I am only shooting HD, but I chose the HC-WX870 over the HC-WX770 purely because it offered the night vision that the 770 does not. I had assumed the specs in HD mode would be identical on both these cameras (since they both use the same sensor) but they are not. Do you know if one shoots better HD than the other, particularly in low light?
Very interesting. Also looking at these new 4K cams from Panny and Sony but for use as HD (ignoring the 4K capability for now). Seems that they both do an excellent job compared to class-leading prosumer HD cams (eg. x920, HF-G30). AX33 100Mbit must be capable of great stuff. Also wondering how they'd compare if used with a Ninja2 (or is that a perverse thing to consider?!)
Yes, they do quite well as HD cams (at least the Panasonic does, I haven't really tested the Sony properly yet). Adding an external recorder sounds like a good idea but it won't work - they don't output from the HDMI when in 4K recording mode (which means no external monitor either). Certainly true for the Panasonic but again I haven't had time to check the Sony yet.
So is there any reason to pick the HC-VX870 over the V770 one when you want to use them for live performance (most of the time low light) band video shoots? When i want to use a camera in relative low light enviroments i need to use the gain function manually?
If I recall correctly, the V770 is HD only, the VX870 does 4K, so that would be a reason to choose it. Neither of these cams is going to do at all well in low light, they're just consumer-grade holidaymaker type camcorders, not designed for gig filming. You can use the gain manually or automatically but if there's going to be lots of flashing lights and variable light levels, you'd be better off setting all exposure functions manually else the camcorder will madly be raising / lowering the exposure to try to cope with the lighting.
Yes Full HD only but people tell me that it`s about how big the lens is and the chipset when it comes to (relative) low-light recording. This V770 seemed to do the job well for the price. In this case using gain is rather dangerous. Lights are flashing all the time. I will try it out and see. I ordered 2 V770 camera`s, i hope i made the right decision..
I imagine the V770 will do better in low light than the 4K model due to having fewer (and therefore probably larger) pixels. You will not get a great pic from it in dark scenarios though, these low cost camcorders simply aren't to the job really.
Ivan José Hurtado Barón Only because I haven't bought the Sony yet (I did have it on order but Sony cocked it up somehow). It's more costly and I don't have £999 spare to buy it at present. I will buy it and compare with the Panasonic when I get some spare change, hopefully soon!
Perfect! The panasonic looks quite flat, which is what I need for my needs. Does it have color control or pictures profiles? I'll wait for your Sony review!
No profiles or anything so useful, it really is designed as a "point and shoot" home consumer camcorder that just happens to shoot 4K, I think. It overexposes a bit and has no shaping of the high end (knee curves etc) so any highlights just get blown totally. Incidentally, it shoots fully to 109% so it looks even worse when you upload unless you bring the levels back in range... I'm not really a fan so far, though weirdly I quite like it as a point and shoot HD camera for its 50Mbps mp4 mode!
What's the point of showing badly underexposed footage? Visible noise is technically represented by the Signal/Noise ratio where "signal" is the exposure value for the available light and "Noise" is the sensor's noise floor. When you don't change the actual exposure (shutter speed & aperture) Signal value is always the same and unless you change the sensor, noise floor is always the same. Technicaly your 0db footage has exactly the same noise as the 6db, 12db and 18db footage. The only difference is that the footage at 0db for example is too dark and you can't see the noise (you need light in order to see anything). In other words this is one more useless "low light test" of the latest contageous disese that has strike the visuals industry. How dissapointing.
+Spiros Zaharakis It's not badly underexposed, it's deliberately dim. "The point" is that in real life situations you will only add gain - electronic amplification of the signal - once you are in too dim an environment for further brightening via aperture or (horror, don't do it) shutter speed. Thus demonstrating the visible noise in a dim scenario is, ipso facto, clearly of interest to anyone filming in dim conditions.Adding in gain to compensate for the lack of light and bring the image to more readily visible levels inherently amplifies the noise as much as it does the wanted part of the signal (yes, I am familiar with signal to noise ratios) and again is therefore useful since different camcorders temper their amplification with differing levels of smoothing and noise reduction to compensate.Technically the image does not have the "same noise" at different gain amounts - it has amplified the noise. It does have the same signal to noise *ratio* but the effect becomes more visible as you step up. Again, in real life shooting situations this is therefore of interest.I find your spelling disappointing too but I guess we both have to live with these contagious diseases :-)
Thanks for this info, it has been useful! We just bought this camera and are waiting for delivery early next week! Have subscribed!
Traveller Excellent, thank you!
I am only shooting HD, but I chose the HC-WX870 over the HC-WX770 purely because it offered the night vision that the 770 does not. I had assumed the specs in HD mode would be identical on both these cameras (since they both use the same sensor) but they are not. Do you know if one shoots better HD than the other, particularly in low light?
