What to buy: HV20 or HG10?

[Kauxyde]

Ugh, I hate to be "that guy". The guy that asks a question that has probably been asked dozens of times. But I am still trying to figure out which one to get from B&H. Does one truly stand out ahead of the other? My friend tells me that HV20 has better picture quality, but with the HG10 you don't have to deal with the tape transfer to your computer. However, I heard HG10 footage is easier to edit? My computer is good enough to handle the transfer process for the HV20.

This is hard decision for me. Any advice? Or tips or facts that will tip me in the direction of one or the other?

[Dennis Vogel]

On the contrary, the HV20's HDV will be easier to edit than the HG10's AVCHD.

If you go with a hard disk cam be sure you are prepared for what to do if you fill up the disk while away from a computer, like on vacation, for example, or be prepared to bring one along. Also, be sure you have an archival strategy worked out for the video you shoot. The beauty of miniDV tape is that after you transfer the video to your computer that becomes the working copy and the tape is the archive. MiniDV tape is without a doubt the most cost-effective and space-efficient method of archiving video. A tape holds the equivalent of 13GB of data and costs somewhere in the vicinity of $3 (less in quantities) and probably will last far longer than other media.

Good luck.

Dennis

[not5150]

For what I do (online news), the HG10 is better than the HV20. Three weeks ago, we bought both camcorders and have been running side by side tests.

Yes, transferring the footage to your computer is as simple as hooking up the usb cable. That speed in transfer is offset somewhat by the slower speed of editing. Since AVCHD is a highly compressed codec, playback in the video preview window is a bit slow (on a dual-core machine.. quad cores have decent playback rate). The codec also takes much longer to render out to H.264 than HDV. We're seeing 15-20X slower realtime speed on 1280x720, 8 Mbps renders with no extra effects on a dual-core. So one minute of footage can take between 15 to 20 minutes to convert into an H.264 file.

However, the speed should scale well with the number of cores. I actually haven't tested H.264 rendering on a quad-core yet, even though I have a Q6600 machine on my desk. I also have a Skulltrail 8-core machine that is about 2 days from being finished.

As far as quality... We don't publish to film.. only to the net. I really can't notice any difference between the footage the HV20 and HG10.

Hard drive space issue for us is a moot point. Hard drives are cheap, heck 500 GB drives are under $100 now. And we don't bother anymore with enclosures because we have this awesome Thermaltake dock that lets you plug in bare drives from the top. Best $40 we've spent in a while.

Here's are links to sample footage taken by the HG10 - http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36421/97/

Humphrey Cheung
Senior Editor TGDaily.com

[svar]

I belive the hdv codec is better because the avchd codec is too mutch compressed.

[deniser]

I have done a lot of researching around before buying. I decided on the HV20. The deal breaker for me was tape. I do not want to carry my laptop with me to events I will film.

My daughter has qualified for the National Equitation finals. With tape once it is full it can be swapped for a new tape and the full one put in the bag. Then when home transfer it onto my mac. I know it will take a while to do but the convenience is worth it to me.

Also from I have read hard drives are prone to failure.

[Aaron Courtney]

MiniDV tape is without a doubt the most cost-effective and space-efficient method of archiving video. A tape holds the equivalent of 13GB of data and costs somewhere in the vicinity of $3 (less in quantities) and probably will last far longer than other media.

If you were an IT professional, you would not have this opinion. I archive my footage on a DLT v4 that uses 320GB media priced at $39/tape. To say that DLT is better technology than MiniDV is a gross understatement. For the price, there is not a single tape mechanism that even begins to approach the robustness of this format. This has been proven time and time again for the past 15 years. DLT makes MiniDV look like a 5 1/4" floppy disk.

[jackhughes]

To: Humphrey Cheung
Senior Editor TGDaily.com

What are you using to edit the .mts files of avchd? My school has adobe cs3, but it doesnt support the .mts file. Any way to get the files to work with adobe? (school does not have sony vegas)

Thanks
(just got my hands on a HG10 so still a newb to it)

[Rumpelgeist]

If you were an IT professional, you would not have this opinion. I archive my footage on a DLT v4 that uses 320GB media priced at $39/tape. To say that DLT is better technology than MiniDV is a gross understatement. For the price, there is not a single tape mechanism that even begins to approach the robustness of this format. This has been proven time and time again for the past 15 years. DLT makes MiniDV look like a 5 1/4" floppy disk.
Add $700-900 for the drive.