Damn

Leonard Ng · March 31st, 2006, 04:31 AM

I got the HD-1, having been looking for a video/photo do it all machine.

The reality is that I don't see myself ever using HD - too much hard drive space and I haven't got a HD TV anyway; I watch mostly on the computer.

Am I right in thinking that the C6 has superior low light performance (so I have read) and that it takes the same video as the HD-1 assuming the HD-1 is in standard definition mode?

If so I think I may have made a mistake and shoulda got the C6 instead.

Am I right?

Thanks all.

Chris Wells · March 31st, 2006, 10:00 AM

Personal opinion...

I'd rather grow into a device than out of it.

Unless your gripe is the low-lux performance of the HD1, I think you still have a good choice. You can always record at a 640X option for a smaller data stream until you need more. And as far as data storage is concerned, the HD1 files will get smaller as technology gets bigger.

That said, it's all about the individual user. Many could be happy with a digital camera like the S2 IS. I wasn't... I wanted HD. ;)

Graham Jones · March 31st, 2006, 12:00 PM

I haven't tried the C6 and obviously different cameras suit different people.

One thing I wouldn't agree with is that you need HD display equipment to exploit this camera.

How many 35mm 'music videos' were shown in the cinema??

HD on SD equipment looks better than SD on SD equipment - not to mention the future when everything will be HD for a few years, until it changes again.

Peter Solmssen · March 31st, 2006, 05:44 PM

I am enjoying the HD features of the HD1, but for others without HDTV I have been making DVDs from the HD original. As noted above, they still look better than SD originals.

So far, I have been rendering the HD videos in Quicktime HD. Unless I find a way to compress them without visible loss, they work out at 0.3 GB per minute , which means that you could back up about 15 minutes on a DVD or 30 on a dual layered DVD.

Bob Curnow · March 31st, 2006, 06:07 PM

Stick with the HD1... why?

The C6 does not do HD, and one day you probably will buy a HDTV and have a faster computer.

The C6 does 30fps 4:3, the HD1 can capture 60fps in 4:3 mode.

I have a C6, and it's a great camera. I absolutely love it... but I would really like the option to switch between SD and HD, like the HD1 can.

The C6 is a little better in low light, but it does suffer from 'hot' pixels. Those are pixels that are not dead, but stick out like a sore thumb in real low light video.

I would stick with your HD1.
Bob C

Marc Louis · April 1st, 2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Jones Senior

not to mention the future when everything will be HD for a few years, until it changes again.

any french here ? because as a french i can tell that i have been hearing about the "revolution" of High Definition TV for the past 20 years...with first models being put into the market in the eighties (i think it was a concept developed, back then, by french TV maker Thomson) !

the truth is that this concept never seemed to really make it to the Big Market ! so i'm a bit suspicious about the HD revolution in the way they plan it today...

I don't know about other countries but in France HDTV is advertised since a very long time...in the meantime plasma TVs has become the new-thing-that-everyones-talks-about !

But the difference between HDTV and Plasma TV's is that , people actually buy plasma TV's by the thousands...

maybe i'm wrong but for me HDTV is and old concept...unless the one HDTV they were talking back in the 80's is not the same that we have here ! at one point the "new technology of HDTV" reminded me the one of large video Laser Discs that were a Big flop !

at the end of the day, i'd rather buy a plasma TV than a HDTV (but i guess most plasma TV's today are High definition ?)

just my 2 cents

Marc Louis · April 1st, 2006, 12:58 PM

actually it's a bit like cable and satellite, a few years back everyone in the industry was referring to "digital" quality video...now High Definition is the "word" that is being used all the time...nevertheless, it does'nt seem to be a very different concept to me...

Graham Jones · April 1st, 2006, 01:44 PM

"i have been hearing about the "revolution" of High Definition TV for the past 20 years...with first models being put into the market in the eighties"

Yes, I first heard about something called HDTV in the 80's.

Obviously it didn't become a mainstream thing.

It's happening in the States, however, and dealers say it will start to infiltrate our European lives this summer.

Chris Wells · April 1st, 2006, 02:52 PM

20 years ago, a full go at HDTV? Not exactly.

Today, I have a $1G recorder that produces 720 lines, an $800 computer that effectively edits the video, a $300 player that runs the video, and a $900 720p projector that displays my final results a glorious 10 feet wide. For about $3G, I've obtained a theatre class recording and playback system. Many would consider that good value.

Just over ten years ago, I purchased a Sony Handycam, countless tapes, a wide screen TV that wasn't even 3 feet wide, and a manual editor that took days of work to produce only marginal product. I spent $8G... and for only a fraction of what I have now.

