so i've been doing a bit of experimenting with the HV10, and i have a few clips which might be of interest.

the first clip is a shoot-out between the HV10 and the FX-1. both of these cameras are on full, out-of-the-box auto settings. no adjustments. i set up a scene using a variety of pinks and reds, and my office has maroons. i really wanted to challenge the color (and did, i think). here is the clip:

http://media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/Shootout.mov

my initial impression is that the FX-1 looked far and away better. sharper, better handling of colors. just no comparison. but then i decided to tweak the HV10. i customized the white balance. i set the aperture manually. and here are the results:

http://media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/WhiteBalance.mov

my findings: using the HV10 manual controls resulted in better handling of color than an auto FX-1. that's pretty impressive, because the out-of-the-box FX-1 settings are pretty reliable. i've always thought of my FX-1 as the ultimate run and gun camera, except for it is quite a bit to lug around everywhere, all the time...

just for fun, i also shot the scene with the trusty Canon ZR-100, which is my deck cam for my higher end DV cameras. just to see how much the HV10 improves upon consumer end DV. and here's the results...

http://media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/ZR100.mov

you can see the ZR-100 lens hunting substantially and the servo ring a-turning. the HV10 handles these things much better in auto mode. but the color space is not that far away from the full auto HV10, to my surprise.

the take away from my little bit of testing--absolutely, positively put a custom white balance on this HV10! its full auto mode is not even suitable for run and gun....you absolutely have to learn the manual controls on this camcorder, otherwise you won't get much improvement (in my opinion) over a standard DV image.

the good news is, that if you tweak this camera properly, you can get an outstanding image at this price point. for me, this camera is primarily my new HDV deck camera. what i was investigating with these experiments was whether i would be able to generate stock footage with it as well. in conclusion, i don't think i would ever use it for intentional B roll in a studio or location shooting environment. it simply won't stand up to a tweaked FX-1 (again, my opinion) or other higher-end camera.

but the good news is, for stock footage, for images that i would not otherwise be able to collect on the fly without having a lot of heavy gear on hand, but that i know i can use in commercial projects (elk or bighorn sheep, for instance, in these parts...or sports events images...), it's a fantastic addition to the line-up. the nearly-perfect pocket-cam for image-only collecting...i do a lot (and i mean a lot!) of stock footage collecting, it is one of the selling points of my biz, so i am pretty happy to have found this camera.

my only other gripe about this camera, so far: it is a battery hog! dang! you don't get much mileage at all from the stock battery. it's like running a Hummer using a scooter's gas tank...

hope this is of some use....

oh, and...same p.s. applies: these are H.264 clips, requires Quicktime 7. i had to pay for flip4mac to watch wmv files. apple provides a windows version of QT 7 for PC for free. so if you want to watch these and don't have QT 7, you can go here for a free download:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html

More great info Meryem !

my findings: using the HV10 manual controls resulted in better handling of color than an auto FX-1. that's pretty impressive....

Can you tell us what settings you used on the HV10 ?

And is there any way of storing these settings ?

Cheers.

Lee

the settings aren't complicated enough to store. there are no settings, really, just manual controls for aperture, shutter, and white balance. (none specifically for gain....) my main advice is don't shoot this camera full auto, it won't look substantially better than inexpensive DV. you absolutely must custom white balance. what a world of difference in the footage.

let me point out that the FX-1 is still noticeably sharper--this reality is lost in the compression. but i was surprised to find that the HV10 could handle color so well. i used the Av mode with shutter set at F4 --i closed it up a bit from the rack focus footage, which was shot full wide at F2.8 and it helped the color.

i know that if i custom white balanced the FX-1 and used the manual controls and tweaked the PP settings, i could get a far superior image. in no way do i mean to imply that the HV10 is as good as my FX-1. no effin' way! but that manual HV10 can be better than auto FX-1 in terms of managing color (but not in terms of sharpness, i would add...) was quite surprising to me. i'm happy to be able to collect run and gun stock footage and use this as a deck as well. it's a nice bonus! but it's no substitute for the quality and features available on the higher-end camera.

The color looks so good to me in the white balanced one. Simply gorgeous.

let me point out that the FX-1 is still noticeably sharper--this reality is lost in the compression. .

