Canon HV20 [Archive] - REDUSER.net

Chris Kenny

01-31-2007, 11:22 PM

Theoretically yes... But you're asking a lot of an expresscard adapter to handle an SDI interface card.

Now I have to ask, why would you ever want to do this? The video out from the HDMI on this camcorder is going to be the same processed junk you get in the HDV stream. You might omit a few of teh HDV artifacts (maybe), but I doubt it. If it's like all the other compact HDV cams on the market, you get to see the video stream as it's encoded and written to tape. So if that's the case, then you'll be losing quality by doing this and it won't be anything short of a headache, IMO.

If the sensor is really 1920x1080 native... Uncompressed 1920x1080 4:2:2 beats the pants off of heavily compressed 1440x1080 4:2:0. My understanding is that most other HDV cameras with HDMI do give you the video as it appears before compression. At any rate, the guys on This Week in Media have been going on about this at length.

I agree it is a bit questionable whether you could get away with this over ExpressCard... and I don't think you're going to be able to encode to a decent quality codec in real-time, so how you're supposed to record this data is anyone's guess. (You can't even hook up an external RAID, since your ExpressCard slot is already full.)

This might be an interesting workflow for someone who wanted to build an ultra-low-budget home studio around a desktop machine, though.

Jeff Kilgroe

02-01-2007, 12:07 AM

My understanding is that most other HDV cameras with HDMI do give you the video as it appears before compression.

Hmmm... I'm unaware of any that do. My HC3's HDMI output has all the artifacting and color banding of the HDV encoded signal. All the ones I've looked at before buying the HC3 (including my A1 that I owned before) always had heavily processed / already encoded output over HDMI and/or component. This was a huge hope for early HDV camcorders like the Sony FX1/Z1, but alas, they don't do it either over component. Canon has great 4:2:2 output from the XLH1 over SDI though.

Hey, if the HV20 does feed out a true un-butchered 4:2:2 feed over HDMI, then great. That would be a first, but I'll believe it when I see it with my own eyes. But Canon is really setting some new precedents with the HV20 using a progressive sensor with full 1920x1080 res and 24p ability. I never would have expected that from a $1K or cheaper palm-corder. Or at least not this soon.

This might be an interesting workflow for someone who wanted to build an ultra-low-budget home studio around a desktop machine, though.

Yep. I see no reason why this camera couldn't be fitted to a 35mm adapter and do just as good a job (or better) as many current 1/3" HDV camcorders. If the HDMI output does do what some are hoping (and I see people hoping for this every time a new low-cost HD camcorder comes to market), then that's great for a studio setup. Seeing how you would have to lug a capable capture system with you everywhere you go and keep it within length of your HDMI cable (probably 25 to 35 feet max).

I'm definitely going to take a look at the HV20. If it can shoot true 24p, then at $1K it's a no-brainer for high-risk camera. I wonder how well the autofocus performs at 24p?

Chris Kenny

02-01-2007, 01:44 AM

Hmmm... I'm unaware of any that do. My HC3's HDMI output has all the artifacting and color banding of the HDV encoded signal. All the ones I've looked at before buying the HC3 (including my A1 that I owned before) always had heavily processed / already encoded output over HDMI and/or component. This was a huge hope for early HDV camcorders like the Sony FX1/Z1, but alas, they don't do it either over component. Canon has great 4:2:2 output from the XLH1 over SDI though.

Hmm... Some Googling shows I'm not the only one who thinks these cameras feed out the pre-compressed footage. See here (http://www.apb-news.com/index.php?option=com_magazine&func=show_article&id=64&Itemid=1) or here (http://dvinfo.net/conf/archive/index.php/t-79534.html), for instance.

As for why it hasn't looked better in your testing... well, the output is probably 8-bit/channel (there's your banding right there), and until now all of these cameras have had 1440x1080 sensors (sometimes only 1080i, no less), and often only get that high by playing funny pixel shifting tricks. It remains to be seen exactly how "real" Canon's 1920x1080 is with this camera. And of course just because the footage isn't compressed when it hits the HDMI tap, doesn't mean it hasn't been sharpened or otherwise subjected to the sort of processing that makes cheap video look like cheap video.

Hrvoje Simic

02-01-2007, 02:17 AM

Too bad I already bought the Sony HC3....

