What makes the most sense today?

The miniDV tape based HDR-HC3, or its sibling, the proprietary hard drive based HDR-SR1?

HC3's sensor sucks, so you're probably better off with a Canon HV10, cheaper too (minidv tape)

HC3's sensor sucks, so you're probably better off with a Canon HV10, cheaper too (minidv tape)

Don't both Sony models and the Canon all use similar CMOS Sensors?

The upright form factor of hte Canon while distinctive, is not very egonomic.

HC3's sensor sucks, so you're probably better off with a Canon HV10, cheaper too (minidv tape)

I recommend the Canon. Its sooooo cute and tiny :)

Don't both Sony models and the Canon all use similar CMOS Sensors?

The upright form factor of hte Canon while distinctive, is not very egonomic.

No, the "ClearVid" stuff sony is pushing in HC3+ is garbage compared to CMOS sensor they had in HC1, for example.

And do you care about picture quality or the fact that Canon is upright? :P

I recently bought HC3. Read the industry reviews. Read the feedback at B&H Photo & Amazon. There is a general consensus among consumers, semi-pros and pros that the HC3 is a great little HD camcorder.

Honestly, I really wanted to like (even pushed myself to like) the Canon HV10. I am a huge fan of Canon's digital cameras, and I don't like Sony's policy of proprietary accessories (InfoLithium batteries, exclusive hotshoe, etc). I also thought the HV10's tiny design was sexy. I decided I could probably live without HDMI, and went to local retailer 3 times trying to convince myself I could live with the HV10's ergonomics.

Ultimately, after a lot of in-hand experience, I just could not operate the HV10 smoothly. Every press of those tiny little inset chiclet buttons, or movement of the zoom control, I'd shake the shot. The little zoom control is insane - very hard to operate smoothly with that stiff spring. My prior camcorder was also a vertical configuration, so I'm familiar with the posture. But as camcorderinfo.com says, it is a poor design choice, and I'm kinda glad to be back to the more comfortable horizontal grip.

Video quality was identical between the two to my eye, except low light, which favored the Sony. After in-home testing, I'm extremely pleased with the Sony's video quality.

Don

I, too, bought the Sony HDR-HC3 for the same reasons as Don, it just fit better in my hands. I'm very pleased with the results, too.

I see no one else has answered your question about mini DV tape vs hard disk. If you will want to edit your footage on a computer, go with the tape. The HD camcorders use a different compression. I've seen a couple of threads (I think in these AVS forums) from users now complaining that they can't transfer the hard drive footage to their computer & edit it. I know that editing software on the Mac can't do it, I'm not positive about a Windows PC.

Here's my 2 cents slightly colored being an HDR-SR1 owner. Just looking at specs online it looks like the HDR-HC3 can record 60 min per tape and I'm not sure if it's less at the highest quality setting. The HDR-SR1 can record 4 hours at it's highest quality HD setting and 7+ hours at it's highest quality SD setting. For me 4 hours is more than enough recording capacity for my needs and dumping it to my laptop if I need more recording time is easily accomplished.

The ability to ditch having a bunch of tapes laying around was a big part of my decision towards the SR1 aside from the shift to HD. I had tons of tapes stockpiled from previous camcorders, and eventually I archived them to my computer when got a Mini-DV camcorder. I spent allot of time archiving all those tapes to the computer. A hard drive based camcorder let's me skip that very time consuming step. Not to mention that to the best of my knowledge now I'm not going to have dropped frames transferring to the computer. I'm not 100% sure of this though because I don't have an editing program yet so all I've done so far is transfer the recordings to my computer, so someone with more experience feel free to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm waiting on the editing software. When all the big players finally support AVCHD I'll buy based on what the forums end up preferring so yes there's a little chicken or the egg happening at the moment for editing software but I'm in no hurry.

I'm not even going to touch on the differences between one camera and another from a technical aspect like low light recording etc. because I feel I'm not qualified being a very occasional camcorder user and very much an amateur. That said I'm continually impressed with what I've needed to record viewing it on a Sony 70XBR2 via HDMI so I'm happy.

Here's my 2 cents slightly colored being an HDR-SR1 owner. Just looking at specs online it looks like the HDR-HC3 can record 60 min per tape and I'm not sure if it's less at the highest quality setting. The HDR-SR1 can record 4 hours at it's highest quality HD setting and 7+ hours at it's highest quality SD setting. For me 4 hours is more than enough recording capacity for my needs and dumping it to my laptop if I need more recording time is easily accomplished.

