TRV900 much sharper than HV10? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 33 Old 03-12-2007, 11:19 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
olik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I recently bought an HV10 and shot 40 minutes of regular miniDV tape
in the weekend. The video looked pristine and quietly clean, as many
of you have experienced.

But, to my surprise, the captured image is a lot less sharp than that
from TRV900, especially for closeup portrait shots (in which the face
occupies the entire frame). Looking at the hair and the skin texture,
the image captured by TRV900 is _much_ sharper (the video was shot
in progressive mode). For comparison, I used linear deinterlace and
scaled the HV10 image down 50%.

Sorry for my ignorance. Is this expected, giving the fact that HDV
uses the same miniDV tape for 1 hour of higher resolution video?
olik is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 06:29 AM
Newbie
 
bunkeromantik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Check if you recording in HD mode.
bunkeromantik is offline  
post #3 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 427
also sharpness is only a very tiny small part of the equation of what is "good".

how about contrast level? colour accuracy? dynamic range? and so on, and so forth

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is offline  
post #4 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 10:30 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
olik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
To bunkeromantik: Yes, it's in HDV mode.

To David Susilo: I think sharpness is a very important part of the "equation".
As far as contrast, color, and dynamic range are concerned, keep in mind
that TRV900 is a 3 CCDs camera... But this is not the point. I was somewhat
surprised to find out the discrepancy of the sharpness between these two
cameras and was trying to get confirmation (and explanation) from this forum.
It was my first post here. I did some google but couldn't find anyone talking
about it. But thinking about it afterward, in order to fit 1 hour of HDV video
of higher resolution in the same miniDV tape, something has to give, right?
Could it be the local details (in other word, sharpness)?
olik is offline  
post #5 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 427
they both use completely different codec. miniDV uses DV25 compression (similar to MJPEG) where every frame is compressed individually) whereas HDV uses a form of MPEG compression that uses GoP (which is more efficient than DV25 compression, but it's harder to edit).

But yes, HDV is not as ideal as DV25 in terms of compression artifacts. I still can see compression artifacts on HDV with the scenes with very suble colour gradation and rippling water.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is offline  
post #6 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 03:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
GodobeHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

I recently bought an HV10 and shot 40 minutes of regular miniDV tape
in the weekend. The video looked pristine and quietly clean, as many
of you have experienced.

But, to my surprise, the captured image is a lot less sharp than that
from TRV900, especially for closeup portrait shots (in which the face
occupies the entire frame). Looking at the hair and the skin texture,
the image captured by TRV900 is _much_ sharper (the video was shot
in progressive mode). For comparison, I used linear deinterlace and
scaled the HV10 image down 50%.

Sorry for my ignorance. Is this expected, giving the fact that HDV
uses the same miniDV tape for 1 hour of higher resolution video?

I would find it hard if not impossible to believe that an eight year old DV model outperforms the latest bunch of HDV cams, especially in the sharpness dept. There has to be something in filming or displaying that were not done in a standard way with your HV10.
GodobeHD is offline  
post #7 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 03:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
David Susilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 9,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 324 Post(s)
Liked: 427
I can't discount it completely. I know for a fact that (at least) not all lenses are created equal. The footage taken using a GL1 miniDV has better focus than the HV10. Whether focus being the culprit or quality of the lens or what else, until I actually see the footage I can't tell (in the case of GL1 vs HV10, the lens quality difference is a big part of the problem. It seems like there is a very thin layer of smoke on the footages taken by the HV10 when compared to the GL1).

By itself, the HV10 is quite amazing.

follow my A/V tweets @davidsusilo

ISF, THX, CEDIA, Control4 & HAA certified
Reviewer for TED, QAV, AUVI & DownUnder Audio Magazine

my (yet to be completed) BD list
my home theatre

David Susilo is offline  
post #8 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 04:27 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
olik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The HV10 video was shot HDV in automatic mode (IAF was on),
and was viewed on my wide-screen computer monitor via IEEE1934.
The image was then linearly deinterlaced and scaled down 50%,
for comparison purpose.

The TRV900 video was shot in progressive mode, and was viewed
under the same setup.

