HV20 vs Sony's EX1.. HV20 footage still looks better IMO

[C.S. Michael]

The HV20 has to be the best video camera value...ever. (Seriously.)

It's full of compromises, yes, but is capable of a spectacular image.

[Michael Galvan]

Originally Posted by Harm Millaard

Glenn,

You are effectively saying the HV20 is better than the EX1. You disregard the recording settings, and a whole lot of other relevant things that influence quality. Just assuming you are right, you are effectively also saying the HV20 is FAR, FAR better than the XL-H1, XL-A1 and XL-G1 because these cameras were blown away in image quality by the EX1.

So your ranking of cameras is:

1. HV20
2. EX1
3. ...
4. ...
5. XL-H1/A1/G1

I find that hard to believe.

I have to disagree here. To say that the Canon XL-H1, A1, G1 are blown away by the EX 1 is too far fetched to me. The main difference, in terms of imaging, between the cameras to me is that the EX 1 certainly has better lowlight abilities. But the images to me are very much comparable. I actually still like the XL-H1 images better ...

I will eventually try to shoot something with all three cameas and post to show a direct comparison. In the meantime, you can look at my cameras hanging out together during the holidays ... they all got what they wanted for Christmas ... it was a happy day!

[Chris Barcellos]

Wow. Quite a Holiday picture...

[Glenn Thomas]

Harm,

No, I'm not ranking these cameras or saying one is better than the other. Yes, the EX1 is capable of producing some great results, with great lattitude and so on. The trade off is poor image quality.

Here, I downloaded a few 1080P EX1 clips from this guy's page - http://www.dendv.nl/ex-review2.php These are raw mxf files, so you'll need to Sony viewer to open them. Now, these are nice shots he's taken, I'm not disputing that, but once again it's the image quality we're talking about here.

MXF clip 930 - Notice the purple fringing around the bottom edges of the umbrellas, the aliasing on the baskets and the noise in the dark areas. Since it was taken during the day there shouldn't be that much noise. With the HV20 I never end up with noise like that unless I make some drastic changes to the contrast or levels in post. And even then, the noise would be a lot finer and less noticeable.

MXF clip 755 - Have a look at that rolling shutter! Haha, you won't see anything like that shot on a much cheaper XHA1. The HV20 will do it too, but at such a low cost, it's excusable.

MXF clip 966 - I hate to say it, but this looks horrible. Even if it was a just case of being slightly out of focus, I still see a lot of noise, most especially on the ground, aliasing, fringing and lack of detail. I have night shots here from the HV20 that have a lot less noise than that and yet still retain all the fine detail.

For a quick comparison have a look at the clips Canon have posted up themselves - http://usa.canon.com/app/html/See_Th.../hd_cmos.shtml
I'd even go as far as saying that those from the HG10 and HR10 (which are all compressed Quicktimes) look better as far as noise levels go and nothing more, than any of the EX1 mxf files I've downloaded.

[Matt Buys]

Glenn, you are really stirring the pot. But I have to admit your posts intrigue me. I've finally saved enough for the EX1-- no easy task when you have to feed four young kids at home--but everytime I put the EX1 in my cart at BH I find myself wondering what Robert Rodriguez could do with an HV20 and a Brevis if he were starting out today. Could Rodriguez make El Mariachi with the HV20 and good audio set up? When I answer myself I just can't quite click purchase.
Keep stirring Glenn, hopefully you'll hold me off another year or so until the next 'must have' camera is on the scene.

[Glenn Thomas]

Matt, haha, yeah I guess I could be stirring it a bit much. Of course it's up to the individual. I'd say for professionals shooting corporate video, weddings, or for news gathering and so on, the EX1 would be a good choice.

