"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
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>

> I'm really glad to hear the good news Paul, and my prior gushing
> enthusiasm hopefully now seems justified and doesn't seem induced by
> drinking special Kool-Aid.
>
> On the subject of HDV editing, I want to mention that Premiere Pro
> stumbles on machines which can otherwise do very competent and fast HDV
> editing, and I would argue that a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with a gig of RAM makes
> an absolutely fine editing platform with some software. Vegas 8 is
> actually pretty decent, and programs like VideoReDoPlus, a true bargain in
> the same spirit as the HV-20, is quite awesome. Ulead VideoStudio Plus
> version 11 is another cheapo wonder which handles HDV extremely well.
>
> If you are truly committed to running Premiere on a fast processor, for my
> money I would definitely await until November 12th for the release of the
> new Intel Penryn CPU, whose SSE4 instruction set speeds up video encoding
> by at least a 2X or greater factor when the programs have been written to
> use the new instructions. The current Core 2 Duo folks with 6600s, 6700,
> and 6850 processors will be very unhappy when their Conroe, Kentfield, and
> Woodcrest machines (including the 8 core MacPro Xenons) suddenly seem to
> be running at glacial speeds, comparatively speaking. Check out the
> "Skulltrail" links for more info. I assume that Premiere and others will
> be updated to exploit the new SSE4 instruction set. The DiVX encoder is
> already running SSE4 and is just blazing fast, a very promising piece of
> news for those of us also interested in AVC/h.264/AVCHD and all of the
> associated codecs.
>
> Good luck with the new HV-20. And definitely check out the Canon hi def
> wide angle converter.
>
> Best,
>
> Smarty
> "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 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

"Martin Heffels" <goo***@flikken.net> wrote in message
news:o4asi31a468sdcmhdsqhu748k3pg1lrope@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:04:08 GMT, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>>Regarding Penryn / Skulltrail:
>
> Interesting. Thanks for the links, Smarty. Now I'm even more confused what
> to get next year ;-)
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

>
> If you are truly committed to running Premiere on a fast processor, for my
> money I would definitely await until November 12th for the release of the
> new Intel Penryn CPU, whose SSE4 instruction set speeds up video encoding
> by at least a 2X or greater factor when the programs have been written to
> use the new instructions. The current Core 2 Duo folks with 6600s, 6700,
> and 6850 processors will be very unhappy when their Conroe, Kentfield, and
> Woodcrest machines (including the 8 core MacPro Xenons) suddenly seem to
> be running at glacial speeds, comparatively speaking. Check out the
> "Skulltrail" links for more info. I assume that Premiere and others will
> be updated to exploit the new SSE4 instruction set. The DiVX encoder is
> already running SSE4 and is just blazing fast, a very promising piece of
> news for those of us also interested in AVC/h.264/AVCHD and all of the
> associated codecs.

>
> Best,
>
> Smarty
> "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 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:5p6cr8FpmdumU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:23lXi.1667$b%1.104@trnddc01...
>> I'm really glad to hear the good news Paul, and my prior gushing
>> enthusiasm hopefully now seems justified and doesn't seem induced by
>> drinking special Kool-Aid.
>
> I've drunk the Koo-Aid, too! ;)
>
> My post on dvinfo was sub-titled, "This can't be right" because lots of
> people whose opinion I respected, including you, though the HV20 was a
> terrific camera.  It's interesting, though, that the combined default
> settings on the camera and my TV conspired to produce a seriously degraded
> image.  These days, manufacturers are so concerned about the "OOBE" (out
> of box experience), that they do all sorts of things, like setting up
> sharpening, contrast and saturation, that may make the image appear
> appealing to naive consumers, but look awful to anyone with a little
> experience with video.  I was very close to returning my HV20, and if I
> hadn't been fairly certain that the artifacts were the result of
> over-sharpening, I wouldn't have persisted and Canon would have lost a
> sale.
>
>>
>> On the subject of HDV editing, I want to mention that Premiere Pro
>> stumbles on machines which can otherwise do very competent and fast HDV
>> editing, and I would argue that a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with a gig of RAM makes
>> an absolutely fine editing platform with some software. Vegas 8 is
>> actually pretty decent, and programs like VideoReDoPlus, a true bargain
>> in the same spirit as the HV-20, is quite awesome. Ulead VideoStudio Plus
>> version 11 is another cheapo wonder which handles HDV extremely well.
>
> I'm afraid I'm commited to Premire Pro or, more accurately, to Adobe's
> products -- I like the tight integration between Premiere Pro, Photoshop
> and Encore.  A bare-bones or entry-level editor also wouldn't work for
> me -- I do too much compositing, correction and other things that require
> the features of an advanced editor.  Premiere Pro works very well on my
> laptop and I'm overdue for upgrading my desktop editing machine.
>>
>> If you are truly committed to running Premiere on a fast processor, for
>> my money I would definitely await until November 12th for the release of
>> the new Intel Penryn CPU, whose SSE4 instruction set speeds up video
>> encoding by at least a 2X or greater factor when the programs have been
>> written to use the new instructions. The current Core 2 Duo folks with
>> 6600s, 6700, and 6850 processors will be very unhappy when their Conroe,
>> Kentfield, and Woodcrest machines (including the 8 core MacPro Xenons)
>> suddenly seem to be running at glacial speeds, comparatively speaking.
>> Check out the "Skulltrail" links for more info. I assume that Premiere
>> and others will be updated to exploit the new SSE4 instruction set. The
>> DiVX encoder is already running SSE4 and is just blazing fast, a very
>> promising piece of news for those of us also interested in
>> AVC/h.264/AVCHD and all of the associated codecs.
>
> These look nice, but I usually buy technology that is 1 step behind the
> latest and greatest.  This year, particularly, I have to do things on a
> budget, so I think a Core 2 Duo machine with a couple of gig of RAM should
> work just fine, particularly under XP (my laptop is running Vista
> Business -- don't ask. ;) ).
>
>>
>> Good luck with the new HV-20. And definitely check out the Canon hi def
>> wide angle converter.
>
> Thanks.  The accessories I ordered yesterday were the Canon WA adapter, a
> UV filter, a polarizing filter, an extra extended-life battery and a quick
> charger.
>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Smarty

