1080 Camcorder Versus

[Denamian]

Hello all,

I know a decent amount about digital cameras, but next to nothing about digital camcorders. I'm here for some advice.

I'm looking for something that takes:

• 1080 (pref P... but i might settle for I) video.
• 8MP or better stills.
• Medium to small in size/weight
• Respectable indoors and outdoors
• Under $500 USD

I Have two modles picked out so far, and I wanted you gurus' opinions. Between these two, what should I go for? And... are there any others out there that fit my general description that I don't know about yet?

SAMSUNG HMX-R10BN/XAA vs. Sony HDR-CX110.

From what I can tell, the Sony is the better camera (and cheaper too). I just wanted to see what you guys had to say about it. It is slightly bigger/heavier than I was hoping for... but are its video specs good enough to warrant giving up on the still images and size/weight aspects of my dream camcorder?

Thank you in advance!
-Denamian

P.S.

The Sony's "Product Details" say it is ((7.6 x 6 x 4.1 inches ; 2.2 pounds)) but under "technical details" it says ((Height: 2.2 inches Weight: 0.56 pounds Width: 2.0 inches)) This is a significant difference... it the Sony is this smaller size/weight, I'm practically sold on it, unless you guys give a big "STAY AWAY!" Does anyone know which size/weight numbers are correct? And/or how I can find the answer to that? Thanks again!

 

[Zepher]

2.2lbs is the weight of the box and everything in it, 3lbs is the shipping weight since amazon goes up to the nearest pound.

these are the specs of the Sony,
* Weight (Approx.) : w/o battery: 7oz (210g), w battery: 9oz (260g)
* Dimensions (Approx.) : 2 x 2 1/4 x 4 1/2 inch (50 x 56 x 114mm)

 

[Denamian]

Excellent, thank you! That covers half of my issues. It's a perfect size! Actually a little smaller than the Samsung. The other dimensions must have been shipping box sizes as well.

Now, for the image quality.

Drop 6MP on the stills to pick up better video quality? I would kind of like to be able to do both... but I'm unsure of weather or not the 9.1MP images of the samsung are very good (image stabalization, photo sensors, etc) - so perhaps it's worth it to get a better-than-average 3mp than a par-for-the-course 9.1 and make up the difference with the increased video quality?

Thanks once more!
-Denamian

 

[E4g1e]

Actually, that particular Sony does not capture the full resolution of true 1080i HD. As captured on a video file, although the resolution says 1920x1080, the true resolution is only 1552x872 (or 1.35MP); to get the full detail of 1920x1080 video, you'd need at least 2.1MP. And that Sony is not the only low-end HD camcorder with this shortcoming: Most other consumer HD camcorders in this price range are similarly short on actual captured pixels.

Technically, the Samsung should deliver superior image quality due to its much larger sensor and higher captured pixel count. But then again, its optics might be subpar.

 

[Denamian]

Well, I am very disappointed to hear this. Is there such a thing a a true 1080 in the sub-$500 range?

 

[E4g1e]

Well, I am very disappointed to hear this. Is there such a thing a a true 1080 in the sub-$500 range?

Nope. You will have to increase your budget by at least another $200 if you want a "true" 1080i consumer camcorder whose imaging sensor can at least capture the full 1920x1080 resolution (2.1MP) for video.

 

[Denamian]

Hmm, not as bad as I was afraid of... thank you so much for the help!

 

[E4g1e]

Actually, that particular Sony does not capture the full resolution of true 1080i HD. As captured on a video file, although the resolution says 1920x1080, the true resolution is only 1552x872 (or 1.35MP); to get the full detail of 1920x1080 video, you'd need at least 2.1MP. And that Sony is not the only low-end HD camcorder with this shortcoming: Most other consumer HD camcorders in this price range are similarly short on actual captured pixels.

Technically, the Samsung should deliver superior image quality due to its much larger sensor and higher captured pixel count. But then again, its optics might be subpar.

