Canon HV20 vs Arri D-20

[Petr Dvorak]

comparison just for fun :biggrin:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=93136

thanx Papass

[Ace]

Thats crazy for a 900$ cam.

[Bruce Allen]

Love it. Absolutely love it. Especially the slight color moire that's present on the D20 but not the HV20, haha. Guess Canon have a better tuned OLPF... of course, the subject matter means that the HV20 does a bit better than it would in real situations - the MPEG2 compression isn't that irritating in this example because there is no subtle detail. Your brain skips over the big blocks in the color because it just reads it as "flat". In a real world scene I'd expect the HV20's compression to soften the subtle detail a lot more than the D20 would.

It definitely underscores why the Red and perhaps the HV20 are the best values in the market right now.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I've used an HV20 now on a couple occasions... My brother bought one. But I'm not sure what to make of this thread. The D-20 chart appears to be re-sized or scaled down. Even with that it shows superior resolution, but it's hard to tell where each camera falls off due to possible D-20 frame resize and the JPEG compression. Why is the D-20 frame showing a chart that isn't mounted flat/square compared to the much better framed chart shot by the HV20?

I have no reason to doubt that these images were shot with these cameras. Michael has been around DVXuser and DVINFO for a while now and I have no reason to suspect or doubt his work or this comparison. I know this was mostly to show how well the HV20 can compare to a camera costing upwards of 100 times as much. And the test images do indeed show that... I'm just over-analyzing as usual, I guess.

[Petr Dvorak]

I've used an HV20 now on a couple occasions... My brother bought one. But I'm not sure what to make of this thread. The D-20 chart appears to be re-sized or scaled down. Even with that it shows superior resolution, but it's hard to tell where each camera falls off due to possible D-20 frame resize and the JPEG compression. Why is the D-20 frame showing a chart that isn't mounted flat/square compared to the much better framed chart shot by the HV20?

I have no reason to doubt that these images were shot with these cameras. Michael has been around DVXuser and DVINFO for a while now and I have no reason to suspect or doubt his work or this comparison. I know this was mostly to show how well the HV20 can compare to a camera costing upwards of 100 times as much. And the test images do indeed show that... I'm just over-analyzing as usual, I guess.

you are right, cameras arent probably compared side by side, so you are not able to see exact difference. But generally it very very informative :biggrin:
Only wonder how it will looks grabbed from HDMI without HDV compression mess

[J. Bernard Vallon]

both cameras are actually pretty noisy if you ask me. A lot of the noise in the black on the HV20 is removed by the compression it looks like, which isnt really a fix of course.

[donatello b]

IMO - i wouldn't put anything into the charts .. there is nothing that i would rely on that says that is really from D20 or HV20 ... or how or if images have been processed ...
note: it states these are charts that were put online ...
doesn't state who put online or anything else about the test charts ...

the poster doesn't state he was there for test , nor if he knows the tester - only states the charts were put online ... that doesn't cut it in my book ...
if PappasArts was to state he can verify the validity of the test i would be more inclined to believe it ...

[Gbabymogul]

I don't trust Pappas' tests that much, but that's just my opinion from having been around in the HVX's intro.

just me 3 pence

:beer:

[Jaime Vallés]

For the price, you'd expect the D-20 to perform at least 30 times better than the HV20. Heck, I don't even think that is 10 times better!!!

Of course, this doesn't take into consideration dynamic range, lenses, etc, but still it's really interesting.

Here's looking forward to RED!

[Petr Dvorak]

ok take it easy :biggrin:


comparison just for fun :biggrin:

[Joel Kaye]

I had a chance to shoot a couple hours of HV20 and it really is an amazing camera. I feel it beats out both the HVX-200 and the Sony ZR1U for image quality. The quality is freakishly good. You could really do some nice stuff with it. Show that footage to people and they'd NEVER guess it was a little palmcorder sized thingy.

[J. Bernard Vallon]

I think the tests tell something about resolution, but remember resolution doesnt mean much. The HV20 might be amazing for what it is, but remember, the reason i would shoot with a d20 is because of 35mm DOP, low noise, and high dynamic range.

Resolution is for government satellites.
Image depth is for filmmaking.

[Emanuel A.]

I had a chance to shoot a couple hours of HV20 and it really is an amazing camera. I feel it beats out both the HVX-200 and the Sony ZR1U for image quality. The quality is freakishly good. You could really do some nice stuff with it. Show that footage to people and they'd NEVER guess it was a little palmcorder sized thingy.As usual, I second your thoughts and findings. ;-) This camera is a dream came true. 24p/25p @palmcorder size.

[Desert Rune]

Strap 4 HV20s together in a 2x2 configuration and you got yourself a nice little 4K camera. :)

[Jeremy Hughes]

3840x2160. You'd just have to interpolate a little. But It'd look weird because it's like seeing both sides of everything. And would be even worse with closeups.

It would be better to create a single lens that would split the image in four and give each camera a piece of a single view.

[Bruce Allen]

I think the tests tell something about resolution, but remember resolution doesnt mean much. The HV20 might be amazing for what it is, but remember, the reason i would shoot with a d20 is because of 35mm DOP, low noise, and high dynamic range.


