|
HVR-HD1000 vs. DSR-250P
Hello all,
i went to thw store to ask about thy new HVR-HD1000 , the seller told me it's an upgraded DSR-250, same camera ... can you compare those tow? |
They look similar but are completely different. The seller is, as usual, a complete idiot.
The DSR is a 3-CCD SD DVCAM Pro cam with XLR and pro features. The HD1000 is a 1-CMOS HDV MiniDV cam that, although from the Pro division, has the exact same features and capabilities as a consumer level HC7. There's no way to confuse the two except by looks. |
Quote:
So if i shoot in SD only, what you suggest me to buy? |
You have concerns about low light, yes? Then you need a VX2100 or a PD170.
|
Quote:
if i have to take the PD170 i would prefer the DVX100B so i have similer colors like the DVC200 i have... and please be aware that i'm gonna use 40w video light on camera... |
For SD, I would go with the DSR-250. I've got a couple and whilst they're basically shoulder mounted PD150s with more switches (to avoid changing settings with menus) I've found them to be very good and perfectly capable of professional results. I guess they will be phased out soon as will most SD stuff, so you should get a good deal.
They're not the same standard as my DSR-450, but as they say, you pay your money and take your choice. If you want HD then the DSR-250 is no good as it only does SD - Maybe a tricked-up Z1 (shoulder support / mattbox etc) would do. This gives reasonable SD and very good HDV. Hope this helps |
If you want HDV in a real shoulder mount form then the only other alternatives to the HD1000 are the S270 from Sony or the HD250 from JVC. They shoot different forms of HDV and are not interchangeable. And they are both in the $8-$10,000 range.
In this low price range there are no alternatives to the HD1000. So just be aware of its limitations and learn to work with them. |
Don't forget the HD110 from JVC, around $5000. Three chips, 720p and shoots in 6 GOP MPEG2 as opposed to 15 GOP with the Sony HDV models.
|
I think the HD110 only does 720p30, not 720p60....
But the HD200, at about $6000, does do 720p60. |
Quote:
The HD1000 can do 60i which is not quite the same as 60p. I don't know of an HDV system that can record the hefty data of 1080p60. |
Quote:
Do you mean the HD100/110? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
im a wedding video photographer , i'm shooting in dance floors with low light . i need shoulder mount camera in the range of 2000-3000$ (pal system only) |
Quote:
The manual for the HD1000, like the lack of f-stop and db increments in the viewfinder, is quite perfunctory and written more like a consumer camera manual. Not surprising since the camera is a consumer camera in a better body. |
The only shoulder mount cameras I am aware of, that are currently in production and priced under $3000, are the Panasonic DVC20 and the Sony HD1000, both of which are basically souped up consumer cameras (and probably perform pretty poorly in low light). If you can spend a little more, you could get a Sony DSR-250.