+marc Sedaka Haven't tested them against each other so can't really say but none of these small camcorders are good in low light really.
Very interesting. Also looking at these new 4K cams from Panny and Sony but for use as HD (ignoring the 4K capability for now). Seems that they both do an excellent job compared to class-leading prosumer HD cams (eg. x920, HF-G30). AX33 100Mbit must be capable of great stuff. Also wondering how they'd compare if used with a Ninja2 (or is that a perverse thing to consider?!)
Yes, they do quite well as HD cams (at least the Panasonic does, I haven't really tested the Sony properly yet). Adding an external recorder sounds like a good idea but it won't work - they don't output from the HDMI when in 4K recording mode (which means no external monitor either). Certainly true for the Panasonic but again I haven't had time to check the Sony yet.
So is there any reason to pick the HC-VX870 over the V770 one when you want to use them for live performance (most of the time low light) band video shoots? When i want to use a camera in relative low light enviroments i need to use the gain function manually?
If I recall correctly, the V770 is HD only, the VX870 does 4K, so that would be a reason to choose it. Neither of these cams is going to do at all well in low light, they're just consumer-grade holidaymaker type camcorders, not designed for gig filming. You can use the gain manually or automatically but if there's going to be lots of flashing lights and variable light levels, you'd be better off setting all exposure functions manually else the camcorder will madly be raising / lowering the exposure to try to cope with the lighting.
Yes Full HD only but people tell me that it`s about how big the lens is and the chipset when it comes to (relative) low-light recording. This V770 seemed to do the job well for the price.
In this case using gain is rather dangerous. Lights are flashing all the time. I will try it out and see. I ordered 2 V770 camera`s, i hope i made the right decision..
I imagine the V770 will do better in low light than the 4K model due to having fewer (and therefore probably larger) pixels. You will not get a great pic from it in dark scenarios though, these low cost camcorders simply aren't to the job really.
Thx for the replies!
Can I ask why the Panasonic over the Sony fdr-ax33? I'm ready to bite but I'm not sure yet, doubting between these two cameras.
Ivan José Hurtado Barón Only because I haven't bought the Sony yet (I did have it on order but Sony cocked it up somehow). It's more costly and I don't have £999 spare to buy it at present. I will buy it and compare with the Panasonic when I get some spare change, hopefully soon!
Perfect! The panasonic looks quite flat, which is what I need for my needs. Does it have color control or pictures profiles? I'll wait for your Sony review!
No profiles or anything so useful, it really is designed as a "point and shoot" home consumer camcorder that just happens to shoot 4K, I think. It overexposes a bit and has no shaping of the high end (knee curves etc) so any highlights just get blown totally. Incidentally, it shoots fully to 109% so it looks even worse when you upload unless you bring the levels back in range... I'm not really a fan so far, though weirdly I quite like it as a point and shoot HD camera for its 50Mbps mp4 mode!
Вот, если-бы написали мощность светового прибора, при котором измерения производились - то вообще замечательно было ! )
+LiFurr_CHANNEL The power is not so important as it's the comparison of the two camcorders that is relevant.
Я это понимаю, что это сравнительный тест. а если мне сравнивать не с чем ?
+LiFurr_CHANNEL With each other
What's the point of showing badly underexposed footage? Visible noise is technically represented by the Signal/Noise ratio where "signal" is the exposure value for the available light and "Noise" is the sensor's noise floor. When you don't change the actual exposure (shutter speed & aperture) Signal value is always the same and unless you change the sensor, noise floor is always the same. Technicaly your 0db footage has exactly the same noise as the 6db, 12db and 18db footage. The only difference is that the footage at 0db for example is too dark and you can't see the noise (you need light in order to see anything).
In other words this is one more useless "low light test" of the latest contageous disese that has strike the visuals industry.
How dissapointing.
+Spiros Zaharakis It's not badly underexposed, it's deliberately dim. "The point" is that in real life situations you will only add gain - electronic amplification of the signal - once you are in too dim an environment for further brightening via aperture or (horror, don't do it) shutter speed. Thus demonstrating the visible noise in a dim scenario is, ipso facto, clearly of interest to anyone filming in dim conditions.Adding in gain to compensate for the lack of light and bring the image to more readily visible levels inherently amplifies the noise as much as it does the wanted part of the signal (yes, I am familiar with signal to noise ratios) and again is therefore useful since different camcorders temper their amplification with differing levels of smoothing and noise reduction to compensate.Technically the image does not have the "same noise" at different gain amounts - it has amplified the noise. It does have the same signal to noise *ratio* but the effect becomes more visible as you step up. Again, in real life shooting situations this is therefore of interest.I find your spelling disappointing too but I guess we both have to live with these contagious diseases :-)