|
|
Posted by Spex on 10/03/07 16:02
Smarty wrote:
> Higher resolution is the most noticeable improvement. I also happen to
> prefer the Canon color, and find it more neutral and pleasing to look at.
> The low light also seems less noisy than the FX-1. Take a look at the HV20
> forum at:
>
> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=139
>
>
> for a lot of HV20 info.
>
> Smarty
>
>
> "Luru Dai" <kikidai@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1191398001.548500.249280@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 2, 9:37 pm, "Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote:
>>> The HV20 is cheaply built but takes excellent video, way better than the
>>> 3
>>> CCD HDV Sony camcorder (FX-1) and the HC3 I previously owned. The audio
>>> quality is good but not excellent. I would strongly recommend the HV20
>>> after
>>> owning and using several HDV camcorders. It is a great bargain now for
>>> well
>>> below $1000 in the U.S.
>>>
>>> Smarty
>>>
>> Thank you for your answer. HV20 is even better than FX-1, I did know
>> it. Could you tell me HV20 gives better video in which sense? Higher
>> resolution, better colour rendition, or better low light performance.
>>
>
>
The only real issue with the HV20 is that it does suffer from a huge
amount of CMOS rolling shutter distortion.
Rolling shutters cause shearing of the image when panning and
squashing/stretching when titling the camera.
I agree with Smarty's assessment of the resolution and colour of the HV20.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|