Had this been available 10 years ago, you can bet I'd have bought it, even at a considerably higher price... but I couldn't. The range of products didn't exist. That's why HDTV didn't move sooner.

Graham Jones · April 1st, 2006, 03:08 PM

"20 years ago, a full go at HDTV? Not exactly."

That's precisely the point we're making.

"The range of products didn't exist. That's why HDTV didn't move sooner."

That's my point: when it was being designed it was meant to be imminent, but the consumer market wasn't ready..

David Kennett · April 1st, 2006, 03:49 PM

HDTV was pretty much a laboratory thing intil FCC assigned digital channels to broadcasters in 1997. Only now are we really seeing distribution channels blossoming. Back then hardware was waaay more expensive, with virtually no chance of actually showing HDTV programming to anybody.

I remember being awestruck at NAB, wondering when I might someday have all this in my home.... Think I'll go watch some HDTV!

Marc Louis · April 1st, 2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Jones Senior

"i have been hearing about the "revolution" of High Definition TV for the past 20 years...with first models being put into the market in the eighties"

Yes, I first heard about something called HDTV in the 80's.

Obviously it didn't become a mainstream thing.

It's happening in the States, however, and dealers say it will start to infiltrate our European lives this summer.

yeah, that's why for a geek like me, HDTV doesn't sound really like something of the future any more.

but i guess for the average Joe it can be seen as a "revolution"

can someone tell me if all plasma TVs integrate HDTV ? i tend to think both technologies come together but i'm not sure.

i don't have a plasma TV yet (i have been waiting for the past 5 years for the price to go down and the quality to rise) but if i have to renew my TV soon, the plasma criteria will be higher than the HDTV capabilities...

Graham Jones · April 1st, 2006, 05:01 PM

"can someone tell me if all plasma TVs integrate HDTV ? i tend to think both technologies come together but i'm not sure."

No, there are plenty of SD plasmas. Then a lot of plasmas which claim to be 'HD Ready' but aren't really HD, only 'HD-compatible' because they downconvert HD rather than reject it outright.

Then, of course, there are HD plasmas.

David, I think the difficulty with saying HD was "a laboratory thing" until '97 is that it may create the impression they were struggling with design until that date.

I reckon it was the market that couldn't fathom it all those years, not the designers.

Marc Louis · April 1st, 2006, 05:37 PM

ok thanx for the info graham,it will be usefull once i'll make my purchase.

Chris Wells · April 1st, 2006, 11:44 PM

Take care; even if the HDTV says it's compatible with 720p and/or 1080i(p?) it may not be. I saw one in Futureshop today for $1299Cdn with the stand, a 42" unit. It was a pretty impressive price, and the box said it was HDTV capable. I found out that it accepts HDTV input, but it downconverts to 550 lines internally before it displays. The salesperson said this process provides improved picture quality. Bah!

March 31st, 2006, 04:31 AM	#1
Leonard Ng New Boot Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: London, UK Posts: 8	Damn - shoulda' got a C6 instead? I got the HD-1, having been looking for a video/photo do it all machine. The reality is that I don't see myself ever using HD - too much hard drive space and I haven't got a HD TV anyway; I watch mostly on the computer. Am I right in thinking that the C6 has superior low light performance (so I have read) and that it takes the same video as the HD-1 assuming the HD-1 is in standard definition mode? If so I think I may have made a mistake and shoulda got the C6 instead. Am I right? Thanks all.

March 31st, 2006, 12:00 PM	#3
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	I haven't tried the C6 and obviously different cameras suit different people. One thing I wouldn't agree with is that you need HD display equipment to exploit this camera. How many 35mm 'music videos' were shown in the cinema?? HD on SD equipment looks better than SD on SD equipment - not to mention the future when everything will be HD for a few years, until it changes again. __________________ www.irishfilmmaker.com

April 1st, 2006, 01:44 PM	#8
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	"i have been hearing about the "revolution" of High Definition TV for the past 20 years...with first models being put into the market in the eighties" Yes, I first heard about something called HDTV in the 80's. Obviously it didn't become a mainstream thing. It's happening in the States, however, and dealers say it will start to infiltrate our European lives this summer. __________________ www.irishfilmmaker.com

April 1st, 2006, 03:08 PM	#10
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	"20 years ago, a full go at HDTV? Not exactly." That's precisely the point we're making. "The range of products didn't exist. That's why HDTV didn't move sooner." That's my point: when it was being designed it was meant to be imminent, but the consumer market wasn't ready.. __________________ www.irishfilmmaker.com

