Test Drive: Sony HVR-HD1000U, Part 2

Back again with the new $1,900 shoulder-mount Sony HVR-HD1000U. In the previous installment, I provided a brief overview of specs and features, and evaluated the camera''s Smooth Slow Rec feature. In a review you can read here, I provide more technical background and focus on usability. In this segment, I analyze image quality and low-light performance.

In all tests presented in this segment, I compared the HD1000 with the Canon XH A1, which costs twice as much and has 3CCDs rather than one. It''s unfair, but the Canon is the only camcorder I have that matches the HD1000''s pixel count, which is relevant for the resolution comparisons I discuss below. It''s also the other camcorder that I used in my real-world shoot. As you''ll see, in the laboratory tests, I also include results from the Sony HDR-FX1, which also costs considerably more than the HD1000, and has 3 CCDs, but less total pixel resolution.

For the record, in all laboratory tests, I captured directly to disk using Adobe OnLocation, which not only saved the capture step, but provided two levels of zebra striping and a live waveform monitor to fine-tune my videos before capture. The real-world tests I shot to tape and then captured as normal. I shot and performed all quality and low-light tests in 1080i HDV mode.

I color corrected all videos—both real world and laboratory testing—in Adobe Premiere Pro, which has pluses and minuses from a comparison and evaluation standpoint. On the plus side, I color correct most videos that I shoot—especially in multiple-camera shoots, where the colors are never close enough without tweaking—so color correcting reflects real-world usage. The obvious negative is that if I criticize the color reproduced by a camcorder, is it the color correction or the camera that''s at fault?

On the other hand, if I don''t color correct, and I criticize the camera''s color handling, is it the camera or the operator that produced bad color? Given that I have more confidence in my ability to tweak the colors in post rather than perfecting it while on location, especially with a new camcorder, I decided to go ahead and color correct.

Figure 1: Clara (Taylor Edwards) and the Prince (Josh Sexton).
Click here for a larger image

By way of background, in these real-world tests, I shot two performances of the ballet The Nutcracker, live at the Ashe Civic Center in West Jefferson, N.C. First, I used the Sony HD1000 as my close-up camera, with the Canon XH A1 static with a full-stage shot. Then, I reversed the roles for the second shoot. Because there were small variations in the performance of the dancers—and in my framing and positioning—comparisons are close, but not exact. We''ll get more precise in the laboratory shots.

In Figure 1, the Canon image is more distinct and forceful, with better contrast from the back curtain. Of course, I''m looking at a full-resolution image on my exquisite HP LP3065 monitor; your mileage will certainly vary according to your monitor. From a color perspective, the Prince''s jacket is richer on the right.

Figure 2: Clara (Taylor Edwards) and her best friend (Katie Clark) during the party scene.
Click here for a larger image

Figure 2 shows Clara and her best friend exhausted from their dance during the party scene, Canon image on the right, Sony on the left. Again, the Canon image is clearer and sharper, particularly in the front of Clara''s pink dress, which again is richer in color than that produced by the Sony. Interestingly, with the Canon''s sharpness comes a hint of mosquito-like artifacts, which the Sony avoids by preserving slightly less clarity. Talk about a silver lining. That said, the detail preserved by the Sony in Clara''s best friend''s dress is impressive, as are the arches in both dancer''s lead feet. Nice work, girls.

Figure 3. Doll I (Beth Galyean) in the party scene. Great contrast and detail in both shots, although because Beth is moving on the left, the image is a touch more blurry.
Click here for a larger image

Figure 3 shows Doll I in the party scene. The Sony image is a bit blurry, which I attribute to the fact that she''s moving on the left, while she's still on the right. The point here is the excellent clarity and contrast preserved in both camcorders, particularly noticeable in the slightly diaphanous dress. We are shooting HDV here, so there''s a hint of artifacts in both images, though this really wasn''t visible when watching at 60i on an HDTV screen.

From these real-world tests, I would expect the Canon to resolve more lines in resolution testing than the HD1000 and produce slightly better color. Let''s have a look.

