Ok - guess I've got your attention!

Interested in your opinions ... I'm a hobbyist that in my spare time shoot small projects locally, e.g. concerts, company promos, etc. The end product normally goes on DVD or the Web in SD.

I currently have an XM2 (GL2) and VX2000e, and think that they're great cameras. I did buy a cheap Sony HC3e HD camera, and was impressed with the results. I've now been offered an FX1e but would have to sell one (or more) of my other cameras.

My thoughts ...

Although HD looks good on my HDTV, the uptake of Blu-Ray players is slow in the UK. Streaming HD over the internet is still not really feasible. So here in the UK, there is still no popular medium for distributing HD footage - IMHO for at least the next 2-3 years.

Most of my clients are happy with SD because that is all that their audience requires. A lot of people seem to say that you can at least shoot in HD, down-convert it, and have the original in an archive for future use. Whilst I respect that opinion, I would ask (a) how many of us get the time to go back and re-edit old projects, and (b) in 2-3 year's time, how many clients are going to come back and say that they want their wedding / concert / birthday party in HD? I'm not so sure.

Then there is the argument that SD from a HD camera looks better than SD from a SD camera ... maybe ... I'm no expert but surely other factors such as lighting come into play? Properly and well-lit footage shot on an SD camera seems to rival that from a HD camera ... there seems to be a suggestion that if it's HD, it must be better ...

So, I'm not so sure about the upgrade ... until HD becomes more readily available to the masses. It strikes me that there are a lot of very good second-hand prosumer SD cameras coming onto the market at very reasonable prices.

Are we - the hobbyists / small business - jumping on the HD band-wagon too early?

Interested in your views ...

I think you are right that HD is overhyped at the moment and the TV's in the shops are being sold with very little HD being available.

Even the HD on sky etc is compressed but I suppose you pays yer money and makes your choice.

I personally have bought a sony Z7 camera so it gives me the best of both worlds as I can shoot HDV and DVcam at the same time. The advantage of this is tapeless workflow with the compact flash in HDV or DVcam and a tape back-up in HDV.

If you have no demand for it you are right, why pay extra for it now. I have been able to sell it as most people like hearing "HD Video" when talking about what I capture on video. To deal with the lag I shoot HD and will often deliver a DVD with an HD Copy in a data folder of the DVD in Windows Media 9 or h.264 which can be viewed on a computer. I shoot, capture and edit in HD. I then render to all formats needed. That way, down the road or right now even, when they ask for HD, I can burn them a blu-ray disk without any "extra effort" sure, render times are longer which costs money but I have been able to reflect that in my prices.

In short, HDV has its place and can do some very cool stuff. Like any tool, it needs to be used properly.

Paul
I definitely agree with you on this. When I bought my camera I went for the FX7 as I thought that HD will be the way to go but in reality, here in my country at least although most people buy HD ready TV sets they seldom use it as most of the DVDs available are in SD and all the transmissions here are SD so I also shoot in SD, edit in SD and works 100% for me and my clients. I think the biggest change in cameras is the tapeless recording now. That's where I think most people will invest and we will see more and more of these camcorders and as a result of this prices will come down as well.

Stelios

I love HDV the quality is far superior to SD, even if I deliver all my projects in SD my Canon XHA1 produced much better footage than my PD170's SD cameras ever could, I consider the PD170 a webcam compared to HDV. I shoot a lot of wedding and I'm selling Blu-Ray although I do not have the ability to produce them yet, I inform my clients that as soon as it becomes affordable that I will provide them with a HD version, I actually feel sorry for all those weddings I shot in SD, the quality of HD is incredible, in three years HD will be a common sight.

I also shoot concerts and the detail I get from HDV is by far superior to SD cameras, the quality closely matches high end SD broadcast cameras. HD has allowed me to increase my prices with 50% and I have an competitive advantage over my competition. In post production I now have the ability to digitally zoom in almost 2x without any loss of quality, that alone is a great aspect for me, I can shoot medium shots at concerts and digitally zoom in closer without worrying about distortion.

