all three camera looks good but hv10 is pretty amazing.

HV10

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04/15/c0082315_0145477.jpg

xdcam

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04/15/c0082315_0152271.jpg


fx1
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200609/04/15/c0082315_016186.jpg

Interesting comparison, considering the big difference in prices.

Not very relevant really, picture quality from my HC3 in daylight cuts very well with the 350 however clients wouldn't be happy if I turned up on a job with one!

All the new HD cameras blur the line between pro and domestic quality.

The XDCAM clearly has the best dynamic range, even though it looks to be set with the flat factory gamma. The FX1 is soft, particularly at the edges. The HV 10 certainly produces a nice image.

As soon as there is any movement the XDCAM HDs leave HDV cameras in their wake. A still only tells part of the story.

Credit where credit is due though.

TT

Has anyone seen/compared footage from either these cameras. I am trying to decide between these. I know differences in specification, but the important part is the quality of images produced. Please don't start a battle between brands, just trying to see some samples. Thank you.

HPX isn't out yet. At DV Expo, they only had a non-working mockup of it.

I believe the panasonic only has a 720 front end so 1080i is up-rezzed from that, much like the HVX. I would expect it to produce good images, but I for one am not convinced that the P2 workflow is a serious option for most users. Sure solid state is the future but we don't live in the future.

I've compared images from a beta F350 and a release HDX900. I got these images from nice people at Digital Magic, HK. Both tests in 1080 res.

To be honest, F350 is sharper. The HDX is somewhat as sharp as Z1, less sharp than F350. BUT, color-wise, HDX900 may be a tiny bit ahead.

I also notice the HDX900 has a bit more compression artefacts. Some people argues that 100Mbps DVCPROHD is superior than 35Mbps Mpeg2. I have seen the fact that it is not so. Yet test footages i've compared are all stationary or slow moving. Can't say for fast moving scene.

Sorry i can't post frame grabs here as these footages are not mine.

Very interesting... I wish somebody could post links to a comparison between Sony 350 vs. Panasonic HDX-900. Thanks.

I also notice the HDX900 has a bit more compression artefacts. Some people argues that 100Mbps DVCPROHD is superior than 35Mbps Mpeg2. I have seen the fact that it is not so. Yet test footages i've compared are all stationary or slow moving. Can't say for fast moving scene.

I've shot with the Z1 a lot, and have to say, whenever I transcode any HDV footage (or even completely computer fabricated graphics done at 1920x1080 in AE) to DVCPROHD, that it reduces the resolution. I'm not impressed with that codec - at 100MB/sec, yes, it should be better, but it isn't. Yes, I just said that the HDV codec appears to retain better sharpness on low movement frames than DVCPROHD. At first glance of the specs (4:2:2 and 100Mb/sec) it looked like it could be a good archival codec, but no dice now.

The other day, Carlos, I was pulling focus as a favor for someone on a 900 and the question arose as to whether or not I hit the marks. Summarilly I asked him to just bring it up on the monitor and see. Oops. And therein lies one of the main differences between the two; the disk management system. Sure, there are a ton of others that separate the two but as I've written so many times, comparing the two cameras 2/3 for 1/2, by choosing the right glass and the lighting correctly, the XDCAM is simply a better value and performer as evidenced by the footage. It's been a long time since I really looked forward to NAB but being asked to showcase El Papel's footage and effects on the big stage for Adobe and the smaller stage for Sony, I can't wait to hear everyon's opinion in a side-by-side comparison of the cameras shot-for-shot. I hope you find it the answer to your question as well.

I love the little Sony cameras, in fact I just bought the HVR-V1U as a B-camera to my 350. But this comparison, while displaying a rather impressive picture from the HV10 really underscores the differences between them rather than amazing me with the closeness in quality.

Alister's comment about dynamic range points toward the huge difference. After seeing how differently the somewhat "hot" areas of the roofs are handled, take a look at the two renditions of the sky. One is a deep, rich blue, the other almost white. Now please don't rain on my parade and tell me that there was a polarizing filter on the 350, but the difference is like that.

Given that dynamic range is the big difference between the "big" and the "little" here, and the V1U while of manageable size, does have great dynamic range, I would love to see such a comparison that also includes it.

From my experience shooting a demo, it did an extraordinary job of preserving detail and color saturation both inside a car and outside in full sunlight. Certainly better than most cameras which would give you a blown out exterior or alternatively shadow people inside.

