Micro Shootout: HV10, FX-1, and Canon ZR100

[Lee Wilson]

I have found that all the comparisons I have seen so far between the FX-1 and HV10 shows the HV10 to be noticeably sharper - and not the FX-1 ?

In these examples both cameras are set up 'full-auto'.

[Meryem Ersoz]

full auto is useful only as a starting point but is an ultimately meaningless comparison. lee, you've already devoted an entire separate thread to scrutinizing these images. if you're so convinced the HV10 is better than an FX-1, go ahead and buy the darned thing already. if you believe that the images can be somewhat comparable, then it really comes down to a question of price point, ergonomics, and the particular needs for your applications. all of these cameras are swell. there are times when i can't carry an FX-1 in my pocket. there are times when i need more features than an HV10 can offer. image quality is only one measure of a camera's value. your ability to operate it means so much more. i'd move on....

[Wes Vasher]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

don't count mpeg2 out yet. It still has a lot of fire left in it. While in theory AVCHD may be better at this stage it is not. It is only a theory at this time unless you are encoding a clean uncompressed source with the highest settings like on a HD movie disk. Realtime AVCHD hardware encoders for cameras are not that good yet and may not be for a few years yet. If you shoot with AVCHD today you will end up with equal or less quality with a format that will be very hard and slow to edit. Heck it is hard enough trying to make a mpeg2 hardware encoder work in realtime and keep a high level of quality let alone AVCHD.

I'd have to agree. It's actually quite easy to encode bad AVC... but extremely processor intensive to encode great AVC. It can be done but as you said, it'll be a while before the real-time encoders will catch up to the far... far from real-time software encoders.

[Craig Peer]

if you believe that the images can be somewhat comparable, then it really comes down to a question of price point, ergonomics, and the particular needs for your applications. all of these cameras are swell. there are times when i can't carry an FX-1 in my pocket. there are times when i need more features than an HV10 can offer. image quality is only one measure of a camera's value. your ability to operate it means so much more.

Very well put. I find the size and portability of the HV10 to outweight the disadvantage of no microphone jack ( which I can't use climbing anyway ) for instance. There is no " magic bullet cam ".

[Lee Wilson]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

full auto is useful only as a starting point but is an ultimately meaningless comparison.

Hi Meryem, I was interested in the fact that you said the "FX-1 is still noticeably sharper" - for my particular needs resolution and focus/detail are all important.

Would auto settings result in a softer focus ? I am no expert in this area by any means but I was not aware that a full auto setting can result in reduced focus ?

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

lee, you've already devoted an entire separate thread to scrutinizing these images. if you're so convinced the HV10 is better than an FX-1, go ahead and buy the darned thing already.

Meryem, yes everything I have seen so far shows the HV10 to be sharper than the FX-1 - but your comments saying it is in fact the FX-1 that has the sharper image made me think perhaps I should be saving up for a secondhand FX-1 ?

I would certainly consider an FX-1 - if it was shown that it had the sharper more focused picture.

I am sorry to ask so many questions but you are free to ignore them if you wish.

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

if you believe that the images can be somewhat comparable, then it really comes down to a question of price point, ergonomics, and the particular needs for your applications. all of these cameras are swell. there are times when i can't carry an FX-1 in my pocket. there are times when i need more features than an HV10 can offer. image quality is only one measure of a camera's value.

Yes you are quite right, but my interest is in a single unambiguous attribute of the HV10 namely resolution/sharpness.

Indeed I also agree that "image quality is only one measure of a camera's value" and it is the thing I am interested in, I have asked no questions with regard to the HV10's ergonomics or OIS system as this does not concern me so much.

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

your ability to operate it means so much more. i'd move on....

Thanks for you kind advice - but I reserve the right to investigate what I plan to buy for the reasons I need, my post with the pictures attached was not specifically aimed at yourself, perhaps you should 'move on' and let those who are interested in the subject of which camera has the sharper picture answer my questions ?

:)

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Lee Wilson

I have found that all the comparisons I have seen so far between the FX-1 and HV10 shows the HV10 to be noticeably sharper - and not the FX-1 ?

In these examples both cameras are set up 'full-auto'.

