Sony HDR-CX550V or Panasonic HDC-TM700? - Page 27 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #781 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 06:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Gull View Post

Just a quick reminder that the autofocus on the CX550 is advertised as being twice as fast as that on your XR500 and my CX500.

Not a question of speed, a question of accuracy. There were many times my 500 simply refused to focus, so it's not just the speed.

The comparison clip I referenced was talked about for several pages in one of the threads. It was not shot by a 'friend', I don't recall who shot it, but it was very clear the 700 did a better job of maintaining focus while the 550 did a better job of reducing noise when the light levels were very low.
Ken Ross is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #782 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Cnet actually found the opposite to be the case.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camc...l?tag=txt;page

"I have no complaints about the camcorder's performance. Sony's autofocus system really stands out compared with its competitors' systems, and Sony seems to have improved it over previous models. While it doesn't snap quite as quickly as Canon and Panasonic's, it's far more accurate at judging what should be the subject of the scene, incorrectly focusing on the background with far less frequency than the other camcorders. Plus, the lens focuses unusually close.

I wish the camcorder could focus a little faster while panning, but that's not unusual, and I think it's the trade-off for accuracy..."

I have had no problems with the auto-focus in the few instances when I use it.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #783 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:12 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

That would be interesting to see... if of course Ken would be nice enough?

I have always said the Sony has less noise in extremely low light. Is there anything else you guys would like me to say? It would appear that unless I were to say the Sony is "best at everything, bakes bread, makes cookies and sings you to sleep", you children will go on and on and on.

I have also mentioned numerous times that I avoid taking low light videos without a light with any camera...including my recent XR500 which could have done a 'candlelight video' too I'm sure. Is there a problem here in comprehension? I have zero interest in taking videos with a single candle light. You guys enjoy doing that, great, lots of luck. It doesn't interest me. In fact, I have no idea whatsoever how good or how bad the 700 would do in that situation. Since I don't shoot that way, why would I even bother. Should I test how it works inside a closed closet?

I was more than happy to post some clips to Lux's site when people asked legitimate questions and could easily be seen to be genuinely interested in the camera and its functions. But with you guys it's merely 'one upsmanship', it's a 'mine is bigger than yours'. I'm not in to that. I know full well that the 700 is significantly better than the 550 in good light but I feel no compelling need to post videos to show that. They're all out there.

You guys behave exactly like my buddy over at the JVC thread who kept badgering, badgering, badgering to post my Panny 700 clips. Apparently unless I did that it somehow 'proved' in his head that the JVC took better videos. Never mind that there were tons of 700 videos out there...they had to mine.

Against my better judgment (because I am not like you guys who feel compelled to post clips to 'prove' things), I finally decided to do it that one time just to end the nonsense and restore some S/N ratios on AVS. Once I did that I got comments both public and via PM indicating how much better the 700 was. I haven't heard from that guy again.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #784 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 33
You might as well read their low light part:

"The camcorder fares well in low light compared with its single-chip competitors, maintaining a reasonably sharp picture with only a modest amount of image noise; however, Panasonic's high-end 3-chip models deliver more saturated, less noisy results in the same circumstances. Low Lux mode seems more intelligent than most low-light modes, only gaining up if necessary. It definitely produces a brighter image than standard mode, with only a modest increase in image noise and no slow-shutter-speed artifacts (it won't drop below 1/30 second)."

My Youtube page:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My Flickr page:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Paulo Teixeira is offline  
post #785 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Cnet actually found the opposite to be the case.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camc...l?tag=txt;page

"I have no complaints about the camcorder's performance. Sony's autofocus system really stands out compared with its competitors' systems, and Sony seems to have improved it over previous models. While it doesn't snap quite as quickly as Canon and Panasonic's, it's far more accurate at judging what should be the subject of the scene, incorrectly focusing on the background with far less frequency than the other camcorders. Plus, the lens focuses unusually close.

I wish the camcorder could focus a little faster while panning, but that's not unusual, and I think it's the trade-off for accuracy..."

I have had no problems with the auto-focus in the few instances when I use it.

Well Dave, since you mentioned the CNET review, and I don't usually put much stock in them and surely don't on the autofocus issue, let's take a look at some of their other findings:

"The camcorder fares well in low light compared with its single-chip competitors, maintaining a reasonably sharp picture with only a modest amount of image noise; however, Panasonic's high-end 3-chip models deliver more saturated, less noisy results in the same circumstances."

