"nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
news:6h4Wi.9784$Pv2.5365@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:fT%Vi.8449$8R1.7716@trndny02...
>> Announced yesterday:
>>
>> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/CamInfo-Selects-2007-33545.htm#HDV
>>
>> "Best High Definition" - All Media and the review states:
>>
>> "The HV20 has the best looking picture we've seen all year, and serves
>> the
>> needs of almost any type of shooting a consumer is likely to come across.
>> The fact that it can be purchased for less than $1,000 is remarkable, and
>> only one of its many compelling features."
>>
>>
>>
>
> Just curious.. don't they mean the best consumer camcorder? That's a
> little broad!

>
>

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5os42mFntk2rU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
> news:6h4Wi.9784$Pv2.5365@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> news:fT%Vi.8449$8R1.7716@trndny02...
>>> Announced yesterday:
>>>
>>> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/CamInfo-Selects-2007-33545.htm#HDV
>>>
>>> "Best High Definition" - All Media and the review states:
>>>
>>> "The HV20 has the best looking picture we've seen all year, and serves
>>> the
>>> needs of almost any type of shooting a consumer is likely to come
>>> across.
>>> The fact that it can be purchased for less than $1,000 is remarkable,
>>> and
>>> only one of its many compelling features."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just curious.. don't they mean the best consumer camcorder? That's a
>> little broad!
>
> It's camcorderinfo.net.  Though the quality of the site has improved over
> the years, it still has a clear consumer focus.
>
>>
>>
>

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5osassFnsi3cU1@mid.individual.net...

> It just came.  This thing is tiny!  It's going to be quite a change
> getting used to it, after my VX2000.  I haven't had a chance to evaluate
> the image -- that will have to wait until I get home tonight.  I'm a
> little irked that it doesn't have a proper buckle for a neck strap, but
> I'll kludge something, probably using the tripod connector.  I shoot,
> mostly, from the chest, using the strap to provide support for the front
> of the camera.  I find I'm much steadier that way.  I really need to find
> some way to support the front of the HV20 (though the OIS seems pretty
> good -- probably better, or at least "stronger" than on my VX2000).
>
> It seems pretty solid for a consumer machine, though the joystick for
> navigating the menus looks like an obvious weak point.  I like that the
> filter threads are outside the built-in lens cap.  As I recall, my VX2000
> is also 43mm, so I should have a UV and circular polarizer for it already.
> I ordered the Canon WA lens -- it arrives tomorrow, but the WA field of
> view on the camera seems fine -- comparable to the VX2000 -- so I don't
> know how much I'll need to use it.  Assuming everything is okay tonight,
> I'll order a couple of extra batteries and a quick charge.
>
> If the video quality is as good as everyone says, I'll be a happy man.
> For the kind of travel video that I do, there are times when having a big
> prosumer machine is a good thing, but there are also many times when it's
> not, as it draws far too much attention.

"Frank" <fr***@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:vagii3d0dnjsmbelnef5dordd73kplr4jq@4ax.com...
> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>>The small size can be a problem in situations where the professional is
>>expected /assumed to bring in elaborate gear. Maybe somebody will offer a
>>cardboard, collapsible shell designed to look like a big ENG camera which
>>you can unfold and use for those situations... (;
>
> Gee, do we know of any retired engineering types here with lots of
> time on their hands who could whip something up? (Note: I want the
> NY/NJ distribution franchise.)
>

> Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
> [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
> Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
> (also covers AVCHD and XDCAM EX).

"Richard Crowley" <rcrow***@xp7rt.net> wrote:

>"Frank"  wrote ...
>> "Smarty"  wrote:
>>>The small size can be a problem in situations where the professional
>>>is
>>>expected /assumed to bring in elaborate gear. Maybe somebody will
>>>offer a
>>>cardboard, collapsible shell designed to look like a big ENG camera
>>>which
>>>you can unfold and use for those situations... (;
>>
>> Gee, do we know of any retired engineering types here with lots of
>> time on their hands who could whip something up? (Note: I want the
>> NY/NJ distribution franchise.)
>
>http://www.hdforindies.com/uploaded_images/redrock-mini-rig-1-724051.jpg
>Context: http://www.hdforindies.com/labels/Production.html
>
>Big enough for 'ya?  :-)
>Not fold-up cardboard, but some pretty useful stuff.

"Martin Heffels" <goo***@flikken.net> wrote in message
news:7gtii31dhqpk7qo7ctj06m03tvvhd3425q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:42:01 GMT, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>>The wide angle converter is a nice option, and I actually keep it on the
>>camera virtually all of the time
>
> Depending on how big a piece of glass it is, I would recommend to take it
> off. The front-ring of my TRV900 has snapped off due to the weight of the
> WA-adapter. The ring is plastic, and held with 3 tiny-screws, so the wear
> of a heavy front-element, made the plastic holes for the screws rip, and
> one day I took the camera out of my bag, and the WA-adapter stayed in
> there, which I found a bit strange ;-)
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>
>> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to see
>> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera, since I
>> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
>> non-professional user.
>
> As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in skill,
> experience or knowledge.  However, I've hit a significant problem with the
> HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>
> Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in high-frequency
> detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
> camcorder.  The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output, far less
> visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's
> caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
> something odd with my television.
>
> I've discussed it at length here:
>
> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>
> Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the camera
> as long as it looks good on the component output.  However, I'm going to
> do so more tests this weekend.  If the output continues to display these
> signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and waiting
> until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>
> I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.