For indie film making though, personally I'd go with the HV20. For the same price as what an EX1 would cost, you could buy two HV20's. Leave one attached to a 35mm adapter. Either a Letus mini, Brevis, SG Pro or whatever. You'd still have money left from not choosing the EX1 for the adapter along with a few decent lenses. Maybe a Nikon f2.8 28mm, either a f1.4 or f1.8 50mm, and the f2.8 100mm which is quite a sharp lens. For the 2nd HV20, I'd grab a wide angle adapter and some kind of steadicam device. Either a Merlin or something similar. There'd still be money left over from what an EX1 would cost, so the rest could be spent on an LCD monitor for the 35mm adapter and maybe even a decent lighting kit. Something to think about :)

[Ali Husain]

ive shot multicam with the ex1 and the hv20 among the roster of cameras. it would be really hard to mistake the hv20 footage as better looking then the ex1. but given that the ex1 is 10 times more expensive, the image is not 10 times better. i'ts quite good though.

i think the problem might be that a lot of people have no idea how to create the best images with their cameras, either through tweakign the settings, or up front camera work.

[Mikko Lopponen]

Originally Posted by Glenn Thomas

Just for you Mikko :), I've uploaded the 1080P (deinterlaced) version that can be downloaded here - http://www.megaupload.com/?d=E49KIGFW (60mb) Sorry, it may be be 4:3 1440x1080 too, so adjust your aspect ratio.

Allright well this is just for you then too :)

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/actionreel/

It's encoded in the divx format ( www.divx.com ) .Just download the hd version. Image quality is excellent all around.

The Sony noise and artifacts are very easy to spot here.

I have no idea what was wrong with your hc1 or encoding or anything, but the footage I get from my hc1 is somewhat...better. Here's some more small clips. Some of these shots are in wmv and some are in divx format. It looks like you have a A LOT of gain even in your daylight scenes.

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/roughjustice/

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/lissu/

http://hmcindie.pp.fi/vamptest/

etc...

The electronic image stabilization made a mess of things too.

And still it's better than the optical one in hv20. The hv20 likes to make huge jumps and jerks to the image and when it has a rolling shutter the end result will be quite annoying. It's more like an optical jerker.

I have both the hc1 and hv20 and I've used them together in same shots. Some color correction and everythings been fine.

I tried watching those EX1 shots but couldn't find an mxf viewer for the mac. Anyone?

[Chris Hull]

i agree with you mikko 100 per cent my hc-1 does not record rubbish like glenn showed us ,there must have been a camera problem in my opinion.i have not seen your stuf yet i will have a look at it.
i could only get rough justice and med qual artic wind[brilliant little film]the camera looked realy good what settings were you on.

[Glenn Thomas]

Mikko, nice looking bunch of clips there! Loved some of those action sequences. I think I can see what you like about the HC1 look.

Still they they all appear to be 1024x576 which isn't even HD. You're not going to see the noise or artifacts as much at that resolution. I shot this clip http://video.stage6.com/1126407/.divx (71mb) on the HC1 also which is rendered here at the same 1024x576 resolution and it looks good at that size, even with all the cropping I did due to vignetting from the 35mm adapter. But I'd be embarrassed to show anyone the deinterlaced 1080P version with all the noise. It's pretty nasty.

Most 1080P or 1080i footage will look great at 720P. Have you noticed that nearly all HVX200 clips people post are 720P? That's because at 1080P, the footage is not so pretty! Even guys using the HVX200 for feature films are working at 720P.

The HV20, HV10 and even the HR10 and HG10 judging by the clips on Canon's website, seem to be among the very few affordable HD cameras that still retain all the fine detail at 1080P or 1080i without any aliasing or excessive noise.

Chris, some of those NY shots had a bit of levels adjustment done to them with the last clip of the car skidding having been cropped slightly. Captured using Cineform which converts the footage to 4:2:2 colour.

[Mikko Lopponen]

Originally Posted by Glenn Thomas

Still they they all appear to be 1024x576 which isn't even HD. You're not going to see the noise or artifacts as much at that resolution. ...and it looks good at that size, even with all the cropping I did due to vignetting from the 35mm adapter.

What 35mm adapter are you using? A friend of mine uses some 35mm adapter on his hv20 and it's very, very noisy. And dirty :)

But that's just the adapter of course.