Or this:
"Though it's still good for its class, when viewed on a computer, its video quality doesn't look quite as sharp as the previous generation did; it uses the same sensor, but it has a shorter, wider-angle G-series lens. But on a TV, the video looks great. Overall, its video has quite a bit of fringing. At its best, colors are bright, saturated, and accurate, and there's a fair bit of dynamic range; as is typical of its class, it still shows a tendency to blow out highlights, but with a lot less clipping of both the highs and lows than usual."

Or this:
"The video detail in extremely high-bandwidth scenes, such as a busy water fountain, can get a little mushy. When shooting in the highest bitrate mode, the video looks notably higher contrast than when shot the lower rates. That makes it doubly annoying that Sony defaults to the 1,440x1,080-pixel 9-megabits-per-second mode; I didn't understand its decision to do that in a $500 model and I certainly don't understand it in a $1,200 model."

So Dave, I guess the morale of this story is 'You live by the sword, you die by the sword".
Ken Ross is offline  
post #786 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Well Dave, since you mentioned the CNET review, and I don't usually put much stock in them and surely don't on the autofocus issue, let's take a look at some of their other findings:

"The camcorder fares well in low light compared with its single-chip competitors, maintaining a reasonably sharp picture with only a modest amount of image noise; however, Panasonic's high-end 3-chip models deliver more saturated, less noisy results in the same circumstances."

Or this:
"Though it's still good for its class, when viewed on a computer, its video quality doesn't look quite as sharp as the previous generation did; it uses the same sensor, but it has a shorter, wider-angle G-series lens. But on a TV, the video looks great. Overall, its video has quite a bit of fringing. At its best, colors are bright, saturated, and accurate, and there's a fair bit of dynamic range; as is typical of its class, it still shows a tendency to blow out highlights, but with a lot less clipping of both the highs and lows than usual."

Or this:
"The video detail in extremely high-bandwidth scenes, such as a busy water fountain, can get a little mushy. When shooting in the highest bitrate mode, the video looks notably higher contrast than when shot the lower rates. That makes it doubly annoying that Sony defaults to the 1,440x1,080-pixel 9-megabits-per-second mode; I didn't understand its decision to do that in a $500 model and I certainly don't understand it in a $1,200 model."

So Dave, I guess the morale of this story is 'You live by the sword, you die by the sword".


So we only agree with parts of the review that supports our opinion. You are real objective. He's "wrong" about the auto-focus being more accurate on the Sony, but he's correct about the other stuff...?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #787 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
And Ken, I have seen your 4 clips on Vimeo. Any others out there you have shot with the 700?



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #788 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira View Post

You might as well read their low light part:

"The camcorder fares well in low light compared with its single-chip competitors, maintaining a reasonably sharp picture with only a modest amount of image noise; however, Panasonic's high-end 3-chip models deliver more saturated, less noisy results in the same circumstances. Low Lux mode seems more intelligent than most low-light modes, only gaining up if necessary. It definitely produces a brighter image than standard mode, with only a modest increase in image noise and no slow-shutter-speed artifacts (it won't drop below 1/30 second)."

and I can show this raw clip that I filmed last night.



Yep, too bad it's so noisy and unsaturated. I really am curious to see the 700 in normal mode, not low light mode, with no gain added do a similar shot. Really, I'm totally curious to see how it would compare...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #789 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post


But Ken said that the reviewer was wrong about the focus issue so maybe he's wrong about the lowlight? Unless we all just pick the parts of reviews we agree with...


No Dave, I specifically said I do not go to CNET for camcorder reviews and usually "DO NOT PUT MUCH STOCK IN THEM". Can this be made any clearer?

I did NOT pick out issues that I said were 'true' and while claiming others were not. YOU were the one that referenced the CNET review to 'prove' my assertions on the autofocus issue were wrong. I simply said if you were going to point out one aspect of a review, then you better show others which totally fly in the face of virtually everything you've said about low light.

I did no 'hand picking' it was you that did.

This is really getting absurd.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #790 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

And Ken, I have seen your 4 clips on Vimeo. Any others out there you have shot with the 700?


I have shot plenty of clips Dave as I'm sure you can guess. Those 4 clips were posted as the result of the discussion (sounding exactly like this one) on the JVC thread that I have mentioned before.