I thus strongly disagree with your statement that HDV is over-hyped, quality speaks for itself, and the clients like the idea of future proofed products.

Just wanted to emphasize Nicholas' point about being able to zoom in - this is one of those things that I think doesn't get mentioned enough in the discussion of shooting HDV for SD delivery. Most of the work I deliver to clients is SD for online delivery, but I shoot everything in HDV (XHA1). I've found a lot of opportunities to use the extra resolution to zoom in and get a close up when I didn't shoot one in the first place - single camera interviews especially. I've also used it for shooting presentations, where you can fit both the projector screen and the presenter's podium into a single wide shot, then cut in SD and go between cropped shots of the screen presentations and close ups of the presenter, all with a single camera.

If you're shooting green screen you'll also get much, much better results keying the HDV footage and then downscaling to SD than you will if you try to key SD source material.

I'm with Nicholas on this one. I switched to HDV not for HD specifically, but because many of my clients have 16:9 TVs, even if they have no way to really play HD content. While my old VX2000 was brilliant on even the biggest 4:3 TV and unparalleled in low light, its 16:9 mode (really only 640 x 360, effectively) was so bad on a widescreen TV it made me cry. It did look perfect on a 4:3 TV, though.

HDV lets me produce brilliant SD DVDs for widescreen TVs -- handled properly, it's close enough to HD that most people don't know the difference, especially on smaller HDTVs.

And it isn't a matter of going back to re-edit anything; by doing everything except the burn in HDV, you have a completely HDV master to simply burn a Blu-Ray disc when you or your clients are ready. Takes about two minutes of work and then you go get a cup of coffee while it burns.

For me, buying an SD DV cam is like buying a B&W TV.

Streaming HD over the internet is still not really feasible.
It looks pretty good on Vimeo.

I think it's mostly because the price point is in a weird place. At a choice between $150 for SD recording and $600 for HD recording on the consumer end, or a choice between $1500 for SD recording and $3000 for HD recording on the prosumer end -- well, we may not need HD, but it's not prohibitively expensive anymore.

It is true that BluRay and programming has been slow on the uptake, but that's mainly because BluRay players are extremely expensive compared to the rest of the technology chain.

If you are shooting something that will never be seen again after the project is done, then fine.

But if you are shooting anything that might have any kind of a shelf life or future purpose -- feature film, short film, internet video, wedding, etc -- it is always wise to shoot it on the highest resolution available, even if you do not need it yet.

Why? Because in 5 years when HDTV saturation is >80% and YouTube streams 1080p and you're trying to squeeze every bit of attention you can out of that film you shot back in 2008, you'll wish you had the HD versions.

That's why studio films do fine now. Because the 35mm print carries more resolution than any existing video format, and therefore they can just keep converting and converting to satisfy the current market.

It could also be a good business move for production houses or wedding studios or whatever to shoot in HD even if their clients don't need it, because in a couple years, they might rethink that decision, and could come pay you for the HD version the same way wedding photographers keep the masters and get paid for prints.

Adam

Well, you're probably right about the B&W TV set but I think B&W large format photography is about as good as an image gets from both the technical and emotional points of view, so I would say that B&W shouldn't be written off, even for video. It can be immensly effective - even though most people tend to think of B&W as something that went out with the dinosaurs.

Of course, I get the point you're trying to make, just not sure I'd put SD and B&W in the same category of obsolescence.

And yes, I'm moving to HD.

I have recently bought a second hand standard def Panasonic AG-DVX100. My intention is to enter my next film into competitions and sell it on DVD or as a download, but it may find an outlet on TV.

Unfortunately the camera has only a 4:3 sensor so to make it widescreen, which I want to do, I will have to crop it and lose resolution.

Do any of you guys have an opinion on how good my footage will look after this cropping?

Especially considering I want to impress my audience. Perhaps it's worth trying really hard to find a HD camera with 16:9 sensor to borrow or rent?

with SD cropped in 16:9 on a large screen, you won't impress anybody.