"Ken Maltby" <kmal***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4tydnalGVLW7vbPanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5p6cr8FpmdumU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> news:23lXi.1667$b%1.104@trnddc01...
>>> I'm really glad to hear the good news Paul, and my prior gushing
>>> enthusiasm hopefully now seems justified and doesn't seem induced by
>>> drinking special Kool-Aid.
>>
>> I've drunk the Koo-Aid, too! ;)
>>
>> My post on dvinfo was sub-titled, "This can't be right" because lots of
>> people whose opinion I respected, including you, though the HV20 was a
>> terrific camera.  It's interesting, though, that the combined default
>> settings on the camera and my TV conspired to produce a seriously
>> degraded image.  These days, manufacturers are so concerned about the
>> "OOBE" (out of box experience), that they do all sorts of things, like
>> setting up sharpening, contrast and saturation, that may make the image
>> appear appealing to naive consumers, but look awful to anyone with a
>> little experience with video.  I was very close to returning my HV20, and
>> if I hadn't been fairly certain that the artifacts were the result of
>> over-sharpening, I wouldn't have persisted and Canon would have lost a
>> sale.
>>
>>>
>>> On the subject of HDV editing, I want to mention that Premiere Pro
>>> stumbles on machines which can otherwise do very competent and fast HDV
>>> editing, and I would argue that a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with a gig of RAM
>>> makes an absolutely fine editing platform with some software. Vegas 8 is
>>> actually pretty decent, and programs like VideoReDoPlus, a true bargain
>>> in the same spirit as the HV-20, is quite awesome. Ulead VideoStudio
>>> Plus version 11 is another cheapo wonder which handles HDV extremely
>>> well.
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm commited to Premire Pro or, more accurately, to Adobe's
>> products -- I like the tight integration between Premiere Pro, Photoshop
>> and Encore.  A bare-bones or entry-level editor also wouldn't work for
>> me -- I do too much compositing, correction and other things that require
>> the features of an advanced editor.  Premiere Pro works very well on my
>> laptop and I'm overdue for upgrading my desktop editing machine.
>>>
>>> If you are truly committed to running Premiere on a fast processor, for
>>> my money I would definitely await until November 12th for the release of
>>> the new Intel Penryn CPU, whose SSE4 instruction set speeds up video
>>> encoding by at least a 2X or greater factor when the programs have been
>>> written to use the new instructions. The current Core 2 Duo folks with
>>> 6600s, 6700, and 6850 processors will be very unhappy when their Conroe,
>>> Kentfield, and Woodcrest machines (including the 8 core MacPro Xenons)
>>> suddenly seem to be running at glacial speeds, comparatively speaking.
>>> Check out the "Skulltrail" links for more info. I assume that Premiere
>>> and others will be updated to exploit the new SSE4 instruction set. The
>>> DiVX encoder is already running SSE4 and is just blazing fast, a very
>>> promising piece of news for those of us also interested in
>>> AVC/h.264/AVCHD and all of the associated codecs.
>>
>> These look nice, but I usually buy technology that is 1 step behind the
>> latest and greatest.  This year, particularly, I have to do things on a
>> budget, so I think a Core 2 Duo machine with a couple of gig of RAM
>> should work just fine, particularly under XP (my laptop is running Vista
>> Business -- don't ask. ;) ).
>>
>>>
>>> Good luck with the new HV-20. And definitely check out the Canon hi def
>>> wide angle converter.
>>
>> Thanks.  The accessories I ordered yesterday were the Canon WA adapter, a
>> UV filter, a polarizing filter, an extra extended-life battery and a
>> quick charger.
>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Smarty
>
>
>  I should probably stay out of this thread, but here are
> two thoughts.  First "VideoReDo TVSuite" should be a
> very helpful MPEG tool, no matter what editing or
> authoring programs you may use.  (Although there may
> be some additional tweaking required of the new
> features, the old functions will continue to work well
> on HD material.)

>
> Luck;
>     Ken
>
>
>
>
>

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5p6napFpdkllU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Ken Maltby" <kmal***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4tydnalGVLW7vbPanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>  I should probably stay out of this thread, but here are
>> two thoughts.  First "VideoReDo TVSuite" should be a
>> very helpful MPEG tool, no matter what editing or
>> authoring programs you may use.  (Although there may
>> be some additional tweaking required of the new
>> features, the old functions will continue to work well
>> on HD material.)
>
> Helpful how?  You're not suggesting that VideoReDo can do anything that
> Premiere Pro can't, are you?
>

>>
>>  Second; while the SSE4 may tip the balance in any
>> case, I would like to see what AMD is able to do, to
>> match or beat Intel's offering.  Isn't competition great!
>>
>>  As one who has been accused of drinking MPEG
>> flavored "Kool-Aid", it's interesting to see how times
>> have changed.
>
> The problem was never mpeg, per se, but comparing DVD-compliant mpeg to
> DV-codec-encoded avi, as well as the availability of tools for working
> with it.  There are no consumer or prosumer alternatives to
> temporally-encoded high-def video, so it's either mpeg2 for HDV or mpeg4
> for AVCHD.
>

"Ken Maltby" <kmal***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6fadnaGpdbMA3bPanZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5p6napFpdkllU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmal***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:4tydnalGVLW7vbPanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>  I should probably stay out of this thread, but here are
>>> two thoughts.  First "VideoReDo TVSuite" should be a
>>> very helpful MPEG tool, no matter what editing or
>>> authoring programs you may use.  (Although there may
>>> be some additional tweaking required of the new
>>> features, the old functions will continue to work well
>>> on HD material.)
>>
>> Helpful how?  You're not suggesting that VideoReDo can do anything that
>> Premiere Pro can't, are you?
>>
>
>  In a word, Yes.  Some of VideoReDo's processing
> of MPEG headers and timing, for sure!  Not to mention
> that it can be much easier to reach for a simple handy
> tool, for a small job, than to drag out something overly
> complex.

>
>>>
>>>  Second; while the SSE4 may tip the balance in any
>>> case, I would like to see what AMD is able to do, to
>>> match or beat Intel's offering.  Isn't competition great!
>>>
>>>  As one who has been accused of drinking MPEG
>>> flavored "Kool-Aid", it's interesting to see how times
>>> have changed.
>>
>> The problem was never mpeg, per se, but comparing DVD-compliant mpeg to
>> DV-codec-encoded avi, as well as the availability of tools for working
>> with it.  There are no consumer or prosumer alternatives to
>> temporally-encoded high-def video, so it's either mpeg2 for HDV or mpeg4
>> for AVCHD.
>>
>
>  Well, this just points out the why I refrained from
> posting to this thread for so long.

>
>  Now that we have your version of "the problem"
> and your view of the comparison that was being
> made, (and my how that changed over time).
>
>  The discussions were about taking Analog VHS
> or SD TV video and creating DVDs.  Your position
> was that by capturing to DV-AVI the video would
> be magically improved to the quality of your 3CCD
> Mini-DV camera's output.  You also maintained
> that MPEG editing was restricted to GOP level
> cuts and that no transitions or titling were possible
> with MPEG, for years after that was no longer the
> case.  You finally cut back on such claims only
> when Adobe added their plug-in, and then made
> the assertion that only very expensive MPEG
> editors could handle MPEG and that they struggled
> to do it.

