Sanyo HD1 footage!

Wayne Morellini · February 16th, 2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Aurili

I hooked up the camera to a SD TV via svideo. I don't have a HD TV where I am now. In a dark room I could not tell the difference between the live video and the played back recorded video. When I used a bright light I still did not notice a difference in image quality. I did notice that bright areas of the image would flicker a lot on playback, but would not live.

Joseph, many SD TV's have a resolution closer to 360 pixels across, even through component input (have this problem on my 69CM) even makes MiniDV look good. Svideo tends to be limited to close to 360+ automatically. If your friendly with a store that sells true HD TV's (most have less than 720p) you can waltz in and say, "hey, look what I've got" and ask them if you can hook it up to their TV's through component. A 42 inch is great but 55 inch+ should make it more obvious. Along the lines of what Tom was talking
about, look for more latitude and information in the blacks and highlights.

John C. Chu · February 16th, 2006, 01:15 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/te...s/16pogue.html

David Pogue has a write up on the Sanyo in today's NYTimes Feb 16 Technology section.

[Edit] oops.. someone already beat me to it.

Joseph Aurili · February 16th, 2006, 01:29 PM

Wayne, I was just trying to determine if the video output was compressed or not. My 1080i TV is in storage on the other coast :(

Joseph Aurili · February 16th, 2006, 01:38 PM

That review is right on.

Wayne Morellini · February 16th, 2006, 01:41 PM

Yes I know, it's just the low resolution hides it. That Times article says it pretty well, some of the words sound like ones used here, I wonder if he is reading this.

Joseph Aurili · February 16th, 2006, 01:57 PM

That would be funny and sad...

Joseph Aurili · February 16th, 2006, 04:40 PM

OK, here is the resolution chart again in auto and manual white balance:

www.gamersden.com/hd1test/chartauto.MP4
www.gamersden.com/hd1test/chartmanual.MP4

A lot better color IMO.

And the chart is better aligned. Does it add some resolution? ;)

Take into account the auto is dealing with 2 or 3 different types of light sources.

Joseph Aurili · February 16th, 2006, 04:56 PM

And here are some outdoor clips in overcast lighting with a tripod in the same general area of the first clips to compare. This might be as good as it gets...

www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC1.MP4
www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC2.MP4
www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC3.MP4
www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC4.MP4
www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC5.MP4

Paul Platt · February 16th, 2006, 07:22 PM

My questions and concerns are a little different than the others on this forum. I am hoping I can get some good advice on whether the HD1 will fit my slightly (ok very) different needs.

I don't have a high def camcorder. I have an old RIcoh Hi8 one but it is broken. BTW, the mechanical image stabilization on it was great. I used to shoot stills with a Minolt Maxxum and had about every accessory you could imagine including the dual flash system for portrait work. Then I got married and had kids. The Maxxum got replaced with a Canon ELPH. It doesn't matter how nice the camera if you don't have it with you. Then I went digital with a Ricoh RDC-7. I liked the pictures but the camera was SLOW - slow to power up, slow to focus, slow to release the shutter and slow to write the data. Surprisingly my wife started shooting video on it. At 320x240-15fps I had to ask "Why?" Her answer was "Because it is there and it is all I have." That meant movie mode was an important factor in an upgrade. For that reason we later upgraded to a Fuji F700. The Fuji is fast everywhere the Ricoh is slow. The dynamic range is better (still miss the latitude of film) and movies are much more tolerable. We shoot a lot of video but with a max time of 7 minutes per card it is a big limitation. However, it fits comfotably in my wife's purse and so it meets the size and availability criteria.

Now to the HD1. This would be my wife's primary camera. I don't care that it isn't as good as a larger $1400 Sony. I don't even care that there might be noise form the zoom. I can't focus or zoom the Fuji at all once I start taking a movie clip. So here are my questions:

1) How does the feel and apparant size compare to a typical compact camera like the F700 (not the ultra compacts)?

2) How well does it focus in low light? The Ricoh was horrible. The Fuji is great with its focus assist light.