Oh well, 3 lux low light isn't anything to write home about... But not bad for a camcorder this size. I'm not sure if I'll ever be willing to buy another HDV camcorder. The more I work with HDV (and it's all pretty much been home movies up to this point) the more I hate it. Let's see one of these that records AVCHD or one of the newer HD formats to internal HDD or memory cards. Maybe next year?

I've tested Sony's HC3 and UX1 (model with HDD and AVC, shares the same sensor) and Canon HV10.
After what I've seen....Sony is still way to go on the consumer market.
I expected far more from Canon, but HV10's picture looks "good" only to someone who hasn't seen HD before. Waay too much noise.
For now Sony's ClearVid CMOS kills Canon's CMOS.

AVC (H.264) will make HDV obsolete. 15Mb/s AVC is equivalent to HDV, but you can't go better than 15 on UX1 (12 on DVD models).

I'm interested to test the HV20 but a bit sceptical, since it shares the same sensor with HV10.
Also, companies like Canon don't think like RED does in terms of "quality meets price".

Stephen Gentle

02-01-2007, 02:27 AM

That looks OK, but I would only ever buy it if the HDMI out was uncompressed and unprocessed... HDV really sucks.

Nick Shaw

02-01-2007, 04:31 AM

HDMI is always uncompressed. Blackmagic Design certainly imply that the HDMI output of HDV cameras is unprocessed [LINK (http://www.decklink.com/products/intensity/)]. But then they want to sell their product!

Jeremy Hughes

02-01-2007, 07:19 AM

I think that the HDMI is pre-compression. 1920x1080, 4:2:2, no noise reduction, no sharpening, no compression... Wasn't the component out on the HV10 pre-compression? Wouldn't it be the same with HDMI?

My next cam purchase.

You want it so bad you have to say that a two different websites.

P Andersson

02-01-2007, 08:05 AM

You want it so bad you have to say that a two different websites.

I asked the hdmi to laptop question twice to

Jeff Kilgroe

02-01-2007, 08:24 AM

As for why it hasn't looked better in your testing... well, the output is probably 8-bit/channel (there's your banding right there),

Yep. The output is definitely 8bit from these other cams. Even over HDMI.

and until now all of these cameras have had 1440x1080 sensors (sometimes only 1080i, no less), and often only get that high by playing funny pixel shifting tricks.

True. But We'll also have to see how Canon's sensor holds up with the additional 480 horizontal pixels. On a sensor that's slightly less than 1/3" in size, incresing the photosite density is going to decrease the amount of light hitting each receptor. The low light performance is going to be dismal at best. I'm curious to see how the HV20 handles noise... The mosquito noise on the HC3 (as well as the HC1/A1) is terrible and for some reason I'm expecting the H20 to be worse.

It remains to be seen exactly how "real" Canon's 1920x1080 is with this camera. And of course just because the footage isn't compressed when it hits the HDMI tap, doesn't mean it hasn't been sharpened or otherwise subjected to the sort of processing that makes cheap video look like cheap video.

Yep. And I followed your links... The first of which doesn't tell us anything other than the HVR-V1 might be able to do it. It talks of outputs on the JVC HD100/110 and the HVX200/202. Both outputs are "uncompressed", but are heavily processed. In my experience with both cameras - yes, I've used both and still own the HVX. The conversion from digital to analog component back to digital isn't kind to the signal when recapturing due to the level of noise and edge processing that's there. Also the JVC only outputs 4:2:0 equivalent via component. I personally have no experience with the Sony HVR-V1 so I can't comment. However, I'd be very skeptical of this. As for the second link, I've already followed that whole thread over at DVINFO and that discussion is entirely academic. It's the same thread that rears up every time a new low-budget camcorder is due to be released too. I did a bit more serching too and I can't seem to find anyone that can actually confirm the HVR-V1 sends an un-crippled, 4:2:2 stream that hasn't been butchered out of its HDMI port.

So far, all the HDMI and/or component output I've viewed of live feeds out of cheaper (sub $5K) HD camcorders has been seriously over-processed and looks identical to what you get a few minutes later playing the HDV feed back through the same port. It would be great if there's a camera out there that does what everyone seems to be hoping for, but I have yet to see it with my own eyes.

Nick Shaw

02-01-2007, 08:29 AM

I guess somebody with an Intensity needs to do some tests of capturing live and off playback, and then doing a difference check between the two.