On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact that I
> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally capture
> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the resulting
> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from tape
> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via HDMI,
> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI forum you
> linked to.
>
> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in HDMI
> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency / half-power
> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution. And on
> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as the
> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display shows no
> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus the
> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the camera's
> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this effect,
> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening may
> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent resolution. If
> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to judge
> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted in the
> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>
> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so as to
> make fast pans take on a more under-sampled and degraded appearance, but
> very very seldom have I seen any real macroblock effects or other
> artifacting. My movies of Niagara Falls, with lots of vertical water motion,
> horizontal panning, and very agitated and tiny water details is about the
> most stressing case I have tried, and even then the HV-20 was a vast
> improvement over the older FX-1 as well as the recent Sony HC-3 my son was
> using.
>
> Although I am by no means an advocate of high priced cables, I might also
> take a look at the HDMI cable being used between the HV-20 and the HDTV. The
> cables I use here are very inexpensive, work very well, and introduce no
> particular problems, but it is remotely possible that high frequency ringing
> or other transient / overshoot problems could make the HDMI port look bad.
> This is a bit far fetched but worth a quick substitution if you have another
> HDMI cable to substitute.
>
> Please continue to update as I really would hope this problem is not a
> deal-breaker.
>
> Smarty

>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
> >news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>
> >> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to see
> >> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera, since I
> >> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
> >> non-professional user.
>
> > As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in skill,
> > experience or knowledge.  However, I've hit a significant problem with the
> > HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>
> > Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in high-frequency
> > detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
> > camcorder.  The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output, far less
> > visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's
> > caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
> > something odd with my television.
>
> > I've discussed it at length here:
>
> >http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>
> > Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the camera
> > as long as it looks good on the component output.  However, I'm going to
> > do so more tests this weekend.  If the output continues to display these
> > signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and waiting
> > until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>
> > I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.

news:1193986489.385033.199060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact that I
>> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally
>> capture
>> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the
>> resulting
>> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from tape
>> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via
>> HDMI,
>> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI forum
>> you
>> linked to.
>>
>> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in HDMI
>> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
>> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency / half-power
>> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution. And
>> on
>> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as the
>> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display shows no
>> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
>> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus the
>> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the camera's
>> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this effect,
>> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening may
>> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent resolution.
>> If
>> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to judge
>> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted in the
>> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>>
>> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so as
>> to
>> make fast pans take on a more under-sampled and degraded appearance, but
>> very very seldom have I seen any real macroblock effects or other
>> artifacting. My movies of Niagara Falls, with lots of vertical water
>> motion,
>> horizontal panning, and very agitated and tiny water details is about the
>> most stressing case I have tried, and even then the HV-20 was a vast
>> improvement over the older FX-1 as well as the recent Sony HC-3 my son
>> was
>> using.
>>
>> Although I am by no means an advocate of high priced cables, I might also
>> take a look at the HDMI cable being used between the HV-20 and the HDTV.
>> The
>> cables I use here are very inexpensive, work very well, and introduce no
>> particular problems, but it is remotely possible that high frequency
>> ringing
>> or other transient / overshoot problems could make the HDMI port look
>> bad.
>> This is a bit far fetched but worth a quick substitution if you have
>> another
>> HDMI cable to substitute.
>>
>> Please continue to update as I really would hope this problem is not a
>> deal-breaker.
>>
>> Smarty
>
> Smarty, thanks for the response.  I've got a bunch of HDMI cables here
> but, as it happens, the one I was using is the best I have -- though
> money isn't necessarily a measure of quality, this one cost me $70.
> I'll try a couple of others this weekend.
>
> I took a look at a frame grab.  To my eye, there are sharpening
> artifacts or, at least, some kind of high-frequency distortion.  I
> posted it here:
>
> www.travelersvideo.com/hv20.jpg
>
> In the interest of bandwidth, I had to compress it rather heavily, but
> I think the artifacts show through.  I REALLY want to like this
> camera, so I'm going to do some more extensive tests this weekend,
> including lowering sharpening and trying it in 24p mode (though my
> preference is to shoot 1080i/60).
>
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> >news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>>
>> >> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to see
>> >> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera, since
>> >> I
>> >> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
>> >> non-professional user.
>>
>> > As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in skill,
>> > experience or knowledge.  However, I've hit a significant problem with
>> > the
>> > HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>>
>> > Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in high-frequency
>> > detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
>> > camcorder.  The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output, far
>> > less
>> > visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's
>> > caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
>> > something odd with my television.
>>
>> > I've discussed it at length here:
>>
>> >http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>>
>> > Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the
>> > camera
>> > as long as it looks good on the component output.  However, I'm going
>> > to
>> > do so more tests this weekend.  If the output continues to display
>> > these
>> > signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and
>> > waiting
>> > until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>>
>> > I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.
>
>