I have all my material in 1080i and when I deinterlace them the effective resolution is 1440x540. That scales almost perfectly to 1024x576 so I use that. The hv20 doesn't need deinterlacing so it has a distinct resolution advantage. But I like working with interlaced material because it gives me more options for slow motion work etc.

One thing that bothers me about the EX1 is the rolling shutter. I don't ever want a camera that has a rolling shutter anymore. Unless it's so fast it's almost unnoticeable like the RED supposedly has.

[Michael Rosenberger]

Originally Posted by Mikko Lopponen

It looks like you have a A LOT of gain even in your daylight scenes.

Meh. That is what it looks like to me as well.

[Kaushik Parmar]

Originally Posted by Glenn Thomas

Wes, glad you agree :)

Kaushik, from GZHD7 footage I've seen, I think it's biggest problem is the red or purple fringing. Those red or purple lines you sometimes see around the edges. I noticed this in a number GZHD7 clips I downloaded a while back. This is something you very rarely see in HV20 footage.

Glenn Thomas,

Thank you for your reply. Frankly speaking I really like Canon HV20; I would have gone for it if it would have been HDD based camcorder!

Anyway I am happy with my JVC GZHD7, and what you have said about those edges lines, so far I have not seen those visible in my videos. If you would like to see my videos than here are links and highly appreciate feedback/suggestion from everybody, thanks.

http://vimeo.com/617515
http://vimeo.com/617254
http://vimeo.com/616634
http://vimeo.com/458245
http://vimeo.com/458673
http://vimeo.com/466120
http://vimeo.com/469280
http://vimeo.com/601216
http://vimeo.com/603273
http://vimeo.com/605499
http://vimeo.com/608358

[Robert Ducon]

I haven't posted on here in quite some time, but this got me interested - a title like that is sure to spark some feelings ;)

Don’t get me wrong – I want an EX1, and scoffed at the title of this thread – apples and oranges I thought. But then again, I scoffed when I was first told the HV10 had more resolution and a better image than a Sony Z1U.. and I was happily proven wrong! The pictures told the tale.

I've used the Sony Z1U and FX1 extensively, and before them, the Sony VX1000, PD-170, and the Canon XL1 and GL2 so I've seen good cross section.

When I show HV20 imagery to people, it's stunning to those uninitiated or unaware of the HV20 phenomenon. Very good resolution, very little - almost no perceivable - grain in well lit situations. (I don’t use it in low light situations, or I make sure the set is lit.)

The Z1U and FX1 have better low light, but are full of 'HDV noise' and what I’d call a ‘Sony’ grain. And I see it in the EX1 too! The resolution is great on the EX, but the grain I’m not a fan of.

Not as noticeable as the Z1U, but more so than I would have liked – especially considering the price and the specs. And when compared to the HV20 uncompressed footage?

Whoa.. the value of the HV20.. bang for buck - is very evident. As an HV20 user, I’d expect a camera with a superior lens and huge triple sensors and a better codec to have a better image in every single way over a cheapo consumer camera. Hmm. I want an EX1, but I want it at least match the near-grain free image of the HV20. I think it's a fair request.

[Glenn Thomas]

Originally Posted by Michael Rosenberger

Meh. That is what it looks like to me as well.

The gain was from a slight levels adjustment due to the amount of fog on the day. But on the HV20 with that amount of adjustment, would not have looked anywhere near as bad.

Kaushik, you may have proved me wrong! Nice clips, and although I did notice a very tiny amount in one of the clips, definitely not as bad as some HD7 footage I'd seen before. Still, not a 1080P camera, but quite impressive nonetheless. I guess where it scores highly is that it is a 3CCD camera, meaning you won't end up with any rolling shutter artifacts. If they brought out a 1080P model, I'd be interested.

Robert, yes, exactly my point. It's funny, I downloaded a few 1080P still frames a guy had shot using one of the new Panasonic HPX500 cameras. Once again, I was not at all impressed. They looked like 720P (or smaller) sized jpegs that had been resized to 1080P. Quite a lot of noise too. Now that thing's even more expensive than the EX2 and normally comes with a nice Fujinon lens. It just seems like a waste.