Two things:

Chris, is the tele-lens the authorized Canon one? I need something to extend my zoom range, so I'm wondering which one I should get for my HV20.

Second, Chris, I can absolutely set you up with server space on my server - if you know how to use FTP. Let me know, and I'll provide you space to share your HV20 footage.

Cheers!

Not sure what you are indicating by M&M. This late in week I might be running a little dense. I uploaded to files to megauploads. First should download as :

HV20clips.m2v

and second should download as:

backyard24p.mpg or (.m2t)

only shot 24p on the second one. Sorry they aren't that exciting, just test shots.

Robert:

Thanks for the offer. I learned a bit about FTP using my IE just a few weeks ago. If you want to email whatever access information I need, I can make an attempt. I will send this via PM email too.

Robert:

No. This is a teleconvertor from Sony with the HG Tag, bought for my VX2000 before HDV even arrived. I also had a cheapy 2X bought from somewhere, branded Kenko. It worked horribly on the VX2000, mainly because it claimed to be threaded for 58mm, it had a very small rear lense. Could only shoot at full telephoto, and had bad CA. I dug it out this morning, slapped it on the HV20, and was able to get a non-vignetted picture around the 1/2 tele mark. As you approach max telephoto, picture degrades with the CA , but at three quarters, not bad.

Back to the Sony 1.7 x convertor, I had shot it a full zoom on the FX1, and didn't notice any fringing. I am going to test a bit more to see if just that situation was the issue. Certainly would like to avoid buying another teleextender.

I just switched from a Sony FX-1 and HC-3 to the Canon HV20. My first reaction is that the HV20 has superior detail, a bit weaker color saturation (overcome somewhat by using the "Vivid" mode), a bit of a flimsy feel but nothing too severe, and a comfortable feel not very different from the HC-3 and vastly more comfortable to hold and carry than the FX-1.

The low light performance seems very good but not outstanding, and this seems to be the only area where the Sony FX-1 and HC-3 may do a slightly better job.

Also, the Sony HC-3 automatically reduces its' high frequency detail indoors in low light, leaving an image with less noise but also a lot less detail. The Canon preserves detail, perhaps at the expense of really outstanding low light sensitivity.

I wish I had all the cameras here at the same time to directly compare them, but only have footage from prior controlled lighting shoots which make me believe that the HV-20 still has a bit of difficulty in the low light area, but still looks very good in this regard.

Larry

Larry:

So far, I am not wild about HV20 low light either. I don't think they put that little "pen" light on it for nothing. The exception is shooting in 24p, where it seems to do better. Of course, I have fairly high expectations of cameras, being that I also own the VX2000.

Chris, nothing matches the VX2000....as an owner of one I can attest to that...except the VX2100. :)

There seems to be continued interest in what I've posted at Megaupload, with about 30 downloads of the large .m2t files, so I'm posting this one too.

It is, again, pretty pedestrian stuff. Just shot hand held with the HV20, in Cinemode, with 24p. About one minute. Instant autofocus was engaged, which I am finding pretty decent. Otherwise, I made no serious effort to manage the exposure, letting the camera do its thing.

In meantime, Robert Ducon has indicated he has space and I will try to shoot more footage taking a bit more control this weekend.

Here is url for this one: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HQQLWQHL

Latest clips: Street Basketball players in 24p, otherwise auto exposure.


http://www.megaupload.com/?d=Y8RJBDD0

Chris, I'm assuming you removed the pulldown for these clips?

no. I am posting raw footage as they come off the camera. It is up to you guys to do whatever magic you have. My idea was to give you something raw to work with. Its still 24p in the 1080 60i stream, as far as I know. The exception is if I have to cut, it will be rerendered, and that might be an issue. The basketball was cut, for instance.

new Footage
 

Two files here.

First is a shot with 24p. I took the exposure selected by camera, and backed it off -5, to see what would happen in the blacks and shadows.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BIFSJ5GB

Next, I turned on Cine mode and left 24p on. One thing that does happen is Cine mode, is you lose your control of the shutter speed or f stop priority. You live with what the camera gives you there. Again, after the exposure was selected by camera, I backed it off -5.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FCKRIBH7


These file are captured raw files and not color corrected, and no pull down has occurred.

Chris, the reason I ask is that I've shot some 24p footage for fun. The footage I shot looks more 'stuttery' than yours.

My hypothesis (Which is completely based in ideas in my head and not any concrete information) was that in Cine mode the camera (to enhance the 'cinema' aspect of 'cine mode') might actually lock the shutter speed at something like 1/48.

Again, this is just something that I thought might be the case, is there any way to check to see if something like this is true? Are you able to see ANY indications of a fast shutter speed when shooting something absurdly bright where the camera would be stopped down as much as possible with both NDs and then would have to resort to a high shutter speed?

I'm curious because I like the wider latitude that appeared to be present in the cine mode clips I've seen.

Thanks

I just downloaded these files and was wondering if you're 100% sure these two files aren't switched/mis-named. I ask because the big difference I noticed in the other comparison clips I've seen was in the highlights.

In the other example clips the cine mode was lower contrast and revealed details in highlight areas that the "regular" mode captured as completely blown-out white. In your two clips, this is the opposite where the cine mode clip has the blown out whites and the non-cine-mode clip does not. The second one (coke24andcinemode.mpeg) seems to have the bright/hottest hot spot (on the can) while the first one (coke24ponly.mpeg) reveals information in that area.

Additionally, pulling a single frame into Photoshop and looking at the histogram on two other clips showed that the CINE clip not only lacked any info at 100% black and 100% white but also that the info was much more 'smooshed' into the middle. Again, your "coke24ponly.mpeg" indicates that "Cine Mode" behavior when compared to your "coke24andcinemode.mpeg"