HD1U and HC-1 both $2000- so which? at DVinfo.net

Steve Nunez · June 30th, 2005, 05:51 PM

I hate posting VS. type posts- but seeing that we "prosumers" are on the cutting edge- seeing as to both the HD1 and HC-1 are around $2000- what are the main differences and features one should look for in comparing these 2 HDV cameras?
My gut reaction says the HD1U is a good buy at $2000 as they were more expensive and represent a good deal at this price point- however- the Sony HC1 seems to be the new cost leader in HDV and represents some great features as well......so if you guys had $2000 to spend on an HDV camera- which would you buy and why?

(Thanks for the posts in advance- I'm sure many people are pondering this same question)

Dave Ferdinand · June 30th, 2005, 07:01 PM

I own an HD1, and have always felt this camera performs very well under good lighting. I think the way people address this camera is unfair, but it does have its flaws.

Having watched footage of the HC1, I have to say that it looks better than anything I've seen on the HD1. Mostly the color reproduction is much better. Sony seems to really take advantage of the CMOS sensor, and in my opinion, it looks very similar to 3 CCD cameras. I didn't notice almost any chroma noise, unlike in the HD1.

However the HC1 is 1080i, whereas the HD1 is 720p. Personally I prefer progressive mode, but you might feel different about it.

If you don't mind interlaced, I'd suggest you should go with the HC1 since it has newer technology and better color reproduction.

Steve Nunez · July 1st, 2005, 06:45 AM

Yeah I sorta agree- the HD1 get's attacked allot- it was designed to be the first HDV consumer camera and does produce nice footage as many attest to.
I'm surprised that you felt the HC1 produces better footage- buyt since I haven't seen footage from either- I'll take your word for it. I guess I'll look at the HC1 but I don't like the "typical camcorder" look of it- I prefer the design of the HD1.....but if the HC1 video is better- I'll have to consider the Sony for purchase.

Tommy James · July 2nd, 2005, 02:49 PM

Well yes the JVC HDV camcorder does get attacked a lot but the fact is that the footage it produces is far better than the standard definition footage that the major networks got away with for this years Indy 500 and this years Miss Universe contest as well as President Bush's state of the Union speech.

The fact is that the JVC camcorder is a progressive scan HD camcorder which is perfect for the Internet because most computers are progressive scan as well as most flat panel displays. Deinterlacing flat out doesnt work very well and usually produces footage with that doctored look. The Sony FX1 does have a psuedo progressive CF30 mode that looks nice on computer displays but the smaller HC1 may not have that feature. For fast action sports interlaced footage looks horrible if compressed to the 19.78 megabit per secound broadcast bandwidth but the greater 26 megabit bandwidth of HDV may help compensate.

On the otherhand most television networks are 1080i so if you have a good 1080i display like a cathode ray television you can take advantage of 1080i higher resolution. Also the Sony camera shoots at 60 half frames per secound rather than the 30 full frames per secound of the JVC. However if the JVC shot at 60 frames per secound it would look sharper than the Sony 1080i.

Steve Nunez · July 2nd, 2005, 03:48 PM

Chalk up another pro for the HD1U!

David Kennett · July 5th, 2005, 08:42 AM

Steve,

It's been said before, but worth repeating - the edge enhancement on the HD-1 is a bit overstated. Most prefer the HD10 picture. The warranty is a full year parts AND labor, and you deal with JVC professional - a definite plus.

Steve Nunez · July 7th, 2005, 03:50 PM

Hope this isn't a foolish question but: is it correct to assume the video produced by the JVC's have less resolution and is visually discernible on a 65" HDTV set? I have a 1080i 65" Mitsubishi Medallion TV set (just regular consumer grade HDTV set) and am wondering if the resolution loss would be disappointing when compared to the image the Sony's capture.

Ken Hodson · July 7th, 2005, 11:35 PM

Many posters here have stated that the 720p capture of the HD10/1 is slightly higher in detail then the FX/Z1, despite of the 1 ccd design. One has to consider that the Sony offerings have 960x1080 resolution pixel shifted to 1440x1080 in an interlaced format. That said the HC-1 is not expected to achieve the level of the FX-1. Regardless I am very encouraged by Sony's use of a CMOS sensor and hope the tech continues forward.
Of course Sony has followed JVC's lead and have crippled their 1chip cam as well, preventing full manual controll. Must be a marketing hand-shake in there I guess!

Steve Nunez · July 19th, 2005, 08:04 PM

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions....
from what I understand the JVC's use progressive 720p vs Sony's interlaced video making the JVC a better choice for viewing on computer monitors and LCD's.....the JVC seems more prone to highlight clipping and lacks manual controls of both aperature and shutter (at the same time).....the Sony has touch-screen features which I prefer not to use but is a newer generation of camera and is getting very good reviews.......to me they're both sub $2000 HDV cameras I'd like to purchase- but only one goes home with me......

does anyone have both cameras? Any last words?

