Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Best camera for low light conditions.

Feb 2, 2008 10:54AM PST

Hello,
I am looking to buy a HD camera. I am wondering if anyone could give me advice on which camera(s) video quality is best when filming in not-so-ideal light conditons. For example, I record plays in the school theater which usually has so-so lighting condtions. However, this is not the only use for this camera, I am also thinking about taking it with me on vacation in Europe. Around $800-$900 would be the price range. I prefer Sony or Panasonic but I will settle for other companies too. If need be I can buy an external light source if its not too expensive. Any advice would be appreciated.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
If you are looking for
Feb 2, 2008 10:48PM PST

a high def camcorder, and best quality, there are only four - because you locked yourself into miniDV tape.

Canon HV20, HV30
Sony DCR-HC7, HC9

If you really want "best low light quality", then the Canon XHA1 is the solution, but it is outside your price range and probably too large for your vacation.

When I taped school plays, the stage was lit - so while the folks in the crowd are in "low light", the stage lighting is usually adequate for the camera to behave well. If the lighting is THAT bad, the audience can't see very well, either. If you place the camera at the back of the theater, you will want an external shotgun mic so you can reduce picking up the crowd noise between the camera and the stage. Even better, placing a 2-6 of mics at the foot of the stage pointing at the actors would be really good - but that will require a mixer (like a 8 channel Behringer). Each of the camcorders (above) has a mic-in jack and manual audio controls (and auto, too).

A camera with a LANC is very handy. It is a wired remote that can clip to the tripod handle and control zoom (and focus) like the controls on a big dolly camera used in TV studios. It helps keep the camera from shaking if you have to use those controls - use the LANC instead of reaching around the actual camera and shaking the camera. You must use a tripod. Humans were not built for staying still (for more than about 10 seconds) and no amount of optical or electronic stabilization will fix it.

Bescor makes good external lights.

- Collapse -
hard drive
Feb 4, 2008 7:42AM PST

i'm looking for hard drive cams, sorry i forget to mention that.

- Collapse -
That's too bad.
Feb 4, 2008 7:48AM PST

MiniDV tape provides better video quality due to less compression when compared to other storage formats.

That said, I would stay with the camcorders I listed and throw in a hard drive from Firestore. It is an external hard drive that captures in the same format miniDV tape does - DV and HDV.

Please note that pro-grade camcorders do not use internal hard drives using highly compressed MPEG2 or AVCHD (for high definition).

- Collapse -
Nonsense!
Apr 4, 2011 9:34AM PDT

NONSENSE! MiniDV Tape is DEAD! and its been dead since 2006!
Dead as are Harddrive Camcorders since 2008!

The way to go is a camcorder that uses an SD or SDHD card or simular..

- Collapse -
And gas powered automobiles
Apr 4, 2011 2:44PM PDT

are dead - yet they continue to be in production and lots of people continue to buy and use them for lots of reasons.

Just because BestBuy does not sell them does not mean you cannot get them. And as long as the general public buys into the "high compression AVCHD is good enough", then that is all you will get to see at the mass marketers. Of course, this assumes we are referring to consumer-grade camcorders.

Personally, I'll take less expensive archiving and better quality video over "new technology". As soon as the manufacturers provide a viable, affordable, archive method, and get away from the AVCHD compression, sign me up.

I agree, hard disc drive camcorders should be dead - their known issues should never have allowed their continued production (same with DVD based camcorders). Sony still makes the HDD cams - Panny, too - I think...

On the other hand, if the compression is not AVCHD, I am continuing to track those flash memory camcorders... Sony HDCAM and XDCAM, Canon XF series, Panasonic DVCPRO HD, JVC GY-HM100... but they are pricy, so for now, HDV onto miniDV tape or into flash memory external recorder units (Sony, Focus Enhancments' FireStore) work fine for me. And the available camcorders continues to be pretty good... Sony HDR-FX7, HDR-FX1000, HVR-A1, HVR-Z5, Canon XH series, and several others.

- Collapse -
Analog Vs Digital
Apr 5, 2011 1:41PM PDT

First I think you need to learn a little more about resolution and data streams.. As you obviously are overlooking just how critical they are, and it all begins from the type of censor or censors a camera utilises, as some camera's rely on 3 sensors, anyway its here that whats detected is actually digitised..

