Okey, here we go:

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/hc1/

I have uploaded some hc1, hv20 and dvx100 screengrabs.

All of the hv20 screengrabs are straight from the camera (no aspect ratio change) without any modifications. Shot in progressive & cinemode (25p)

HC1 pictures have been deinterlaced and aspect ratio corrected. DVX100 shot progressive and hc1 and dvx100 have been scaled to 1280x720 (hc1) & 1280x960 (dvx100) to see upfront the resolution difference.

Whitebalance is really off on the dvx100 but try not to be bothered by that.

Anyhoo, I just can't see any sd-camera coming close to the hv20. Yes, there are mpeg artifacts when you look closely but in motion they aren't that noticeable. I consider the rolling shutter artifacts to be worse (for example picture hv20 5).

Paul,


Sounds like some of the problems watching on your TV may be the TV itself. If it looked better with component input rather HDMI, that sounds like the TV's pulldown etc.. Also, you said it looked better on your computer, but the computer can't handle the compression, so hard to really evaluate.

But, since you already have it in your head that the camera is not living up to your expectations, it would probably be better to send it back and wait for another. You will always be looking for problems, whether they are there or not.

Best of luck----Mike

I'm with Mike on this one. You've not found the HV20 up to your expectations so it's out the game. I agree with others here.. you're looking at HDV on an HDMI cable - you're going to see the compression of a high-res image - every little bit of it. An HVX200 wouldn't be safe when being viewed over HDMI! Or.. perhaps it would.. because it's sensor has less resolution than the HV20 so there'd be less to look at over HDMI since the image would be softer than an HV20's... ;)

Suggestion: rent/borrow another HDV camera with HDMI and test using the same circumstances. Again, for this test, have HDMI and HDV to be fair to compare agianst the HV20 that hasn't made the cut. Viewing recorded HDV over Component will not suffice.

Seriously though, an XH-A1 or FX7 have the potential to have even more resolution than an HV20.. and they're still going to be compressed with HDV - which will lead to similar results. I don't see how they can withstand this 'terrible looking image' test. Apples and oranges indeed.

Please share your findings as others have.

I still say Paul should look at this stuff on a different monitor before he throws in the towel, but it is up to him of course. Just in discussions about how the image looks off the computer, and component cables, vs. HDMI directly fed to the Toshiba, he seems to experience different results. This makes me wonder if something is up in the HDMI import process. I do use DVI converted to HDMI as a second monitor cable to my cheapy 32" inch Magnovox HDTV, and I note differences in the out put from camera component, versus output via the HDMI.

The only thing I have to compare with is the FX1, the VX2000, and the HV20. The HV20 runs rings around the VX2000 when you output it to SD. The FX1, with the right adjustments, and the HV20 will run neck and neck generally, with the FX1 3 chips giving better performance in lower light situations. That is my experience.

It may be a problem with your TV indeed. After all, Toshiba's flagship HD-DVD player does not use in-house hardware/software, it uses Silicon Optix chip for deinterlacing and noise reduction.
There are no frames in the interlaced mode, there are just fields. The frame grab you have is made by your NLE. The jaggies on the left bottom image are interlace jaggies that your NLE could not remove because it is not smart enough. Apparently, your TV is not smart enough either. Try connecting the camera to the Pioneer Elite or to a Hitachi Director series TV and see whether you notice the difference.

You were advised to use 24p. The point is not just film look, you also will get proper progressive frames if you use right software to extract them. Or, you can watch this telecined video directly on the TV. If the TV is smart enough it will perform IVTC an will display clear frames without any jaggies whatsoever. You can go to Silicon Optix website and order their testing DVD for $20 to verify how good (or bad) is your TV.

The compression artifacts don't seem ostensible to my unprofessional eye even on the magnified parts of your frame.
Well, if you don't like motion artifacts and don't want to shoot in 24p then buy a better TV. Or buy a camcorder that shoots in 60p like a JVC, but to watch this stuff you will need a TV with 1080p input and AFAIK Regza cannot take that, it takes 1080i only. Umm, maybe it can take 720p, I am not sure.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but do you see any improvement when dialing down the Sharpness setting in the camera?

You hit the nail on the head. I did some more tests earlier this morning. I turned down the camera's sharpness and shot some high-frequency subjects (leaves, fences, etc.). I tried both 24p and 1080i.

With the sharpness turned down, the problem was ameliorated dramatically, but still present. After pondering the visiible difference in the HV20 output between component input and HDMI input on my TV, I turned off all sharpening in the television. The problem is gone!

There are still some minor mpeg artifacts, but only if I look really hard to see them. The "crawling," and "shimmering" is gone. Interestingly, it was still present, though lessened, when I viewed the footage I shot earlier this week with the camera's sharpening set to "medium."

When I get a new television, I always adjust it from the out-of-the-box settings by, among other things, turning off sharpening. I was using a spare input on my Toshiba, so it was still set to the out-of-the-box default, which included too much sharpening.

I want to run some more tests later. It's cloudy and gray this morning, so I want to confirm that camera does okay in bright sunlight -- I suspect, though, that the problem was the sharpening and the camera will do fine and I'll be keeping it, and selling my VX2000.

Now that the motion artifact problem is resolved I do like this camera. I have some minor quibbles with the physical design, e.g. the lack of good attach points for a neck strap and an awkwardly-placed start/stop switch, and I'd prefer better low-light performance. These, however, are not enough to override the appeal of a high-quality high-def image.

Incidentally, I can see the appeal of 24p. I have no use for it for the kind of shooting that I do, but I can see why those who want to try their hand at film production would want to try this camera.

"Incidentally, I can see the appeal of 24p. I have no use for it for the kind of shooting that I do, but I can see why those who want to try their hand at film production would want to try this camera."

One thing you might try is to tape, edit, and burn to DVD in 24p mode. results are great. I'm thinking of getting one of these canon HV30 cameras as a knock about danger cam to go with my JVC HD110. 24p 1/48th of a second to 24p DVD looks great.. and yes... as long as you turn the Detail (sharpness) to off... if you want any added sharpness (edge enhancement/sharpening) add it as a filter in your NLE. I even do sports in 24p now. Looks killer on LCD and plasmas on anamorphic DVD. just something to to try if you haven't.

I'm astonished at this conversation as an onlooker. This is an argument over a CONSUMER CAMERA! This is embarrasingly too small and best buy looking to use in any kind of professional environment as a primary cam. This is an HDV camera that I bought for $699 and am planning on using as a deck. It is a great little cam but no one should mistake for professional especially if they have a lot of experience and knowledge. It's amazing that it does as well as it does. Its competition in the SD land is not a DVX or a VX2000 it is a Elura 100 or a Panasonic GS120. Jeez.
Bill

Bill,

You're lucky to get the cam for only $699. Most paid $900-1100! But more importantly, is the fact that shooters are using this cam because of what is packed into the small form factor. Students are using it because it lowers the price of entry.

It's an incredible vacation cam. Last spring, I asked a friend what cam I should take on a trip to Europe. He asked me if I was going with my wife or the cam... I took the HV20 on a monopod and had a fabulous trip with my wife:-)

Even if it is consumer looking, the accessory product market for this cam shows it's versatility. The HV30 will only continue the legacy of a great little cam. It will only be supplanted by an HD version of the GL2 with full manual and a larger lens. It may even sport SD card recording...

Not to divert attention away from the purpose of this thread, but why do people refuse to acknowledge that the XH-A1 is the spiritual successor to the GL2?