Panasonic HDC-SD1 AVCHD Web Site

[Jerry Jones]

The forthcoming high definition Panasonic HDC-SD1 AVCHD Web site is now at this link: http://tinyurl.com/2gvgrk

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Does anybody have some sample clips?

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Dr Mordrid]

http://www.simplydv.co.uk/Reviews/panasonic_hdc-sd1.html

>
Performance

What's surprising about the picture quality of the recorded movie clips is just how good they are; when recorded using manual exposure, and with care taken in relation to both White Balance and Focus settings in as wide a range of situations as possible, the images look wonderful - even when playing via HDMI onto a large Panasonic Viera TQFD288 LCD screen. However, some degree of jitter was noticeable on playback of hand-held scenes in which there was a lot of motion close to the camera - especially apparent on the lower compression settings and in one or two cases at the highest quality setting, too. There's a choice of AVCHD compression settings on these models - the lowest of which is the "HE" mode (6Mbps, VBR), followed by "HN" (9Mbps, VBR) and - at the highest quality setting - "HF" (13 Mbps, CBR). Audio is captured using Dolby Digital AC3 5-channel surround sound, thanks to a 5-element microphone system positioned on the top of the camera body, each of which picks up sound from a different direction.
>

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-HDC-SD1-First-Impressions-Camcorder-Review.htm

Video Performance

In good light, like the lighting in the Panasonic display booth, the image has appropriately saturated colors.

Skin tones are very real and colors are accurate. This is not surprising since Panasonic 3CCD camcorders are known for having excellent color reproduction. There seems to be some tendency for the camcorder to overexpose bright whites. You can see the whites are blooming a bit in the yellow and white striped towel behind the male model’s head. Interestingly enough, the zebra feature did not indicate the bright white areas were too bright. Also, the image resolution (picture detail) is not what I expected. I took frame grabs of the beach scene from a standard definition video shot with the Panasonic PV-GS400 and compared blown up sections from each camcorder of a portion of the frame containing the starfish and shells. Picture detail is essentially the same indicating that, although the frame is larger, the resolution appears to be only marginally better than standard definition. The overexposed whites and low picture detail may be due to the low pixel count on the CCDs or may be a result of the AVCHD encoding. At this point, I don’t have enough information to say for sure. I’ll have to wait until I can shoot a resolution chart and do more analysis.

[Jerry Jones]

Thanks for the link, Doc.

But I thought this statement was even more revealing:

The (Panasonic) HDC-SD1 is an excellent solid-state 3CCD device that currently sets the benchmark for tapeless high definition video camera technology in the consumer market. When tested alongside the Sony HDR-SR1 (and pointing at exactly the same subject whilst viewing on identical HD monitor screens), the pictures were markedly better than the Sony's - especially in the more lowly lit sectors of the screen. The Sony's images featured quite high levels of rectangular blockiness whereas the SD1's (and DX1's) equivalent images were beautifully clear and well rendered. The differences weren't just mildly worthy of note, they were immediately apparent - even to the untrained eye.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ysbw53

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Geez I wish this camera wasn't interlaced.

I'd take less pixels (720p) to get a progressive image.

Those samples images look really oversaturated to me. The resolution doesn't really look that good either. All the blooming... Perhaps this is a result of the remapping of the non-square pixel format to a square one for the jpegs. Also if there was any camera movement the fields would be a little off, making it look blurry.

[Jerry Jones]

Geez I wish this camera wasn't interlaced. I'd take less pixels (720p) to get a progressive image. Those samples images look really oversaturated to me.

I wish the video was *not* interlaced, also.

But I'm suspicious of the sample image.

I tried to find the link where Doc downloaded that image and I couldn't find it.

It didn't seem to be apparent on the SimplyDV review page.

So I would be reluctant to base my opinion on this one image.

The manufacturers need to realize we'd prefer 720p.

However, they also need to realize we want a full 60 frames per second and not this half-baked 30 frames per second stuff.

That was the huge mistake JVC made with the JY-HD10:

Nasty 30-frames-per-second "Eye Tracking" problem explained here: http://tinyurl.com/2ojg4f

Rapidly moving objects — or non-moving objects when one pans too quickly — appear as “double objects.” The name for this visual artifact is “eye tracking,” and it is generated within our eyes. The double images are not recorded to tape. Our eyes create the artifact from moving objects within a series of images where every frame is repeated — as it is when 720p30 is converted by the camcorder to 720p60 for display. (Just as when film is projected using a double-bladed shutter.)

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Jerry,

We agree 100% on this one.

Please 720p. Not only do we do away with interlacing problems (blur in moving objects, blurry screen grabs) but we also do away with a non-square pixel format with the 1080i they are using.

As a side benefit the decreased resolution will allow for more bandwidth per frame and probably better compression since the hardware is compression less pixels per second.

I think manufacturers are going with this 1080i format because people see "1080" and think "yeah, the good HD! Also they use some pixel shift technology with the CCD to get the resolution=cheaper hardware.

AND 60fps would be great. I don't want to get into it here but for me there is no magic in 24fps. A great movie is great because of a great writer, screenplay, director, producer, lighting, set design, camera, etc... NOT the frame rate.

60fps would be great. And oh the silky smooth slo-mo...

Yes, please I'll take a 720/60p 3CCD camera with manual video and audio control, some decent glass, and Flash memory for under $2500! Shoot I'll even take 1/4" CCD's.

Oh yeah, and I'd like optical image stabilization, not digital.

And don't include a digital zoom function please.

And no in-camera editing.

And the option to record at really high bitrates.

And the option to record 4:2:2 colorspace.

Okay, so I went a little crazy.