|
|
Posted by PTravel on 11/03/07 22:36
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:OZ3Xi.437$m44.219@trnddc06...
> Paul,
>
> I just read your Saturday afternoon update on the DVI forum, and am very
> pleased to learn that readjusting the TV set sharpening apparently solved
> the problem.
>
> Today's overcast weather in the L.A. area may prevent seeing the HV-20 at
> its' best, but I am anxious to see / hear how the experimentation and
> comparisons went. I meant it most sincerely when I said my 3-CCD FX-1
> could not compare to the HV-20, to such an extent that I literally put the
> FX-1 on craigslist.com and sold it once I saw how well the HV-20 performs.
> Same thing with the HC-5. Others have made similar comments and reports.
>
> What are your present thoughts?
>
> Smarty
I'm now a convert -- the HV20 is really amazing. For anyone reading this
who doesn't follow dvinfo.net, the problem I had experienced was a
combination of the camera's default setting for sharpening being too high,
and sharpening set too high on my high-def television. I really don't
understand Canon's thinking in this regard, as the default "medium"
sharpening setting in the HV20 really degrades high-frequency detail without
offering any advantage. Kudos, however, to Canon putting sharpening
adjustments in the user's control (I just wish there was a way to turn it
off entirely).
I shot a few more minutes of test video a little while ago (it's sunny here
in Santa Monica) and the video is simply stunning. My VX2000 will probably
go on eBay tomorrow if I have the time to take some pictures of it. I can't
imagine why anyone would consider a different consumer camera, and if you're
willing to sacrifice some manual control (and an XLR input), this thing
compares favorably, actually more than favorably, with prosumer offerings
costing four times as much.
There are still some minor motion artifacts, but no worse than I get with
VX2000, and I've been happy with that for years. The lens could probably
stand a few more elements -- there is some minor fringing in the telephoto
position but, again, nothing I can't easily live. I've also figured out a
way to put a strap on it that lets me manage my usual shooting style of
keeping the camera at chest level with the strap providing support for the
front of the camera. The HV20's image stabilization is very effective --
the stuff I shot this afternoon isn't as steady as when I shoot with a
tripod, but it's pretty good and better than what I could do with my VX2000.
I haven't yet broken the news to my wife that I've bought Yet Another
Camera, but I think the combination of the tiny form factor, which she'll
like, and the fact that I can almost certainly get more for the VX2000 and
all the accessories I have for more than I paid for the HV20 should mitigate
the coming storm when she finds out. ;) Actually, I'm looking forward to
doing some travel video without carting around the weight of the VX2000, its
extra batteries, the WA lens, etc. I barely notice the HV20 when I'm
carrying it, and the batteries weigh less than a fourth of the VX2000's.
The only bad news is that my 3 GHz P4 with 1 gig of ram isn't up to editing
HDV -- previews in Premiere Pro CS3 are jerky and often freeze. I'm going
to have to upgrade this computer (and I'm not looking forward to telling my
wife that!). Happily, though, my laptop, a Core 2 Duo-equipped Sony Vaio
with 2 gig for RAM can manage editing HDV fairly well. I'll probably use
that for editing until I can afford to get a new computer. One of the
interesting possiblities it offers is to start editing in the field,
something I've never tried before. I'm way behind in my editing projects,
and still have at least one standard-def shoot that I need to finish.
The combination of 24p and "cine" mode on the HV20 is really interesting.
As I mentioned on dvinfo, I really have no need for this feature, but the
camera's ability to produce a fairly convincing "film look" is impressive.
If I was a young film maker or film student, I'd definitely get one of
these. Maybe I can talk Mrs. PTravel into considering a new career. ;)
I also went over to B&H's website this afternoon to order some accessories.
Of course, they don't take orders for another hour or so (sundown in NYC),
but they've got the HV20 for only $798! I assume that means there's an HV30
on the horizon, but I'm off to Cambodia in a few weeks and don't want to
wait. Though I can think of some improvements to the HV20, I don't think
there's a compelling reason for anyone to wait.
>
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5p12idFof3pjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
>> news:13imfvhg31fbe63@corp.supernews.com...
>>> There doesn't look much wrong with this screen grab. There is a
>>> considerable amount of sharpening that will catch the eye as the video
>>> moves. With so much native resolution there is little value keeping the
>>> sharpening that high.
>>
>> Yep -- that's exactly what I'm seeing. I'm pleased with the resolution
>> and color fidelity of the image, but "shimmering" on movement is driving
>> me crazy.
>>
>>>
>>> PTravel, why not post a RAW m2t clip to Rapidshare??? It won't cost you
>>> anything.
>>
>> I'll try that this weekend.
>>
>>>
>>> How hot are the whites in the image? Check their level.
