Choice of two

Bear in mind that it has one small sensor of not much more than 1/6", and that the max resolution of that is about 1.5 megapixels total (less effective).

Resolution wise, as that's a single sensor, it will need debayering, so probably corresponds very roughly to a 3 chip design where each is less than 1 megapixel - or less than 720p resolution. In very broad terms, whether you record 720p or 1080p is likelyirrelevant. 720p will record all the information the front end is capable of delivering, and since the compression requirements are likely to be easier, the 1080p mode is likely to be WORSE than 720p - not better.

Everything is relative, but I wouldn't expect a single 1/6" sensor to give very good low light performance. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for, and that applies to size, features etc as well as performance. Don't take anything I've said as rubbishing it - a small camera is likely to have compromised performance to a larger one - but if what you say above are your two main reasons for looking at it, it may not be a wise choice.

Bob

I am running Sony Vegas Movie Studio 11 with footage from my Panasonic SD900 at 1080/50p full HD resolution with absolutley no problems at all. The only limitations will be the power of your PC and not Vegas software.

Hope this helps.

The SD and TM 900 models record in 1080p or 1080i the latter at user chosen data rates.

I have the TM900

My recorded 1080i is stunning

My recorded 1080p is superb

Edius 6.3 and Premiere CS 5.5 handle the 1080p footage without any problems.

If you intend to place the material on Blu-ray then I suggest sticking with 1080i whereas if you shoot to keep the final movie in solid state then shoot in 1080p.

There's no doubt that you need a fairly powerful PC to handle 1080/50p but the supplied Panasonic software will convert that to 50i without too much processor power so I'm tempted to shoot everything 50p.
I believe that Vegas will convert 50p to 25p by right-clicking clips, going to properties and setting 'undersample' to 0.5, thus dropping alternate frames. I haven't yet tried it.

If you want to check the specifications for the SD80 (or 90) look here:

http://panasonic.net/avc/camcorder/hd/80_series/specifications.html

The answer is 1080/50i.

On the other hand the SD90 does 1080/50p

Was watching a SD90 on ebay last night and it went for £500 which is well above what it can be bought for , seem people get carried away when bidding .
Seller had 0 feedback .

Julian

When I talk of low light performance I was comparing the SD80 and the SD90 being well aware that cameras that small will not be brilliant in low light. I was under the impression that AVCHD delivered better low light capabitities so I was hoping to get something to come somewhere near my HV30.

If size was less important I would have the SD900 but that is about the size of my HV30 and it tends to spend a lot of time at home when I am not.

Col I know how good the 900s are but alas too big for me.

Thanks for the reassurances about Vegas so that is one aspect sorted.

Amazon are selling the SD90 for £383 with a £50 gift voucher so I won't be bothering with Ebay ;)

AVC-HD will have no effect on low light capability. How a camera performs in low light is a function of front end performance, which will be down to such things as size, 3chip or single chip, resolution, CMOS/CCD etc.

Codecs such as AVC-HD, HDV, XDCAM etc are all designed to record as accurately as possible what comes in so to a large extent what comes in, goes out. That's not to say there aren't differences between them, but they manifest in such ways as artifacting, bit rate, processing power needed etc.

The point is AVC-HD is that it's intended *AS BEING CAPABLE OF* giving better than HDV performance at a lower bitrate, and that's significant as it was designed with cameras using consumer grade memory in mind. Intended to take over from HDV in the consumer/low end prosumer market. How good it actually is depends on the actual encoder chip used - which in con/prosumer cameras is ikely to be cost driven. Hence not use all the possibilities that the spec allows. The earlier cameras (such as HMC151) seemed to handle motion better than HDV, but have worse static artifacting, and do this at a bitrate about 20% down on HDV.

In the case of the 151, the chipset was 3x960x540, and a trick allowed it to give luminance resolution higher than that - up to about 1150x650. The point about this (which I think is also relevant in the case of the camera you refer to) is that a 720p recording could capture all that. record the same scene in 720 and 1080 and the latter was no sharper - the detail was never there in the first place. That's why I would be very wary when you read "1080 recording". It may be true that's what the recording is, but the image may not even be up to 720 standard. A bit like blowing 8mm film up to 16mm will never equal the quality of true 16mm shot film.

And 720p recording is likely to be easier to compress, that's why I said that in this sort of case 1080 recording can actually be a DISADVANTAGE compared to 720.

Not outright no. But the codec does seem to have an effect on how low light footage is rendered. The horrendous macro blocking in shadow areas on some camcorders being a prime example. I have had issues with early morning winter footage shot on the EX in this regard.

Mmmm, but that may still be a factor regarding codec, period, rather than codec and low light? So you may have good light, and still see artifacting in the blacker areas of the picture?

Equally, a codec could easily get stressed by noise, and waste bits on the noise giving rise to artifacting. But isn't that more down to front end performance than codec issues? A coder could give poor results with a noisy front end (or one which needs lots of gain to get exposure), but excellent results with a quieter picture.