>
>  Another part of your argument seemed to be that
> hardware direct to MPEG encoding is so vastly
> inferior to a two pass encoding of DV-AVI that
> if your VHS or TV analog video is captured directly
> to MPEG it will suffer horrible degradation.   This
> despite the existence and performance of  TiVo,
> DVD Recorders, Satellite and Cable DVRs/PVRs,
> and the experience of the many with hardware MPEG
> PCI cards and UBS2 boxes.  (Again, your belief in
> the magical improvement and necessity of the video
> spending some time as DV-AVI, before it is encoded
> to DVD Compliant MPEG.)
>
>  Now I don;t expect you will find any noticeable
> degradation in the video being single pass hardware
> encoded to MPEG2 in your new camera, but from
> all you have posted in the past, YOU should be
> expecting it.

>
> Luck;
>    Ken
>
>

"Ken Maltby" <kmal***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4tydnalGVLW7vbPanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5p6cr8FpmdumU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> news:23lXi.1667$b%1.104@trnddc01...
>>> I'm really glad to hear the good news Paul, and my prior gushing
>>> enthusiasm hopefully now seems justified and doesn't seem induced by
>>> drinking special Kool-Aid.
>>
>> I've drunk the Koo-Aid, too! ;)
>>
>> My post on dvinfo was sub-titled, "This can't be right" because lots of
>> people whose opinion I respected, including you, though the HV20 was a
>> terrific camera.  It's interesting, though, that the combined default
>> settings on the camera and my TV conspired to produce a seriously
>> degraded image.  These days, manufacturers are so concerned about the
>> "OOBE" (out of box experience), that they do all sorts of things, like
>> setting up sharpening, contrast and saturation, that may make the image
>> appear appealing to naive consumers, but look awful to anyone with a
>> little experience with video.  I was very close to returning my HV20, and
>> if I hadn't been fairly certain that the artifacts were the result of
>> over-sharpening, I wouldn't have persisted and Canon would have lost a
>> sale.
>>
>>>
>>> On the subject of HDV editing, I want to mention that Premiere Pro
>>> stumbles on machines which can otherwise do very competent and fast HDV
>>> editing, and I would argue that a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with a gig of RAM
>>> makes an absolutely fine editing platform with some software. Vegas 8 is
>>> actually pretty decent, and programs like VideoReDoPlus, a true bargain
>>> in the same spirit as the HV-20, is quite awesome. Ulead VideoStudio
>>> Plus version 11 is another cheapo wonder which handles HDV extremely
>>> well.
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm commited to Premire Pro or, more accurately, to Adobe's
>> products -- I like the tight integration between Premiere Pro, Photoshop
>> and Encore.  A bare-bones or entry-level editor also wouldn't work for
>> me -- I do too much compositing, correction and other things that require
>> the features of an advanced editor.  Premiere Pro works very well on my
>> laptop and I'm overdue for upgrading my desktop editing machine.
>>>
>>> If you are truly committed to running Premiere on a fast processor, for
>>> my money I would definitely await until November 12th for the release of
>>> the new Intel Penryn CPU, whose SSE4 instruction set speeds up video
>>> encoding by at least a 2X or greater factor when the programs have been
>>> written to use the new instructions. The current Core 2 Duo folks with
>>> 6600s, 6700, and 6850 processors will be very unhappy when their Conroe,
>>> Kentfield, and Woodcrest machines (including the 8 core MacPro Xenons)
>>> suddenly seem to be running at glacial speeds, comparatively speaking.
>>> Check out the "Skulltrail" links for more info. I assume that Premiere
>>> and others will be updated to exploit the new SSE4 instruction set. The
>>> DiVX encoder is already running SSE4 and is just blazing fast, a very
>>> promising piece of news for those of us also interested in
>>> AVC/h.264/AVCHD and all of the associated codecs.
>>
>> These look nice, but I usually buy technology that is 1 step behind the
>> latest and greatest.  This year, particularly, I have to do things on a
>> budget, so I think a Core 2 Duo machine with a couple of gig of RAM
>> should work just fine, particularly under XP (my laptop is running Vista
>> Business -- don't ask. ;) ).
>>
>>>
>>> Good luck with the new HV-20. And definitely check out the Canon hi def
>>> wide angle converter.
>>
>> Thanks.  The accessories I ordered yesterday were the Canon WA adapter, a
>> UV filter, a polarizing filter, an extra extended-life battery and a
>> quick charger.
>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Smarty
>
>
>  I should probably stay out of this thread, but here are
> two thoughts.  First "VideoReDo TVSuite" should be a
> very helpful MPEG tool, no matter what editing or
> authoring programs you may use.  (Although there may
> be some additional tweaking required of the new
> features, the old functions will continue to work well
> on HD material.)
>
>  Second; while the SSE4 may tip the balance in any
> case, I would like to see what AMD is able to do, to
> match or beat Intel's offering.  Isn't competition great!
>
>  As one who has been accused of drinking MPEG
> flavored "Kool-Aid", it's interesting to see how times
> have changed.
>
> Luck;
>     Ken
>

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5p6cr8FpmdumU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:23lXi.1667$b%1.104@trnddc01...
>> I'm really glad to hear the good news Paul, and my prior gushing
>> enthusiasm hopefully now seems justified and doesn't seem induced by
>> drinking special Kool-Aid.
>
> I've drunk the Koo-Aid, too! ;)
>
> My post on dvinfo was sub-titled, "This can't be right" because lots of
> people whose opinion I respected, including you, though the HV20 was a
> terrific camera.  It's interesting, though, that the combined default
> settings on the camera and my TV conspired to produce a seriously degraded
> image.  These days, manufacturers are so concerned about the "OOBE" (out
> of box experience), that they do all sorts of things, like setting up
> sharpening, contrast and saturation, that may make the image appear
> appealing to naive consumers, but look awful to anyone with a little
> experience with video.  I was very close to returning my HV20, and if I
> hadn't been fairly certain that the artifacts were the result of
> over-sharpening, I wouldn't have persisted and Canon would have lost a
> sale.
>
>>
>> On the subject of HDV editing, I want to mention that Premiere Pro
>> stumbles on machines which can otherwise do very competent and fast HDV
>> editing, and I would argue that a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with a gig of RAM makes
>> an absolutely fine editing platform with some software. Vegas 8 is
>> actually pretty decent, and programs like VideoReDoPlus, a true bargain
>> in the same spirit as the HV-20, is quite awesome. Ulead VideoStudio Plus
>> version 11 is another cheapo wonder which handles HDV extremely well.
>
> I'm afraid I'm commited to Premire Pro or, more accurately, to Adobe's
> products -- I like the tight integration between Premiere Pro, Photoshop
> and Encore.  A bare-bones or entry-level editor also wouldn't work for
> me -- I do too much compositing, correction and other things that require
> the features of an advanced editor.  Premiere Pro works very well on my
> laptop and I'm overdue for upgrading my desktop editing machine.
>>
>> If you are truly committed to running Premiere on a fast processor, for
>> my money I would definitely await until November 12th for the release of
>> the new Intel Penryn CPU, whose SSE4 instruction set speeds up video
>> encoding by at least a 2X or greater factor when the programs have been
>> written to use the new instructions. The current Core 2 Duo folks with
>> 6600s, 6700, and 6850 processors will be very unhappy when their Conroe,
>> Kentfield, and Woodcrest machines (including the 8 core MacPro Xenons)
>> suddenly seem to be running at glacial speeds, comparatively speaking.
>> Check out the "Skulltrail" links for more info. I assume that Premiere
>> and others will be updated to exploit the new SSE4 instruction set. The
>> DiVX encoder is already running SSE4 and is just blazing fast, a very
>> promising piece of news for those of us also interested in
>> AVC/h.264/AVCHD and all of the associated codecs.
>
> These look nice, but I usually buy technology that is 1 step behind the
> latest and greatest.  This year, particularly, I have to do things on a
> budget, so I think a Core 2 Duo machine with a couple of gig of RAM should
> work just fine, particularly under XP (my laptop is running Vista
> Business -- don't ask. ;) ).
>
>>
>> Good luck with the new HV-20. And definitely check out the Canon hi def
>> wide angle converter.
>
> Thanks.  The accessories I ordered yesterday were the Canon WA adapter, a
> UV filter, a polarizing filter, an extra extended-life battery and a quick
> charger.
>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Smarty
>> "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 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

