I have a little CX-7 AVCHD camera and an HVR-A1 HDV camera. Yeah the HDV compression looks a little better in low light but come on, the AVCHD still looks incredible. There is simply no comparison between an AVCHD camera and an SD camera like your GL2. The AVCHD camera will make the GL2 image (or any other SD camera image) look like a webcam.

As far as the lack of manual control, for home use I wouldn't worry. Auto focus works just fine most of the time, and when it doesn't, the spot focus is really easy to use. Yeah it's different but it's not bad. Get the AVCHD camera and don't listen to all those people who spend more time looking at specifications than they do at the pictures these cameras shoot. If you actually get a consumer grade AVCHD, most likely you'll be blown away by the quality. I know that I am.

Thanks for your comments and recommendations.

Laurence, how do you find editing with the AVCHD format in Vegas??

Galen

The only practical way to do it is with Gearshift. The bad news is that the renders take longer. The good news is that I have yet to see a two black frame problem or have an AVCHD clip that crashes Vegas (like I get regularly with HDV mpeg2 clips).

What you would miss most on my CX-7 is not the video quality, but the lack of lanc controller and mic inputs.

1marcus4,
Interlace artifacts arise because there is a time difference between alternating lines. When displayed on an interlaced display device each field is shown at its appropriate time differential, but when a progressive display is used the time difference between alternating lines results in jaggies on moving things. In a CCD camera each field is generated 50/60 times a second, so how do different cameras mess with that?

i think the answer to that mystery might be related to vertical resolution. Cameras with higher vertical resolution seem to produce more noticable jaggies. Also most HDTVs don't do a simple field merge, they attempt to de-interlace display using a process nicknamed 'bob' (nothing to do with me, really). If you use VLC you can select various de-interlace methods to see how much difference they make.

Bob.

I agree with Bob and Serena; interlacing artefacts (defined as combed, or jaggied, vertical edges in movement) do NOT depend on the camera! Any camera recording in 50(60)i mode does exactly the same thing - stores two fields (upper and lower, or even and odd) on tape, with the time offset of 1/50(60)th of a second between those fields. If you watch this on a progressive screen (like any computer LCD) without any de-interlacing, you will see combing or jaggies. Point. In HD there are more of them than in SD, but they're "finer" - again, completely camera-independent. It's also the same in HDV, XDCAM, AVCHD - you name it.

The long GOP -related artefacts of 25Mbps HDV *MAY* be camera dependent, though - some encoders doing better job than others. While I have seen a couple here and there in individual frames from my V1E, they don't pose any serious problem when actually watching video.

Any deinterlacing method (including 'bobbing') will decrease vertical resolution, and this is the main reason cameras with progressive capabilities are so highly regarded, as they don't require deinterlacing... However, in real life it's not that simple - myself and Bob know only too well that the 25(30)PsF progresssive image can be effectively spoiled by most of displays that try to de-interlace it... They simply are not capable of telling a 25(30)PsF feed from the 50(60)i one. The result is a horrible twittering of fine horizontal lines, even more annoying than the interlacing combs.

I guess the only bulletproof solution is the true (native) progressive recording - like the Cinealta 24p.

Since we're on the camera-recommendations issue, I know I'm going against the grain of many recommending the HV20, but I've got my heart set on a Sony HDR-FX1.

It's a 10891, 3x 1/3 CCD (CMOS) camera, and the large, well-placed LCD viewer is also one of the several reasons I want it.

I'd welcome anyone who has an HDR-FX1 and/or wishes to offer some feedback on the specs, I've included the B&H page for it -- just choose "Specifications."

I'm not going to be shooting action scenes, mostly intimate and interior, so higher vertical resolution shouldn't be a problem.

Usual MSRP such as B&H ($2999) is still too high for me, BUT I know I can get one in very good to barely used condition for around $2000 sometimes including XLR adapter and wide-angle -- if I look around and am patient.

I've seen several in the past couple of months. Bit I'm going to wait until after Christmas for people to unload it when they get their newer better toy, as well as other personal budgetary allocation reasons

Thanks for your input.