Sorry that I did not make the first paragraph clear. Although the resolution at maximum settings is "1920x1080", it is the imaging sensor itself that limits the image quality on that Sony. In other words, you actually get 1552x872 upconverted to 1920x1080 with that camcorder (although the image quality from that Sony is still pretty good considering the upconversion). What's more, its maximum recorded bitrate is limited to "16 Mbps" (actually, a little above 15 Mbps). Again, you will need to spend $900 or so for a Sony-branded camcorder that records at higher than 16 Mbps (up to 24 Mbps).

 

[DeathPrincess]

I think panasonics do the full 1080p.
This one is a little bit more tha you wanted to spend at $345 and is "full HD" Not sure if it actually is has a 3.2mp sensor (read above), but i've used higher level panasonic handycam types and theyve been great. Cannons too.

Actually im not sure now. The ones I ave used have been marked "full HD" and have done 1080p, but looking at some other lower models in the same range the "full HD" has been 1080i...

 

[E4g1e]

I think panasonics do the full 1080p.
This one is a little bit more tha you wanted to spend at $345 and is "full HD" Not sure if it actually is has a 3.2mp sensor (read above), but i've used higher level panasonic handycam types and theyve been great. Cannons too.

Actually im not sure now. The ones I ave used have been marked "full HD" and have done 1080p, but looking at some other lower models in the same range the "full HD" has been 1080i...

Actually, most of the consumer camcorders in this price range do not have optical image stabilization. Instead, most of them have electronic image stabilization, which means that the sensor contains far more pixels than what is actually captured in the image, which is then upconverted to the desired resolution. The particular Sony that the OP was considering has a 4.2MP sensor but most of those pixels are used as an image stabilization/anti-shake buffer, leaving only 1.35MP to be actually recorded and upconverted. What's more, Sony's consumer camcorders cannot do 1080p at all; they are 1080i/480i only.

Canon's consumer camcorders priced under $1000 (ERP) do not record true 1080p - but actually encode a 1080/24p or 30p image in a 1080i stream. To convert this to "true" 24p or 30p, computer software must be used to either IVTC (for 24p) or blend (for 30p) the fields.

Panasonic is one of the few brands that include optical image stabilization on most of its camcorders.

 

[HaxEJxuK]

I thought HV30, HV40 and some other canon models supported native 24P so that you don't have to perform pull-down removal after capturing it? Unfortunately my HV20 will have to do this though.

Actually, most of the consumer camcorders in this price range do not have optical image stabilization. Instead, most of them have electronic image stabilization, which means that the sensor contains far more pixels than what is actually captured in the image, which is then upconverted to the desired resolution. The particular Sony that the OP was considering has a 4.2MP sensor but most of those pixels are used as an image stabilization/anti-shake buffer, leaving only 1.35MP to be actually recorded and upconverted. What's more, Sony's consumer camcorders cannot do 1080p at all; they are 1080i/480i only.

Canon's consumer camcorders priced under $1000 (ERP) do not record true 1080p - but actually encode a 1080/24p or 30p image in a 1080i stream. To convert this to "true" 24p or 30p, computer software must be used to either IVTC (for 24p) or blend (for 30p) the fields.

Panasonic is one of the few brands that include optical image stabilization on most of its camcorders.

 

[E4g1e]

I thought HV30, HV40 and some other canon models supported native 24P so that you don't have to perform pull-down removal after capturing it? Unfortunately my HV20 will have to do this though.

Those are tape-based HDV camcorders. HDV does have its share of problems, such as lower-quality less-efficient compression alogarithms, a fixed constant bitrate that needs to be very high in order to avoid having its image quality turn to total crap and its really recording at 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080 (with an anamorphic 1:33 Pixel Aspect Ratio (PAR)). Plus, as of mid-2010 no company offers any tape-based HDV camcorders in the consumer market any longer.

 

[Denamian]

Thanks a ton for keeping the discussion going! I'm learning at least

What about this Panasonic? It's way out of my budget right now... but trying to get a general idea. From what I can tell, it says it records in 24P (even up to 60P if your editing machine can handle that) and takes 14.2MP stills.