Can you clarify please. Not sure what you mean by this. They both have the same compression so what is happening??
The FX/Z1 are the softest HDV cams made in my opinion. And you say this HV10 doesn't come close in sharpness? I know they have kept the electronic sharpening to a minimum with this mini cam. What detail level are you shooting on the FX1?

ken, i'm able to view this on my 20'' computer, my 13'' monitor and downrezzed to DVD on a 17'' widescreen TV. and i can tell you that compressing to this web image hides the difference in sharpness. compression to the web can conceal things which are revealed in other formats, and i'm telling you (because i can't show you) that the HV10 image is softer than the FX-1 image. and it can't be sharpened in-camera--there's no setting for that.

i'm not saying the HV10 lacks sharpness. that would be putting words in my mouth that i did not say. on the contrary, for the price point of this camera, it's great...just not as sharp as the FX-1. the results of my testing, again in my opinion, is that HV10 handles color space as well as an FX-1 but that it is simply not as sharp. this is not a knock on the HV10, just what i'm observing. as a result, yes, i will use this to collect stock footage--no one will notice the difference in sharpness on say, a 3-second shot of an elk or an eagle. but i would not use it deliberately as B-roll because i have other cameras (and still plan to purchase other cameras) which exceed the available performance on this one. still, this has many excellent uses, and i'm delighted with it, mostly. it can do more than i expected (my expectations were to use it as a deck).

hope this clarifies...

Meryem

First, thanks for all the information so far, it has been very useful.

Could you post a single full sized frame of the HV10 / FX1 footage you shot so we can see the difference in the sharpness ?

Thanks

Lee

sorry, lee, i already trashed those files, since i got the info i was looking for...i taped over one of the two tapes i used as well this morning....

sorry, lee, i already trashed those files, since i got the info i was looking for...i taped over one of the two tapes i used as well this morning....


Damn!!!

You gotta be quick 'round here ! :)

Would it be at all possible for you to grab a second or two of the same scene and post a single full resolution frame from each camera so we can see the difference in the sharpness.

Cheers, this would help so much in my buying decision !!!!!!!!

Thanks in advance


Lee.

the first clip is a shoot-out between the HV10 and the FX-1.

Thanks, I'd say this confirms what some of us have been saying for a while now: just because H.264 is an efficient compression algorithm doesn't mean that all H.264 cameras will blow away all HDV cameras. I think I'll stick with HDV until I can save up for "Red."

:-)

Would it be at all possible for you to grab a second or two of the same scene and post a single full resolution frame from each camera so we can see the difference in the sharpness.

I would like to second the request. A simple side by side shot out the window would do just fine. If the detail setting of the FX1 could be noted that would be a great help putting everything in perspective.
Thanks

if i can get around to it on a weekend, i will. no promises though. what you're requesting may sound simple to you, but it's not for me, because i actually have to focus my time and energy on running the business and raising my child.

>just because H.264 is an efficient compression algorithm doesn't mean that >all H.264 cameras will blow away all HDV cameras.

I really wish the HDV cameras had an H.264 option for superior compression to tape, as well as MPEG 1 Layer 3 for audio. If we're decompressing MPEG2 for anything, then I don't think it matters that H.264 is the original compression. MPEG-2 just seems so OLD.

don't count mpeg2 out yet. It still has a lot of fire left in it. While in theory AVCHD may be better at this stage it is not. It is only a theory at this time unless you are encoding a clean uncompressed source with the highest settings like on a HD movie disk. Realtime AVCHD hardware encoders for cameras are not that good yet and may not be for a few years yet. If you shoot with AVCHD today you will end up with equal or less quality with a format that will be very hard and slow to edit. Heck it is hard enough trying to make a mpeg2 hardware encoder work in realtime and keep a high level of quality let alone AVCHD.

if i can get around to it on a weekend, i will. no promises though. what you're requesting may sound simple to you, but it's not for me, because i actually have to focus my time and energy on running the business and raising my child.


Appologies Meryem as you had done such a good and involved job with your original post I thought you may have a spare 5 minutes to shoot a couple of seconds to illustrate your findings.

No worry, I don't want to take your attentions away from your business and child, once again thanks for your detailed information/movies and comparisons so far.


Cheers

Lee

I have found that all the comparisons I have seen so far between the FX-1 and HV10 shows the HV10 to be noticeably sharper - and not the FX-1 ?

