not satisfied with the HV20 [Archive] - High Definition Digital Video Forum

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 10:56

I got my hv20 on saturday the 7th.
i needed to do a shoot of a spoken word poet at the international african arts festival here in brooklyn new york.
Usually i would use my trusty canon L2 but after doing alot of research i went out and bought the hv20 at circut city for $969 bucks along with a extra battery and tapes it all came out to $1142 smackers.
So far i am totally dissatisfied. the video looks like home video to me. i do not see how so many people are getting these great shots. i experimented with the settings and it all still does not look like professional footage. My canon L2 produced much better results. I think the lense on the hv20 may be to small for professional results.
I will post the footage on youtube once i get the firewire cable i had to order on amazon in order to hook it up to my mac. right now i'm pissed because circut city charges a $150 restocking fee if i return it.
Am i crazy!!!!!!!:hv20-smilie01:

Mal

2007 July 9th, 11:01

Am i crazy!!!!!!!:hv20-smilie01:

Probably! :hv20-smilie03:

1) Did you really record in HDV, not DV? Hmm?
2) If 1) = HDV, then what are you watching your footage on? The cam's LCD?
3) I suspect operator error or slight misguided use of cam here....

:hv20-smilie77:

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 11:08

yeah i watched it on the tv via the av out.
if i have my hi8 canon l2 on fully auto and the hv20 on hdv vivid color mode why does the L2 look more pro? i don't get it. it should be no contest.:eek:

Worley

2007 July 9th, 11:13

It could be the AV out circuitry, but I suspect something easier to fix.

In the settings, what output mode is the AV set to.ibelieve you can tell it to output either HD or SD. So check that before you get too upset!

Dodgy Nick

2007 July 9th, 11:18

yeah i watched it on the tv via the av out.

Try the HDMI out on an HD capable TV. :hv20-smilie77:

Mal

2007 July 9th, 11:18

I am not sure what you mean with "more PRO".
The HV20 won't compensate for bad lighting, bad camera placement, bad audio, bad composition, nor bad subject matter.

At this point it probably would be best for you to upload the HI8 cam's footage and some HV20 cam footage. (Note: YouTube is neither a good PRO nor amateur place to upload footage for proper evaluation or accurate video delivery).

The HV20's HDV footage will beat ANY Hi8 cam as far as resolution is concerned. And since the HV20's footage has awesome color representation, it will beat most any other cam in its price class as far as accurate color reproduction is concerned also.

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 11:24

I did not see any way to do that
all i know is that my analog hi8 camera is smoking this hdv camera when i watch it on tv. i'm hoping that once i get the firewire cable things will change. i just got it in order to tide me over until i got the xh a1.
I am dumping the L2 footage into my mac as we speak and it looks great , i want a camera that can improve upon that and everyone says the hv20 should do it but right now i'm skeptical. the hv20 is so small but i'm going to wait until i see the digital output.
if that does not look any better i wasted $1142 bucks.

Mal

2007 July 9th, 11:26

if that does not look any better i wasted $1142 bucks.

Or $150.00, right?
:)

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 11:33

pro is what you see when you watch interviews on vh1 bet or mtv or even the news. Pro is not looking like HOME VIDEO.
I have been in pro Multimedia for over 35 years and people who believe in digital make me laugh.
There must be all of these conditions for things to sound good or look right. I have my own recording studio and i know very well about the digital vs analog wars. I dont care what the hv20 is i just want pro results without alot of hassle and or excuses. but i'm willing to wait until i can go digital out.

Erik Bien

2007 July 9th, 11:39

There is just flat NO WAY an analog Hi-8 camcorder produces a "better" image than the HV20. Even if you just leave the HV20 in full-auto "green zone" mode and only view its output down-converted over analog RCA to a standard-def tv it should be an obvious improvement.

That said, the HV20 is hardly the most user-friendly camera in terms of ergonomics, menu structure, etc. For most users there seems to be a little bit of a "learning curve" when they decide to move beyond "auto everything."