"Martin Heffels" <goo***@flikken.net> wrote in message
news:t4smi39nm9g3k1lq0n6ra4euoq90dvkqd5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:43:18 GMT, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>>being pretty typical of what I would expect for the HV20 with additional
>>JPEG processing applied.
>
> I notice the same thing. Looking at the yellow lines (on the black), you
> can see similar artifacts in the rest of the picture.
> How do you look at all those details? Do you export a frame from your NLE?
> And in what format? Did you export to TIFF or Targa, and view them?
>
> -m-
> --
> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

On Nov 1, 9:32 am, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
> The website certainly does cater to the consumer market rather than
> professional buyers. In the past year this website did review both the Sony
> FX-7 and the Canon XH A1, both of which sell for several times the price of
> the HV-20, but I too find it hard to imagine that the "best HDV camcorder"
> award includes comparisons to such prosumer products. I certainly prefer the
> HV-20 to my older FX-1 but have no idea how well the FX-7 actually compares
> to the HV-20. I gotta think that the award was not considering these higher
> end cameras, but not really sure. I am sure from my own experience that Sony
> was handed a pretty obvious defeat for its HC-5 and HC-7 alternatives, both
> of which clearly lose in comparison to the HV-20 from my own experience and
> use.
>
> PTravel........Has your HV-20 arrived, and if so, any initial opinions of
> it?
>
> Smarty
>
> "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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

news:1194324995.353494.38980@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 9:32 am, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>> The website certainly does cater to the consumer market rather than
>> professional buyers. In the past year this website did review both the
>> Sony
>> FX-7 and the Canon XH A1, both of which sell for several times the price
>> of
>> the HV-20, but I too find it hard to imagine that the "best HDV
>> camcorder"
>> award includes comparisons to such prosumer products. I certainly prefer
>> the
>> HV-20 to my older FX-1 but have no idea how well the FX-7 actually
>> compares
>> to the HV-20. I gotta think that the award was not considering these
>> higher
>> end cameras, but not really sure. I am sure from my own experience that
>> Sony
>> was handed a pretty obvious defeat for its HC-5 and HC-7 alternatives,
>> both
>> of which clearly lose in comparison to the HV-20 from my own experience
>> and
>> use.
>>
>> PTravel........Has your HV-20 arrived, and if so, any initial opinions of
>> it?
>>
>> Smarty
>>
>> "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.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Smarty, you say that:
>
> "I am sure from my own experience that Sony was handed a pretty
> obvious defeat for its HC-5 and HC-7 alternatives, both of which
> clearly lose in comparison to the HV-20 from my own experience and
> use."
>
> Some reviewers did not consider that Sony was "obviously" defeated by
> the HV-20. For example, CNet's Lori Grunin awarded a score of 7.7 to
> the Canon HV-20 and 8.0 to the Sony HDR-HC7.
>
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4323-6530_7-6548292.html
>
> All this shows is that both cameras are excellent, and that there is
> not a clear worldwide consensus in favour of either the Sony or the
> Canon. But I am not interested in pushing the Sony in a big way
> against the Canon, I'm merely pleased that the HD technology has
> arrived at a point where there are at least two camcorders which can
> be purchased at a reasonable price which take great movies! We could
> argue at length over whether the HV-20 is better than the HC7, but in
> the end it comes down to individual preferences and perceptions (even
> when professional experts are involved).
>
> Regards, David C
>
>
>

"Ar" <Ar@::1.t> wrote in message
news:1bgnbl7ss9whf.16z79nrad1yy0$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:59:39 GMT, Smarty scribed:
>
>> Announced yesterday:
>>
>> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/CamInfo-Selects-2007-33545.htm#HDV
>>
>>  "Best High Definition" - All Media and the review states:
>
> A $900 camera that is incapable of recording PCM audio. Fantastic!
> Stick to DV for quality.

news:1193862290.548571.314480@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 2:59 am, "Smarty" <nob***@nobody.com> wrote:
>> 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."
>
> I think that prospective buyers should read this assessment of the
> main contenders:
>
> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/The-Great-HD-Shoot-Out---Canon-HV20-Sony-HDR-HC7-Panasonic-HDC-SD1-JVC-GZ-HD7/Conclusion.htm
>
> I purchased the Sony HDR-HC7 and I have no complaints as to its
> picture quality or handling. It would be most difficult for a reviewer
> to choose between the Canon HV20 and the Sony HDR-HC7, they are both
> very good camcorders. In particular, the construction and handling of
> the Sony is very good, and its picture quality would be equal to that
> of the Canon IMHO!
>
> Regards, David
>

>
> "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."
>>
>>
>
> Now if Canon or anyone else could supply a software to edit the HV20's
> true 1080i 1920x1080 movies...

>
>

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5p7e77FornlbU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "My Name Is Nobody" <nob***@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:bsuXi.4587$Zz.1303@trnddc07...
>>
>> "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."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now if Canon or anyone else could supply a software to edit the HV20's
>> true 1080i 1920x1080 movies...
>
> The HDV standard for 1080i is 1440 x 1080.  You can, however, get 1920 x
> 1080 out of the Canon's HDMI port.
>

"nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
news:GLvXi.802$0Q5.387@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5p7e77FornlbU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "My Name Is Nobody" <nob***@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:bsuXi.4587$Zz.1303@trnddc07...
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now if Canon or anyone else could supply a software to edit the HV20's
>>> true 1080i 1920x1080 movies...
>>
>> The HDV standard for 1080i is 1440 x 1080.  You can, however, get 1920 x
>> 1080 out of the Canon's HDMI port.
>>
>
> Which means that with an BlackMagic Intensity card for $249 and a decent
> drive array you ought to be able to capture and cut 1920.