It says on newegg that it has 32g of included memory, and that it takes external memory... how would that work? Would you have to record to one memory, then switch to the other? Or would it record until one was full, then switch over?

 

[E4g1e]

It says on newegg that it has 32g of included memory, and that it takes external memory... how would that work? Would you have to record to one memory, then switch to the other? Or would it record until one was full, then switch over?

If a camcorder has both built-in flash memory and a memory card slot (in this case, SD/SDHC cards), you have the option to record to either the built-in memory or a memory card (selectable in the menu options). The default setting is the built-in memory.

 

[Denamian]

Alright, I kind of figured that this was the case. Thank you for confirming though.

How about the camera its self? From the reviews I have seen, it's generally agreed to be at least one of the top 5 consumer end camcorders right now (if not higher). The 60P is impressive, and the stills look to be respectable as well.

Other question. Would my computer (see sig) be able to handle editing the 60P? (Not talking about hard drive space... I know I would need an external.)

 

[DeathPrincess]

No HDV camcorders are 1080p are they? Even the "high end" HDV tape camcorders are all 1080i at most from what i've seen because of the crap storage.

 

[DeathPrincess]

Other question. Would my computer (see sig) be able to handle editing the 60P? (Not talking about hard drive space... I know I would need an external.)

Yes if you went the Adobe premiere pro cs5 route. All youd need to add would be a cheap Nvidia card (like a 240, nothing fancy, or upgrade to a newer nvidia card, swap to a similar GPU etc. It must be nvidia because of the CUDA, should be able to get a decent deal soon because of the new GPUs coming out) and youll be doing realtime full HD quality editing. It pretty much means that its all done by the video card, so the rest of the system doesn't matter so much.

External drives, because of the USB aren't the best for editing because of the data speed issues (unless you went USB 3) I mean some days it works, other days...not so good. Also depends on how much footage (can it be help in the system ram etc). Best option is to fit another SATA drive. You can get a 1TB drive (7200rpm) and fit it internally, which will work fine, and you can get for around $60 (last time I got one).

 

[E4g1e]

Yes if you went the Adobe premiere pro cs5 route. All youd need to add would be a cheap Nvidia card (like a 240, nothing fancy, or upgrade to a newer nvidia card, swap to a similar GPU etc. It must be nvidia because of the CUDA, should be able to get a decent deal soon because of the new GPUs coming out) and youll be doing realtime full HD quality editing. It pretty much means that its all done by the video card, so the rest of the system doesn't matter so much.

External drives, because of the USB aren't the best for editing because of the data speed issues (unless you went USB 3) I mean some days it works, other days...not so good. Also depends on how much footage (can it be help in the system ram etc). Best option is to fit another SATA drive. You can get a 1TB drive (7200rpm) and fit it internally, which will work fine, and you can get for around $60 (last time I got one).

Actually, the old AMD Phenom 9950 BE would perform worse than most of the stock-speed Intel Core 2 Quad processors - in fact, worse than some of the Core 2 Duos - in Adobe Premiere CS-anything because the AMD processors do not fully support SSE 4.x instructions. And CS4 and CS5, especially, takes full advantage of SSE 4.1 (something that none of the current AMD processors fully support).

 

[Denamian]

Well, I'm not necessarily concerned with AMAZING performance... I'm just curious if I could do it?

I would prolly be getting a new computer before I get the cam anyway... but I'm just looking for a general feeling.

 

[DeathPrincess]

Actually, the old AMD Phenom 9950 BE would perform worse than most of the stock-speed Intel Core 2 Quad processors - in fact, worse than some of the Core 2 Duos - in Adobe Premiere CS-anything because the AMD processors do not fully support SSE 4.x instructions. And CS4 and CS5, especially, takes full advantage of SSE 4.1 (something that none of the current AMD processors fully support).

Forgot about that, I haven't has a AMD for so long...last one was an athlon...