The ability to ditch having a bunch of tapes laying around was a big part of my decision towards the SR1 aside from the shift to HD. I had tons of tapes stockpiled from previous camcorders, and eventually I archived them to my computer when got a Mini-DV camcorder. I spent allot of time archiving all those tapes to the computer. A hard drive based camcorder let's me skip that very time consuming step. Not to mention that to the best of my knowledge now I'm not going to have dropped frames transferring to the computer. I'm not 100% sure of this though because I don't have an editing program yet so all I've done so far is transfer the recordings to my computer, so someone with more experience feel free to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm waiting on the editing software. When all the big players finally support AVCHD I'll buy based on what the forums end up preferring so yes there's a little chicken or the egg happening at the moment for editing software but I'm in no hurry.

I'm not even going to touch on the differences between one camera and another from a technical aspect like low light recording etc. because I feel I'm not qualified being a very occasional camcorder user and very much an amateur. That said I'm continually impressed with what I've needed to record viewing it on a Sony 70XBR2 via HDMI so I'm happy.

Have you found any AVHD H.264 PC playback software that works well without stutter?

My question is, once you have transfered the recording off the HDD of the SR1 to your PC, how can you play any of those recordings no longer on the SR1?

Must you transfered it back onto the SR1 to play it properly?

I would guess media player classic (http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/) should have no problems playing AVCHD out of mpeg2ts files (which is I assume the storage medium for these HDD cams) with a H264 decoder such as ffdshow without any problems.

I also bought the HC3 after comparing the Canon HV10 and the Sony SR1. As others have said, the Canon just didn't fit right in my hand. I ruled out the SR1 due to (currently) poor editing support. The other big factor that sold me on the HC3 over the Canon was the available accessories. I know a lot of people complain about Sony's "proprietary" hotshoe...but I'll take a proprietary hotshoe any day over NO hotshoe, as is the case with the Canon (and other consumer HD cams.)

I have both the 3-watt and 10-watt accessory lights, and both are excellent. I've captured stunning video in very low light (inside a club) that wouldn't have been possible with the Canon. I also have the external stereo microphone and the wide angle lens. Bottom line is, for a consumer HD cam I have a plethora of available accessories even if they are "proprietary", while most competing HD cams don't.

Have you found any AVHD H.264 PC playback software that works well without stutter?
The Sony software that came with the camera is the only thing I've used so far and there is a little stutter.
My question is, once you have transfered the recording off the HDD of the SR1 to your PC, how can you play any of those recordings no longer on the SR1?
With the software that came with the camera.
Must you transfered it back onto the SR1 to play it properly?
Define properly. It plays back with the camera software on a PC, albeit with a bit of stutter, just fine. The stutter thing from what I've read is a processor horsepower issue. On another forum someone with the latest and greatest Intel duel core processor said it plays back more smoothly for him than it did on his older computer, and the speculation is that it will take a fast processor with the latest and greatest specs like a newer Pentium quad core to process the footage and play it back without stutter. I'll admit I don't have the latest and greatest uber expensive computer so I'm not surprised I get a little stutter. Otherwise yes you can transfer it back to camera to play it with no problems.

Bravada:

How fast does the media from the SR1's HDD transfer to your computer?

The Sony software that came with the camera is the only thing I've used so far and there is a little stutter.

With the software that came with the camera.

Define properly. It plays back with the camera software on a PC, albeit with a bit of stutter, just fine. The stutter thing from what I've read is a processor horsepower issue. On another forum someone with the latest and greatest Intel duel core processor said it plays back more smoothly for him than it did on his older computer, and the speculation is that it will take a fast processor with the latest and greatest specs like a newer Pentium quad core to process the footage and play it back without stutter. I'll admit I don't have the latest and greatest uber expensive computer so I'm not surprised I get a little stutter. Otherwise yes you can transfer it back to camera to play it with no problems.
It is processor dependent, but the new nVidia and Radeon video cards support H.264 acceleration. If you upgrade to one of these GPUs you will have no issue with playing back H.264.

It is processor dependent, but the new nVidia and Radeon video cards support H.264 acceleration. If you upgrade to one of these GPUs you will have no issue with playing back H.264.

Are there any new video cards that have HDMI (with HDCP compliance) outputs with the requisite GPU horsepower to boast smooth MPEG4 H.264 playback on a par with hardware decoded MPEG2 playback such as one gets with a MyHD card?

