Still making the decision HV20 vs TRV900

[Judy]

Greetings,

I'm in the throes of making the decision. I've read so many positive things aobut the HV20. I currently own an (old) Sony TRV900 which works well, but is heavy to carry when traveling. As a result, I've been thinking about an upgrade and since we now have an HDTV, I was thinking about an HD Camcorder. I like that the HV20 records on tape (good for archival backup) and am not intrigued (yet) by the HDD camcorders, at least until the flash drive technology is robust enough.

On another forum, someone who had the TRV900 had purchased the HV20 and they wrote a review in which they basically said that the HV20's image quality and exposure wasn't as good at the TRV900. I am trying to understand if that is true. I thought that perhaps someone else on this forum may (still) own the TRV900 and how they thought the two cameras compared.

I was right on the verge of purchasing until I read this other review. Here's the link to the review:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=868633

I'd be grateful for your input.

Judy

[joe12south]

I don't think that there is any other camera in it's price range that is comparable in PQ. I tried them all.

[Ian-T]

TRV900 is not in the same league as the hv20. hECK..... Sony VX2000 is way better that the TR and even the Sony can't touch the HV20's Image quality. When the person reffered to exposure he must have been saying manual controls...then yes...the TR is a prosumer "SD" cam...the HV20 is a consumer 'HD" cam...so it will have less manual controls (ability) than the TR....but at the end of the day....it does not hold a candle to the HV20 in terms of PQ (resolution, sharpness etc.).

[angryofmayfair]

I used to have a TRV900 many years ago and I can say that there is no way the PQ in general would be even close to the HV20.
What the TRV900 does have is 3 x ccd and this can give a more upmarket look as far as less blow-outs due to overexposure and a more saturated look but it's SD output would not really be much of a match for the HV20 or any of the HDV cams that are around now, IMHO

[iondot]

I used a TRV900 for many years and it is a beautiful camera. It is very sharp and it's 3CCD color is outstanding.

The thing that I always found infuriating about the camera was that it had a fantastic, but nearly useless progressive scan mode at 15fps. Had it been 30p or 24p, I might say stick with it for SD footage.

In my opinion, the HV20 is a better, more flexible camera. However, it is worth noting that if you have no plans for HD footage, the compression artifacts on bright colors, red's especially, will be less pronounced on the TRV900, even when compared with HV20 brought down to SD size.

[Judy]

Greetings,

THANK YOU! I am relieved to hear this. I was ready to pull the trigger on the purchase and then I saw that other posting and stalled. It did seem counter-intuitive to me that in the 8+ years that I've owned the TRV900 that the image quality had not improved!

Your comments are very reassuring about making the leap to the HV20.

Judy

[iondot]

Bear in mind that 8+ years ago the TRV900 was three times as expensive as the HV20 and that the HV20 offers more than four times the resolution of the TRV900. It is also worth noting that the HV20 is a little more than half the weight of the TRV900 and it's significantly smaller.

By my strict and very non-scientific mathematics, that makes the HV20 about 10 times as good!

But seriously, In my opinion, the single CMOS sensor is not as good as the 3CCD set up on the TRV900. So while the HV20 is a better camera all around, if you were to compare the two images pixel by pixel I expect the TRV900 would be a little better. (That is to say, if you compared the full image of the TRV900 with a quarter of the HV20's image).

But in the end, I'm not sure that's useful comparison. If you were to look at the TRV900's image upscaled to HD resolution, it would most asurredly suffer the comparison.

In fact, you may wish to do this with your new HDTV and compare the two images on that screen. I am certain it will reassure you about the purchase.

Finally, bear in mind that the TRV900 was a 20th generation standard def consumer camcorder. HDTV is a new format and is still struggling to get it's act together, so all the consumer HD cameras on the market today are just second generation. I make this point because the HV20 is not going to be a camera that will keep you happy for 8 years. The improvement curve on these cameras will likely mean in a couple of years you may feel eager to buy the latest and greatest.

[Judy]

Your analysis is helpful to me. I was thinking of going to a local video store (yes, we still actually have one of those!) where I purchased the TRV900 and put some images up side by side. The weight and size issues are significant to me. After all, I'm 8 years older now and schlepping heavy equipment when traveling takes the edge off of the experience.