Tip

The advantages and possibilities of the XDCAM HD are enormous. Even though the still picture of the small camera looks pretty damn sharp and good, I think "still life" is not what it´s all about. For me it´s important how a camera like the F-350 performs out there in the field, while recording under difficult circumstances. It´s important that your camera is a reliable partner. As soon as you have challenging demands, the small one will almost certainly leave you alone - even though these small cameras get better and better every day. But for me a still picture doesn´t tell me anything about the camera´s performance. It´s just a still picture and for still pictures I normally use my SLR camera:-)

the hv10 footage looks over exposed.. i think those hotspots could be removed with a ndf or something..

The bright areas do look overexposed, but the darker values are not any brighter than the F350 frame. This is because the camera doesn't have as much latitude (dynamic range), that is if you expose the darker and the mid-tone values correctly, which I would say the videographer did here, the camera can't also expose the brighter areas acceptably.

If the HV10 was exposed to make the sky and roofs look perfect, it would probably go muddy (lose detail) in the dark areas. That, among many, many other things, is why people buy more expensive video cameras or shoot in film.

Tip

HV10 is also probably tuned more to look consumerish, and blow the image a bit. Good dynamic range will actually just look flat to consumers.

from my experience with canons, you gotta underexpose, like, to the point were you feel uncomfortable about it..

from my experience with canons, you gotta underexpose, like, to the point were you feel uncomfortable about it..

Yes, you'd underexpose to save your highlights, meanwhile everything else in the HV0 frame becomes darker. Then, the cameras are not at the same exposure, making the comparison meaningless.

I think you're not really familiar with what latitude means...

The HV10, compared to a higher end camera like the 350, has less overexposure latitude. That is why the sky appears brighter. You could dial down the exposure to save the highlightsint he sky, but then you couldn't see into the shadows the way the 350 does.

This is the nature of cheaper cameras/smaller chips, to oversimplify.

please same testing in low light ;)

but i respect to HV10 (price vs dynamic range)

This is the nature of cheaper cameras/smaller chips, to oversimplify.

If you look closer you can see that the ENTIRE frame is overexposed compared to the others so you can't really draw conclusions about dynamic range.

If you look closer you can see that the ENTIRE frame is overexposed compared to the others so you can't really draw conclusions about dynamic range.

I can. It doesn't take a propeller beanie and a waveform monitor to make this determination.

Like Nate says, the values in this scene vary from dark to light too much for the HV10 to expose all of them correctly. Would it be better to lose the darker areas and get a better looking sky?

Maybe, however we're not looking at these pictures with those choices in mind, but rather in what they reveal about the cameras. This picture, exposed as it is, served that function perfectly as the difference in latitude between it and the F350 was clearly evident.

Now where's my propellor beanie...

Long drive home from work, jelling out at the computer, so I'm going to donate some time for a worthy cause. Look at the following areas:

1) Note all the dark grey objects such as the railing in the foreground, the rounded panels below the railing, and the grey roof area. They are exposed almost identically in the HV10 and F350 pictures. Arguably, these and the greens in the foliage are as important as any values in the picture and they're exposed correctly, so they provide a reference for overall exposure.

2) Note that the HV10 is holding shadow detail well in the dark areas, a good place to look is in the two o'clock direction from the stuffed toy between the two buildings. Notice that these dark areas look almost the same in both shots. If the HV10 were to have been stopped down, this detail would be gone.

3) Now look at the pole that is closest to the camera toward the right of frame. Notice the difference in gradients from shadow on the left to bright sun on the right. That one element alone illustrates what latitude is and demonstrates how it differs between these two cameras.

4) Note the stuffed animal. With the grey railing its sitting on the same in both pictures as noted above, the F350 holds tecture and color saturation in the stuffed animal's face while the HV10 is totally blown out.

I wondered for a moment if the sun went behind a cloud or something and gave the F350 an evener and thus easier exposure challenge, but a look at the hard shadows (most easily seen in the patio at center/bottom of frame in both pictures) indicate that there was full sun in both shots.

Now all this having been said, there are so many variables in how today's cameras can be set that this comparison is not just camera to camera but could also reflect differences in setup. Clearly, for example, the F350 is white balance more toward blue, and helps to bring out the blue in the sky but mutes the reddish tints in some of the tiles in comparison the HV10.

The bottom line here is that the HV10 does impress greatly, as do all of the cameras within their respective price/performance and form factor niches.

Tip

Tip

I hate reading my posts and seeing something spelled rong.

hv10 footage 1920x1080 10m

http://www.camuser.co.kr/cam_vm/VID_HDV_MOV/2007/02/test1.wmv