Frankly, your stated dissatisfaction with your footage is too vague to be able to make specific suggestions: is it too dark? Too light? Too "strobe-y"? Too sharp? Not sharp enough? There are settings you can tweak to address any of those issues, but without knowing what it is you dislike about the footage, all we can say is "RTFM" ...

Mal

2007 July 9th, 11:41

...but right now i'm skeptical.

Right now I'm skeptical about this thread! :hv20-smilie77:

You can't expect to do a PRO interview (like MTV, BET, or VH1, as you suggest) with only a cam, HV20 or not.
Those are normally set-ups of quite staggering proportions; i.e. lighting, and background placements, etc.

You are all over the place here in this thread. If you want help, we can solve one thing at a time.
This is not a analog vs. digital issue....AT ALL.

What we need to find the answer to is what makes your old Hi8 cam supposedly look better than your new HV20.
With some concentration on that issue we might solve this mistery.

I can understand your frustration, but let's be calm about it, so we can pin-point the "problem" (if there is one) and maybe we can all learn something...

:hv20-smilie32:

Terfyn

2007 July 9th, 11:49

I too used Hi-8, in my case a Sony V800 (if my memory serves me right), the quality of picture was there with the Hi-8 but it was nothing compared to the HV20. I believe that you have got to compare like with like. The Hi-8 analogue picture was excellent but it does not compare with the HV20 feeding an HV ready TV through an HDMI cable. If no HDMI try the composite output with the AV supplying the sound.
Is it a case of what you know is what you like? My experience with an HV-20 feeding a Panasonic plasma screen through an HDMI cable is that the pictures are as good as 35mm transparencies but with movement, the detail is just stunning and the colours are very true. (This was on AUTO by the way) If the HV-20 has one fault, it is the on board mics but, as a professional, you would have presumably used mics designed for the subject you were filming.

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 11:50

Thanks for the replies everyone, i appreciate it.
i'll just have to wait on the digital cable.
all i can tell you is that the hv20 looks like home video to me not pro video. I have a open mind and a wait and see attitude. i'll play with the camera some more. But the way it look right now is either return it to circut city or Ebay. :hv20-smilie15:

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 11:58

to erik
that is exactly what i did and the L2 blasted the hv20.
lets see what happens in digital.

cybercrash

2007 July 9th, 12:04

Too bad you can't show us a sample of what you mean.

Maybe you should try recording in 24p or 25p? Maybe you're not used to the fast 60i framerate that probably provides way more motion clarity than your hi8, resulting in a very homevideo/non-filmish look.

Mal

2007 July 9th, 12:09

This thread reads something like this to me:

"I just bought a brand new FERRARI, and I am VERY dissatisfied with it. It's NO WAY near as fast as my Citroen Deux Cheveux that I am driving. I have not driven the FERRARI yet, but looking at it in the garage, it doesn't look as it's going very fast at all!"

All in good fun..... :)

white_2kgt

2007 July 9th, 12:18

How did you hook it up to your TV? Did you use the Yellow, Red and White cables or the Red, Green, Blue, white, red cables?

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 12:21

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 12:22

yellow red white
av out

Mal

2007 July 9th, 12:34

to mal
your analogy is way off
i am looking at the output from both cameras in analog and on a anlog unit. i am telling you that the hv20 is not giving me a result which improves upon my canon L2.
what part of that dont you understand.
We have guys in the audio world who scorn and mock everything that is not the latest hi tech toy.
GEAR SLUTZ.

It is exactly this sort of reply that makes me think you might not really be willing to accept that the HV20 is FAR superior in image quality than any Hi8 cam, but that you are simply not viewing the output of the HV20 the way it ought to be.
It's not a matter of being a Gear "fanatic", but rather a simple fact that you should compare apples to apples, or in this case, view the HV20's footage on system capable of displaying it properly.
The HV20 is not going to imporove on the L2 if you are throttling the HV20 down to a crappy resolution when you view its output.

We've mentioned this now several times here....I hope this is clear now.

