Good picture quality in low light - camcorder suggestions?

[reprev]

Hello everyone,

I run a motion capture studio at work where we film actors performing moves using specialised light-sensitive cameras. The action also needs to be filmed by a "normal" camcorder, so that we have a video reference of everything that has been filmed.

We need to keep the studio reasonably dim in order for the specialised cameras to function optimaly. However, we do need the camcorder to pick up sharp and clean pictures for our reference.

We currently have an old-ish SD Canon camcorder which is reasonable, but it shows rather obvious horizontal lines on the actors when they move quickly. The picture is also a little grainy.

We could do with purchasing a good quality, possibly HD, camcorder which will take good quality pictures indoors. It will be tripod-mounted and recording will be automatically controlled by our computer software, via a firewire link, directly to the hard drive. I don't need any particularly specialised functions, and disk capacity is a non-issue.

Ideally it would have a good quality wide-angle lens in order to cover the studio floor space well.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a decent camcorder that might fit the bill? I'm not yet sure of the amount we would be looking to spend, but I think it's reasonably safe to say it won't be more than £1,000, and ideally less.

Thanks in advance,
Jon.

[rhubarbe]

Canon HV20 is your best bet.

[glesgaguyav]

Check this forum:

http://www.hv20.com/

There are plenty of Vieographers amature/pro sharing their experiences and advice with the HV20
It may help you decide.

[senu]

Originally Posted by rhubarbe

Canon HV20 is your best bet.

I have to agree with that one too
Be aware though that all camcorders do not like low light.. at all Better low light ability is a matter of degree

[rhubarbe]

Do be careful of reviews though. Many reviewers know so little about the things they are reviewing that they will leave the cam on auto settings. Now auto is nice and easy but you don't get the best low light results in auto.

I have a little hobby horse right now that relates to reviews and reviewers. Most of the reviews you will read are from the USA and relate to NTSC cams that have a frame rate of 1/60th sec. Now, its PAL equivalent will have a frame rate of 1/50th sec. so you'd expect to get more light into the cam with a PAL cam than an NTSC, wouldn't you?

[brookie]

The HV20 is clearly a great camera for the price, but is it still worth getting if you don't yet need the HD features?

Will it deliver good SD material when required?

[rhubarbe]

I think that if you are serious about video you'd welcome the opportunity to shoot in native widescreen and HD. It'll shoot in SD as well but since it is going to be mounted on a tripod you'll at kleast not have to worry about the biggest bane of HD cams (AFAIAC) that of hunting for focus as you pan. You won't have that problem.

I say go for it.

Or you could buy a mint pre-owned Sony HDR-HC1e. Now you're talking.

[7hil]

Does the HV20 peform better than the HC7 in low light?

[rhubarbe]

In 24p mode, yes. So they say. Though I have to say that "they" are usually our US cousins whose cams normally work in 1/30th sec framerate so for them 24p to 60i is a big difference. For us it's 50i, so 25p makes no odds as they say over this side of the pond.

Suck it and see, I suppose.

[senu]

Originally Posted by brookie

The HV20 is clearly a great camera for the price, but is it still worth getting if you don't yet need the HD features?

Will it deliver good SD material when required?

Yes...Ive yet to see a good HDV camcorder that is a poor SD performer. ( And Ive yet to see a poor HDV camcorder..)

Remember you can use them as SD camcorders natively or shoot HDV and Downconvert in-camera. results are similar .

Although not quite in the same league, I Use the Sony VX2100 (SD) and FX1 HDV and can say that the FX1s Sd performance is very close to the Vx2100s... that is no mean feat at all.

[felix2]

Originally Posted by 7hil

Does the HV20 peform better than the HC7 in low light?

Lowlight isn't the HC7's strong point. Don't get me wrong, it's by no means bad, and it gives a reliable colour balance and exposure, but when it starts getting pretty dark, the image does eventually start to get a bit grey-er, grainier, and, urm, darker! The camcorderinfo reviews suggested that in 60i mode the HV20 and HC7 are pretty similar in low light (although subjectively the HV20 may appear a bit brighter, and has a different type of grain), but in 30p (or 25p) mode, the HV20 does look better. Although in progressive mode, the image can look just slightly jerky with movement sometimes too...

I haven't yet seen anything (below true broadcast cams) that can touch the Sony VX2000 / 2100 (or PD150 / 170) for low light image quality though. It's only SD, and in good light IMHO there are plenty of things that will beat it now (including all the HDV cams, even when downconverted to SD), but it'd be my choice for filming in the near-dark... (in theory, its image sensor pixels are approx 4 times the sizes of those in the HC7!)

[reprev]

Wow - thanks for all the replies everyone... what a helpful forum

I'll look more closely into the HV20 as it does look like it will fit the bill nicely for us.

If I have any more questions, I know where to come. Thanks again!

Jon.

[7hil]

Can't believe I've been umming and ahhing over the HV20 or the HC7 now for 2 months and I still can't make my mind up.

I need to get one before xmas. Arggghhhh!

EDIT: I think I'll go for the HV20

Can both modes from the Canon play on a PS3?

[redsox_mark]

Well, at least they are both excellent, so it really doesn't matter much which to choose.

[7hil]

The HC7 has just dropped on Amazon to £624. Here I go again!