony HDRHC7 to take 6mp stills
together with its excellent ergonomic qualities, makes this a good choice
also.

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:13974dnie4aupe6@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mark Weiss" wrote ...
>> I can't speculate on why the 24P mode on the HV20 would be less noisy,
>
> The standard explanation is that 24 FPS gives the
> pickup chip longer to collect photons which raises
> the video signal ****her up from the noise floor.
> The difference is 24.9% longer integration time
> (1/24 vs 1/30)

Just a further point about the Canon HV20, the one I looked at actually has
a 25P shooting mode, not 24P. This is dicussed here:

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showt...hp?t=545601HDV

Does anyone know whether mini DV tape utilised to record film in the 25P
format can be edited satisfactorily in Sony Vegas?

Thanks, David

> "Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
> news:2cs8935fjvs1upmti3aodkftii7huv576g@4ax.com...

> David, it's been a long and difficult day (Tuesday, that is; it's now
> Wednesday), so I'll need to be brief, but here are my thoughts on
> this...

Thanks very much Frank for you informative comments, they are most helpful.

>> "David C" <davidc@movie.org> wrote:

>>Do you agree that the ability of the Canon HV20 to film in 24P mode is
>>sufficient reason to choose it over anything else on the market in this
>>price range?

> Absolutely not. Some will choose the Sony HDR-HC7 just because of its
> better build quality (less plastic, more metal).

True, but my main criteria is the quality of the video, and that's why I
became interested in John Neely's enthusiasm for the 24p mode, which is
available in the Canon HV20, but not in the Sony HDR-HC7.

>>It seems that once you start filming a project in 24P mode, you
>>shouldn't change over to 1080i. But John Neely says that "shooting fast
>>motion, like sports, however, would be better in 1080i." So from a
>>practical
>>viewpoint, how many "average" home video users would really benefit from
>>the
>>consistent use of the 24P mode, rather than using 1080i?
>
> In general, anyone who doesn't know exactly why they need 24p should
> never use 24p. 24p is for people who know what 24p is, how to shoot
> it, and how to edit it. If you don't already know all of that, then
> don't use it.

I would tend to agree, but if the use of 24p can substantially improve low
light performance and overall video quality, then it might be worth my while
to gain sufficient knowledge to sensibly use 24p?

> You didn't describe the nature of your "project" (your word from your
> initial post), but unless you're planning a film-out and expect
> audiences to view your work on the silver screen, I'd recommend that
> you forget about shooting 24p video (actually 23.976 fps in a 2:3
> pulldown in a 1080i59.94 datastream).

My projects are mainly family ones, such as shooting holidays, kids' parties
and school productions. But even such simple applications can benefit from a
good low light performing camcorder, hence my questions about 24p.

>>If the 24P mode is
>>so great and is such a huge advantage over 1080i, why wouldn't Sony have
>>included a 24P mode option in the HDR-HC7?
>
> Are you kidding? Using current B&H prices for U.S. models (you appear
> to be in New Zealand), the consumer-grade HDR-HC7 is $1049.95 and the
> prosumer-grade HVR-V1U is $3599.95 after $300 Sony mail-in rebate. The
> two camcorders are in different classes. It took an act of god to get
> Sony to include 24p on the HVR-V1U and you want to see it on the
> HDR-HC7? Maybe someday, but not yet.

It seems strange that the Canon HV 20 is able to feature a 24p mode option
and cost $500 less (in New Zealand) than the Sony HDR-HC7, which doesn't
have a 24p option. I wonder whether 24p will become a fairly standard
expectation of camcorder buyers in the future?

snip

Thanks again for your help.

Regards, David

"David C" wrote ...
> I would tend to agree, but if the use of 24p can substantially improve
> low light performance and overall video quality, then it might be
> worth my while to gain sufficient knowledge to sensibly use 24p?

