Interesting comment Spot - thanks.

On all other reviews on HV30, I read that the HV30 is much better in low light applications when comapred to HC9.

Your impression of the lens on HC9 vs HV30?

Is the HC9 a bottom tape feed?

And, ease of use of LCD for both units?

Bit

"....but it doesn't feel very solid...."

Yup. I won't buy Canon again. The HV20 is enough for me. The HC3, HC7 are quality cams as is the HC9. Canon has a good picture quality, but they sure could take a lesson or 2 from Sony on build quality.

The HV30 has progressive scanning (frames) and can record 24P, 30P.

The HC9 cannot do this (only lines - interlaced).

What advantage (if any) do I lose if I choose the HC9 on these aspects?

How will Vegas cope when editing interlaced footage (from HC9)?

good link : http://www.zs4.net/interlaced-and-progressive-scan

Bit

Bit OF Byte - don't buy into the hype - all it does is cause confusion and indecision. The Canon's shoot a proprietary progressive format that causes headaches for those trying to ingest their footage shot on Canon cameras. Get the HC9 - it works as Spot stated above. I shoot two HC7's and don't regret going with them over the Canon's.

Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt

Thanks Cliff.

Isn't a progressive frame rate choice common plac ein this industry and not a PTY item from Cannon?

From a fundamental point of view, isn't editing a progressive fottage easier/better than an interlaced footage?

Bit

For a different perspective:
If you're not opposed to purchasing Cineform Neo HDV ($250), it'll easily ingest the HV30 footage, and on top of it you get all the other benefits of working with a great intermediate.

As everyone is saying, I agree that the Sony's feel more solid, but I've used the Canon HV20 everywhere, it's gotten banged around a bit, and it's no worse for wear.

But if you're looking for the 24p or 30p look, I would look long and hard at the Canon's. I'm not of the opinion that it's hype. I don't have tons of funds to exchange cameras regularly, so when I was purchasing cameras I researched the 24p issue pretty extensively, downloaded many clips with and without 24p of similar footage, and I really, really like the look. And I didn't feel that I got the same look when I used software to obtain the 24p effect. That's just my 0.02 cents. If you don't prefer that look, I'd go with the Sony, as that's really the main reason I went with the Canon.

Thanks CCClub.

I think your view is shared by many Cannon HV20/30 customers.

Can you tell me if the following is true:

Assuming I had shot same footage with the same camera under same conditions and settings in both 24P mode and the other in interlaced mode:

What differences will each footage end up have after being edited?

Will I see any differnce?

Advatages of editing progressive sacneed footage (if any)?

Benenfits of using Cineform HDV?

Bit

Bit,
First, as a disclaimer, I'm just a step above idiot with these things. I have a small business where I shoot documentaries, some small corporate, and concerts. But I've gleaned quite a bit from this site and others, and I personally love the 24p look. Some hate it.

Your questions:
1) I'm not sure that the differences can be written clearly. It's quite subjective. What I would recommend doing is trolling the web for sites where users have uploaded footage of both that you can download and watch on the monitor you will be editing on (not streaming footage... I don't think that'll give you a good perspective). You can try users on the dvinfo.net forums, in particular the http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=76Cineform forum[/link], or try the HV20 sites you are familiar with for the 24p footage and other sites for video speed HD footage, or you can also try this http://www.cinevate.com/website/index.phpSite with footage (also happens to have 35mm adapter)[/link].

My [veeerrry] non-technical perspective: the interlaced footage is more crisp/sharp, but I try as many techniques as I can to get away from that "video" look, and the interlaced always has that. I don't think at all that either opinion is right or wrong (although many will try to prostelytize you to their side). It's art and creativity for goodness sake, I'm not sure how you can say that one particular look is right and one isn't. My wife loves Monet... I think his work is blurry.

On the other hand, if you're taping action footage, I haven't had much success using the 24p mode; I haven't been able to capture action that well with it. Also, I've found that when I have given really nice footage for companies to put on their websites and they foolishly send it via YouTube, my renderings in 24p haven't translated that well to YouTube, whereas the regular video speed footage seems to do much better. That's just my limited experience, though.

The benefits to Cineform can be found through this forum via a search or on the Cineform forum linked above. A summary on the Cineform site is http://www.cineform.com/products/NeoHD.htmHere[/link], and 1/2 way down it describes the benefits even if you have the basic codec in Vegas.