Posted by Martin Heffels on 11/22/06 08:14

On 21 Nov 2006 17:41:02 -0800, adric22@yahoo.com wrote:

>You are dead wrong. The lux rating is more accurately the "minimum
>lux" rating. But that is the minimum neccessary to get a picture, not
>the minimum *good picture*. I'm currently borrowing a Sony PD-150
>which has a lux-rating of 2 and the indoor shots are extreemly clear.

That is 1.5 aperture stop....

>I also have an older analog hi-8 camcorder which has a lux rating of 3.

That is 1 aperture stop....

> It actually boasts a much better indoor image, however, it is a pain
>to capture video from that and it doesn't even have S-video so I can't
>seperate the chroma (which is bad for green-screen videos)

The difference between the minimum light-level among the camera's you
mention is not enough to have your one camera produce a "horrible" picture.
There must be either something wrong in how you operate it, or there it's
broken. Did you check if it has a ND-filter which you can en/disable? Maybe
that one is still on.
However, I have to say that there is unfortunately no standard set on how
this minim-level is measured. It could be that the one has 6 lux with a
gain of 18dB, while the other has 2 lux with a gain of 0dB.

>However, I have been meaning to try capturing with that camera to a
>hi-8 tape and then playing it back in my digital-8 camera (which will
>convert it to digital and stream it over the 1394) and this may
>actually give me the chroma/luma seperation I need. But this is a
>pain.

That would be a possible solution.

cheers

-martin-
--

[Back to original message]