In these examples both cameras are set up 'full-auto'.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7766/closeupzz8.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/328/close2ev6.jpg

full auto is useful only as a starting point but is an ultimately meaningless comparison. lee, you've already devoted an entire separate thread to scrutinizing these images. if you're so convinced the HV10 is better than an FX-1, go ahead and buy the darned thing already. if you believe that the images can be somewhat comparable, then it really comes down to a question of price point, ergonomics, and the particular needs for your applications. all of these cameras are swell. there are times when i can't carry an FX-1 in my pocket. there are times when i need more features than an HV10 can offer. image quality is only one measure of a camera's value. your ability to operate it means so much more. i'd move on....

don't count mpeg2 out yet. It still has a lot of fire left in it. While in theory AVCHD may be better at this stage it is not. It is only a theory at this time unless you are encoding a clean uncompressed source with the highest settings like on a HD movie disk. Realtime AVCHD hardware encoders for cameras are not that good yet and may not be for a few years yet. If you shoot with AVCHD today you will end up with equal or less quality with a format that will be very hard and slow to edit. Heck it is hard enough trying to make a mpeg2 hardware encoder work in realtime and keep a high level of quality let alone AVCHD.

I'd have to agree. It's actually quite easy to encode bad AVC... but extremely processor intensive to encode great AVC. It can be done but as you said, it'll be a while before the real-time encoders will catch up to the far... far from real-time software encoders.

if you believe that the images can be somewhat comparable, then it really comes down to a question of price point, ergonomics, and the particular needs for your applications. all of these cameras are swell. there are times when i can't carry an FX-1 in my pocket. there are times when i need more features than an HV10 can offer. image quality is only one measure of a camera's value. your ability to operate it means so much more.

Very well put. I find the size and portability of the HV10 to outweight the disadvantage of no microphone jack ( which I can't use climbing anyway ) for instance. There is no " magic bullet cam ".

full auto is useful only as a starting point but is an ultimately meaningless comparison.

Hi Meryem, I was interested in the fact that you said the "FX-1 is still noticeably sharper" - for my particular needs resolution and focus/detail are all important.

Would auto settings result in a softer focus ? I am no expert in this area by any means but I was not aware that a full auto setting can result in reduced focus ?

lee, you've already devoted an entire separate thread to scrutinizing these images. if you're so convinced the HV10 is better than an FX-1, go ahead and buy the darned thing already.

Meryem, yes everything I have seen so far shows the HV10 to be sharper than the FX-1 - but your comments saying it is in fact the FX-1 that has the sharper image made me think perhaps I should be saving up for a secondhand FX-1 ?

I would certainly consider an FX-1 - if it was shown that it had the sharper more focused picture.

I am sorry to ask so many questions but you are free to ignore them if you wish.

if you believe that the images can be somewhat comparable, then it really comes down to a question of price point, ergonomics, and the particular needs for your applications. all of these cameras are swell. there are times when i can't carry an FX-1 in my pocket. there are times when i need more features than an HV10 can offer. image quality is only one measure of a camera's value.

Yes you are quite right, but my interest is in a single unambiguous attribute of the HV10 namely resolution/sharpness.

Indeed I also agree that "image quality is only one measure of a camera's value" and it is the thing I am interested in, I have asked no questions with regard to the HV10's ergonomics or OIS system as this does not concern me so much.

your ability to operate it means so much more. i'd move on....

Thanks for you kind advice - but I reserve the right to investigate what I plan to buy for the reasons I need, my post with the pictures attached was not specifically aimed at yourself, perhaps you should 'move on' and let those who are interested in the subject of which camera has the sharper picture answer my questions ?

:)

I have found that all the comparisons I have seen so far between the FX-1 and HV10 shows the HV10 to be noticeably sharper - and not the FX-1 ?

In these examples both cameras are set up 'full-auto'.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7766/closeupzz8.jpg

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/328/close2ev6.jpg


If you compare the line on the wall in front of the tower-like structure, in these images, it seems to suggest the FX1 was focused forward of the tower, and the HV10 was focused tower back, IMHO.

If you compare the line on the wall in front of the tower-like structure, in these images, it seems to suggest the FX1 was focused forward of the tower, and the HV10 was focused tower back, IMHO.

Hi Chris, do you mean the vertical line in the centre bottom of the blown up section ?

