Go Back    Forum > Digital Video > Videography: Cameras, TVs and Players

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
09-05-2012, 05:26 AM
mileslehmann mileslehmann is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I wonder anyone could be so kind as to shed some light on something which is confusing me. I have an HD videocamera I bought for 140 pounds via ebay. It is nothing fancy and does not focus that well but picture is good as its HD and not too cheapy cheap.

However I have just bought a second-hand sony dvd digital camera called the Handycam DCR-DVD406E. This is not HD yet the picture is so much more crsip , clear and more in focus than the HD camcorder...The sony is much more real and picks up colour contrast and small detail much more than HD camera I have??.... BUT why is this when HD is more pixels ???? Is it all to do with a decent lense ? I could swear by this but its not logical because the better camera with more real picture has less pixels.. but its more expensive and has what they call a comos carl vario zeis sonnar lense so is it all to do with a decent lense ??? Perhaps having a bit more pixels goes out the window if you don't have a good lense.

I think if I ask this qyestion on a camcorder forum people will just automatically tell me that the HD camcorder is sharper and a better more detailed picture. But I can see with my DCR-DVD406E although its not HD the picture is very much more real than my HD camcorder and I rented an HD camcorder (a canon) which retails at over £2000 and is used sometimes on tv yet the picture still is not as good as the DCR-DVD406E granted it took an HD tape. Maybe it was just a bit old but it was HD and used for tv documentaries but was not as real!

I am very confused. I know it to be true though ! What is going on? The sony dvd camera DCR-DVD406E has far better picture and much more realistic picture than 2 HD camcorders I have used!!!! Why ???

Sorry to bother you. Any help would be appreciated.
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
09-05-2012, 07:09 AM
NJRoadfan NJRoadfan is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,155
Thanked 357 Times in 293 Posts
Its very likely the ebay camera isn't really HD. Many of them have standard definition image sensors and just upscale the video to 720p resolution. Its not only the no-name brands that do this, Panasonic is guilty of it on their low end "HD" camcorders too. The Sony likely has a better image sensor overall, those camcorders were not cheap when they were sold new.

Don't know what the problem is with the Canon. A camera that costs that much would be a 3CCD or 3CMOS model and should produce an excellent image. The trade-off is that they usually need more light to produce a better picture vs. single CCD/CMOS cameras. Outdoors in sunlight, the Canon should have beat the Sony, no contest. Indoors in poor lighting, despite being SD, the Sony likely has the edge.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
09-05-2012, 07:40 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is offline
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13,508
Thanked 2,449 Times in 2,081 Posts
1. What is the brand and model of your personal HD camera?
2. What is the model of the Canon HD camera? If you don't recall off-hand, find out what is is. The info may be on your rental statement or agreement.

It will help to know that info.

You're correct that most camcorder forums would just parrot dogma: "It's just sharper."
But that's not necessarily accurate information, as you've correctly surmised. And for the reasons NJRoadfan has listed.

And welcome to the site.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- For sale in the marketplace: TBCs, workflows, capture cards, VCRs
Reply With Quote
  #4  
09-05-2012, 08:17 AM
mileslehmann mileslehmann is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Many thanks to both of you who answered my posting. I did not expect a reply. Actaully the camera that I rented was a Sony also and I used HD tapes opposed to using normal digital tapes which it took also. Here is the information on the camera which certainly did not give as real image as my Sony non hd handycam dvd406E camcorder.

Quote:
Sony HVR-Z5 HDV Camcorder

Sony’s newly designed G Lens is incorporated into the camcorder, boasting excellent resolution, colour and contrast, for breathtaking images.
3 ClearVid CMOS Sensor system utilising the technology of Exmor provides excellent low-light sensitivity. This new compact camcorder is ideal when high performance in available light conditions is a requirement.

The ergonomically designed body allows flexible shooting under any conditions, while maintaining Sony’s worldwide reputation for quality and high performance. The HVR-Z5’s standard features include 1080/25p HDV native progressive recording modes. Sony’s new cutting-edge HYBRID recording system offers use of an optional HVR-DR60 or HVR-MRC1K. This allows simultaneous recording of HDV and/or standard DV/DVCAM to dual media for improved NLE and archive workflow efficiency. Sony is continuously developing and expanding its HDV line-up in response to professional user feedback.