Anyone here has got a TRV900 and an HV10 or an HC3? Please
stand up. :^)

BTW, I don't think my HV10 is a lemon. I once saw a half-body
portrait shot of a girl in an HV10 testing clip from a Japanese site.
It's not that sharp.

I think there must be a trade-off (or balance) between spatial
resolution and color depth. Higher spatial resolution does not
necessarily results sharper images.
olik is offline  
post #9 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 05:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
Wesley5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

The HV10 video was shot HDV in automatic mode (IAF was on),
and was viewed on my wide-screen computer monitor via IEEE1934.
The image was then linearly deinterlaced and scaled down 50%,
for comparison purpose...

By 50% you meant both vertically and horizontally ? If so, that's 4x reduction, so the final resolution is 720x540 , which is very similar to DV format. Note HDV is 1440x1080, not 1920x1080. So no surprise to me TRV900 could give you sharper image. I would be really surprised if TRV900 footage is sharper than HDV's original footage.
Wesley5 is offline  
post #10 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 05:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
GodobeHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

...I think there must be a trade-off (or balance) between spatial
resolution and color depth. Higher spatial resolution does not
necessarily results sharper images.

I don't know how you define sharpness, but on my book sharpness is resolution without artificical sharpening. There is a 1080p clip from HV10 on Canon's website and some user posted HV10 clips on some Japanese website: http://videosan.web.fc2.com/HV10docs/index.html
Check them out and see if your video quality comes close. If your videos don't look the same quality as those then I'd say you may want to look for some problems in the process or even the HV10 itself. But if the video from your TRV900 or GL1 looks even better than those sample video clips then it is probably a good idea to return the HV10 to save $1000 anyway.
GodobeHD is offline  
post #11 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 05:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,301
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

To bunkeromantik: Yes, it's in HDV mode.

To David Susilo: I think sharpness is a very important part of the "equation".
As far as contrast, color, and dynamic range are concerned, keep in mind
that TRV900 is a 3 CCDs camera... But this is not the point. I was somewhat
surprised to find out the discrepancy of the sharpness between these two
cameras and was trying to get confirmation (and explanation) from this forum.
It was my first post here. I did some google but couldn't find anyone talking
about it. But thinking about it afterward, in order to fit 1 hour of HDV video
of higher resolution in the same miniDV tape, something has to give, right?
Could it be the local details (in other word, sharpness)?


Wow! I couldn't disagree with you more!!! I've got the TRV900 and don't use it that much anymore. It had been a backup camera for me on certain shoots, but now I use it mostly for playback. But the TRV900 isn't even close to the HV10 in sharpness.....I mean not even in the same ballpark. To say that the HV10 spanks the TRV900 would be an understatement.

Are you watching these on a big screen HDTV directly output from the cameras? If you are there is unquestionably something wrong with your HV10!!! I mean honestly, these two are in a different class entirely. Do you get the feeling I feel pretty strongly about this?
Ken Ross is offline  
post #12 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 05:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,301
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

The TRV900 video was shot in progressive mode, and was viewed
under the same setup.

Progressive mode??? I've had that camera since it came out and to the best of my knowledge there is no 'progressive mode'.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #13 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 05:59 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
olik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley5 View Post

By 50% you meant both vertically and horizontally ? If so, that's 4x reduction, so the final resolution is 720x540 , which is very similar to DV format. Note HDV is 1440x1080, not 1920x1080. So no surprise to me TRV900 could give you sharper image. I would be really surprised if TRV900 footage is sharper than HDV's original footage.

Yes, both vertically and horizontally. If comparing to the original HDV 1440x1080,
the TRV900 clip looked even sharper.
olik is offline  
post #14 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 06:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,301
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
I don't know how anyone could possibly compare an HDV camera and a DV camera that way. You MUST output each camera natively in to your HDTV. There is simply no other way to do it. Your approach is very far from 'scientific'.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #15 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 06:02 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
olik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Progressive mode??? I've had that camera since it came out and to the best of my knowledge there is no 'progressive mode'.

I suggest you to check your TRV900 again (or do a simple google search
of its manual).