CORRECTED LINK (though "package" version)

Sonic, do you mean to buy a FX1E for use in the USA? It shoots only 1080/50i, despite the confusing data in B&H's specification. As they mention, there is a 1080/60i version (FX1?). The FX1E has a 25PsF mode which is superior to the 24PsF on the 60i version. Of course you would have the option of shooting 50i and rendering out to another format, so if you were never going to connect the camera to a TV then using a PAL camera in the USA would be fine.
Excellent camera, great LCD that is clear in bright sunshine, fine for motion, very good resolution. Easy to use. You would be pleased with it. Fewer image processing facilities than the Z1 (1 only Cinegamma and no black stretch) but still very flexible in picture profile options. Has 3.5mm single ended audio inputs (instead of XLR), but that is fine with care (can use something like a Beachtec for XLR inputs). The viewfinder shows only an underscan (overscan?) field, which is annoying because HD sets and computers show the full field and you have to always check edges by zooming out 10% (the bane of consumer cameras) before shooting.

Serena,

I thought I vaguely recalled you had or have an FX1. As to above link, my boo-boo and I corrected it - I don't notice it was the PAL version.

I will also admit that aside from other things, I like the FX1 for looks and manual controls. Call it film-maker's ego. Now, of course, if I found a rich person wanting to get rid of his or her Z1 for pittance, I'd grab that over the FX1, naturellement -- lol.
.

Sonic, quite right -- the FX1E was my first step into video and I wasn't at all sure that I would be satisfied compared to 16mm film, so took the cheapest good option available. I found the compromises mostly acceptable and soon realised that the extras on the Z1 were worth the extra cash. However in all major respects the FX1 is identical to the Z1. It's a nice camera to use (good ergonomics) with all options for manual/auto control. It has quite reasonable low light performance and I've filmed under high key domestic lighting with 1/50 shutter and at 18dB gain the noise level has been quite acceptable (akin to fine film grain, so of course it doesn't bother me). The shutter goes to 1/3 sec, so there is a lot to be gained by using lower shutter speeds in low light situations. Later Sony cameras (eg V1) went down to 0.25 inch progressive sensors and placed the LCD down on the body, which I saw as a bit regressive (progressive-good, others - less good). The high position of the LCD on the FX1/Z1 has many advantages, probably confirmed by the layout of the Sony PMW-EX1. So until now I've seen no sound reason for replacing the FX1E but the big advances in the EX1 have done the trick.

Actually, what both the FX1/Z1 have is not true PsF - the Cine24 mode is actually in-camera deinterlaced mode, with half the vertical resolution gone! It's V1 where you can find 25(30)PsF, coming from truly progressive imagers (speaking of Sony handycams, of course).

Interlace artifacts arise because there is a time difference between alternating lines.If you use VLC you can select various de-interlace methods to see how much difference they make. Bob 90% of the time what persons interpret as artifacts is to slow a shutter speed. Or, improper playback equipment, or they altered the video (de-interlaced etc). So much confusion on paper when you read & believe articles on the web. When they first develop TV it was frame based, they came up with interlaced because they had to breakup the picture in 2 parts & double the vertical scanning frequency because a complete picture frame of information could not fit into the bandwidth. Worked great as frame based in the studio but they couldn't get the picture out to anyone, hence now interlaced. According to my schooling even back then some engineers believed this would also introduce better motion. That was a debate back then, still going on today. All I can say is thank god they didn't break the picture into 4 parts and quadtruple the vertical oscillators.
HD artifacting is nil compared to SD. I use to align CRT (analog TV's), try aligning a HDTV CRT (analog hdtv monitor), to many lines.

I found the biggest problem playing back HD is the equipment involved to playback.
I still prefer plasma displays for interlaced source.
Here is a nice method when using VLC media player and playing back true interlaced video on the a computer screen.
Normally VLC blows off the screen & you have to resize the window, the --zoom=.5 makes this easier to manage (double click for fullscreen). The 2nd & 3rd set of switches are used together deinterlace the video for computer screen playback and does a pretty nice job on true interlaced source hdv video.

Windows or Linux you can apply these switches. My interlaced HDV videos play much smoother In VLC on a computer using these startup switches. Should have at least a 3.2 P4 to process though.
I have a separate shortcut on the desktop named VLC Linear for this mode. Easy to program this command into the shortcut.