2b)Heck, how does it focus in general? We missed shots on the Ricoh due to slow/poor focusing. The Fuji is fast and accurate.

3) As a still camera, can it replace my Fuji?

4) How is battery life if only taking stills? Most video we shoot is short and we shoot more stills than video.

5) How is the dynamic range if that is the correct term? I am thinking the photo equivalent of the density rating for a scanner. The Fuji is much better than the Ricoh. Shadow detail? Sky gradations?

6) How is it in low light as a still camera?

7) How is it in low light on video? I suspect it is much better than the Fuji which is poor.

8) Is handling as easy and natural as it looks?

Most posts here have talked about making movies or viewed the HD1 as a move down from a camcorder. No great epic at the Platt's house - just family video. How is the HD1 as a step up from the Fuji F700? Is the HD1 a good pocket camera or is the grain a lot worse and make it unsuitable.

Thanks for putting up with my long winded post.

Paul

Joseph Aurili · February 16th, 2006, 08:02 PM

Paul, not having any of the cameras you speak of, or even a compact camera any time recently, I can't answer your questions very well. But I will try since I have the HD1 ;)

1) How does the feel and apparant size compare to a typical compact camera like the F700 (not the ultra compacts)?

> It feels very small. I could not imagine using anything smaller. It feels like holding a deck of cards, but a little bigger.

2) How well does it focus in low light? The Ricoh was horrible. The Fuji is great with its focus assist light.

> I think auto focus is a little slow in general, and even worse in low light.

2b)Heck, how does it focus in general? We missed shots on the Ricoh due to slow/poor focusing. The Fuji is fast and accurate.

> Even holding the camera still, a few still shots have been blurred. You want to hold down the button half way to left it focus take effect before taking the shot. Of course I would get many blured pics from my Sony f828 also. Maybe it's just me ;)

3) As a still camera, can it replace my Fuji?

> Stills are very good in good light. Low light shots have a lot of grain.

4) How is battery life if only taking stills? Most video we shoot is short and we shoot more stills than video.

> Have not used it in that regard, but I imagine you would get better battery life then from video. The battery is rated at an hour, but you never get that. Spare battery is very small and inexpensive.

5) How is the dynamic range if that is the correct term? I am thinking the photo equivalent of the density rating for a scanner. The Fuji is much better than the Ricoh. Shadow detail? Sky gradations?

> The range seems pretty good for stills. In video much less so.

6) How is it in low light as a still camera?

> Have not tried very low light. Some of my stills posted are in pretty low light. I think there is one called trash.JPG.

7) How is it in low light on video? I suspect it is much better than the Fuji which is poor.

> Pretty noisy. trash.MP4 is pretty low light. lowlight.MP4 is very low light.

8) Is handling as easy and natural as it looks?

> It is hard to hold still as it is so small. Once you have the LCD open it is easy to control with one hand.

Joseph Aurili · February 16th, 2006, 08:11 PM

BTW, I have been to Duluth a few times. Like that Discover mall.

Joseph Aurili · February 16th, 2006, 08:17 PM

One other thing is that you really need the LCD to get a good framing. If you hold the camera straight it is actually pointing upward a good degree. In the sun the LCD is very hard to see.

Joseph Aurili · February 16th, 2006, 08:24 PM

Tom, so on your 50 incher did the picture look better then what you would get from a good SD camcorder? Or a SD TV broadcast?

Paul Platt · February 16th, 2006, 09:03 PM

Joseph,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I think someone can win with a great compact consumer camera that does usable (quality and recording time) video or an excellent video camera that is ok for stills. I worry if the HD1 is compromised into being mediocre at both. The HD1 video quality is better than the Fuji. The C6 certainly takes much better low light video than the Fuji based on the clips I have seen. The Fuji and Ricoh would be worthless in a dark nightclub. Your comments on low light grain in the stills concerns me a little. I'll have to compare your stills to some I have take on the Fuji. The focusing issues concern me more. My kids are 5 and 9 so movement is something we deal with. The C5 has a nice form factor. Sherri and I saw it at Sharper Image. I was worried the HD1 was a lot larger.