> For whatever it is worth, the frame grab looks to my (60+ year old) eyes as
> being pretty typical of what I would expect for the HV20 with additional
> JPEG processing applied. If I look at the very finest detail in the picture,
> such things as the parking meter next to the car, small signage detail on
> the lamp-post as well as the very tip of the lamppost, variegations in the
> fencepost masonry, and other really small (just a few pixel wide / tall)
> elements, my impression is that the capture has both preserved the edge
> definition without fringing (unlike the cheaper Sonys which make artificial
> edge sharpness by deliberate overshoot) and that there are no clear examples
> of a defect. The areas you enlarged do look a lot different from the very
> same areas which I enlarge using Photoshop, and thus your surrounding
> magnified crops do look distorted but only when I look at your magnified
> crops, and not when I look at the same high magnification of these areas
> using the central 1440 by 1080 image. I am not sure what to make of all of
> this.
>
> None of these comments / observations apply, of course, to what you are
> seeing on your TV set, or what the moving, dynamic video looks like versus
> this single static frame. All I am saying is that the sensor and encoder
> appear to be doing their job for this image without losing the fine detail,
> and that the detail which is preserved does not (to my eyes) appear to have
> distorted or exaggerated edges, color issues, or other evidence of a
> defective sensor, encoder, or optics.
>
> You alone can judge how faithfully this HV20 is capturing the true scene,
> and in this regard, another still camera with high resolution might allow
> you to make some further comparisons. I will often use my 8 MPixel Nikon to
> take comparison shots for seeing where the video camera is weak. Obviously
> the color gamut and resolution is worse in the video sample, but the
> comparison to a reference can help discern the video shortfalls easier.
>
> It will be interesting to see if any of my observations agree with anybody
> else's. I am not an expert at all in these matters, and have cataracts to
> further confuse the issue, so I am merely offering my 2 cents worth in a
> sincere effort to be helpful.
>
> I'm glad to keep working this to get more insight into what you are
> encountering.
>
> Smarty
>
>
> <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:1193986489.385033.199060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact that I
>>> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally
>>> capture
>>> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the
>>> resulting
>>> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from tape
>>> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via
>>> HDMI,
>>> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI forum
>>> you
>>> linked to.
>>>
>>> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in HDMI
>>> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
>>> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency / half-power
>>> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution. And
>>> on
>>> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as the
>>> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display shows no
>>> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
>>> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus the
>>> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the camera's
>>> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this effect,
>>> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening may
>>> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent resolution.
>>> If
>>> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to judge
>>> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted in the
>>> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>>>
>>> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so as
>>> to
>>> make fast pans take on a more under-sampled and degraded appearance, but
>>> very very seldom have I seen any real macroblock effects or other
>>> artifacting. My movies of Niagara Falls, with lots of vertical water
>>> motion,
>>> horizontal panning, and very agitated and tiny water details is about the
>>> most stressing case I have tried, and even then the HV-20 was a vast
>>> improvement over the older FX-1 as well as the recent Sony HC-3 my son
>>> was
>>> using.
>>>
>>> Although I am by no means an advocate of high priced cables, I might also
>>> take a look at the HDMI cable being used between the HV-20 and the HDTV.
>>> The
>>> cables I use here are very inexpensive, work very well, and introduce no
>>> particular problems, but it is remotely possible that high frequency
>>> ringing
>>> or other transient / overshoot problems could make the HDMI port look
>>> bad.
>>> This is a bit far fetched but worth a quick substitution if you have
>>> another
>>> HDMI cable to substitute.
>>>
>>> Please continue to update as I really would hope this problem is not a
>>> deal-breaker.
>>>
>>> Smarty
>> Smarty, thanks for the response.  I've got a bunch of HDMI cables here
>> but, as it happens, the one I was using is the best I have -- though
>> money isn't necessarily a measure of quality, this one cost me $70.
>> I'll try a couple of others this weekend.
>>
>> I took a look at a frame grab.  To my eye, there are sharpening
>> artifacts or, at least, some kind of high-frequency distortion.  I
>> posted it here:
>>
>> www.travelersvideo.com/hv20.jpg
>>
>> In the interest of bandwidth, I had to compress it rather heavily, but
>> I think the artifacts show through.  I REALLY want to like this
>> camera, so I'm going to do some more extensive tests this weekend,
>> including lowering sharpening and trying it in 24p mode (though my
>> preference is to shoot 1080i/60).
>>
>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>>>>> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to see
>>>>> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera, since
>>>>> I
>>>>> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
>>>>> non-professional user.
>>>> As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in skill,
>>>> experience or knowledge.  However, I've hit a significant problem with
>>>> the
>>>> HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>>>> Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in high-frequency
>>>> detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
>>>> camcorder.  The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output, far
>>>> less
>>>> visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's
>>>> caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
>>>> something odd with my television.
>>>> I've discussed it at length here:
>>>> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>>>> Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the
>>>> camera
>>>> as long as it looks good on the component output.  However, I'm going
>>>> to
>>>> do so more tests this weekend.  If the output continues to display
>>>> these
>>>> signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and
>>>> waiting
>>>> until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>>>> I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.
>>
>
>

