HC1000 -- various questions

Kaku Ito · October 3rd, 2004, 08:01 AM

I finally tried the HC1000 for few hours and got really dissapointed with the image quality. Wider dynamic ranage was totally sales talk and the image was poor. My GS400 takes far better image than HC1000.

Worst of all, most of the parameters on HC1000 are controlled on the touch panel LCD.

It is hard to believe that FX1 and HC1000 are made by the same company when you think about their cost/performance.

Danny Fye · October 3rd, 2004, 12:10 PM

"My GS400 takes far better image than HC1000."

That's interesting in that I've read posts where someone said the oposite.

Maybe it's how the settings were done or maybe it's subjective. I don't know.

I do know that I have decided to get the HC1000.

Thanks all for the replies.

Danny Fye
www.dannyfye.com

Boyd Ostroff · October 3rd, 2004, 12:30 PM

Congratulations on your decision Danny. We'll be interested to hear your impression of the camera after you've had a chance to get used to it.

Paul Rickford · October 6th, 2004, 03:12 AM

I have read with interest and some amazement at the passion that the HC1000 has generated on this and other sites.
I am a Canon man with a XL1s, XM2 etc and have been trying to find a ideal travel cam for a long time. When I saw the HC1000 it was love at first sight, as a stand alone product it is unique, 3 chips in a very small well built package ideal for travel with a fantastic picture quality and feature set.
The menu system is not my normal way of working , but its not as bad once you set up the custom menu which means with one touch of the screen I have white balance / colour level / spot meter / spot focus / mic level all at hand and the sony screen is much better than the canons in bright light. the twist grip does help for low level shots and is great for balancing on a wall to steady the cam. this to me is the ideal weekend point and shoot cam when I want 3 chip quality without the XL1s and all the gear, nice one sony.

George Van Noy · December 12th, 2004, 04:38 AM

Is it true that there will be more pixels, hence higher resolution with the pal version? And that therefore after editing say in Vegas or Avid Express Pro, there should be higher resolution during a video projection exhibition?

Would higher resolution also carry over to a 35mm film out?

But, due to the constraints of DVD authoring, there may be no difference here?

B&H lists the HC1000e (PAL) for $50 less than the NTSC version.

And the GS400e is $200 more than the GS400 for NTSC. Which is why I've gotten interested in the HC1000e.

Comments?

George Van Noy

Rob Lohman · December 14th, 2004, 08:20 AM

Welcome aboard DVInfo.net George.

Yes, PAL has a higher resolution (720x576) in regards to NTSC
(720x480) at a lower framerate (25 instead of 30 frames per
second).

This should also transmit to a projection (if a computer or DVD
player is used for example) and 35mm film.

However, it can introduce all sort of problems for you to work
with. Especially if you want to make an NTSC compliant DVD
(in which case you will loose the extra resolution and it will
look worse than when it was shot in NTSC to begin with).

Also see the following threads for some of my thoughts on this
matter:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=36212
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=35912

In my opinion people are too concerned with resolution....

Stephen Finton · June 6th, 2005, 10:25 PM

Hello everybody!

I've got a good one for you, I'm sure.

I recently bought 2 HC1000s and have been piddling with one of them for a couple of days to get the feel of its capabilities. I noticed that everything I was viewing/recording on it was a bit overexposed. I know the conversion for the EXPOSURE BAR and did an experiment recording brief sections at what was supposed to be very high F-Stop settings but I seem to only get it to go to F4.8 and then the next step over is a fully closed iris. Blip!

What the hell am I doing wrong? I've gone manual on everything! Have I missed a setting? I can take it up to 18dB no problem but I leap this gap from F4.8 to CLOSED.

Oh and I've been playing back what I have recorded, using the DATA CODE option, so I can see what settings it has.

Boyd Ostroff · June 7th, 2005, 05:08 AM

On the TRV-950 and PDX-10 (predecessors to the HC-1000) the data code readings are bogus. For example, it will say you're shooting at f 1.6 at full telephoto zoom which isn't physically possible (max f stop there is f 2.8).

However, these cameras have an undocumented internal ND filter wheel which is automatically used. It cannot be manually controlled or disabled. The idea is to force the camera to always use an iris opening in the lens' "sweet spot." So I suspect this is what you're seeing, after stopping down to f4.8 the camera inserts the progressively larger ND filters instead of closing the iris further. If you're in auto mode it will start increasing the shutter speed when it reaches the limit of what the ND filters can do. You simply can't force the camera to use a small iris opening.

