The future of low light performance in prosumer cameras?

[Chris Davis]

Hello,

I wonder what the people here think is in store for us regarding low-light performance of prosumer video/digital movie cameras.

The Canon 5D Mk.II (with a sensor native ISO of 100) does ISO 1600 with almost no grain, so we know this kind of low light performance is possible.

The Panasonic HPX 170's sensor is rated at about ISO 400, but looks grainy with just +6db of gain (ISO 800).

So what's the next step? I assume that Nikon and Canon will give us VDSLR's with usable frame rates and maybe even decent codecs once the Scarlet 2/3" Fixed hits the market. But even the RED One shows way more grain at ISO 1600 than does the Canon 5D Mk. II. And I don't think the Scarlet 2/3", with it's smaller photosites, will fair better here (unless of course photosite size doesn't matter, as some on this site argue).

Are video cameras going to catch up to VDSLR's in low light performance? Or are videographers going to start carrying two types of cameras (or more) -- a VDSLR for low light, and a video/digital movie camera for everything else?

Would love to hear your opinions.
Thanks.

 

[Jerrod Cordell]

The Red One is rated at around 320 ISO.

With the new Mysterium X sensors for the Red One, Epic, and Scarlet, Red has basically said that you'll get the same level of noise at 800 ISO as you would on the original Red One at 320 ISO.

 

[nick and]

I'm pretty sure the big sensor Scarlets will beat VDSLR in any way imaginable. And the best part will be that you can actually shoot action with a Scarlet without it looking like jello.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

And the other part is you'll be able to shoot stuff that's in focus without either:
a) nasty aliasing artifacts
b) h264 compression mush

There's very little point in "HD" if everything is soft or out of focus....

Graeme

 

[Deanan]

And the other part is you'll be able to shoot stuff that's in focus without either:
a) nasty aliasing artifacts
b) h264 compression mush

There's very little point in "HD" if everything is soft or out of focus....

Graeme

And also not decimated down to 8bit.

 

[Mark Bone]

REDLab

REDLab

I was down at the RED Lab in toronto (http://redlabto.com/) one of the premier post houses around for RED workflow.

They were saying that they are seeing an increasing amount of professional shoots handing them 5D footage for their night time shooting or for low light application.

You pretty much have to hit the nail on the head when shooting with 5D. It really frustrates the colourist trying correct h.264.

 

[Daniel Browning]

And I don't think the Scarlet 2/3", with it's smaller photosites, will fair better here (unless of course photosite size doesn't matter, as some on this site argue).

I think *sensor* size is more important than pixel size when it comes to performance in low light.

Are video cameras going to catch up to VDSLR's in low light performance?

Well, the main low light performance advantage of VDSLR's is sensor size. If you compare video cameras that have the same sensor size and came out around the same time, you'll find the disparity is smaller.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

I think *sensor* size is more important than pixel size when it comes to performance in low light.

True - the 'bigger photosites = better sensitivity/low light' idea is thrown around a lot, but there are so many other variables (like sensor size, noise characteristics of the sensor, etc.) to consider that it doesn't really end up making a very big difference.

 

[Chris Davis]

2/3"?

2/3"?

The Red One is rated at around 320 ISO.

With the new Mysterium X sensors for the Red One, Epic, and Scarlet, Red has basically said that you'll get the same level of noise at 800 ISO as you would on the original Red One at 320 ISO.

I did not know this about the new sensors, thanks. I assume you are talking about the Mysterium X sensors for the S35 and FF35, not the 2/3". Is this correct?

 

[Juhan Malmstein]

They're all supposed to be the same (the new sensors)

 

[David Rasberry]

I did not know this about the new sensors, thanks. I assume you are talking about the Mysterium X sensors for the S35 and FF35, not the 2/3". Is this correct?

2/3" is Mysterium-X too. Some of Sony's 2/3" ENG cams are rated at 1600 ISO, so decent low light sensitivity is not limited solely to larger sensors. It will be intersting to see how the 2/3" Scarlet performs in low light.

