GZ-HD7: First (and last) Impressions - Techwatch: Satellite TV forums, FTA, Cable, Hardware, & Tech forums

rsen · 11-04-07, 05:45 AM

I just bought a GZ-HD7 yesterday, as I like the idea of a HDD camcorder with 3 CCD's, provided it has good image quality.

My impressions:

The colours are more accurate with the HD7 in good indoor light (in my limited testing)-perhaps due to the 3 CCD's instead on 1 CMOS. As the light level decreases, the HV20 retains colours better than the HD7. The visible noise is more noticeable in the HV20 as light decreases but it retains sharpness better. To make an analogy, to me the lower noise in the HD7 in lower light looks like an image from a digital still camera that has had noise reduction applied-lower noise, but a less sharp image. The HV20 in low light looks like an untouched digital still image-more noise but definitely sharper.

I like I like the look of flesh tones a little better with the HD7 in good light. The HV20 still look sharper, and looks very nice in Cinema mode in good light.

I love the feel of the HD7. It is solidly built and just looks and feels way more professional. It is bigger and somewhat heavier than the HV20-fine by me. Having random access to all of the footage on the camcorder is great. Visually searching through the footage is available at 1X, 3X, 5X, 15X and 60X, in forward and reverse, and is very smooth. The large manual focus ring on the lens is very nice. Being able to easily and independantly adjust shutter speed, aperture (iris), and exposure (gain?) is great.

The focusing is much faster with the HV20 at all light levels.

Transfering the footage to the computer is easy enough, but as other early reviewers have stated, editing is more problematic. The included PC software, Cyberlink PowerDirector, is slow and clunky. Another reviewer has mentioned that the Mac Quicktime plug-in for Final Cut doesn't work very well. So, editing is still iffy.

If everything else where equal between the 2 cameras, I might actually keep the HD7 instead of the HV20.

However, there is one HUGE problem with the HD7: The optical image stabilization is terrible. No matter how steady I hold it in my hands there is constant visible shake. I am not talking about shakiness while walking around with the camera. I have a steadicam JR to smooth that out. I am talking about standing still with the camera, with my elbows braced against my body-unacceptable shake is visible at all time, even at wider lens settings, At telephoto settings it is very bad. I noticed no difference turning OIS on or off. How can a $2000 (Canadian) camera have such a poorly designed system? The HV20 on the other hand is amazingly stable in the same circumstances, even at extreme telephoto (optical). If I were using the camera exclusively on a tripod it would not be an issue, but I use it mostly handheld. This one problem is a deal breaker for me.

Therefore, the HD7 is going back tomorrow. The HV20 is a keeper.

videobuff · 11-04-07, 06:01 AM

Can we see some footage?

Thanks

rsen · 11-04-07, 06:41 AM

I will upload a short clip showing how bad the optical image stabilization (OIS) is. I really didn't take alot of footage with this camcorder as the poor OIS really makes it almost useless for my purposes.

persiannight · 11-04-07, 01:15 PM

I have both models and agree with everything you said. Expect I got the HV20 to look pretty much like the HD7 in low light with a little tweaking. Keeping the video at 60i, select Cinema Program Mode, adjust custom image settings with contrast, brightness and sharpness at -1. It's a much more pleasing image that still retains good sharpness with lower noise. Yes the Canon focuses much faster then the HD7. I sucks too because I love the overall feel of the HD7 as far as ergonomics go. Overall though I just feel the HV20's video quality is cleaner, more accurate color wise and the inclusion of 24p seals the deal for me.

toni1 · 11-04-07, 06:36 PM

rsen
You did not say in which resolution did you made your footage with hd7
Would like your opinion and footage at highest 1920 x 1080 res

rsen · 11-04-07, 07:11 PM

toni1, everything I shot was at 1920 x 1080. However, the short clip I uploaded was converted to 1440 x 1080 in Cyberlink PowerDirector because the 1920 x 1080 version didn't play smoothly on my computer. I can upload the 1920 x 1080 version if you like.

rsen · 11-04-07, 07:12 PM

persiannight, thanks for the tip on adjusting the HV20's image. I will try those settings tonight.

toni1 · 11-04-07, 08:12 PM

yes rsen, I would like to have alook of that with my projector since its difficult to compare with lower size display

persiannight · 11-04-07, 08:33 PM

The difference between 1920x1080 and 1440x1080 is so miniminal that one would be hard pressed to see a difference. And actually that 1920x1080 is interpolated via pixel-shifting. To my eyes the HV20 wins hands down in pic quality. Build quality is another story though.

hdtv_forum · 12-04-07, 11:33 AM

okay so it flows out that the hd7 is well built but delivers worse video than hv20
and OIS seems to not work at all? is there anybody out there to confirm OIS issue?