My other shots look mostly like those, no big difference except the subject, same quality, same color. Since the discussions I finally responded to in the JVC thread were zoo shots, I just happened to have been recently at the zoo, so it was ideal for comparison and it was done to end that discussion once and for all.

As I've said numerous times, I am NOT in the habit of posting my clips on public sites. It has never been my style nor will it be in the future. Some people seem to thrive on that, not me. I am perfectly content having just friends & family see the clips.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #791 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
It is getting absurd, Ken. I posted a video to show the lowlight sensitivity and you mistakenly assumed the camera was in autofocus mode because instead of MAYBE admitting that the lowlight capability was pretty good, you looked for anything you could to knock the camera. You are hilarious. The way you dance around and change the subject and SWITCH TO CAPITAL LETTERS! when making a point shows your level of maturity.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #792 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:54 PM
Member
 
lekom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Gull View Post

Lol! I wonder why anyone even bothers reviewing the Sony cams if only the paparazzi want them because they film best in candlelight. I mean, since it's not a mass-comsumer flagship camcorder with excellent picture quality...

Read the thread, watch the videos. If you've already done that, OK, there's nothing more I can suggest.

I read the thread and what?
I won't argue on low light performance, even though there are reports (for example, camcorderinfo) that TM700 has better low light quality.. OK, just to make you feel better, cx550 does have better low light performace, but it's still, not like night and day difference and TM700 is still good in that aspect.
On the other hand, as for sharpness, it's indeed, night and day difference...Colors are better on TM700 too....
So yes, 550 indeed, looks more like a niche product in my opinion..
lekom is offline  
post #793 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 07:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by lekom View Post

I read the thread and what?
I won't argue on low light performance, even though there are reports (for example, camcorderinfo) that TM700 has better low light quality.. OK, just to make you feel better, cx550 does have better low light performace, but it's still, not like night and day difference and TM700 is still good in that aspect.
On the other hand, as for sharpness, it's indeed, night and day difference...Colors are better on TM700 too....
So yes, 550 indeed, looks more like a niche product in my opinion..

and so many keep saying how the colors on the 550 are "washed out" yet I can look and find very drab vids from the 700 too...

http://vimeo.com/11467738


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #794 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

It is getting absurd, Ken. I posted a video to show the lowlight sensitivity and you mistakenly assumed the camera was in autofocus mode because instead of MAYBE admitting that the lowlight capability was pretty good, you looked for anything you could to knock the camera. You are hilarious. The way you dance around and change the subject and SWITCH TO CAPITAL LETTERS! when making a point shows your level of maturity.

Once again, a comprehension issue. Can you show me where I said your camera was in autofocus? Can you show me Dave????

Since the subject was low light, I simply referenced an issue I have always had with Sonys in low light. Same subject, same camera brand, on topic, no 'dancing around' and, no reference to your camera being in autofocus.

Now, in terms of 'dancing around issues', I see you've run pretty fast from that CNET review once the entire review was discussed.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #795 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Once again, a comprehension issue. Can you show me where I said your camera was in autofocus? Can you show me Dave????

You are kidding, right...?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Dave, the problem I've had with my Sonys, including my recent XR500 and prosumer Sony Z5 and the same problem I've seen in many posted 550 clips, is the inability of the Sony to hold focus under these lighting conditions. Of course I'm talking about shots other than a stationary shot.

I recall someone doing an A/B with the 700 & the 550 as he walked around his living room and down to his basement, and he was frustrated by the inability of the 550 to hold focus as he turned and moved about his house. He did like the smooth image of the 550 under these lighting conditions, but he then gravitated toward the 700 image because it was sharper and held focus.

I guess each has its strong & weak points under these kinds of lighting conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Ken, The camera was in manual focus, NOT autofocus (so there was no "holding focus") and I was eyeballing it as to the distance and moving the camera between shots. I shot several other clips where the focus was different, tighter but I liked this one for the the way the light looked. This was NOT a test of the focus as this was to show how much room info can be recorded by a single candle. Everyone in the apt was asleep and I have a sick dog to attend to that if I leave the room for more than 2 minutes starts whimpering. So I did this quickly. Do I really need to do this again tonight?

Do you have any shots you took with the 700 with a single candle...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

No need to repeat the test Dave, but as I mentioned, autofocus can be an issue with the Sonys in low light and I've found your approach is the best one under these conditions. I wound up using manual focus under these lighting conditions with both my XR500 and Z5 if I was not using a light.

