Reading mode: Light Dark

TV Lenses v. DLSR Lenses - Low Light?

Go to last post
Digetydog

Digetydog

Senior Member
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
211
Location
Parts Unknown, TX, US
While snowed in, I caught a replay of a golf event that I know finished just before dark. Nevertheless, they managed to shoot the event and didn't get stuck with 1" DOF.

How do television cameras work so well (relative to DLSRs) in low light?

BTW - I do realize that CBS might be using a $100K+ camera which is why they get the results they want. Nevertheless, I suspect a D3 shooting a f/2.8 lens in similar conditions (no flash allowed on golf courses) would result in a very shallow DOF.
 
How large is the imager in your DSLR? It is either DX or FF, correct? How large do you think the imagers in professional television cameras are (almost always 2/3" and almost always have three imagers per camera). A smaller imager will always have a deeper DOF than a larger imager with all other factors in front of the lens (aperture, focal length, etc.) being the same.

Simple physics. Compare apples to apples.

Dan
--
I am all about the images not the gear.
 
DBCapybara said:
How large is the imager in your DSLR? It is either DX or FF, correct? How large do you think the imagers in professional television cameras are (almost always 2/3" and almost always have three imagers per camera). A smaller imager will always have a deeper DOF than a larger imager with all other factors in front of the lens (aperture, focal length, etc.) being the same.
Click to expand...
Add to this that the sensors on the TV cameras are about ISO 320 to ISO 800 NATIVE(related to a 1/50th sec shutter speed= mopix equivalent), and can easily go "gain up" another two stops without losing too much quality. Also, the big sports zooms are 25:1 up to 100:1 zooms at f/1.4!(maybe about T/2 or so.)

But remember, broadcast HDTV is very low res(approx 2 MP) compared to DX or FX stills.
--
-KB-
 
Digetydog said:
While snowed in, I caught a replay of a golf event that I know finished just before dark. Nevertheless, they managed to shoot the event and didn't get stuck with 1" DOF.

How do television cameras work so well (relative to DLSRs) in low light?
Click to expand...
I have been watching deer in the fading light of evening, I can still see them clearly, I can still see them clearly though binoculars, but my DSLR is already useless.

There is room for improvement :-)

Mark
 
Mark_A said:
Mark_A said:
I have been watching deer in the fading light of evening, I can still see them clearly, I can still see them clearly though binoculars, but my DSLR is already useless.
Click to expand...
There is room for improvement :-)

Mark
Click to expand...
Are you talking about seeing the deer through the view finder or the image from your camera? I would be very surprised if it is the camera image.

Roy
 
abcdefghijklmnop said:
Are you talking about seeing the deer through the view finder or the image from your camera? I would be very surprised if it is the camera image.
Click to expand...
Hi Roy,

No I am talking about the camera's ability to make images in very low light, in light in which with binoculars you can still see the animals but the camera can no longer image them.

Here.. an example.. deer running in very low light :-)



Mark
 
Strange, my D300s will take an image, that is clearer, in dim light than my vision. I guess I need to see that eye doctor after all.

Roy
 
Mark_A said:
Hi Roy,

No I am talking about the camera's ability to make images in very low light, in light in which with binoculars you can still see the animals but the camera can no longer image them.

Here.. an example.. deer running in very low light :-)
Click to expand...
You can make any image look dark by under-exposing it badly. At what settings were you shooting?
 
If they could make camera sensors and lenses with the pixel count, light sensitivity, DOF, focus speed, dynamic range, and FOV+perspective of human eyesight then it would be a marvel of technology.

Lets put it this way, I can see my way around the room with lights off and there is no ISO noise, yet everything is "underexposed"
 
One thing I've noticed especially on older film conversions is that noise (or grain in that case) is much less apparent when the photo is moving/changing vs a single image. If you were to get a still from the video and look at just that for a few seconds the quality might be substantially worse than the video appears.
 
What camera and lens did you use for the deer shot (the deer seem perfectly visible in the image, if blurred due to too long exposure camera).