Jeff Kilgroe

02-01-2007, 08:38 AM

Also wanted to add that in that DVINFO thread, Douglass Spotted Eagle noted that all the video is heavily processed. It is converted from the native 1920x1080 to 1440x1080 for processing.

There's another discussion at DVINFO that I popped up in the search -- there's 3 or more on this very subject in the V1/FX7 forum. Where two othe members confirm the same thing. One wasn't so sure the HDMI out was pre-comrpession, but all agreed it was heavily processed showing edge and color artifacting and it's pretty noisy too. Most are trying to convert the 1080i feed to CineForm (makes the most sense), but some are capturing / converting to DVCPROHD??? WHY? Perhaps they're just hoping to retain the 4:2:2 color depth at the expense of smaller raster. But so far there's no evidence that the heavily processed V1 image via HDMI is still 4:2:2 equivalent. Seems to me that most V1 owners experimenting with this are skeptical or don't care, most are looking for a way to import directly to a superior codec without futzing around with HDV... Which most NLE systems still require transcoding to another format in order to properly edit.

Petr Dvorak

02-01-2007, 12:19 PM

ok so only rigth thing now is go to Andromeda way - hack directly behind the chip with external wire and maybe rip off original lenses from body and add some mount for interchangable lenses :D

maybe some miniRED will be solution for all this mini budget hassle

Emanuel A.

02-01-2007, 07:14 PM

You want it so bad you have to say that a two different websites.Exactly. I'm always saying the same whatever the place is: I'm proud to be a coherent person -- that's why I'm here since the first day. :)

Emanuel A.

02-01-2007, 07:26 PM

Here is who can help on some of what has been discussed here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=846642#post846642

Emanuel A.

02-01-2007, 07:43 PM

Yep. And I followed your links... The first of which doesn't tell us anything other than the HVR-V1 might be able to do it. It talks of outputs on the JVC HD100/110 and the HVX200/202. Both outputs are "uncompressed", but are heavily processed. In my experience with both cameras - yes, I've used both and still own the HVX. The conversion from digital to analog component back to digital isn't kind to the signal when recapturing due to the level of noise and edge processing that's there. Also the JVC only outputs 4:2:0 equivalent via component. I personally have no experience with the Sony HVR-V1 so I can't comment.

Jeff, here is some light on this:

«Let's try to keep from assuming - for instance the Sony V1U (a much higher end cam than the HV20) processes it's 1920x1080 footage to 1440x1080 and converts it to 4:2:0 BEFORE it's outputted to HDMI (it just upscales the 4:3 image to 16:9 on output again). So, no matter what, you're getting an image that's been processed! By outputting HDMI on the Sony, all you're doing is bypassing the macro blocks compression that HDV creates. And the Sony is approx $4-5k CDN!»

LINK (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=617714#post617714)

Don King

02-01-2007, 09:27 PM

So, no matter what, you're getting an image that's been processed! By outputting HDMI on the Sony, all you're doing is bypassing the macro blocks compression that HDV creates.
And isn't it enough?

Gordon Prince

02-01-2007, 09:33 PM

As for the second link, I've already followed that whole thread over at DVINFO and that discussion is entirely academic. It's the same thread that rears up every time a new low-budget camcorder is due to be released too. I did a bit more serching too and I can't seem to find anyone that can actually confirm the HVR-V1 sends an un-crippled, 4:2:2 stream that hasn't been butchered out of its HDMI port.

So far, all the HDMI and/or component output I've viewed of live feeds out of cheaper (sub $5K) HD camcorders has been seriously over-processed and looks identical to what you get a few minutes later playing the HDV feed back through the same port.
Over-processed or not, we'll be avoiding the defective compression. As it was said: bypassing the macro blocks compression that HDV creates. Correct?

Jeff Kilgroe

02-01-2007, 10:03 PM

Over-processed or not, we'll be avoiding the defective compression. As it was said: bypassing the macro blocks compression that HDV creates. Correct?

Maybe so... I'll have to see the output of the V1 for myself, but it seems there's enough people that insist this is the case, yet so far I no one has actually posted any tangible proof.