You might keep your eye out for a good used JVC GY-DV500. I've seen a few of them (NTSC version though) sell for under $2000 (with lens), here in the states, recently. |
Quote:
And even the Pro manuals from Sony leave much to be desired, as if they are written and translated by someone who knows neither Japanese nor English. |
Quote:
According to your reasoning, 1/60th shutter would be 60p, 1/24 = 24p, 1/8 = 8p? I don't think so. All you do when you slow the shutter is make the camera more light sensitive at the expense of motion artifacts. This is an interlaced camera only, like the HC7. There is also a big question mark of whether it has a progressive chip in it at all. Sony says it's not a progressive chip. Some are speculating that it is based on other Sony pro division cameras. I hardly think they would have that resolution-poor cinema effect if they could get progressive out of the camera. If you want to say it gives a film-like look slowing down the shutter, then fine, but don't sell us that it is progressive. Let's stick with the facts. |
Quote:
The difference between interlace and progressive is the 1/60th-second separation between fields which causes interlace artifacts. If he shoots in 60i with a 1/30th-second shutter speed then he's dragging the shutter to the point where both fields are exposed at the same time, eliminating the time difference between the two fields of any frame. Yes it's a work-around to get 30p but it's called that for a reason -- it works. Quote:
In HDV all frame rates -- even from natively progressive cameras such as the JVC Pro HD line -- are written to tape as interlace. That doesn't stop the recorded signal from remaining progressive. When the time difference between pairs of fields is zero then it's progressive even though it's still broken into fields. Quote:
The only other instance I can think of would be shooting 24p with a shutter speed of 1/12th second to get 12p but who would want to do that. The 30p / 25p trick is much more useful. Quote:
Quote:
|
Thank very much, Mr. Hurd. Couldn't have responded better myself especially since I was tending to a cute response like:
Even if you keep your shirts and pants in different drawers it doesn't mean you're not dressed when you put them on. Did that make any sense? What does make sense is the confusion over the 1/30th shutter since in the past interlaced cameras (especially the Sony cameras) would not do a progressive sweep in the shutter mode. Cameras like the PD-170 throw out one field and hold over the first (which is 240 lines horizontal). This makes a resolution poor image filled with aliasing. This is probably due to the chip being designed for interlaced video. I have not worked with any of the Sony CCD HDV cameras but from the complaints I've read, a similar method is being used for long shutter speeds and "cinema" effects. The CMOS chips come out of the photography division where interlacing has never been used (as far as I know). A blatant assumption, I deduce that the HD1000 is actually taking progressive images at 1/60 but half the information is thrown out to fit the requirements of 60i video. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
You get a progressive frame from the camera which taking a progressive image. This is not "misinformation" unless you can prove beyond an isolated Sony statement that I am wrong. This forum has a lot of members who dissect manufacturer statements and report on the true specs and functions of the equipment in question.
It seems that the misunderstanding is how interlaced works. Until progressive television became a reality, relatively recently, 60i was called 30 frames a second (or 29.97 to be exact). The interlacing was a method of reducing the bandwidth needed for broadcast transmission and later videotape recording. Two half resolution fields from alternating odd and even horizontal scan lines (240 lines) combined made a decent image with good resolution (480 lines). Interlacing depends on the phosphors of a standard CRT television to make it all work. The first even field is still glowing when the second odd field is projected on the tube. Nobody counted the fields although technicians were very aware of the fields when maintaining VTRs or timing equipment. 60i is 30fps. It could be said that NTSC uses a viewable image area of 240 progressive, 60 frames. But since the receivers (CRTs) can't show that and since each field is from alternate lines of the original 480 frame (odd/even) it wouldn't be accurate at all. When HDTV finally started development for real over 25 years ago, the argument was whether we should stick with interlacing for a higher resolution (1080) or go for progressive with a lower resolution (720) but better motion detail. Remember that bandwidth is still calling the shots here. That argument has not been settled and we are entering a era where multiple resolutions and frame rates can live side by side sort of peacefully. 24p can live on a 60i recording and be extracted. 30p can do the same. Let's also take into account that 30p is not standard for sporting events or live news. It's a pleasing, film-like frame rate good for drama, music and documentaries. JVC had to create a camera that shot in 60p to satisfy productions that wanted a more "live" feel then the HD100 could provide. I mixed the HD1000 in 30p with a JVC HD100 (which shoots 30p natively) and had excellent results with no resolution hits from the HD1000. My resolution tests with the HD1000 show that you get the same still resolution with the 1/30th shutter as the 1/60th shutter. This does not happen with several other 60i HDV camera models. Perhaps I did the tests wrong, perhaps you have a HD1000 camera and can do some tests and post the results. I would be happy to see them and figure out what I did wrong if I did wrong. This is how science works. |