Mal

2007 July 9th, 12:41

Here's a more visual explanation that might be of assistance:

First is a DV resolution still from a SONY DCR-PC100 DV camera, the second pic is from the HV20 shot in HDV. Both are resized to equal pixel size:

http://hv20.info/image-sample-PC100.jpg

http://hv20.info/image-sample-hv20.jpg

Erik Bien

2007 July 9th, 13:03

Agreed, Mal. Something is fishy here: who is in "pro Multimedia for over 35 years" and just now upgrading from Hi-8? How on earth did he make it through the last DECADE without coming into contact with digital? Deliver on VHS?

If you're an audio guy, are you still ping-ponging tracks on tape? Technology hasn't stood still on the audio side any more than it has on the video side, and the improvements kind of parallel each other. It's not that guitar>DI>ProTools automatically sounds better than guitar>amp>mic>4-track, it's just that you have a much purer signal to work with, so you can make it sound like a close-mic'd stack of Marshalls or a Bassman into a Leslie or whatever tickles your fancy using software, not hardware.

Same thing in video, only even moreso: analog is DEAD, and GOOD RIDDANCE I say: reds bleeding all over the place due to generation loss every time you move the signal down a crummy RCA cable, pre-rolling edit decks, etc.

Ones and zeroes, baby: copy, transcode, up- and down-convert, and yes, even buy a bunch of "analog emulation" software plugins to grunge up your footage to look like bleach bypass, '60s Kodachrome, or old-school Hi-8.

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 13:04

then you agree it is about the hv20's analog conversion. as i said i have a open mind and i will play with this thing some more. i have two dvd recorders and i'm going to check and see if i they have the digital or rgb connections i can use.
thanks everyone i'll keep you informed.:hv20-smilie32:

Lunchbox

2007 July 9th, 13:19

Here's I have another comparison. One shoot using HV20 another one Canon GL2 (3ccd). Both resize to the same resolution in Photoshop.

http://hv20.info/yopu/LizDonHDV.JPG

http://hv20.info/yopu/LizDonDV.JPG

Lunchbox

2007 July 9th, 13:32

Agreed, Mal. Something is fishy here: who is in "pro Multimedia for over 35 years" and just now upgrading from Hi-8? How on earth did he make it through the last DECADE without coming into contact with digital? Deliver on VHS?

It's really interesting. I would like to learn back in 1972 what kind of pro multimedia production that is. :)

I recently upgraded my analog TV tuner card to a digital TV tuner card. I was really impressed with the stunning image quality of digital TV over analog.

bluegrass

2007 July 9th, 14:35

Taky.......that's amazing the difference in the GL2 and HV20. Do you have a Hi8 laying around that you could make a comparison with the HV20?

I guess it's hard to get past the fact of how good the quality of the HV20 is. I wonder when this fact will become hohum.

I'm just grateful I didn't jump on the bandwagon a year or two ago before the HV20 came along, although the HV10 would have still been a great move. I'm beginning to wonder when I'll be purchasing my 2nd HV20. I'm just looking for a good excuse but unfortunately I don't have a mate or good friend to be my assistant on video shoots. I guess it won't be long before we'll be hearing about another new HV Canon.

Lunchbox

2007 July 9th, 14:45

Here's more to show the difference between Analog vs. Digital.

Analog Broadcast
http://hv20.info/yopu/ABC7Analog.jpg

Digital Broadcast
http://hv20.info/yopu/ABC7Digital.jpg

HD Broadcast
http://hv20.info/yopu/ABC7HD2.jpg

http://hv20.info/yopu/ABC7HD.jpg

One thing you can't see from the still captures is, the Analog capture got lots of noise and a horizontal "cloud" scrolling upward. The digital broadcast is not as good as HD, but the image is TV noise free.

The HD broadcast is amazing.. you can see the anchor's teeth alignment :)

Lunchbox

2007 July 9th, 14:49

Taky.......that's amazing the difference in the GL2 and HV20. Do you have a Hi8 laying around that you could make a comparison with the HV20?

