Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Sanyo (
-   -   HD2000 Quick First Impressions... (

cdude Mar 4, 2009 5:35 AM

Literally just got my HD2000 a couple of hours ago and thought I'd post a few first impressions.

I normally work with other pro cameras in production and have a Sony HDV Z1 that I use for shorts and other production work, but originally got an HD1000 last May to have as a small personal camcorder.

Back then I was a little disappointed with the quality of the HD1000, but still loved the form factor and thought that for personal, fun or impromptu shooting that it was still better to have a tiny camera with me that didn't have the best quality than none at all - that was the saving grace of the HD1000 for me. It's form factor and usability made me completely forgive its shortcomings. However things about it did bug me, namely:
  • the HD1000 had crappy auto-focus - it was always hunting around going in and out of focus - and it took me awhile to get the hang of using the joystick for manual focus on it[/*]
  • super crappy low light performance - really hideous night time interior shooting was blocky as hell even in 1080i and had color noise that made it not viable for me for impromptu shooting that I could use as B-roll if the lighting conditions were bad.[/*]
  • 1080i was bad at such a low bit rate. Though bright daylight shots were good

Here's the good news about the HD2000 (VPC-HD2000GXBk is the exact model I got):
  • HD2000 initially seems WAY better - OS seems faster flipping thru movies and pics,[/*]
  • 1080p mode is totally worth the price for this form factor. it will be soooo nice to have this quality in such a tiny camera without looking like you are a real production crew. This is good for candid documentaries, news footage and other guerilla filmmaking which larger pro cameras often garner attention or adverse reactions[/*]
  • low light footage indoors is SIGNIFICANTLY improved - it is not 100% of course, but much better than the HD1000[/*]
  • the 1080i mode is much better than the equivalent shooting mode on the HD1000 - colors seem more accurate too[/*]
  • the camera on the HD1000 was passable, but this one is noticeably better and has better color and seems to take pictures faster (though I am using the same Transcend 8 and 16GB SDHC cards)
Obviously no time to shoot any footage to show you all yet, but I may upload something in the next few weeks with the HD2000 on my Modosteady and see how it looks. As I no longer have my HD1000 I can't compare except by memory, but if any of you HD1000 owners are considering an upgrade - it has my vote. But I cant comment on the 1010 as I haven't tried that one.

Hope this helps a bit... :dude:

Trevmar Mar 4, 2009 6:29 AM

Thanks for sharing.

Rev2010 Mar 4, 2009 11:03 AM

Thanks for the info Cdude! Hey, could you possibly give me your opinion on something? I was thinking of upgrading to the HD2000 but I'm a little stunned that they increased the bitrate on 1080 interlaced mode t0 16mbps but left the progressive mode at 12mbps. I understand that most say progressive scan requires less data rate and that was passable when the interlace mode was 14mbs and the progressive mode 12mbps on the HD1010, but now they've raised it higher for interlaced.

Anyhow, I'd like to know your opinion on which looks better - the 1080p at 12mbps or the 1080i at 16mbps. Thanks.


Cresho Mar 4, 2009 3:11 PM

It is obvious that both the hd2000 and the xacti HD-FH11 use a sensor far bigger than ours. the sensor is about 3 times more powerfull. It is an 8.1 megapixel sensor. It is natural for the image to look far better..and i mean far.

I read further stuff about the optical stabalization being good and I personally can't comment on this.

I am wondering why you are saying 1080i when both these cameras obviously do [email protected] I am a xacti fan by Genetic manipulation already but I think i'll wait for next year incase one comes with a real ois

wow, these things dropped in price bigtime ers_Professional_Video_Cameras?hash=item3900348668 58&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A120 5|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1 |294%3A50

anyway, I am willing to give up my hd1000 for 350 if anyone wants it. :lol: not kidding shipping. It is in new condition.

relate2 Mar 4, 2009 7:13 PM

Thanks for the write up, I look forward for you unfolding thoughts. If the HD2000 stabilisation is a lot better than the HD1010 I would think about upgrading. It is a shame they did not include proper OIS because if they did it would be a no brainer and I would upgrade in a heartbeat.

cdude Mar 5, 2009 4:17 AM

Hey Rev,

I will try and shoot a couple of things if I get a chance this weekend and compare the modes, but where did you get the 12Mbps spec from? The specs I read were 24Mbps for the 1080p - though I cant seem to find the specs in the pdf manual I have that came with it on CD. If it was cool (i.e. legal) to upload the manual to anyone I'd be happy to share it so you can check out the features yourself.

I can tell you that offhand with the initial play, the 1080p looked better.

