HV10 has a better picture than the FX1 !

[John McManimie]

Wow. It is amazing that people will quibble over sections of screen grabs that are a tiny fraction of a full screen image. The difference will likely be imperceptible to viewers when shown at a normal viewing size and viewing distance (which zoomed in shots viewed on a computer monitor are not) and at a frame rate greater than 1 frame per post.

Direct comparisons of these screen shots are pretty much meaningless anyway. Why? Because there are so many possible variables to consider with regard to testing conditions that you just cannot rely on video and screen shots from someone with unknown qualifications using unknown testing procedures.

Other than the fact that these were on tripods and show the same scenes, what do we really know? Every lens will perform differently at different apertures --- what were these set at? Was each camera set to take advantage of its strengths and optimum settings? What was the sharpness setting on the FX1? Was it to 0 or 7 or all the way to 15? In the "Texas Shootout" the Z1 was set to 7 while other cameras were set to 0 because the Z1 gets too soft at 0. Different cameras may require different settings and may not give the same apparent quality (such as sharpness) with default or automatic settings.

All 1080i HDV camcorders produce images of the same resolution. Yes, some may have a cleaner image or are better in low light or show less alias, but the differences are not of an order of magnitude that you would see when, for example, the resolving power is doubled as it is between a 2 megapixel camera and an 8 megapixel camera.

If you like a camera and it offers the features you require at a price you are willing to pay, buy it. If it lacks too many features that you require or it is too awkward to hold or you just get a bad feeling about it, buy something else. It really comes down to whether the ergonomics and features allow you to produce the images you want. Who cares about a cropped image magnified to 200% (unless, perhaps, you are going out to film --- but at the expense of such an endeavor, it is highly unlikely that a tiny consumer camera will be used)?

[Thomas Smet]

But isn't that the part of the reason for HD? We want HD for a sharper and more detailed image. Looking at small screen grabs is important to me because it can show what we are dealing with. To say that most people wouldn't be able to tell is like saying most people cannot tell the difference between SD and HD. While you may not be able to tell how much sharper one HD camera is over another some people might. If the aim with HD is to have the most detailed and natural image that we can get then of course you want to look for more detail. Every little bit helps make the image seem just a tiny bit more natural.

Many people sitting 8 feet away from their HDTV think a 480p DVD looks like high definition and it can look good if you sit far enough away.

If people didn't care then why the heck are we using HD? Because the detail does help. It can be very small but so is the difference between good SD and HD for many people right now.

[Steve Nunez]

I agree- it's the nitpicking that causes the manufacturers to fine tune their next offerings.

[Colin Gould]

I'd tend to agree with Thomas, although John's larger points are well taken.
If you as a videographer can't get the proper video you need w/ a certain camera, due to weaknesses, its strengths can't help you.

However, that said, and admitting that I have not seen any other HD cams yet to compare to except the uploaded videos, and my own shots:

From my own experience so far, and from all the uploaded video so far,
the HV10 does appear noticably sharper and clearer, in good light conditions, than other cameras posted here. This is likely due to the native 1920x1080 sensor (admittedly downsampled to 1440 HDV tape resolution), or CMOS vs CCD, whatever. The other sample HV10 videos so far match my personal experiences. I haven't had to make any special tweaks or settings, just "normal" basic use of the camera, so picture quality is that good out of the box. (Luckily so, since we don't have much manual controls to tweak with :) )

The video actually looks even better via component out to a 55" RP-CRT TV, much better than on viewed on the computer, so that's another thing to bear in mind.

I even thought the resolution and colors looked better than the XL-H1, from the VERY brief 2-scene shot inside the japanese store, but that's a very quick comparison :)
I don't have any resolution test cards to shoot though, so this is anecdotal rather than a measurable comparison.

For me, the primary reason to get an HD camcorder is the higher resolution and sharpness, plus full native (eg low-noise/artifacted) widescreen. I mostly only need a point and shoot.
The HV10 has delivered this for me, either in HDV or wide-DV.

I look forward to more direct-comparison sample videos between the two, especially the XL-H1 and upcoming XH-A1, to see how 3CCD canons compare as well!

[John McManimie]

1080i HDV provides more than double the resolving power of standard NTSC interlaced video. Anyone can see a difference between 0.3 megapixels and 1.5 megapixels. However, the difference between one 1080i HDV image and another 1080i HDV image is much smaller.

While I would agree that provided all other things are equal, a camera that can produce a cleaner, sharper image is preferable, there is more to consider than sharpness. My point is simply that the comparison of magnified sections of screen shots from uncontrolled conditions without regard to the features or optimal settings of the cameras only tells you which image looks better for those given settings, not if one camera is better than another.

But as I said before, if you like a camera and it offers the features you require at a price you are willing to pay, buy it.

[Lee Wilson]

Originally Posted by John McManimie

Wow. It is amazing that people will quibble over sections of screen grabs that are a tiny fraction of a full screen image. The difference will likely be imperceptible to viewers when shown at a normal viewing size and viewing distance (which zoomed in shots viewed on a computer monitor are not) and at a frame rate greater than 1 frame per post.