Judging from Sony clips I've seen (like that comparison I spoke of), I don't think there's anything wrong with using MF. All cameras have limitations and learning what they are and how to deal with them is a good approach with any of these tools...

When a camera is in manual focus mode, it doesn't "hold" focus. The focus doesn't chane on it's own. It is either in focus or it's not. You acknowledged me when I said that the camera was in manual focus.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #796 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Yeah, like 'post your videos, post your videos'. No sir, it's the Sony fans that are 'religious' in both their brand loyalty and the offense they take to any suggestion that another camera might be better in a number of areas. It makes no difference how many professional reviews say the same thing, but somehow the Sony guys 'know better'.

And no Dave, the Sony OIS is not in a 'class by itself', it has a better walking algorithm than the Panasonic. However, that does mean you can't get very nice walking videos from the 700, you can. So perpetuating a myth doesn't make it the truth. On the other hand, some who have had both cameras have said that the 700 does better in holding a subject when fully zoomed in. I haven't been able to test that personally, but that's what I've read from a few people.

So perhaps it's give & take.


And I've also read many comments on dvinfo and vimeo of people returning their 700's because they thought the picture was too "blue" or "cold". So people, even owners can be just as perhaps unreliable as the reviewers.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...fan-noise.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post


And no Dave, the Sony OIS is not in a 'class by itself', it has a better walking algorithm than the Panasonic. However, that does mean you can't get very nice walking videos from the 700, you can. So perpetuating a myth doesn't make it the truth.


And I and others only say "post your videos" because it's nice to back up your points with evidence. Otherwise it's useless. SHOW me one of these walking vids with good OIS from the Panny. You say they exist. I haven't found any. The few I have look like they were shot with a consumer camcorder. And at the end of the day. I don't care what a "reviewer" says. Show me the footage and I'll decide.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #797 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

and so many keep saying how the colors on the 550 are "washed out" yet I can look and find very drab vids from the 700 too...

http://vimeo.com/11467738

And that's an example of 'drab video'? Did you expect an oil painting? Have you ever shot a scene like that from a small plane through a window? That's the way it looks Dave, that's the way it looks.

Oh man, it's time to go to bed. I have had my fill of this for one day. Wow!
Ken Ross is offline  
post #798 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

You are kidding, right...?

Yeah, I didn't think you could come up with a quote that didn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post


When a camera is in manual focus mode, it doesn't "hold" focus. It is either in focus or it's not.

What does this have to do with anything I said. Man oh man.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #799 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

And I've also read many comments on dvinfo and vimeo of people returning their 700's because they thought the picture was too "blue" or "cold".

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasoni...fan-noise.html

And I and others only say "post your videos" because it's nice to back up your points with evidence. Otherwise it's useless.


I have posted my videos Dave. There are 4 on Vimeo and 3 or 4 on Lux's site. Would you like me to post 1,000 clips? Is there a magic number? What exactly is your problem? And now your argument has degenerated to suggesting the color on the 700 isn't good?

Bye bye Dave.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #800 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Yeah, I didn't think you could come up with a quote that didn't exist.


What does this have to do with anything I said. Man oh man.

My mistake then. It certainly seemed like you were bringing up a focus issue. Still the point of that was to show how much could actually be seen, recorded noise-free with the camera. And the first thing you mention in response is sony's have problems holding focus... Not an acknowledgment of what I was actually trying to demonstrate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

And that's an example of 'drab video'? Did you expect an oil painting? Have you ever shot a scene like that from a small plane through a window? That's the way it looks Dave, that's the way it looks.

Oh man, it's time to go to bed. I have had my fill of this for one day. Wow!

RIGHT!!!! And that's what's important. So if you don't know the shooting conditions of a clip you can't make the proper judgment of the camera itself.
I live in NYC where the air quality and haze in summer can make the most drab looking footage imaginable with the filtered light. Later that day, after a thunderstorm if the air has been cleared out, the color can look amazing. So if I shot in the morning and you saw the clip, you would say, "Wow. That sony really has drab colors" without knowing the conditions.

http://vimeo.com/11467738

http://vimeo.com/11071612


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #801 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

I have posted my videos Dave. There are 4 on Vimeo and 3 or 4 on Lux's site. Would you like me to post 1,000 clips? Is there a magic number? What exactly is your problem? And now your argument has degenerated to suggesting the color on the 700 isn't good?

Bye bye Dave.