Tommy James · July 19th, 2005, 08:29 PM

What I think is going on with Sony is that Sony is a very professional company. But professionals are really the problem because profesionals are not interested in delivering a higher quality product if that product will not sell but rather they are interested in gaining the greatest market share. With 1080i Sony can claim that its products offer higher resolution than 720p. So the consumer will choose 1080i because of the bigger numbers. But 1080i only produces higher resolution on static resolution charts. Video is all about its ability to handle motion so the sharpest video will of course be 720p especially if it can be captured at 60 frames per secound. But the customer does not want the sharpest video but rather they want the bigger numbers so they psychologically will feel better.

Ken Hodson · July 19th, 2005, 08:36 PM

"and lacks manual controls of both aperature and shutter (at the same time)."

Exact same situation with the Sony cam.

Michael OKeefe · July 21st, 2005, 08:27 PM

what is the conclusion out there- i have heard mumblings both ways on this thread so far.

Ken Hodson · July 21st, 2005, 09:20 PM

There never will be a conclusion. Everyone has there own preferences. That's why were hammering out the pro's and con's of each.

Steve Nunez · July 22nd, 2005, 07:05 AM

Tom James came up with a good perspective on the situation. From what I'm gathering the JVC is actually the better camera in terms of video quality (not withstanding the nit picks on the cameras actual setup).....it seems 720p would be better for most users as many of us will deliver content on the forthcoming HD DVD's for viewing on computer LCD's as well as web clips, video content on cd-rom and of course for HDTV's etc.... from various posts I've read many agree the JVC will actually capture MORE detail (resolution) than the interlaced video the Sony HC1 (and possibly the FX1 ??) but the higher 1080i "spec" is a selling point for many consumers. Too bad the JVC doesn't allow full manual control- but all in all- I think I'm going to go with the JVC and just get the extended Mack warranty to cover the camera, for $1899 it's actually cheaper than many high-end mini DV cameras of which I've owned and wasn't impressed with the final video on my Mitsubishi 65" HDTV- hopefully the JVC will impress me.
So for me it's a JVC, a nd filter, spare batt and Mack warranty and i'm onto HDV on the Mac with FCP!~

Michael OKeefe · July 22nd, 2005, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Hodson

There never will be a conclusion. Everyone has there own preferences. That's why were hammering out the pro's and con's of each.

That makes sense, now that i think about it.

June 30th, 2005, 05:51 PM	#1
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	HD1U and HC-1 both $2000- so which? I hate posting VS. type posts- but seeing that we "prosumers" are on the cutting edge- seeing as to both the HD1 and HC-1 are around $2000- what are the main differences and features one should look for in comparing these 2 HDV cameras? My gut reaction says the HD1U is a good buy at $2000 as they were more expensive and represent a good deal at this price point- however- the Sony HC1 seems to be the new cost leader in HDV and represents some great features as well......so if you guys had $2000 to spend on an HDV camera- which would you buy and why? (Thanks for the posts in advance- I'm sure many people are pondering this same question) __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

June 30th, 2005, 07:01 PM	#2
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	I own an HD1, and have always felt this camera performs very well under good lighting. I think the way people address this camera is unfair, but it does have its flaws. Having watched footage of the HC1, I have to say that it looks better than anything I've seen on the HD1. Mostly the color reproduction is much better. Sony seems to really take advantage of the CMOS sensor, and in my opinion, it looks very similar to 3 CCD cameras. I didn't notice almost any chroma noise, unlike in the HD1. However the HC1 is 1080i, whereas the HD1 is 720p. Personally I prefer progressive mode, but you might feel different about it. If you don't mind interlaced, I'd suggest you should go with the HC1 since it has newer technology and better color reproduction. __________________ Do or do not, there is no try.

July 1st, 2005, 06:45 AM	#3
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Yeah I sorta agree- the HD1 get's attacked allot- it was designed to be the first HDV consumer camera and does produce nice footage as many attest to. I'm surprised that you felt the HC1 produces better footage- buyt since I haven't seen footage from either- I'll take your word for it. I guess I'll look at the HC1 but I don't like the "typical camcorder" look of it- I prefer the design of the HD1.....but if the HC1 video is better- I'll have to consider the Sony for purchase. __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

July 2nd, 2005, 03:48 PM	#5
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Chalk up another pro for the HD1U! __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

July 5th, 2005, 08:42 AM	#6
David Kennett Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Ridgeville, Ohio Posts: 407	Steve, It's been said before, but worth repeating - the edge enhancement on the HD-1 is a bit overstated. Most prefer the HD10 picture. The warranty is a full year parts AND labor, and you deal with JVC professional - a definite plus. __________________ Dave

