AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,098 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What is everyone's thoughts? I know the HDV cameras seem to have better quality at the moment, but I'm more into the form factor and ease of use in transfering data to a PC. Which of these camera's would you choose?


Does anyone know if the new Sony records natively in 1920x1080? I know the new panasonic model does. I can only assume that the new Sony will as well, but I can't find the info any where.


Looks like neither of these cameras are available in the US just yet, but Sony is taking pre-orders (as well as many retailers) for the HDR-CX7.


Anyone know if/when these will actually be available? Sony's website says July, but then some retailers say 10 days. I've heard nothing on the Panasonic. It is available in Japan, but nothing around here. The HDC-SD1 is dropping in price like crazy so I'm hoping soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
I'm sorta in the same boat, although I'm trying to decide between the SD1 and the SD3 (assuming it does come here). I've eliminated the Sony because I don't want to have to use expensive memory sticks.


Circuit City has the SD1 for $830 and there is a 10% off coupon floating around that would bring the price down to $747. I sure wish I knew if the SD3 is $400 better than the SD1.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,098 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I am very new to camcorders so please keep this in mind. I did read that the HD1 with the 1440x1080 resolution is not using square pixels and you will notice this when editing and viewing on a PC. Apparently the new HD3 @ 1920x1080 uses square pixels. Maybe someone can expand or clarify on this?



Is there anything big to be concerned about with buying the Japanese version of the HD3 from thejapanstore.com?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaleke /forum/post/0


I am very new to camcorders so please keep this in mind. I did read that the HD1 with the 1440x1080 resolution is not using square pixels and you will notice this when editing and viewing on a PC. Apparently the new HD3 @ 1920x1080 uses square pixels. Maybe someone can expand or clarify on this?



Is there anything big to be concerned about with buying the Japanese version of the HD3 from thejapanstore.com?

You are obviously reading the same boards as I am, but I'm afraid I can't help you with the "square pixel" question...I saw the same post. The guy that wrote it said the square pixels would be less taxing on a computer, but I don't have a clue.


Unless you are in a big hurry, I think I would wait and see when/if Panasonic brings the SD3 to the US. Like you, it seems to me the blowout prices on the SD1 would indicate a US arrival is forthcoming. I would be a little leery about buying one otherwise, for warranty concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Square pixel or not should not be a factor in purchasing decision whatsoever. Almost all software or players out there will see the 1.33 pixel ratio flag and display it properly. If you are converting it to other computer formats you can set it to square pixel in editing software.


All HD cams on the market have resolutions less than 650x650. Having a 1920x1080 vs 1440x1080 in an HD cam is just marketing hype.


So both the pixel aspect ratio and matrix size will not have much impact in the final PQ and are pure specs for marketing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodobeHD /forum/post/0


Square pixel or not should not be a factor in purchasing decision whatsoever. Almost all software or players out there will see the 1.33 pixel ratio flag and display it properly. If you are converting it to other computer formats you can set it to square pixel in editing software.


All HD cams on the market have resolutions less than 650x650. Having a 1920x1080 vs 1440x1080 in an HD cam is just marketing hype.


So both the pixel aspect ratio and matrix size will not have much impact in the final PQ and are pure specs for marketing.

So, given the choice of buying the SD1 now for $750 or the SD3 later for $300+ later...what do you think? I'm assuming there are not many other notable changes between the two.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,098 Posts
Discussion Starter #7

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodobeHD /forum/post/0


All HD cams on the market have resolutions less than 650x650. Having a 1920x1080 vs 1440x1080 in an HD cam is just marketing hype.

Can you explain how this works? How is 1080/60i that these new CAMs claim they can do compare to TVs that display 720p/1080i/1080p?


I assume the following:


Type = Frame Size, Frames/fileds per second

1080p = 1920x1080 59.94 frames progressive

1080i = 1920x1080 59.94 fields/29.97 frames interlaced

720p = 1280x720 59.94 frames progressive


Isn't 1080 60i the same as 1080i? 1920x1080 @ 59.94 fields/29.97 frames interlaced?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Yes, these HD cams produce PQ comparable to the best of HDTV shows. But having 1080 lines in the signal is one thing, filming and resolving an object with 1080 lines (vertically) is quite another. The real video resolution has very little to do with specs but everything to do with factors like optics, sensors, compressions and etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Video resolutions are measured by camcorder review sites like camcorderinfo.com or they can be tested by yourself. The line width per picture on those HD cams is almost always less than 650x650, far from their theoratical limit of 1440x1080 or 1920x1080. The point is there is no reason to be obsessed with those specs being 1920 or 1440.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Nyquist frequency is the minimum sampling rate for resolving the pattern ALL the time. Say you have a 1000 line (500 black and 500 white interspaced) pattern you need 2000/per picture minimum sampling rate to see the 1000 lines all the time on the screen. If you are lucky to sample at the middle of each black and white line then 1000/per picture sampling rate will do. So 2N Nyquist frequency is the minimum for all circumstances and 1N is the minimum for the best senario. So for 1440 sampling rate the most number of lines that can possibly show up in the picture is 1440 and so far none of HD cams can display more than 650.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,337 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwaleke /forum/post/0


Does anyone know if the new Sony records natively in 1920x1080? I know the new panasonic model does. I can only assume that the new Sony will as well, but I can't find the info any where.

Anyone know the answer to this?


I have found conflicting info. Some sources say that the Sony CX7 is 1440x1080 like the Panasonic HD1, and some say that it is 1920x1080 like the Panasonic HD3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Hi,


I am also undecisive between these camps.