If you used an f/2.8 or f/2 telephoto with ISO 6400 I would guess the motion would be frozen.

Certainly in my case my D3 and D700 with fast lenses can image more than I see in the dark. Even hand-held.

Ilkka
 
If you take one single frame out of the TV footage and print that at 8x10 inches, it will look positively terrible in terms of image quality. In moving pictures humans tolerate that kind of poor quality because each image is seen only so briefly.
 
Ilkka Nissilä said:
If you take one single frame out of the TV footage and print that at 8x10 inches, it will look positively terrible in terms of image quality. In moving pictures humans tolerate that kind of poor quality because each image is seen only so briefly.
Click to expand...
I was gonna type a long explantion as to why you are utterly wrong in both your suggestion and your explantiaon.... but i thought I would reduce it to:

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
 
I still don't understand how they manage to get the apparent depth of view in the low light.
Ilkka Nissilä said:
If you take one single frame out of the TV footage and print that at 8x10 inches, it will look positively terrible in terms of image quality. In moving pictures humans tolerate that kind of poor quality because each image is seen only so briefly.
Click to expand...
 
joejack951 said:
Mark_A said:
Hi Roy,

No I am talking about the camera's ability to make images in very low light, in light in which with binoculars you can still see the animals but the camera can no longer image them.
Here.. an example.. deer running in very low light :-)
Click to expand...
You can make any image look dark by under-exposing it badly. At what settings were you shooting?
Click to expand...
On that pic probably ISO1600 f5 & 1 sec shutterspeed

Mark
 
blue_cheese said:
If they could make camera sensors and lenses with the pixel count, light sensitivity, DOF, focus speed, dynamic range, and FOV+perspective of human eyesight then it would be a marvel of technology.

Lets put it this way, I can see my way around the room with lights off and there is no ISO noise, yet everything is "underexposed"
Click to expand...
Yes, I have just been looking at wildlife pictures shot at ISO2000 on a Nikon D3 and they were superb. Unfortunately my present camera only goes up to ISO1600 and my lens is a f4.5-5.6 which is not the fastest.

Mark
 
Ilkka Nissilä said:
What camera and lens did you use for the deer shot (the deer seem perfectly visible in the image, if blurred due to too long exposure camera).

If you used an f/2.8 or f/2 telephoto with ISO 6400 I would guess the motion would be frozen.

Certainly in my case my D3 and D700 with fast lenses can image more than I see in the dark. Even hand-held.
Click to expand...
Hi Ilkka, yes with a D3 you have an ISO advantage over me, my cam only goes to ISO1600 and as I just mentioned I have just seen tonight very acceptable shots taken at ISO2000 from a D3. I also don't yet own an f2.8 telephoto, I am sure that would have helped also certainly.

Mark
 
The simplest way to explain it is that its due to the sensor size.

It is a smaller sensor so its kind of like how point and shoot cameras have lots DOF.

The sensors on video cameras are much smaller than dSLR, the resulting crop factor results in shorter focal length lens being needed to get "normal" FOV, the shorter focal length means that wider apertures give you more DOF. compare 8 mm F1.4 to 50mm at F1.4, the 16 mm shot will have more DOF.
 
BTW i am still laughing in you comparing human vision of motion as worse than a 8x10 print. I find myself scared to turn my head just in case the moving world around me degrades in quality.

Cheers :) LOL
 
blue_cheese said:
The simplest way to explain it is that its due to the sensor size.

It is a smaller sensor so its kind of like how point and shoot cameras have lots DOF.

The sensors on video cameras are much smaller than dSLR, the resulting crop factor results in shorter focal length lens being needed to get "normal" FOV, the shorter focal length means that wider apertures give you more DOF. compare 8 mm F1.4 to 50mm at F1.4, the 16 mm shot will have more DOF.
Click to expand...
It also has to do with the framing of the subject. Rarely are television cameras right on top of the subjects, especially with sports. Watch a baseball game where they frame just the pitcher's upper body though and you'll see the depth of field drop of dramatically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top