HV10 has a better picture than the FX1 !
 

Yes!!!

Download and examine the sample movies below, the HV10 is no doubt sharper and cleaner than the FX1. !!!!!

Wow!!!

I have enlarged a section from each camera to have a close look at the difference, the enlargement is exactly 200% done in photshop with no interpolation (interpolation set to 'nearest neighbour') so every pixel on the left hand side shot is enlarged to a 2x2 grid of identical pixels on the right hand side enlargement, so there are no aberrations introduced in the resizing process.

One thing I do notice is a little more noise in the HV10 image, but this is a good trade off for the improved clarity. :)

Also the FX1 wins over the HV10 in low light.


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

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

Movie samples HV10 v FX1

Let your eyes decide.

Click >>> http://translate.google.com/translat...hv10vsfx1.html


Other samples (without FX1 comparison files) >>> http://translate.google.com/translat...hv10vsfx1.html

You can play the m2t files with MPEGStreamclip for OS X or Windows - which is free from >> http://www.squared5.com/.com - when you open the movie files don't forget to hit the 'full screen' keyboard command - if your montor can handle 1920*1080.

I see that the FX1 interpolates from 960*1080 (which is its active pixel resolution on capture) up to 1440*1080 during the output/compression process, whilst the HV10 interpolates down from 1920*1080 (which is its active pixel resolution on capture) to 1440*1080 during its output/compression process, this may go some way to explain the better image quality. (?)

_________________________________________

The HC10 may even have more detail than the XL H1.

By the way even the Sony HC1 has more detail than the FX1. The FX1 is totally outdated now. I can't see how people would buy it anymore...

Of course in low light 3 CCDs still rule.

Yes, its low light is very good.

It is a great pity that the HV10 is such a crap consumer form factor ! If only they made it vaguely camera shaped instead of looking like a bar of soap. :(

Still for a throw in your pocket HD recorder with a better image than a sony FX1 or HC1 its looking pretty good, although I will have to wait until they are out before passing final - judgement but on image quality alone it looks fantastic.

Couldn't disagree more -- if the picture is as good as portrayed, it is fantastic that it is available in a pocket cam. And those who think the form factor is "crap" can wait just a little longer for the XH cameras or get an XL H1.

Personally, though, I'll reserve judgment about the camera until DVinfo members start posting footage they've taken themselves with retail versions of the camera.

I knew Canon would make a killing when they entered the HDV realm.....looks like good things to come!

I suppose what I mean is it may raise some eyebrows when trying to shoot something like a pop video, I did one with a tiny 3 CCD JVC MC500 and was literally laughed at when I mounted this tiny camera on a tripod.

But I do agree that results/quality is everything ! No good sitting in an edit and saying "I know the image is not great, but the camera looked really cool, it was the size of a house" I might have to make myself a cardboard and glue housing that looks like a Sony Z1 ;-)

Hmm.. Well, the XH cameras are going to use 3 CCDs like the XLH1, not a CMOS.

I too wish that Cannon would make a 'semi-pro' HV10 version which was slightly larger and would have more/better controls. Something like Sony's A1 but with this image quality. Could easily retail for $2k...

Just the addition of a proper mic input would be fine, then you could just plug in a Beachtek or some other XLR adapter to get good audio or even backup audio when needed.

But I've got no problems with it, the Sony HC1/HC3/A1U cameras have proven themselves as pretty good little troopers. However, if you want semi-pro then the XHA1 is probably better suited for you as I doubt Canon would give the HV10 the "A1U-esque" treatment with a mic input and F-modes.

One solution:
With the small cost of the camera, and all that great video quality, just buy yourself a HiMD recorder, build your self a rack to mount it with a microphone, then pull it all together in post. :)

yes I had the same thought !

Hang in there, folks. I figure that the HV10 is mainly a Beta model to test out their self-produced new CMOS and the whole system of image-processing that accompanies it. To suddenly start producing a single-sensor camcorder that can shoot as well or better than traditional 3-CCD models, is quite a gamble, when you're dealing with world markets. The huge financial repercussions of taking too big a step into what is a new area for them, is a risk that this usually cautious company isn't going to take, all at once. If the HV10 works out both in technical ways and in consumer acceptance, you could expect a larger CMOS camcorder from them by next year, that would have a larger and more professional form, but still be in the consumer or semipro realms.

Or throw a laptop in your back pack and record audio and video straight to the laptop.

those stills look nice. The colors look a little wierd, which seems like a 1 chip thing, but impressive detail for 1 CCD. It would be interesting to see an XL-H1 still vs an H10 still. Any XL-H1 owners out there brave enough to do this comparison?

I am not taking this thread too seriously. I went to the web page this came from, and found a lot of good side reporting regarding the FX1, that is ignored in this post. This thread is basing its whole theory on one or two captured frames of video. We don't know exactly how the captures were made, how the cameras were mounted or secured, whether there camera movement, and whether there was stabilization employed. The way the frame grabs were processed is another issue. Ultimately, while it is an interesting comparison, in certain circumstances you can make any camera look better than another.. The question is overall features and usability.

Translation: "I own a FX1" ;)

My post makes a single unambiguous claim, the quality of the HV10 samples look very good, certainly in comparison to the more expensive FX1.

There is no 'theory'.

Looking at the 12 comparison files of video footage (6 HV10 and 6 FX1 ) the HV10 looks to have a better picture in many respects.

I am sure who ever did these tests took this into account, why would they not ? They are all shot from the same angle, with the same zoom ratio with very simlar exposures at the same time of day etc etc.

You can tell whether there is camera movement or not by looking at it.

If you refer to my frame grabs, they were not processed in any way, the enlargements were made as I described above.

I have enlarged a section from each camera to have a close look at the difference, the enlargement is exactly 200% done in photshop with no interpolation (interpolation set to 'nearest neighbour') so every pixel on the left hand side shot is enlarged to a 2x2 grid of identical pixels on the right hand side enlargement, so there are no aberrations introduced in the resizing process.

This is true, but without further evidence we must consider all things equal.

No, quality of footage is the question here.

We know the FX1 has superior features and usability, manual controls and so on, there is no debate on this subject.