Here the first PAL HC3 testpic's: http://www.fxsupport.de/hc1/hc1_9.html

Gruss
Wolfgang Winne

Here the first PAL HC3 testpic's: http://www.fxsupport.de/hc1/hc1_9.html

Gruss
Wolfgang Winne

The HC3 frame-captures all look sharper to me. There's many fine details that look blurred in the HC1 shots.

Blurred? That's a bit strong isn't it, JSM?

There's a lot of Sharpness (Edge Enhancement) in HC3 pictures... HC1 is more detailed and colour gradation is better for me... In low light I would like to see a 0dB test...

The edges on the HC3 look darker, and the colours are a little deeper but..

There seems to be more physical detail in the HC1 shots.

The place this is most obvious to me is on the chemists shop "Raths Apotheke".

Below the bay window, there is a bust, and below the bust is an oblong of pattern. Looking at the pattern on the HC3, its impossible to make it out properly. Looking at the HC1, the pattern is quite clear. Looking back at the HC3, you can trace the pattern, kinda, but some bits of it are missing. There is also a telling artifact, right hand diagonal lines on the HC3 image on this pattern. This suggests aliasing and its telling as the pixels on the clearvid are oriented diagonally, so the lowest spacial resolution of the chip is on the diagonals (by the very logic that Sony are trying to convince us this camera photographs vertical and horizonal lines better). I don't see bands in any direction on the HC1, it simply has a high enough resolution to do the job.

There are 3 more of these panels that apear on both shots, and they are fuzzier on both - down to focus I'm sure, the most fuzzy on the HC3, which again shows to a lesser extent the diagonal bands and looking vaguly like double helix structures, when they ought to have 4 fold rotational symmetry as is more clearly seen in the HC1 shots.

I was slightly purturbed at the previous shots of the HC3 versus HC1, and this has more or less convinced me. HC3 has lower resolution. I have this nasty feeling we haven't seen the last of this clearvid chip, on the basis it can do progressive frames Sony must be itching to make a progressive camcorder out of it.

http://www.fxsupport.de/hc1/hc1_9.html
the new HC1 and HC3 PAL streams now really nativ, with original cameradata in the stream.

I was so shure the HC3 is the right cam for me .. now I see this ugly smear at the night street scene .. :(
Sony will NEVER deliver a perfect cam ..

I think you're right - Sony will never deliver the perfect cam... not at the price we're prepared to pay. But they do deliver perfectly balanced cams.

I guess the BBC's choice of the PD170 came about when they realised the PD100 (TRV900 clone) was so solid, and the fact that the hundreds of batteries they'd stocked up on were carry-over.

It's not that the PD150/170 excelled in any one particular discipline. There were cameras that were more versatile because of their interchangeable lenses, cameras that gave sharper results, cameras that shot better wide-screen, cameras that were smaller, lighter and so on.

But the thing Sony got right, and have continued to get right, is the balance. And I don't mean the way the camera sits in your hand, I mean the balance of features to price, performance to size, reliability to ease of use.

It's this elusive balance that put the PD170 in the BBC's shopping basket. I'm convinced the DVX100A gives sharper footage, but in my view Panasonic's 'balance' is wonky alongside Sony's. And when the others prove (note this word) that they can match Sony's hard-won reliability record, then - and only then - will they get a look in.

tom.

now I see this ugly smear at the night street scene .. :(
Sony will NEVER deliver a perfect cam ..

I think this is typical CMOS type of smear, but 3CCD would be even worse...
What you get for your money IS impressive and very exiting, yet. Go for it !!

I think this is typical CMOS type of smear...

The HC1 has a CMOS sensor and there is no smear !!!

On a Canon or a JVC you can see a lot of smear...