"C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe" --zoom=.5 --vout-filter=deinterlace --deinterlace-mode=linear

>>>Actually, what both the FX1/Z1 have is not true PsF - the Cine24 mode is actually in-camera deinterlaced mode, with half the vertical resolution gone! It's V1 where you can find 25(30)PsF, coming from truly progressive imagers (speaking of Sony handycams, of course).>>>>

Well it is true PsF and if you read more carefully I didn't say it was better than the V1 etc produces. Yes, it does take just one field but the 25PsF doesn't suffer from the motion problems of 24PsF in 60i cameras.

"Interlace artifacts arise because there is a time difference between alternating lines. When displayed on an interlaced display device each field is shown at its appropriate time differential, but when a progressive display is used the time difference between alternating lines results in jaggies on moving things. In a CCD camera each field is generated 50/60 times a second, so how do different cameras mess with that?"

Serena,

Honestly, I don't know why. But I don't believe the folks over at camcorderinfo.com are making observations such as these up. Are they? This is their position in the "Great HD Shootout" piece they put together. Some camcorders handle interlacing better than others, and they have the photos to show it.

As far as whey this may be true, farss may be on to something as well.

On a side note, I do notice the "jaggies" more for example when panning across the very high contrast lines of a turf football field. Those white lines shimmer and shake.

Marcus, the difference appears to be in signal processing and the architecture of the sensors. The tests were very rough and attempted to reproduce typical "consumer" situations. It's probably fair enough to assume that most people using these cameras wouldn't be doing much in post. Certainly the effect you mention is visible in the frames published.

On a side note, I do notice the "jaggies" more for example when panning across the very high contrast lines of a turf football field. Those white lines shimmer and shake.Shimmer and shake on what? A plasma HDTV, LCD, projector, HD Monitor (crt) or computer screen using what method of playback? What is the playback devices native resolution.
Have you ever taken the HDV camera and connected it via hdmi directly to a $6000 plasma.

4eyes,

The shimmer and shake appears on my LCD laptop as well as my SD (480i)and HD (1080i) LCD TVs. I understand this as a common issue with HDV, i.e.resolving high contrast diagonal lines.

No, I haven't connected it via HDMI to a $6000 plasma screen. A positive difference, I'm sure.

Marcus,
Getting away from those dubiously qualitative consumer tests, http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/The-Great-HD-Shoot-Out---Canon-HV20-Sony-HDR-HC7-Panasonic-HDC-SD1-JVC-GZ-HD7.htmcamcorderinfo[/link], in my own experience there is no such problem with HDV. But I'm not using one of those cameras tested. And I favour tests where conclusions can be drawn without extensive panel discussions about what is being seen. Those conclusions say nothing about HDV.

1marcus4,
I connect my cam to a good HDTV (plasma HDTV if possitlbe) and see how the video looks directly from the tape. I also have had different results with different HDTV's. Plasma's in my opinion being the best picture for smooth motion and quality. I've found that computers / laptops it's hard to display the video correctly depending on the video card & if the computer has HD accelleration & hardware de-interlacing. If I do see something on the final HD file playback to the HDTV that doesn't look correct I'll review the original tape via the cams HDMI connection into the HDTV. Usually the problem lies in my playback devices (PS3, Sony Blu-ray player, other HDTV playback devices) or my editing.

I am not a professional, I just like messing around. I am going to buy a camcorder to record my dog doing agility stuff. Should I get the Sony HDR-HC7 or the Canon HV20?

Both cameras use miniDV.

Can I produce the 24p look with the Sony HDR-HC7 (in vegas) that Canons HV20 says it creates?

What is the better camera in regular light? So much is being said about the Canon being great in low light with the 24P setting enabled.

Will the Canon 24P setting really look good on a fast moving object?

I own both and will be sending the HV20 back, only because I prefer Sony's build quality, design stye and ergonomics. Ever buy a car based on how the doors sounded when slammed shut or how the molding fit around the windows or how the carpets felt to you touch? Sony wins!

The Canon has some features the Sony lacks, i.e. aperture adj. and 24p. However, using the HC7 nighttime footgames look fine and I don't miss the aperture adj. By the way, 24p is really 24f on the HV20. I would read up on the differences.

24p is better in low light, but fast moving objects look choppy. Both cameras to me look identical in 60i. Either way, I can live with the low light issue, but not the choppiness. I tape a lot of sports.

Take the camcorderinfo.com web site with a grain of salt when reading their Sony reviews. You can just see them gritting their teeth when they're writing something nice about Sony products.