Sorry I don't have any Hi8 video at all. In fact, I start my "Pro Multimedia" only 10 years ago that I started with Mini-DV. hehe

Worley

2007 July 9th, 15:05

Pro multimedia... then you'll be aware that a programme broadcast in colour but shown on a black and white receiver is WORSE quality than a black and white programme shown on the same receiver.

Yet we all know colour is better, right?

No, when colour is played on a black and white receiver, the colour signal interferes with the signal (that part of the reason the NTSC frame rate is 29.997 and not 30 fps) and produces a distinct diagonal dot pattern.

By playing HD footage onto a SD device, you are forcing the HV20 to downconvert, and that is why you see no apparent increase in quality. In fact, the quality may appear to be slightly worse because of the downconverting.

Play bot SD and HD through an HD TV and youll see a world of difference.

Worley

2007 July 9th, 15:12

Oh and to all who say digital is better than analogue, you're wrong. Digital is different from analogue.

Both have advantages and disadvantages.

I far prefer analogue radio to digital - I can't receive shortwave stations on digital. And in the UK, the powers that be have opted for quantity over quality, so the frequency response on digital radio is lower then on FM.

Nothing will make me part with my Roberts world radio.

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 15:17

in no way am i saying that hi8 is as good as hd, thats not the point.
i am talking about using the tools i have on hand , the hv20 is not giving me results that outperform my canon L2.
I have a analog tv that does not have any rgb or digital inputs. my acer 22 inch lcd monitor has no digital inputs so i have to look at everything in analog and i'm telling you guys that whats coming out of the hv20 av out aint cutting it. As far as these pics go that you guys are putting up these are all digi transfers so it's not a fair comparison.
and as far as i can see the diference aint worth the $1,142 smackers i paid,(except for that one with the newscaster that is prolific). I know , I know now i have to get a hdtv to go with my camera. It's the same thing in pro audio, it's all convienient and all but to get satisfactory results you have to spend a arm and a leg of dough!:hv20-smilie36:
you all know i'm right!

pwrlogic

2007 July 9th, 15:24

to taky
As one of the guys at studio1productions.com told me.
there is no consumer dv camera that can touch a canon L2. sorry!:hv20-smilie81:

Lunchbox

2007 July 9th, 15:25

Here's the MadTV about Hi-Definition camcorder can reveal :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NA919o8YknQ

sp8ce07

2007 July 9th, 15:26

What's the point in puchasing an HD making camera if you have zero intention on comparing it in its native output, which in this case, is HD?

Again, as a comparison, this is like purchasing a Humvee and using it to take the kids to school down the street twice a day, and then complaining it gets poor gas mileage than your Honda Civic and you paid XXX dollars more. You cannot actually compare the two because you purchased the item for something its not going to be able to see a difference in.

You put that Humvee in its native environment, or in the real world case, the HD HV-20 -- on an HDTV HDMI/Component input, compared with RGB Hi8, and there is NO comparison.

Mal

2007 July 9th, 15:28

When I get the RED cam, I'll be showing off the footage on one of these:
http://www.makezine.com/blog/philips%2014tx120%20totaal.jpg

This thread has gone as far as it can go, and there's about a dozen people here beating a dead horse, as it were....yet wisdom is not prevailing it seems.
I'll lock it down for a while.

Once you get that firewire cable, please report back pwrlogic, and we may resume this disussion, hopefully in a more reasonable fashion.

Mal

2007 July 10th, 23:33

Although this thread is temporarily closed, here's a post that was written by um3k (http://www.hv20.com/member.php?u=973) during the time the thread was being closed. Out of fairness to the effort put in by um3k (http://www.hv20.com/member.php?u=973) of writing it in the first place, I will post here, verbatim:

That's no surprise, seeing as the L2 is a pro camera. In fact, it is among the very best Hi8 cams ever made. Many consumer DV camcorders are really quite crappy. Sure, they're resolution is good (by SD standards), but they're quite lacking otherwise.

On the subject of L2 vs. HV20, you must consider that the L2 was designed for a SD analog world, and thus has very high quality SD analog output. The HV20 was designed for a new world of HD digital video, and thus is optimized for HD output--whether digital (HDMI, firewire), or analog (component). SD composite output is not a high priority, seeing as it does not support HD, and is on the low end even as far as SD analog connections go.