If you compare the line on the wall in front of the tower-like structure, in these images, it seems to suggest the FX1 was focused forward of the tower, and the HV10 was focused tower back, IMHO.

[Lee Wilson]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

If you compare the line on the wall in front of the tower-like structure, in these images, it seems to suggest the FX1 was focused forward of the tower, and the HV10 was focused tower back, IMHO.

Hi Chris, do you mean the vertical line in the centre bottom of the blown up section ?

How have you worked that out ? the FX-1 looks softer everywhere ?

I think both cameras would focus somewhere in the middle of the image plane when on auto ?

[Chris Barcellos]

Originally Posted by Lee Wilson

Hi Chris, do you mean the vertical line in the centre bottom of the blown up section ?

How have you worked that out ? the FX-1 looks softer everywhere ?

I think both cameras would focus somewhere in the middle of the image plane when on auto ?

I am saying the vertical line of the wall in front of tower on the FX1 shot appears sharper, and detail in wall appears sharper.

If auto focus is involved, there could be a number of reasons these frames are focused the way they are. For instance, FX1 can be set for autofocus to react slowly, if I recall.

The point is, you can't make a blanket statement based on two frame grabs...

[Lee Wilson]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

I am saying the vertical line of the wall in front of tower on the FX1 shot appears sharper, and detail in wall appears sharper.

If auto focus is involved, there could be a number of reasons these frames are focused the way they are. For instance, FX1 can be set for autofocus to react slowly, if I recall.

This frame taken from the middle of a 8 second clip, the focus does not change within this clip.

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

The point is, you can't make a blanket statement based on two frame grabs...

No you are quite right, that would be inaccurate to say the least. Luckily I have not done that, I have based my 'blanket statement' (!?) on extensive research, numerous downloaded full resolution uncompressed clips and stills as well as hire and use of the FX-1 (and Z1) etc etc.

My 'blanket statement' is this, the HV10, going on what I have seen so far, appears to have a clearer sharper picture than the FX-1.

[Chris Barcellos]

Can't tell vertical from horizontal. The line I was referring to was the horzontal line at the top of the wall in front of tower...

[Lee Wilson]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Can't tell vertical from horizontal. The line I was referring to was the horzontal line at the top of the wall in front of tower...

The line you refer to doesn't seem sharper to me at all ?!

if you look at the enlargement area of the tower then look to the left part of the top of the wall you can clearly see the colour smearing on the FX-1 and not the HV10 ?

And if, on the main picture, you trace the line at the top of this wall along to the left you quickly come to two little light coloured lumps, they certainly do not appear clearer on the FX-1 sample ?

Nor does the detail on the front of that wall.

Am I missing something here, are we looking a the same picture !

[Mikko Lopponen]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

I am saying the vertical line of the wall in front of tower on the FX1 shot appears sharper, and detail in wall appears sharper.

Not really. It's all a blur compared to the hv10. The line you are referring to has more CONTRAST because of edge sharpening not because of real resolution. That's what SHARPENING does to a picture, it increases contrast.

Many people here seem to confuse real resolution with sharpening artifacts. HV10 has more resolution than the fx1, period. There's just no going around it no matter how much someone spews "full auto is BAD, it makes soft pics!".

[Thomas Smet]

Originally Posted by Mikko Lopponen

Not really. It's all a blur compared to the hv10. The line you are referring to has more CONTRAST because of edge sharpening not because of real resolution. That's what SHARPENING does to a picture, it increases contrast.

Many people here seem to confuse real resolution with sharpening artifacts. HV10 has more resolution than the fx1, period. There's just no going around it no matter how much someone spews "full auto is BAD, it makes soft pics!".

This is true. Electronic sharpening is what makes video look like electronic video. I want more natural looking images and the way to do that is to have more natural detail and not have a need for sharpening at all.

Take a look at the second image of the teddy bears. Notice on the FX1 image the blck lines around the white eye ball. This is a ringing effect from too much electronic sharpening and is one of the most disgusting things in the world other than interlacing.