>
> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
> news:GLvXi.802$0Q5.387@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>> news:5p7e77FornlbU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "My Name Is Nobody" <nob***@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bsuXi.4587$Zz.1303@trnddc07...
>>>>
>>>> "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."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now if Canon or anyone else could supply a software to edit the HV20's
>>>> true 1080i 1920x1080 movies...
>>>
>>> The HDV standard for 1080i is 1440 x 1080.  You can, however, get 1920 x
>>> 1080 out of the Canon's HDMI port.
>>>
>>
>> Which means that with an BlackMagic Intensity card for $249 and a decent
>> drive array you ought to be able to capture and cut 1920.
> Sure, no problem
> Paul is going to carry a desktop computer and a drive array along
> on his vacation and be limited bt the length of the HDMI cable and
> the nearest power outlet :-) Just kidding
>
> AFAIK you only get 1920 direct from the camera "live".
> Once it goes to tape it's 1440.

>
> David
>

>
> "David McCall" <mccallm***@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:d3wXi.5899$kH.237@trndny04...
>>
>> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
>> news:GLvXi.802$0Q5.387@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5p7e77FornlbU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "My Name Is Nobody" <nob***@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:bsuXi.4587$Zz.1303@trnddc07...
>>>>>
>>>>> "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."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now if Canon or anyone else could supply a software to edit the HV20's
>>>>> true 1080i 1920x1080 movies...
>>>>
>>>> The HDV standard for 1080i is 1440 x 1080.  You can, however, get 1920
>>>> x 1080 out of the Canon's HDMI port.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which means that with an BlackMagic Intensity card for $249 and a decent
>>> drive array you ought to be able to capture and cut 1920.
>> Sure, no problem
>> Paul is going to carry a desktop computer and a drive array along
>> on his vacation and be limited bt the length of the HDMI cable and
>> the nearest power outlet :-) Just kidding
>>
>> AFAIK you only get 1920 direct from the camera "live".
>> Once it goes to tape it's 1440.
>
>
>
> Please, can you provide some links to any place where this is actually
> disclosed or discussed in detail?
>

>
> Thanks
>

"nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
news:GLvXi.802$0Q5.387@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5p7e77FornlbU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "My Name Is Nobody" <nob***@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:bsuXi.4587$Zz.1303@trnddc07...
>>>
>>> "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."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now if Canon or anyone else could supply a software to edit the HV20's
>>> true 1080i 1920x1080 movies...
>>
>> The HDV standard for 1080i is 1440 x 1080.  You can, however, get 1920 x
>> 1080 out of the Canon's HDMI port.
>>
>
> Which means that with an BlackMagic Intensity card for $249 and a decent
> drive array you ought to be able to capture and cut 1920.

>
>

> "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."
>>
>>
>
> Now if Canon or anyone else could supply a software to edit the HV20's true
> 1080i 1920x1080 movies...

"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfX***@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:5p7eggFpvqg5U1@mid.individual.net...
> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>> "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."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now if Canon or anyone else could supply a software to edit the HV20's
>> true 1080i 1920x1080 movies...
>
>
> I have no problems editing HDV footage (even AVCHD footage) with my quad
> core.

>
> Mike

> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
> news:aWwXi.1966$RR6.323@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> "My Name Is Nobody" <nob***@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:xPwXi.2377$b%1.1494@trnddc01...
>>
>>> OK so, please explain why an HDV signal is referred to as both 1440x1080
>>> and 1920x1080?  I seem to have missed some distinction.
>>>
>> I haven't seen it referred to as 1920. Is that in a spec somewhere?
>>
>
>
> Yes, Right on the side of the Canon HV20 camera a sticker says "1920 x 1080
> HD CMOS", on a sticker that was attached to the camera when new it says
> "Bring true 1920x1080 HD to life Canon HV20" and all over in the HDV
> camcorder Instruction Manual:
> Numerous times Under Menu Options Lists pages 35 & 36, and other places...
>
> On Canons own web site:
> http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20070131_hv20.html
>
> Canon's True HD CMOS Image Sensor (1920 x 1080)
> Designed, developed, and manufactured by Canon for the EOS line of digital
> SLR cameras popular with professional photographers and advanced amateurs
> alike, Canon has created a 2.96 megapixel CMOS image sensor for the HV20 HD
> Camcorder. The 1/2.7" CMOS image sensor acquires image information at 1920 x
> 1080, reproducing life-like HD movies and photos.
>
> I've actually placed a phone call to Canon and spoke with some "so called"
> technical support person there, in what I thought was great detail about
> this.  I asked what software I was supposed to use that could work with this
> "true 1920x1080 HD" video and not reduce it's quality.  The consensus at the
> end of the lengthy phone call was that wow, it was too bad that no one was
> making a software that was capable of  handling the video from my new Canon
> camera without reducing the quality of the original video...
>
>
>
>
>

"Joe" <a**@xyz.com> wrote in message news:sgKXi.3137$4I.1967@trndny03...
>
> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
> news:13itr7vk7v0tj17@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>> What are you so hung up about capturing at 1920x1080 when the actual
>> resolution of the camera is way less than that at 800+ tvl?
>
>
> Just curious, but this complete video greenhorn would appreciate an
> explanation about the "800+ tvl". I do follow this thread regarding the
> fact that on tape you don't get 1920 pixels- but I don't understand that
> the camera's res is way less than that amount.
>
> thanks,
> Joe

"David McCall" <mccallm***@verizon.net> writes:

>Often people confuse this measurment of resolution with
>the number of pixels in rows and columns of the picture.
>They are related, but not the same.

>Lines of resolution take into account not only the pixel resolution,
>but also the optics of the camera. A single line consist of a
>black line as well as the white space between the black lines.

>A simplistic way of looking at it would be to say that  800 lines
>of resolution would require 1600 columns of pixels.
>One pixel for the black line and one for white space.
>Unfortunately it isn't that cut and dried. But that should get you started.