Does noise reduction help at all?

Not a lot of people know Duluth, GA. It's particularly fun when we go to Duluth, MN and people ask where we are from.

Paul

Dennis Vogel · February 16th, 2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John C. Chu

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/te...s/16pogue.html

David Pogue has a write up on the Sanyo in today's NYTimes Feb 16 Technology section.

Jeez, you'd think that a writer in the Times technology section would know the difference between HDTV and HDV. He consistently refers to the HD1 (as well as the Sony HC1) as "HDTV" camcorders.

Good luck.

Dennis

February 16th, 2006, 01:15 PM	#167
John C. Chu Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rego Park , NYC Posts: 665	http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/te...s/16pogue.html David Pogue has a write up on the Sanyo in today's NYTimes Feb 16 Technology section. [Edit] oops.. someone already beat me to it.

February 16th, 2006, 01:29 PM	#168
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	Wayne, I was just trying to determine if the video output was compressed or not. My 1080i TV is in storage on the other coast :(

February 16th, 2006, 01:38 PM	#169
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	That review is right on.

February 16th, 2006, 01:41 PM	#170
Wayne Morellini Inner Circle Join Date: May 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 2,762	Yes I know, it's just the low resolution hides it. That Times article says it pretty well, some of the words sound like ones used here, I wonder if he is reading this.

February 16th, 2006, 01:57 PM	#171
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	That would be funny and sad...

February 16th, 2006, 04:40 PM	#172
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	OK, here is the resolution chart again in auto and manual white balance: www.gamersden.com/hd1test/chartauto.MP4 www.gamersden.com/hd1test/chartmanual.MP4 A lot better color IMO. And the chart is better aligned. Does it add some resolution? ;) Take into account the auto is dealing with 2 or 3 different types of light sources.

February 16th, 2006, 04:56 PM	#173
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	And here are some outdoor clips in overcast lighting with a tripod in the same general area of the first clips to compare. This might be as good as it gets... www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC1.MP4 www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC2.MP4 www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC3.MP4 www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC4.MP4 www.gamersden.com/hd1test/OC5.MP4

February 16th, 2006, 07:22 PM	#174
Paul Platt New Boot Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Duluth, GA Posts: 7	My questions and concerns are a little different than the others on this forum. I am hoping I can get some good advice on whether the HD1 will fit my slightly (ok very) different needs. I don't have a high def camcorder. I have an old RIcoh Hi8 one but it is broken. BTW, the mechanical image stabilization on it was great. I used to shoot stills with a Minolt Maxxum and had about every accessory you could imagine including the dual flash system for portrait work. Then I got married and had kids. The Maxxum got replaced with a Canon ELPH. It doesn't matter how nice the camera if you don't have it with you. Then I went digital with a Ricoh RDC-7. I liked the pictures but the camera was SLOW - slow to power up, slow to focus, slow to release the shutter and slow to write the data. Surprisingly my wife started shooting video on it. At 320x240-15fps I had to ask "Why?" Her answer was "Because it is there and it is all I have." That meant movie mode was an important factor in an upgrade. For that reason we later upgraded to a Fuji F700. The Fuji is fast everywhere the Ricoh is slow. The dynamic range is better (still miss the latitude of film) and movies are much more tolerable. We shoot a lot of video but with a max time of 7 minutes per card it is a big limitation. However, it fits comfotably in my wife's purse and so it meets the size and availability criteria. Now to the HD1. This would be my wife's primary camera. I don't care that it isn't as good as a larger $1400 Sony. I don't even care that there might be noise form the zoom. I can't focus or zoom the Fuji at all once I start taking a movie clip. So here are my questions: 1) How does the feel and apparant size compare to a typical compact camera like the F700 (not the ultra compacts)? 2) How well does it focus in low light? The Ricoh was horrible. The Fuji is great with its focus assist light. 2b)Heck, how does it focus in general? We missed shots on the Ricoh due to slow/poor focusing. The Fuji is fast and accurate. 3) As a still camera, can it replace my Fuji? 4) How is battery life if only taking stills? Most video we shoot is short and we shoot more stills than video. 5) How is the dynamic range if that is the correct term? I am thinking the photo equivalent of the density rating for a scanner. The Fuji is much better than the Ricoh. Shadow detail? Sky gradations? 6) How is it in low light as a still camera? 7) How is it in low light on video? I suspect it is much better than the Fuji which is poor. 8) Is handling as easy and natural as it looks? Most posts here have talked about making movies or viewed the HD1 as a move down from a camcorder. No great epic at the Platt's house - just family video. How is the HD1 as a step up from the Fuji F700? Is the HD1 a good pocket camera or is the grain a lot worse and make it unsuitable. Thanks for putting up with my long winded post. Paul