[Meryem Ersoz]

the only reliable way to have a discussion of sharpness would be to shoot a resolution chart. indoors, preferably. my tests have nothing to do with testing specifically for sharpness. if that's the big acid test, ask someone (nicely, preferably) to shoot a rez chart. or go shoot one yourself and post the results. then there's some empirical evidence under controlled conditions which merit a discussion of sharpness. frame grabs of someone else's footage in outdoor conditions (where you have no idea how much motion or wind or judder or whatever may be a factor) is a ludicrous basis for discussion. and my testing was an overall comparison, not aimed at anything in particular and really only useful, in my opinion, in ascertaining color space, unless you can look at the raw footage, uncompressed, on a monitor, as i have. comparing color space is an obvious comparison, worth drawing conclusions over, because it's obvious....

the sharpness debate as it is being framed here is a complete set of straw arguments. there's nothing to it. these tests are worthless for even discussing it. you can't draw definitive conclusions about sharpness by looking at a 3 x 5 compressed image. or screen grabs of someone else's outdoor footage, especially when you have no idea of the conditions under which the footage was shot.

and lee, i get it that you're allowed to say whatever you want whenever you want to say it, but hijacking someone else's thread is rude. and cross-posting is supposed to be against dvinfo's own set of rules. it's one thing for you to provide a link to your thread, to continue jump-starting your agenda, i'd have no problem with that, but cross-posting the contents of your thread into a thread i started to discuss a different set of tests is pure bad manners.

[Lee Wilson]

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

the only reliable way to have a discussion of sharpness would be to shoot a resolution chart. indoors, preferably. my tests have nothing to do with testing specifically for sharpness.

I took your comment "FX-1 is still noticeably sharper" for what it was, I simply thought you had seen superior sharpness in the FX-1 results ?

I did not realise to question this required such extensive forensic pre-investigation ! :)

I see nothing wrong with people discussing various attributes of cameras without professional testing equipment ?

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

the sharpness debate as it is being framed here is a complete set of straw arguments.

(I am presuming you mean a 'straw man argument')

No, it is a simple inquiry as to which of the cameras you mention produces the sharper image.

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

...there's nothing to it. these tests are worthless for even discussing it. you can't draw definitive conclusions about sharpness by looking at a 3 x 5 compressed image. or screen grabs of someone else's outdoor footage, especially when you have no idea of the conditions under which the footage was shot.

I have said this before but it seems to need repeating.

The shooting conditions are known, the camera settings are known, the footage is full resolution, the footage is uncompressed, I have numerous samples, some my own, some indoor, some outdoor (indeed - even the two samples here include an indoor shot).

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

...and lee, i get it that you're allowed to say whatever you want whenever you want to say it, but hijacking someone else's thread is rude.

LOL !!

Your post is a HV10, FX-1 (+ZR100) 'shootout' with mention of the FX-1's superior sharpness.

How is asking questions about a specific attribute you mention about one of the cameras we are disccusing hijacking a thread !!!

If you find my questions 'rude' my best advice would be to ignore them.

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

and cross-posting is supposed to be against dvinfo's own set of rules.

Hmmmm....

You mention the FX-1's superior sharpness, yet do everything possible to evade backing up this assertion.

You are asked for clarification (from more than one person) on this statement.

You then say reducing resolution and compressing the files for the web 'hides the difference in sharpness'

You are then asked if we can see a single frame, full sized, uncompressed screen grab from the footage to compare.

You then say not only did you throw the files away but you also recorded over the tapes.

You were then asked (again from more than one person) if it would be possible to shoot a second or two of the same scene and post a single full resolution frame.

You reply with how difficult this will be as you run a business and are raising a child. This did not seem to be an issue when you made your first, detailed and in-depth post with examples and comparisons ?

Now it seems your final recourse is an officious appeal to the details of this boards rules and regulations to avoid people discussing the possibility that the HV10 may resolve a sharper more 'in focus' image than the FX-1 !!

LOL !!!

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

it's one thing for you to provide a link to your thread, to continue jump-starting your agenda, i'd have not problem with that, but cross-posting the contents of your thread into a thread i started to discuss a different set of tests

This thread seemed to be a 'shootout' between the HV10 and FX-1 (+ZR100). My examples were from both the HV10 and the FX-1.

These examples are relevant and on topic.

Originally Posted by Meryem Ersoz

...is pure bad manners.

Yes I am a terribly ill mannered individual trying to promote my evil agenda.

Now shall we try and stay on topic?

:)