But this is what I find interesting: on the TRV-950 and PDX-10 the data code gives bogus readings saying that you're shooting at f8, f11, etc. when in fact it's at a larger opening with an ND filter. From what you're saying, it sounds like Sony may be more honest with the data code on the HC-1000 - although still not admitting the existence of the ND filters.

Try this experiment: put the camera in manual mode and shine a flashlight into the lens. Look closely as you turn the exposure wheel. You should be able to see the little ND filters move into the optical path.

OTOH, I suppose it's possible that there's something wrong with your camera. Do both of them behave the same way? But it sounds like the camera is behaving as I would expect, except the data code is more accurate than my PDX-10.

Stephen Finton · June 7th, 2005, 12:40 PM

I imagine it might be correct because the next step to the left on the exposure bar is closed and the viewfinder goes from somewhat overexposed to completely dark (Closed). You can see the picture drop into darkness like you've turned off the screen and it has a very slow discharge time.

Why would it allow you to close the iris but not allow you gradually get there? And is the sweet spot your referring to some pseudo auto mode? Is this limitation crippled in software or is it a physical limitation? Do more expensive cameras not limit you?

I don't remember my Digital8 dropping off into darkness at the end of the exposure bar. Is this because its shutter is automatic?

Sorry so many questions. I am confused when something is labeled manual but still limits you.

Boyd Ostroff · June 7th, 2005, 01:54 PM

Actually my VX-2000 does the same thing when you turn the exposure wheel to the limit. I don't know if it is physically closing the iris or just fading out somehow, but it seems to be intentional.

The "sweet spot" is a term that refers to a range of f-stops where the lens performs best. Typically it's centered somewhere around the f4 mark. All lenses show this characteristic to one degree or another, but more expensive ones are probably less finicky.

On small chip camcorders it's pretty standard nowadays to have the ND wheel inside and not to give users any direct access to it. I don't think you'll find this on 1/3" camcorders however.

A little searching will tell you a lot more...

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=14193
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=15728
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=25598

Stephen Finton · June 7th, 2005, 03:42 PM

Thanks for the links!

I wouldn't have joined the forum if I knew what to search for. I had no idea what I was experiencing. When I looked up exposure and F-Stop, you can imagine the number of posts I got back.

Boyd Ostroff · June 7th, 2005, 04:03 PM

Glad to be able to help. Was thinking about your situation a little more...

1. I think the "fade out" you describe is an intentional effect on the Sony cameras, so you can just turn the exposure wheel to get a smooth fade out at the end of a scene. It is probably fading to black electronically and not physically closing the iris.

2. The overexposed look at f4 (are you sure it wasn't f4.8?) while shooting outdoors is consistent with what you'd expect in manual mode. The camera had dropped in the darkest ND filter already. And it just won't LET you stop the iris down any further. You're in manual mode so it can't up the shutter speed. Under those conditions you will be overexposed no matter what. So if you want to shoot outdoors in manual mode, pick up a couple different screw-in ND filters, that's what I use. I don't usually like the look of high shutter speeds (creates sort of a jerky stroboscopic effect on motion).

Stephen Finton · June 7th, 2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

Glad to be able to help. Was thinking about your situation a little more...

1. I think the "fade out" you describe is an intentional effect on the Sony cameras, so you can just turn the exposure wheel to get a smooth fade out at the end of a scene. It is probably fading to black electronically and not physically closing the iris.

It actually says "CLOSED", where once there was F4.8, when I review the video with camera data turned on.

Quote:

2. The overexposed look at f4 (are you sure it wasn't f4.8?) while shooting outdoors is consistent with what you'd expect in manual mode. The camera had dropped in the darkest ND filter already. And it just won't LET you stop the iris down any further. You're in manual mode so it can't up the shutter speed. Under those conditions you will be overexposed no matter what. So if you want to shoot outdoors in manual mode, pick up a couple different screw-in ND filters, that's what I use. I don't usually like the look of high shutter speeds (creates sort of a jerky stroboscopic effect on motion).

It was F4.8 when I tried it indoors. Outdoors for some reason I could only get it down to F4. Perhaps it has something to do with what I was shooting? A parking lot at noon time. A lot of glare on windshields. Still I would think this would have allowed the camera to kick in one of those ND filters you've been talking about.

Boyd Ostroff · June 7th, 2005, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Finton

Still I would think this would have allowed the camera to kick in one of those ND filters you've been talking about.