But using 24p is a backwards way of improving low
light performance, and carries substantial disadvantages
in subsequent distribution, etc. of the video. IMHO it is
NOT a practical way to get better low light performance.
If you want better low light performance, then use a
camera that inherently has better low light performance.

> My projects are mainly family ones, such as shooting holidays, kids'
> parties and school productions. But even such simple applications can
> benefit from a good low light performing camcorder, hence my questions
> about 24p.

But then what do you intend to do with 24p video?
How do you distribute it so that the intended audience
(family members? others?) can view it?

"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:2cs8935fjvs1upmti3aodkftii7huv576g@4ax.com...
>
> In general, anyone who doesn't know exactly why they need 24p should
> never use 24p. 24p is for people who know what 24p is, how to shoot
> it, and how to edit it. If you don't already know all of that, then
> don't use it.
>
If the result of the project is to be displayed mostly on
a television, then interlaced video is a good solution.

If the primary audience is for viewing on a computer
then progressive scan would be a better solution.

David

David,
For whatever it is worth, my recently purchased Canon HV20 HDV camcorder
replaced two prior Sony HDV camcorders, the Sony FX-1, a 3-CCD unit, and the
prior version of the Sony HC7 you are interested in, the Sony HC5.


The HV20 is undoubtedly superior in picture quality under virtually all
conditions, although, as Frank points out, is noticeably inferior in its
build quality, at least the exterior case and controls. I have seen a number
of HV20 owners on a number of forums report that they too have switched from
much more expensive and deluxe cameras such as the FX-1 and have been, like
me, extremely satisfied.

I do not use 24p, but it does increase low light performance a bit. I have
found the HV20 to be perfectly adequate for all casual indoor uses I
personally have tried it with. None of these camcorders work superbly in low
light.

My son has an HC7 Sony HDV camcorder he purchased on his most recent trip to
Japan, and now, after seeing my results, is looking to get an Canon
HV20.......

Smarty


"David C" <davidc@movie.org> wrote in message
news:4694a9db$1@clear.net.nz...
>> "Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
>> news:2cs8935fjvs1upmti3aodkftii7huv576g@4ax.com...
>
>> David, it's been a long and difficult day (Tuesday, that is; it's now
>> Wednesday), so I'll need to be brief, but here are my thoughts on
>> this...
>
> Thanks very much Frank for you informative comments, they are most
> helpful.
>
>>> "David C" <davidc@movie.org> wrote:
>
>>>Do you agree that the ability of the Canon HV20 to film in 24P mode is
>>>sufficient reason to choose it over anything else on the market in this
>>>price range?
>
>> Absolutely not. Some will choose the Sony HDR-HC7 just because of its
>> better build quality (less plastic, more metal).
>
> True, but my main criteria is the quality of the video, and that's why I
> became interested in John Neely's enthusiasm for the 24p mode, which is
> available in the Canon HV20, but not in the Sony HDR-HC7.
>
>>>It seems that once you start filming a project in 24P mode, you
>>>shouldn't change over to 1080i. But John Neely says that "shooting fast
>>>motion, like sports, however, would be better in 1080i." So from a
>>>practical
>>>viewpoint, how many "average" home video users would really benefit from
>>>the
>>>consistent use of the 24P mode, rather than using 1080i?
>>
>> In general, anyone who doesn't know exactly why they need 24p should
>> never use 24p. 24p is for people who know what 24p is, how to shoot
>> it, and how to edit it. If you don't already know all of that, then
>> don't use it.
>
> I would tend to agree, but if the use of 24p can substantially improve low
> light performance and overall video quality, then it might be worth my
> while to gain sufficient knowledge to sensibly use 24p?
>
>> You didn't describe the nature of your "project" (your word from your
>> initial post), but unless you're planning a film-out and expect
>> audiences to view your work on the silver screen, I'd recommend that
>> you forget about shooting 24p video (actually 23.976 fps in a 2:3
>> pulldown in a 1080i59.94 datastream).
>
> My projects are mainly family ones, such as shooting holidays, kids'
> parties and school productions. But even such simple applications can
> benefit from a good low light performing camcorder, hence my questions
> about 24p.
>
>>>If the 24P mode is
>>>so great and is such a huge advantage over 1080i, why wouldn't Sony have
>>>included a 24P mode option in the HDR-HC7?
>>
>> Are you kidding? Using current B&H prices for U.S. models (you appear
>> to be in New Zealand), the consumer-grade HDR-HC7 is $1049.95 and the
>> prosumer-grade HVR-V1U is $3599.95 after $300 Sony mail-in rebate. The
>> two camcorders are in different classes. It took an act of god to get
>> Sony to include 24p on the HVR-V1U and you want to see it on the
>> HDR-HC7? Maybe someday, but not yet.
>
> It seems strange that the Canon HV 20 is able to feature a 24p mode option
> and cost $500 less (in New Zealand) than the Sony HDR-HC7, which doesn't
> have a 24p option. I wonder whether 24p will become a fairly standard
> expectation of camcorder buyers in the future?
>
> snip
>
> Thanks again for your help.
>
> Regards, David