July 2nd, 2005, 02:49 PM	#4
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	Well yes the JVC HDV camcorder does get attacked a lot but the fact is that the footage it produces is far better than the standard definition footage that the major networks got away with for this years Indy 500 and this years Miss Universe contest as well as President Bush's state of the Union speech. The fact is that the JVC camcorder is a progressive scan HD camcorder which is perfect for the Internet because most computers are progressive scan as well as most flat panel displays. Deinterlacing flat out doesnt work very well and usually produces footage with that doctored look. The Sony FX1 does have a psuedo progressive CF30 mode that looks nice on computer displays but the smaller HC1 may not have that feature. For fast action sports interlaced footage looks horrible if compressed to the 19.78 megabit per secound broadcast bandwidth but the greater 26 megabit bandwidth of HDV may help compensate. On the otherhand most television networks are 1080i so if you have a good 1080i display like a cathode ray television you can take advantage of 1080i higher resolution. Also the Sony camera shoots at 60 half frames per secound rather than the 30 full frames per secound of the JVC. However if the JVC shot at 60 frames per secound it would look sharper than the Sony 1080i.

July 7th, 2005, 03:50 PM	#7
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Hope this isn't a foolish question but: is it correct to assume the video produced by the JVC's have less resolution and is visually discernible on a 65" HDTV set? I have a 1080i 65" Mitsubishi Medallion TV set (just regular consumer grade HDTV set) and am wondering if the resolution loss would be disappointing when compared to the image the Sony's capture. __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

July 7th, 2005, 11:35 PM	#8
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	Many posters here have stated that the 720p capture of the HD10/1 is slightly higher in detail then the FX/Z1, despite of the 1 ccd design. One has to consider that the Sony offerings have 960x1080 resolution pixel shifted to 1440x1080 in an interlaced format. That said the HC-1 is not expected to achieve the level of the FX-1. Regardless I am very encouraged by Sony's use of a CMOS sensor and hope the tech continues forward. Of course Sony has followed JVC's lead and have crippled their 1chip cam as well, preventing full manual controll. Must be a marketing hand-shake in there I guess! __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

July 19th, 2005, 08:04 PM	#9
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Decisions, Decisions, Decisions.... from what I understand the JVC's use progressive 720p vs Sony's interlaced video making the JVC a better choice for viewing on computer monitors and LCD's.....the JVC seems more prone to highlight clipping and lacks manual controls of both aperature and shutter (at the same time).....the Sony has touch-screen features which I prefer not to use but is a newer generation of camera and is getting very good reviews.......to me they're both sub $2000 HDV cameras I'd like to purchase- but only one goes home with me...... does anyone have both cameras? Any last words? __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

July 19th, 2005, 08:29 PM	#10
Tommy James suspended -- contact admin Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 214	What I think is going on with Sony is that Sony is a very professional company. But professionals are really the problem because profesionals are not interested in delivering a higher quality product if that product will not sell but rather they are interested in gaining the greatest market share. With 1080i Sony can claim that its products offer higher resolution than 720p. So the consumer will choose 1080i because of the bigger numbers. But 1080i only produces higher resolution on static resolution charts. Video is all about its ability to handle motion so the sharpest video will of course be 720p especially if it can be captured at 60 frames per secound. But the customer does not want the sharpest video but rather they want the bigger numbers so they psychologically will feel better.

July 19th, 2005, 08:36 PM	#11
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	"and lacks manual controls of both aperature and shutter (at the same time)." Exact same situation with the Sony cam. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

July 21st, 2005, 08:27 PM	#12
Michael OKeefe Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Hudson, NH Posts: 53	so was there a definitive answer? what is the conclusion out there- i have heard mumblings both ways on this thread so far.

July 21st, 2005, 09:20 PM	#13
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	There never will be a conclusion. Everyone has there own preferences. That's why were hammering out the pro's and con's of each. __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

July 22nd, 2005, 07:05 AM	#14
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Tom James came up with a good perspective on the situation. From what I'm gathering the JVC is actually the better camera in terms of video quality (not withstanding the nit picks on the cameras actual setup).....it seems 720p would be better for most users as many of us will deliver content on the forthcoming HD DVD's for viewing on computer LCD's as well as web clips, video content on cd-rom and of course for HDTV's etc.... from various posts I've read many agree the JVC will actually capture MORE detail (resolution) than the interlaced video the Sony HC1 (and possibly the FX1 ??) but the higher 1080i "spec" is a selling point for many consumers. Too bad the JVC doesn't allow full manual control- but all in all- I think I'm going to go with the JVC and just get the extended Mack warranty to cover the camera, for $1899 it's actually cheaper than many high-end mini DV cameras of which I've owned and wasn't impressed with the final video on my Mitsubishi 65" HDTV- hopefully the JVC will impress me. So for me it's a JVC, a nd filter, spare batt and Mack warranty and i'm onto HDV on the Mac with FCP!~ __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com