And because the signal from the sensor/s is already in digital format to which for Tape camcorders, then have to be compressed and written to said media as it moves along past some tape head which is prone to wear and tear, with tape it's more than likely an AVI format is the end product, thats if its not a really really old analog system, So whats key here is the actual resolution and the maximum data stream that AVI or a analog signal allows for compared to AVCHDs massive allowed for resolution bound within a given data stream..

Now putting aside that both tape and Pure Digital Media are worlds apart because AVCHD has a far superior resolution and far superior allowed Data stream compared to a tapes highly restrictive limits, where obviously the bulkier the tape, the better the resolution and allowed for data-stream, but never the less limiting a given taped video to either near that of a DVDs whilst a Full HD digital camcorder can produce video much better with a camcorder thats less than half the weight, which BTW I should point out AVCHD Raw format is a much Higher Definition compared to tapes or DVD resolution..
where a DVD equates to a resolution of 720x480 @30 frames sec for NTSC or 720x576 @25 frames sec for Pal with both having a max allowed 9000 Kb/s Data stream, compared to AVCHDs 1920x1080 @25 or @30 frames a sec by 25000 Kb/s Max data stream!
That's in every way a far far superior resolution! don't you think?


Analog systems "Tapes" rely on 99.99999999% more moving parts in the production of video,{and along with that comes noise from the mechanics BTW}, a lot more noise than any Digital system out there, Digital media today is only prone to wear and tear via insertion and removal of recorded media, but this mechanical need will one day also be eliminated once wireless media becomes cheaper to produce than the current mechanical contacted plug in media thats available now, such as SDHC cards and or USB drives, which without a doubt will all become wireless and therefore have just about all mechanical problems completely out of the picture and as such - I insist just on this basis alone digital media via AVCHD is supreme, and whats more if you compare an AVCHD video with a RAW tape played directly from a camera fed to a HD Monitor, which BTW your camera also uses a form of decompression to do so, the tape video may seem somewhat close to pure digital media of the same resolution and data stream, but here's where it ends, because if you wish to cut and edit said "TAPED" video, you will begin to lose definition when converting to a editable & playable format such as AVCHD so when compared to a video that is already recorded in "AVCHD", I repeat thats the format that more than likely you will have to convert your Taped Video to anyway if media space is limited, so if you wish to edit and merge and take FULL advantage of an up to date Media systems High definition capabilities, there is no way around or avoiding AVCHD digital format, and what better editable and playable format is there other than AVCHD? Put simply if you play a recorded AVCHD from the camcorder or you copy it to any other media, nothing is lost! and whats more you can cut merge it with ant other AVCHD all with out any loss other than intended cut scenes!

Its a no brain-er if a video is recorded in a format and is playable in that format then thats the way to go, specially when sound is recorded in surround sound! with the latest offerings..

- Collapse -
Hilarious.
Apr 6, 2011 4:34AM PDT

The "DV" in minDV tape = Digital Video. The Digital Video data written to miniDV tape is in the form of zeros and ones - just like the zeros and ones written to flash memory, hard disc drive or optical disc storage media. The magnetic storage oxide bonded to the plastic "ribbon" that makes the digital video tape is similar to the magnetic storage oxide used by hard disc drives. These "zeros and ones" are basically an on/off signal that are created, manipulated, stored, and later transfered and interpreted by the electronics in the camcorder.

For your review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dv

Please do not confuse digital-anything with Analog information - in this case, camcorders that use non-digital recording. Examples include VHS (and VHS-C), 8mm, Hi8, Beta and others. Analog information stored to analog tape is identified as a series of wave-form information.

For your review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_signal

Just because the storage media is tape does not mean it cannot be "digital" information. Just as another example, there are external devices available from Focus Enhancements and Sony that use flash memory to store DV format and HDV format digital video. These are the same digital video formats that many miniDV tape based camcorders store to the digital tape.