>
>
> Smarty wrote:
>> For whatever it is worth, the frame grab looks to my (60+ year old) eyes
>> as being pretty typical of what I would expect for the HV20 with
>> additional JPEG processing applied. If I look at the very finest detail
>> in the picture, such things as the parking meter next to the car, small
>> signage detail on the lamp-post as well as the very tip of the lamppost,
>> variegations in the fencepost masonry, and other really small (just a few
>> pixel wide / tall) elements, my impression is that the capture has both
>> preserved the edge definition without fringing (unlike the cheaper Sonys
>> which make artificial edge sharpness by deliberate overshoot) and that
>> there are no clear examples of a defect. The areas you enlarged do look a
>> lot different from the very same areas which I enlarge using Photoshop,
>> and thus your surrounding magnified crops do look distorted but only when
>> I look at your magnified crops, and not when I look at the same high
>> magnification of these areas using the central 1440 by 1080 image. I am
>> not sure what to make of all of this.
>>
>> None of these comments / observations apply, of course, to what you are
>> seeing on your TV set, or what the moving, dynamic video looks like
>> versus this single static frame. All I am saying is that the sensor and
>> encoder appear to be doing their job for this image without losing the
>> fine detail, and that the detail which is preserved does not (to my eyes)
>> appear to have distorted or exaggerated edges, color issues, or other
>> evidence of a defective sensor, encoder, or optics.
>>
>> You alone can judge how faithfully this HV20 is capturing the true scene,
>> and in this regard, another still camera with high resolution might allow
>> you to make some further comparisons. I will often use my 8 MPixel Nikon
>> to take comparison shots for seeing where the video camera is weak.
>> Obviously the color gamut and resolution is worse in the video sample,
>> but the comparison to a reference can help discern the video shortfalls
>> easier.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if any of my observations agree with
>> anybody else's. I am not an expert at all in these matters, and have
>> cataracts to further confuse the issue, so I am merely offering my 2
>> cents worth in a sincere effort to be helpful.
>>
>> I'm glad to keep working this to get more insight into what you are
>> encountering.
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>>
>> <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1193986489.385033.199060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact that I
>>>> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally
>>>> capture
>>>> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the
>>>> resulting
>>>> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from tape
>>>> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via
>>>> HDMI,
>>>> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI
>>>> forum you
>>>> linked to.
>>>>
>>>> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in HDMI
>>>> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
>>>> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency /
>>>> half-power
>>>> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution. And
>>>> on
>>>> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as
>>>> the
>>>> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display shows
>>>> no
>>>> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
>>>> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus the
>>>> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the camera's
>>>> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this
>>>> effect,
>>>> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening may
>>>> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent
>>>> resolution. If
>>>> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to
>>>> judge
>>>> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted in
>>>> the
>>>> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>>>>
>>>> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so as
>>>> to
>>>> make fast pans take on a more under-sampled and degraded appearance,
>>>> but
>>>> very very seldom have I seen any real macroblock effects or other
>>>> artifacting. My movies of Niagara Falls, with lots of vertical water
>>>> motion,
>>>> horizontal panning, and very agitated and tiny water details is about
>>>> the
>>>> most stressing case I have tried, and even then the HV-20 was a vast
>>>> improvement over the older FX-1 as well as the recent Sony HC-3 my son
>>>> was
>>>> using.
>>>>
>>>> Although I am by no means an advocate of high priced cables, I might
>>>> also
>>>> take a look at the HDMI cable being used between the HV-20 and the
>>>> HDTV. The
>>>> cables I use here are very inexpensive, work very well, and introduce
>>>> no
>>>> particular problems, but it is remotely possible that high frequency
>>>> ringing
>>>> or other transient / overshoot problems could make the HDMI port look
>>>> bad.
>>>> This is a bit far fetched but worth a quick substitution if you have
>>>> another
>>>> HDMI cable to substitute.
>>>>
>>>> Please continue to update as I really would hope this problem is not a
>>>> deal-breaker.
>>>>
>>>> Smarty
>>> Smarty, thanks for the response.  I've got a bunch of HDMI cables here
>>> but, as it happens, the one I was using is the best I have -- though
>>> money isn't necessarily a measure of quality, this one cost me $70.
>>> I'll try a couple of others this weekend.
>>>
>>> I took a look at a frame grab.  To my eye, there are sharpening
>>> artifacts or, at least, some kind of high-frequency distortion.  I
>>> posted it here:
>>>
>>> www.travelersvideo.com/hv20.jpg
>>>
>>> In the interest of bandwidth, I had to compress it rather heavily, but
>>> I think the artifacts show through.  I REALLY want to like this
>>> camera, so I'm going to do some more extensive tests this weekend,
>>> including lowering sharpening and trying it in 24p mode (though my
>>> preference is to shoot 1080i/60).
>>>
>>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>>>>>> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera, since
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
>>>>>> non-professional user.
>>>>> As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in skill,
>>>>> experience or knowledge.  However, I've hit a significant problem with
>>>>> the
>>>>> HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>>>>> Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in
>>>>> high-frequency
>>>>> detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
>>>>> camcorder.  The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output, far
>>>>> less
>>>>> visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's
>>>>> caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
>>>>> something odd with my television.
>>>>> I've discussed it at length here:
>>>>> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>>>>> Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the
>>>>> camera
>>>>> as long as it looks good on the component output.  However, I'm going
>>>>> to
>>>>> do so more tests this weekend.  If the output continues to display
>>>>> these
>>>>> signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and
>>>>> waiting
>>>>> until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>>>>> I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.
>>>
>>

