Everything I have read about camcorders says that smaller CCDs mean less light, which in turn means bad low light quality. I bought and returned a Canon zr80 with a smaller CCD which was supposed to have better low light than the previous series....but didn't. How did sony break the laws that have been clearly layed down? The review on camcorderinfo.com says the HC30 is as a good as the TRV19-22 in low light eventhough it has a smaller CCD. I am very happy with my trv22, but am curious how this is possible. Any speculations?

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/conten...rder-review.htm

CCD design today is far from perfect. There is still a lot to be done in terms of sensitivity. Better signal processing together with better general electronics is another inportant factor. CCD's will continue to get smaller. Todays digital cameras is far better than those from a few years back even though their chips were bigger. People who claim that smaller CCD's equals worse quality should think again. It is as naive as saing that mobilephones cannot possibly get smaller. There is of course a physical limit were interference between photons will be an issue. And that will not happen as long as sensors on the chip are further away than about 1-2 wavelengths (i.e 1 micrometer).

I was also worried that the HC range would perform poorly in low light due to the smaller CCDs, and was pleasantly surprised to read that the HC30 performs similarly to (if not better than) the TRV22. Actually this makes sense. Everything tends to become smaller and better, why not CCDs? So, a smaller CCD does not necessarily mean poorer low light performance. New CCDs may well achieve higher sensitivities than older ones even though they are smaller. Then there's the electronics and image processing algorithms which may be "smarter" in the HC range. I'm anxiously waiting for the HC40 review before making my decision - never had a camcorder before, this will be my first and I hope it's the HC40. I really like the smaller size compared to the TRV range.

It is funny to hear folks talk about how bulky the trv line is when I am still amazed at how small it is compared to my old 8mm. I guess it just depends on what you are used to. The HCs look really nice and people seem to love the way they fit in their hands. I like the size and feel of the TRV and would probably still opt in that direction although the new LCD has my interest.

DrDV. There is a review of the hc40 already on dvspot.com

Assuming the technology and sensitivity of the CCD must remain constant is indeed an easy erroneous trap to fall into.

But there does not tend to be large leaps from "generation" to generation.

In a given generation of technology, the CCD size is a good indicator of low-light sensitivity.

I think if camcorders were made with the larger CCDs of the past AND WITH the newer technologies, THEN we'd have camcorders of fantastic ability - even better than those in the past with the same size CCD.

Alas, there has been a trend to "lower low-light ability". If the manufactures could keep the usability of the camcorder the same as of a few years ago, then I'd say "great" and not worry about the CCD size. But what has been happening is the low-light ability has been getting worse as the camcorders and CCD shrink.

I think the 2003 TRV-19/22 were nice "exceptions" and I hope that these 2004 HCs will be moving toward better low-light ability (reguardless to the uninformed non-technical user/buyer of what CCD size and technology they use).

Sony proudly trumpeted their "HAD" (hole accumulation device) new CCD, and this was an improvement in low-light ability (given the same die size), but had some side effects (alien spaceship landing beam) in some circumstances. I have not heard any trumpets over new technology, other than that the size of the CCD is smaller for this year. That is why most semi-technical but not in-the-know with Sony people suspect the CCD technology is going to be the same and there would be less low-light ability with a smaller CCD.

But we might be wrong and Sony have pulled off a new trick to get better low-light ability!

Ok, that's enough writing when I still haven't seen one of the new HCs. I see CamcorderInfo has put up a new test report so I'm off to read about it.

PS. I do agree that the recent camcorders are a marvel of what they can do and be so small. I like my TRV-22 very much and don't see how anything smaller could be comfortable. My hand wraps around the TRV-22 pretty well (I'm 2 metres tall, about 6'6"). My wife and I looked at some of the matchbox and vertical camcorders, but they were too small for me and uncomfortable to hold for long.

__________________
Sony HDV camcorder info (FX1, CX7, HC3 HC5, SR1/3/5/10, SR11, SR12, TG1, UX1, Z1) -> http://www.SonyHDVinfo.com

autodidact, you're right about that review on dvspot, I read that one earlier on. But I really would like a comparisation of the hc30 and hc40... I don't care about the better still ability of the hc40, we have still camera's fot that

Since both seem to be tested well, I'm waiting for the "low-light difference test" (how do I come up with this great name for the test??) between those two...