For your review:
http://www.focusinfo.com/fsh200.asp
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-hdv/product-HVRMRC1K/

Last example - but not directly related to camcorders... DAT tape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Data_Storage
is commonly used in LARGE data centers to archive digital data from computer based file servers. Your suggestion that tape is somehow not digital holds no water - file servers are computers that store digital information. There is nothing "analog" associated with digital tape...

There is no "generation loss" associated with copying the zeroes and ones from one digital tape to another digital tape the way there is generation loss with analog tape sibling generation.

Your notion of "Pure Digital Media" is misguided. Using your methodology, that means that DV, HDV, DVCPRO HD, DVCAM, HDCAM and other digital formats recorded to tape or non-tape based DTE (Direct to Edit) devices is somehow not digital and prone to generation loss - this is simply not the case.

++++++++++++

The "actual resolution" of video is clearly defined by international standards bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_resolution#Current_standards

The horizontal line count is the determining factor. This is true whether standard definition at 480i/p, High definition at 720p or 1080i/p or Ultra High Definition (see Red or Silicon Imaging camera systems). Please note there is no reference to AVCHD anywhere on this linked page. AVCHD is not a "video resolution technology". It is a video data compression method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD

++++++++++++

"Data format" is independent of the compression method used to store the video.
More video compression = more discarded video data. Generally speaking, this typically meant reduced video quality. This is the reason low compression video capture is preferred - as the inverse: Less video compression = Less discarded video data, applies. The differences lie in the compression process. With DV, HDV, DVCPRO HD, DVCAM, HDCAM, and a few others, the compression is a constant rate.

With more current AVCHD (and we're talking consumer cams, here), the variable bit compression can be severe - or not so much so, depending on the selected "video quality" option used in the camcorder's menu.

There's a big discussion around the industry related to the "group of frames" method that basically uses frame 1 as the "key" and the following 7 frames differences are recorded, while the similarities are discarded. In this method, if any one of the 8 frames has an issue (easy to do when recording fast action), the entire group can be impacted. Assuming NTSC standard 29.97 frames per second, at risk is nearly 1/3 the frames in that 1 second of captured video.

I agree that AVCHD video, when recorded raw (uncompressed), can provide good video. But remembering we're discussing consumer camcorders, there are none that record raw, uncompressed, AVCHD video.

++++++++++++

"AVI" is merely a Microsoft-specific container or envelope in which to store the video data. The same video data can be stored in a "MOV" file as well.

Your suggestion of "AVI format" is absurd. It may be an AVI "file type" (or MOV file type - or many other different video file types) which is computer-readable, but the video in that envelope can be VERY compressed resulting in low video quality or not very compressed resulting in high video quality. The key then becomes the codec used and its efficiency in replacing the the discarded data from the compression process.

+++++++++++

In your third paragraph, you discuss standard definition DVD video compressed to VOB files to high definition AVCHD compressed video data. The attempt at the comparison is irrelevant and *could* be confusing. As well, you are assuming VOB-compressed DVD-player readable files are the only way to use recordable DVDs. SOme people use recordable DVDs for storing data - including video data that cannot be played back by a regular DVD player.

For example, I *could* store an MTS file (this is a video-file type created by camcorders recording AVCHD compressed video) on a regular single layer or double layer DVD. This MTS file is not playable by a regular DVD player, and most likely higher video resolution and quality that the standard DEF VOB video file.

+++++++++++

I agree that digital tape systems using a tape-drive mechanism has more parts - and more moving parts. The "analog" misinformation you push is irrelevant, so your continuing to consider any tape as "non-digital" is inaccurate. Mostly, I use external mics or an audio field recorder for audio. The few times I have used the built-in camcorder mics (concerts), the tape transport mechanism noise is a non-issue because the (concert) audio is loud enough to make the tape-drive noise irrelevant. Generally, the only time the tape mechanism noise is an issue is when there is no audio at all in the environment being captured to video. The bigger issue is the hiss caused by the automatic audio gain control - not the tape drive mechanism. This is an issue for any camcorder - not just tape-based camcorders.