If your TRV900 is still functioning, why not take a portrait shot and then
compare results with HV10?
olik is offline  
post #16 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 06:07 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
olik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodobeHD View Post

I don't know how you define sharpness, but on my book sharpness is resolution without artificical sharpening. There is a 1080p clip from HV10 on Canon's website and some user posted HV10 clips on some Japanese website: http://videosan.web.fc2.com/HV10docs/index.html
Check them out and see if your video quality comes close. If your videos don't look the same quality as those then I'd say you may want to look for some problems in the process or even the HV10 itself. But if the video from your TRV900 or GL1 looks even better than those sample video clips then it is probably a good idea to return the HV10 to save $1000 anyway.

My HV10 shots looked on par with those posted in the Japanese site.
I just hope they have a closeup portrait clip for comparison (by closeup,
I mean the face occupies the entire frame).
olik is offline  
post #17 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 06:12 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
olik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

I don't know how anyone could possibly compare an HDV camera and a DV camera that way. You MUST output each camera natively in to your HDTV. There is simply no other way to do it. Your approach is very far from 'scientific'.

As I said, I used my wide-screen computer monitor via IEEE1934 to view
the video. I don't have a HDTV, and don't plan to buy one.

I think one can capture still images from the video and compare their
respective sharpness. I am not sure if it's "scientific", but to me, it's a
fair comparison, as far as sharpness is concerned.
olik is offline  
post #18 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 06:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
GodobeHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 745
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

As I said, I used my wide-screen computer monitor via IEEE1934 to view
the video. I don't have a HDTV, and don't plan to buy one.

I think one can capture still images from the video and compare their
respective sharpness. I am not sure if it's "scientific", but to me, it's a
fair comparison, as far as sharpness is concerned.

well the easiest way of seeing the difference would be to take you cams to BestBuy or CircuitCity and plug them in one of 1080p HDTVs.
If you just want to compare the frame grab from the video you can press the photo button on HV10 while the video is being played and then download that frame from USB port. That way your HV10 video capture is of the true 1440x1080 instead of 720x540.
GodobeHD is offline  
post #19 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 07:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Wesley5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

Yes, both vertically and horizontally. If comparing to the original HDV 1440x1080,the TRV900 clip looked even sharper.

I just realize that you were not watching it on a HDTV, so basically you are comparing SD footages, a 3-CCD camcorder could do better.

You really need to watch it on a HDTV to let it shine. You will notice the difference, the bigger/higher resolution TV is, the bigger difference you will see. In addition to resolution, colors are also much more vibrant.

How about do a still capture of original footages and let people see.
Wesley5 is offline  
post #20 of 33 Old 03-13-2007, 10:39 PM
Newbie
 
filmmaker1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
it is true that the TRV900 progressive-scan mode is only 15 fps (not 24p/25p) and that is annoying..
filmmaker1977 is offline  
post #21 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 08:29 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,301
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

I suggest you to check your TRV900 again (or do a simple google search
of its manual).

If your TRV900 is still functioning, why not take a portrait shot and then
compare results with HV10?

I've got tons of footage shot with the TRV900 over the years and it doesn't hold a candle to the HV10...not even close. The HV10 is simply the best video I've seen from almost any HDV camcorder (which by anyone's defiintion is far superior to a mini-DV camcorder).

I will again suggest there is a problem with your HV10.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #22 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 08:31 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,301
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

As I said, I used my wide-screen computer monitor via IEEE1934 to view
the video. I don't have a HDTV, and don't plan to buy one.

I think one can capture still images from the video and compare their
respective sharpness. I am not sure if it's "scientific", but to me, it's a
fair comparison, as far as sharpness is concerned.

It's been posted 100s of times in almost any forum discussing camcorders, still frames don't begin to show the quality of a camcorder. So no, your approach is wrong. I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone who has both these cameras and an HDTV, that you are correct.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #23 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 11:37 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
olik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Listen, I am not talking about the quality of the camera.
I am not here to convince or sell my 9-year-old TRV900
to anyone. I did not say HV10 is a bad camera, or even
TRV900 is a better camera. In fact, I like HV10 very much.