HC3's sensor sucks, so you're probably better off with a Canon HV10, cheaper too (minidv tape)

Couldn't disagree more. The HC3 gives top notch all round performance. It is true that the canon gives a slightly better picture in full light and it even focuses a little faster. But the canon is no match against the HC3 in lower light. The Hc3 also has a HDMI port and the hotshoe... both of which I could not live without.

According to camcorderinfo.com reviews, the HC3 scored barely 3 points below the HC1. The HC3 scored 274.94 compared to 276.67. That I believe is close enough to pretty much caulk it up as a tie.

Of course every one is entitled to their opinion... but I am pretty sure you stand on your own with this one.

BTW: the canon scored: 262.35

Bravada:

How fast does the media from the SR1's HDD transfer to your computer?
I've only transferred a 10min and a few 2min clips and it took a few minutes. I'm probably not the best person to answer this since I'm not inclined to fill the camcorder's hard drive and whip out a stopwatch for a bit to second breakdown. :) There was a post in an SR1 specific forum that had the following post.
Transfer time is about 10 minutes for an hour of video. This high speed transfer is much (6x) faster than I have experienced with tape.
He didn't mention what quality setting he was using though so I suppose if he wasn't using the highest quality it could take a little longer but probably not much longer.

I have no problems with dropped frames - with best image quality settings on the SR1.

Intel E6400 Dual Core CPU @ 3.4 Ghz (no skipping at 2.1 Either)
ATI X1800XT 512MB RAM
2 Gigs of RAM

This is a mid-range system and I have absolutely no problem with playback. Looks great on my LCD(1680x1050). Even better on a Sony 60XBR(1920x1080).... About 40% used across both CPU's with hardware acceleration. About 70% without its help.

Thx,
Vidkidd

In order to view hd footage from the sr1 on a dvd do you have to burn to a blueray disc?

It's my understanding that you can burn to a regular dvd but you'd only get like 10min or so with hd footage so I wouldn't see the point. Since I don't have a bluray player yet I'm not completely up to speed on subject though.

I just got the HDRSR1 and im not liking it that much. I have only had a chance to tape indoors, but it is a bit grainy. Playback on the computer is just stupid. VERY CHOPPY. Im using a 2800 Dual Core with 2GB Memory, 6800GTX. Should be enough PC. Viewing Video on thta Tiny screen is so nice though. When I hook it up to my sammy DLP via component it looks like channel 2 SD over the air antenna.

Anyone else haveing issues with this thing? Maybe im a idiot because this is my first camcorder. Should I wait for something with 3 CCD. I read that that helps.

You've probably read the manual and have gone over your output settings on the camcorder already but I thought I'd mention going over these just in case. I haven't tried viewing through component just the HDMI out and the PQ is stunning to me.

I would make sure your recording with HD XP set, page 70 in the manual. And make sure the camcorder is set to HDTV output through the components, page 48 in the manual. Also try shooting some footage outside during daylight of some flowers for comparison to indoor.

As to your graininess, I've never seen a camcorder that wasn't a little grainy in lowlight conditions indoors and I've had camcorders from Canon, Panasonic, Sony etc. Maybe the pro stuff doesn't suffer from lowlight graininess as much but all of the consumer ones I've had does. Good lighting is the key to great footage from cameras to camcorders, at least this is what my photography teacher kept drumming into my head over and over in high school. :D

I noticed the grain as well - and i found it really depends on the lighting. Not all indoors shots come out as such. It's definitely a different codec from miniDV.

I found the quality you get on your PC depends on your digital path. Cyberlink's Power DVD or Nero's HD CODEC does a great job on my system - with or without hardware acceleration. I hear the latest WinDVD also supports AVCHD - I downloaded it - just haven't installed it.

Panasonic's 3CCD HD cam should be out in Japan in the next couple of days. Ill be waiting for the reviews to see how it fares. I grabbed my SR1 from Bestbuy - who has a liberal - holiday - return policy. Granted it's 15% - but I have until January 8th to make my final devision to keep it or return it.

best.
vidkidd

I just looked at both of them at Best Buy, and I was a bit surprised that the HC3 was smaller than the SR1. I took some video with the SR1, but the employee wouldn't let me connect it to a tv, so I don't know much about the quality.

I have a ton of miniDv tapes, so I was thinking about maybe getting that one. Is the hour per tape on the highest quality setting?

Yes, 63 minutes per tape for Sonys HDV tape, going HD recording. Of course using DV tape works also:)

Ok. This SR1 looks good on paper, but the fact that you can't playback movies in a standard dvd player seems pretty rediculous.