The reason digital tape is still preferable is due to initial cost considerations. You seem to like math (inaccuracies aside):

One 60 minute miniDV tape is around $3.
http://www.tapestockonline.com/son60minprem.html
I am not even going for best price...
Each tape can hold up to 63 minutes of HDV format (digital) video. When imported to a computer for editing, this can consume up to 44 gig of computer hard drive space. After importing, editing, then exporting the final project back to a digital tape for archiving, I make different versions with different compression amounts and file types for the various playback and display methods. One for YouTube/Vimeo type video sharing sites, one for a DVD authoring application to downsample to VOB for standard DVD player playback and maybe a couple more that have more or less compression depending on the requirement. Since I don't re-use tapes, that means I have the original digital video and the archived final project - and I can delete the video editing project files from the computer hard drive. Over the last seven years, I have over 500 tapes. 500 tapes x $3 per tape = $1,500

Assuming, on average, that the whole tape is not used - closer to about 3/4 of the tape is used, or 63 minutes * .75 = a little over 47 minutes per tape has high definition, HDV format, digital video on it.
47 minutes per tape x 500 tapes = 23,500 minutes of video.

Please explain to me where you plan to store - for archiving - 23,500 minutes of AVCHD-compressed, high quality (remember, low compression), video.

The best method is on a RAID1 multi-drive array. In the multi-terabyte range. Buffalo, LG, NetGear and several others make them. They are just now coming into the "affordable" range for many. Another option is to use a BluRay burner and (expensive) BluRay blanks.

For HDV, I just use a $3 tape.

++++++++++++

Using the camcorder as the playback device is great. I do it with my HDV camcorders fairly regularly. Using RGB component + audio or with many HDV camcorders (including the HV40 and HDR-HC9) using HDMI connection makes for very nice large-screen HDTV playback of un-edited or EDITED high definition video.

Please explain to use how you will get EDITED final project video from the computer to the AVCHD camcorder for playback. (Hint: You can't - at least, not today. Unedited, yes - but not edited using a computer-based video editor. There is no "export to MTS", and that is all the AVCHD-compressing flash memory or hard disc drive camcorder can deal with.)

++++++++++++

As previously stated, you responded to a three year old post.

I'll make you a deal: You learn about the difference between "digital" and "analog", how video resolution is determined and why lots of video compression is problematic and I'll keep paying attention to low compression video, affordable process flow and acceptable video archive methods.

- Collapse -
Read properly
Apr 6, 2011 12:28PM PDT

Relax and please read my posts carefully Boy84,
As you may find I am not really in dispute of various digital codecs one tends to rely upon,

And yes you are right basically a Digital tape format may just as well be what I expressed as much the same as a camcorder using a USB, SD or SDHC card, but what you over looked was my point about restrictions to how much ones and zeros can be written to a given space to whatever media, perhaps I should have compared actual codecs and or compression & decompression formats with respects to the pros and cons? eh!? That's my biggie!

Anyway what I felt was more critical is a DV via recorded by any mechanical reliance or near zero mechanical reliance? put simply one should favour purchasing a camcorder with near zero or zero mechanical reliance, mind you omitting the lens/zooms mechanical configuration, to which, as CCD and or CMos chips increase in resolution that too may completely eliminate all mechanics to a camera or camcorder for personal use, but I do stress this depends on just how many pixels can be crammed into one to three or perhaps even more sensors, which I am haphazardly guessing would need to be a minimum of 25 fold of pixels for a digital X20 zoom..

Oh~BTW before it slips my mind - Nice cutting and Pasting into your post, very original, unfortunately a complete waste of time, as that was Over Kill.. yeah your loooooooooooooooooooong post floored me!..

Having said that, I stand by my stance, that any recording device that relies on mechanical means should be avoided at all costs, simply because of reliability problems, and this applies even more so to any professionals out there on the Hunt for what would be the BEST buy, and Tape was abandoned here in Oz by the pros way before 2006 I believe..

Before I end this post - I have a question,
Q/. Have you at all compared various HD video Codecs with DTS 7.1 or 5.1 and or Dolby 7.1 or 5.1 surround as key and critical to compare for your self the pros and Con's of respective codecs?