But I have to wonder... Is a camera like the HVR-V1 really cost-effective when you intend to shoot video by capturing a live feed from the HDMI out? HDMI capture cards, a competent notebook or portable system to capture to along with a proper HDMI interface card.... To me it would make more sense to just buy a non-HDV camcorder. :confused:

In the case of budget, compact camcorders like Canon's HV20, it seems that only a few people are saying its HDMI output is free of compression artifacting (macro blocks, etc..). I'm not sure what to think there, but I'm highly skeptical here. I also will want to take a good look at one before I buy... It needs to be noticeably better than my HC3 (it's HDMI out has all the jaggies, banding and macro blocking of the HDV playback). The fact it does true 24p is very appealing, and if it's comparable to my HC3 in every other way, I'd probably trade up. Or I may just buy one as a compact 24p camera... For the price it's almost a "why not?" scenario.

Emanuel A.

02-01-2007, 11:13 PM

Here is another Robert Ducon (previous) input:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=598704#post598704

Before (same thread) he had said some really bad about the DVCPRO-HD experiences. It seems David Newman's Cineform contribution will give a hand in the future. And asking you, Jeff. I believe you already answered 50% of your purchase option question. The other five, I'd add what all of us, we're looking for: the future proof over anything we bet.

Emanuel A.

02-02-2007, 12:03 AM

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=848025#post848025

Don King

02-02-2007, 12:37 AM

There's another discussion at DVINFO that I popped up in the search -- there's 3 or more on this very subject in the V1/FX7 forum. Where two othe members confirm the same thing. One wasn't so sure the HDMI out was pre-comrpession, but all agreed it was heavily processed showing edge and color artifacting and it's pretty noisy too.
Where did you read it?

I've been following the Emanuel's links and I couldn't find it. Only DVCProHD or even HDV related via HDMI. It's not the same we're approaching here.

Emanuel A.

02-03-2007, 12:20 AM

Here is another interesting input:

Douglas Spotted Eagle (comparing HDMI acquisition with HDCAM)
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=79534&page=2

Chris Kenny

02-03-2007, 12:47 AM

Here is another interesting input:

Douglas Spotted Eagle (comparing HDMI acquisition with HDCAM)
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=79534&page=2

This HDMI capture situation isn't quite as gloomy as is presented in that thread. You can build an eSATA (software) RAID capable of the necessary data rates pretty cheaply (maybe $1200, for 2.5 TB), and working with uncompressed data doesn't require a more powerful computer otherwise -- in fact, it uses less CPU power, because you don't have to decompress anything.

Now, if you're planning to keep that data uncompressed, your archiving costs are going to be pretty nuts. A better option is probably to capture uncompressed, and then compress the stuff later. (With a better codec than HDV.)

Gordon Prince

02-03-2007, 02:31 AM

Does it seem a HDMI capture will always be NOT slightly better than HDV? Since it is uncompressed though heavily processed, 4:2:0 8bit, etc?

Is that so in your opinion? Will there be significant differences?

Jeff Kilgroe

02-03-2007, 08:04 AM

Assuming that the HDMI output doesn't exhibit the HDV compression artifacting, you will pretty much be only eliminating the macroblocking and some of the additional compression-induced noise and edge artifacting (maybe). But it's still going to be heavily processed, even though HDMI is 4:2:2 capable (4:4:4 with HDMI v1.3) I doubt you'll see that coming out of a $1K camcorder. It's still going to be the 4:2:0 HDV equivalent and you're still going to get the same muddy colors and 8bit color banding.

So looking at it this way:

$1100 - Camcorder (HV20)
$1200 - Decent RAID for capture (probably could get this down under $1K)
$1000 - HDMI capture card
$180 - 35-50ft HDMI cable
or
$299 - wireless HDMI kit

And figure from there that now this tiny palm-corder is no longer portable. Or at least only mobile within the confines of your HDMI cable length or wireless HDMI feed.

That's over $3400... Why not spend $3500 and just buy a camcorder with much better image quality, glass, features, etc..??? I'm just a bit puzzled as to why people are trying to circumvent crappy HDV when the video is coming from a crappy palm-corder to begin with and the HDV compression is probably one of the least important factors effecting image quality in this setup. ...In other words, the video is going to be very noisy and overprocessed before the HDV codec even gets to work on it.

