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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 23, 2007, 4:24 PM   #291
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 145
Default

ray301 wrote:
Quote:
Caelum wrote:
Quote:
Taynt3d wrote:
Quote:
[...]I think the bigger question is HD700 vs. HD1000 low light performance.
I don't know, but I would assume the HD1000 is better (bigger lens, bigger sensor pixels). I've been trying to directly compare the CG65 and HD700 at standard definition and it's very close,I thinkthe CG65doesa tadbetter in low light (forvideo).Overall I don't think the HD700 does better with standard definition video than the CG65. Knowing me I'm probably always going to shoot in HD with the HD700 from now on anyhow since it's so dramatically more detailed (literally 3X more).
the sensor used on the HD700 and HD1000 are both 1/2.5" so technically I would think HD700 have bigger pixels... and HD700 uses CCD and HD1000 uses CMOS. Traditionally the thinking is that CCD does low light better, but that's not always the case anymore.

Image quality wise, i think the new HD camcorders proabably won't do any worse than the previous version... but having had the E1, I do find the lowlight focus to be worse off on the HD1000.
I thought the HD1000 has bigger pixels as shown by the HD700 having a higher mega-pixel still image mode?
Taynt3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 5:15 PM   #292
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

Taynt3d wrote:
Quote:
I thought the HD1000 has bigger pixels as shown by the HD700 having a higher mega-pixel still image mode?
Exactly, 4MP CMOS sensor vs 7MP CCD sensor, pixels are bigger on the former.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 5:24 PM   #293
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 101
Default

i'm not sure how one would go about comparing the two sensors though, since they aren't designed the same way. The only information they've given out on the specs are that they share the same chip size and that one uses ccd and the other cmos.

hybrid camcorders like sanyo will binn pixels togeter during video mode for increased sensitivity.... So having 7 megapixels binned down to 720p for video mode would give the hd700 the advantage when compared to HD1000's 4 megapixle binned to 2 megapixels hd video.

However there's quite a few variables between these two models since they share different chip designs.... it would be hard to say for certain who does better without a real side to side comparison.
ray301 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 5:29 PM   #294
Senior Member
 
Caelum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,030
Default

ray301 wrote:
Quote:
[...]it would be hard to say for certain who does better without a real side to side comparison.
true.
Caelum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 10:30 PM   #295
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 68
Default

ray301 wrote:
Quote:
hybrid camcorders like sanyo will binn pixels togeter during video mode for increased sensitivity.... So having 7 megapixels binned down to 720p for video mode would give the hd700 the advantage when compared to HD1000's 4 megapixle binned to 2 megapixels hd video.
Are you sure the HD1000 binns down to 2MP? I thought the extra pixtels were used for the new supper IS?
ArizonaVideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 10:40 PM   #296
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 101
Default

Actually i think your right... there's likely no binning done on HD1000.

that completely explains why there was no fov change with EIS on or EIS off.

in that case its likely HD700's low light performance is better and more on similar with CG65

I took a 4 megapixel still photo of a scene, and took a short clip of the same scene... I opend up the photo and drew out roughly where the video's FOV was... it ends up to be about 2 megapixles. So there is no binning on HD1000... that really explains a lot about its low light performance and the no crop EIS feature
ray301 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2007, 11:17 AM   #297
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 145
Default

Played with the external mic input last night and learned a few things...

- the unit doesn't feed audio to the headphones until you start recording
- the sound was definitely better when using a better mic (no surprise there)
- to adjust headphone volume, you have to go into playback mode, set the volume, then come back into recording mode (at first I thought you couldn't adjust it, but this does work as the volume during recording too)
- What I'm still unsure of is whether AGC is on or off during external mic. It seemed to me that it was either off or much less aggressive with an external mic (which as far as I'm concerned is a good thing cause the AGC can be pretty aggressive on its own).

Lastly, as an owner of both a CG65 and a HD1000, and as someone who does double-system sound at times (records sound on a different unit), I've learned in the past six months with the CG65, and now the HD1000, that when it comes to audio/video sync, the video on these puppies trails the sound by about 3-4 frames (when shooting 30 fps). This doesn't really surprise me that much considering the work the chip has to do to compress the video, but it's too bad they didn't just delay the audio. It's barely noticeable to the naked eye, and considering most people can't even play some of this without dropping frames, it's even less noticeable. But when I sync to a clapper board, its clear as night and day. So when editing, I sometimes delay the audio by 3 frames (and sometimes not). Again, not a big deal, and most people won't notice, but I shoot a lot of music, and sync to other audio sources, and it's something I've noticed...
Taynt3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2007, 1:53 PM   #298
Member
 
Egmont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 40
Default

Taynt3d

What video software are you using?"
Egmont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2007, 2:00 PM   #299
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4
Default

I see that the 16 Gig SDHC cards are out now for about $169 CDN, do you know if this camera will support it??

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"Thanks
ardvark1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2007, 2:18 PM   #300
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 145
Default

Egmont wrote:
Quote:
Taynt3d

What video software are you using?"
I'm a pretty hardcore Vegas user. I've been using Vegas for four years now, both for audio-only projects and for video projects. Currently using version 7e.

I've been meaning to writeup a thread on my workflow because I feel that I have a pretty kiss-ass workflow for using these Sanyo cams at this point. I've been perfecting it for a few months now, and am probably going to start shooting a documentary using a HD1000 and an HD700 in combination with pro audio and photography (which is why I'm willing to use lower quality video, and make no mistake, these little cams can't even come close to competing with real prosumer camcorders as far as I'm concerned, but they have their own benefits).

In general, my workflow goes something like this. And obviously this isn't needed if you're not doing heavy editing, but I am. So, I capture video with the Sanyo cams. Download to my computer. Load all of the clips into a Vegas project. Chop, cut, join clips together into what I might call a rough edit. No effects, no fades, just trying to get all of the footage I might want to use seperated from all of the crap. Then, I render that out to Cineform Intermediate Codec, which comes free inside of Vegas. This produces a MUCH BIGGER file, but one that only uses intraframe compression (unlike the interframe compression used by the source MP4s). Then, I start a new Vegas project using the Cineform version, and edit from there. The advantage of this approach is that I get real-time editing with no dropped frames, and in fact, many effects will also preview in real time too, like dissolves/fades/etc. Once I'm done with my edit, I render out the final movie into whatever formats I want/need. For the web, it might be MP4, Flash, WMV, or MOV. For TV, it might MPEG2 for DVD, etc. Once I'm done with my final renders, I can throw away the Cineform files, and I'm left with the original MP4s and my final movies. And if I ever need to do it over again, as long as I saved my vegas project for rendering the cineform file and saved the vegas project for the final movie, I can reproduce the entire workflow easily from the original source files. This approach is essentially taking proven pro/prosumer video workflow down into the realm of the pocket cam (and even more so if you consider that I am often recording double-system sound to a separate audio recorder). Hope that helps, maybe I'll write up more about that sometime.

And yeah, for those who noticed, that workflow involves TWO more encodes: one to cineform and one to your final format. That said, cineform is designed for this purpose, and very little quality is lost from the move from MP4 to Cineform. However, the render from cineform to your final format will, of course, affect quality (and possibly significantly depending on your final format's codec, resolution, and bit rate) -- but that's the price you pay for having full editing capability on the MP4 source files. In my opinion, it's worth it, cause raw unedited footage often sucks, LOL!
Taynt3d 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 10:06 PM.