I see that owners have tweaked all kinds of settings to get optimal results. How does it work out if (in a pinch) you just grab the camera and use it on automatic? I am thinking about my husband or someone else who's not into the tweaking aspect wanting to use it from time to time.

Any thoughts on how the HV20 performs in that situation? I was at a reception a few weeks ago and was playing around with my Canon G7 camera (various manual settings) and suddenly, there was one of the Democratic political candidates. I wanted to take a photo of my husband with him, but someone said, "No, you get in the picture also." Let's just say that in the moment, I didn't think to put the camera back on automatic and the image is useless. So, I am wondering about the automatic settings on the HV20 and how those work out to the casual user.

Thanks so much.

[barshnik]

Flip the HV20 switch to 'auto' and it is darn near fool-proof with decent light. I used 'auto' on our recent Alaska vacation every time I had a few drinks to insure no stupid mistakes, and was not disappointed.

I still love my old TRV900, but it is no match for the HV20 in image quality.

[angryofmayfair]

You will probably find the HV20 very plastiky compared to the TRV900 which is a very solid machine, hence the extra weight.
Don't make too much of this though - my TRV900 had all sorts of problems despite my kid gloves treatment - I lost lots of tapes due to the dreaded 'tape crinkle' problems of the TRV900.
It was repaired by Sony at least twice (tape transport & dead L channel mic) but I never felt confident about it's relaibilty after the repairs
I guess it remains to be seen how durable the HV20 is - fingers crossed :-)

[Halsu]

But seriously, In my opinion, the single CMOS sensor is not as good as the 3CCD set up on the TRV900.

What exatly do you base this on??

HV20:s CMOS is very, very good IMO. Great latitude, nothing wrong with the colors. Low noise.

[Ian-T]

But seriously, In my opinion, the single CMOS sensor is not as good as the 3CCD set up on the TRV900. So while the HV20 is a better camera all around, if you were to compare the two images pixel by pixel I expect the TRV900 would be a little better. (That is to say, if you compared the full image of the TRV900 with a quarter of the HV20's image).

1CMOS = 3CCD colors especially in the HV20 since it uses RGB colors. Because of this it has been stated that the picture on the HV20 (1CMOS) is better than some 3CMOS prosumer cams.

Also, from what I see, it does not suffer from the same bleeding reds as in CCD's.

[angryofmayfair]

Reds look great on my HV-20 - as you say, no bleeding and no blurred red detail - I would agree that the HV20 sensor produces better output than the 3ccd's of my TRV900 or my panasonic MX300
Purples come out the correct shade too - purple & violet - not blue! :)

[iondot]

What exatly do you base this on??

HV20:s CMOS is very, very good IMO. Great latitude, nothing wrong with the colors. Low noise.

I base this on experience. If you were to look at a quarter of the image on the HV20, and the full image on the TRV900, you would find the later has better fidelity and a slightly sharper image. Strictly speaking, this is only useful as a pixel by pixel comparison and my point should only be taken as such.

In practical usage, you would almost never do this. The logical comparison would be to reduce the HV20's image and compare it to the full frame. In that more logical scenario, the HV20 definitely exceeds the TRV900 in terms of quality.

However, I stand by my comment about the reds. The "bleeding reds" on the HV20 has to do with HDV compression, not the sensor. HDV compression is brutal to bright red. DV compression is more forgiving because it only needs to compress a quarter of the data that HDV does.

[Judy]

I find this discussion very interesting.

I called the video store that I previously mentioned. They primarily serve broadcasters and "prosumers" and it's where I bought the TRV900 8 years ago. Anyway, the fellow I talked to was very "down" on the 1-CCD cameras and was trying to point me toward the 3CCD AVCHD cameras. When I discussed the problems with editing, the dismissed them. He was trying to push me toward the Panasonic cameras, but when I read the reviews of them, the HV20 still looks better to me.

So, I found him to be less than helpful.

Judy

[Ian-T]

I base this on experience. If you were to look at a quarter of the image on the HV20, and the full image on the TRV900, you would find the later has better fidelity and a slightly sharper image. Strictly speaking, this is only useful as a pixel by pixel comparison and my point should only be taken as such.