How have you worked that out ? the FX-1 looks softer everywhere ?

I think both cameras would focus somewhere in the middle of the image plane when on auto ?

Hi Chris, do you mean the vertical line in the centre bottom of the blown up section ?

How have you worked that out ? the FX-1 looks softer everywhere ?

I think both cameras would focus somewhere in the middle of the image plane when on auto ?

I am saying the vertical line of the wall in front of tower on the FX1 shot appears sharper, and detail in wall appears sharper.

If auto focus is involved, there could be a number of reasons these frames are focused the way they are. For instance, FX1 can be set for autofocus to react slowly, if I recall.

The point is, you can't make a blanket statement based on two frame grabs...

I am saying the vertical line of the wall in front of tower on the FX1 shot appears sharper, and detail in wall appears sharper.

If auto focus is involved, there could be a number of reasons these frames are focused the way they are. For instance, FX1 can be set for autofocus to react slowly, if I recall.

This frame taken from the middle of a 8 second clip, the focus does not change within this clip.

The point is, you can't make a blanket statement based on two frame grabs...

No you are quite right, that would be inaccurate to say the least. Luckily I have not done that, I have based my 'blanket statement' (!?) on extensive research, numerous downloaded full resolution uncompressed clips and stills as well as hire and use of the FX-1 (and Z1) etc etc.

My 'blanket statement' is this, the HV10, going on what I have seen so far, appears to have a clearer sharper picture than the FX-1.

Can't tell vertical from horizontal. The line I was referring to was the horzontal line at the top of the wall in front of tower...

Can't tell vertical from horizontal. The line I was referring to was the horzontal line at the top of the wall in front of tower...


The line you refer to doesn't seem sharper to me at all ?!

if you look at the enlargement area of the tower then look to the left part of the top of the wall you can clearly see the colour smearing on the FX-1 and not the HV10 ?

And if, on the main picture, you trace the line at the top of this wall along to the left you quickly come to two little light coloured lumps, they certainly do not appear clearer on the FX-1 sample ?

Nor does the detail on the front of that wall.

Am I missing something here, are we looking a the same picture !

I am saying the vertical line of the wall in front of tower on the FX1 shot appears sharper, and detail in wall appears sharper.


Not really. It's all a blur compared to the hv10. The line you are referring to has more CONTRAST because of edge sharpening not because of real resolution. That's what SHARPENING does to a picture, it increases contrast.

Many people here seem to confuse real resolution with sharpening artifacts. HV10 has more resolution than the fx1, period. There's just no going around it no matter how much someone spews "full auto is BAD, it makes soft pics!".

Not really. It's all a blur compared to the hv10. The line you are referring to has more CONTRAST because of edge sharpening not because of real resolution. That's what SHARPENING does to a picture, it increases contrast.

Many people here seem to confuse real resolution with sharpening artifacts. HV10 has more resolution than the fx1, period. There's just no going around it no matter how much someone spews "full auto is BAD, it makes soft pics!".

This is true. Electronic sharpening is what makes video look like electronic video. I want more natural looking images and the way to do that is to have more natural detail and not have a need for sharpening at all.

Take a look at the second image of the teddy bears. Notice on the FX1 image the blck lines around the white eye ball. This is a ringing effect from too much electronic sharpening and is one of the most disgusting things in the world other than interlacing.

the only reliable way to have a discussion of sharpness would be to shoot a resolution chart. indoors, preferably. my tests have nothing to do with testing specifically for sharpness. if that's the big acid test, ask someone (nicely, preferably) to shoot a rez chart. or go shoot one yourself and post the results. then there's some empirical evidence under controlled conditions which merit a discussion of sharpness. frame grabs of someone else's footage in outdoor conditions (where you have no idea how much motion or wind or judder or whatever may be a factor) is a ludicrous basis for discussion. and my testing was an overall comparison, not aimed at anything in particular and really only useful, in my opinion, in ascertaining color space, unless you can look at the raw footage, uncompressed, on a monitor, as i have. comparing color space is an obvious comparison, worth drawing conclusions over, because it's obvious....

the sharpness debate as it is being framed here is a complete set of straw arguments. there's nothing to it. these tests are worthless for even discussing it. you can't draw definitive conclusions about sharpness by looking at a 3 x 5 compressed image. or screen grabs of someone else's outdoor footage, especially when you have no idea of the conditions under which the footage was shot.

and lee, i get it that you're allowed to say whatever you want whenever you want to say it, but hijacking someone else's thread is rude. and cross-posting is supposed to be against dvinfo's own set of rules. it's one thing for you to provide a link to your thread, to continue jump-starting your agenda, i'd have no problem with that, but cross-posting the contents of your thread into a thread i started to discuss a different set of tests is pure bad manners.

the only reliable way to have a discussion of sharpness would be to shoot a resolution chart. indoors, preferably. my tests have nothing to do with testing specifically for sharpness.