Yes ken, I have seen your clips. I also saw your argument here with someone else about the color. That's what previous OWNERs who have noticed and it and this guy have said, not me.


http://vimeo.com/12078678

cameleon 72 9 days ago
Hi Ken Thx for reply
hm.. thats bit strange to me looks like your videos have totally different sharpness (not over sharpened) and different colour balance from some other video clips from same camera posted here on VIMEO, can it be maybe coz I looked more on Panasonic PAL model and your is NTSC so some different colour calibration (I think somehow PAL cameras always have better calibrated more natural colour than NTSC), anyway I would still not say that this camera is perfect especially if you ever have point this camera to Sky ? ( this is just one prove but is so many of vimeo each with sky colour recorded have this unreal hue blue tint colour vimeo.com/11992329 ) what is your comment about Sky false unreal colour taken with this camera? to me this looks worst part so unreal hue blue tint tone it just does not looks blue natural sky colour like canon or Sony , that’s most what pushing me away of this camera, I had downloaded watched and studied so many of this 1080P videos taken with this cam and concluded that Sky unrealistic blue hue tint colour captured can be be only to do with built in ND filter, once is ND on it make internal filter over sensor and I think that ND filter color is responsible and maybe done with purpose from Panasonic just to somehow make and put difference between Panasonic expensive pro video cameras line and this one cheap version consumer camera , this is only theory which has sense as this camera is possible to capture some really sharp 1080 50P /60P close 1000 lines with just couple moths before was not offered even on expensive pro cameras .
BTW. Sorry if I can ask you please if you can make some 1080P clips recorded with sky in nature like parks with lots of green trees gras etc.. at full wide open not close up , many thx in advance
Best regards


and yes, 4 clips taken of pretty stationary very colorful subjects with little or no subject movement and no camera operator movement on a bright sunny day? Not exactly a torture test for anything.
I have never knocked the outdoor panny footage, but when others mention the very good night footage the sony can shoot, you have said that the sony produces "weird golden tones at night" which was shown to be an accurate recording of sodium ligthing color temperature-wise which I'm still puzzled that you didn't know. And you have said "arguably better" lowlight footage so I linked, posted some clips. I made an effort to actually support what I'm saying. Same with the OIS.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #802 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:42 PM
Newbie
 
peterca's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Does anyone know where I can download some Sony cx 550 1920x1080 raw files? I've searched Vimeo withiut much luck, plenty of Panasonic 700 samples there, but I would like to compare some Sony files.
peterca is offline  
post #803 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 08:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I posted it but it wasn't my clip. And you know it was faked... how?
AFAIK it's still up on Youtube and people are still discussing it. If the auto white balance was off etc...
Do you have any videos you yourself have shot with the 700 while walking to show how good the stabilization really is?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #804 of 810 Old 06-06-2010, 09:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I just posted two more. Did you see those?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0FTMWqKZ20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v93nptCgf78


I SAID that I only posted it to show the stabilzation.

And yes, to me that's how it looked. This would be unusable for me as I shoot a lot handheld with very active camera movements and need a camera with the best possible stabilization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0FTMWqKZ20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v93nptCgf78


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #805 of 810 Old 06-07-2010, 03:58 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 360
bickering posts removed: please keep on topic or you will be asked to leave the thread
markrubin is offline  
post #806 of 810 Old 06-07-2010, 04:51 AM
Senior Member
 
LuxZg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Ken, how about this.
Is that slow enough? That is handheld. Shot in 1080i/60. No jaggies, no interlace artifacts. Do we need to get slower?

I'm not saying it's not effective video, but it's very different thing to slow-motion lightning strike vs slowing down a fast moving object while panning. And yes, you can use software to slow down a 60i recording of a lightning, and you can slow it down 20x. But you can do the same with 60p recording, there's no discussion about that. But try filming a car passing by, or a ball flying after being kicked, and try slowing that 20x with 60i video. you'll get disappointing results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Gull View Post

Based on your stated needs and assuming you have an average modern computer instead of a hot new Windows 7 i7 computer, yes, it is somewhat of a no-brainer. The overall expense including a computer, editing software, a DVD burner, etc. should be much lower using the Sony.