Practically, codecs such as AVC-HD, HDV, even XDCAM 35Mbs, aren't perfect, and they are all likely to have these sort of issues. The main distinguishing feature of AVC-HD is the possibility of better quality than MPEG2 for a given bitrate - but the benefit seems to be largely put to decreasing bitrate than improving quality. The downside is that it needs more power to process, or time needs to be spent transcoding.

OK Upgrade plans in freefall again. I suppose what I really need is a change in the laws of physics. :)

Looking at old indoor footage from my old small Sony PC 55E which claimed min lum of 5.0lx I see that I need better than that.

My HV30 claims 2.5lx which I find acceptable in reasonably lit indoor scenes.

SD80 claims 7.0 lx which is obviously not suitable :mad:
SD90 claims 4.0 lx slightly better than old Sony but not much :(
SD 900 claims 1.6 which is perfect except for my size phobia :confused:

So back to square one.

How reliable are these manufacturers figures or can they be manipulated. If so does it matter as long as they all manipulate the same amount?

I have noticed that there is another model, SD800 which seems to have all the specs of the SD900 except stereo instead of surround sound and a bit smaller.

Keep the advice coming. I will probably hate you when you tell me I cant have a matchbox sized camcorder with perfect specs but I need to be reminded. ;)

What do you think........? :) They may refer to figures that are the min light level necessary for any sort of picture at all - below the level that many people would find acceptable. I've also heard the "zero lux" claim applied to cameras with an infra-red function. It's not untrue - it will produce an image with no visible light - but ......

That's a very good question. Trouble is that some cameras may use processing to reduce noise at high gain levels, but at the expense of other aspects of picture quality. So you may have camera A and B nominally being claimed to have the same minimum illumination levels - but camera B's picture falling apart in all sorts of ways at those levels.

I once heard a saying "cheap, fast, high quality - choose any two" and it's very true. And a good rule of thumb is that manufacturers will make a big song and dance about the two attributes their product displays - but convieniently ignore the third..... Sorry..... :)

Hi
The SD800 is slightly smaller than the SD900, and doesn't have a viewfinder or the manual adjustment front ring, or Mic-in/Headphone-out jacks, or an accessory shoe. The side screen is a bit smaller too.

Both have the same front end optics and chip-block - the excellent low-light performance comes from a) having 3 chips and b) a f1.5-2.8 Leica lens.

I am very happy with my SD600 (last years model), and have used it in extremely low lit conditions, although I need to adjust gain at the editing/colour-correction stage.

Bob

Just wondering if you have been able to see and handle one of the Panasonic 900 series? I personally find my SD900 very small, probably the smallest I have ever had and bear in mind it has all the manual controls and input/output.

I have not seen the 80/90 model to compare sizes but they to seem to be a compromise on features although at a greatly reduced cost. I also have a Canon S95 compact still camera which takes brilliant HD video in low light due to its large sensor, much better than a camcorder so another option for you to consider!

Paul

Yes Paul(s) I have handled (not tried) the SD900 and it is small for its quality but I am obsessed with size. With what I have picked up here I am going somewhere where the SD800 and SD900 are stocked and have a good compare.

I would like the facilities that the 900 has especially the viewfinder but as I explained at the beginning of the thread I have alternated between small and quality with each change and the grass is always greener.

I have tried to pick up info outside these forums but am very unimpressed. When I google sd800 v sd900 I find information such as the 900 has better this and better that but the 800 has the advantage of image stabilisation. According to Panasonic specs they have the same system.

My use is very much holidays and family events but a lot of the time it is indoors so that is why a reasonable low light performance is fairly important. If it were not for that I would go for the SD90 as being good enough for my purposes (not to say I wouldn't prefer the 900) Even my tiny Sony had a reasonable picture in good light.

Also I would like to put it all on hold and continue with my HV30 for a while but I am sick of capturing tapes through firewire. I usually forget my camera settings going from DV to HDV and spend an hour or two sorting it out.

Is there a downside to loading from SD cards?

You have to think about long term storage. Whatever you think about tape, one good thing about it is that you shoot, and just stick it on the shelf - end of story. DV/HDV tapes are cheap enough to make it not really worthwhile reusing them

Maybe one day SD cards wil be comparable in cost/hour to do the same with them - but not yet.

Unfortunately small size/lowlight performance tend not to go together, you tend to have to trade one off for the other for several reasons I'm afraid.

Yes as long as you have a camera to play them with.;)

My old DV camera packed up and I was in a situation where if my HV30 did the same I was going to have to buy a new tape camera. I have now put all my stuff on 2x2TB external hard drives(everything on both) and it probably is comparable in price to tape. Cheaper if not duplicated. I have been a big fan of DV tapes for years but firewire is not so common now. My latest PC has the card from my old PC and if I wanted a laptop with firewire it would have to be quite expensive or Mac.