In practical usage, you would almost never do this. The logical comparison would be to reduce the HV20's image and compare it to the full frame. In that more logical scenario, the HV20 definitely exceeds the TRV900 in terms of quality.

However, I stand by my comment about the reds. The "bleeding reds" on the HV20 has to do with HDV compression, not the sensor. HDV compression is brutal to bright red. DV compression is more forgiving because it only needs to compress a quarter of the data that HDV does.iondot...I hear what you are saying but I think this is kind of misleading (not intentionally but just confusing). I think for the sake of potential new users we should give them the “big picture” (no pun intended) and that is the PQ, in terms of sharpness and resolution, of the HV20 is 4 times better than that of the TRV900. Even with the HV20 footage downrezzed it still looks much sharper than SD.

The other point I was making about the “bleeding reds” is that there does not seem to be a problem in the HV20’s CMOS as there is with CCD. Usually CCD imagers have this bleeding problem along with smearing….CMOS does not. I think that has been documented elsewhere (somebody correct me if I’m wrong….and I know you will). HDV has been evolving and from what I have been reading the way the HV20 implements it is the best yet. So ...some of the issues people have been seeing in recent years with HDV are non-existent today.

[angryofmayfair]

I find this discussion very interesting.

Anyway, the fellow I talked to was very "down" on the 1-CCD cameras and was trying to point me toward the 3CCD AVCHD cameras.

Judy

That's the way things used to be before CMOS - 3ccd's were always better than one but now it's not really true, I prefer my HV20's single CMOS to three of the old CCD chips.

Perhaps though 3 CMOS would be better than a single CMOS?
Don't know...

[iondot]

iondot...I hear what you are saying but I think this is kind of misleading (not intentionally but just confusing). I think for the sake of potential new users we should give them the “big picture” (no pun intended) and that is the PQ, in terms of sharpness and resolution, of the HV20 is 4 times better than that of the TRV900. Even with the HV20 footage downrezzed it still looks much sharper than SD.

The other point I was making about the “bleeding reds” is that there does not seem to be a problem in the HV20’s CMOS as there is with CCD. Usually CCD imagers have this bleeding problem along with smearing….CMOS does not. I think that has been documented elsewhere (somebody correct me if I’m wrong….and I know you will). HDV has been evolving and from what I have been reading the way the HV20 implements it is the best yet. So ...some of the issues people have been seeing in recent years with HDV are non-existent today.

I don't know that I agree that HV20 "downrezzed" automatically looks sharper. But since there is so much more to work with, there is no question that you can get it to look sharper.

I think that where the HV20 really shines compared to the TRV900, all at standard def, is that the HV20 has a more dynamic response and produces a richer image.

As for HDV implementation, regardless of what improvements are made, I don't see how far they can deviate without creating a new standard. (Which maybe would be fine!) Any way you slice it, the compression does not like reds. There are dozens of examples here which inadvertently display the issue.

Of course, I would take the issues with HDV over the massive headache and compression artifacts of AVCHD any day. AVCHD may improve, but I will believe it when I see it.

[Anwar]

Referring to the comments by angryofmayfair, I had exactly the same problem with my 8-year old TRV900E. Problems with microphone, damaged tapes, and other tape transport mechanism problems. Sent to Sony 3 times for repair. Finally I gave up.

The TRV900E has great ergonomics and feels solid unlike the HV20 which is very plastiky. When the HV20 start/stop recording button is pressed, most likely it will affect the hand holding it, causing some move. I don't have that problem with TRV900E.

I have not done side by side comparison between my relatively new HV20E and my old TRV900E, but I will not go back to my old camcorder, even when playing old DV tapes recorded by TRV900E. So scared of damaging more tapes...

[Ian-T]

Of course, I would take the issues with HDV over the massive headache and compression artifacts of AVCHD any day. AVCHD may improve, but I will believe it when I see it.This I agree with. Seeing that AVCHD has the potential to be better than HDV I thought the HG10 would have a more superior image than the HV20, especially with its 15mbps data rate...but this is not the case. The PQ is not bad looking at all (with the exception of the mentioned artifacts) but the sharpness is just below that of the HV20 (which I figured would be the other way around).

So Judy if you are still up for tape based recording then the HV20 is what I strongly recommend. But As mentioned there is the hard drive based HG10 (HV20's sister cam) which is coming out I believe some time next month.