It's possible that the HDMI feed will be slightly better than the HDV feed. But you have to ask is it worth the extra cost for capture cards and a faster drive system and the need to capture to your tethered computer the live feed from the camera? ...When the cost of the extra hardware needed could be factored for the purchase of a better camera to begin with. I'm not saying that you should jump all the way to XDCAM HD or could within this same budget, but a V1, while still HDV is going to be vastly better than an HC3 or HV20. An XLH1 is quite a step up from an FX1/V1 (IMO).

P Andersson

02-03-2007, 08:27 AM

just a thought

if the hv20 or another small camera, maybe a hard drive version similar to the new jvc
http://www.jvc.com/press/index.jsp?item=565&pageID=1
could RECORD from the hdmi port, you could attach it to the reds hdmi out, put it in your pocket, and have a smaller format edit proxy without any post needed to deliver to clients on the day of the shoot, then they could ask for better files from the 4K RAW later

Gordon Prince

02-03-2007, 07:29 PM

That's over $3400... Why not spend $3500 and just buy a camcorder with much better image quality, glass, features, etc..??? I'm just a bit puzzled as to why people are trying to circumvent crappy HDV when the video is coming from a crappy palm-corder to begin with and the HDV compression is probably one of the least important factors effecting image quality in this setup. ...In other words, the video is going to be very noisy and overprocessed before the HDV codec even gets to work on it.But that's the point. To know if this cam will be usable beyond the HDV.

There is who doesn't mind to leave their own assets to the museum and others who would be comfortable knowing there will be an useful future for the money spent now.

Emanuel A.

02-03-2007, 09:45 PM

As I already previously said :):
(...) I'd add what all of us, we're looking for: the future proof over anything we bet.

Don King

02-03-2007, 10:20 PM

Why not spend $3500 and just buy a camcorder with much better image quality, glass, features, etc..??? I'm just a bit puzzled as to why people are trying to circumvent crappy HDV when the video is coming from a crappy palm-corder to begin with and the HDV compression is probably one of the least important factors effecting image quality in this setup. ...In other words, the video is going to be very noisy and overprocessed before the HDV codec even gets to work on it.

Form factor and broadcast requirements, will they be two enough reasons?!

Thirdly, the economies of scale and the technology convergence will help to find the same importance than a brush has for a painter. Or the computer keyboard has for a writer, rather a pencil. That's what a lot of Red users are looking for.

Emanuel A.

02-03-2007, 11:36 PM

For those who really love such handheld and light 'form factor', here are some tease user testimonials on her sister (HV10) related:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8484705#post8484705

Enjoy the reading.

Jim, and what about this toy for your camera collection?

Don King

02-04-2007, 12:11 AM

Emanuel A.

02-04-2007, 12:13 AM

It will be released on April 6, 2007:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000MUV6BA?tag=digitalcam

Sanjin Jukic

02-04-2007, 01:11 AM

...I'm just a bit puzzled as to why people are trying to circumvent crappy HDV when the video is coming from a crappy palm-corder to begin with and the HDV compression is probably one of the least important factors effecting image quality in this setup...

But with this "crappy HDV" but must read>>How Clint Eastwood incorporated digital elements into Letters from Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers.>>

"...His team came up with something Eastwood calls “trashcan shots.” Basically, they settled on HDV cameras as the only viable option to meet his requirements. They sealed and stabilized a series of Sony HVR-Z1U HDV cameras inside prop 50-caliber machine-gun ammunition cases, operated them with out-of-the-box remote controls that come with those cameras, and gave the machine-gun cases to several extras acting in particular battle scenes. They captured wild footage that editor Joel Cox eventually mixed into certain sequences.

“We cut the front out [of the ammunition boxes], put these digital cameras in there [inside soft, waterproof housings and wrapped in bubble-wrap and foam], shooting 25fps, and I gave them to some extras,” Eastwood says. “I just told them to carry the boxes, and not to pay any attention to them. If an explosion went off, they could drop them. I even had them make them waterproof, so they could just drop them in the water. But I didn't tell the extras why we wanted them to carry the boxes. I didn't want them to start thinking about it, because that would ruin what we were trying to capture. We eventually filmed out those shots, and they came out real nice.”...
...

“We are interested in [Panasonic's] HVX200 with the P2 cards and the FireStore [recording] system, but it wasn't available when we were shooting Flags,” she says. “We could get those cameras by the time we got into Letters, but even with 8GB P2 cards, the run time was not sufficient for the way Clint was shooting, and the FireStore was not yet available. So we stayed with the Sony cameras for both movies. HDV is obviously not comparable to 35mm film and anamorphic lenses, but with the process we used, followed by the digital intermediate, the footage mixed great with the rest of the movie.”