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5p12idFof3pjU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
> news:13imfvhg31fbe63@corp.supernews.com...
>> There doesn't look much wrong with this screen grab.  There is a
>> considerable amount of sharpening that will catch the eye as the video
>> moves.  With so much native resolution there is little value keeping the
>> sharpening that high.
>
> Yep -- that's exactly what I'm seeing.  I'm pleased with the resolution
> and color fidelity of the image, but "shimmering" on movement is driving
> me crazy.
>
>>
>> PTravel, why not post a RAW m2t clip to Rapidshare???  It won't cost you
>> anything.
>
> I'll try that this weekend.
>
>>
>> How hot are the whites in the image?  Check their level.
>
> I'll look this weekend.
>
>>
>>
>> Smarty wrote:
>>> For whatever it is worth, the frame grab looks to my (60+ year old) eyes
>>> as being pretty typical of what I would expect for the HV20 with
>>> additional JPEG processing applied. If I look at the very finest detail
>>> in the picture, such things as the parking meter next to the car, small
>>> signage detail on the lamp-post as well as the very tip of the lamppost,
>>> variegations in the fencepost masonry, and other really small (just a
>>> few pixel wide / tall) elements, my impression is that the capture has
>>> both preserved the edge definition without fringing (unlike the cheaper
>>> Sonys which make artificial edge sharpness by deliberate overshoot) and
>>> that there are no clear examples of a defect. The areas you enlarged do
>>> look a lot different from the very same areas which I enlarge using
>>> Photoshop, and thus your surrounding magnified crops do look distorted
>>> but only when I look at your magnified crops, and not when I look at the
>>> same high magnification of these areas using the central 1440 by 1080
>>> image. I am not sure what to make of all of this.
>>>
>>> None of these comments / observations apply, of course, to what you are
>>> seeing on your TV set, or what the moving, dynamic video looks like
>>> versus this single static frame. All I am saying is that the sensor and
>>> encoder appear to be doing their job for this image without losing the
>>> fine detail, and that the detail which is preserved does not (to my
>>> eyes) appear to have distorted or exaggerated edges, color issues, or
>>> other evidence of a defective sensor, encoder, or optics.
>>>
>>> You alone can judge how faithfully this HV20 is capturing the true
>>> scene, and in this regard, another still camera with high resolution
>>> might allow you to make some further comparisons. I will often use my 8
>>> MPixel Nikon to take comparison shots for seeing where the video camera
>>> is weak. Obviously the color gamut and resolution is worse in the video
>>> sample, but the comparison to a reference can help discern the video
>>> shortfalls easier.
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see if any of my observations agree with
>>> anybody else's. I am not an expert at all in these matters, and have
>>> cataracts to further confuse the issue, so I am merely offering my 2
>>> cents worth in a sincere effort to be helpful.
>>>
>>> I'm glad to keep working this to get more insight into what you are
>>> encountering.
>>>
>>> Smarty
>>>
>>>
>>> <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1193986489.385033.199060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact that
>>>>> I
>>>>> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally
>>>>> capture
>>>>> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the
>>>>> resulting
>>>>> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from tape
>>>>> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via
>>>>> HDMI,
>>>>> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI
>>>>> forum you
>>>>> linked to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in
>>>>> HDMI
>>>>> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
>>>>> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency /
>>>>> half-power
>>>>> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution.
>>>>> And on
>>>>> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as
>>>>> the
>>>>> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display shows
>>>>> no
>>>>> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
>>>>> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus the
>>>>> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the
>>>>> camera's
>>>>> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this
>>>>> effect,
>>>>> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening may
>>>>> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent
>>>>> resolution. If
>>>>> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to
>>>>> judge
>>>>> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted in
>>>>> the
>>>>> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so
>>>>> as to
>>>>> make fast pans take on a more under-sampled and degraded appearance,
>>>>> but
>>>>> very very seldom have I seen any real macroblock effects or other
>>>>> artifacting. My movies of Niagara Falls, with lots of vertical water
>>>>> motion,
>>>>> horizontal panning, and very agitated and tiny water details is about
>>>>> the
>>>>> most stressing case I have tried, and even then the HV-20 was a vast
>>>>> improvement over the older FX-1 as well as the recent Sony HC-3 my son
>>>>> was
>>>>> using.
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I am by no means an advocate of high priced cables, I might
>>>>> also
>>>>> take a look at the HDMI cable being used between the HV-20 and the
>>>>> HDTV. The
>>>>> cables I use here are very inexpensive, work very well, and introduce
>>>>> no
>>>>> particular problems, but it is remotely possible that high frequency
>>>>> ringing
>>>>> or other transient / overshoot problems could make the HDMI port look
>>>>> bad.
>>>>> This is a bit far fetched but worth a quick substitution if you have
>>>>> another
>>>>> HDMI cable to substitute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please continue to update as I really would hope this problem is not a
>>>>> deal-breaker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Smarty
>>>> Smarty, thanks for the response.  I've got a bunch of HDMI cables here
>>>> but, as it happens, the one I was using is the best I have -- though
>>>> money isn't necessarily a measure of quality, this one cost me $70.
>>>> I'll try a couple of others this weekend.
>>>>
>>>> I took a look at a frame grab.  To my eye, there are sharpening
>>>> artifacts or, at least, some kind of high-frequency distortion.  I
>>>> posted it here:
>>>>
>>>> www.travelersvideo.com/hv20.jpg
>>>>
>>>> In the interest of bandwidth, I had to compress it rather heavily, but
>>>> I think the artifacts show through.  I REALLY want to like this
>>>> camera, so I'm going to do some more extensive tests this weekend,
>>>> including lowering sharpening and trying it in 24p mode (though my
>>>> preference is to shoot 1080i/60).
>>>>
>>>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>>>>>>> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to
>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera,
>>>>>>> since I
>>>>>>> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
>>>>>>> non-professional user.
>>>>>> As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in
>>>>>> skill,
>>>>>> experience or knowledge.  However, I've hit a significant problem
>>>>>> with the
>>>>>> HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>>>>>> Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in
>>>>>> high-frequency
>>>>>> detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
>>>>>> camcorder.  The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output, far
>>>>>> less
>>>>>> visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether it's
>>>>>> caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
>>>>>> something odd with my television.
>>>>>> I've discussed it at length here:
>>>>>> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>>>>>> Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the
>>>>>> camera
>>>>>> as long as it looks good on the component output.  However, I'm going
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> do so more tests this weekend.  If the output continues to display
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and
>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>> until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>>>>>> I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.
>>>>
>>>