Another item people often forget about is the size (and thus light gathering capability) of the lens itself. This is what focuses and concentrates the light onot the CCD.

Unfortunately, their is a tendency for these lenses to get smaller as well.

I don't know if there are large lenses for camcorders that will increase it's light gathering capability (other than wide angle and telephoto lens adaptors) but it would be nice. I use to use my 90mm telescope lens on my SLR camera to take great shots.

I wonder if anybody has done a critical comparison analysis of the light sensitivity of the various cameras throughout the years. Is the 1 lux of 2000 the same as 1 lux today, or have the measurement methods changed? How about company A vs Company B?

I would think that the camcorder manufacturers would be better served by increasing the low light sensitivity, as I truly believe that most amateur videographers shoot in many low-light situations (e.g. weddings & parties), and even professionals are often constrained by restrictions placed on them.

Regards,

Ira

re: micj's post about the lens.

This is certainly true, but tends to "even itself out", I think. (The whole reason for posting is so others can learn AND point out any fallacies or bad assumptions made! So please do be critical - it helps others and myself learn.)

The f-stop rating will be "constant" as the lenses shrink and the "target area" shrinks. A lens assembly rated "f1.8" will let in so much light to hit the CCD, and will be comprable to a larger lens with a larger CCD that is still rated at an aperature of "f1.8", won't it?

Note too, that as the camcorder shinks and smaller CCDs are used, the geometry and volume of the lens and CCD
lightbox gets smaller - or in other words, the CCD is usually closer to the lens which means less light falloff by the inverse square law.

Does anyone have some older camcorders? Have the "f stop rating" shrunk as well? I know I often saw f1.7 and f1.8 lenses when I was shopping last year. Were f1.4 or f1.2 lenses common in the past generations? That WOULD make quite a difference in low-light ability since (I think) a f1.4 lens gathers twice as much light as a f1.8 and a f1.2 lens twice again as much as the f1.4?

SLRs big advantage was the ability to change lenses. The ENTIRE lens. With camcorders, at least these consumer ones, we can add on lenses and adapters like the telephoto converter or wide-angle adapter. But the basic camcorder lens is "fixed" and we can't change that. So, I don't think there is a 1x lens add-on which gathers more light when put on front of the camcorder!

__________________
Sony HDV camcorder info (FX1, CX7, HC3 HC5, SR1/3/5/10, SR11, SR12, TG1, UX1, Z1) -> http://www.SonyHDVinfo.com

Been reading the forums at camcorderinfo.com - lots of interesting threads to read and learn from - great place to share camcorder info - thanks guys!

Quote by Yoshi Nishimura, Camcorder Product Manager for Sony:

"Every year we are making smaller CCDs, the die size is smaller but we also are making a huge effort to keep our sensitivity," said Nishimura. "To keep our sensitivity we are investigating how to do that. The manufacturing process on the CCD is key. The CCD is a semiconductor, to make a CCD, you have a have certain know-how and Sony has a very good know-how on how to make a CCD smaller and maintain the sensitivity."

Not sure how believable that statement is. Had a look at dvspot's review of the HC40, seems very positive overall. Let's see what camcorderinfo's verdict is...

If indeed they have figured this out you have to tip your hat to sony. Canon touted that the new chip inside their new ZR camcorders would improve performance even with the small CCD, but my experience proved different. It was a fine camera when there was plenty of light, but even with manual settings low light was awful. Since everyone usually talks about how good the older cameras were with bigger CCDs I figured this might be one place that new technology might not be a factor.....but it looks like I was wrong.

I think (therefore I am ) that the f stop rating is probably a better indicator of the effective light levels on the CCD than the lux value. That said, I've added this line to my excel spreadsheet in the Digital 8 section.

It appears that the Digital 8 DCR-TRVx1x had the best f stop of 1.4 (with a few exceptions of some later, low-end models) of all Sony Digital models.

I don't believe the inverse square law makes any difference once the light reaches the lens, thus the distance from the lens to the CCD makes no difference. The focus takes all collected light (based on the diameter of the lens) and focuses on the CCD. If what you said were true, all telescopes would be wide lens and short barrel, whichg obviously, is not the case.

However, the volume (and hence weight) of the lens drops faster than the size (in other words, a making the lens a bit smaller, makes a bigger difference in volume and weight), thus, from a weight point of view, smaller is better.