Hi8 video from the L2 is recorded in analog composite format, so composite cables are the optimum connector, requiring very little in-camera processing when outputting to a TV. HDV is in HD digital component color format, so the HV20 must downscale, convert to analog, combine the chroma channels with the luma channel, and modulate the video into composite video before outputting through the composite cable. Each of these steps reduces image quality, some quite significantly, leading to rather poor quality output. However, when outputting component video from the HV20, all that is necessary is digital to analog conversion, no downsampling, no channel mixing, and no modulating. HDMI is even better, requiring upsampling, but no digital to analog conversion.

So, comparing the L2 over composite to the HV20 over composite is actually quite unfair. You're comparing two cameras in a format that is native to one camera, and quite alien to the other. It's like comparing orange juice you squeezed from an orange to orange juice you got out of an apple.

Think about this: Someday you most likely will buy a HDTV, and when that day comes, video from your L2 will look lousy (or at least not very good), while video from your HV20 will look great. Wouldn't it make sense to shoot in the better format, which will look good in the future; than to shoot in the dated format, which looked good in the past?

If you don't have an HDTV to compare the cameras on, then find someone who does. I'm sure someone who has been in the professional video industry for years (such as you) has a friend or two with an HDTV.

Ok, that's enough from me. My two cents has turned into two dollars. Now if only that would happen in real life...

Mal

2007 July 13th, 20:24

Here's the MadTV about Hi-Definition camcorder can reveal :)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NA919o8YknQ

:hv20-smilie81:
I only just watched that now; that was funny! :hv20-smilie77:

(yes, I reopened this thread...let's see if it can continue in a more reasonable way...)

pwrlogic

2007 July 13th, 20:35

Hey i'm glad to see everyone had a good laugh.
well after checking out the b roll footage on my 22' lcd screen i can say that i am much much more happier. it looks much better than on the television via the AV out. So yes i will be keeping the camera and using it in my productions until i get my xh a1 for my 50th birthday. Even though i hate the small size, it came in handy because i was able to stick it out the car window and get moving car street footage that i wanted for a music video. but i was just experimenting because i still have not figured out the best settings. As far as the difference between the hv20 output and my L2. All i can say is i am rendering now so that i can post it in my next post.
I think one of the other posters had it right when he said one is not better than the other, they are just different, but i'll let you guys be the judge.:hv20-smilie03:

John Watson

2007 July 13th, 22:06

I have to admit, at first I thought pwrlogic was a throwback from the past, desperately trying to hang on to the glory days of pre-DV. Having hooked his Hv20 up to the worst TV he could find, and filmed in the worst way he could think of, he would gleefully report to us proud Hv20 owners that his recording device was better than ours.. Why? Because it 'looks' better.. Really why? Because he has a point to prove.. he can't accept technology and probably prefers vinyl to CD, and walkmans to iPods..

But I am then reminded of a situation I have currently going on at work. About 3 years ago I spent about £1200 on a Canon EOS300D digital SLR, a 75-300 lense, 2*500mb flash cards, backpack, filters, etc. The camera is 6.4 megapixel.

Nowadays they don't even sell the EOS300D to my knowledge. They are up to the EOS400D at least, and maybe more!

So I have this guy at work who has a 'compact' camera that is 8 megapixel and likes to tell me that he thinks he's getting better pictures than I am for the simple reason that his compact camera has more megapixels than mine. However much I might tell him that megapixels isn't what makes a good camera, but a good lense, good sensor, and all sorts of other things are important.. he still winds me up about his £100 camera being better than my £1200 camera. And one day I will hit him! (possibly with the 300mm end of my SLR lense!)

So, with thought, I do understand where pwrlogic is coming from. Higher res is undoubtedly important, but there is more at work than that, which makes a good picture.