Figure 4. DSC Lab''s CamAlign ChromaDuMonde test with three camcorders.
Click here for a larger image

This is understandable in the HDR-FX1, because its three CCDs only have 1,120,000 effective video pixels. Because HDV video requires 1,552,000 for full-resolution capture (multiply 1440 times 1080), it''s clear that the HDR-FX1 is capturing at lower-than-HDV resolution and scaling upwards to fill the frame, a technique used by most early HDV cameras. This obviously works well, but it preserves less detail than full-resolution HDV capture.

The XH A1 was the first camcorder I''ve used that had more than sufficient pixels (1,670,000) for full-resolution HDV capture, which translates to better-preserved detail and sharper images. While the HD1000 has 2,280,000 effective video pixels, more than enough for full-resolution HDV capture, its frames aren''t as clear as those of the 3CCD Canon (see Figure 4). On the other hand, the preserved resolution is very close to that of the HDR-FX1, a camera that costs almost twice as much at retail.

Figure 5. DSC Lab''s MultiBurst Test pattern chart with three camcorders.
Click here for a larger image

Figure 5, which is DSC Labs'' MultiBurst Test pattern chart, shows similar results. I''d have to give the edge to the HDR-FX1 over the HD1000, with both Sonys clearly overshadowed by the XH A1. Specifically, the XH A1 was able to resolve very close to 800 lines in both axes, which showed up as a blurry box in both other camcorders.

Figure 6. DSC Labs CamBelle images, revealing slight color differences between the camcorders.
Click here for a larger image

Figure 6 shows the famed CamBelles, a test chart that I use for judging color. Here, albeit after color correction, I find the color in both the Canon and HDR-FX1 more accurate than that produced by the HD1000. I''m struggling for adjectives here, but the color produced by the HD1000 looks brassier and less sophisticated—particularly in the blonde hair and beach ball. It''s very similar to what I saw above in the Prince''s red jacket and Clara''s pink dress.

Of course, for me, the big issue with any quality test is whether a viewer with “untrained eyes” would notice the difference without side-by-side comparisons. If you''re delivering on SD DVD, I''d definitely say no, but on a Blu-ray Disc or HDTV program, some more critical viewers may notice that the image produced by the HD1000 is less clear than others that they''ve seen elsewhere. It would definitely have to be a discerning viewer, however.

With these tests behind us, let''s move to low-light testing, then summarize.

Figure 7. Low-light Lance. The Canon clearly produced a brighter signal than the Sony in this comparison.
Click here for a larger image

Low-light testing has two aspects: first, How bright can you make the image in poor light? Second, how much noise does the camcorder produce when jacking gain out the roof? The results are shown in Figure 7 and 8. Figure 7 shows “Low-light Lance,” who has resided beneath my desk since his real-life counterpart won Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year in 2001. In this test, I set shutter speed at 60 and adjusted exposure on the Sony and aperture and gain on the Canon to brighten the video as much as possible. As you can see, the image on the right (the Canon) is both brighter and clearer.

Figure 8. This test compares the noise of the two cameras shooting the CamAlign ChromaDumonde chart under normal office fluorescent lighting.
Click here for a larger image

To test the noise created by the camcorder, I shot DSC Lab''s ChromaDuMonde chart using the fluorescent lights in my office. Here, I set the zebra stripes at 75 and adjusted exposure on the Sony and aperture and gain on the Canon until the flesh-colored color chip in the middle was fully swathed. As you can see in the figure, the Sony shows slightly brighter colors but a bit less contrast. However, noise levels in the still frame are noticeably higher on the left. I created a short Windows Media Video file of the two clips, and the HD1000 clip is noticeably noisier than the Canon.

What does this add up to? A $1,900 shoulder-mount HDV camcorder with very good, but not great, quality and adequate, but not exceptional, low-light performance. Handling is generally good, but configuration controls are very limited, which novices will love and pros will dislike. I/O is weak—lacking, for example, XLR audio input. The camcorder lacks progressive capture—an issue for aspiring filmmakers and those shooting for streaming.

Overall, if you need an affordable shoulder-mount camcorder for DV or HDV shooting, and you can live with these limitations, you''ve found your camcorder. If you don''t need shoulder-mount operation, you can almost certainly find a more suitable camcorder for your needs.