The first linked picture > http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7766/closeupzz8.jpg < is normal sized (100%), it is only the zoomed in section of the tower that is 200%.

The second linked picture > http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/328/close2ev6.jpg < is not zoomed in at all, it is 100%

My original post includes 12 (6 x HV10 / 6 x FX-1) Full resolution, uncompressed, full frame rate (NTSC 29.97 fps) samples in varying environments (daylight/low light/indoor/outdoor etc etc).

I felt is was such a distinct difference in favour of the HV10 with regard to image quality that it was worth posting. You may be right and the enlarged section may not be of much use, but I was using it more as a tool to highlight the difference rather than any scientific proof.

Originally Posted by John McManimie

Direct comparisons of these screen shots are pretty much meaningless anyway. Why? Because there are so many possible variables to consider with regard to testing conditions that you just cannot rely on video and screen shots from someone with unknown qualifications using unknown testing procedures.

Both cameras were on full default auto and stuck on a tripod, the only exception was an ND filter on the FX-1 to match the exposure to the HV10.

Some may think that the only way to evaluate a camera is to take it into a lab with approved colour charts and a 'qualified' user, but I rather lean towards putting both cameras in a real world situation with a competent user shooting off some footage and then taking a look.

Originally Posted by John McManimie

If it lacks too many features that you require or it is too awkward to hold or you just get a bad feeling about it, buy something else.

My original post makes a single unambiguous point, that the picture quality of the HV10 is very good, perhaps better than the FX-1 from the numerous samples I have seen.

[John McManimie]

The “frame rate greater than 1 frame per post” was my poor attempt at a little humor --- it was another way of saying still frames in a post. So, there goes my dream to quit my day job to take up satirical writing. ;-)

I was actually responding to the entire thread, not you personally. I agree with testing cameras in real world situations and I agree that the HV10 did a great job. I just feel that testing on full default auto doesn’t show a camera at its best and only goes so far for the purposes of comparison.

[Richard Zlamany]

Wouldn't the ND filter cause some softness? How is it a fair test if one cam uses a ND filter and the other one does not?

[Wes Vasher]

I'll often see single frame grabs and thing the image looks blah... and then see the full motion video and it blows my socks off. Having said that... the HV10 footage blows my socks off. :)

I can't see how an ND filter would ever make the image soft in any way.

[Stu Holmes]

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

Hse Kha (the second post in this long thread) says: ''The FX1 is totally outdated now. I can't see how people would buy it anymore...''

This is such a common statement made about *any* camera, and is just so much one-upmanship garbage. When you buy a photographer or cinematographer for a shoot you're buying in their experience first and foremost. Way down the line there's the equipment he uses.

Give me a seasoned pro with a 1976 film fed Nikon F4 over a newbie with his D-SLR. Give me someone with the nous to buy the FX1 over someone who accepts automatic internal ND filtration because he doesn't know what it's doing for him.

Camera - all camera - are cheap. The expensive and really valuable bit about filmmaking is the experience, and generally that only comes with time.

tom.

Totally agree Tom.

No offence intended to Hsa Kha - but that "totally outdated" quote is a fairly ridiculous statement! (and no i dont own an FX1...!)

I nominate Tom's post for "Post of the Week".
- Too many people obsessed with having "The Latest Gear".

The biggest variable in how your footage looks and how quickly the audience falls asleep (or applauds) whilst watching your footage is............. you.

[Richard Zlamany]

Isn't a ND filter another piece of glass added to the lens setup?

If so, added lens take away something even if it is a little. In this case it is sharpness and and a fair test.

[Chris Hurd]

Agreed. Tom Hardwick earns Post Of The Week. I should come up with some kind of affordable prize.

[Lee Wilson]

Originally Posted by John McManimie

The “frame rate greater than 1 frame per post” was my poor attempt at a little humor --- it was another way of saying still frames in a post. So, there goes my dream to quit my day job to take up satirical writing. ;-)

:)

Originally Posted by John McManimie

I was actually responding to the entire thread, not you personally. I agree with testing cameras in real world situations and I agree that the HV10 did a great job. I just feel that testing on full default auto doesn’t show a camera at its best and only goes so far for the purposes of comparison.

Yes I agree totally.

But having used an FX-1 and Z1 for various projects I am amazed at the image quality of the HV10 - that is as simple as I can make my point.

[Tom Hardwick]

Why thank you, Chris Hurd.

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by Richard Zlam

Isn't a ND filter another piece of glass added to the lens setup?

If so, added lens take away something even if it is a little. In this case it is sharpness and and a fair test.

No, I believe the built in ND filters on the camera operate differently. Something about a small part that moves into the light path to reduce the incoming intensity.. of the.. err... I don't know man. But I think I once read a post from Barry Green on the matter (I guarantee he knows how it works).

In any event, I do not believe the built in ND filter should reduce the image sharpness.

www.philipwilliams.com