> Paul,
>
> I just read your Saturday afternoon update on the DVI forum, and am very
> pleased to learn that readjusting the TV set sharpening apparently solved
> the problem.
>
> Today's overcast weather in the L.A. area may prevent seeing the HV-20 at
> its' best, but I am anxious to see / hear how the experimentation and
> comparisons went. I meant it most sincerely when I said my 3-CCD FX-1
> could not compare to the HV-20, to such an extent that I literally put the
> FX-1 on craigslist.com and sold it once I saw how well the HV-20 performs.
> Same thing with the HC-5. Others have made similar comments and reports.
>
> What are your present thoughts?
>
> Smarty

>
>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5p12idFof3pjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
>> news:13imfvhg31fbe63@corp.supernews.com...
>>> There doesn't look much wrong with this screen grab.  There is a
>>> considerable amount of sharpening that will catch the eye as the video
>>> moves.  With so much native resolution there is little value keeping the
>>> sharpening that high.
>>
>> Yep -- that's exactly what I'm seeing.  I'm pleased with the resolution
>> and color fidelity of the image, but "shimmering" on movement is driving
>> me crazy.
>>
>>>
>>> PTravel, why not post a RAW m2t clip to Rapidshare???  It won't cost you
>>> anything.
>>
>> I'll try that this weekend.
>>
>>>
>>> How hot are the whites in the image?  Check their level.
>>
>> I'll look this weekend.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Smarty wrote:
>>>> For whatever it is worth, the frame grab looks to my (60+ year old)
>>>> eyes as being pretty typical of what I would expect for the HV20 with
>>>> additional JPEG processing applied. If I look at the very finest detail
>>>> in the picture, such things as the parking meter next to the car, small
>>>> signage detail on the lamp-post as well as the very tip of the
>>>> lamppost, variegations in the fencepost masonry, and other really small
>>>> (just a few pixel wide / tall) elements, my impression is that the
>>>> capture has both preserved the edge definition without fringing (unlike
>>>> the cheaper Sonys which make artificial edge sharpness by deliberate
>>>> overshoot) and that there are no clear examples of a defect. The areas
>>>> you enlarged do look a lot different from the very same areas which I
>>>> enlarge using Photoshop, and thus your surrounding magnified crops do
>>>> look distorted but only when I look at your magnified crops, and not
>>>> when I look at the same high magnification of these areas using the
>>>> central 1440 by 1080 image. I am not sure what to make of all of this.
>>>>
>>>> None of these comments / observations apply, of course, to what you are
>>>> seeing on your TV set, or what the moving, dynamic video looks like
>>>> versus this single static frame. All I am saying is that the sensor and
>>>> encoder appear to be doing their job for this image without losing the
>>>> fine detail, and that the detail which is preserved does not (to my
>>>> eyes) appear to have distorted or exaggerated edges, color issues, or
>>>> other evidence of a defective sensor, encoder, or optics.
>>>>
>>>> You alone can judge how faithfully this HV20 is capturing the true
>>>> scene, and in this regard, another still camera with high resolution
>>>> might allow you to make some further comparisons. I will often use my 8
>>>> MPixel Nikon to take comparison shots for seeing where the video camera
>>>> is weak. Obviously the color gamut and resolution is worse in the video
>>>> sample, but the comparison to a reference can help discern the video
>>>> shortfalls easier.
>>>>
>>>> It will be interesting to see if any of my observations agree with
>>>> anybody else's. I am not an expert at all in these matters, and have
>>>> cataracts to further confuse the issue, so I am merely offering my 2
>>>> cents worth in a sincere effort to be helpful.
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad to keep working this to get more insight into what you are
>>>> encountering.
>>>>
>>>> Smarty
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1193986489.385033.199060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact that
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally
>>>>>> capture
>>>>>> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the
>>>>>> resulting
>>>>>> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from
>>>>>> tape
>>>>>> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via
>>>>>> HDMI,
>>>>>> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI
>>>>>> forum you
>>>>>> linked to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in
>>>>>> HDMI
>>>>>> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
>>>>>> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency /
>>>>>> half-power
>>>>>> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution.
>>>>>> And on
>>>>>> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display
>>>>>> shows no
>>>>>> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
>>>>>> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the
>>>>>> camera's
>>>>>> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this
>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening may
>>>>>> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent
>>>>>> resolution. If
>>>>>> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to
>>>>>> judge
>>>>>> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so
>>>>>> as to
>>>>>> make fast pans take on a more under-sampled and degraded appearance,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> very very seldom have I seen any real macroblock effects or other
>>>>>> artifacting. My movies of Niagara Falls, with lots of vertical water
>>>>>> motion,
>>>>>> horizontal panning, and very agitated and tiny water details is about
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> most stressing case I have tried, and even then the HV-20 was a vast
>>>>>> improvement over the older FX-1 as well as the recent Sony HC-3 my
>>>>>> son was
>>>>>> using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I am by no means an advocate of high priced cables, I might
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> take a look at the HDMI cable being used between the HV-20 and the
>>>>>> HDTV. The
>>>>>> cables I use here are very inexpensive, work very well, and introduce
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> particular problems, but it is remotely possible that high frequency
>>>>>> ringing
>>>>>> or other transient / overshoot problems could make the HDMI port look
>>>>>> bad.
>>>>>> This is a bit far fetched but worth a quick substitution if you have
>>>>>> another
>>>>>> HDMI cable to substitute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please continue to update as I really would hope this problem is not
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> deal-breaker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Smarty
>>>>> Smarty, thanks for the response.  I've got a bunch of HDMI cables here
>>>>> but, as it happens, the one I was using is the best I have -- though
>>>>> money isn't necessarily a measure of quality, this one cost me $70.
>>>>> I'll try a couple of others this weekend.
>>>>>
>>>>> I took a look at a frame grab.  To my eye, there are sharpening
>>>>> artifacts or, at least, some kind of high-frequency distortion.  I
>>>>> posted it here:
>>>>>
>>>>> www.travelersvideo.com/hv20.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> In the interest of bandwidth, I had to compress it rather heavily, but
>>>>> I think the artifacts show through.  I REALLY want to like this
>>>>> camera, so I'm going to do some more extensive tests this weekend,
>>>>> including lowering sharpening and trying it in 24p mode (though my
>>>>> preference is to shoot 1080i/60).
>>>>>
>>>>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> news:5oue5kFoaqqtU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:J9aWi.29875$eD3.26430@trnddc03...
>>>>>>>> Looks like nappy is beginning to get tempted...... I am anxious to
>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>> how you and the other true professionals here find this camera,
>>>>>>>> since I
>>>>>>>> judge image quality and other related performance mostly as a
>>>>>>>> non-professional user.
>>>>>>> As everyone here knows, I am far from a professional, either in
>>>>>>> skill,
>>>>>>> experience or knowledge.  However, I've hit a significant problem
>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>> HV20 that may result in my returning it.
>>>>>>> Short version: there are significant motion artifacts in
>>>>>>> high-frequency
>>>>>>> detail, not unlike what you see with a Bayer-filtered single-CCD SD
>>>>>>> camcorder.  The problem is dramatic on the camera's HDMI output, far
>>>>>>> less
>>>>>>> visible on component out. I'm still trying to figure out whether
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> caused by over-sharpening in the camera, lousy HDMI circuitry, or
>>>>>>> something odd with my television.
>>>>>>> I've discussed it at length here:
>>>>>>> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=768436
>>>>>>> Since these videos are for my own personal use only, I may keep the
>>>>>>> camera
>>>>>>> as long as it looks good on the component output.  However, I'm
>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>> do so more tests this weekend.  If the output continues to display
>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>> signficant high-frequency motion artifacts, I'm returning it and
>>>>>>> waiting
>>>>>>> until next year to buy either an AH1 or FX7.
>>>>>>> I'm really disappointed -- I had high hopes for this machine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>
>