 

[Greg Ephraim]

and then this had to come out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hya39HGB3PA

 

[M Most]

and then this had to come out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hya39HGB3PA

The 1D's low light response is almost ludicrous. At a recent demo, all of the lights in the room were turned off and the ISO on the camera cranked up to about 10000 ISO. It saw what the human eye didn't. And with almost acceptable noise levels.

The truth is that we're beginning to see a sort of golden age in which there are very affordable tools for everything. Most of what one shoots is not likely to be on city streets at night with available light. But when it is, well, there are now tools for that. Then again, if one is shooting in more "normal" situations, it's certainly true that there are much better tools available, Red being foremost among them. But this is not an either/or world anymore, in which any one tool - Red, Canon, or anything else - is the only weapon in the arsenal. One should celebrate that rather than be hung up on constantly proving that "mine is better than yours."

 

[Greg Ephraim]

The 1D's low light response is almost ludicrous. At a recent demo, all of the lights in the room were turned off and the ISO on the camera cranked up to about 10000 ISO. It saw what the human eye didn't. And with almost acceptable noise levels.

The truth is that we're beginning to see a sort of golden age in which there are very affordable tools for everything. Most of what one shoots is not likely to be on city streets at night with available light. But when it is, well, there are now tools for that. Then again, if one is shooting in more "normal" situations, it's certainly true that there are much better tools available, Red being foremost among them. But this is not an either/or world anymore, in which any one tool - Red, Canon, or anything else - is the only weapon in the arsenal. One should celebrate that rather than be hung up on constantly proving that "mine is better than yours."

it's nice to have tools shooting a documentary in February, was going to shoot RED, but now am thinking of doing the mkIV due to its portability and low light, since the whole shoot is travelling and mostly dark, so indeed it's nice to have options with any kind of budget now!

 

[nick and]

Anyone think the Scarlet will come close to the 1D's performance? That's astounding.

 

[nick and]

Secondly, what sort of a lens would you have to buy to put on a camera like the 1D to get servo zoom? What about servo zoom and AF? Impossible?

 

[Daniel Browning]

Anyone think the Scarlet will come close to the 1D's performance? That's astounding.

It's not possible. The 1D4 sensor area is 432 square mm, while the Scarlet 2/3" is almost 8 times smaller: 57 mm^2. No amount of advanced technology can overcome such a huge size difference. Size matters because modern sensors are within 1 stop of the theoretical maximum quantum efficiency across much of the visual spectrum. And much closer in terms of practical, real-life limits. So photon shot noise cannot ever be matched in the smaller sensor at the same f-number.

 

[Pierre T.]

And the other part is you'll be able to shoot stuff that's in focus without either:
a) nasty aliasing artifacts

Nasty they are!

b) h264 compression mush

There's very little point in "HD" if everything is soft or out of focus....

Well, the trick is to have some part in focus and the rest not, then the result of the codec comes out OK. If one wants the whole image to be detailed, yes, the codec is a limit.

And 8 bits is a limit with respect to post correction, obviously.

At some point, the Canon guys will also come out with higher data rate video. But wait a second, when the camera came out, many people complained that the video was jumpy on their computers, 40MBits is not such a low data rate after all. It is quite revolutionary for the price segment.

 

[nick and]

[[Well this is getting off topic, but are we working on the assumption that RED is using standard sensor technology as most of us currently understand it? I mean, do we know RED isn't employing any breakthrough proprietary technologies?]]

Anyway, I also read something about vSLR cameras using a fraction of the sensor due to skipping pixels or something like that. Does anyone know what that's all about?

 

[Gabe Conroy]

It's not possible. The 1D4 sensor area is 432 square mm, while the Scarlet 2/3" is almost 8 times smaller: 57 mm^2. No amount of advanced technology can overcome such a huge size difference. Size matters because modern sensors are within 1 stop of the theoretical maximum quantum efficiency across much of the visual spectrum. And much closer in terms of practical, real-life limits. So photon shot noise cannot ever be matched in the smaller sensor at the same f-number.

Why compare it with the 2/3" though? The 1D Mark IV goes for $5k on B&H, which seems more comparable with the S35, not the 2/3" (especially considering the huge differences in other features).