Oh I think it already was maxxed out with the ND filters, but they just weren't enough to handle the really bright conditions. I've shot out in the sun with an NDx8 screw-in filter and needed to raise the shutter speed to get a good exposure.

And remember, they're double secret ND filters, so the data code isn't going to tell you they're being used ;-) Seriously.

Let me see if I can find Tom around somewhere, this thread is right up his alley...

Stephen Finton · June 7th, 2005, 05:26 PM

I got the gist of it from your threads you posted for me to read. Funny thing is the guy in the top thread has a TRV510 as well. It was the thing that was throwing me off because I could go from as bright as the camera allowed(GAIN GRAIN) to completely black in 24 even steps. I kinda wanted that with this camera but I guess that's the nature of something so bent on collecting light.

I gotta find my flashlight.

October 3rd, 2004, 12:10 PM	#17
Danny Fye Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Independence MO. Posts: 318	"My GS400 takes far better image than HC1000." That's interesting in that I've read posts where someone said the oposite. Maybe it's how the settings were done or maybe it's subjective. I don't know. I do know that I have decided to get the HC1000. Thanks all for the replies. Danny Fye www.dannyfye.com __________________ www.dannyfye.com

December 12th, 2004, 04:38 AM	#20
George Van Noy Tourist Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Santa Monica, CA USA Posts: 3	16x9 HC1000: ntsc vs pal Is it true that there will be more pixels, hence higher resolution with the pal version? And that therefore after editing say in Vegas or Avid Express Pro, there should be higher resolution during a video projection exhibition? Would higher resolution also carry over to a 35mm film out? But, due to the constraints of DVD authoring, there may be no difference here? B&H lists the HC1000e (PAL) for $50 less than the NTSC version. And the GS400e is $200 more than the GS400 for NTSC. Which is why I've gotten interested in the HC1000e. Comments? George Van Noy

December 14th, 2004, 08:20 AM	#21
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Welcome aboard DVInfo.net George. Yes, PAL has a higher resolution (720x576) in regards to NTSC (720x480) at a lower framerate (25 instead of 30 frames per second). This should also transmit to a projection (if a computer or DVD player is used for example) and 35mm film. However, it can introduce all sort of problems for you to work with. Especially if you want to make an NTSC compliant DVD (in which case you will loose the extra resolution and it will look worse than when it was shot in NTSC to begin with). Also see the following threads for some of my thoughts on this matter: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=36212 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=35912 In my opinion people are too concerned with resolution.... __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

June 6th, 2005, 10:25 PM	#22
Stephen Finton Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 344	HC1000 Exposure Trouble? Hello everybody! I've got a good one for you, I'm sure. I recently bought 2 HC1000s and have been piddling with one of them for a couple of days to get the feel of its capabilities. I noticed that everything I was viewing/recording on it was a bit overexposed. I know the conversion for the EXPOSURE BAR and did an experiment recording brief sections at what was supposed to be very high F-Stop settings but I seem to only get it to go to F4.8 and then the next step over is a fully closed iris. Blip! What the hell am I doing wrong? I've gone manual on everything! Have I missed a setting? I can take it up to 18dB no problem but I leap this gap from F4.8 to CLOSED. Oh and I've been playing back what I have recorded, using the DATA CODE option, so I can see what settings it has.

October 3rd, 2004, 08:01 AM	#16
Kaku Ito Trustee Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo Posts: 1,382	I finally tried the HC1000 for few hours and got really dissapointed with the image quality. Wider dynamic ranage was totally sales talk and the image was poor. My GS400 takes far better image than HC1000. Worst of all, most of the parameters on HC1000 are controlled on the touch panel LCD. It is hard to believe that FX1 and HC1000 are made by the same company when you think about their cost/performance.

October 3rd, 2004, 12:30 PM	#18
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Congratulations on your decision Danny. We'll be interested to hear your impression of the camera after you've had a chance to get used to it.

October 6th, 2004, 03:12 AM	#19
Paul Rickford Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: POOLE, UK Posts: 158	I have read with interest and some amazement at the passion that the HC1000 has generated on this and other sites. I am a Canon man with a XL1s, XM2 etc and have been trying to find a ideal travel cam for a long time. When I saw the HC1000 it was love at first sight, as a stand alone product it is unique, 3 chips in a very small well built package ideal for travel with a fantastic picture quality and feature set. The menu system is not my normal way of working , but its not as bad once you set up the custom menu which means with one touch of the screen I have white balance / colour level / spot meter / spot focus / mic level all at hand and the sony screen is much better than the canons in bright light. the twist grip does help for low level shots and is great for balancing on a wall to steady the cam. this to me is the ideal weekend point and shoot cam when I want 3 chip quality without the XL1s and all the gear, nice one sony.