35mm DOP - use a 35mm adapter (will be testing an sgpro this weekend)

high dynamic range - I have tested it with a Stouffer chart (will put up a website with the results this weekend too hopefully)

low noise - well, that is a problem

Remember, though, that if your camera only costs $1000, you have a LOT of money for your lighting kit. The HV20's dynamic range and noise might not be great, but if you can afford a cool set of lights, sunguns, etc, then maybe you are in a better place than if you bought a more expensive camera but found yourself underlit?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Tom Lowe]

I'd love to see how it handles some nature shots and even sunsets.

[Bruce Allen]

I'd love to see how it handles some nature shots and even sunsets.

Tom, how about this:
http://www.boacinema.com/projects/camera_tests/hv20/bruce_hillhurst_8pm_pjpeg.mov

http://www.boacinema.com/projects/camera_tests/hv20/bruce_hillhurst_8pm.jpg

Not ideal conditions for the HV20 at all (low light, etc). But if you're going for a stylized, gritty, "weird old film" / grindhouse look, it's fine... I think if the story and acting were there (and you had a decent sungun or two for the actors) you could make something watchable.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Sean]

I think if the story and acting were there (and you had a decent sungun or two for the actors) you could make something watchable. www.boacinema.com

I'm getting really tempted by the HV20, to tide me over until Red...but would it look better than a DVX? I mean, do you think the HDV of this consumer camera still better than the SD of the "prosumer" DVX100A/B?

[Jason Francois]

I'm getting really tempted by the HV20, to tie me over until Red...but would it look better than a DVX? I mean, do you think the HDV of this consumer camera still better than the SD of the "prosumer" DVX100A/B?

i don't know about better, just different.

I bought the HV20 and I'm really impressed. Again, it's not film, it's tiny, it's HDV, but I think it can have it's place in a lot of varied projects.

For example I'm seriously thinking about doing a 3-HV20 shoot of a creepy horror feature just because i can put this camera in some crazy situations and have a lot of fun. It would be a straight-to-DVD kind of thing, but it could work out nicely.

I no longer have my DVX, but just off hand I like the image from the HV20 better in terms of resolution. It's no DVX in terms of the "mojo" factor, but it has impressive resolution.

More testing is needed, but for $1000 you can't go wrong.

[Tom Lowe]

Tom, how about this:
http://www.boacinema.com/projects/camera_tests/hv20/bruce_hillhurst_8pm_pjpeg.mov
[/url]

Thanks for getting that up so quick, Bruce!

Oh man, that doesn't look good at all to me. Way, way too noisy. Lack of dynamic range. Colors look god awful. I don't think this HV20 is going to be usable for natural-light sunsets and such. Brightly lit daytime scenes might be okay, though.

[Bruce Allen]

I'm getting really tempted by the HV20, to tie me over until Red...but would it look better than a DVX? I mean, do you think the HDV of this consumer camera still better than the SD of the "prosumer" DVX100A/B?

That's why I posted that video - you can see the advantages and disadvantages.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Sean]

Guess I find it too hard to tell from a compressed still. I think it looks really good. Unlike Tom, I thought for a shot taken at night with ambient light it was good. But heck...I dunno. Guess I'll just have to test it out!

EDIT: ah, I see that it is indeed a video clip. Thanks for posting that. And it's noticeably noisier seeing it in motion rather than as a still...but not sure that it's noisier than low-light DVX actually.

[Tom Lowe]

yeah that level of noise, lack of decent color and overall crappiness of image is not gonna fly for my purposes in low-light conditions, such as during sunsets. i've known all along, though, that this was likely to be a problem, since people have been pointing out that its tech stats don't look good for low-light.

[Bruce Allen]

Tom, that was shot at 8pm - quite a while past sunset. If you were at sunset and had a few 200W Frezzis on your talent, then I think you'd get a much better image. But I agree! The HV20 is not for a Malick movie. For that you'd want film, or maybe Red. But for the next Pi... now you're talking.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[ColinSmith]

yeah that level of noise, lack of decent color and overall crappiness of image is not gonna fly for my purposes in low-light conditions, such as during sunsets.

Remember if it's still plain locked down landscape shots you're looking for then you can frame blend that noise away, or maybe underexpose with no gain on, and then do an additive blend..... no good for general shooting though.

[Bruce Allen]

I'll give my noise reduction tools a test this weekend if I have time - it's a good "worst case scenario" shot...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Tom Lowe]

Tom, that was shot at 8pm - quite a while past sunset. If you were at sunset and had a few 200W Frezzis on your talent, then I think you'd get a much better image. But I agree! The HV20 is not for a Malick movie. For that you'd want film, or maybe Red. But for the next Pi... now you're talking.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

yeah, see, you guys know me. i'm only gonna shoot during magic hours and at night, and only outdoors, for the most part. still, there will be some daylight stuff, especially shots of rivers silked by the forest canopy, maybe some shots driving around during daylight... daylight shots looking up through tree canopies.... perhaps some arches and waterfalls a little while before the sun goes down... there may be some opportunities. but it is nice to know that i'm gonna need some light to make HV20 shots work, generally speaking.