I cant be bothered scrolling up to see if I already mentioned, so I may be repeating this, in that most decent camcorders have mike zoom along with surround sound audio lately, albeit most of the lower end camcorders here in Oz still only have three mikes hard wired into them.. <sigh>
cant wait for a camcorder that has the capacity for 8 Audio channel input via a single digital wireless input, so one can place or use up to 8 wireless mics transmitting to a mixer transmitter.. <Mwahahaha> eep~

Cheers Boy84..

- Collapse -
and you do realize you
Apr 4, 2011 2:45PM PDT

are replying to a 3 year old thread...

- Collapse -
<LOL> Yeah
Apr 6, 2011 12:42PM PDT

<LOL> Yeah Now I do, In fact I noticed it just after I hit "Submit Reply" Dawg Damn it!..
<Blush>

- Collapse -
Which specific models are you looking at?
Feb 4, 2008 9:04AM PST

Don't be persuaded that you are making a wrong choice. That is not so. Both miniDV and HDD have pros and cons.

Have you looked through the immeasurable information out there? Let us know what you find.

- Collapse -
information
Feb 4, 2008 11:27AM PST

i have spent much time looking for information. Most of the reviews and websites are outdated (like 2006). I'll probably buy a sony or canon. I don't want minidv because the recording time is very limited. Most of the plays at the school are more than an hour long, and with a tape i would have to worry about swapping for a new one like every half hour. I know this because i once used a borrowed sony hd camcorder at my high school. An act was an hour long. A tape would fit 60 minutes in standard mode, versus only 30 minutes in hd. So i had to sacrifce the quality and use standard mode, becuse there was no time to change the tapes.
I was afraid that to achieve good quality in low light i needed a $1000+ camcorder. Thanks boya84 for the heads up.
Thanks for the advice whizkid454.

- Collapse -
Be aware that the time available for recording on
Feb 4, 2008 12:22PM PST

a 60 minute miniDV tape is an hour in standard definition, so you would have the time covered. And actually, in high definition more, that "60 minute miniDV tape" will record 63 minutes of high definition video. You would not be swapping out tape "every 30 minutes".

And - while not recommended - there are 80 minute miniDV tapes available... so you would be more than covered. I don't know what Sony HD camcorder you used, but it was not a miniDV tape high definition camcorder... I've been using my HDR-HC1 for over two years and I am well aware of the time limitations on miniDV tape.

MiniDVD is very limited - I agree, but you should not use miniDVD camcorders for lots of other video compression and quality reasons - including short recording time.

- Collapse -
low light HD camcorder
Dec 12, 2008 9:42AM PST

i read someone's comment about b uying a low light camcorder and noticed the reply said you have already locked yourself into a MiniDVD - why is this?

I want to buy a low light High Definition camcorder that can be edited on a PC. Any suggestions will be welcome!
Thank you
Georgia

- Collapse -
about your MiniDVD response
Dec 12, 2008 9:46AM PST

I notice that when someone asked for advice about a low light high def. camcorder you said "there are only four because you have locked yourself in to a MiniDVD.

I know very little about this subject - but I want to know why you said that. Price range??

Thanks...

Georgia

- Collapse -
Tape Vs SDHC
Apr 6, 2011 1:21PM PDT

DV-Tape Vs DV on E-Media, Memory cards, USB-Drives, SDHC or SSHD..

These days all one needs - "All Thanks to AVCHD" - Are one or two SDHC Cards, that each covers 2 hours of full HD recording by your camcorder, And once the media has been purchased thats it, as once they are filled, you either just transfer the files to a Disk or preferably your media players storage area "which doesnt take long at all", if more hours are needed for your recording such as four or more hours, then one may simply choose to considered obtaining cards with a little more available media space to them in order that the event may be fully covered..

Of course the same goes for tape, the only current advantage with Tape is the cost has dropped from what one would pay now for a SD card, down to around 5 bucks or cheaper if you dont mind tapes with around a 1/4 of usable life span, So bare in mind wear N tear to both the tape and your recording devices will have you one day on the hunt again, if not because of the lengthy time in transferring and or re-encoding your videos or mainly because of a mechanical failure of some sort that will cost more than a new camera is worth, also consider the size differences for a Tape to an SDHC card, not to overlook the weight differences in a tape based recorder Vs a device relying solely on Solid State mechanical less media..