June 7th, 2005, 05:08 AM	#23
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	On the TRV-950 and PDX-10 (predecessors to the HC-1000) the data code readings are bogus. For example, it will say you're shooting at f 1.6 at full telephoto zoom which isn't physically possible (max f stop there is f 2.8). However, these cameras have an undocumented internal ND filter wheel which is automatically used. It cannot be manually controlled or disabled. The idea is to force the camera to always use an iris opening in the lens' "sweet spot." So I suspect this is what you're seeing, after stopping down to f4.8 the camera inserts the progressively larger ND filters instead of closing the iris further. If you're in auto mode it will start increasing the shutter speed when it reaches the limit of what the ND filters can do. You simply can't force the camera to use a small iris opening. But this is what I find interesting: on the TRV-950 and PDX-10 the data code gives bogus readings saying that you're shooting at f8, f11, etc. when in fact it's at a larger opening with an ND filter. From what you're saying, it sounds like Sony may be more honest with the data code on the HC-1000 - although still not admitting the existence of the ND filters. Try this experiment: put the camera in manual mode and shine a flashlight into the lens. Look closely as you turn the exposure wheel. You should be able to see the little ND filters move into the optical path. OTOH, I suppose it's possible that there's something wrong with your camera. Do both of them behave the same way? But it sounds like the camera is behaving as I would expect, except the data code is more accurate than my PDX-10.

June 7th, 2005, 12:40 PM	#24
Stephen Finton Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 344	I imagine it might be correct because the next step to the left on the exposure bar is closed and the viewfinder goes from somewhat overexposed to completely dark (Closed). You can see the picture drop into darkness like you've turned off the screen and it has a very slow discharge time. Why would it allow you to close the iris but not allow you gradually get there? And is the sweet spot your referring to some pseudo auto mode? Is this limitation crippled in software or is it a physical limitation? Do more expensive cameras not limit you? I don't remember my Digital8 dropping off into darkness at the end of the exposure bar. Is this because its shutter is automatic? Sorry so many questions. I am confused when something is labeled manual but still limits you.

June 7th, 2005, 01:54 PM	#25
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Actually my VX-2000 does the same thing when you turn the exposure wheel to the limit. I don't know if it is physically closing the iris or just fading out somehow, but it seems to be intentional. The "sweet spot" is a term that refers to a range of f-stops where the lens performs best. Typically it's centered somewhere around the f4 mark. All lenses show this characteristic to one degree or another, but more expensive ones are probably less finicky. On small chip camcorders it's pretty standard nowadays to have the ND wheel inside and not to give users any direct access to it. I don't think you'll find this on 1/3" camcorders however. A little searching will tell you a lot more... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=14193 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=15728 http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=25598

June 7th, 2005, 03:42 PM	#26
Stephen Finton Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 344	Thanks for the links! I wouldn't have joined the forum if I knew what to search for. I had no idea what I was experiencing. When I looked up exposure and F-Stop, you can imagine the number of posts I got back.

June 7th, 2005, 04:03 PM	#27
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	Glad to be able to help. Was thinking about your situation a little more... 1. I think the "fade out" you describe is an intentional effect on the Sony cameras, so you can just turn the exposure wheel to get a smooth fade out at the end of a scene. It is probably fading to black electronically and not physically closing the iris. 2. The overexposed look at f4 (are you sure it wasn't f4.8?) while shooting outdoors is consistent with what you'd expect in manual mode. The camera had dropped in the darkest ND filter already. And it just won't LET you stop the iris down any further. You're in manual mode so it can't up the shutter speed. Under those conditions you will be overexposed no matter what. So if you want to shoot outdoors in manual mode, pick up a couple different screw-in ND filters, that's what I use. I don't usually like the look of high shutter speeds (creates sort of a jerky stroboscopic effect on motion).

June 7th, 2005, 05:26 PM	#30
Stephen Finton Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 344	I got the gist of it from your threads you posted for me to read. Funny thing is the guy in the top thread has a TRV510 as well. It was the thing that was throwing me off because I could go from as bright as the camera allowed(GAIN GRAIN) to completely black in 24 even steps. I kinda wanted that with this camera but I guess that's the nature of something so bent on collecting light. I gotta find my flashlight.