Seems to happen across the board. In low light there is a lot of noise, but also, where detail is ill defined this is where some macro blocking can be seen. I have also seen it on extreme highlights in very contrasty situations.

That's true, and is probably the reason. I'm not totally up on how the codecs work, but wouldn't H264 give less noticeable macro blocking in similar situations due to the smaller macroblock sizes it works with?

The saving grace of tape is that a single failure is limited to one tape, and probably to just a short section of that tape. When a hard drive dies, you normally lose the lot unless you run them up regularly and monitor their S.M.A.R.T. reports.
Data stored on HDDs should be verified, say, every year on both drives. HDDs don't necessarily survive for long when just stored dormant. Capacitors deteriorate, bearings stiffen and connectors gradually oxidise. Assuming both drives are the same type and age, if something does go on one drive, the second one will probably follow soon after if its life has been spent in a similar way. It may be a better idea to get drives from different manufacturers where their weaknesses are less likely to coincide.

Steve

I think the situation is so complex that it's impossible to be too specific. There are so many variables that it's not possible to give a simple answer.

All it's really possible to say is that H264 *should* give better results than MPEG2 *at the same bitrate*, and that may well be due to reasons such as you say. But whilst MPEG2 coders are now fairly mature, H264 coders (certainly real time ones) vary a lot, so the extent of the advantage over MPEG2 is very variable. Pay a lot of money for a broadcast coder and it'll be significantly better - but the coder in a prosumer camera may be little better than MPEG2.

The thing about AVC-HD is that what advantages there are within H264 are being exploited more towards bitrate reduction than quality improvement. Sensible enough as the products which use it fall firmly in the con/prosumer camp. Move into the pro domain and there becomes far less point to it. The sums just work out better to use a simpler coder (MPEG2) and a higher bitrate, and the result can be handled with a lot less processing power.

When the first AVC-HD cameras came out, the rationale was explained as it being the way a solid state camera could use consumer memory - you could have solid state without the price of P2 or SxS. But very soon afterwards SD cards were demonstrated working in an EX, then SD cards native to JVC cameras at 35Mbs, and finally the new Canons recording full broadcast spec 50Mbs to Compact Flash. In the prosumer world - let alone professional - the bitrate saving offered by AVC-HD then hardly seems worth the effort. When it seemed to mean the difference between P2 and SDHC it was a big deal, far less worth it when it just means a couple of extra SD or CF cards.

Alas too late as I have bought a matching pair. :) Actually they did pose a problem as the computer could not differentiate between the two and one was not being seen. One was seen as offline and had to be dealt with.

As for the running up once a year, I have just bundled all the full tapes on there with no editing at all and over the next (probably years) I will be dealing with them one at a time and they will be in regular use and eventually they will be distributed among friends and family as appropriate.

Having said that I will be keeping an eye out for future storage solutions.

What an odd statement Bob. Flash memory capture may be quicker, but unless you've got hours and hours of footage to ingest, not THAT much quicker.

And beware. Moving away from a camcorder as good as the Canon HV30 may bring you something more compact admittedly, but the models you're looking at all have far smaller chips than the Canon. If you were coming to the SD80 from your PC55 I'd say yes, good move, good choice. But the current move sounds like a sideways slide, compactness robbing you of the valuable low-light performance.

tom.

You are right of course Tom. I wrote that in a time of stress. I had been trying to transfer some HDV and had forgot that the HV30 was still set for DV. On the other hand I have recently "ingested" 138 tapes onto HD and I am still feeling the pain. :)

I have dismissed the SD80 and nearly dismissed the SD90. I will be looking at the 800 which is still a compromise on facilities and the 900 without any haste.

But if I do end up (money permitting) with the SD900, then the first time I cant be bothered to take it out with me because of the size, I will be finding out where you all live and sending the boys round :D

PS anyone interested in a second hand HV30 :)

Bob,
I too have been looking at the SD90/800/900 and reading your thread with interest , from the research I have done its looking like the 800/900 but funds may only permit the SD90.
I also noted the Sony HDR-CX130 , which looks a contender to the SD 90 and can be had for under £300 withe £50 cash back offer from Sony , dont know if anyone has views on that one.
I did have a panasonic TM300 last year which I got as it had viewfinder/M/F ring etc but couldn"t live with the blue cast which Panasonics were known for at that time.
I believe the later camcorders do not suffer the same .

Julian

Julian were it not for the size I would not contemplate anything but the SD900. I would hang onto my HV30 until I had amassed enough "good boy" points to feel comfortable with the outlay. :)

Actually I am thinking of looking for a bag that will take just the HV30 and trying to get in the habit of taking it out more. I will look at the SD800 though to see if the difference in size is significant.

The difference in size is most marked. Think of the Canon as an SD800 with a great lump of MiniDV tape deck mechanism bolted to the side of it.