"Letters From Iwo Jima" and "Flags of Our Fathers" on Academy Award/Oscar's Nominee List

Best Picture: "Babel," "The Departed," "Letters From Iwo Jima", "Little Miss Sunshine," "The Queen."

Directing: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, "Babel"; Martin Scorsese, "The Departed"; Clint Eastwood, "Letters From Iwo Jima"; Stephen Frears, "The Queen"; Paul Greengrass, "United 93."

Original Screenplay: Guillermo Arriaga, "Babel"; Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis, "Letters From Iwo Jima"; Michael Arndt, "Little Miss Sunshine"; Guillermo del Toro, "Pan's Labyrinth"; Peter Morgan, "The Queen."

Sound Editing: "Apocalypto," "Blood Diamond," "Flags of Our Fathers," "Letters From Iwo Jima," "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."

Emanuel A.

02-04-2007, 02:11 AM

Yes indeed and agreed. The capture stream is only the tool as someone already said.

Of course, there are minimum requirements and different layers. But that's there where it ends. We all need to understand there are some other variants so and much more relevant than this or that limitation. To deal with limitations is the first condition for any aspirant filmmaker. Digital moviemaker as well. No matters where -- they'll always be there. Differently or not. But there.

Don King

02-04-2007, 02:37 AM

The more I spend, the more I demand. No doubt.

Don King

02-04-2007, 02:42 AM

But I could say...
The more it's affordable, the more I save.

Don King

02-04-2007, 02:47 AM

Thirdly, I still could...
The more I save, the more I have.
The more I have, the more I can.

P Andersson

02-04-2007, 05:08 AM

with improvements i think this style camera would be a great RED II

P Andersson

02-04-2007, 05:14 AM

Lynch explained, adding wryly, "It has this thing called‘automatic focus’ that is great. It makes film cameras seem very absurd. DV is not up to the quality of film right now but it’s getting closer and closer. We’ve done tests for Inland Empire and it looks very good."...

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?p=849629#post849629

Jeff Kilgroe

02-04-2007, 09:23 PM

Nice reading!

"I would like to find a Prosumer cam that could be taken into the streets (of Paris, Rome, New York, etc,) and not be as noticeable as pro cameras are. I want something I can put in a jacket pocket and pull out when needed."

Applied Visual, do you see what we're talking about?

That makes absolute perfect sense and that's why I bought my HC3... Now how does that work out with using the HDMI interface for live capture to circumvent potential HDV artifacting? ...Or do you also plan to keep this little camcorder tethered via an HDMI cable to a portable computer in a backpack? It's the live HDMI capture to try and avoid HDV artifacting that I find qutestionable, not the compact camcorder itself. Considering price and features, if it has equivalent (or better) video quality to my Sony HC3 and since it does true 24p, I'll probably buy one to replace my HC3...

I would just add. This is not a prosumer but can get some prosumer or even pro results. If adding the necessary pro tools. A camera is just a tool. Getting the necessary definition, our money should have other priorities. A camera is just an item. The problem is to get the right items.

I agree with that too... I just find the whole HDMI live capture theory for this camcorder to be questionable. If the HV10 and other current HDV camcorders in this size range are anything to judge by, then (even if the HDMI output doesn't exhibit HDV macroblocking/artifacting from a live feed), the results will still be inferior to HDV comrpessed feeds from a larger camera with better optics and image processing. That larger camera will still be more compact and easier to manage in a portable situation than a tethered HV20. And for those who's money priorities may call for concern, the larger camera like the V1 will be about the same price when considering the necessary gear to grab live HDMI from the HV20.

...This is all I was saying, sometimes I wonder if people actually read what I post.

I'm in no way questioning the validity or use of HDV cameras or compact camcorders / palmcorders, etc.. I'm questioning the logic of trying to circumvent HDV compression on a camcorder like the HV20 or even on larger units like the FX1/V1, via HDMI live capture. When more elegant, portable and proven solutions already exist... Often for the same or less money, which can be a concern and even on large studio budgets.