Lens: Sony G Lens, 20x (optical), f = 4.1 to 82mm, f = 29.5 to 590 mm at 16:9 mode, f = 36.1 to 722 mm at 4:3 mode, filter diameter: 72mm
Built-in filter: Clear, 1/4, 1/16, 1/64
Imaging system: 1/3 inch-type, progressive 3 ClearVid CMOS Sensor system with technology of Exmor
Picture elements: Approx. 1,037,000 pixels (effective), approx. 1,120,000 pixels (total)
Focus: Auto, manual (focus ring/one push auto/infinity/AF assist/focus macro)
White balance: Auto, one-push auto (A/B positions), indoor (3200 K), outdoor (selectable level -7 to +7, approx. 500K/step), manual WB Temp (selectable 2300K to 15000K, 100K/step)
Manual shutter speed: Auto 1/50 - 1/2000, Manual 1/4 - 1/10000
Gain: -6, -3, 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 dB
Minimum: Illumination 1.5 lux (auto gain, auto iris, 1/25 shutter)

VTR section
Recording format: HDV1080/50i/25p, DVCAM, DV SP 576/50i (PAL)
Play out/Down conversion format:HDV1080/50i/25p, DVCAM, DV SP 576/50i (PAL)
Playback/Recording time: HDV/DV SP: Max. 63 min with PHDVM-63DM cassette
DVCAM: Max. 41 min with PHDVM-63DM cassette
Input/Output connectors
Audio/Video output: 10-pin connector A/V OUT jack (component, composite and unbalanced audio x2ch with the supplied cables)
HDV/DV input/output: i.LINK interface (IEEE 1394, 4-pin)
XLR audio input: XLR 3-pin female x 2ch
Headphone: Stereo mini jack (ø3.5 mm)
LANC: Stereo mini-mini jack (ø2.5 mm)
Digital video output: HDMI connector
Built-in output devices
LCD view finder: 0.45 inch type (Viewable area measured diagonally), approx. 1,226,880 dots (852 x 3[RGB] x 480), 16:9 aspect ratio
LCD monitor: 3.2 inch type (Viewable area measured diagonally), XtraFine LCD, approx. 921,600 dots, hybrid type, 16:9 aspect ratio

General
Mass: Approx. 2.2 kg (5 lb 1 oz) (w/o tape, battery)
Dimension (W x H x D): Approx.169 x 188 x 451mm (6 3/4 x 7 1/2 x 17 7/8inch) (with lens hood, microphone and large eye cup)
Power requirements: DC 7.2 V (battery pack), DC 8.4 V (AC adaptor)
Power consumption: HDV Approx. 7.1 W (with ECM-XM1 / LCD viewfinder ON) DVCAM/DV Approx. 6.8 W (with ECM-XM1 / LCD viewfinder ON)
Battery operating time: HDV 395min (NP-970), DVCAM/DV 415min (NP-970)
Operating temperature: 0 to 40 °C (32 to 104 °F)
Storage temperature: -20 to 60 °C (-4 to 140 °F)
The camera that takes what to me is far far more real and sharp image is this. PREVIOUS MODEL DCR-DVD406E

Quote:
The DCR-DVD406E is an advanced DVD Handycam® with a Carl Zeiss® lens, ClearVid CMOS sensor, a 2.7" widescreen "ClearPhoto LCD plus" touch screen and 5.1 channel surround sound creator.

