Here is a review of the Canon HV20 comparing it to the Sony HDR-HC7. They preferred the HC7.

John

The way I read it that camcorderinfo review prefers the HV20.

"The choice should be clearer than a Windexed crystal. The HV20 may be stripped down, but it’s fast as hell, corners on a dime, and sets you back $200 less."

And they gave it a higher score in their rankings.

Mark

I have to admit, I didn't read the last page. I went by their criticism of the flimzy nature of the Canon camera not the 24P which seemed to make them favor it.

If you want my personal opinion (that I have stated many times) both cameras are a waste of money because of their reliance on menu driven controls and puny little CCD sensors. In the same price range a few years ago you could get much more for your money.

John

I know it's not on your list but the FX1/Z1 is available at a great price now. Still way better than the cameras you site (IMO) and not menu driven and nice LCD.

> I know it's not on your list but the FX1/Z1 is available at a great price now.

Yea, if you have a Canon GL2 now, those consumer cams your mentioned are going to drive you nuts because they have almost no manual features, and the ones that they do have are buried deep in the menus where you can't get to them when you need them. Those cameras are not in the same class with the GL2 and you'd be much better off looking at the FX1 or FX7. If you are looking for something small but pro, the Sony HVR-A1U is still a great little camera and it shoots HDV and has XLR inputs for your shutgun mic.

~jr

I know it's not on your list but the FX1/Z1 is available at a great price now. Still way better than the cameras you site (IMO) and not menu driven and nice LCD.
==========
Now you're talking. Three 1/3 CCDs and semi-traditional manual controls.

John

When shooting the dog agility I use a tripod with lanc control and usually a shot gun mic.

I don't have experience with any of these cameras, but based on various reviews and comments on the web, the HV20 seems to be the frontrunner of cameras in this price range.

However, I'm pretty sure the HV20 does NOT have a LANC control, which would seriously affect your current method of taping.

Unless you're getting rid of the GL-2, you could still keep that for the dog agility business.

Tim L

Thanks for your suggestions. I wish I could consider other cameras, but the reason I got the big "OK" is because we have some reward points built up and those are the cameras offered by the credit card company.

No Lanc on the HV20 is unfortunate as I started leaning that direction after reading the review listed above. I think I have more research to do.

Hmm.....

Thanks.

AVCHD maybe a little quirky in the compatibility department at the moment, but personally I think it is the wave of the future. Now that flash based media is getting dense enough to handle video data, there is just to much advantage over a linear tape based storage medium. Whether you jump in now or two years from now it's an inevitable move.

By the way, Panaonic recently released the new HDC-SD5 as a replacement to the SD1.

I would wait on AVCHD for now. There is too much infrastructure missing to bet on it as the format of the future. The video right out of the cameras is not that great, the PC and software need at least a couple of years to evolve from a power and ability perspective. And it only records to a hard drive or flash card, not the two most reliable mediums. Tape is still the preferred archiving medium when evaluating for cost and reliability. Everyone I know who records to flash (read Panasonic hi-end) also backs up to hard drive, and always to tape.

The Sony HC7 and Canon HV20 are the top two HDV consumer / prosumer cameras on the market today (actually, the only ones). The HC7 has the better build, more options across the board; the HV20 has 24p. Take your pick.

Neither have fantastic colors or dynamic range. Neither do motion very well, both show considerable interlacing artifacts. But your video can be optimized in POST if need be.

What ultimately sold me on the HC7 was the ability to record in both HDV and SD, something the AVCHD cameras do NOT do. Since I have several hundred SD miniDV tapes where consistency and compatibility are important considerations, and still shoot lots of sports and prefer the look of SD for sports over HDV, the HC7 was the better choice. It really is a fun camera!

Good luck!

I have a HV20. It's a very small camcorder and quite frankly looks ridiculous atop a tripod, especially with a shotgun mic. Most of the controls are menu driven and the operation of a couple of them is very silly indeed, but it is possible to fudge a fully-manual mode using a trick with the still shooting preview.

Having said all that, the images it produces are outstanding, in fact while one could moan about the slightly lacking contrast range, it's not noticeable in practice and there are times it's impossible to tell HV20 images and those from professional cameras apart.

Regarding the comments about interlacing artefacts; I haven't seen any (I shoot predominantly with a shutter speed of 1/50s if that makes any difference) and of course the argument is moot if you put the camera into progressive mode, either 24fps on US models or 25fps on PAL versions.

The HV20 has issues, some say the controls are deliberately compromised to make people buy professional Canon models, but it never ceases to amaze me, especially for the money.

1marcus4,

Your comments are very interesting. You may have seen dog agility trials in person or on TV. If you have seen them, do you think you would shoot them in SD on the HC7 or in HDV??

Now I am starting to definitely shy away from the AVCHD format. But the question of introducing alot of artifacts for recording motion concerns me.

Thanks.

Galeng,

I have a funny feeling that after you buy an HD camera in that price range you may end up deciding that your GL2 has a decidedly better image.

John

A quick Google finds forum posts recommending the HV20 for the very application the OP is asking about:

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7594_102-0.html?forumID=59&threadID=251957&messageID=2516524#2516524

YMMV.

Again, I'll repeat I have no experience with any of these cameras, but... (and I hope I don't sound too picky here...)

Post 10 of the linked cnet thread seems to be complaining about "interlaced artifacts". Even acknowledges you only see them "when you grab a frame for a still".

If I was concerned about motion artifacts for filming dog agility events, my concern would be whether or not the MPEG2 format of HDV would result in noticeable artifacts.

Interlace "artifacts" should be a non-issue, as the GL2 and most every other "typical" prosumer camer is interlaced. (Yes, I know, there are progressive modes and frame modes on various cameras, but I think you guys know what I'm getting at...)

