Posted by Smarty on 10/25/07 14:06

Arny,

I am totally unfamiliar with the "green square in the upper right corner"
issue you refer to, and suggest you post this question on the most active
HV20 forum I know of, at:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=139

I find it really hard to believe that this is a design flaw in the camera,
and assume it is more likely a defect in your specific camera and would be
repaired under warranty.

As regards latency, I am again at a bit of loss to understand your comment.
Since you are apparently not recording the camera output, but merely using
the HV20 as a video camera, you may be seeing a delay in the HDMI or
Firewire output due to the time it takes for the camera to encode the video
/ audio, and then the additional time it takes for your monitor to decode
them. Having not used the HV20 as a live camera, I cannot confirm that this
indeed does happen with the HV20, but it would not surprise me at all. In
this regard, I imagine that both Firewire and HDMI output from any of the HD
(and SD) cameras will exhibit this to a lesser or greater extent. If the lag
time between the live scene and the monitor display is objectionable, you
could see if the connection you are is using analog or digital, and if
digital, whether you are using Firewire or HDMI, both of which the camera
provides. It would very likely improve the latency if you switched from
Firewire to HDMI, and further improve it if you switched from either of
these to analog (component) output. This is a rather simple experiment to
conduct, and assumes your monitor supports the different input modes.
Component output should exhibit the least lag, but this may still be
objectionable.

I have not tried the tele adapter, but frankly think that 10X optical zoom
and the 200X effective digital zoom, is difficult enough to control /
stabilize, even with a tripod. High def demands a nice, stable image, and my
own experience with the 10X optical combined with the effective 200X digital
zoom makes the need for an extra tele lens very unlikely. As an experiment,
I would suggest engaging the digital zoom and watching how well this "tele
adapter" really works in the situation you describe. If the view of the now
enlarged pulpit at 120 feet away is stable with the various movement you
have in the room (footsteps, tripod shake, pulpit and people movement,
etc.), then an add-on optical tele extender may be the answer. The digital
zoom sacrifices detail / resolution and I am not suggesting it as a the
'final' solution, but rather as a way to anticipate how much jitter / shake
/ movement the scene is likely to undergo before investing in the optical
tele lens accessory.

Hope these provide some useful help to you.

Smarty


"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9N2dnS2TI-1F4L3anZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:2cwTi.27883$DX.13741@trnddc06...
>
>> 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.
>
> We use a HV20 at church, primarily as a 4:3 format camera with video
> output. We don't use the built-in recorder.
>
> The image quality was a fantastic upgrade over its predecessor, but I have
> two complaints:
>
> (1) The green square in the upper right hand corner, which I don't know
> how to make go away.
>
> (2) As a camera, it seems to have a lot of latency.
>
>> 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.
>
> Any experience with the tele-adaptor? We use ours mostly to shoot at a
> pulpit which is about 120 feet away, and the image quality at that
> distance is reduced in quality (still worlds better than the predecessor),
> apparently by operation at max zoom.
>

[Back to original message]