Unfortunately, this is true. Many filmmakers will tell you that if your lighting is perfect, your film will be fine... and while this is largely true, your footage will still obviously be low resolution when projected.

If the end result is the internet, then it might not matter as much, since as of yet, most things are still sub-SD.

The XL2 is a way better camera, does native 16:9, and you should be able to find a used one pretty cheap. Another option would be to get the anamorphic lens for the DVX100, but it's not cheap, and it's a pain to use. It does work, however.

Thanks for the advice guys. I looked at Canon XL2s and they go for about 2000 GBP new, couldn't find any much cheaper on E-bay. Would I have to buy some other lenses for it too? Or would the supplied 20x L lens do the job?

Or there's the similarly priced Sony HVR-Z1 which is ready equipped with an unremovable Zeiss lens, has a 16:9 sensor and high def and is a similar price. Which would you recommend?

I can't afford either camera, but I'm looking into getting a grant for the project. If I get one I can hopefully buy one of these cameras.

Thanks again for your help.

Ah! The XL2 isn't high def. I'll see if I can get a Sony HVR-Z1, unless anyone has suggestions of a better camera with 16:9 sensor and HD capabilities for a similar price?

Yeah, the XL2 isn't high-def... it's just the next camera up from the DVX100 in that it has 16:9, albeit SD. Anamorphic SD doesn't look that bad. I mean it's not HD, but it is definitely noticeably better when you're on a budget.

Don't get the Z1, get the V1U. It's better, and you should be able to find it even cheaper. Also, this might not be in your price range, but check out the Canon XH-A1, which is also high-def. I've shot many things on it. Maybe there's a used one somewhere for cheap? If not, go for the V1U, which is a great camera.

Thanks for the advice Daniel!

I looked at the Sony Z1E and V1E on the Sony website. What are the advantages to the V1?

I looked at the XH-A1 too.

All three cameras seem to have similar price tags, about 2 - 2500 GBP, but which is best?

Is the V1U different to the V1E?

I'm baffled!

Daniel,

I'm curious as to how the V1 is better than the Z1? The V1, if I remember correctly, uses 3 x 1/4" "ClearVid" CMOS sensors as opposed to the 3 x 1/3" Super HAD CCD's in the Z1.

I can see how the V1 would have superior battery life and probably $500-1000 cheaper, but I don't understand how it would be "better", especially since CMOS sensors are widely regarded as being less low light sensitive (the exception being the Z7). I would like to understand this since I am about to buy a camcorder in this class and don't want to miss something here.

Unless you are referring to the V1 having "24p" capability:

Sony Electronics News and Information (http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/b2b/broadcast_production/pro_audio_video/release/25017.html)

Then again, the Z1 has the same and can shoot in both NTSC and PAL:

Sony Product Detail Page - HVRZ1U (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-HVRZ1U/)

Then again, I haven't used either, so hands on experience would help me out tremendously!

Thanks for your time.

Best regards,

Scott

Is the V1U different to the V1E?!

The V1E is the PAL version.

I'm curious as to how the V1 is better than the Z1?

It, of course, depends on your needs. The Z1U is more versatile, whereas the V1U is more specific to 24P filmmaking, and it outperforms the Z1U at that specific task.

I've shot both quite a bit. I will first say they are both truly great cameras. But beyond that...

The Z1U is older and uses Sony's faux-progressive "cineframe" technology. It isn't true 24P, and it is obvious. You lose resolution with the way the frames are interpolated. Furthermore, while the chips are 1/4" CMOS on the V1U and will do worse in low light, the way the chips process the image result in a noticeably sharper image than the Z1U. Also, remember I'm assuming that the purpose is for traditional-style filmmaking, in which case I wouldn't worry as much about low light because I would assume you are lighting your shots. The V1U's sharpness and focal precision were very noticeable, and favorable, in my experience. The V1U has better options in terms of color and gamma, and those options are also less destructive. The V1U is also able to record onto Sony's hard drive system, which is a plus for those wanting to go tapeless. And, as you pointed out, it's smaller, built better, and has better battery life.