I mean just think about it for a second lets just say blu-ray doesnt dominate and you take your dvd (AVCHD data) to your friends house to show him your footage, and ah man it wont work. So much for capturing memories to share. Yes I'm a little dramatic, but seriously why wrangle the consumer and force them to playback on blu-ray only drives. This is way unfriendly. I mean even if you play it back on a standard def tv. Chances are it will not have HDMI and how the crap will you play it bacK?

Fellow americans please give me some insight because i feel like a lemming in circuit city right now.

As far as flexibility it seem seems the hc3 is king. too bad it only has firewire. Whats the transfer rate on that anyways?

Thanks

Nighthawk168,
While I haven't done so, it's my understanding that the software that comes with the SR1 can down convert avchd to mpeg2 with 5.1 audio for editing and burning to regular dvds. On another forum I read that's SR1 specific there's tutorials on how to do this. Also the SR1 comes with composite a/v cables so you can play back footage on a standard def tv.

Nighthawk168,
While I haven't done so, it's my understanding that the software that comes with the SR1 can down convert avchd to mpeg2 with 5.1 audio for editing and burning to regular dvds. On another forum I read that's SR1 specific there's tutorials on how to do this. Also the SR1 comes with composite a/v cables so you can play back footage on a standard def tv.

Where can I find any information form Sony about this software and the capabilities you describe?

what forum was that on bravada?

-hawk

Nighthawk168 and mkerdman,
Sent PM's to both of you. To anyone else interested in the SR1 forums PM me since it's my understanding that I shouldn't post another forums address here.

Can someone answer about the transfer rate for the HC3?

Thanks,

Andy

Can someone answer about the transfer rate for the HC3?

Thanks,

Andy

It's real time... 1 hour of tape = 1 hour of download.

Thanks, I guess that was obvious.

I have scoured the manual for another question and don't find the answer: can I record frmo the computer back to the camcorder? (So e.g. I could edit an HD movie, copy back to the camcorder, and show it on the TV that way). The Sony VEGAS manual talks about it in general as a feature of that editing software, but the HC3 manual doesn't seem to mention it, and in fact lists the things you can do with the HC3 and a computer, apparently exhaustively, and doesn't mention it.

Help!

Thanks,

Andy

i have the HC3 and love it, the video quality is great, and the compact size makes it very portable. But i have always been craving for a HDD based Hi-Def camera, which is the SR1.

my question is, when u plug the SR1 to a PC does it act as a removable drive and you can just drag and drop the videos in your PC? or does it require a firewire like HC1 to copy movies to the PC(using editing software)

and last, i have been very dissapointed by the HC3 stabalizer, it's really bad, when you move around the image shakes and stuff. Now i'm wondering, does the SR1 have the same stabilizer?

that would be one of the resons to switch to SR1 if the sbilizer/shakeproff is better than the one on HC3.

and last, overall, is the SR1 1080i video better than the 10180i on the HC3?

thanks again!

Marwan, if you go to www.camcoderinfo.com I think you will get most of the info you're after. I don't have either camera, but at that site they say that the image quality in the SR1 is somewhat worse than the HC3, because of the compression scheme. I think you still have to connect the camera with firewire or some such connection and software that comes with the camera to transfer, though the transfer is much faster than real time. I don't know about the stabilizer though i don't think they're different on the two cameras if I remember the reviews.

Where can I find any information form Sony about this software and the capabilities you describe?

Murray,
I haven't seen Sony talk about it anywhere but I can verify that the HDR-SR1 does come with utility software that will transcode to "standard" DVD-format MPEG2 with 5.1 Dolby Digital audio.

Having said that, it's pretty ugly and offers few options, as I've come to expect from bundled software. It does, however, work.

Transfer and transcoding time -
4 AVCHD clips, totally roughly 60 minutes, 60-70 minutes to transfer and transcode to MPEG2 DVD-format with Dolby 5.1 audio. (varies with content and other factors) Ran tests twice with different recordings. Note the Sony utilities appear to use multiple cores/SMP well, the transcode loaded up all four cores on the QX6700 to over 80%. (I think we need new benchmarks, maybe "moonshots per core per fortnight?)

Transcode quality: Fair-to-ok from my point of view. A little "soft" for me, others might like it. Good motion smoothness, better than equivalent 16:9 SD video from my previous camcorders.

Hardware:
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (really, no fibbing. I didn't have to pay for it)
2GB DDR 5400 RAM
Nvidia 7600GS card, 512MB (what I had on the shelf at the time)
(2) Western Digital Raptor II 70GB drives (source and destination on different drives)
XP SP2, clean install, defragged, very little other software installed

AVCHD video playback with supplied player:
Fine, on this machine. On a dual-core (Smithfield, not Conroe) 3GHZ and ATI Radeon 1600 it does stutter and transcode takes a *LOT* longer. Enough longer than I ran out of time and had to cancel the session, so can't compare objectively.