[iondot]

Put another way, The HV20 is the best all around camera in it's price range, beating out cameras that range up to $1,500.

In fact, it may be the best choice for anyone looking for something under $3,000.

And bear in mind that I say this in spite of a grudge I have against Canon for some very disappointing customer service.

[UpIrons]

I'm so glad I came across this thread. I have had a TRV-900 for about 8 years as well and I love it. I wish Sony would make an HD version just like it but I don't know how long that will take (I thought the SR12 would be my choice but once the camcorderinfo review came out on that, I knew my choice had to be HV30, for now).

When I decided on the HV30 I had some fears about whether a single CMOS would hold up against my 3-CCD camera that has been very good to me in terms of PQ. After having taken my new HV30 out for some filming, however, my fears were quickly alleviated and I don't even have an HDTV to view footage on yet. I took my first bit of footage in HDV fully automatic modes just to play around and I was quite impressed even on a SD TV.

Yes, the HV30 could be more robust in build, and I wouldn't mind having a little more bulk to be honest, not to mention a more "prosumer look", but overall the PQ is what it's all about and it seems you just can't go wrong in this price range by going with the HV30.

[Sean Michael]

When I decided on the HV30 I had some fears about whether a single CMOS would hold up against my 3-CCD camera that has been very good to me in terms of PQ.

A few years ago I bought a 3-CCD GS150 Panasonic palmcorder (in the consumer end of the spectrum). I discovered that -- contrary to expectations, it was pretty erratic with regard to color reproduction. In fact, the camera would sometimes appear to "hunt" for accurate color.

I've had no such problems with any single-chip CMOS camera. We often hear people complaining about CMOS (rolling shutter, etc.) but actually it has advantages, and appears to be far superior in terms of rendering color.

[elantric]

I owned a pair of TRV900s for about 10 years and recently Sold them to fund a pair of HV20s.

Night and day - I much prefer the HV20. I do miss the metal body. LANC port , and build quality of the TRV900. But comparing the footage shot by both - the HV20 wins every time. and for live rock music concerts I'm in a minority, I actually like the onboard HV20 mics - I have more controls to set the audio on the HV20 than on TRV900.

[Rich]

I'd be grateful for your input.Judy, I think (hope) you would be pleased with the HV30.

The TRV900 was a great camcorder, but I fully understand the lugging around of a lot of heavy equipment for family movies.



Rich

[thewinelake]

I wonder if we'll ever see it again in consumer/prosumer cameras. It seems like such a missing link in terms of manual controllability.

[tom-l]

I too was (am still) going through this decision. I just shot a choir setup at a school using both the 900 and the HV20. It was shot in a large room with flourescent lighting with posters on the back wall. In reviewing the tapes, I could clearly read the poster writing on the 900 tape. The lettering was muddled together on the Canon. I don't know if this was due to a focusing issue (both were on auto) or if the 900 has better definition for such things.
The technical details and numbers say one thing, but the video quality is saying another in this situation.

[Ian-T]

Remember..the HV20 is light hungry... What you might think was adequate lighting might not have been. The 900 will win in most low light situations. Take them both outside though...and that is a whole other night and day story. If you were to try the HV20 in manual mode you probably could have squeezed more life into that shot. You will have focusing issues if the cam thinks it is not getting enough light.

[tom-l]

Most of my work revolves around indoor school concerts - lots of low light at times, but also lots of bright lights and spots.... at least on stage, though I'm way in the back. I was thinking of trading the 900 for another HV20 for multi cam matching purposes, but not convinced. Since the finished material will end up going to the parents and grandparents as DVD, requests for HDV is the extreme exception so far. Maybe I should take advantage of the times and pick up some quality SD cams instead and catch up to HD later when the DVD format becomes more the rule than the exception.

[Ian-T]

That's an idea. But I'm not sure if you know....this cam has a spotlight mode in it. In this mode....it adds no gain to your footage....which prevents any noise or grain to the final shot.

[tom-l]

I didn't realize - I will have to play with that and see how it works. thanks.

[tom-l]

I should mention - for this last shoot I described above, I did have the HV20 locked to SD mode while shooting, not downconverted from HD during capture. Not sure if the results would be different...