Quote:
When I questioned about the difference between the two cameras, I was told by the technician that they were essentially the same. The HD1000 has a few minor tweaks and in a more professional layout. When I questiioned whether or not the HD1000 added progressive scan, I was told no. The technician told me that, like the HC7, the HD1000 employs interlace scanning. I can accept Chris Hurd's explanation that all CMOS chips are naturally progressive, but I cannot deny the guys who make the camera that it is interlaced. In fact, the new HC9 adds the progressive shutter feature for stills only. Why would Sony go to the trouble of faking progressive scanning if the camera already scans progressively? Your test could have shown a higher resolution still because of the higher resolution sensor of the HD1000. Also, I know what interlace is. It was mainly developed as a way to avoid flicker because of the lack of bandwidth of NTSC to broadcast a full 60 frames. And, yes, I know why 720p60 was added. If by your "live feel" means sharper and smoother images, then you are correct. I realize now my error when I suggested that the 1/30th shutter solution was not progressive. It is 30p only with a slow shutter. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, that introduces motion blur. For some, that's a good work-around when using an interlace camera. Yes, I'm implying that the HD1000 is an interlace camera only. That is not a bad thing; it's just not what it could have been, and that's a progressive scanned camera with true 30p and 24p. I admited my error; now it's time you admit yours, and stop the misinformation that this is a progressive scanned camera. It's just simply not true, unless you have more information than the guys who make it. |
If you can prove that the two fields of a frame shot by the HD1000 with a 1/30 shutter are from different points in time as it is with 60i, I will admit to spreading "misinformation". If the two fields are odd and even lines from the same 1080 line frame then it's a progressive frame, there is no question about that.
The motion artifacts in 60i are a result of each field being a different point in time. If they were from the same point in time, the frame would be progressive with a 1/60th shutter much like what the JVC HD100 does in it's default settings. And as Mr. Hurd relates, the JVC apparently records the frame interlaced to tape (I didn't know this) but it's still progressive in creation. By the way, I think our little disagreement is giving a number of people a decent lesson in TV technology. |
Quote:
Originally, I failed to understand this logic until Chris Hurd correctly explained to me that slowing the shutter down in half exposes both the even and odd fields from 60i. However, I correctly added that in doing this, you inherit the drawback of motion blur. Try setting your JVC 100 to 30p with a 1/30th shutter (normally the shutter would be 1/60th). You will see motion blur. We're not talking about interlace artifacts; we're talking about the result of slowing the shutter speed when shooting moving objects. Slowing the shutter to 1/30th sec to achieve 30p is not for cameras that feature progressive scan; it is for cameras that use interlace scanning, providing they have the capability to set the shutter speed to 1/30th sec. The trade off is progressive video with the expense of a certain degree of motion blur. For some, this is acceptable to achieve a so-called film-like look. If the HD1000 was able to scan progressively, it would be able to get 30p and 24p without having to set the shutter speed to 1/30th sec, like the Sony V1 through pulldown, for instance. The HD1000 is an interlace-only camera. Again, that's not my opinion; that's a fact from the guys who make it. I hope this explanation helps you understand that the HD1000, unfortunately, does not feature progressive scan. By the way, I agree with you; us knocking heads on this topic has produced, like you said, "... a decent lesson in TV technology." I know I have learned a thing or two from this thread. PS - I'm not completely sold on Chris Hurd's comment that all HDV frame rates are recorded to tape as interlace. HDV 1 standard allows for High definition recording of 720p in 24p, 25p, 30p, 50p and 60p. It allows standard definition recording of dv in interlace. I think Mr. Hurd is in error about this, but I'm not 100 percent sure, yet. There could be some confusion about this because the HDV 2 standard only allows for interlace recording (1080 60i), so 24p and 30p (or 25p Europe) recorded from a progressive scan camera must wrap the progressive images in the 60i stream. |
sorry to bring up an old thread, but how does the hd1000u's 60i 1/30 shutter compare to a true progressive camera such as the canon hv30? will there be resolution loss such as deinterlacing 60i footage in a nle? thanks.
|
Quote:
I have been operating my HD1000u this way from the beginning and edit in my NLE as a progressive project (1080p) and never have I heard this explained so clearly before. I knew it worked but I didn't know for sure why. Thanks for your clarification, and to William for pointing it out in his previous post. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:34 AM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network