HD1A vs HD1000

[timmy2]

Does it make sense to upgrade from HD1A to HD1000?

Both cameras have a1/2.5 inch CCD, but the HD1A is 5.36-megapixels ("total" - whatever that means) while the HD1000 is 4-megapixels.

Then consider the still image specs at highest resolution:

HD1A 10M 3680x2760

HD1000 8M 3264x2448

So far the HD1A sounds like it had higher resolution capability.

My question then: does the HD1000's 1920x1080 12Mbps capability yield any substantive benefit over the HD1A's 720P capability?

[Amer]

timmy2 wrote:

Does it make sense to upgrade from HD1A to HD1000?

Both cameras have a1/2.5 inch CCD, but the HD1A is 5.36-megapixels ("total" - whatever that means) while the HD1000 is 4-megapixels.

Then consider the still image specs at highest resolution:

HD1A 10M 3680x2760

HD1000 8M 3264x2448

So far the HD1A sounds like it had higher resolution capability.

My question then: does the HD1000's 1920x1080 12Mbps capability yield any substantive benefit over the HD1A's 720P capability?

I believe the HD1000 is based on a 1/2,5 inch CMOS not CCD. But as you said does the HD1000 with fewer PIXELS but more LINES and Bit rate has a significant advantage. I wish somebody can break this down.

[Taynt3d]

Don't forget, the lens on the HD1000 is S-W-E-E-T. Although it's also the reason why it's bigger physically...

[sonicwind]

I can't really speak to the mechanics, but I have read many many complaints about the quality of the HD1A. I also know that the HD1000 is more sensitive and that the lower pixel count per CCD/CMOS size is also a contributer to a greater "quality" of picture as opposed to size of image. So in terms of video that would be a complete improvement, since the maximum video resolution on either camera is below the actual pixel count of the camera. On top of that the HD1000 can shoot in HD1080 whereas the hd1a is only HD720. Really, 720 would be fine for me, but I'm just saying.

And in terms of still image it's a trade off of qualilty vs size. For me 4mp is a satisfactory size. Really 3mp is all I need if the image quality is good. I'm not making posters or billboards. You can't even view a 2mp picture full screen in on a normal high resolution computer screen. In addition the HD1000 uses the h.264 codec, the most efficient video compression codec currently available. This means you can get a better quality video in the same amount of flash card space.

[celsius2]

I think it is not so much as 720p against 1080i.

HD1000 is a new design and has new, more efficient engine and support H264 format. It is more forward compatible.

[timtak]

The HD1000/1010's H264 format requires a fair bit of processor power. If you edit on a laptop or have a machine from a couple of years ago then you may have difficulty editing it. Only the latest versions of Sony Vegas /Ulead can open it. The thread here on how to convert the files to an editable format is scary.

The HD1000/1010 is a bit difficult to put ina pocket.

I think that the HD1/2 has too much glass (how often do people zoom that much?) and the HD1000 has even more. Other than the bulk, what happens when you drop one? Does holding it at arms length become tiring?

I wish that the 700/800s had an external microphone and less glass.

[Cresho]

It seems you are a bit confused. Your camera does 720p@30fps with 10x optical zoom. Are you happy with this? If you are, then why upgrade? The only benefit you will get from a hd1000 is the 720@60fps. It has Focusing issues, 1080i@30fps is a step backwards if you ask me.

If you are happy with the quality of your recorder, leave it alone until sanyo produces something better like a hd2000 (dreaming about it) 1080p@60fps with excellent night recording and awesome focus.

For pc hardware, You do need a good pc to edit videos if you are using vegas or adobe. Vegas will produce good results. There are free softwares as well that can do the job on a low end system incase you are curious. exporting xvid or mp3 is possible as formats for ipod, motorola phone, many devices that support multimedia playback. I preffer my zaurus or the neo running linux e17.

I personally jumped to the hd1000 just because it had 10xzoom, hd recording, Really good Stereo recording. I was not interested in the 720p@60fps until I actually saw video samples and compared it to a 30fps. Perhaps this is what you are looking for? remember that hd1000 users have focusing issues. I fight with it but I manage just fine so i definetly have a love/hate relationship here.

[whophd]

I just want to add something here, because I own both of these cameras and I think there is a clear answer.

The HD1, HD1A and HD2 have some kind of rotated grid subsampling technique -- whether by design or by cheapskate shortcut -- which reduces the computational requirements on the video mode of the camera, but produces horrible aliasing effects for sloped edges of a particular direction. This applies to all video resolutions.

NOTE: This isn't a problem with the MPEG-4 compression. The image is already degraded before it goes into the MPEG-4 compressor (so it doesn't make any difference what bitrate you choose, 6Mbps or 9Mbps).

Once this problem is in the images of your video, you can't get them out again. (Unless you have a master's degree in image processing).


The HD1A/etc range of cameras have these video modes that are worthwhile:
-640x480p60
-1280x720p30

The HD10x0 range of cameras have these video modes that are worthwhile:
-640x480p60
-1280x720p30
-1280x720p60
-1920x1080i60 (and p30 in the HD1010)


My point being, even though they do some of the same types of video, the HD1A will screw it up. Even if you just want 1280x720p30, get a HD1000.

The *only* advantage I've ever noticed with the HD1A is that the photos are marginally better in grabbing vivid colours (thanks to the CCD?), but you only notice this side-by-side if you own both ... and if you care that much you wouldn't be buying a hybrid camera. If this is what you care about but still need video, then I suggest carrying one of those new tiny 7x optical (or more) compact lens cameras from Sony/Canon in your pocket for the photos.