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:1399lb0m3qo71a6@corp.supernews.com...
> "David C" wrote ...
>> I would tend to agree, but if the use of 24p can substantially improve
>> low light performance and overall video quality, then it might be worth
>> my while to gain sufficient knowledge to sensibly use 24p?
>
> But using 24p is a backwards way of improving low
> light performance, and carries substantial disadvantages
> in subsequent distribution, etc. of the video. IMHO it is
> NOT a practical way to get better low light performance.
> If you want better low light performance, then use a
> camera that inherently has better low light performance.
>
>> My projects are mainly family ones, such as shooting holidays, kids'
>> parties and school productions. But even such simple applications can
>> benefit from a good low light performing camcorder, hence my questions
>> about 24p.
>
> But then what do you intend to do with 24p video?
> How do you distribute it so that the intended audience
> (family members? others?) can view it?

Thanks very much to all the people who have replied to my questions. I have
been using camcorders for many years, and I like to read the independent
reviews of the various models available before I purchase new models. The
fact that John Neely on the camcorderinfo site said that the 24P mode is
reason enough to choose the Canon HV20 over anything else on the market in
this price range, will make several potential purchasers want to find out
more about the advantages and disadvantages of using 24P.

My concern about using 24P consistently is that, apparently it may not be
all that good if you are filming fast moving subjects, such as sports games,
or even concerts where performers are moving around quickly on a stage. I am
not sure why you say that using 24P is a "backwards way of improving low
light performance" when John Neely pointed out that in this mode you can go
"all the way down to 3 lux".

For all my projects to date, I have used Vegas and DVD Architect and played
back the video on authored DVDs. I am not sure why you say that 24P carries
"substantial disadvantges" in subsequent distribution etc. of the video.
However, I am considering using my projector connected to a computer to
present my video using avi files from the computer, rather than mpeg2 files
from a DVD. I am not all that happy that a 13 gig avi file is compressed to
about 4 gig when you use DVD Architect. This must surely reduce the
resolution of the original video quite significantly?

Smarty, I am interested in your comment that, even though you own an HV20,
you don't use 24P. Is there any particular reason why you haven't used 24P
so far?

Frank, the price of a Canon HV20 in New Zealand (including 12.5% goods and
services tax) is $2,000. The price of a Sony HDRHC7 is $2,500, so the price
differential between the two models is more significant in this part of the
world! If I bought the Canon HV20, I could only buy locally the 50Hz version
which has the 25P option, not 24P.

One point in favour of the Sony is that it has a dual record mode in which
you can capture 4.6mp stills while you are recording video. The Sony also
has 6mp stills, I'm not sure how it does this when the gross pixel count is
3,200,000, but perhaps it has two sensors, one for video and one for stills?

Regards, David C