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5p4bg2Fpgn50U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:OZ3Xi.437$m44.219@trnddc06...
>> Paul,
>>
>> I just read your Saturday afternoon update on the DVI forum, and am very
>> pleased to learn that readjusting the TV set sharpening apparently solved
>> the problem.
>>
>> Today's overcast weather in the L.A. area may prevent seeing the HV-20 at
>> its' best, but I am anxious to see / hear how the experimentation and
>> comparisons went. I meant it most sincerely when I said my 3-CCD FX-1
>> could not compare to the HV-20, to such an extent that I literally put
>> the FX-1 on craigslist.com and sold it once I saw how well the HV-20
>> performs. Same thing with the HC-5. Others have made similar comments and
>> reports.
>>
>> What are your present thoughts?
>>
>> Smarty
>
> I'm now a convert -- the HV20 is really amazing.  For anyone reading this
> who doesn't follow dvinfo.net, the problem I had experienced was a
> combination of the camera's default setting for sharpening being too high,
> and sharpening set too high on my high-def television.   I really don't
> understand Canon's thinking in this regard, as the default "medium"
> sharpening setting in the HV20 really degrades high-frequency detail
> without offering any advantage.  Kudos, however, to Canon putting
> sharpening adjustments in the user's control (I just wish there was a way
> to turn it off entirely).
>
> I shot a few more minutes of test video a little while ago (it's sunny
> here in Santa Monica) and the video is simply stunning.  My VX2000 will
> probably go on eBay tomorrow if I have the time to take some pictures of
> it.  I can't imagine why anyone would consider a different consumer
> camera, and if you're willing to sacrifice some manual control (and an XLR
> input), this thing compares favorably, actually more than favorably, with
> prosumer offerings costing four times as much.
>
> There are still some minor motion artifacts, but no worse than I get with
> VX2000, and I've been happy with that for years.  The lens could probably
> stand a few more elements -- there is some minor fringing in the telephoto
> position but, again, nothing I can't easily live.  I've also figured out a
> way to put a strap on it that lets me manage my usual shooting style of
> keeping the camera at chest level with the strap providing support for the
> front of the camera.  The HV20's image stabilization is very effective -- 
> the stuff I shot this afternoon isn't as steady as when I shoot with a
> tripod, but it's pretty good and better than what I could do with my
> VX2000.
>
> I haven't yet broken the news to my wife that I've bought Yet Another
> Camera, but I think the combination of the tiny form factor, which she'll
> like, and the fact that I can almost certainly get more for the VX2000 and
> all the accessories I have for more than I paid for the HV20 should
> mitigate the coming storm when she finds out. ;)  Actually, I'm looking
> forward to doing some travel video without carting around the weight of
> the VX2000, its extra batteries, the WA lens, etc.  I barely notice the
> HV20 when I'm carrying it, and the batteries weigh less than a fourth of
> the VX2000's.
>
> The only bad news is that my 3 GHz P4 with 1 gig of ram isn't up to
> editing HDV -- previews in Premiere Pro CS3 are jerky and often freeze.
> I'm going to have to upgrade this computer (and I'm not looking forward to
> telling my wife that!).  Happily, though, my laptop, a Core 2 Duo-equipped
> Sony Vaio with 2 gig for RAM can manage editing HDV fairly well.  I'll
> probably use that for editing until I can afford to get a new computer.
> One of the interesting possiblities it offers is to start editing in the
> field, something I've never tried before.  I'm way behind in my editing
> projects, and still have at least one standard-def shoot that I need to
> finish.
>
> The combination of 24p and "cine" mode on the HV20 is really interesting.
> As I mentioned on dvinfo, I really have no need for this feature, but the
> camera's ability to produce a fairly convincing "film look" is impressive.
> If I was a young film maker or film student, I'd definitely get one of
> these.   Maybe I can talk Mrs. PTravel into considering a new career. ;)
>
> I also went over to B&H's website this afternoon to order some
> accessories. Of course, they don't take orders for another hour or so
> (sundown in NYC), but they've got the HV20 for only $798!  I assume that
> means there's an HV30 on the horizon, but I'm off to Cambodia in a few
> weeks and don't want to wait.  Though I can think of some improvements to
> the HV20, I don't think there's a compelling reason for anyone to wait.
>
>>
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5p12idFof3pjU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
>>> news:13imfvhg31fbe63@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> There doesn't look much wrong with this screen grab.  There is a
>>>> considerable amount of sharpening that will catch the eye as the video
>>>> moves.  With so much native resolution there is little value keeping
>>>> the sharpening that high.
>>>
>>> Yep -- that's exactly what I'm seeing.  I'm pleased with the resolution
>>> and color fidelity of the image, but "shimmering" on movement is driving
