On 22 Jan 2000 08:27:03 GMT, wrldhrvst@aol.comnospam (Wrldhrvst) wrote:

>I would appreciate comments/explanations re:
>1. How CCD size and number of pixels per CCD relate to low-light performance.
>2. 1 CCD vs. 3 CCD low-light performance.
>3. I currently use a Sony VX1000. Need a 2nd camera. I am seriously considering
>the following: Sony TRV900, Canon GL1; also open to the JVC GVD500. Main
>consideration: Low-light performance. By low light performance I mean the
>ability to capture high quality video in situations where using lighting would
>be prohibited (like indoors at a wedding) or not helpful or practical (like
>a very large outdoor gathering of poorly-lit people at night).

In the camcorder-comparison article on my web page
(look in the "I babble" index...) you can find
frame-grabs shot with all eight camcorders covered
in the same too-dark room. You may notice a few things:
the low-light ability is not necessarily related to
number of chips, or the pixel-density for a given
chip size; the camcorders max out at either +12db or
+18db gain, which mostly determines both "grain"
size and low-light ability (though the TRV-900 can
go to lower light levels than the others, by a bit,
with questionable image quality...). If you limit
yourself to the usual-speed lenses and to 1/60th
second shutter speed, it is often a toss-up between
image quality and gain, with some camcorders having
greater available gain. If slow speeds are OK for
you (there is a noticeable loss in sharpness and
increase in other possibly undesireable picture
effects), some camcorders provide these, making
VERY low light shooting possible, or low light
shooting with better color (due to less gain)
possible. I find 1/15th quite acceptable for many
purposes, especially when I can't shoot without
using it (pan and zoom s-l-o-w-l-y ! ;-). I have not
tried the new JVC - perhaps with its larger CCDs,
it will handle low-light better than other mini-DV
camcorders...