TRV900 much sharper than HV10?  

Check if you recording in HD mode.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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'.

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.

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.

it is true that the TRV900 progressive-scan mode is only 15 fps (not 24p/25p) and that is annoying..

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.

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)

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

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.


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.

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, 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.