>>
>> I'll look this weekend.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Smarty wrote:
>>>> For whatever it is worth, the frame grab looks to my (60+ year old)
>>>> eyes as being pretty typical of what I would expect for the HV20 with
>>>> additional JPEG processing applied. If I look at the very finest detail
>>>> in the picture, such things as the parking meter next to the car, small
>>>> signage detail on the lamp-post as well as the very tip of the
>>>> lamppost, variegations in the fencepost masonry, and other really small
>>>> (just a few pixel wide / tall) elements, my impression is that the
>>>> capture has both preserved the edge definition without fringing (unlike
>>>> the cheaper Sonys which make artificial edge sharpness by deliberate
>>>> overshoot) and that there are no clear examples of a defect. The areas
>>>> you enlarged do look a lot different from the very same areas which I
>>>> enlarge using Photoshop, and thus your surrounding magnified crops do
>>>> look distorted but only when I look at your magnified crops, and not
>>>> when I look at the same high magnification of these areas using the
>>>> central 1440 by 1080 image. I am not sure what to make of all of this.
>>>>
>>>> None of these comments / observations apply, of course, to what you are
>>>> seeing on your TV set, or what the moving, dynamic video looks like
>>>> versus this single static frame. All I am saying is that the sensor and
>>>> encoder appear to be doing their job for this image without losing the
>>>> fine detail, and that the detail which is preserved does not (to my
>>>> eyes) appear to have distorted or exaggerated edges, color issues, or
>>>> other evidence of a defective sensor, encoder, or optics.
>>>>
>>>> You alone can judge how faithfully this HV20 is capturing the true
>>>> scene, and in this regard, another still camera with high resolution
>>>> might allow you to make some further comparisons. I will often use my 8
>>>> MPixel Nikon to take comparison shots for seeing where the video camera
>>>> is weak. Obviously the color gamut and resolution is worse in the video
>>>> sample, but the comparison to a reference can help discern the video
>>>> shortfalls easier.
>>>>
>>>> It will be interesting to see if any of my observations agree with
>>>> anybody else's. I am not an expert at all in these matters, and have
>>>> cataracts to further confuse the issue, so I am merely offering my 2
>>>> cents worth in a sincere effort to be helpful.
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad to keep working this to get more insight into what you are
>>>> encountering.
>>>>
>>>> Smarty
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1193986489.385033.199060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact that
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally
>>>>>> capture
>>>>>> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the
>>>>>> resulting
>>>>>> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from
>>>>>> tape
>>>>>> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via
>>>>>> HDMI,
>>>>>> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI
>>>>>> forum you
>>>>>> linked to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in
>>>>>> HDMI
>>>>>> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
>>>>>> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency /
>>>>>> half-power
>>>>>> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution.
>>>>>> And on
>>>>>> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display
>>>>>> shows no
>>>>>> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
>>>>>> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the
>>>>>> camera's
>>>>>> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this
>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening may
>>>>>> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent
>>>>>> resolution. If
>>>>>> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to
>>>>>> judge
>>>>>> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so
>>>>>> as to
>>>>>> make fast pans take on a more under-sampled and degraded appearance,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> very very seldom have I seen any real macroblock effects or other
>>>>>> artifacting. My movies of Niagara Falls, with lots of vertical water
>>>>>> motion,
>>>>>> horizontal panning, and very agitated and tiny water details is about
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> most stressing case I have tried, and even then the HV-20 was a vast
>>>>>> improvement over the older FX-1 as well as the recent Sony HC-3 my
>>>>>> son was
>>>>>> using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I am by no means an advocate of high priced cables, I might
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> take a look at the HDMI cable being used between the HV-20 and the
>>>>>> HDTV. The
>>>>>> cables I use here are very inexpensive, work very well, and introduce
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> particular problems, but it is remotely possible that high frequency
>>>>>> ringing
>>>>>> or other transient / overshoot problems could make the HDMI port look
>>>>>> bad.
>>>>>> This is a bit far fetched but worth a quick substitution if you have
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> HDMI cable to substitute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please continue to update as I really would hope this problem is not
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> deal-breaker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Smarty
>>>>> Smarty, thanks for the response. I've got a bunch of HDMI cables here
>>>>> but, as it happens, the one I was using is the best I have -- though
>>>>> money isn't necessarily a measure of quality, this one cost me $70.
>>>>> I'll try a couple of others this weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> I took a look at a frame grab. To my eye, there are sharpening
>>>>> artifacts or, at least, some kind of high-frequency distortion. I
>>>>> posted it here:
>>>>>
>>>>> www.travelersvideo.com/hv20.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> In the interest of bandwidth, I had to compress it rather heavily, but
>>>>> I think the artifacts show through. I REALLY want to like this
>>>>> camera, so I'm going to do some more extensive tests this weekend,
>>>>> including lowering sharpening and trying it in 24p mode (though my
>>>>> preference is to shoot 1080i/60).
>>>>>
>>>>>> "PTravel" <ptra...@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Smarty" <nob...@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>>>>>>>> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera,
>>>>>>>> since I
>>>>>>>> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
>>>>>>>> non-professional user.
>>>>>>> As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in
>>>>>>> skill,
>>>>>>> experience or knowledge. However, I've hit a significant problem
>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>> HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>>>>>>> Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in
>>>>>>> high-frequency
>>>>>>> detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
>>>>>>> camcorder. The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output, far
>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>> visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
>>>>>>> something odd with my television.
>>>>>>> I've discussed it at length here:
>>>>>>> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>>>>>>> Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the
>>>>>>> camera
>>>>>>> as long as it looks good on the component output. However, I'm
>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>> do so more tests this weekend. If the output continues to display
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and
>>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>>> until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>>>>>>> I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|