Blu-Ray disk burning success and playback experience TBA. I haven't sprung for the player yet; Even as an early adopter I'm offended by the pricing. My daughter wants a PS3, maybe I'll buy one and integrate it into the home theater for her uses and for playing Blu-Ray disks. Then again maybe not, runtime hours on the projector are spendy for gaming and I'd probably never see her in daylight again... ;-)

HTH,
--jim

I don't have either camera, but at that site they say that the image quality in the SR1 is somewhat worse than the HC3, because of the compression scheme.

I think you are misinformed... On camcorderinfo you can read the following in the HC3 review: "Though HD video is much more detailed than DV, the HDV format uses MPEG-2 compression to fit a full hour of video on a MiniDV tape."

So the fact is: SR1 uses AVCHD, and HC3 uses MPEG-2. I think there is no doubt that the uncompressed AVCHD has much better quality than the downgraded MPEG-2......... If you use Sony's software to compress AVCHD to MPEG-2, then you will get the same result as the HC3 produces.

I've also read somewhere, that AVCHD has approx. 70% better quality than HDV.

The only problem at the time is that you can't edit your raw AVCHD footage on the computer. Not yet...... :-))

anyone knows where i can find short footage recorded by the SR1? that would be the best way to judge both cameras since i have the HC3.

I found a post in some HD forum where somebody linked footage from the HC3 and the SR1 as well. The clips were recorded at the same time and same location with both cameras.

As far as the quality, I couldn't see a difference.... but all clips were in MPEG-2, so I culdn't check out the quality of the original AVCHD footage.

By the way, I think I will buy a HC3 now, because I don't have a computer strong enough to deal with the AVCHD stuff. Maybe next year........ :-))

So the fact is: SR1 uses AVCHD, and HC3 uses MPEG-2. I think there is no doubt that the uncompressed AVCHD has much better quality than the downgraded MPEG-2......... If you use Sony's software to compress AVCHD to MPEG-2, then you will get the same result as the HC3 produces.

I've also read somewhere, that AVCHD has approx. 70% better quality than HDV.


SR1 and HC3 use the same 1/3 CMOS chip, so the uncompressed data rate coming out of the CMOS chip is exactly the same, probably in the neighborhood of hundreds of mbp. SR1 then compresses the data into 15mbp (7.5GB/hour) using AVCHD (for storage on its small 30GB HD) while HC3 compresses the data into 25mbp(13GB/hour) using mpeg2 (for storage on a cheap 13GB miniDV tape ). Because of the much lower data rate of AVCHD on SR1 the picture has more noise and compression artifacts. AVCHD has higher compression rate than MPEG2, but so far the tradeoff has been less PQ.

7.5GB/hour for SR1, impressive.

but so far im hating the bulkiness of the SR1, the HC3 is so light and compact in comparison. maybe the next gen SR1 would be smaller, light, better.


my only complain is that to copy the HC3 vids to PC, is to use firewire, and you have to copy it in real time, as in let it play from the beginning to end while it copies to PC.

which also means i had to buy a firewire card for my PC.....luckily i got one of those cards with 2 firewire and 2 USB 2.0 in one cards :)


EDIT: i find it funny that my HC3 video quality still looks better than the best Bluray movie i have seen(i have a PS3 with a copy of mission impossible 3 and X Men 3)...my HC3 still looks alot more crispier than BD.

maybe holywood should starting filming their moviews with the HC3? :D

and last, JVC has a new HD video cam that records in full 1920x1080, as opposed to HC3(and all other HD cams) which record in 1440x1080.

SR1 and HC3 use the same 1/3 CMOS chip, so the uncompressed data rate coming out of the CMOS chip is exactly the same, probably in the neighborhood of hundreds of mbp. SR1 then compresses the data into 15mbp (7.5GB/hour) using AVCHD (for storage on its small 30GB HD) while HC3 compresses the data into 25mbp(13GB/hour) using mpeg2 (for storage on a cheap 13GB miniDV tape ). Because of the much lower data rate of AVCHD on SR1 the picture has more noise and compression artifacts. AVCHD has higher compression rate than MPEG2, but so far the tradeoff has been less PQ.

