Sony HDR-GW77: waterproof, dustproof, shockproof small HD camcorder - Page 3

"If you had taken took the same shots with the HX9V, what do you think you would see?"

First some ugly very low-light comparison pictures. How dim? ISO 800 at 1/8th of a second at f3.3 for the Hx9v:



Now, under the same lighting, the GW77 picture (f1.8, 1/60th):



What do we see?

The Hx9v picture has less noise, but the GW77 picture is considerably sharper (the figure is what is supposed to be in focus (the eyes)) and has more color (compare the color of the lips and the blue). The Hx9v is soft, and in fact had a hard time focusing, even using the focus assist (the orange light). I used the touch screen on the GW77 to select the focus point and it had no problem locking in. In low-light, the GW77 wins unless noise is your only criterion. This is no doubt because of the f1.8 lens and less dense pixels. Perhaps also because there is less noise reduction going on for the GW77. NR blurs, as you can see in the wood in the Hx9v picture on the right, which looks like watercolor.

Tomorrow I will go out in the sun with both cameras.
Edited by markr041 - 7/25/12 at 9:06pm

Comparing Hx9v and GW77 stills in daylight.

I shot similar pictures using the HX9v the next day to compare with the GW77 pictures I had shot and posted above.

Here is the Hx9v version of the pine picture:



and the GW77 again:



The Hx9v flower picture:



and the GW77 version, from above:



And here are some fresh ones taken at about the same time.

Hx9v:



GW77:



Hx9v:



GW77:




NOTE: The Hx9v 4:3 photos show up as larger because of photobucket.com, the sharing site. In fact, the GW77 photos are larger. The reason the Hx9v photos are 4:3 is that that is the largest resolution photo aspect ratio for that camera. The 16:9 aspect ratio is the highest resolution one for the GW77. You can choose a 16:9 aspect ratio for the Hx9v; that essentially just chops off the tops and bottoms of the 4:3 picture. You can choose the 4:3 aspect ratio for the GW77 photos; that just chops off the sides of the 16:9 pictures! So, 16:9 is native to the GW77; 4:3 is native to the GW77. again, at the max resolution, the GW jpegs are larger than the Hx9v jpegs.

I think I see that the GW77 pictures are sharper.
Edited by markr041 - 7/26/12 at 11:28am

There is a separate button for snapping photos and a button for changing the camera to photo mode. There are lots of stills options:

1. You can just treat the camera like any stills camera and take pictures - half press the photo button for focus lock, etc.and you can, if you want, set WB, manual focus and control aperture. There are also scene modes and "intelligent" auto, macro mode etc.

2. You can take pictures while shooting a video: just press the photo button while filming (the resolution is less than in full photo mode).
You cannot take a still picture while shooting 108060p.

3. You can grab a frame. You can do this in the camera: in playback mode you can stop the video while watching it and touch a place on the screen to capture the frame you see (frame grab). You have controls for frame-by-frame advance and reverse to get exactly the right frame. The resolution is the same as the video, so less than taking a regular still picture. You can use the Sony Playmemories software to also frame grab the video on your computer.

I do not change any settings for low light. There is a low-light setting - it sets the frame rate to 1/30th of a second (normally, and appropriately, the shutter speed in low light is 1/60th). I shoot 108060p, so 1/30th of a second would make action blurry. The low-light performance is good, so there is no need for this in most instances.
Edited by markr041 - 7/27/12 at 8:35am

Shield: your standard of what is sharp is obviously lower than mine. yes, I see the lack of sharpness in the video you posted. It looks great, though. But any lens you place on the big sensor cameras is not going to reduce the video artifacts like moire. That's a firmware/sensor problem.

Here for your edification are two test charts, one from the Sony NEX VG20 and one from the GW77, from slashcam.de. You clearly see the difference, and the artifacts are not subtle (the round part of the resolution chart). You, like owners of the the NEX cameras and the RX100 (whch has a similar resolution chart to the VG20), just appear to refuse to believe that such expensive cameras, which produce such beautiful videos, lack sharpness and have distortions compared with mid-level camcorders. The shallow dof precisely hides the deficiencies, as does the grading in post and low-light shots used by many people with these big cameras.

I don't know why you care so much to defend - your camera can produce some great videos. It's not a contest, just a fact that the videos have these defects.

camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_iso_klein_218 NEX.jpg 17k .jpg file

camcorder-testergebnisse_testbilder_testbild_iso_klein_265GW.jpg 20k .jpg file

The difference is shocking, isn't it?
Edited by markr041 - 7/26/12 at 4:21pm

"I'm not here to bash the GW77 but when I start hearing things like "soft" video footage from the A77 I just shake my head."

Obviously you do more than "shake your head" (would that you did).


The frame grabs look good, but other shots are no substitute for resolution charts, since there are no sharp details.

The frame grabs from the GW77 are downrezzed by the sharing site.