April 1st, 2006, 03:49 PM	#11
David Kennett Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Ridgeville, Ohio Posts: 407	HDTV was pretty much a laboratory thing intil FCC assigned digital channels to broadcasters in 1997. Only now are we really seeing distribution channels blossoming. Back then hardware was waaay more expensive, with virtually no chance of actually showing HDTV programming to anybody. I remember being awestruck at NAB, wondering when I might someday have all this in my home.... Think I'll go watch some HDTV! __________________ Dave

March 31st, 2006, 10:00 AM	#2
Chris Wells Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Kelowna, Canada Posts: 148	Personal opinion... I'd rather grow into a device than out of it. Unless your gripe is the low-lux performance of the HD1, I think you still have a good choice. You can always record at a 640X option for a smaller data stream until you need more. And as far as data storage is concerned, the HD1 files will get smaller as technology gets bigger. That said, it's all about the individual user. Many could be happy with a digital camera like the S2 IS. I wasn't... I wanted HD. ;)

March 31st, 2006, 05:44 PM	#4
Peter Solmssen Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Palo Alto, CA Posts: 133	I am enjoying the HD features of the HD1, but for others without HDTV I have been making DVDs from the HD original. As noted above, they still look better than SD originals. So far, I have been rendering the HD videos in Quicktime HD. Unless I find a way to compress them without visible loss, they work out at 0.3 GB per minute , which means that you could back up about 15 minutes on a DVD or 30 on a dual layered DVD.

March 31st, 2006, 06:07 PM	#5
Bob Curnow Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Sonora, CA USA Posts: 50	Stick with the HD1... why? The C6 does not do HD, and one day you probably will buy a HDTV and have a faster computer. The C6 does 30fps 4:3, the HD1 can capture 60fps in 4:3 mode. I have a C6, and it's a great camera. I absolutely love it... but I would really like the option to switch between SD and HD, like the HD1 can. The C6 is a little better in low light, but it does suffer from 'hot' pixels. Those are pixels that are not dead, but stick out like a sore thumb in real low light video. I would stick with your HD1. Bob C

April 1st, 2006, 12:58 PM	#7
Marc Louis Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: san francisco, ca Posts: 68	actually it's a bit like cable and satellite, a few years back everyone in the industry was referring to "digital" quality video...now High Definition is the "word" that is being used all the time...nevertheless, it does'nt seem to be a very different concept to me...

April 1st, 2006, 02:52 PM	#9
Chris Wells Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Kelowna, Canada Posts: 148	20 years ago, a full go at HDTV? Not exactly. Today, I have a $1G recorder that produces 720 lines, an $800 computer that effectively edits the video, a $300 player that runs the video, and a $900 720p projector that displays my final results a glorious 10 feet wide. For about $3G, I've obtained a theatre class recording and playback system. Many would consider that good value. Just over ten years ago, I purchased a Sony Handycam, countless tapes, a wide screen TV that wasn't even 3 feet wide, and a manual editor that took days of work to produce only marginal product. I spent $8G... and for only a fraction of what I have now. Had this been available 10 years ago, you can bet I'd have bought it, even at a considerably higher price... but I couldn't. The range of products didn't exist. That's why HDTV didn't move sooner.

April 1st, 2006, 05:01 PM	#13
Graham Jones Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 489	"can someone tell me if all plasma TVs integrate HDTV ? i tend to think both technologies come together but i'm not sure." No, there are plenty of SD plasmas. Then a lot of plasmas which claim to be 'HD Ready' but aren't really HD, only 'HD-compatible' because they downconvert HD rather than reject it outright. Then, of course, there are HD plasmas. David, I think the difficulty with saying HD was "a laboratory thing" until '97 is that it may create the impression they were struggling with design until that date. I reckon it was the market that couldn't fathom it all those years, not the designers. __________________ www.irishfilmmaker.com

April 1st, 2006, 05:37 PM	#14
Marc Louis Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: san francisco, ca Posts: 68	ok thanx for the info graham,it will be usefull once i'll make my purchase.

April 1st, 2006, 11:44 PM	#15
Chris Wells Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Kelowna, Canada Posts: 148	Take care; even if the HDTV says it's compatible with 720p and/or 1080i(p?) it may not be. I saw one in Futureshop today for $1299Cdn with the stand, a 42" unit. It was a pretty impressive price, and the box said it was HDTV capable. I found out that it accepts HDTV input, but it downconverts to 550 lines internally before it displays. The salesperson said this process provides improved picture quality. Bah!