Question on SD vs HD for amateur videographer

[PerroneFord]

Guys,

Let's keep the personal attacks down. There has been some good info to come from this thread, as well as a bit of info that should be taken with a grain of salt. Pretty standard fare for the internet.

Let's just hope the original poster has a blast with his camera, and takes some terrific images with it.

 

[DocWong]

This is just the issues that I struggled with on my last purchase. Should I go SD older technology or HD, the newer technology. Would it make a difference for me? Costs? Low light capability was important for me as I dive in Northern California. We just had a 60' viz day, but that's not common.

First off, I got my feet wet using a simple point and shoot digital camera, a Canon SD 870 and for the $300 I paid for it, it turned out to be an amazing camera. I got a Canon housing for $150 or so. Super low budget for video. I found out that I really enjoyed shooting video AND editing. Beware, I have friends that gave up video because of the time involved in editing.

Here's an example using the Canon SD 870:
YouTube - Scooterbatics and the Caverns of Pt Lobos

When I wanted to upgrade, boy did that open up a can of worms. I was seriously looking into a Sony Hc-9 which is a 1 CCD camera. Not totally sure what that means but basically there's only one chip that takes in all the colors and thus has very limited low light capability. It was a nice small camera, but I needed better low light ability.

Then the next step was the prosumer models with a huge jump in price. I was seriously considering a Sony FX1 which is a 3 CCD camera and much better in low light conditions.

That's when I came across a Sony VX 2000, which was one of the cameras used to shoot the popular "Diving California" DVD. This kit was complete with 100 degree wide angle lens, and dual 21 watt HiD lights. I figured, I'm just learning and hopefully I'll be happy with the video I take from it.

I just finished editing my first video using this camera and I'm extremely happy with it. I'll probably shoot this for a few years and then move onto HD if I'm still into it.

Here's the video on YouTube: YouTube - Pt Lobos, Montana Scuba Scootering

For higher resolution: Diving Montana, Pt Lobos California

Bear in mind the first video was at a depth of 40 feet and the second was in 150 feet. Both days the viz was very good,

 

[CompuDude]

FWIW, and I hate to correct you Doc Wong, but 3 ccd vs. 1 ccd has nothing to do with low light capabilities.

It's simply an inherent ability of an individual camera model. There are lots of 1 ccd cameras that are fantastic with low light, far more so than some of their 3 ccd brethren. Higher end 3 ccd models may simply be better cameras, and have better low light abilities. Or really good 3 ccd cameras with mediocre low light abilities.

Usually (I won't claim always), it's more a function of the size of the ccd rather than the number of them. The bigger the ccd, the more area there is for light to hit, and often, the better the low light performance.

The Sony VX 2000 happens to be a 3 ccd camera, and happens to be somewhat legendary as far as low light abilities. Lucky you!

 

[DocWong]

FWIW, and I hate to correct you Doc Wong, but 3 ccd vs. 1 ccd has nothing to do with low light capabilities.

It's simply an inherent ability of an individual camera model. There are lots of 1 ccd cameras that are fantastic with low light, far more so than some of their 3 ccd brethren. Higher end 3 ccd models may simply be better cameras, and have better low light abilities. Or really good 3 ccd cameras with mediocre low light abilities.

Usually (I won't claim always), it's more a function of the size of the ccd rather than the number of them. The bigger the ccd, the more area there is for light to hit, and often, the better the low light performance.

The Sony VX 2000 happens to be a 3 ccd camera, and happens to be somewhat legendary as far as low light abilities. Lucky you!

That's good to know. Had I known that I would have searched for a 1 CCD HD camera with great low light capabilities. But so far I'm really happy with the VX2000 and the size of the camera in the water is an advantage as far as stability goes.

Funny, I initially wanted a small video camera like the Sony H7 or H9, but now it doesn't matter to me. I guess I've really crossed the line from doing some video on a dive to let's go diving so I can get some good video.

 

[Empty V]

That's good to know. Had I known that I would have searched for a 1 CCD HD camera with great low light capabilities. But so far I'm really happy with the VX2000 and the size of the camera in the water is an advantage as far as stability goes.

Funny, I initially wanted a small video camera like the Sony H7 or H9, but now it doesn't matter to me. I guess I've really crossed the line from doing some video on a dive to let's go diving so I can get some good video.

As much as I dislike most anything Sony makes I think you've got a great setup, good choice Doc. Plus you're a mac user good combo. From my limited u/w video experience I've observed that when it comes to stability underwater bigger is better, I'm stoked that my first and present rig is as massive as it is. The only problem is travel but it's worth it.

Billy

 

[Zapple]

The Sony VX 2000 is a nice one.

 

[Mr.X]

As much as I dislike most anything Sony makes I think you've got a great setup, good choice Doc. Plus you're a mac user good combo. From my limited u/w video experience I've observed that when it comes to stability underwater bigger is better, I'm stoked that my first and present rig is as massive as it is. The only problem is travel but it's worth it.

Billy

The idea of a heavier video platform being stable is somewhat true, but steadiness is all a matter of proper buoyancy control and mastery of filming & swimming at the same time.

In fact, I almost prefer a lighter platform these days. When I am horizontal, moving sideway, forward etc. is made easier by the fact that I have less mass to move. I appreciate less arm fatigue at the end of a dive. I've been using a Gates HD housing and the little guy is every bit as stable as some of the heavier platforms that I have used in the past. Also, HD looks pretty darn nice!


X

 

[Ann Marie]

---

---

A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

I've deleted the personal attacks. Please keep the thread on topic and refrain from attacking each other.

Thanks!

---

 

[limeyx]

Papa Bear, I don't often agree with what you say, but in this case I'm buying what you're selling.

Here's the issue:

Far too many point and shoot people are told to seek out HDV as some new panacea. Well it's not. Yes, under good conditions, HDV can deliver magnificent results. BUT, under low light, only the best of the HDV cameras perform well. And quite frankly, most point and shooters are NOT dropping the $2k necessary to get top notch lighting. Under low light conditions, good SD cameras often deliver better results. This is true underwater and topside.

Is the HV30 (or HV20, or similar camera) a good HDV camera? Sure. But it's no HVX or EX1. And it's not priced like them either. The deck is stacked against HDV cameras underwater. Their generally poor light gathering, their high levels of compression conspiring against moving subjects, their generally poor ability to shape the image in-camera, etc. Again, it's not like they can't or won't work, but as Dr. Bill found out, it's no panacea or guarantee of great imagery.

My results have been that my HDV footage has far far outperformed anything I got with DV. Even the crappiest HDV footage in my experience can be pushed around in the NLE way way more than DV -- DV just starts to fall apart way quicker, at least on my older cam (sony PC350)

However, admittely I did spend 3K on the HDV camera and $2K on lights, but even w/out the lights, my results are significantly better than my DV

and while HDV is compressed to a higher ratio than DV, that alone does not mean it is inherently "worse," just different. Of course, MPEG2 (HDV) is really more of a delivery codec than an editing one, but I find it does hold up pretty well honestly.

I would not take any of the consumer HDV cams out in the green murky water we have out here though honestly.

 

[limeyx]

That's good to know. Had I known that I would have searched for a 1 CCD HD camera with great low light capabilities. But so far I'm really happy with the VX2000 and the size of the camera in the water is an advantage as far as stability goes.

Honestly, I think you made a decent decision. I dont know what HD cameras with a single CCD or CMOS that have great low-light and have good housing options.
Since it's as compudude says, related to sensor size, you are already out of the consumer cams, and talking $$$ and size.

I went HDV with the Sony FX1 and never looked back (except for the size of the housing and cam and cost)