It's like somewhere in the last 12 replies the whole topic of discussion changed and now I'm being lectured on the importance of HDV camcorders when that isn't what I was even talking about. :confused:

Greg Voevodsky

02-04-2007, 10:35 PM

SEE what happens when RED doesn't give us any NEWS?
My God, we're talking about Canon? Next thing I bet we will be looking forward to Sony's new Camera! RED give us some news, please... silence these non Red discussions!

Roberto B

02-04-2007, 11:09 PM

yeah?..

take a look on this lower rez.. canon's A1..

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9084/1169977556.jpg
http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/9084/1169975923.jpg

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=85659

Petr Dvorak

02-07-2007, 06:07 PM

First HV20 review and videos, translated from japan web site AV Watch ;) :D
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.watch.impress.co.jp%2 Fav%2Fdocs%2F20070207%2Fzooma294.htm&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Jeff Kilgroe

02-07-2007, 09:08 PM

Hmmm....

It looks like it produces a bit more detail than my HC3, pretty similar though. It does seem like it may have less noise, but I can't say for sure from these few samples. The HV20 does look to have some more edge enhancement than the Sony cams, but once again hard to tell for sure from these limited samples.

...not impressed with the 24fps sample. :( The color looks to be very good for such a little camera though. :)

Sanjin Jukic

02-08-2007, 12:39 PM

Canon HV20 original Japanese site

Original
http://cweb.canon.jp/ivis/hv20/

Translated
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcweb.canon.jp%2Fivis%2Fhv 20%2F&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Japanese review with example movies

Original
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20070207/zooma294.htm

Translated
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.watch.impress.co.jp%2 Fav%2Fdocs%2F20070207%2Fzooma294.htm&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

Charles Papert

02-10-2007, 08:39 PM

At the Canon seminar at Birns and Sawyer today I was delighted to be able to wrap my paws around the HV20 for ten minutes or so...here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=86182) is a quick digest of my thoughts.

Emanuel A.

02-11-2007, 03:16 AM

And here is the full review:

«Today's Canon seminar at Birns and Sawyer featured the venerable XLH1 and A1 front and center, but a little honey of a newcomer quietly stole the show from off in the wings--one of the two rumored working HV20's in the U.S. Sadly, the breakout cable for component out was nowhere to be found so we didn't get to see the image on the 30" plasma that displayed the A1's excellent picture instead, but having an opportunity to handle the HV20 was worth the price of admission.

My first thought is that it is amazingly light. I think the horizontal form factor might lead one to think that it will have a tad more heft from its appearance, but it feels like a feather, and the right hand wraps comfortably around the body lending a nearly covert appearance to the meld of man and machine. It's light enough that the left hand is a bit confused what to do exactly--you can steady the camera by placing a few fingers on the LCD screen, but the camera is not big enough to require a lift from below. I think it would take a bit more experimentation to figure out the optimal hand position.

I'm not an immediate fan of the zoom rocker, unfortunately. It has been downsized to the same scale as the camera which makes it rather touchy to operate--the throw from one side to the other is minute. I'm sure with practice this would improve but it's not what I would call an intuitive interface. There is a set of zoom controls just under the screen which can be easily operated by the left hand, but this is a fixed speed zoom compared to the variable offered on the body.

Likewise, the teeny focus roller on the left side is not all that easy to use; a long rack (from close focus to background) would require so many go-rounds because of the short rotation of the control that it's all but impractical. However the autofocus is quite snappy and probably the way to work with this camera under most handheld circumstances.

Bear in mind that these are first impressions; it's entirely possible that I might have become adept at both of these mechanisms had I been able to spend more time playing with them.

I walked around a little bit and it seems like with about 15 minutes of practice, most shooters could get comfy enough with the feel to deliver good looking handheld footage. Between the optical stabilization and the light body, using an elbows-tucked in approach should deliver solid images without the fatigue typical of the larger handheld but non-shoulder mounted cameras like its big brothers, the HVX etc.

At a certain point I realized that I had forgotten that this camera delivers 1080 HD images, which was a bit stunning. If only we could have watched some of this played back (but of course the picture will be the same as the HV10), this may have hit home further.

I didn't have too much time to play around with the various shooting modes; those familiar with Canon's menus will adjust pretty quickly as the familiar icons pop up on the screen.

I think this camera will really kick ass in its class, and it's an astonishing feature set for the money. Looking forward to getting one!»

~ Charles Papert, SOC

LINK (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=86182)

Thanks for the much appreciated info!

E. :)