The HD1000 is basically kick-ass for its price, and I use it for 720p60 all the time, which is something many other "real" HD camcorders can't do. Computers handle "p60" video much more elegantly than any kind of "i60" video; there are too many videos on the net that are only 30fps or 25 or 24 or 12.

CK.

[timtak]

> My point being, even though they do some of the same types of video, the HD1A will screw it up. Even if you just want 1280x720p30, get a HD1000.

And that applies to the HD2 as well, I presume.

How do you find editing/rendering the video from the H1000? It hear that it is slow and that some people are converting before they attempt to edit.

I carry my HD2 with me all the time, and stillonlymanage to createabout 20videos a year. If it were any bigger, then I don't think that I would be able to carry it around all the time, and I would only take half as many videos. Can you fit the HD1000 in your pocket?

I carry a mini mic and wide lens too.

Tim

[whophd]

And that applies to the HD2 as well, I presume.

Yep. When the HD2 came out, a lot of HD1/1A owners were really hoping for a fix ... there was no real alternative from Sanyo or anyone else that had the same feature set. But the HD2 turned out to be the same thing, but it addressed the low-light issues and had a serious attempt at fixing it.

Interestingly ........ now *this* is something worth praising the HD1A over ..... the way the HD1 series works with video (a CCD thing?) is that it needs enough light for a 1/30th second shutter speed photo, to produce good light for video at 30fps (AFAIK). Which seems obvious, but most camcorders using CMOS can cheat and have shutter speeds that are slower than the frame rate, to overcome this.

As an upshot, the HD1 series, while being rubbish at videos in the dark, is stunningly good at photos in the dark. The HD2, presumably, is even more so. Try this: Hold the camera dead still (or use a tripod) and take a 4-second exposure outside at night. If you do it right, you'll see lots more detail than you can with the naked eye.

Admittedly, I don't have experience with long-exposure photography on most digital cameras or with film, but my first reaction is that the results are pretty awesome for just 4 seconds. In fact, most of the time I need to turn it down to 2 seconds. I even have a shot that was taken in a national park, at midnight, but looks like midday:

http://progsoc.org/~whophd/illawong5...07/Photos.html

Okay, grainy midday, but still!


Actually I wanted to buy the HD1 originally, not the HD1A ... it had the über-cool OLED viewfinder, and it still would be über-cool if it had not turned into a warranty nightmare for Sanyo and hadn't been dumped in favour of a common LCD in the HD1A in a hurry. Oh well. (The eBay seller couldn't understand why I was angry that he had sent me an HD1A instead of an HD1 like in his auction photos).

How do you find editing/rendering the video from the H1000? It hear that it is slow and that some people are converting before they attempt to edit.

Ironically, it is easier, and this was the killer that made me choose to buy it when I found out in surprise.

I've tinkered with QuickTime Player since the v2.x days (back when the "Pro" features were just part of the normal version), and it's like the Notepad of video editing. Just cut, copy, paste, select, delete, that kind of thing.

They've had support for ASP MPEG-4 (eg, Divx, Xvid, 3ivx) since QuickTime 6, and my aging computer would have trouble handling the HD stuff that came out of the HD1A camera.

But then something interesting happened in QuickTime 7: Apple realised that this new AVC MPEG-4 (eg, H264, x264) was a major pain in the CPU for most people, so someone must have said "make it work a bit better on older computers". What they did was, instead of making the fastest, efficient decoder (like VLC), they built a kind of frame-skipping ability that elegantly turns down the playback frame rate in most cases and then lets you (basically) see what the heck you've got your hands on, even if it's not in smooth quality.

Which was fine for me: I just wanted to edit it, and then show it to other people on the internet. In fact, I'd recompress it anyway (or stick it on YouTube HD, these days) and also my plasma TV is connected to a faster computer that can handle it, whereas all my terabytes of hard disk are on my older desktop/tower.

QuickTime 7's AVC decoder loves the files that come out the HD1000 because they have keyframes quite often, twice a second, so you'll get a fluidly updated video image when you play it instead of a "stuck CPU". With 1GHz you'll only get about 10fps instead of 60fps, but hey, I found that better than I could wish for.

So with QuickTime Player, I just lump a few videos together, chop out the bits I don't want, and then save it or maybe export it to a smaller bitrate and/or video size.

(These days though I'm getting more serious and using Final Cut Pro all the time, as well as running the video through a stabilizer program first, which produces a massive 10GB intermediate file for a few minutes of footage, but lets my 1GHz CPU play it back at 30fps ... check out the results

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RdQ3bvNxQWA&fmt=18

Also, I've found the 60fps really handy for some lovely slow-motion stuff, and the CMOS in the camera just *loves* being pointed straight at the sun:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7UQhlnKD14U&fmt=18

I carry my HD2 with me all the time, and still only manage to create about 20 videos a year. If it were any bigger, then I don't think that I would be able to carry it around all the time, and I would only take half as many videos. Can you fit the HD1000 in your pocket?

Yeah, I find that important. If you're not there, you don't get the footage, right?

I guess the HD2 has that advantage still. Probably, I'd rather have the smallest Sony HD camcorder, since it does 1080i in about the same pocket size or less, but that thing's twice as expensive. I just wish Sanyo would fix the HD2.

But if it's worth filming, it's worth filming properly. I'm trying to slap myself into using a tripod when I really can't be bothered.

I carry a mini mic and wide lens too.

Ah brilliant. Yeah, I like to carry the HD1000 around in my backpack, and then there's no problem taking the lens and the external mikes either. Since I have the backpack with me most days, this is my solution.

I gave the HD1A to the girlfriend, and she's found a way to cram it in her handbag. Nice. (But no lens+mic).

CK.