Need a push off the HD-1 cliff... any help?

[Alan Kenworthy]

Hi all,
The GR-HD1 is just within a comfortable feeling for my budget. (I don't know of anything on the horizon I should wait for)
I am upgrading from an analog Sony which turned out a fair/poor quality DVD, using Pinacle Studio 9. (Had fun doing it though!!)
I have JVC's 61" D-ILA and want to see what the HD-1 looks like on it.

If I go with the HD1 I'll end up having to use it for play back... is there a wear and tare issue with that?

Also...
Can I still use Studio 9?
Do I loose so much PQ down converting video to DVD that it's not worth the HD1?

I primarily shoot outside kids sports and vacation video.

Does this make sense... am I dreaming... should I get a GL-2 and wait on HD?

Too many conflicting thoughts... help push me off the cliff or save my sanity...

:)


Thank you,

Alan

[Barry Green]

Would the FX1 be too expensive for you? The FX1 is an incredibly superior camera to the HD1 in just about every conceivable way.

If you absolutely must have progressive scan 720p, then the HD1 is the only option. But if you want a satisfying camera experience, the FX1 is really a huge jump up from the HD1.

[Patrick King]

Are you certain you're ready to step up to HDV? Comparing the workflow of creating a home movie from an analog camcorder to the workflow of creating a HD home movie is ignoring the significant increase in computer processor and hard drive requirements, software capability, and expertise.

I'm not discouraging you from going that route, but since you're graduating from analog, I'll bet you'd be amazed at how much better an image you get just moving up to a miniDV camcorder in Standard Definition (SD). The benefit being that your workflow is nearly the same as before, if not a little easier.

The HD-1 is capable of SD also, but its overkill for SD.

Just a thought.

[Tommy James]

Since you own an HDTV there is no question get an HD video camera. Too many people buy HDTVS and they never watch any HD footage on them.

[Alan Kenworthy]

Guys, thanks for the replies.. There is a lot to weigh..

Barry, the FX1 is another $1000+ that my wife would like to spend elsewhere :) Not sure I can jump that high right now unless I found a great deal somewhere.
Is the HD1 really that hard to use? Is it the post shooting process that's hard, or is it a bear during shooting as well?

Patrick, I appreciate your cautioning. I guess I won't know if I'm ready for the extra workload until I'm in the middle of it.
My PC is in good shape, or so I think... AMD 64, plenty of RAM, dedicated Hard drive for video, WinXP, ATI 9800 All-in-wonder Pro.
I managed a decent looking DVD with menus, music track, overlays, and the like... I thought that was fun.

Tommy, it would be nice to see my vids on the D-ILA...

The biggest push I'm feeling, besides the geek factor, is that I have two sons ages 7 and 4 and getting their lives on HD video now seems like a good thing. But if it's going to be such a pain to actually shoot with (I'm not too worried about post shooting), then I'll wait a year or so.

So I guess I need to know if the actual act of shooting with the HD-1 is going to be the problem.

Your thoughts?

Thanks again,

Alan

[Barry Green]

If you want an all-automatic camera, the HD1 would be fine (although the HD10 might be better, because it has less edge enhancement). But if you're the kind of shooter who wants to use manual controls, the Sony FX1 is so astoundingly better that it's really just not even worth discussing. The HD1 won't ever let you get a truly manual exposure -- you can set your shutter speed, or you can set your iris, but not both -- the camera will insist on leaving one or the other in automatic mode. There are no built-in neutral density filters. There's no way to get manual audio level control. There's no way to know when you're actually in focus, when in manual focus mode.

The Sony fixes all those issues and gives you much better control over the image in many ways. Plus the Sony is much more sensitive in lower-light conditions.

The JVC, in its favor, is about the only 60p camera on the market right now (in its "SD" mode it shoots 720x480x60P) and it's still the only low-cost 720p camera on the market, at least until the HD100 comes out in July/August. And, it's still the lowest-cost HD camera (but, like I say, there are many reasons WHY it's the lowest-cost camera!)

Now, if you don't know what anything I wrote up there means, or don't have a problem with the way the JVC works, then you might be the ideal candidate for it (the JVC was initially marketed to the reasonably-well-off consumer who has an HDTV at home, and wants a camcorder to go with it). If that sounds like you, and you don't mind the lack of manual controls, and you really want HD, then the JVC HD1 might be the right camera for you.