I noticed the captured images from my TRV900 video shot
in progressive mode looked much sharper than that from
my HV10 video shot in HDV mode. So I came here asking
for confirmation and perhaps explanation.

A knowledgable fellow in a TRV900 site said this was
due to the fact that TRV900 progressive mode is high-pass
filtered. The lenses could also be a factor, as David Susilo
pointed out in this thread. But I am still not fully convinced.
I think this has something to do with HDV format because
it trades color-depth (local detail) for spatial resolution.

So, would you suggest a scientific way of comparing
sharpness, other than watching HDTV?
olik is offline  
post #24 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 12:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
blackbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

It's been posted 100s of times in almost any forum discussing camcorders, still frames don't begin to show the quality of a camcorder. So no, your approach is wrong. I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone who has both these cameras and an HDTV, that you are correct.

I'm not so sure I agree with this.

Frame grabs most certainly don't tell the whole story, but they do tell a piece of it
I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss it.

The other thing I would say is that although the HV10 is a nice little cam, it is not anywhere near the top of its class. Where as the TRV900 is a bloody expensive cam as far as DV goes... and as said many times before, it's not just the format that makes the cam.. it's the lenses... the filters... the whole package.

For me anyway, it's not that hard to believe that an expensive dv cam could be as sharp if not more than a middle of the road HD cam. And sorry if I offend, but that in fact is what the HV10 is

I think if you want to compare the TRV900 to HD then you need to compare it to a HD cam more in the TRV's class (relitively speaking)
blackbill is offline  
post #25 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 01:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
Wesley5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbill View Post

...Frame grabs most certainly don't tell the whole story, but they do tell a piece of it I wouldn't be so fast to dismiss it...

I agree, frame capture for a slow moving or portrait footage should give us a good idea of PQ. My suggestion to OP is to do a capture and save it in a lossless format, computer displays are more than capable to show full resolution of DV and HDV capture.
Wesley5 is offline  
post #26 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 03:54 PM
Super Moderator
 
Kysersose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5,505
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley5 View Post

I agree, frame capture for a slow moving or portrait footage should give us a good idea of PQ. My suggestion to OP is to do a capture and save it in a lossless format, computer displays are more than capable to show full resolution of DV and HDV capture.

Bingo! Don't down-convert it.

You can't compare them unless you compare both in their native format.
Anything else is useless.

Kyser

"Good... Bad... I'm the guy with the gun."

Ash - Army of Darkness
Kysersose is offline  
post #27 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 04:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,301
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

I noticed the captured images from my TRV900 video shot
in progressive mode looked much sharper than that from
my HV10 video shot in HDV mode. So I came here asking
for confirmation and perhaps explanation.

I'm merely stating that the video on the HV10 is far far sharper and more detailed than the TRV900 when viewed on an HDTV. I don't care about frame grabs, I care about full motion video. The worst HDV camera will yield much greater resolution than any SD camcorder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by olik View Post

The lenses could also be a factor, as David Susilo
pointed out in this thread. But I am still not fully convinced.

Everything I've read points to the fact that manufacturers use higher quality lenses in HDV cameras because they have to. There's no point in 'over-engineering' a lens in an SD camera that can only resolve 450 horizontal lines of resolution. An HDV camcorder demands a lens with a much higher ability to resolve detail.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #28 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 05:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,301
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbill View Post

For me anyway, it's not that hard to believe that an expensive dv cam could be as sharp if not more than a middle of the road HD cam. And sorry if I offend, but that in fact is what the HV10 is

I think if you want to compare the TRV900 to HD then you need to compare it to a HD cam more in the TRV's class (relitively speaking)

I find this utterly absurd...utterly. It has been pointed out by MANY owners of far more expensive Canon HDV cams (costing either $5,000 or $8,000) that the video from the HV10 in good light is essentially the equal of their far more expensive cams. Many of these guys have bought the HV10 as a 'B-roll' cam and find it mixes beautifully with their far more expensive HDV cams.

