Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Sanyo

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 27, 2007, 11:16 PM   #121
CLM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1
Default

This looks like a very interesting new toy. Thanks for all the good comments in this thread.

Since the only way to frame your images is through the LCD, I wonder how it will be in bright daylight situations? Some of you seem to own older models in this line. Is the LCD adequately viewable in bright daylight?

CLM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2007, 2:07 AM   #122
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 101
Default

CLM wrote:
Quote:
This looks like a very interesting new toy. Thanks for all the good comments in this thread.

Since the only way to frame your images is through the LCD, I wonder how it will be in bright daylight situations? Some of you seem to own older models in this line. Is the LCD adequately viewable in bright daylight?
I was in Maui two weeks ago with my E1/CA65... probably the most recent model before the HD series. Under bright sunlight its pretty hard to see the LCD screen but you can get a rough idea about the framing. I have to say its probably as good as you can expect any LCD to perform under the situation.
ray301 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 11:24 AM   #123
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Thread on avwatch review here:

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...96&forum_id=27
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 11:46 AM   #124
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 145
Default

I get a kick out of people talking about and complaining about the quality of the video of these units. And what's even more funny is talk of approaching "professional quality." LOL!

Don't get me wrong, I L-O-V-E my CG65, and I'm probably going to be buying both an HD600 and HD1000 for a project I'm doing, BUT... Make no mistake, these puppies don't come anywhere near pro quality, let alone even prosumer level -- it's just comical when people suggest otherwise.

However, I'm continuously impressed by these little cams, and although it can be frustrating as a consumer when new variants/models continue to proliferate by Sanyo, I see it as an excellent example of a rapid innovation cycle, a cycle that I believe is starting to bear real fruit for Sanyo. I mean, if they keep this up, they are going to have a lock on the pocket cam market.

The other thing that kind of makes me chuckle is anyone who takes the still camera feature too seriously. I mean, let's get real here... Most true point-n-shoots will take a way better photo than these things. We don't buy them for stills, we buy them for video in a pocket don't we? If I want to take a good photo, it's not going to be with a pocket cam, heh...

Taynt3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 12:32 PM   #125
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

Don't get me wrong either, I don't regard it as professional, though some professional video people do use the older ones. It however, appears to be reaching an level where more professionals might call it an good consumer camera. The latitude and colourisation (if it can meet the colourisation of the still modes) is the only thing that is going anywhere near professional for me (but preferred for consumer). However, as an still camera I don't regard it as professional, and from what is in that article, I would, at the moment, agree with you on the still quality (I am yet to examine them in detail). I would guess that another 6mb/s+ in the top modes might banish most of the problems in video compression, and make an nice clean consumer image.

However, an professional could use it (less the blue halo) if it had lens adaptor and reel-stream like video recording solution.

Unfortunately, it seems to be failing in such an way to make it not worth me buying, but Toshiba/Hitachi camcorder has Altasens (but we are here for hybrid action).
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 2:05 PM   #126
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 68
Default

It might be worth describing what a pro camera is and what is not. In the past all good pro cameras were 3 CCD but this has changes some, with some of the new camcorders. I was watching a program on Alaskan crab trapping and I think all the footage was with the Sony HD pro-sumer 3 CCD camcorders and it looked fine.( I am not sure about the exact model of Sony could be a 1CCD).

If a single CCD can look fine for the Canon HV20 then I see no real reason why it can't look fine for the Sanyo HD1000. I do think they set the black levels way to high on the Sanyo and all the colors are over saturated but for some types of video this would be OK.

If they added some color and contrast controls like the Canon has, in controlled lighting the video would be OK for some for broadcast spots.

Sanyo has no need to try to enter the pro-sumer market, that niche is already filed by some vary nicecameras by Sony, Cannon and JVC.

Has anyone looked at the new Cannon XH-A1?

c.a.m.c.o.r.d.e.r.i.n.f.o.com/content/Canon-XH-A1-Camcorder-Review.htm

yet they say the picture is almost as good with the HV-20. A single CCD cam.

c.a.m.c.o.r.d.e.r.i.n.f.o.com/content/Canon-HV20-Camcorder-Review-Complete-Color-Charts.htm

So I don't see any real reasom the picture From the Sanyo could not be almost as good as the Canon HV-20 if Sanyo would add some adjustment and bit rate settings and a HQ lens.

I keep coming back to the missing 720x480 rez for a reason. If the HD1000 had a 10mps at 720x480 it would have almost no encoder noise. Some of us don't like the filtering that must happen with low bitrates and high rez.

ArizonaVideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 2:14 PM   #127
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 73
Default

They already are prosumer cameras though - as mentioned they are ideal for newsgathering. The music video allegedly shot with the HD1000 is also very impressive.

With professional cameras it totally depends what job you want the camera for. I'd never use one of these to shoot a TV advert. But for high-risk filming in tight spots (for example filming a construction site for a corporate video, where one had to go up scaffolding or in a crane/lift, or for example filming on water where there was risk of splash/immersion to a more expensive camera, or strapping them to the side of a moving vehicle) then these would be ideal. I see their role perhaps as contributing footage to a larger project.
istara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 8:08 PM   #128
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 145
Default

istara wrote:
Quote:
They already are prosumer cameras though - as mentioned they are ideal for newsgathering.