Carl Zeiss® Vario-Sonnar® T*
ClearVid CMOS Sensor for optimum image quality
Up to 110 minutes continuous recording with DVD+R DL (Dual Layer)
Dolby Digital 5.1 Creator for Surround sound recording with built in microphone
STAMINA up to 6 hours 55 minutes (with optional battery)
4 Megapixel still image recording and 2.3 Megapixel Dual Rec while recording movies
2.7" Wide, "Clear Photo LCD plus" screen with touch panel
Compatible with 8cm DVD-R / -RW / +RW / +R DL
10x Optical Zoom /80x Digital Zoom
Super SteadyShot
Wide Colour Viewfinder
Easy-to-use Home menu and Guide function
Memory Stick DUO slot for still image recording
2nd Start / Stop REC and zoom button on LCD frame
Hi-speed USB 2.0 (output)
10 Scene Selection
Smooth Slow Rec mode for advanced slow motion footage
Easy Handycam function for easy, automatic shooting
PictBridge compatible for easy printing
Battery Info
Auto Lens Cover
So that is all the information about the 2 camcorders and I am very confused as one (the one which is more real) is a digital camcorder called the Sony DCR-DVD406E/DVD and the other one would cost thosands of pounds to buy new and it is not anywhere near as real. I was told when renting it that it might not be so great indoors. But for that price I would have thought it would be fine. I used it indoors in a living room that often had a good to fair amount of sun/day light in and although the picture was fine it just is not anywhere near like the DVD406E and that is not even HD... For example if I point the DVD406E at my face it gets all the little acne scares, vains, facial hairs and even focuses on hairs up my nose. With the rented thousand pound camcorder yeh it picks up detail but not so real and life like as the cheaper non HD DVD406E.

Hence I am utterly confused about this. Very much so as each are Sonys. Its not me imagining it although logically people would think I am. I just wanted to try and understand what is going on? I thought more pixels meant better quality of picture? But what I see in the mirror when I look at my reflection is more like the Sony DVD406E digital dvd camcorder than rented Sony HVR-Z5 HDV Camcorder. I know the HVR-ZF HDV is used as a handy camera for the BBC on tv as it is portable although still big. Do they look for different things when filming for tv ? Is it because the lense is fitting more in ? The auto focus often did not focus on things very well with the expensive rented camcorder and when I went to collect it they gave me a 'white' blank bit of card to hold up in-front of it and move away in order to get it focused before filming.

I find the whole thing somewhat odd. Every little minute detail comes out on the DVD406E but although visable on the rented camera it all seems to be softened over. Also if I held it close to a magazine or something at a VERY close distance I doubt the expensive camcorder would focus but the DVD406E would focus straight off and get every spec of dust or a million times more.

Any help would be appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
09-05-2012, 08:27 AM
mileslehmann mileslehmann is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I just read what it states about the more expensive camera and it goes on about how it is good in low light conditions yet the camera shop that i rented it from asked about the light conditions saying sometimes if there is not a great deal of light it might not be so great or something... Yet the stats go on about how it is good in this way ? It also has this cmos lense ?

Hence everyone is going to tell me that the rented camera is far better? I dont have a leg to stand on and cant work out what is going on. I know its not as good. I used an HD tape with the rented one if that helps and it was on auto but then so is my dcr-dvd406e when i use it.

Regards

-- merged --

Even says the rented camcorder is good in low light conditions. I know its not. It loses even more and because even soften with detail. Not so with the dcr-dvd406e. I am not sure now what is true to life and what is not true to life. It makes no sense. Thanks to both of you.

-- merged --

Just pointed the camcorder at my face with the view finder on and certainly did not get such realism with the rented 1000 pound camcorder. Hey ho. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
09-06-2012, 06:44 AM
kpmedia's Avatar
kpmedia kpmedia is offline
Site Staff | Web Hosting, Photo
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,311
Thanked 374 Times in 341 Posts
Please Note: I merged several of your posts. Also remember to put specs in QUOTES, otherwise it's a kludge to read. Hard to tell what is your commentary, and what is copy/paste from some manual. Thanks!
_____

If this were NTSC, the blurry issue would be relatively easy to see. But I peeked at your IP (Oxford, UK), so you're PAL. That makes the answer a little less clear. The Sony is using HDV, which is based on 25% color resolution. The PAL is the same as the NTSC in this regard, but PAL is 4:2:0 as opposed to 4:1:1, which does make a difference in quality. However DVD 4:2:0 is different from DV 4:2:0, which could account for differences in the color quality. And then I'm not entirely sure that Sony DV codecs are top-notch quality in the PAL realm.

It could also be the glass, yes.

Lighting conditions can certainly make a difference, yes. If an image (photo/video) softens as light drops, that would generally hint at noise reduction (NR). And aggressive NR would definitely soften an image in many cases, especially if it's powered by basic filtering algorithms.

The "point the camera at my face" thing is really not much of a test. That's just an issue of focal length with the lenses in question. I have a $2,000 Nikkor lens that can't focus on anything within 10 feet, because that's not what it was designed to do. I have shorter and cheaper lenses (well, not that much cheaper!) for closer work.