I think people sometimes obsess over "interlace" issues by viewing individual frames they see in their editing programs, forgetting that they're editing video -- meant to be see in motion, not as a still frame.

But all the same, after all that, does HDV compression hold up well to these kinds of motion/sports applications? I'm curious myself. Any opinions, anybody?

Tim L

Galeng,

As to HDV vs SD for dog agility trials, try it both ways and see what works for you. I shoot SD for football because of the intraframe encoding method vs interframe encoding method benefits, NOT because of fewer interlacing artifacts.

I mentioned the artifacts because all 60i cameras cause these when dealing with motion, HDV and AVCHD, some less than others. But each camera is different. Don't assume that every camera cause interlacing artifacts of the same magnitude. This is not true. The Canon HV20 in 24p mode does NOT produce any at all. I did find that depending on the speed of the object (I shoot high school football running backs and wide receivers), I could minimize the artifacts by shooting with the iris more open than closed down, 1/60 for example, and through flawless panning of the subject using a tripod. And as stated above by someone else, this is motion video, not photography, so what looks crappy as a still simply won't be noticed as video.

I have watched dog agility trials on TV and in person (I am a pug and border collie owner), and I don't believe under normal circumstances you will have to worry about interlacing artifacts.

But with AVCHD...
I don't believe AVCHD handles motion predictively as well as HDV. Nothing to do with interlacing artifacts but rather specific to AVCHD.
Check out this HD comparison of both HDV and AVCHD models...
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/The-Great-HD-Shoot-Out---Canon-HV20-Sony-HDR-HC7-Panasonic-HDC-SD1-JVC-GZ-HD7.htm

Tim L,

I was blown away by the quality difference between HDV and SD with the Sony HC7 shooting football and basketball. HDV simply could NOT keep up with SD in the encoding department. The sharpness of HDV was fantastic as long as no one moved.

I am STILL experimenting with variables (minimizing contrast, exposure settings, shutter speed, iris, sharpness) to see if I can make it more tolerable...

But for this season, it's SD for me...

I have to confess I've never seen artifacts in HDV, but then, I don't shoot football games.

Not having an HD camera yet I went on a search to find some clips shot in HD of something in motion. I found some on the disc that came with DSE's book on Vegas 6. They were m2t files of dirt bikes. Pulled them off the disk and onto the time line in vegas. I was surprised to see how clear they were. So then I burned an HD DVD using Ulead Movie Factory of the 4 short clips. I was blown away with the clarity. i assume they were shot with an FX1 or 7. But if I can get close to that with either the Canon HV20 or Sony HC7 I'd be real happy!!

We should differentiate between interlacing artifacts and long GOP encoding problems. Interlacing is common to SD and HDV and whether you see artifacts depends on your display device. There has been criticism of HDV suffering from blockiness (to use a technical term!) and inability to smoothly encode motion (fast pans and so on). Also difficulties when there is a lot of motion in frame, such as waving grass. I've looked for this and generally haven't been able to see it in my sailing regatta material; lots of fast motion, waving water, flapping sails, vibrating rigging and even whip pans. I have seen a lot of interlace artifacts on LCD screens, so run 50i clips through FilmMaker to get rid of that. Interlace not much of a problem when downconverted to SD.

EDIT: forgot to mention that I convert m2t to avi using NEOHDV, but that shouldn't have much influence on the primary issues.

There has been criticism of HDV suffering from blockiness (to use a technical term!) and inability to smoothly encode motion (fast pans and so on). Also difficulties when there is a lot of motion in frame, such as waving grass.

People love to draw conclusions from theory.

Many argued that since long-GOP only encodes differences between the I-frames, it would surely soon get overwhelmed at 25 Mbps.

This was pushed big time by those manufacturers who chose to use intra-frame encoding instead.

We may never know if that was because those manufacturers had problems in their early testing 6-7 years ago with perhaps primitive encoders, or if they decided just based on the boss's hypothesis.

Today, there has been an immense amount of professional real-life testing that has confirmed once and for all that the HDV and XDCAM-HD long-GOP formats at least do not have the artifacts that were feared/suspected/FUDed.

Spot wrote a very good post here about a month ago, with calculations showing that typical HD intra-frame formats for example really had a higher compression ratio than HDV. Very competently done, and he also backed it up with years of experience shooting HDV with large amounts of movement (tree leaves being blown about is one of the worst possible).

NTSC SD cameras in this price range all use 4:1:1 color sampling.

That really sucks when making 4:2:0 DVDs, as half of the color information is lost on top of the already large losses in this format.

HDV cameras have benefited from progress in DSPs, in addition to using a 4:2:0 color sampling (not an identical one, but close enough that the results speak for themselves).

Serena,

Interlacing artifacts have to do with the display device, but it also has to do with the camcorder itself and how it captures, analyzes and encodes the incoming DATA (if you are to believe anything over at camcorderinfo.com). Interlacing is common to SD and HDV, but the MAGNITUDE of it varies considerably depending on the camcorder you are using, and the settings you are using. I would lean toward the camcorder which produces the LEAST amount of interlacing artifacts given the type of video I produce.

The interlacing artifacts do not frustrated me. I expect them with the quality and design of the camcorder I have. It is the long GOP encoding quality I am disappointed with when capturing fast motion football plays. Maybe with another camcorder...

"Panasonic HDC-SD1 – While AVCHD has several detrimental aspects, showing its interlace seams does not seem to be one of them. Unlike the two HDV camcorders, there is almost no evidence of jaggies caused by horizontal movement. Not that the image doesn’t have its own problems. AVCHD creates thick, blocky chunks of compression artifacts, evident in fine detail images..."

Sensible?