Improved Plastic technology has yielded lighter lenses that are equivalent to glass over time, although I have no idea if the lens (internal or external) are glass or plastic.

Regards,

Ira

>>I don't believe the inverse square law makes any difference once the light reaches the lens, thus the distance from the lens to the CCD makes no difference. The focus takes all collected light (based on the diameter of the lens) and focuses on the CCD. If what you said were true, all telescopes would be wide lens and short barrel, whichg obviously, is not the case.

I was just throwing it out there - I didn't mean to say it applied here. As indeed you threw it out altogether. For those following, a light will diminish by the square x unit as you get x units away from it -- if it is radiating in all directions. A lens will "collect" or better "concentrate and focus" the light. The ultimate would be a laser - where the light is colinear and colimated and doesn't disperse at all (well, not much).

What I was trying to describe was that with a smaller CCD, you can get closer to the lens assembly and have a smaller lens assembly while keeping the f-stop the same overall. As you pointed out, new lens materials, and being smaller and lighter help save money and weight. Too "extreme" of optics though can cause distortion as well as increase engineering costs, so the manufactures want to get the size of the lens assembly and CCD down and close together.

I've written before about how bad "lux" is as a low-light rating. But essentially, there isn't anything better in common usage.

The "f-stop" shows how much light COULD enter the lens from a given scene. The "lux rating" says how much illumination is needed to make a video recording. Note that the latter doesn't say anything about how WELL or with what quality it records! For that matter, you can use ANY camcorder to record inside a cave - that's zero lux with no illumination! Of course, you won't see anything in the video, but you ARE recording, right? That's how the game is played. You can get a little information from the lux rating comparing WITHIN a manufacture BETWEEN the models. But put a camcorder with a 7 lux rating in an environment with 7 lux and you might be able to see something is in the scene, but you really won't be able to tell much about it. In a dim 20 lux scene, the 5 lux camcorder will show you more detail than the 7 lux camcorder will, but both will make much better recordings when in 50, 1000, etc. lux.

__________________
Sony HDV camcorder info (FX1, CX7, HC3 HC5, SR1/3/5/10, SR11, SR12, TG1, UX1, Z1) -> http://www.SonyHDVinfo.com

Kerr,

So if I interpret what you said is that there's no industry wide standard definition for lux rating on camcorders; another words it's relative and subjective. When a manufacturer tout minimum lux spec, such as 5 lux, associated with the camcorder, what does it mean? Does it mean an object become visible when 5 candles are lit near by without regard to noise distortion or visible color variation.

If that is the case, it seems to me people who are enamored by low light capability based on the lux rating , might be barking up a wrong tree.

TS

KShrine, "yes".

I think.

But I am not on the "inside" and don't know. On the other hand, I have no "non-disclosure agreements" so I can dig and postulate and think and make conclusions over what info is available or what tests I see.

CamcorderInfo is building a "test set" with precisely controlled lighting. THAT should mean they can test and give some samples of video recorded in scenes with 5 lux, 50 lux, 5000lux, whatever. (Lux is actually a term of illumination - not light sensitivity). Take at look at some of the "CamcorderInfo/B&H shootoff shots for low-light" (link follows). These were done at something like 100 lux I think? Maybe lower thoguh well above the "5 lux" and "7 lux" ratings we often see touted by the manufactures. There is obviously nothing usable in them, even on the "really good sensitive Sony VX2000" in the actual low lit environment. http://www.camcorderinfo.com/conten...f_700_group.htm (Comments for the next years' tests [2004] are welcome. I've criticized the low-light "stills" so next year there will be more details on how they are obtained and there will be multiple low-light illumination tests rather than just the one. I wish I remembered exactly at what lux they all were shot - all were done at the same illumination.)

In defense of the lux ratings, and though I know it isn't really "standardized" across manufactures, there do seem to be some general correspondance between a camcorder with lower lux rating and how well it actually works in usage indoors. I can see the difference between a 7 lux Sony and a 5 lux Sony. But if it came down to deciding by the specs between a 7 lux Sony and a 7 lux Canon, you really should see for yourself rather than going by the lux rating.

__________________
Sony HDV camcorder info (FX1, CX7, HC3 HC5, SR1/3/5/10, SR11, SR12, TG1, UX1, Z1) -> http://www.SonyHDVinfo.com