Sony HDR-HC1 vs. Panasonic PV-GS400

I'm looking to purchase a new camera in the 2000 dollar or less range. I've found two good cameras that fit this category, the HDR-HC1 and the PV-GS400.

Here is my dilemma...the HC1 offers HDV shooting, but only with one CMOS sensor. The Panasonic camera allows for 3 CCD filming in standard defintion. Another important factor is that if I was to film with HDV, I would most likely downconvert for the editing process anyway. The Panasonic is also three hundred dollars less.

What is the best pick?

 

Looks like you are already leaning twords the panasonic. Even though im a major supporter of sony and its HDV ventures, in your case I would say go with the panasonic, but I dont know much about the two cameras so..

 

The thing I like about the Sony is that it has a depth of field. I think it might be harder to work with though because not everything is HD compatibile yet. It has a DV mode, but if you were gonna film in that mode, the panasonic might be better because of its 3 chips.

 

The only problem with HD i have had so far, is figuring out how you can possibly get it on to DVD without downsizing it, anyone know of such apps? Adobe Encore cant even do it

 

The only way to do that would be do burn and HD DVD. I can do that in DVD Studio Pro, but there isn't much point yet.

 

DVD-Video is a standard definition technology. The only way you can get HDV on to a DVD, still in HD form, is by burning it onto a DVD-ROM as data, for playback on a computer using your favourite codec. For example: WMV, H.264, heck, even Sorenson3.

I'd pick the HC1 between the two - but it will cost you more to upgrade to HDV than using DV alone. The hardware and software requirements are much higher. One thing to keep in mind is that if you're after progressive content, the HC1 will do a much better job of it than the GS400 (even in DV mode).

And no, the HC1 doesn't have shallow "depth of field".

-Spiff

 

I vite panasonic with the 3ccds

 

Spiff, it seems to have shallower DOF by virtue of its resolution (higher resolution mediums take in more diffused light or something,... I believe Zap wrote in-depth on it once.)

 

DOF has nothing to do with sensor resolution. It has only to do with:

- the focal length of the lens
- the distance from the camera to the subject
- the aperture size

The circle of confusion on the image sensor (CCD/CMOS) combined with the magnification will yield the sharpness infromation that we use to gauge DOF. While zooming in on a higher resolution picture (i.e., magnifying it more) will give the impression of increased DOF*, if the image from a HD 1/3" sensor and an SD 1/3" sensor was projected on an identical screen (i.e., the same magnification of the physical sensor), the DOF would appear the same.

*This is why for example, when you zoom in on a flower for macro photography, you have the illusion of increased DOF. In actuality, the DOF is the same as when you're zoomed out - it's just you can see the bluriness of the focus more clearly with the magnification the zoom provides.

If you want it even more technically:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/

-Spiff

 

I still believe I saw something that explained (at least for film) that if the resolution was higher, the depth of field seemed shallower (whether it was or wasn't) and it might or might not have had something to do with a directly proportional relationship between resolution, DOF, and aperture size.

 

There's no need to believe something Fox when its incorrect. Here's another article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

I expect any discussion of resolution == teh uber-DOF was mixing up magnification and resolution. There is a tendency to watch higher resolution formats at larger magnifications, and certainly, if your resolution is too low, sensor aliasing will dominate DOF effects. (For example, take any picture, scale it down to a very small image size, then blow that image up to full magnification. You will no longer see DOF effects due to the aliasing - but the whole image will be blurry).

Now - it could be that the HC1 lens is designed to give a higher DOF on the 1/3" sensor - but I doubt it would be some extreme advatnage that would offer you more artistic options.

-Spiff

 

There's no need to believe something Fox when its incorrect.

I love it.

 

If you study my syntax I said I believed something was posted.

 

Sorry Fox - your syntax is fine of course. Though I do like the quote. I'm equally amused that Fig made it more general and fixed my spelling and grammar.

-Spiff

 

I own an HDR-HC1, love it, and would reccomend it highly. However, there are other factors that you need to consider.

First of all, if $2,000 dollars is your cap, you may not be able to afford certain periferals that I find rather neccessary. The camera comes with an ac adapter for charging, but it can't charge the battery while the camera is in opperation. This could of course create problems in certain situations, especially taking into consideration that the HC1 will run a battery dry pretty quickly. I would reccomend an extra battery and a standalone charger.

Also, you must have editing software that is capable of supporting HD editing. I use premiere pro and it gets the job done. I am also considering purchasing the aspect HD plugin which I've heard runs laps around the free premiere update.
FCP and a number of other NLE utilities also support HD.

Also, if you are really worried about frame dropouts, they do reccomend that you purchase the "special" HD sony tapes. I believe they cost about $13 a piece. I filmed for approx. 2 hours on my HC1 on regular tapes and have not had a problem.

When I purchased my HC1 it ended up running me about $2,400. That included the camera, a sony camera bag, an extra battery, a stand alone charger, a UV filter, and the Best Buy covers everything except destruction by sledgehammer rebate.

Some of the images I have captured so far I find to be rather breathtaking.
[image=http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y31/ktulu216/fe2ed1e5.jpg]
Pic has been reduced in size by photobucket.

Hope I helped out. If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. Also, if you would like to see footage of something specific, like oh say a sunset or something in low light I'd be happy to upload it for you.

 

Ktulu, do you mind emailing me a few full-res screencaps?

 

Happy to, email sent.

 

I am also considering purchasing the aspect HD plugin...

(a lot of) Money well spent. Not only are the real time effects great, but the capture utility rocks, and the whole works supports copy/paste into After Effects as well as a variety of other programs. Also, most of the PPro 1.5.1 bugs are gone.

if you are really worried about frame dropouts, they do reccomend that you purchase the "special" HD sony tapes

Bah. Just pick a tape type and stick with it. I refuse to sepend $15-20 (CAN) on a miniDV tape. If used Sony Premiums (how odd that it's "Premium" - Sony doesn't make a cheaper tape) so far, and I've had negligible drop outs. Drop outs have only occured in the first few minutes if I switch tape types (i.e., to JVC) and am recording over something.

-Spiff

 

I had been leaning toward the Panasonic, but then I went to Best Buy and compared the two...no comparison, really. I think I'm probably going to go the HDV route.

 

I'm going to the zoo today so I should have plenty of nice pics and vids from the HC1. If anyone is interested in seeing the vids let me know.

 

If something intersting happens, then video - sure. Otherwise some nicely composed (hi-rez) stills would be cool.

-Spiff

 

I went to a zoo where the tiger peed through the fence (he was trying to mark the fence) and it went through and hit like 8 people on the other side. If you have anything like that I would love seeing it. I should take my cam to the zoo and pretend to be a NG guy, lol.

 

kinda off topic here but i was looking at the specs of the XL@ and saw this for its shutter speed...

1/24 to 1/15,000 Seconds

Does this mean it can go from 24fps to 15,000 fps? surly I am missing some thing here...

Sorry, not real up to date on camera tech :S

Mark

 

Shutter speed and framerate don't have anything to do with eachother.

 

So what does it mean exactly? Or should I say what's so good about it?

Mark