I hope and trust that my Hv20 has all that taken care of.. that it is a 'good piece of kit' in addition to being HD.. It's pictures certainly look damn good to me.. but I don't want to become like my colleague 'Mr Megapixels' who thinks resolution is the only way to measure the value of an image.

pwrlogic

2007 July 13th, 22:32

bluegrass

2007 July 13th, 23:22

Ok boys and girls i think we're ready.
1. hv20 on auto and vivid color effect http://www.newblackmusic.net/KamalSupremeHV20.mov
2. Canon L2 on full Auto with color corretion in final cut express.
http://www.newblackmusic.net/KamalSupremeL2.mov
oh yeah mr watson i'd never use a digital slr.
i use a nikon n50 35mm with a nikor 1.4 lens.
I await you HONEST responses:hv20-smilie70:.

I say you're full of it. You expect with as few of pixels as was in the two clips, to make a judgement on how the quality was. You also obviously stacked the deck with the audio. Come on now. Thats bs.

Ian-T

2007 July 13th, 23:59

Thanks MAL for opening this back up because I was curious to seeing where this was going.....now I know....

pwrlogic...I'd have to agree with bluegrass. There is something terribly wrong with this picture (no pun intended). C'mon man...I've seen Youtube clips looking better than this....

How is it that of all the HV20 videos we've seen here and all over the Web this one is THE worst. I got to say...in the way you presented these videos...it was as if there was a statement you were trying to make by dropping in that music and having the persons audio "on par." But in the HV20 video you use the on-board mic...we could not hear anything he was saying.....and then....the encoding of the video....

I tell you what....why don't you drop us a full resolution of maybe...both cams filming side by side...and ran through the same exact process...on the same PC etc....Oh yeah....this time put BOTH cams on a tripod and work them the same exact way.. NAHHMEEEN????

One more thing....You started out this thread talking about...."This don't look Pro"...I mean...I never understood that statement. Any cam...SD or HD under the right conditions can be broadcast quality...good lighting....tripod.....steady cam....talent...etc... I'm sure you already know that....but...looking at both your samples..it is obvious you handled one cam in a more professional wy....and the other in a hand-held point and shoot "consumerish" way. I think most people can read between the lines.

Edit: Not trying to disrespect but....

Lunchbox

2007 July 14th, 00:03

pwrlogic

2007 July 14th, 05:54

Forget the audio, it's the video we're talking about here.
The L2 shot is from the the actual production that this artist will use.
but it was done on full L2 auto.
I had just got the hv20 the day before so i was just trying it out. I held it in my hand and took this and other outtake footage. I agree with everyone that the hv20 must be capable of more based on the footage i have seen on the web. Once i learn the cam i'm going to post again in one of the other threads.
both of these scenes where done in the same spot under the same lighting.
Both shots were rendered to quicktime to h264 at 320 x 240.
I'm not taking this any further, so thank you mr moderator for allowing me to post my examples. So here is my bottom line. I am not satisfied with the hv20 but i think the potential is there. it's up to me to learn all of the settings and all of the cams strong points and weak points and use them accordingly. do i consider it a pro camera? NOPE! Do i think i should have waited and applied the $1,142 dollars to the xh a1?
No, we must have new toys now and then right!.:hv20-smilie64:

Rikki

2007 July 14th, 08:06

I cant tell much diff between the two clips are they saved as cell phone quality 320x240 also looks like the HV20 one has been recorded in widescreen format but not dumped to letterbox on export.

On the camera front tho (other poster) I get this all the time, I've got a Fuji S3 and use Nikon glass for it. I see people post messages saying their N95 cell phone has a 5mp camera in it that must be close to the 6mp DSLRs around. Must be the same logic that dictates that a 500w PMPO speaker system for the computer is more powerful than the NAD amplifier and speaker system I have at home :D

pwrlogic

2007 July 14th, 08:25

you're right
let me render it again using preserve aspect ratio using letter box
but i do not understand why this is like this if i did not use wide screen.
i'll post it again in a hour!

Worley

2007 July 14th, 09:03

both of these scenes where done in the same spot under the same lighting.

No they weren't!

The anchor is clearly in the shade in part of the HV20 footage, and always in full, head-on, sunlight in the L2. also, the Hv20 footage, when he is in the sun, it's shining from the side, not the front.