A rented camera may be more prone to abuse, and that can cause offsets that result in back-focusing. That would explain what you've experienced.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Please Like Us on Facebook | Follow Us on Twitter

- Need a good web host? Ask me for help! Get the shared, VPS, semi-dedicated, cloud, or reseller you need.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
09-06-2012, 08:31 AM
mileslehmann mileslehmann is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Many thanks for the reply. Without sounding stupid I will have to show it to my friend as I do not really understand. All I know is that one camera has been giving me a sharper and so real picture than the other. I'm certainly not imagining this. My friend told me today that perhaps the image is better on the cheaper sony and more real as HD is not always good for filming indoors even when the light seems reasonable. But if I went outside I am sure that the cheaper non hd would still get the more real lifelike image. Perhaps these thosand pound cameras are made for people that KNOW how to use them and if you just use the auto on them the affect will not be all that great ? But if you know what you are doing with the more expensive camera manually then you can get better results? But then again I would have thought with such an expensive camcorder even auto would really great but to be honest it just did not focus very sharply. I'd say it was a good pic but nothing like the cheaper camera which is not HD.

I think also on another note that if you have a run of the mill HD camcorder although it is HD this does not mean that it will have better results when compared to a digital camcorder which costs £500 +

Many thanks again :-)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
09-06-2012, 08:34 AM
lordsmurf's Avatar
lordsmurf lordsmurf is offline
Site Staff | Video
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13,508
Thanked 2,449 Times in 2,081 Posts
Quote:
Perhaps these thosand pound cameras are made for people that KNOW how to use them and if you just use the auto on them the affect will not be all that great ? But if you know what you are doing with the more expensive camera manually then you can get better results?
This is generally quite true.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- For sale in the marketplace: TBCs, workflows, capture cards, VCRs
Reply With Quote
  #9  
09-11-2012, 10:54 AM
mileslehmann mileslehmann is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
This is generally quite true.

Thanks for all the replies.

I am going to save up between £200 and £300 pounds for a sony HD camcorder. I was wondering if anyone can suggest what they think is the best camcorder for that price?

What I want is pretty simple. The most real life like HD video picture quality for around that price. Does anyone here have any suggestions or own a camcorder that you can recommend for lifelike videos? Is there any kind of hand held HD camcorder which you would say is pretty much the same type of tv picture quality as one of the big thousand pound camcorders but just without all the fancy stuff ? I think perhaps with all the amazing things today there might be such a camcorder no ? The best one for closest colour contrast ?? You know how sometimes something not so pink can appear VERY pink with HD camcorders hence would want to avoid this and get what anyone thinks is the best with capturing realistic life like colour?

Hence if you can suggest what you think is very life like or what you think it by far the best bet for a lifelike camcorder capturing good skin tones, detail, sharpness and just overall realism would be most grateful for advice. Any advice as I am likely to buy something which is 'just' expensive thinking it must be the 'best'? And filming indoors is a must.

My budget is £100 - £300 (double that and you roughly have dollars!)

But would much rather buy a camcorder second-hand if I will get a much much more real picture ? If so what type of camcorder could i get second-hand that are plentiful on ebay or elsewhere ? And roughly how much do they go for second-hand.

I am looking for the best picture and all the other stuff does not interest me - whatever it is. It is just picture which is up most of importance and not if it has 30 different fade out modes!

Would be grateful for advise and links to anything.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
09-12-2012, 05:23 AM
kpmedia's Avatar
kpmedia kpmedia is offline
Site Staff | Web Hosting, Photo
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,311
Thanked 374 Times in 341 Posts
This topic is continued in the other thread: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/home...ness-skin.html
We'll leave this one for the original topic, if needed.

Thanks.

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Please Like Us on Facebook | Follow Us on Twitter

- Need a good web host? Ask me for help! Get the shared, VPS, semi-dedicated, cloud, or reseller you need.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lens distance for FX vs DX/crop lenses on digital SLR? manthing Photo Cameras: Buying & Shooting 1 08-06-2012 12:55 PM
Best camera lenses for indoor photography use? naga Photo Cameras: Buying & Shooting 3 07-19-2012 03:12 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 AM