I see their role perhaps as contributing footage to a larger project.
I guess it depends on the quality expectation, but for something like local broacast news, in general, this wouldn't cut it. It's not just the CCDs, or the size of the CCDs, it's other things like audio (not compressed AC3), the glass (like multiple-thousand dollar glass on a beta cam), and formats like Beta, DigiBeta, DVCPro, etc. Now, the typical "low end" on that front might start to include a DVX100 or PD150 or possibly move into HDV or an HVX200 kind of territory. But MP4/AC3 using a tiny cam with artifacting from the codec and "ok" glass could only be justified for broadcast news gathering or true ENG work under some sort of specific scenario like you mentioned -- small spaces, discreetness, high risk to damaging camera, etc. Beyond that, no freakin' way, not even close. There's a reason people shoot news on $10-20K+ beta cams still...

That said, I LOVE THIS CAMERA. I LOVE MY CG65, and I will be BUYING A NEW HD1000 for sure. These pocket cams absolutely rule -- but pro or prosumer they are not IMHO (yet at least). But feel free to disagree.
Taynt3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2007, 8:21 PM   #129
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 73
Default

Taynt3d wrote:
[quote]istara wrote:
Quote:
They already are prBut MP4/AC3 using a tiny cam with artifacting from the codec and "ok" glass could only be justified for broadcast news gathering or true ENG work under some sort of specific scenario like you mentioned -- small spaces, discreetness, high risk to damaging camera, etc.
Yes - that's just what I meant. Increasingly news organisations are using VJs shooting on equipment such as the PD170 or the HVR V1 - while the Xactis aren't that level, they are for certain jobs absolutely ideal. The external mic jack signifies to me that Sanyo has this market in mind.

Then of course there is internet-based news that never even reaches broadcast TV. Let's say your website uses files around 400kbps mp4 320x240. Sure - you will get the best result compressing from the very highest quality footage - but the difference is not going to be so significant as to make it necessary to use a conventional broadcast camera, or even a PD170, if you have access to a high-end Xacti.

Having worked in news I wouldn't at this stage recommend people switched over, but I certainly managed to get some usable footage with my Xacti C6. Not audio, but a few shots of places that I wouldn't have been able to sneak in a bigger camera without going through the hassles of obtaining filming permission and so on.

There are some advantages in having your equipment make you resemble a consumer/tourist
istara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2007, 3:02 AM   #130
Senior Member
 
Wayne12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Default

ArizonaVideo wrote:
Quote:
It might be worth describing what a pro camera is and what is not. In the past all good pro cameras were 3 CCD but this has changes some, with some of the new camcorders. I was watching a program on Alaskan crab trapping and I think all the footage was with the Sony HD pro-sumer 3 CCD camcorders and it looked fine.( I am not sure about the exact model of Sony could be a 1CCD).
That's funny, I think I had the beginning of an recording of that same program running on the PVR around the time I wrote the post above (but I deleted it). It it is hard to tell nowadays, there are prosumer Sony Cmos, and three chip cmos cameras, that produced nicer results then the original Z1, kicking around nowadays.

>If a single CCD can look fine for the Canon HV20 then I

Uses CMOS, producing nicer result.

About the black levels you mentioned, is it the camera, or playback software. On the older cameras there was some problems with the playback software clipping the blacks to high.

> Sanyo has no need to try to enter the pro-sumer market, that niche is already filed by some vary niceĀ*cameras by Sony, Cannon and JVC.

I think, as other people here, that there is possibilities for pocket cameras in professional. Even for professionals to carry around and take the odd quickly shoot, even for journalists. This camera is not there yet, but boost the codec efficiency and data-rate up to at least 18mb/s, add better glass then it has much more use.

I used to have an link to an digital cinema camera rig for the Canon HV10 pocket camera, that carried the camera rails, SLR lens adaptor, lens hood, follow focus etc, spider brace style. Such an thing would go well with this camera. If it had better glass, with an HDMI solution you could film and commercial or movie. With an more slot in ENG like rig, you could do basic ENG work, and slot the camera out as you wish. But that lens.

In the end, I think there is an need for an prosumer version, as it would be good for photographers and videographers to do both styles of work. This means 8mp+ (in 16:9 mode).


On quality of HV20/A1 and Sony cameras, check the following links, this guy is about the only guy I know that does thorough testing on the net:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...A1&btnG=Search
http://www.fxsupport.de/02.html

English pages:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...t.de%2f21.html
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...t.de%2f21.html


> So I don't see any real reason the picture From the Sanyo could not be almost as good as the Canon HV-20 if Sanyo would add some adjustment and bit rate settings and a HQ lens.

Your right.


I think we should avoid making this an video camera discussion, but rather the professional usefulness of using higher grade video on still cameras. I wait to see the day when we have an good camera for both.
Wayne12 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 AM.