[Alan Kenworthy]

Thanks Barry,

After spending a great deal of time reading posts from the many forum goers here, I come to a few conclusions:

1. Nothing is perfect
2. Resolution is king for me
3. Matching exact color is not as important as clarity of image (focus & high detail... in my mind)
3. I am not trying to be a Pro or make honest to god movies.
4. I want to capture something now that will hold up in resolution/format for the future.
5. I'm primarily a hand held guy, which might pose a problem with this size camera
6. See number 1

My main methods of shooting are my Kids sports and vacation vids. I think this begs for a good auto focus in a camera.
I believe the GR-HD1 is good to go on that point. I understand that it's hard to manually focus because of the viewer/LCD.

Will the auto-focus perform well enough?

That's my last sticking point on getting this camera.

Thank you many times over for your replies, and everyone's historical posts (which have really helped).

Alan

[Tommy James]

I think that the automatic focus works reasonably well on the JVC HD camera and is fully capable of focusing high definition images.

[Barry Green]

Agreed -- in my use of the HD1, autofocus seemed plenty good enough, and was in fact about the only way to actually focus the camera. We'd set up a shot, switch to "autofocus", let it focus in, and then switch back to manual focus (so it wouldn't "hunt"). And the shots were usually pretty darn sharp...

[Bryan Suthard]

Alan,

I have had my HD1 for over a year now and use it solely for vacation and kids shots (3 kids). I just took it to the beach today and got some great footage with some darker filters attached.

It is excellent viewing on my Sanyo PLV-Z2 projector which is also exactly 1280X720.

My dilemma is that I really want the Sony FX1 for the quality jump. The single biggest reason I am hedging on a tradeup is the size difference since the Sony is significantly more of a handful. For me, is it really worth the jump considering the usage? I am on the fence, but if you are really serious about an excellent used one for a good price, pop me an email. Check out http://www.suthard.com for some of the movies I shot with the HD1 in 2004.

Bryan

[Alan Kenworthy]

Hey Bryan, I love your site, and the videos you've done are great.
Actually they are inspirational as a cool way to share vacation footage and not bore everyone to death. I also like your choice of music for the 2004 Vail trip. Good stuff all!

I assume the video blows-up nicely to a big screen too...

I've been looking around at prices on ebay and the sponsoring sites for dvinfo.

Seems like ebay is mostly used, questionable sellers, or some other hassle...

Thanks for the offer, though honsetly, I might spring for a new one from B&H or similar so I have a warranty and some level of support. Their prices are actually pretty good.

Hopefully I'll get my act together and produce vids like yours.

Thanks,

Alan

[Graham Hickling]

As someone with a young son and an HD1, I would like to say that no-one has yet emphasised the MAIN reason that I'd be hesitant to recommend the JVC for your purposes: it shots in 720p30 (not 720p60 as you'll see on the high-def sports channels).

What 30 frames per second means is that it is not ideal for high-motion scenes where you are moving the camera a lot (what the pros call "run and gun") - which is a high proportion of the footage one tends to get of constantly-in-motion sons! Shot in Progressive30, such footage becomes tiring to watch, especially on a large screen.

The various other issues Barry's on about are not deal-breakers in my view - there's workarounds for most of them once you are practised with the camera - for me at least the Sony is not worth an extra $2000 (HD1s are cheap on EBay!).

You might consider a good quality SD DV camcorder with a proper high-res 16:9 mode (e.g., the latest Opturas and Sony's) as an interim step for the next year or so. These will produce a very nice 16:9 picture via DVD on your new TV - much better than your analogue camera could - and will cost under $1000.

[Tommy James]

Actually Sony is introducing a $2000 single chip HDV camcorder this summer.

[Yiannis Kall]

I have ordered the Hd1, but i read at forums that i need to have filters like nd for better image quality. I saw that warm polarizer is fixing the colors beside reflections. What you recommend?

[Yiannis Kall]

Originally Posted by Tommy James

Actually Sony is introducing a $2000 single chip HDV camcorder this summer.

Where did you find this information, is it a rumor? If it is true i will cancel my hd1 order.