And Cresho, I was talking about 1080i cuz that is what I was used to with the HD1000, and with my pro Sony camera 1080i was part of the workflow, so I was just comparing apples with apples mentioning that this mode on the HD2000 was better than the equivalent mode on the 1000, that's all. Clearly I would like to be working in progressive in all my workflow, but currently this is not possible. I won't compare this cmos chip with my HDV 3 CCD Sony Z1 as that doesn't make sense to me to do - though I do love these xactis for what they are... :-)

Rev2010 Mar 5, 2009 10:25 AM

Cresho wrote:

It is obvious that both the hd2000 and the xacti HD-FH11 use a sensor far bigger than ours. the sensor is about 3 times more powerfull. It is an 8.1 megapixel sensor. It is natural for the image to look far better..and i mean far.
The HD2000 sensor is not bigger, thesensor size of the HD2000 is exactly the same as the HD1000 and HD1010 - 1/2.5".

Also, I'm asking about interlaced because the bitrate for interlaced is higher than for progressive. And no, both cams do not do 1080/60p. You are confusing 60fps (framesper second)with 60FPS (fields per second - which is for interlaced). 60FPS is basically 30 frames per second split into interlaced fields that display one field (half a frame) at 1/60th of a second. The HD2000 however does 1080/ 60 frames per second. The HD1000 and HD1010 only have a 60 frames per second mode for 1280x720 resolution.

So, I am curious to know if the HD2000's 1080i mode looks better than the 1080/30p mode. And the bitrate information is available right on theSanyo site product page under "Specifications". It lists the bitrates for each mode. So, the bitrate for the interlaced mode is a whopping 33% higher than the progressive mode! I'd like to know if the interlaced mode quality looks better than the progressive as a result.


Cresho Mar 5, 2009 3:14 PM

Rev2010 wrote

The HD2000 sensor is not bigger, thesensor size of the HD2000 is exactly the same as the HD1000 and HD1010 - 1/2.5".
yes, it is a CMOS sensor 1/2.5in model with a 4-megapixel resolution but the hd2000 uses a 1/2.5in with a max 8.1-megapixel res. I think I missed the ball in my explanation and failed to mention between video and picture.

so my correction is.......
video max on the xacti hd1000 is 3.56 and picture is 4 megapixel
video max on the xacti hd2000 is 5.31 and picture is 8. megapixel max 12megapixel interpolated
I am aware between the [email protected]/sec vs [email protected]/sec
Naturally, images are much sharper.

For the memory sizes, this is strange.
Full-HR: 1920 x 1080 (60 fps/ 24Mbps) Full HD: 1920 x 1080 (60fields/sec 16Mbps)
Full-SHQ: 1920 x 1080 (30 fps/ 12Mbps) HD-SHQ: 1280 x 720 (30 fps/9Mbps)
TV-SHQ: 640 x 480 (30 fps/3Mbps)
Web-SHR: 448 x 336 (240 fps/8Mbps) Web-UHR: 192 x 108 (600fps/8Mbps)

so i am curious to know if it is a typo or what? good point rev. I have a feeling there is no 1080i for 120 fields/sec and also they are using better compression for the [email protected] to match and not kill the data rate transer to the sd card. They compressed it hard enough to compliment data rate at an expense of compression. Now since compressing the file takes alot out of this unit, I would like to see a video shot of a water flowing in close-up. I am assuming it will pixelate harder than an hd1000. THis is just speculation. They basically gave , what i think, us [email protected] at the expense of compression with more artifacts but if they managed to improve the processing used for compression, then it would not be a problem. If there is, perhaps next year, they will offer better slowmotion record in hd, OIS, and better processing compression..etc.

I also want to know if it has a 1080i 120 fields/sec settings and what is that data rate capture at?

willk Mar 6, 2009 10:40 AM

Thanks for posting your first impressions. I also have the HD1000 and have been thinking of upgrading to the HD2000. Have you actually compared low light video shot under the same conditions? I'm also curious about what you think of low light stills on the HD2000 compared to the HD1000?

Rev2010 Mar 6, 2009 10:52 AM

Cresho wrote:

I also want to know if it has a 1080i 120 fields/sec settings and what is that data rate capture at?
There is no 120 fields per second mode. I'm not sure if you understand the difference between interlaced and progressive, but just look at it like this... 60 fields per second is basically the same as 30 frames per second except the picture is drawn in lines. Half the lines show up at 1/60th of a second and the second set of lines the next 1/60th of second. So you're only seeing one full frame within 1/30th of a second.

Anyhow, forget all that, I just wanted to know if the 1080i mode looks better than the 1080/30p mode. The reason why the data rate is 24mbps for 1080/60p is because there are twice as many frames than usual. Instead of thetypical camcorder rate of 30 frames per second the HD2000 can now do 60 frames per second so motion looks incredibly lifelike and fluid. But at the standard rate of 30 frames per second the data rate is 12mbps. So you see, the data rate for progressive is lower than the equivalent interlaced mode by 33%! The interlaced mode is 16mbps which is 4mbps higher than the equivalent progressive mode (ie. 1080/30p). Makesense now?;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:28 PM.