So you are right -- I should be more specific and less biased. :) If PAL/NTSC interoperability and low-light performance are huge deals, than perhaps the Z1U is your camera. But of the 2, the V1U is definitely a better choice for someone intending on shooting cinematic 24P films to be sent to festivals or aired on television or something of that nature.

battery life: since you can use the biggest F970 battery , giving you hours of use, i do not think battery is an issue.
Hard disk recording. All hard disk recorder (quickstream,sony, firestore, nnovia etc...) are simply using the firewire stream and are all compatible with most of HDV camera.
The only point is to verify if the disk choosen is compatible with 24p, this special mode can be implemented in many way, not alway compatible with disks .

I do not think you can differentiate these two camera by the points above.
there is less smear with a cmos in favour of he V1, but CCD is rock solid in every situation.
Since i used both camera, I still would keep de Z1 if i had to choose.

Thanks for the info everyone.

Whether the Z1 or V1 is better seems to be debatable. But from Daniel's points I am leaning towards the V1 as I wish to make cinematic style films. True progressive recording is very important to me and the V1 can do this, the Z1 seems to mimic it.

Scott said:

"I'm curious as to how the V1 is better than the Z1? The V1, if I remember correctly, uses 3 x 1/4" "ClearVid" CMOS sensors as opposed to the 3 x 1/3" Super HAD CCD's in the Z1."

Even though the V1 has smaller 1/4" sensors it has roughly the same number of pixels as the Z1's 1/3" sensors (about 1,000,000). So I didn't think resolution is a factor.

It seems from the Sony catalogue that the Z1 and V1 capture 16:9 widescreen in standard def only. Do all DV cameras have this limitation? Does that mean it's better to capture in 4:3 high def then crop to 16:9?

What about the Canon XH-A1? How does that compare with the V1, is it as good?

It seems from the Sony catalogue that the Z1 and V1 capture 16:9 widescreen in standard def only. Do all DV cameras have this limitation? Does that mean it's better to capture in 4:3 high def then crop to 16:9?


Stuart,

I'm a bit puzzled by that. The Z1 and V1 capture in 16:9, always, whether HD or SD. If you want 4:3 you probably have to crop in post. There's no option to physically capture in 4:3, though you can set on-screen guides (at least on the V1) to help you frame your shots.

As to what is better... I've only used the V1, so can't compare.

Ah, I must have misunderstood the brochure, silly me. I've never shot in HD before. Thanks for clearing that up Mike.

Anyone have an opinion on whether the Sony HVR-V1 or Canon XH-A1 is better?

You can't go wrong with either camcorder. The one that's "better" is the one which feels best in your hands, or barring an ability to touch and try, the one that most appeals to you. There is no wrong choice here.

I'm a bit puzzled by that. The Z1 and V1 capture in 16:9, always, whether HD or SD. If you want 4:3 you probably have to crop in post. There's no option to physically capture in 4:3, though you can set on-screen guides (at least on the V1) to help you frame your shots.

Not true. On the Z1 you can choose to capture 4:3 standard definition if desired, and record in either DV SP or DVCAM format.See the DV WIDE REC function on page 71 of the Z1 owners manual here: http://ws.sel.sony.com/PIPWebServices/RetrievePublicAsset/StepID/SEL-asset-43753/original/hvr-z1u.pdf

If you record in HDV you also have several options to downconvert the footage in-camera and send it out over firewire as standard definition DV. See i.LINK CONV on page 73 and settings on page 74. EDGE CROP will send 4:3 SD DV out over firewire - it simply chops off the sides of the 16:9 HDV image.

I don't see the V1 manual online, and have only played around with one for a little while, but I know it's a little different. I believe it lacks the edge crop downconversion, not sure whether it can record 4:3 in DV mode. I also know that the FX1 is a little different too. I'm pretty sure it can record 4:3 DV, but I think it's missing the edge crop feature.