The reviews in cci suggest that sd1 has video resolution of 600x600 and hc7 has 650(v)x580(h). So the 1080i debate doesn't make any sense when these two cant even produce real 720i. Is that right?


As both of these new offerings will use the sensors of the inheritents, can we expect to see a sharper sony video and a richer pana. video in color (thx to 3ccd).

Also given the pana ois and auto focus is superior while the compr. rate of sony is 2mb wider overall which video would be better? (of course predictions are wellcomed)


Other facts are ms vs sdhc // darth vader type of body (pure black) vs jedi body // 2.7" vs 3.5" lcd // joystick vs touch screen // build in lens cover, superior still perf. and battery port, ais for sony.


Low light performance is another issue? on paper given 1/2.9" cmos @3.2 m pxl vs 1/4" ccd @ 560k pxl, pana has to be the winner right? (consider that cci review was critical on sd1 mainly about compression, now that cx7 is on the same level, a cci rating would be mean about it)


Anyway which camp would you be in? Any comments are wellcomed. thx.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
I decided to try the Panasonic SD3 (thanks to a friend in Japan; should have it next week) despite AVCHD products still being in the early adopter stage. The SD3 doesn't have ALL the features I'd like (a progressive mode being the key omission), but the idea of going tapeless, with no hard drive or transport noise onboard the camera, is very appealing and I have a family event coming up prior to the release of the CX7 (which is around July 9th according to SonyStyle and Amazon).


Based on my past experience owning Sony digital still cameras, I'd expect the CX7's battery life to be incredible, easily beating all competitors.


On the other hand, the SD3 appears to have variable speed zoom (like the HV20) while the Sony has only separate T and W buttons on the fold-out LCD, so it probably doesn't support variable speed zoom. (I'm puzzled that the manufacturers have abandoned the time-tested variable rocker switch for their zoom controls...)


Then again, the CX7 has some nice features not found on the Panasonics: active accessory shoe, a 240 fields-per-second "Smooth Slow Record" slow motion feature, and Sony's new x.v.Color technology.


Another point is that (as of today) Sony's Vegas editing software deliberately only edits AVCHD recorded by Sony products. One could view this as a reason to stick with Sony products or as a reason to avoid them. Though I've seen some hints on the Internet that someone technically inclined can tweak the SD3 files to be openable in Vegas.


I really hope that Canon steps up to the plate soon with a SD-card-based AVCHD camcorder that can do 24 Mbps (the HR10 looks nice, but they were crazy to go with mini-DVD for this product). If Panasonic would come out with a prosumer model (a mini HVX200) that supports SD cards instead of expensive P2 cards and records an intraframe format in the neighborhood of 30-40 Mbps, that would be awesome as well.


Anyway, if someone in the Twin Cities picks up a CX7, I'd be happy to collaborate on a shootout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,337 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gurkan /forum/post/0


The reviews in cci suggest that sd1 has video resolution of 600x600 and hc7 has 650(v)x580(h). So the 1080i debate doesn't make any sense when these two cant even produce real 720i. Is that right?

Yes that is true - the resolution itself is a non-issue. The bigger concern I had was the pixel aspect ratio. From the reading I've done, there seems to be an extra step involved in importing or transcoding the AVCHD video from the SD1 (using what is an already-confounded process because of the somewhat limited set of available tools) due to the video being stored in anamorphic format. Is it a giant issue? No, probably not. But just one more thing to bother with, so its something I'd like to avoid if possible. If the way to avoid that just means waiting a month for the SD3, then its a no brainer. If it means waiting 3 months and paying an extra $200, well then that would not be worth it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Definitely I am in favor of card storage. I had had a tape experience with gs500 and realized tape is not for me.


Also, compression rates doesn't bother me even it is an advantage for me cos I used to compress the video (25mb/s to 12 for dvd and general storage)


I agree with you mark if canon were to dispatch a hv20 like cam storing in sdcard I'd be the first one to buy. As I am in pal region 24p is even more appealing cos opportunity cost of shooting progr. is the forgone 50i instead of 60i.


mkoesel, I feel that sd3 won't be a true upgrade (disregarding handgrip and 1080i thing.) I don't think video will improve considerably. For transcoding anamorphic format it doesnt worth to pay at least 200 usd (probably more) so the real challange can be between sd1 and cx7 for me as well.


ais, audio ports, manual controls does'nt bother me anymore, I like their minimal approach. but the low light performance is a "?" for sony together with lcd touch screen.


definitely that would be close one, I ll wait for he reviews within 3 months time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts

Mark Fontana said:
I really hope that Canon steps up to the plate soon with a SD-card-based AVCHD camcorder that can do 24 Mbps (the HR10 looks nice, but they were crazy to go with mini-DVD for this product). If Panasonic would come out with a prosumer model (a mini HVX200) that supports SD cards instead of expensive P2 cards and records an intraframe format in the neighborhood of 30-40 Mbps, that would be awesome as well.

QUOTE]


I think this is the restriction of sd cards. They allow max transfer of 20mb/s for 4 gb (which is lower in real time I guess) and even lower for higher capacity cards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
They could use two SD card slots and stripe data across both cards in parallel. It wouldn't add much size to the camera and it would solve the bandwidth problem. It would also allow using two cheaper, smaller cards to achieve the same capacity instead of one larger, more expensive card. The only drawback is that you'd have to use the camera to transfer the files out over USB (or special software to re-assemble the files on the PC side).
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top