Yes, the HV10 is 'middle of the road" in terms of price, but certainly not in performance. That has been stated on many websites by many people. If you love Sonys, buy a Sony. I've had both. In fact, I currently own the Sony FX7 and I can say with 100% honesty that the video from the HV10 is absolutely as good as the far more expensive FX7. There is no Sony that provides as low a noise floor as the Canon.

But to compare the TRV900 (which I've owned for many years) with the HV10 is absurd. I own both, I've used them both on an HDTV, and there is no comparison.

I also own a Sony VX2000 which is much better than the TRV900 and it too can't touch the HV10 for resolution or sharpness. This whole discussion is liking saying SD is as good as HD. This is just absurd.

Sorry, that's the truth.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #29 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 06:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
blackbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

I find this utterly absurd...utterly. It has been pointed out by MANY owners of far more expensive Canon HDV cams (costing either $5,000 or $8,000) that the video from the HV10 in good light is essentially the equal of their far more expensive cams. Many of these guys have bought the HV10 as a 'B-roll' cam and find it mixes beautifully with their far more expensive HDV cams.

Yes, the HV10 is 'middle of the road" in terms of price, but certainly not in performance. That has been stated on many websites by many people. If you love Sonys, buy a Sony. I've had both. In fact, I currently own the Sony FX7 and I can say with 100% honesty that the video from the HV10 is absolutely as good as the far more expensive FX7. There is no Sony that provides as low a noise floor as the Canon.

But to compare the TRV900 (which I've owned for many years) with the HV10 is absurd. I own both, I've used them both on an HDTV, and there is no comparison.

I also own a Sony VX2000 which is much better than the TRV900 and it too can't touch the HV10 for resolution or sharpness. This whole discussion is liking saying SD is as good as HD. This is just absurd.

Sorry, that's the truth.

Yes, yes... I know believe me... I've heard all the Godly stories about the HV10. I especially remember the one where it was said the a mic jack was left off the hv10 to curb the pros from buying it and using it as a pro cam. Well...not sure... but isn't there a mic jack on the HV20??.... you wanna roll eyes... here is the place to do it.

Look ken... It's clear that you enjoy your HV10 and that's fine.... other people may see things a bit differently and that SHOULD be fine too. Personally speaking I would much rather have my HC3... I've held the HV10...YUK... but that's just me... like I said... other people see things a bit differently. And I will certainly wait for the reviews on the HC7 before I blindly go out and buy the HV20.


If OLIK thinks he's seeing a difference in quality... who's eyes do you think he should trust... his own, or those of some guy somewhere at the other end of the web that he doesn't know from a hole in the ground, shouting "ABSURD" and suggesting that only HIS eyes see things correctly.
blackbill is offline  
post #30 of 33 Old 03-14-2007, 06:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,301
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1203 Post(s)
Liked: 1367
Blackbill, I know you're a Sony guy and that's fine. I love Sony cams too (I've got three), but when I saw the footage from the HV10, it swung me over to the Canon. I've also owned the Sony FX1 and currently the Sony FX7 and I'll put the footage of the HV10 right up there too. I shoot professionally and I know how to recognize good HD footage on an HDTV. Still frames? I don't use that to determine camcorder video quality.

As far as OLIK is concerned, I've never seen anyone else state that when played on an HDTV, moving video from a TRV900 is in the same league as a Canon HV10, Sony HC1, Sony HC3, Canon A1, Canon G1, Sony FX7 or any other HDV tape-based cam. OLIK is comparing still frames in some manner which is not indicative of MOVING video displayed on an HDTV. So his comparison in the real world of HD means nothing.

Yes, people do see things differently, but nobody with even a semi-trained eye, when watching HD vs SD footage on an HDTV, would pick the SD camera as being sharper or having more resolution. Certainly we can disagree about whether the HC3 is 'better' than the HC1 or the HC1 is 'better' than the HV10, but that's comparing one HDV cam to another, not an SD cam to an HD cam. I said 'absurd' before and I'll stick with it. But I guess if I looked hard enough I'd find someone that thinks an SDTV is sharper than an HDTV.

Since I own cameras from both camps, I am certainly being objective.
Ken Ross 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