Shield: I don't mean to pick on you, but you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to resolution and quality in video. If you did not hijack this thread I would leave it alone. But you did, and I won't in the interest of objective truth.

Here is a test report on your alpha 77 video performance: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Sony-Alpha-A77-Digital-Camera-Review.htm#motion&sharpness

Its resolution is even worse than the NEX-7 which is worse than the NEX VG20 I mentioned above and the NEX-5N whose video I posted (which is clearly less sharp than that of the GW77). The alpha 77 resolution is worse than a low-level camcorder -see the reported dynamic line resolution: 575/550. That compares with 1000/900 for the Panasonic TM900 and about 800/700 for Sony mid-level camcorders. And the Samsung W200, a $159 camcorder, has resolution of 750/750.

And then there is moire and jello, specific to the alpha 77 and not in camcorders. Your pig shots are not going to cut it I am afraid.

Resolution and moire are not the only qualities of videos. One can take some fine videos with still cameras, and shallow dof shots are very appealing. As Bill has indicated, what counts are the shots you take. But please do not argue against facts or hijack or bash just because you own a particular camera, or for whatever reason.
Edited by markr041 - 7/26/12 at 4:20pm

"Ahh, so I see our pal "Mark041" has "reported" by post to the admins, and REMOVED/EDITED his post calling my nephew chubby faced. If there was nothing wrong with saying that, why did he edit his post?

So let's recap - he gets a camera, posts some horrific screen caps from it, and bashes other cameras (and kids) in the process to justify buying it. In the meanwhile makes an absurd post on dpreview where he gets called out on it. Located here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1009&thread=42022210&page=1
He's obviously looking to ruffle feathers with his title "The RX100 is not a good video camera".

The cameras he slights (A77 + RX100) he has never personally owned. Makes sense to me. Again Mark have fun with your resolution charts and the handycam."



I did report Shield's name-calling and offensive language to the moderators (the first time in 7 years and over 1400 posts I have ever done that). They eliminated Shield's offensive posts (I did not request they take any particular action; that was their decision). *They* also replaced "chubby-faced" with "other" in my post. It was not meant to be derisive, but I am happy to have it gone if someone is offended. The point of these threads is to reveal facts about cameras through both personal experience - videos! - and by references to tests by professionals that are illuminating.

Both the GW77 and the RX100 are small cameras, one focused on stills and one on video. It is interesting to compare their video performance given that their costs are the same and they satisfy the need for a take-anywhere camera. What seems to be the case is that, not surprisingly, one gets better pictures with the RX100 and better video with the GW77 (leaving aside the limited zoom range of the R100). Why the A77 is relevant at all to this thread is unclear.

The dpreview dialogue (in the *general* Sony forum) is interesting. I was very interested in the RX100 and considered buying it if the video was good. I read the detailed manual and the reviews of both the GW77 and the RX100 on slashcam.de, which is a camcorder-centric site, and decided the GW77 met my needs better.

Here is what I found about the RX100:

According to the manual: Sony says that the zoom makes noise while shooting, and this is picked up, that the video button clicks (!) and that is picked up in the video, and that digital zoom - resolution-degrading digital zoom - cannot be turned off. These are deficiencies that no camcorder has. When I mentioned these problems, the responses ranged from "nobody zooms during a video" to "I don't care, get out."

The NEX-5N (which I own) also has a clicking video button. This means one has to edit out the beginning and end of every clip to eliminate the noise. Not very convenient.

I also saw from the slashcam review that, like other big sensor cameras as reviewed by slashcam.de and camcorderinfo.com, indicated the resolution was relatively low in video and artifacts were a problem, unlike for camcorders. The responses to this ranged from "Look at how sharp this video I found on the web is!" to "I don't care, get out".

And, of course: "how can you say anything if you do not own the camera"!
Edited by markr041 - 7/27/12 at 9:03am

Maybe with the GW77 things got twice as good and twice as cheap (almost).

Just a few years ago there was the Sony HDR-TG5v or 7VE:

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=HDRTG5V

It was the exact same form factor as the GW77 with built-in GPS and maps and 16GB built-in, but it had a smaller sensor (1/5"), no optical stabilization, a worse lens, a smaller and lower resolution LCD (2.7", 460,0000 pixels), 2.3MP stills, and took only 108060i at 17Mbps.
It was not waterproof, shockproof or dustproof (but it was made of titanium!).

It sold for $999.
Edited by markr041 - 7/27/12 at 12:26pm

Based on existing technology:

1. Built-in wifi. This could be useful - you could leave the camera out on a tripod, view what it is seeing and control the camera (zoom, settings, photo, video) . Already a Sony Bloggie can stream over wifi, and a new Sony pro camera can be controlled by an iPhone or Android app.

2. Incorporate balanced optical steady shot, like on the top Sony camcorder (eliminate the digital part of stabilization).

3. Buit-in projector, as in most of Sony's regular camcorders.

4. Full manual mode in video - shutter, aperture (like on the RX100).