Comparison footage of four cams

sanjin

sanjin

Carbonite Member
Hi folks,

I would like to offer all of you one comparison footage about three popular low budget HD cams. So I did a footage with Sony FX1E and all others are "borrowed" from the Internet. That means Canon XL H1 and Panasonic HVX200 from Kaku Ito. JVC GY HD100 is downloaded from DVInfoNet - Charles Papert.

4 low budget HD cams - 720p test footage

The test is online from December 9, 2005.
This footage consists four 720p short clips
approximately 5-9 seconds of each from the following
low cost HD camcoders:


1. Sony FX1E (approx. €/$ 3.600),

2. Canon XL H1 (approx. €/$ 11.000)

3. Panasonic HVX200 (approx. €/$ 8-10.000)

4. JVC PRO HD100 (approx. €/$ 8.000)

Footage format: H.264
Color: Millions of color
Size: 1280x720 pixel
FPS: 24
Data Size: 41.7 MB
Data Rate: 9.88 mbits/sec
Duration: 00:00:35.10 sec

Footage credits:
1. Canon XL H1 - Kaku Ito
2. Panasonic HVX200 - Kaku Ito
3. Sony FX1E - Sanjin Jukic
4. JVC GY HD100 - DVInfoNet-Charles Papert*

* Shot done using P+S Technik Mini35 and the
JVC GY-HD100 with 27mm Cooke S4 lens.

THE BEST PLAYED AS A LOOP IN THE ACTUAL SIZE.

The sequence from the comparison
footage is not a scientific test or any accurate
analysis about the camcorders. It is just a simple
information that leads us to an answer on the often
consumer question: What could be possible
to get from each of the camcoder in 720p?
All basic files were recorded using the native codec
HDV 1080i or DVCPRO HD 720p.
Editing, downscaling and H.264 output done in
Apple Final Cut Pro 5.0.4 on Dual 2.0 Ghz PowerMac
with 4 GB SDRAM.
Also these are not the best clips from each cam.


Download:

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_4Cams_720p.html

SJUSER
--------------------

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/index_panasonicHD_P2.html
 
224MB?!! that's HUGE!
..how long is it?!?

Your server is also unfortunaly rather slow.. Sorry folks, this is one file that wont' make it to my mirror. It woudl take me untill tommorrow afternoon to download!

- Mikko
 
Save me the trouble... which one looks best? :)


I'd download the file, and I really appreciate you taking the time, but rather than being a bandwidth whore, I'll wait.
 
harlan said:
Save me the trouble... which one looks best? :)


I'd download the file, and I really appreciate you taking the time, but rather than being a bandwidth whore, I'll wait.
Click to expand...
It's like in a rally. Canon and Panasonic are now leading but Sony could take a lead later just beacuse it is a cheaper variant about the same aand that is low budget HD on 1/3 cheap. The price and performance of Sony FX1/Z1 could outperform Panasonic and Canon at finish. The finish will be sometimes about NAB 2006 in Las Vegas.
 
Cool. Thanks SJ.


I didn't mean to come across as rude earlier... just wanted to help conserve your bandwidth by not downloading until others have had a chance to view it.

From my personal point of view, the Canon H1 is the clear winner of the HDV market. The Panasonic is, in my opinion, the best of the bunch. It may lack some of the features found on the Canon, but it's a much more robust compression system than HDV and the HVX is much more pro oriented in terms of functionality.

ramble ramble...

take care, and thanks again for sharing your footage montage.
 
Just my opinion, but the sony doesn't cut it for me. The quality is to low. So in that perspective the price-performance balance of the Z1 is irrelevant.
I also really need uncompressed audio. Image compression can be masked when downrezzing to SD, but audio can't.
 
Its a home server on a cable, sorry. I do have another one but the traffic would cost me more.
 
OS X Rock Steady server is not down, I limited it to 10 users. You should now wait in a line. Sorry.
 
Sony is very OK maybe not sharp as Canon or Panasonic. On Sony clip with girls I was using Shake and adding Kodak film grain effect just to experiment. Maybe folks don't not like it. But for the difference in the price between Canon-Panasonic and Sony you could buy 35mm adapter and have a real film look effect DOF or "shallow depth of field". Too much sharpness on a big screen is mostly disturbing. It is too much TV aesthetic, an old fashioned. A softer is better for a dreamlike effect that every film should consists but that is another discussion...
 
SJUSER said:
Too much sharpness on a big screen is mostly disturbing. It is too much TV aesthetic, an old fashioned. A softer is better for a dreamlike effect that every film should consists (...)
Click to expand...
:thumbup: You have a sensitive cinematic POV, there's no doubt...it is proud me as european.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top