That makes sense..... thank you for your post!!! :-)

I think I will wait until spring, when JVC's new GZ-HD7 will hit the market. This HD camcorder will have 3 CCD, a 60GB HDD (5 hours of full 1080i video) and of course a HDMI port... for $1.800. I would like to see what PQ will it produce!!!

EDIT: i find it funny that my HC3 video quality still looks better than the best Bluray movie i have seen(i have a PS3 with a copy of mission impossible 3 and X Men 3)...my HC3 still looks alot more crispier than BD.

maybe holywood should starting filming their moviews with the HC3? :D

BD is not known for its consistency in PQ. If you really want to see the hollywood movies in HD glory you ought to see them in HD-DVD. They look leaps and bounds better than HC3. In low light Sony HD cams (such as HC3) just look soft as SD and in bright light HC3 has too much artifact like edge enhancement (the thick lines that hug along the high contrast areas) to be taken seriously.

Sony shows its true (video) colors


HD is more than just high resolution and huge TV screens--it's also better color. In this case, XvYCC color, a space that's able to encode a larger variety of colors that predecessors such as sRGB or YCC. Sony is first out of the gate to support XvYCC with its 2007 prosumer models, the HDR-HC5/7 and HDR-UX5/7, hard drive and DVD-based AVCHD models, respectively.


HDR-HC7 and HDR-HC5


Of course, Sony being Sony, the company has branded its own version of the space as "x.v.Color". (Why the names always include random periods--think "i.Link"--escapes me.)

These models use 2- and 4-megapixel versions of Sony's ClearVid CMOS--it'll be interesting to see if it's up to the task of a broader color range--and now have an automatic slow-shutter mode for when the light starts dimming. The specs do claim a we-hope-its-true minimum illumination of 2 lux.

The HDR-HC7 and HDR-HC5 will ship in February for about $1,400 and $1,200, respectively. The HDR-UX7 and HDR-UX5 follow in March for about $1,300 and $1,100, respectively.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12760_7-9673181-5.html?tag=blog

I have the HC3 and I love it. It's actually the reason why I got my XBR40, so I could see my video.

I have not tried the Canon, but have had a couple of Canon (and Sony) camcorders in the past and loved them all. The HC3 feels good and the shape of the body helps, if you were to drop it. Mine was dropped from a pouch from a running horse and it didn't break.

I prefer mini tapes, at least for now. When I travel, I go for a long time and tapes are the best unless you carry extra hardware with you. (not good in a jungle somewhere).

About editing, I sometimes get some dropped frames edit I edit in Final Cut Express HD, but my Mac is getting old, so I think that's why. It can be a pain to keep order of all the tapes, but their worth on the road makes them my choice.

Here are my impressions of the HDR-SR1 (got as a Christmas present).
I have not tried the other HD cameras, and this is my first camcorder.

Taking video in good lighting produced excellent quality video. I captured a few minutes of video in a well lit room. When viewing on a Sony 60" SXRD 1080i HDTV, the images were fantastic. I did not notice much if any artifacts. In lower light situations, yes, there are artifacts and a "softer" image as someone called it. I can live with it. Video quality: A.

The video is captured as H.264 on the internal hard drive, but this is not your Apple's H.264. Rather, the AVCHD format is an incompatible derivative of the accepted H.264. Therefore, the video you capture will not work on anything other than direct output to a TV or the supplied software. And yes, you need a pretty good computer to be able to view the videos you shoot. So far, only the supplied software can edit the video too. This screws me over (a Macintosh user), and, oh, just about every other person in the world. Yet another (propriatary?) format: C.

Regarding the supplied software, it is okay I suppose, if you only want VERY basic editing done. But, you are forced to install a bunch of other stuff too. Why do I need to install .NET in order to view and edit my videos?

While the camera is advertised as 1080i, it is not really truely 1080i. Sure, it does capture 1080 lines interlaced, but the horizontal resolution is only 1440. <sarcasm>If I do my math right</sarcasm>, for a 16:9 ratio, the horizontal resolution should really be 1920. Truthful advertising: D.

This creates an interesting result when using the MPEG-2 conversion software; the resulting MPEG-2 video is 720x540 pixels. Plus, it has nasty interlacing issues. Well, at least I can take this and edit it on my Mac.

So, I now patiently wait for iMovie or Final Cut to support AVCHD. In December on the discussion.apple.com boards, someone suggested that the Jan. 8 MacWorld meeting would announce support. BS. Meanwhile, Sony has announced even newer hard drive AVCHD models. Um, hello! How about some decent software?