>>> me crazy.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> PTravel, why not post a RAW m2t clip to Rapidshare???  It won't cost
>>>> you anything.
>>>
>>> I'll try that this weekend.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How hot are the whites in the image?  Check their level.
>>>
>>> I'll look this weekend.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Smarty wrote:
>>>>> For whatever it is worth, the frame grab looks to my (60+ year old)
>>>>> eyes as being pretty typical of what I would expect for the HV20 with
>>>>> additional JPEG processing applied. If I look at the very finest
>>>>> detail in the picture, such things as the parking meter next to the
>>>>> car, small signage detail on the lamp-post as well as the very tip of
>>>>> the lamppost, variegations in the fencepost masonry, and other really
>>>>> small (just a few pixel wide / tall) elements, my impression is that
>>>>> the capture has both preserved the edge definition without fringing
>>>>> (unlike the cheaper Sonys which make artificial edge sharpness by
>>>>> deliberate overshoot) and that there are no clear examples of a
>>>>> defect. The areas you enlarged do look a lot different from the very
>>>>> same areas which I enlarge using Photoshop, and thus your surrounding
>>>>> magnified crops do look distorted but only when I look at your
>>>>> magnified crops, and not when I look at the same high magnification of
>>>>> these areas using the central 1440 by 1080 image. I am not sure what
>>>>> to make of all of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these comments / observations apply, of course, to what you
>>>>> are seeing on your TV set, or what the moving, dynamic video looks
>>>>> like versus this single static frame. All I am saying is that the
>>>>> sensor and encoder appear to be doing their job for this image without
>>>>> losing the fine detail, and that the detail which is preserved does
>>>>> not (to my eyes) appear to have distorted or exaggerated edges, color
>>>>> issues, or other evidence of a defective sensor, encoder, or optics.
>>>>>
>>>>> You alone can judge how faithfully this HV20 is capturing the true
>>>>> scene, and in this regard, another still camera with high resolution
>>>>> might allow you to make some further comparisons. I will often use my
>>>>> 8 MPixel Nikon to take comparison shots for seeing where the video
>>>>> camera is weak. Obviously the color gamut and resolution is worse in
>>>>> the video sample, but the comparison to a reference can help discern
>>>>> the video shortfalls easier.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will be interesting to see if any of my observations agree with
>>>>> anybody else's. I am not an expert at all in these matters, and have
>>>>> cataracts to further confuse the issue, so I am merely offering my 2
>>>>> cents worth in a sincere effort to be helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad to keep working this to get more insight into what you are
>>>>> encountering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Smarty
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1193986489.385033.199060@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Nov 1, 7:51 pm, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not seen the problem you describe, but it may be the fact
>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>> virtually never view the camera through its' HDMI port. I normally
>>>>>>> capture
>>>>>>> the Firewire data / .m2t, edit and author an HD DVD, and watch the
>>>>>>> resulting
>>>>>>> (non-transcoded) output. When I have made direct comparisons from
>>>>>>> tape
>>>>>>> output from the camera's HDMI port versus playback of the HD DVD via
>>>>>>> HDMI,
>>>>>>> both had none of the "shimmer" you describe at the post on the DVI
>>>>>>> forum you
>>>>>>> linked to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the distinction you make regarding dramatic differences in
>>>>>>> HDMI
>>>>>>> versus component is very telling, however. Both should contain high
>>>>>>> frequency components up to about the same cut-off frequency /
>>>>>>> half-power
>>>>>>> point. Each delivers essentially the same bandwidth and resolution.
>>>>>>> And on
>>>>>>> the 2 HDTV monitors I have here (both of which are 1080p) as well as
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> computers / monitors I have for editing, the progressive display
>>>>>>> shows no
>>>>>>> such effects. Perhaps the camera's 1080 interlaced signal is managed
>>>>>>> differently on your monitor when seen through the HDMI port versus
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> component input? I personally doubt the default setting of the
>>>>>>> camera's
>>>>>>> sharpening would (if the camera is working properly) create this
>>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>>> although reducing the high frequency energy with lower sharpening
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> "solve" the problem at the expense of the camera's excellent
>>>>>>> resolution. If
>>>>>>> it were me, I would want to see another HDTV / monitor with HDMI to
>>>>>>> judge
>>>>>>> how much of this, if any, is truly a camera issue. If it persisted
>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> second monitor, I would get a replacement camera.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mpeg encoder is imperfect, and motion does stress the encoder so
>>>>>