Shoot using the two cameras side by side at the same time. Then we can judge better what's going on.

pwrlogic

2007 July 14th, 09:30

The keep aspect ratio did not work
i have to render it again with a larger size. 352 x 288
i don't know what i'm doing wrong.
i'm going out to play lotto while it renders.
maybe i'll win enough for a xl h1.:hv20-smilie77:

um3k

2007 July 14th, 09:51

From what I've read here, you don't seem like much of a professional.

Also, 352x288 won't fix the aspect ratio. Try 512x288. Do the math: 352x288=11:9, 512x288=16:9.

Worley

2007 July 14th, 10:01

Why render at such a low resolution? What's wrong with standard DV resolution. that would be much better for us all - we'd be better placed to help you then.

Mal

2007 July 14th, 10:13

Thanks for posting the clips, pwrlogic.

Forget the audio, it's the video we're talking about here.

So why include the audio then? :hv20-smilie03:

To me it's pretty clear that the HV20 blew the L2 away; but your resizing & encoding & aspect ratio incorrectness & mic differences & audio level differences makes it hard to actually objectively make a good comparison.

I am glad you are now obviously seeing the HV20's potential - write you: "but i think the potential is there. it's up to me to learn all of the settings and all of the cams strong points and weak points and use them accordingly".
That's exactly right! :hv20-smilie77:

Going back to my previous comment though; the L2 has that common 'videoey' quality look/feel to it. The HV20 does not.
The source was way too small to show this, but I tried to anyway in the bottom two pics.

If you'd recorded those clips with the cams side-by-side, and had set the HV20 in HDV; used equal mics; and encoded the clips in a higher quality, the differences would of wanted you to instantly change your mind about such comments as: "I am not satisfied with the hv20..."

HV20 crop and enlarged and aspect ratio corrected:
http://hv20.info/yopu/Kamal1-HV20.jpg

L2 crop & enlarged:
http://hv20.info/yopu/Kamal2-L2.jpg

Mal

2007 July 14th, 10:20

By the way, you can upload footage and pictures here for free:
http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=36

pwrlogic

2007 July 14th, 11:37

your lack of professional decorum speaks alot about your professionalism um3k.

You guys continue to think that this is a comparison of two cameras and it is not.
It's about someone who is new to HD using the L2 as a standards benchmark.
I started this post in the hopes that i would get some serious info on settings and or any other CAMERA specifics about how to get the best results with this camcorder.
Other than a few posts the majority of post were a defensive Knee jerk snide snippy point your finger smirk and giggle reaction.
i'm hoping most of that was all in good fun.
I see this same thing in pro audio all the time. i once saw two guys go to blows over which synth had the best bass sounds.

As you get older you see gear come and go and you realize it 's not about gear but it's the content that you produce with it that matters.

you can lock this thread mr moderator or even delete it if you like.
i'm out!
toot a loo!!!!!

1. hv20 on auto and vivid color effect http://www.newblackmusic.net/KamalSupremeHV20.mov
2. Canon L2 on full Auto with color corretion in final cut express.
http://www.newblackmusic.net/KamalSupremeL2.mov

Lunchbox

2007 July 14th, 11:51

...I started this post in the hopes that i would get some serious info on settings and or any other CAMERA specifics about how to get the best results with this camcorder...

Totally not. You started the post by complaining you spent $1142 on a consumer camera whinning it does not give you the "pro" results. Then made a harsh judgement in the title of "not satisfied with the HV20". You weren't try to ask for settings or what you did wrong.