11-04-07, 05:45 AM	#1 (permalink)
rsen Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 37 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	GZ-HD7: First (and last) Impressions I just bought a GZ-HD7 yesterday, as I like the idea of a HDD camcorder with 3 CCD's, provided it has good image quality. My impressions: The colours are more accurate with the HD7 in good indoor light (in my limited testing)-perhaps due to the 3 CCD's instead on 1 CMOS. As the light level decreases, the HV20 retains colours better than the HD7. The visible noise is more noticeable in the HV20 as light decreases but it retains sharpness better. To make an analogy, to me the lower noise in the HD7 in lower light looks like an image from a digital still camera that has had noise reduction applied-lower noise, but a less sharp image. The HV20 in low light looks like an untouched digital still image-more noise but definitely sharper. I like I like the look of flesh tones a little better with the HD7 in good light. The HV20 still look sharper, and looks very nice in Cinema mode in good light. I love the feel of the HD7. It is solidly built and just looks and feels way more professional. It is bigger and somewhat heavier than the HV20-fine by me. Having random access to all of the footage on the camcorder is great. Visually searching through the footage is available at 1X, 3X, 5X, 15X and 60X, in forward and reverse, and is very smooth. The large manual focus ring on the lens is very nice. Being able to easily and independantly adjust shutter speed, aperture (iris), and exposure (gain?) is great. The focusing is much faster with the HV20 at all light levels. Transfering the footage to the computer is easy enough, but as other early reviewers have stated, editing is more problematic. The included PC software, Cyberlink PowerDirector, is slow and clunky. Another reviewer has mentioned that the Mac Quicktime plug-in for Final Cut doesn't work very well. So, editing is still iffy. If everything else where equal between the 2 cameras, I might actually keep the HD7 instead of the HV20. However, there is one HUGE problem with the HD7: The optical image stabilization is terrible. No matter how steady I hold it in my hands there is constant visible shake. I am not talking about shakiness while walking around with the camera. I have a steadicam JR to smooth that out. I am talking about standing still with the camera, with my elbows braced against my body-unacceptable shake is visible at all time, even at wider lens settings, At telephoto settings it is very bad. I noticed no difference turning OIS on or off. How can a $2000 (Canadian) camera have such a poorly designed system? The HV20 on the other hand is amazingly stable in the same circumstances, even at extreme telephoto (optical). If I were using the camera exclusively on a tripod it would not be an issue, but I use it mostly handheld. This one problem is a deal breaker for me. Therefore, the HD7 is going back tomorrow. The HV20 is a keeper.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search


Technology Forums: FTA, Satellite, Cable, Home Media, Hardware & Computers \| Home \| Forums \| News \| Blog \|

11-04-07, 06:01 AM	#2 (permalink)
videobuff Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 23 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Can we see some footage? Thanks

11-04-07, 06:41 AM	#3 (permalink)
rsen Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 37 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I will upload a short clip showing how bad the optical image stabilization (OIS) is. I really didn't take alot of footage with this camcorder as the poor OIS really makes it almost useless for my purposes.

11-04-07, 01:15 PM	#4 (permalink)
persiannight Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bristol Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I have both models and agree with everything you said. Expect I got the HV20 to look pretty much like the HD7 in low light with a little tweaking. Keeping the video at 60i, select Cinema Program Mode, adjust custom image settings with contrast, brightness and sharpness at -1. It's a much more pleasing image that still retains good sharpness with lower noise. Yes the Canon focuses much faster then the HD7. I sucks too because I love the overall feel of the HD7 as far as ergonomics go. Overall though I just feel the HV20's video quality is cleaner, more accurate color wise and the inclusion of 24p seals the deal for me.

11-04-07, 06:36 PM	#5 (permalink)
toni1 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: France Posts: 123 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	rsen You did not say in which resolution did you made your footage with hd7 Would like your opinion and footage at highest 1920 x 1080 res

11-04-07, 07:11 PM	#6 (permalink)
rsen Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 37 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	toni1, everything I shot was at 1920 x 1080. However, the short clip I uploaded was converted to 1440 x 1080 in Cyberlink PowerDirector because the 1920 x 1080 version didn't play smoothly on my computer. I can upload the 1920 x 1080 version if you like.

11-04-07, 07:12 PM	#7 (permalink)
rsen Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 37 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	persiannight, thanks for the tip on adjusting the HV20's image. I will try those settings tonight.

11-04-07, 08:12 PM	#8 (permalink)
toni1 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: France Posts: 123 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	yes rsen, I would like to have alook of that with my projector since its difficult to compare with lower size display

11-04-07, 08:33 PM	#9 (permalink)
persiannight Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bristol Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The difference between 1920x1080 and 1440x1080 is so miniminal that one would be hard pressed to see a difference. And actually that 1920x1080 is interpolated via pixel-shifting. To my eyes the HV20 wins hands down in pic quality. Build quality is another story though.

12-04-07, 11:33 AM	#10 (permalink)
hdtv_forum Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: poland Posts: 2 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	okay so it flows out that the hd7 is well built but delivers worse video than hv20 and OIS seems to not work at all? is there anybody out there to confirm OIS issue?