Posted by Smarty on 10/24/07 00:19

I've been touting the HV20 for quite a while now, and it is really a true
bargain, a joy to travel with, and remarkably capable.

Also quite surprising to me is the fact that Canon's wide angle (high def)
adapter, made specifically for the HV-20, takes the lens out to a very
respectable field of view but does not compromise sharpness, chromatic
aberration / fringing, or shown vignetting. On a stable tripod with the wide
angle converter, this little camera makes truly excellent landscape,
panorama, and nature shots look as good and often better than anything I can
see here off of commercial BluRay, HD satellite, cable, etc.

The HDV format is indeed a compromise, and the long GOP doesn't help.
Fortunately, however, Final Cut Pro HD, Vegas, and also a lot of very
inexpensive NLE software has evolved over the last 3 years to the point
where it is very similar now to DV editing in virtually all respects.

The audio side of the camera is unquestionably weak, but external mikes
handle this quite adequately. If you can live with the "stigma" of no XLRs,
a plastic case that looks and feels cheap, and the HDV format itself, this
is well worth the $899 price tag. My prior true favorite TRV-900 cost over
twice that much, and some of my earlier TRV's were over a grand in the late
1980's and 1990's.

If you can put up with the piss-poor image quality for a few minutes, there
are a lot of interesting HV20 clips on YouTube, showing low light, add on
lenses, 24p, and a lot of other things. It is a useable site regardless of
the horrific degradation which is needed to post there. A search of YouTube
with the term HV20 or HV-20 will bring them up.

Best,

Smarty






"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5o6jp9Fl8h31U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
> news:cj6rh35b8b5ccpba9ej2sumu8ru3eah2m9@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:40:53 -0700, in 'rec.video.production',
>> in article <Re: Starting to think about HD>,
>> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:5o41g6Fjk5qfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> I'm starting to plan my move to HD, which will probably be sometime in
>>>> February. A tape-based system is a must, as I'll be archiving projects
>>>> on
>>>> tape until feasible BluRay or HD burners are released.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by "feasible". Burners are available now,
>> although the discs certainly aren't cheaply priced.
>
> I wasn't aware of any BluRay burners that could do video roms. Are they
> out now? At any rate, I'd rather wait for the next iteration of burners,
> which are sure to cost less, be faster, etc. Besides, _after_ buying my
> BluRay DVD player, I learned that it won't play BluRay DVD-R video (what
> is Sony thinking, anyway?), so there's no real hurry. There's also the
> very real possibility that BluRay will lose to HDV. I've still got my
> Betamax. I don't need to invest in the digital equivalent.
>
>>
>>>> Yesterday, I did a quick hands-on comparison between the Canon XH-A1
>>>> and a
>>>> Sony FX1. For low-light, the Canon slaughtered the Sony, which was
>>>> very
>>>> noisy and was far less sensitive. The Canon image reminded me of the
>>>> VX2000/2100 in low-light. I didn't get a chance to try the FX7.
>>>>
>>>> They're both big cameras, bigger than my VX2000, but I'm more or less
>>>> resigned to the form factor (I'll be using the camera for amateur
>>>> travel
>>>> videography).
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything else I should look be looking at?
>>
>> In my opinion, you should not be looking at the HDR-FX1. It's quite
>> old at this point, being Sony's first-ever consumer-grade HDV
>> camcorder, announced back on September 7, 2004. It doesn't even have
>> an HDMI output jack, it's so old. In my opinion, you should not buy
>> *any* HD camcorder that isn't equipped with either an HDMI or an
>> HD-SDI output jack.
>
> As long as I have a digital capture solution, e.g. 1394, I'd be okay with
> the camera. The BlackMagic Intensity looks like a nice HDMI capture
> solution, but it adds $300 to the cost of this upgrade project. If not
> either the FX7 or the FX1, it looks like my only serious alternative is
> Canon's XH-A1. I have, however, been looking at Canon's HV-20. I have
> to say, I can't find any serious downsides to this machine -- it has great
> low-light performance and a beautiful picture, with a usable 24 fps mode
> (though I understand it will take some gymnastics to edit it). It's hard
> to imagine a consumer machine that can approach prosumer machines in video
> quality, but this seems to be it. I certainly wouldn't mind the smaller
> form factor, and B&H has it for only $899 with free shipping. The $3,000
> that I'd save over the A1 would certainly pay for a wide angle lens
> (which, evidently, it needs), a rain cape and, probably, a nice exotic
> trip somewhere to use it. I'm still looking for some 1080i/60 demo
> footage, though, as I'm probably one of the few people out there who
> doesn't want "film look" -- I like the
> super-real-you-are-there-in-real-time look of HDV and I think it will work
> best for my travel video.
>
>>
>> Just my opinion, but the problem with the Canon XH A1 ($3499.95 at
>> B&H) is that it lacks HDMI or HD-SDI output. The Canon XH G1 has
>> HD-SDI, but it's a few dollars more at $6299.95.
>
> That's way, way over my budget. This is strictly for amateur use. It has
> to pass the "wife justification test." I could probably make a case for
> the A1 ("It's my birthday, and you know how much I like to do video, and
> this camera will make such nice videos of our travels . . ."). Over 6
> grand? Not a chance.
>
>
>>
>> In terms of current Sony HDV consumer-grade HDV offerings, you would
>> want to consider not the HDR-FX1 but the HDR-FX7, currently $2495 at
>> B&H.
>
> Low light peformance on the FX7 is just too poor. I do a lot of shooting
> at night, indoors, at dawn, etc., and in situations where adding light
> either isn't possible or practical. I really, really want to like the
> FX7, but its low-light performance was so bad (reminded my of my old TRV20
> miniDV machine) that I can't see using it.
>
>>
>> On the other hand, if you want good-looking high definition video at
>> under U.S. $10,000, you would want to give up HDV and tape and look at
>> something like the upcoming Sony PMW-EX1 XDCAM EX format camcorder
>> ($6999 at B&H).
>
> Unfortunately, still out of my price range. I top out at the lower-end
> prosumer gear.
>
>>
>> Or just save a bunch a money and get a Canon HV20. In fact, at just
>> $899.95 each, you could get two, one for you and one for your lovely
>> wife.
>
> I'm thinking about that more and more. If worse comes to worse, I could
> use it for a year or two until something better comes out, and then just
> use it as a capture deck, just like my TRV20 is now, and save the wear and
> tear on the better machine. Still, after the VX2000, it just doesn't feel
> right to step down to a consumer machine -- there goes my fantasy that the
> Travel Channel will hire me (yeah -- like THAT would ever happen). ;)
>
> Still, how much can I get for a used VX2000 with a fried 1394 port? ;)
>>
>>>You're welcome to borrow my HVX anytime.
>>
>> Personally, nappy, I wouldn't recommend an undersampled camcorder to
>> an attorney. He might sue when he found out. :)
>
> Sue? Sue? Did someone say sue?
>
> Ooops, sorry . . . it's a reflex. ;)
>
>>
>> --
>> Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
>> [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
>> Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
>> (also covers AVCHD and XDCAM EX).
>

[Back to original message]