"Dave Martindale" <da***@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:fgqnbr$9v7$2@swain.cs.ubc.ca...
> "David McCall" <mccallm***@verizon.net> writes:
>
>>Often people confuse this measurment of resolution with
>>the number of pixels in rows and columns of the picture.
>>They are related, but not the same.
>
>>Lines of resolution take into account not only the pixel resolution,
>>but also the optics of the camera. A single line consist of a
>>black line as well as the white space between the black lines.
>
>>A simplistic way of looking at it would be to say that  800 lines
>>of resolution would require 1600 columns of pixels.
>>One pixel for the black line and one for white space.
>>Unfortunately it isn't that cut and dried. But that should get you
>>started.
>
> Unfortunately, you're confusing things further.
>
> When still photographers and optical designers talk about "lines", they
> generally do mean "line pairs", which is one black and one white line.
> These are the same size as "cycles", one cycle of a sine wave, which is
> used in MTF measurements, so measuring resolution in line pairs or
> cycles gives close to the same value.
>
> In the video world, "lines" counts black and white lines separately.
> So you need to multiply by two when converting line pairs to video
> lines.  And, in theory at least, resolving 800 TV lines takes at least 800
> pixels, not 1600 pixels.  (In practice, with real equipment, using
> decent anti-aliasing filters, the number is closer to three pixels per
> line pair or per two TV lines).
>
> But wait, there's more complexity.  TV resolution is generally quoted in
> terms of "lines per picture height", even when it is measuring
> horizontal resolution.  If you want to know the total number of lines
> *per picture width* that can be resolved, you need to multiply by the
> aspect ratio.  For example, a SDTV camera with "500 line" resolution can
> actually resolve 500*4/3 = 667 tv lines, or 333 line pairs, across the
> width of the screen.
>
> another Dave

>"Joe" <a**@xyz.com> writes:
>>So, back to my original question- was Spex right when he replied to someone,
>>"What are you so hung up about capturing at 1920x1080 when the actual
>>resolution of the camera is way less than that at 800+ tvl?"
>
>Assuming that "800 tvl" means 800 TV lines per picture height, as it
>usually does, and that this was measured in a 16:9 image (which is what
>I'd expect for any 1080-line image), then the horizontal resolution is
>about 1420 lines per picture width.  This is pretty much the maximum
>resolution possible at 1440 pixels horizontal.
>
>Now, if the 800 TVL resolution is measured from the HDV data being
>played back, where the stored image is only 1440 pixels wide, I'd
>suspect the resolution limit is due to the storage format.
>
>On the other hand, if you get 800 TVL right off the sensor via the HDMI
>output, that says that the lens/sensor resolution is only just good
>enough for the 1440-pixel recorded format, and capturing at 1920x1080
>won't give hardly any additional detail.  In that case, Spex is right -
>there's little point complaining about recording at 1440.
>
>        Dave

>It is a bit more complicated then that.
>This camera, the HV20, is a single sensor chip model.
>To get color, the chip's sensor elements are covered by red, green, and blue
>filters:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
>Likely Bayer patterns (as Canon mentions 'simple RGB' in their specs).
>
>Just this fact, in itself, sort of reduces the luminane resolution by half the horizontal pixels, see:
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sensors.htm
>
>This is a consumer camera.
>Canon mentions optical stabilisation, but in many consumer cameras there is also
>digital stabilisation, the way that is done is the picture is projected on
>a smaller area then the full sensor, so it can move about horizontally and vertically,
>allowing for the electronics to move processing along with it, resulting in a stable
>picture.
>Such a scheme further reduces available resolution.
>I am not sure if the HV20 also has some digital stabilisation.
>
>If you really wanted 1920x1080 Y you would need a 3 sensor camera, or one with
>those chips that have R, G. and B behind each other (but not sure you can buy those).

>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:08:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealm***@yahoo.com> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
>
>JVC's new consumer high definition Everio G Hard Disk Drive camcorder
>- the 3CCD GZ-HD7 - has been unveiled in Europe, a couple of weeks
>after being shown for the first time at the Consumer Electronics Show
>in Las Vegas mid-January 2007.

>Record Mode Record Resolution CODEC
>Video/Audio System Bit Rate Recording Time
>FHD (Full HD High Quality Mode) 1920x1080i MPEG2-TS / MP2 (MPEG1 Layer
>2) Variable Bit Rate (VBR): Max 30Mbps Ave. 26.6Mbps approx. 5hrs
>SP (Long Time 7 Hour Mode) 1440x1080i MPEG2-TS / MP2 (MPEG1 Layer 2)
>VBR: Max 22Mbps Ave. 19Mbps approx. 7hrs
>1440CBR (Constant Bit Rate Mode) 1440x1080i MPEG2-TS / MP2 (MPEG1
>Layer 2) Constant Bit Rate (CBR): 27Mbps approx. 5hrs

>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:08:45 +0000) it happened Spex
>> <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in <13j6d4dns7ef***@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>>>> So, although this really is a NICE camera, it is in no way 1920x1080 HDTV.
>>>>
>>> Name one HD camera and lens except RED cinema that is able to resolve
>>> that resolution.
>>
>> Why, do you not have google?
>
>You made the comment that the HV20 is not a 1920x1080 HDTV camera
>implying that you know what a 1920x1080 camera actually is.  Name one.
>Anyone.
>
>The question is, do you know what you are talking about or not?  I
>suspect not.
>
>Over to you.

> On a sunny day (Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:09:38 +0000) it happened Spex
> <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in <13j6gmj4lmbh***@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> On a sunny day (Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:08:45 +0000) it happened Spex
>>> <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in <13j6d4dns7ef***@corp.supernews.com>:
>>>
>>>>> So, although this really is a NICE camera, it is in no way 1920x1080 HDTV.
>>>>>
>>>> Name one HD camera and lens except RED cinema that is able to resolve
>>>> that resolution.
>>> Why, do you not have google?
>> You made the comment that the HV20 is not a 1920x1080 HDTV camera
>> implying that you know what a 1920x1080 camera actually is.  Name one.
>> Anyone.
>>
>> The question is, do you know what you are talking about or not?  I
>> suspect not.
>>
>> Over to you.
>
> You are still that insulting prick so why reply?
> Do your own homework.
> Bye

>Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm***@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>It is a bit more complicated then that.
>>This camera, the HV20, is a single sensor chip model.
>>To get color, the chip's sensor elements are covered by red, green, and blue
>>filters:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
>>Likely Bayer patterns (as Canon mentions 'simple RGB' in their specs).
>
>>Just this fact, in itself, sort of reduces the luminane resolution by
>>half the horizontal pixels, see:
>> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sensors.htm
>
>No, that's not correct.  A Bayer-sensor camera is able to achieve a
>*luminance* resolution that is comparable to a monochrome camera with
>the same number of pixels, not half.

>
> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
> news:13itr7vk7v0tj17@corp.supernews.com...
>> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
>> Looks to me like you are an extremely naive person who believes or is
>> easily misled by the marketing BS that companies spew out.  Canon hasn't
>> lied in what it has said it has just made it easy (for the ignorant
>> consumer who purchases equipment based on printed specs) to misinterpret
>> the information.  As all good marketing depts do.
>
>
> Yeah that's right, we weren't all as blessed as you apparently believe you
> were, by being born KNOWING IT ALL, (Don't you wish).