Even still, the video quality is very nice. And with plenty of hard drive space, I can wait a little longer for the editing software to come along. I just PRAY that Apple will find it in Steve Job's heart to support this format. Otherwise Sony has screwed me over again (remember MiniDisc? Clie? Memorystick walkman? Thank God I am too young for BetaMax).

Thanks for the mini review Octane. The lack of 1920X1080 bothers me as well. How can they call it "Full HD"? In any case, AVCHD DVDs burned on the computer and played on the PS3, even though they are 1440X1080 upscaled to 1920X1080 are stunning. I was thinking about it, and rumor has it that DirectTV's HD runs around 9-10 mbs for mpeg 2. The HDR-SR1 delivers 15 and uses a superior encoder. The results are that my camcorder movies often look better than my normal TV watching. I can't wait if/until the PS3 supports playing back the HDR-SR1 videos from a UPNP media server. Then I can just upload my camcorder shots to the NAS and enjoy instead of having to burn a DVD and sneaker net them.

Meanwhile, Sony has announced even newer hard drive AVCHD models.

I've seen other folks mentioning that Sony has anounced new hard drive based AVCHD models, but I don't think it's true. Look at this article closely:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128481/article.html

It says that Sony announced 1) new AVCHD mini DVD models, 2) new HD models (HDR-HC7 & HDR-HC5 which is not mentioned in this article) that are actually mini-DV tape based, and 3) a bunch of SD hard drive based units. A check of the SonyStyle website confirms no hard drive HD models other than the SR1 at this time.

Some of the misconception may be from cnet's best of CES awards article which described the -HC5 and -HC7 as hard drive based.

If anyone has any other info of hard drive based AVCHD models, please post it.

Thanks.

Some of the misconception may be from cnet's best of CES awards article which described the -HC5 and -HC7 as hard drive based.

If anyone has any other info of hard drive based AVCHD models, please post it.
Good point. The model numbering would suggest that these two new models are not hard drive based, but are rather tape based like the HC1 and HC3. I suppose they could still be AVCHD though.

I've had about 4 weeks to spend with the SR-1 and wanted to let you guys now what my thoughts are.

First a little about my background. I am NOT a professional but I have produced some good wedding videos and travel/vacation documentaries that friends and family enjoy. I use both mac and pc but perfer the mac for editing in iMovie and FCE. I own a PS3, mackbook with intel core duo (not core 2 duo), and dell pc with D820 processor (dual 2.x Ghz), HD-DVD via XBOX 360. I have own many camcorders mostly Canon. This is my first HD and first Harddrive based camera. I also own a Sony Bravia 46" LCD TV 1080p to view all my videos.

Now about the camcorder. I think the picture quality in good litghting is amazing. I can not compare it to other HD formats or camcorders as I don't own anyone of them, but I am impressed with it. When the lighting gets low there is much noticible graininess. There seems to be some black spec like ants crawling around the screen. It is real noticible upclose to the TV but once you get to the proper viewing distance it is acceptable. The low lighting PQ is actually pretty good, compared to other camcorders that I have owned. All my videos were taken in maximum picture quality in HD mode so far. It will supposedly hold 4.5 hrs in this mode, but I haven't taken that much video to measure this spec yet. It does take a moment to go from off to rec. I would say about 15 secs. And it will not register the record button immediatly after turnning it on. You have to wait a few seconds for everything to boot up. There were several times I would turn it on, hit rec, and thought it was recording, when it wasn't. Also the rec button on the thumb (there is a another one on the screen) needs to be FIRMLY pressed. There were several times I pushed it too softly and it not register.

The still picture function is pretty nice to have in a pinch but the PQ is not all that great. There is a built in flash but all my subject gets red eye badly so, I made sure to turn on the red-eye reduction flash. It supposed to be 4 MP when in camera mode, but I am not at all impressed with the PQ. I will still be carrying around my Canon Digital Rebel around for photos so this will not be a big issue. But it would have been great if the PQ was more acceptable.

The harddrive. It was really nice not to have to mess with tapes or DVD's. Uploading to computer via USB 2.0 was really quick. I really did not time it, but it was considerbly faster than real time of transferring DV into iMovie. It was also nice to be able to pick the clips you wanna watch from the camera insted of having to rewind/fast forward. The small remote came in handy when viewing videos in order to skip through clips.