Tom, you should go to my site, download few TM700 videos, and try playing them back and basic editing. You don't need a monster, don't need 64bit, don't need Windows 7. And you need computer, software and DVD burner for Sony as well - last time I've checked.
I've tried playback on a <600$ computer (price in Europe, with 23" Full HD display, printer, and everything else), and it worked great. CPU in that computer costs <100$ in Europe, so it's probably 50$ in US. It had 32bit Windows XP. So nothing special. It's cheapest computer I could build without using Celeron for CPU.
I've also shown several times that I can edit 60p video from TM700 on Core 2 Duo E4400, which was low-end 2-3 years ago. I've edited video in PowerPoint and Windows Live Movie Maker, and I'm even afraid to call that editing, but I did a flip video, black&white, cut, join, zoom, slow-motion etc.. so it's enough for 95% of people.

So which part exactly does require "more" of anything for TM700 than CX550?
Only thing that you'll need more (with same amount of money/equipment) is - time. Of course, encoding 60p video to some other format will take longer than it takes for 60i video, but it's not huge difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Hiya Tom,

I shot this tonight. About as lowlight as you are gonna get/want.

raw clip. one candle. No other light whatsoever. Camera in normal mode, not Low Lux mode. Exposure actually backed off from max two clicks manually.


It's nice video, but not really representative of "low light".. It's static video, with no movement except the flame itself. Go get those few videos of CX550 from my site (PannTher's videos) and check out how it fares in a bit more real situation.. I'm not saying it's bad or that TM700 is better, in PannTher's videos it's clear that TM700 and CX550 are switching places like crazy in low-light situations. Sony loses focus, and TM700 is better for few seconds, than Sony is back and it wins, than someone turns on light, and TM700 is in advantage again, etc etc.. In few minutes of videos there was a switch in who-is-better every 5 seconds..

Btw, I've noticed a lot of videos being produced just for this thread and the "argument". People setting up environment and filming conditions, and than recording it few times, and picking best shots - all just to show-off their cam's strength. I don't buy that. It's way too obvious. And unless you're into movie production, you won't be filming like that. There is no "take 2" in real life. Sure, it may suite to some people, amateur film producers, music video producers etc. People that can do "take 2".. and 3, 4, 5... and mix it all up. But in RL, when things happen they are gone, and unless you had a good capture equipment, there is no going back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

And Ken, I have seen your 4 clips on Vimeo. Any others out there you have shot with the 700?


Few are here: http://hdcam.web-pda.info/

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

bickering posts removed: please keep on topic or you will be asked to leave the thread

I agree with mod... you guys sure started to argue about small things, and kept beating same subject over and over again with no new info. Try to stay on track

And sorry for a bit longer post everyone, I've been gone 4 days and you people posted 50 posts at least Had to fit it all in one post somehow
LuxZg is offline  
post #807 of 810 Old 06-07-2010, 06:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxZg View Post

I'm not saying it's bad or that TM700 is better, in PannTher's videos it's clear that TM700 and CX550 are switching places like crazy in low-light situations. Sony loses focus, and TM700 is better for few seconds, than Sony is back and it wins, than someone turns on light, and TM700 is in advantage again, etc etc.. In few minutes of videos there was a switch in who-is-better every 5 seconds..

That's the post I was referencing regarding the loss of focus of the Sony. I just couldn't remember where or who posted it. Thanks Lux.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #808 of 810 Old 06-07-2010, 06:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,978
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1002 Post(s)
Liked: 1084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Yes ken, I have seen your clips. I also saw your argument here with someone else about the color. That's what previous OWNERs who have noticed and it and this guy have said, not me.

The guy you quote is not an owner.

Look Dave, to try to tell people that the colors, sharpness or whatever you'd like to criticize about the 700 is not great, flys in the face of all reviews as well as the overwhelming majority of owner's opinions.

Then to criticize my clips as not being 'taxing' on a videocamera is just a bit silly. One clip was a very mixed lighting clip which taxes the camera's AWB. Another clip was an animal going from bright sunlight to shade which stresses the camera's dynamic range.

So I intend to drop this discussion with you right here and right now. It does nothing but lower the S/N ratio on AVS. I would be more than happy to help others who have legitimate questions or concerns.

Enough.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #809 of 810 Old 06-07-2010, 06:37 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
stop twisting my words, Ken. I did link before to a thread on dvinfo where an owner returned his 700 because he didn't like the bluish cast it put over his footage, (his words, not mine)

And I never said anything negative about the color or sharpness of your clips.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #810 of 810 Old 06-07-2010, 06:57 AM
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,899
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 360
closed

I asked you guys to stop the bickering
markrubin is offline  
Closed Thread Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off