I noticed that the XH-A1 has:

1. A slightly wider angle lens than the Sony HVR-V1 (32.5 - 650 mm versus 37.4 to 748 mm in 16:9 mode - 35mm equivalents)

2. Optical image stabiliser, which the V1 doesn't have

3. Higher resolution sensors than the V1 (1.7 versus 1.1 megapixel)

4. Greater aperture range (f1.6 - 3.5, versus f1.6 - 2.8)

While the Z1 has:

1. CMOS Clearimage rather than CCD sensors.

Does all this make the Canon XH-A1 superior overall?

Is 25F on the Canon XH-A1 the same as 25P on the Sony V1?

I noticed that the XH-A1 has:
2. Optical image stabiliser, which the V1 doesn't have


The V1 certainly does have optical image stabilisation, and you can adjust it: off/soft/normal/hard/wide angle depending on your needs.

4. Greater aperture range (f1.6 - 3.5, versus f1.6 - 2.8)
Actually no this is not "greater aperture range." Both camcorders have the same maximum aperture value (f/1.6) at full wide angle. Unfortunately, neither camcorder uses a constant-aperture lens. The maximum aperture value at full telephoto on the Canon XH series camcorder is worse than the V1 (f/3.5 vs. f/2.8), but this is due to the fact that the Canon XH has a much longer focal length than the Sony V1 at full telephoto.

So no, you cannot make a valid comparison here simply by noting these max. ap. values.

Again: the "better" camcorder is the one which *feels best in your hands* and whose video image *most appeals to you.* If you examine only the technical specs, you are misleading yourself, unfortunately.

Is 25F on the Canon XH-A1 the same as 25P on the Sony V1?Yes it is the same.

Thanks Chris and Mike!

I am enlightened.

It doesn't mention the OIS in the Sony brochure for the V1 for some reason.

I will find try to find some footage from each camera and see which I prefer.

Thanks again!

I use the Sony Z1 and find it's a great camera both SD and HD. Mind you, I'm now wondering why I shoot HD to downconvert to SD. This thread has got me thinking about HD and my work flow. I deliver everything in SD.
After testing both HD to SD and SD to SD I find that there really is not much of a difference on final output quality. By shooting SD from the Z1 focus is so much easier and editing is a breeze and to be honest the quality is great.
By shooting HD, focus is something you have to really watch and then editing in HD can become a pain to get full rate playback (for me anyway) in my NLE.
So i'm now thinking on my next shoot of shooting SD DVCAM instead.
The one thing I dont like about the Z1 in my opion is shooting HD and then downconverting from the camera, I think the image looks a bit soft after the convert and if your a bit soft on focus to start with (and it's very easy to do it ) the resulting SD footage looks very soft.

I think HD is great but right now all my work is to SD and to be honest SD from the Z1 is fine for final delivery.

Nick

It doesn't mention the OIS in the Sony brochure for the V1 for some reason.

Look a little more closely on page 4 of the brochure :-)

http://ws.sel.sony.com/PIPWebServices/RetrievePublicAsset/StepID/SEL-asset-44572/original/hvr_v1u_brochurefinalpdf1-07.pdf

That's interesting Nick, because my impression is definitely the opposite. I get better results shooting HDV and down-converting to widescreen DV in-camera. I even tried some tests several years ago after first getting the camera and satisfied myself of this....

I don't see the V1 manual online, and have only played around with one for a little while, but I know it's a little different. I believe it lacks the edge crop downconversion, not sure whether it can record 4:3 in DV mode.

While looking at the V1 brochure manual just now I found the following (see attachment). But I'm pretty sure *something* is different between the V1 and Z1 when it comes to 4:3 material, just can't remember exactly what!

Yeah Boyd,
You could be right about downconverting in camera. I had shot some footage in HD a while back and it looked great (componet out from the Z1) on the LCD screen at home, so I downconverted via the camera to SD and the footage came out soft and this was three 60 minute tapes, so ever since then I either shoot SD or HD. I have'nt gone back to downconverting via the camera as it takes to long only to find that the image has gone soft in my situation. I capture the whole tape and come back when it's done.

I might do some small tests again.

Nick