February 16th, 2006, 08:02 PM	#175
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	Paul, not having any of the cameras you speak of, or even a compact camera any time recently, I can't answer your questions very well. But I will try since I have the HD1 ;) 1) How does the feel and apparant size compare to a typical compact camera like the F700 (not the ultra compacts)? > It feels very small. I could not imagine using anything smaller. It feels like holding a deck of cards, but a little bigger. 2) How well does it focus in low light? The Ricoh was horrible. The Fuji is great with its focus assist light. > I think auto focus is a little slow in general, and even worse in low light. 2b)Heck, how does it focus in general? We missed shots on the Ricoh due to slow/poor focusing. The Fuji is fast and accurate. > Even holding the camera still, a few still shots have been blurred. You want to hold down the button half way to left it focus take effect before taking the shot. Of course I would get many blured pics from my Sony f828 also. Maybe it's just me ;) 3) As a still camera, can it replace my Fuji? > Stills are very good in good light. Low light shots have a lot of grain. 4) How is battery life if only taking stills? Most video we shoot is short and we shoot more stills than video. > Have not used it in that regard, but I imagine you would get better battery life then from video. The battery is rated at an hour, but you never get that. Spare battery is very small and inexpensive. 5) How is the dynamic range if that is the correct term? I am thinking the photo equivalent of the density rating for a scanner. The Fuji is much better than the Ricoh. Shadow detail? Sky gradations? > The range seems pretty good for stills. In video much less so. 6) How is it in low light as a still camera? > Have not tried very low light. Some of my stills posted are in pretty low light. I think there is one called trash.JPG. 7) How is it in low light on video? I suspect it is much better than the Fuji which is poor. > Pretty noisy. trash.MP4 is pretty low light. lowlight.MP4 is very low light. 8) Is handling as easy and natural as it looks? > It is hard to hold still as it is so small. Once you have the LCD open it is easy to control with one hand.

February 16th, 2006, 08:11 PM	#176
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	BTW, I have been to Duluth a few times. Like that Discover mall.

February 16th, 2006, 08:17 PM	#177
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	One other thing is that you really need the LCD to get a good framing. If you hold the camera straight it is actually pointing upward a good degree. In the sun the LCD is very hard to see.

February 16th, 2006, 08:24 PM	#178
Joseph Aurili Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 326	Tom, so on your 50 incher did the picture look better then what you would get from a good SD camcorder? Or a SD TV broadcast?

February 16th, 2006, 09:03 PM	#179
Paul Platt New Boot Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Duluth, GA Posts: 7	Joseph, Thanks for the detailed reply. I think someone can win with a great compact consumer camera that does usable (quality and recording time) video or an excellent video camera that is ok for stills. I worry if the HD1 is compromised into being mediocre at both. The HD1 video quality is better than the Fuji. The C6 certainly takes much better low light video than the Fuji based on the clips I have seen. The Fuji and Ricoh would be worthless in a dark nightclub. Your comments on low light grain in the stills concerns me a little. I'll have to compare your stills to some I have take on the Fuji. The focusing issues concern me more. My kids are 5 and 9 so movement is something we deal with. The C5 has a nice form factor. Sherri and I saw it at Sharper Image. I was worried the HD1 was a lot larger. Does noise reduction help at all? Not a lot of people know Duluth, GA. It's particularly fun when we go to Duluth, MN and people ask where we are from. Paul