HV-30 v Sony SR-12
 

Does any one have any experience with comparing the Sony SR-12 with the HV-30 ? I know the Sony is an HDD / AVCHD format and I am a bit skeptical of AVCHD, but maybe now, this is unwarranted.

RC.

AVCHD wouldn't really be an advantage over HDV unless it is at 24Mbps. But color grading in AVCHD is a lot more rough than HDV (even at 24Mbps (based off of HG21 preview from Japanese site Watch.Impress)). HDV also needs less processor power, AVCHD needs at least a 2.4Ghz Quad Core to edit.

Jack -
Not sure what the basis for your conclusions are... While AVCHD may not have an "advantage" over HDV, the compression algorithm is supposedly more efficient. I feel like I'm getting cleaner results from the SR11 than I was able to get from the HC9 (haven't used the HV30, but did experiment with the HV20).

I'm VERY happy with the colors I'm getting from my SR11 and CX12, which ISN'T something I could say about the HV20 when I tried it... You either like Canon colors or you don't... I didn't, and just didn't feel the overall color from the HV20 was where I wanted it to be, ultimately going to the HC7, and the latest generation Sonys are way ahead of the HC7...

I was editing AVCHD on a dual core 6000+, it's doable, even a 3800+ was usable with some patience. Rendering was slow, but you just let the machine render and go do other things. Edit/Render was awful in the beginning with HDV too, so I'd expect as the software gets better, things will improve.


Ron -
Lots of practical handling differences between an HV30 (tape) and SR12 (tapeless), plus many feature differences which may or may not be a issue. AVCHD vs. HDV is for most practical purposes NOT the consideration it once may have been, and frankly many of the problems others have reported were never a problem for me with AVCHD... The results I'm getting with current generation Sony AVCHD are more than satisfactory, and I'm getting on fine without tapes!

Have to say i prefer the colours on my SR12 to my hdv cams including the fx-7

Dave:

I wonder if you could comment for me on this experience:

This is completely unscientific and I realize because of LCD display differences this is an unfair comparison, but still.....I was in Best Buy comparing HG20 to SR11. This comparison was only by looking at the respective LCD displays...

The SR11 display looked exactly like what I was seeing in real life, same tone, color, contrast, brightness. This goes for zooming in on shadowy areas, aisles of shelves with shadows etc, and zooming into the window of the store which had a hill and trees outside. This outside shot looked just like real life on the lcd display, same colors and lots of detail, it looked great.

The HG20 (which is what I want to buy for 30p, cinemode, etc) looked basically blown out: the interior was much brighter than real life, shadows became bright, colors were OFF, like the intense yellows were more like bright pale pastel yellow etc. Then teh exterior window: BLOWN OUT. zoomed right in and couldn't get the detail, color, etc.

The only way to get the HG20 to look (in the display) like the real thing and like the SR11 was to turn the LCD screen;'s brightness waaaay down, go to cinemode, and ALSO lower the exposure completely down to the lowest setting.

The window shot I think was a cool thing to check out, because as a tourist there's a lot of times I'm inside and there's distant window I want to shoot out through to catch the exterior scenery.

Any comments on these observations (besides the obvious of not actually recording and only using the LCD!).

It has me seriously wondering if I should forgo all the Canon options, 24, 30 frame rates, cinemode etc etc!! (I'd actually buy the HG21 for the viewfinder. I won't buy a camera without one).

how would you compare low light capabilities of these two camcorders????