The software is workable. Downloading clips to the computer was a breeze. The camcorder was recconized as a "mass storge device" in both Hard drive mode and memory stick mode (for pictures). It will even recconize already DL'ed clips and not transfer it again. Playing the video using my Dell w/ 24 in LCD was smooth but will stutter every now and then. I hate it that the video and audio drops out (blacks out) as it goes from clip to clip and not goes smoothly. Using the software, I made an AVCHD and played it on my PS3 and it worked fine. But again the transition from clip to clip was not a smooth one. If any one knows how I can fix this let me know. I tried playing it on my HD-DVD for the XBOX 360 and it did not work at all. I have been looking for a editor for AVCHD but have not been able to find one. Sony will release an update for Vegas in spring of 07. I also hope apple will be supporting this new format as I like iMovie and FCE. The jumpy transition from clip to clip just kills me. I WANT AN EDITOR. Oh wait, you can use the included sofware to set in and out points and save the new file to the hard drive, but each edit needed to be completely re-written by the software and this action was VERY TIME consumming, so I stop doing it. It still did not transition from clip to clip smoothly also.

I found the anti -shake to work quite well. I was able to take shots that look like it was on a tripod, but were handheld. I was quite impressed with it. It was turned on by default.

There is also some other bells and whisltes that I have played around with like, manual focus and other manual options, and the touch LCD screen menu system. HDMI is nice as this is how I plug it into my TV. One cable for both HD video and 5.1 audio.
All in all i am glad I own it so far. I just hope that the editing software in "spring 2007" will come to fruit. It will be ideal for me it Apple supports it in iMovie.

I've finally had the time to review several posts on this topic, in this forum and abroad, regarding the incompatibility issues that come with SONY's SR1. I'd like to also thank all of you for your candid insights and information on the topic. As a small business owner, independent artist, and overall consumer, I feel almost violated because IMO many of these acclaimed magazine/internet reviewers and even SONY almost purposely and blatently decided not to report that these cool, new, cutting edge HDD/HD cameras can't very easily connect to a computer to basically download video. I don't care if I can't open it on my computer, because I dont have the required specs(which I do), or applications to open the video(which I do), or maybe even the 30GB storage to put it on(which I do), it goes on people... Bottom line, SONY purposely decided not to let you connect it direcly to your computer via firewire because they want you to use this, gimmick of an app USB 2.0 transfer BS they bundled. Then because they make crappy SONY VIAO's, they go ahead and make them incompatible to Macs, knowing they got the sickest software to compliment the HANDYCAM.

So I, maybe like many others, read articles and revews in anticipation of the SR1's release. Ok, here you are thinking you are upgrading your existing HANDYCAM to HDD, HD, etc. going along with a reputable SONY name, knowing prior HANDYCAM's have had firewire connectivity, thinking how EASY this is going to work now; simply connect to computer, edit & backup to HANDYCAM, take it on the go, right? NO! Instead you come to learn that they incorporated this AVCHD crap that is incompatible to what works! AHH, im done. I may seem ranting, but trust me, when you know your stuff, like I know many of you do, It pains me to see them insult our intellects.

P.s. Im still open to any solutions ;)

dj adjust, I feel your pain. However, the hdr-sr1 is a breakthrough product. It will take time for the applications to catch up and the editing and playback to be more convenient. At this point, Sony needs to have a software editing package, and work with the video card manufacturers to do hardware acceleration on playback to cut down the CPU requirements.

In the meantime, you can convert the files from .m2ts to another format, using a method like this:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9502260#post9502260
You sound like a Mac user. The conversion method above uses open source software and has been tested on Linux. I would bet it works on OS X as well.

I am enjoying the hdr-sr1, and archiving the video files I shoot in their native format. When I want to play them back, I just use their included software to burn an avcdvd and play it back on my PS3. I look forward to the day when support improves, as I'm sure you do too.
When that day comes, I'll be ready. If it never comes, I'll batch convert all the files I shot from avchd to x264 or another format.

yes Mr Olmos, I definitely will wait, and in the meantime I am forced to burning them down as raw footage to discs. I guess in my case I just have less time than convenience, and just not enough time to find a solution that will free up the needed space on the HANYCAM HD. I am attending a Wedding tomorrow and need to free up that space on the HD. I am also within my 30 day guarantee to exchange the unit, I may have to do that 1st thing in the AM. It never, however, answers the original problem, which is what to do with the footage I've already captured on the HD.

-DJADJ

Over in Axel's thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9692071) I will be posting my experience with OS X and converting the AVCHD format to something more usable. This is a viable solution, although some bugs need to be worked out. Happy days for Mac users. Gotta wonder why Sony and Apple are draggin their feet.

For those that are interested, there is now a Mac OS X program (Voltaic) for converting AVCHD movies to a format compatible with iMovieHD and Final Cut. http://www.mac1080hd.com