>
> Two points, please:
>
> 1.  Your post is cross-posted to, among others, the rec.video.production
> ng (I know, you didn't start the thread or the cross-posting, but it is
> cross-posted nonetheless).  Virtually everyone posting here is a video
> production professional (I'm not, but my presence is graciously tolerated
> those who are).  The assumption in this newsgroup is that people actually
> do know what they are talking about.
>
> 2.  Though, occassionally, people do get into it on rec.video.production,
> for the most part it is a civil, and therefore quite productive and
> useful, news group.  Rather than get into the usual Usnet pissing match,
> it might be a good idea either to trim your crossposts and leave rvp out
> of it, or else try to stick to the high road.  I'd also point out that
> your questions have been answered, exclusively, by the folks in rvp, i.e.
> if you want accurate information, you'll do better by playing nice in rvp
> than in the other rec.video ngs.
>
> Just a suggestion.

> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5p9sudFq4sk7U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> A BUNCH OF RUDENESS TO WHICH PT TRAVEL REPLIED...
>> Two points, please:
>>
>> 1.  Your post is cross-posted to, among others, the rec.video.production
>> ng (I know, you didn't start the thread or the cross-posting, but it is
>> cross-posted nonetheless).  Virtually everyone posting here is a video
>> production professional (I'm not, but my presence is graciously tolerated
>> those who are).  The assumption in this newsgroup is that people actually
>> do know what they are talking about.
>>
>> 2.  Though, occassionally, people do get into it on rec.video.production,
>> for the most part it is a civil, and therefore quite productive and
>> useful, news group.  Rather than get into the usual Usnet pissing match,
>> it might be a good idea either to trim your crossposts and leave rvp out
>> of it, or else try to stick to the high road.  I'd also point out that
>> your questions have been answered, exclusively, by the folks in rvp, i.e.
>> if you want accurate information, you'll do better by playing nice in rvp
>> than in the other rec.video ngs.
>>
>> Just a suggestion.
>
> Well said.  Thanks.
>
> Steve King
>
>
  ditto

"Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
news:13j0cn7no2pd4d8@corp.supernews.com...
> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>> "Spex" <No.spam@ta.com> wrote in message
>> news:13itr7vk7v0tj17@corp.supernews.com...
>>> My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>>> "nappy" <n@n.n> wrote in message
>>> Looks to me like you are an extremely naive person who believes or is
>>> easily misled by the marketing BS that companies spew out.  Canon hasn't
>>> lied in what it has said it has just made it easy (for the ignorant
>>> consumer who purchases equipment based on printed specs) to misinterpret
>>> the information.  As all good marketing depts do.
>>
>>
>> Yeah that's right, we weren't all as blessed as you apparently believe
>> you were, by being born KNOWING IT ALL, (Don't you wish).
>
> You sound like my missus.
>
>>
>> You are calling me extremely naive, easily misled?  What an extremely
>> arrogant pompous ass you are.   You may know something about video, (or
>> at least think you do) but as you have so aptly demonstrated, you don't
>> know a damn thing about me, and calling your communication skills
>> extremely crude and juvenile would be way over stating your meager
>> abilities.
>>
>
> I realise it must have come as a surprise to you that you are not all that
> clever.  Sorry, I should have let you down gentler.
>
>>
>>> Canon references 1920x1080 because its imagers are that resolution. most
>>> other camera are not that high res.  My XH-A1 has 1440x1080 CCDs.
>>>
>>> What are you so hung up about capturing at 1920x1080 when the actual
>>> resolution of the camera is way less than that at 800+ tvl?
>>
>> Why are you so "hung up" on totally misreading my question and this
>> situation?
>
> For someone who has shown the inability to read Canon's marketing
> information with getting their knickers in a twist you are the last person
> who should be lecturing on comprehension.
>
>>
>>> The camera will spit out 1920x1080 out of its HDMI port but the only
>>> benefits will be that you can capture uncompressed or to a less heavily
>>> compressed codec with 4:2:2 sampling rather than HDV at 4:2:0 it won't
>>> get you any more resolution out of the camera.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you for your pathetic contribution.
>
> You are very welcome.  Troll.

>
> Good by
>
> David
>
>
>

> "My Name Is Nobody" <nob***@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:sv6Yi.7488$%n.981@trndny07...
>> Well at least you recognize you are a troll.
>> It seems everyone exposed to your pompous, know-it-all, ego-deficient
>> rudeness including your poor missus, has your pathetic act pegged for what
>> it is.
>>
>> Good day, you pathetic troll.
>>
>
>
> Oh.. Spex.. where DO these guys come from?
>
>
>

>nappy wrote:
>> "My Name Is Nobody" <nob***@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:sv6Yi.7488$%n.981@trndny07...
>>> Well at least you recognize you are a troll.
>>> It seems everyone exposed to your pompous, know-it-all, ego-deficient
>>> rudeness including your poor missus, has your pathetic act pegged for what
>>> it is.
>>>
>>> Good day, you pathetic troll.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh.. Spex.. where DO these guys come from?
>>
>>
>>
>Probably the same place as the "Illuminati" of the "replacing your CRT"
>thread.

"Martin Heffels" <goo***@flikken.net> wrote in message
news:ib94j3pbdk698nq911g5dlko1o9k5f3nk9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:54:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonStpealm***@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Reminded me of this:
>
> Nice! But you know what they say about the weather in London: always grey.
> (not that it is true, but tonight it is). Maybe ptravel can shoot
> something
> similar to test his HV20 :-))
>
> cheers
>
> -m-

> --
> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5pf0itFqo2ukU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Martin Heffels" <goo***@flikken.net> wrote in message
> news:ib94j3pbdk698nq911g5dlko1o9k5f3nk9@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:54:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonStpealm***@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Reminded me of this:
>>
>> Nice! But you know what they say about the weather in London: always
>> grey.
>> (not that it is true, but tonight it is). Maybe ptravel can shoot
>> something
>> similar to test his HV20 :-))
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> -m-
>
> I'm off to China in a couple of weeks.  I expect to bring back some nice
> hi-def footage. ;)
>
>
>> --
>> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk
>

>
>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5pf0itFqo2ukU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Martin Heffels" <goo***@flikken.net> wrote in message
>> news:ib94j3pbdk698nq911g5dlko1o9k5f3nk9@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:54:51 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>> <pNaonStpealm***@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Reminded me of this:
>>>
>>> Nice! But you know what they say about the weather in London: always
>>> grey.
>>> (not that it is true, but tonight it is). Maybe ptravel can shoot
>>> something
>>> similar to test his HV20 :-))
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> -m-
>>
>> I'm off to China in a couple of weeks.  I expect to bring back some nice
>> hi-def footage. ;)
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk
>>
>

> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:53:34 -0800, "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I see you've never been to China.  If you'd like to see video of people
>> practicing their religion in China, I have lots -- there are Confusian and
>> Budhist temples all over China.
>
> He was talking about Falung Gong. But you knew that :-)) You will see them
> outside mainland China as well. Hong Kong (near the famous Wong Tai Sin
> temple) or Sydney (I think they have an office on Elizabeth St). All
> videoable without any risk.
>
>> As for massive environmental damage, pollution is, almost certainly, the
>> biggest challenge facing China right now
>
> Trying to nail down the skyline of Beijing should say enough :-))
>
>> I'd recommend that you visit some time -- clearly, you have a very mistaken
>> impression of the country.
>
> It takes some time for people to realise that China has changed, and that
> Mao died already quite some time ago :-))
>

>
> :-))
>
> -m-
> --
> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:5pj4b4Frei04U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Martin Heffels" <goo***@flikken.net> wrote in message
> news:o518j35bha645fr31h173v1s26gsm0s6tr@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:53:34 -0800, "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I see you've never been to China.  If you'd like to see video of people
>>>practicing their religion in China, I have lots -- there are Confusian
>>>and
>>>Budhist temples all over China.
>>
>> He was talking about Falung Gong. But you knew that :-))
>
> Yep.
>
>> You will see them
>> outside mainland China as well. Hong Kong (near the famous Wong Tai Sin
>> temple) or Sydney (I think they have an office on Elizabeth St). All
>> videoable without any risk.
>>
>>>As for massive environmental damage, pollution is, almost certainly, the
>>>biggest challenge facing China right now
>>
>> Trying to nail down the skyline of Beijing should say enough :-))
>
> Beijing has gotten quite bad.  Ten years ago, almost everyone rode
> bicycles and the sky was only moderately polluted.  Now, everyone has
> cars, it takes 30 minutes just to go the mile or so between ring roads,
> and the pollution is really bad -- like Los Angeles in the 70s.
>
>
>>
>>>I'd recommend that you visit some time -- clearly, you have a very
>>>mistaken
>>>impression of the country.
>>
>> It takes some time for people to realise that China has changed, and that
>> Mao died already quite some time ago :-))
>
> Exactly.
>
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> -martin-
>> --
>> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk
>

>
>
>
> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:5pj4b4Frei04U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Martin Heffels" <goo***@flikken.net> wrote in message
>> news:o518j35bha645fr31h173v1s26gsm0s6tr@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:53:34 -0800, "PTravel"
>>> <ptra***@travelersvideo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I see you've never been to China.  If you'd like to see video of people
>>>>practicing their religion in China, I have lots -- there are Confusian
>>>>and
>>>>Budhist temples all over China.
>>>
>>> He was talking about Falung Gong. But you knew that :-))
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> You will see them
>>> outside mainland China as well. Hong Kong (near the famous Wong Tai Sin
>>> temple) or Sydney (I think they have an office on Elizabeth St). All
>>> videoable without any risk.
>>>
>>>>As for massive environmental damage, pollution is, almost certainly, the
>>>>biggest challenge facing China right now
>>>
>>> Trying to nail down the skyline of Beijing should say enough :-))
>>
>> Beijing has gotten quite bad.  Ten years ago, almost everyone rode
>> bicycles and the sky was only moderately polluted.  Now, everyone has
>> cars, it takes 30 minutes just to go the mile or so between ring roads,
>> and the pollution is really bad -- like Los Angeles in the 70s.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>I'd recommend that you visit some time -- clearly, you have a very
>>>>mistaken
>>>>impression of the country.
>>>
>>> It takes some time for people to realise that China has changed, and
>>> that
>>> Mao died already quite some time ago :-))
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> -martin-
>>> --
>>> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk
>>
>

>  "My Name Is Nobody" wrote,...
>> Yeah well, Your request would actually seem sincere if you
>> had requested it of Spex.
>>FYI:  As distasteful as it may be to you Self Defense is a legal
>> defense for otherwise illegal behavior!!!
>
> You can defend yourself if you get beaten up with fists ;-) Calling around
> here saying "blablabla has insulted me, and now I feel very hurt", won't
> do
> you really much good. Maybe it's off your chest, but that's the only thing
> you gain with it.
> Really, trust me, I am sure we have been all around this block one time...
> don't ge into a fit what someone says about you. They don't know you, so
> they can't judge you, and it's just fodder then. Just, get it off your
> back. Forget about it, and carry on learing about video, instead of
> getting
> upset every time you see "Spex" appearing on your screen :-))

"Richard Crowley" <rcrow***@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:5phc40Frcf6kU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Martin Heffels" wrote ...
>>  "My Name Is Nobody" wrote,...
>>> Yeah well, Your request would actually seem sincere if you
>>> had requested it of Spex.
>>>FYI:  As distasteful as it may be to you Self Defense is a legal
>>> defense for otherwise illegal behavior!!!
>>
>> You can defend yourself if you get beaten up with fists ;-) Calling
>> around
>> here saying "blablabla has insulted me, and now I feel very hurt", won't
>> do
>> you really much good. Maybe it's off your chest, but that's the only
>> thing
>> you gain with it.
>> Really, trust me, I am sure we have been all around this block one
>> time...
>> don't ge into a fit what someone says about you. They don't know you, so
>> they can't judge you, and it's just fodder then. Just, get it off your
>> back. Forget about it, and carry on learing about video, instead of
>> getting
>> upset every time you see "Spex" appearing on your screen :-))
>
> Mr. Nobody has already made himself obnoxious enough
> that many of us have already plonked him.  Just FYI if he
> was wondering why responses have fallen off.
>

>
>>You are pardoned, Everyone is IGNORANT before they learn.
>
> Very true. Me too. There is many things I know jack about. Don't ask me
> anything about cars. I will give you a dumb, blank stare :-))
>
>> I've done tons
>>(many many hours) of web searching, not having an video specific or
>>technical video experience (Yes there are actually people on this planet
>>who
>>are not video experts)
>
> There are plenty of them here, who ask questions, which all the experts
> are
> happy to answer. All free of will, and without getting paid for it.

>
>>you have to actually know specific search terms if
>>you want to learn more.  Search terms that I DID NOT KNOW, but have since
>>already learned THANKS TO the other much more helpful and kind
>>contributors
>>to my inquires in this thread).  I even placed less than productive
>>technical assistance calls directly to Canon.  I did not know the
>>appropriate questions to ask to learn what I wanted to know.  Have you
>>ever
>>been in a similar situation?
>
> Of course I have been in such a situation. Who hasn't? But the tone of
> some
> of your posts, wasn't really in your favour. it made you look as if you