This is a HV20 forum and of course there're lots of HV20 fans here. It's difficult for us or the general to accept the fact HV20 quality is worst than a Hi8. It might come out different if you post your comment to a Sony forum.

zephyrnoid

2007 July 14th, 11:53

pwrlogic
RE" It's about someone who is new to HD using the L2 as a standards benchmark."
Well in that case you may wish to show better courtesy to those that are better positioned as subject matter experts, to assist you in your quest to achieve your goals with the HV20, rather than antagonistically throwing sand in the face of what seems to be a highly professional consensus.
For the record, I'm terribly new to DV and brand new to HDV (just got my HV20 last week). So I peruse this remarkable forum and carefully parse all the information to help me better understand my camera's capabilities.
A lack of an education is not valid excuse for hubris.
This is the right place to get the education- so I suggest that we do it with humility and carefully worded pleas for help.:hv20-smilie03:

Dodgy Nick

2007 July 14th, 11:59

Very well said Zephyrnoid. :hv20-smilie77:

Worley

2007 July 14th, 12:13

It's about someone who is new to HD using the L2 as a standards benchmark

But DV and HDV are different standards. To compare the two you have to make sure that the conditions you expose them to are identical. That's why a side by side shoot is necessary. Only then can you ensure they are recording the subject with the same conditions.

Then you can make a fair comparison.

Once you learn how the HV20 does things, you'll be able to squeeze an awful lot from it. The manual control are limited, but you can turn those to your advantage. One of the first things I did was learn how to alter the recording level, lock exposure, and switch to progressive mode. These three settings alone turn amateur video into something somewhat more professional. Not completely professional, but getting close.

Forget what the L2 does, but recognise what the HV20 does do. They are different beasts.

I don't think anyone here is dissing you. Rather, we want to help resolve the issues you're experiencing with the HV20. If we were offended with your opinions, one of the mods would have closed your account by now.
:hv20-smilie122:

Terfyn

2007 July 14th, 12:25

Will this continuous bitching ever end? HV-20 owners and users think the camera is the best thing on the market at the moment. This site is aimed at fans of the HV-20 - and why not - it is a great camera. Until the next model comes along.
I judge by results and I like what I see on my HD TV. So Canon have produced the best camera for 2007.
NEXT YEAR................???

angelo913

2007 July 14th, 13:56

I've been editing and videographing since 1999 at it all started with DV. I have 2 DV camcorders the original Canon Elura and the Panasonic DVC30 and they both have 4:3 CCDs.

For the general public Up-Converting 1080 DVD players are cheap now a days and most TVs in the market are HDTV 16:9. Filling a 4:3 scene into 16:9 requires up scaling by 33% which is enough to reduce video quality. Watching Hollywood DVD movies up-converted to 1080 looks HD"ish" to me and thats the quality I'm looking for in my DVDs. To cut a long story short, I bought the HV20 and even my bother seen some HDV footage conneted via componet from the HV20 to my 65" RPCRT and he says it's like you're right there. :hv20-smilie03:

Since my final out is 16:9 DVDs as a test with my editing software I down converted the HDV or M2T files to 720x480 using Canopus' HQ (4:2:2) codec and compared it to my DV 4:3 footage scaled to 16:9 and even though both are 720x480, I'm seeing double the detail using the HV20, just what I was hoping for! :hv20-smilie03:

I'm totally satisfied, actually the proper word is "Ecstatic" with this cam even at HDV down coverted to 720x480 4:2:2 work space! :hv20-smilie110:

What I don't get is that the OP most likely set something wrong in the HV20 and thinks the XH-A1 is the solution with even more setting than the HV20!? Add to that that the XH-A1 cost over 3 times more than the HV20?? Is this thread a joke comparing the HV20 to Hi8 because I'm just......... :hv20-smilie79:

...Angelo

Numbox

2007 July 14th, 14:21

Jesus Christ, this topic is amazing. How the hell can this be dragged for so long when the situation is so simple: you have a camera that shoots video of amazing quality, and that's a proven fact. So, if your video doesn't look good, there can only be two things responsible for it - either the cam is broken or you know nothing about exposure, lighting etc. A lot of the times my videos turn out really home looking, since i never gave any effort to try and actually learn which setting to use when. Yeah, if it's a sunny day and i'm outside, the video looks great, but if i'm indoors where there's poor lighting, and cinemode is turned off, it looks completely like home video, kinda soft and have that reddish look typical NOT for home camcorders, but for camcorders owned by people who don't know how to use them. And i have no one to blame but my self.