I took your comment "FX-1 is still noticeably sharper" for what it was, I simply thought you had seen superior sharpness in the FX-1 results ?

I did not realise to question this required such extensive forensic pre-investigation ! :)

I see nothing wrong with people discussing various attributes of cameras without professional testing equipment ?

the sharpness debate as it is being framed here is a complete set of straw arguments.

(I am presuming you mean a 'straw man argument')

No, it is a simple inquiry as to which of the cameras you mention produces the sharper image.

...there's nothing to it. these tests are worthless for even discussing it. you can't draw definitive conclusions about sharpness by looking at a 3 x 5 compressed image. or screen grabs of someone else's outdoor footage, especially when you have no idea of the conditions under which the footage was shot.

I have said this before but it seems to need repeating.

The shooting conditions are known, the camera settings are known, the footage is full resolution, the footage is uncompressed, I have numerous samples, some my own, some indoor, some outdoor (indeed - even the two samples here include an indoor shot).

...and lee, i get it that you're allowed to say whatever you want whenever you want to say it, but hijacking someone else's thread is rude.

LOL !!

Your post is a HV10, FX-1 (+ZR100) 'shootout' with mention of the FX-1's superior sharpness.

How is asking questions about a specific attribute you mention about one of the cameras we are disccusing hijacking a thread !!!

If you find my questions 'rude' my best advice would be to ignore them.

and cross-posting is supposed to be against dvinfo's own set of rules.

Hmmmm....

You mention the FX-1's superior sharpness, yet do everything possible to evade backing up this assertion.

You are asked for clarification (from more than one person) on this statement.

You then say reducing resolution and compressing the files for the web 'hides the difference in sharpness'

You are then asked if we can see a single frame, full sized, uncompressed screen grab from the footage to compare.

You then say not only did you throw the files away but you also recorded over the tapes.

You were then asked (again from more than one person) if it would be possible to shoot a second or two of the same scene and post a single full resolution frame.

You reply with how difficult this will be as you run a business and are raising a child. This did not seem to be an issue when you made your first, detailed and in-depth post with examples and comparisons ?

Now it seems your final recourse is an officious appeal to the details of this boards rules and regulations to avoid people discussing the possibility that the HV10 may resolve a sharper more 'in focus' image than the FX-1 !!

LOL !!!


it's one thing for you to provide a link to your thread, to continue jump-starting your agenda, i'd have not problem with that, but cross-posting the contents of your thread into a thread i started to discuss a different set of tests

This thread seemed to be a 'shootout' between the HV10 and FX-1 (+ZR100). My examples were from both the HV10 and the FX-1.

These examples are relevant and on topic.

...is pure bad manners.

Yes I am a terribly ill mannered individual trying to promote my evil agenda.

Now shall we try and stay on topic?

:)

wow, for a guy who claims to want to stay on topic, you sure expend a lot of air making insinuations about my integrity. here's my biz website, which has been under construction for six months now:

www.planetestudios.com

the first picture is my child. the fool on the hill shooting the 6 am balloon derby with the camera is me. the third picture is one of my employees. the reason the website is on hold is because we're too busy with actual work to complete it....

my plan for this weekend was to mount up the HV10 and the fx-1 on my bike and do some testing for how the camera handles serious motion.

i'm looking forward to the bike mount test. i'm very curious to see how this little camera handles motion. my hope is that it handles it better than the FX-1, which does only okay with motion. the FX-1 does pretty well up to around 5-7 mph, but the image seems to start breaking down if the camera is moved any faster. there are so many great things which can be done with a camera this size....

Meryem, thanks for your feedback, it s all cool with me.

:)

Your bike tests sound interesting, at the very least they will test the image stabilization systems.