DSE 5 #26 January 11, 2007 I have an HC7 in my hands now. I'd hoped to jump it at Skydive Mesquite, but they were only flying the 182, and I didn't have time to hang around for a slot; we were driving to beat snowy weather. I get to keep it for a week, so either I'll drive to Mesquite and jump it this weekend (not too excited to do that as it's their boogie weekend) or I'll figure something else out. It's solid, I'll definitely give it that. So far, I've only shot about 10 mins of vid with it on the drive. It manages jumping up/down and violent swings on the end of a monopod quite well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites IGOLOW 0 #27 January 11, 2007 Thanks for keeping us updated. Your input to this forum is definitely much appreciated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites phoenixlpr 0 #28 January 11, 2007 LANC is a wired based electronic remote control. All LANC device is a microcontroller based system which issue/read codes by a given protocol. If you know the codes to issue and someone can design and implement your idea. http://www.boehmel.de/lanc.htm http://www-e2.ijs.si/damir.vrancic/personal/TRV900/Cameras/default.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 5 #29 January 11, 2007 Some semi-useful info Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willyramos 0 #30 January 12, 2007 thanks for the info, I really apreciate it as I'm thinking on getting one soon, let us know how it goes in the sky... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pfortier 0 #31 February 1, 2007 The suspense is killing me! How did it perform in the air? Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 5 #32 February 1, 2007 Very nicely. Exceptionally nicely. I won't say it's oodles better than the HC3, but it is great. The DSP appears to be the only really strong new factor in the HC7 vs HC3, and even there it's not significant. The other place the HC7 is better (and blows the HC3 away) is in very low light conditions. It's slightly softer than the HC3 in low light, but significantly less noisy. It *almosts* fits in an HC3 box, too. Should just be a matter of a few minutes with a Dremel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pfortier 0 #33 February 1, 2007 Have you figured out a way to trigger stills along with video using the LANC interface? It would be SO COOL to just have one camera mounted... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pcalandra 0 #34 February 2, 2007 Thanks for the feedback DSE, it seems to me then that the real significant advantage to the 7 is the microphone input. I was really pissed at myself for missing that on the HC-42, I really want to start playing with a wireless mic on Tandems and maybe even some AFF. Pat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shogo 0 #35 February 8, 2007 Why not take stills from the recorded footage when you get to the ground (video room)? The HC-7 takes 1 mega pixel stills from the recorded footage. Canon's new HV20 takes 2 mega pixels stills. According to their web pages. If they are good enough, that would be great. No more SLRs. I dont think tamdem students really cares. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #36 February 8, 2007 Quote Why not take stills from the recorded footage when you get to the ground (video room)? The HC-7 takes 1 mega pixel stills from the recorded footage. because the camera is capable of taking 4 megapixel photographs while recording HDV! 1mega pixel is not enough for commercial photos and 4 mega pixlels is getting there but bordering being woth while as a eos 400d can produce 10 mega pixels. I also want to buy one but i am waiting on someone that has the knowledge to make it work, I unfortunately do not have such knowledge."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites garywainwright 0 #37 February 8, 2007 Is the HC7 worth the extra money over the HC5?http://www.garywainwright.co.uk Instagram gary_wainwright_uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 5 #38 February 8, 2007 if you want great audio input and better stills, yes. Otherwise, little is to be gained by getting the HC7 vs HC5. Ibought the HC7, because I need to be able to plug mic's into it for non-skydiving purposes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shogo 0 #39 February 8, 2007 yeah, but as far as i know, if you do that the video will not be continuous. 3-10 sec delay after taking a still shot according to the fine print. I guess we still need a still camera. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #40 February 9, 2007 Quote if you do that the video will not be continuous. 3-10 sec delay after taking a still shot according to the fine print. I guess we still need a still camera. stink, that sucks "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 5 #41 February 9, 2007 Guys, it's gonna be a long time before you'll be able to match what a Rebel XT is shooting to what a video camera is capable of. Rolling shutter, lower grade glass, completely different sort of DSP...Video cameras are for vid. True, you can take reasonably high resolution stills with a camcorder these days, but if you're charging for those stills, I hope you're not charging much, cuz they're just not worth much. The bottom line is unfortunately, the bottom line. The stills from these small chip/small format camcorders are good for the web, and little else, even though the resolutions are starting to really climb. At least, that's my nickel's-worth view. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dragon2 2 #42 February 9, 2007 Ditto. I'll stick to my D80 for a great while yet ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ltdiver 3 #43 February 10, 2007 Quote Rolling shutter, lower grade glass, completely different sort of DSP...Video cameras are for vid. True, you can take reasonably high resolution stills with a camcorder these days, but if you're charging for those stills, I hope you're not charging much, cuz they're just not worth much. The bottom line is unfortunately, the bottom line. The stills from these small chip/small format camcorders are good for the web, and little else, even though the resolutions are starting to really climb. At least, that's my nickel's-worth view. Glad to see your learning curve is still going strong... See: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2261972;#2261972 ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 5 #44 February 10, 2007 I still stand by what I said then. You can print a 5x7 on good paper and it looks "reasonably" acceptable. It's not anywhere near what a good bit of glass on a Rebel will shoot, but bear in mind, *most* of my shooting is with very high end glass on HD. Grabs from a 2/3 cam at 2MP look very, very good. But...in this discussion, we're talking about replacing still cams with video cams. If you could jump a 2/3 cam with an Angineaux lens...then you'd probably have the same opinion I do. From a low grade HDV cam with glass composite lenses...not a prayer for any still image not destined for the web. But...I'm still learning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shogo 0 #45 February 10, 2007 By 2/3, you mean something like this? http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/business/dvcam/products/index.cfm?PD=19622&KM=HDW-750 I guess just having 3 sensors doesnt mean 3x1/4 and 3/4 sensor... For FX7 in this case. Could the highest end handycam produce reasonable 4x6 picture anytime soon? Like in 2-3 years. sorry for damn questions. Video cameras are so complex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 5 #46 February 10, 2007 Something more like this F950, which is two models newer than what we shoot with. There are quantities of sensors (one or three) and size of sensor (ranging from 1/8" to 2"). A camcorder or camera head may have three 2/3" sensors, or one 1/8 sensor, or any mix in between. The cam may have CMOS sensors or CCD sensors. Sensors are sometimes called "Imagers" or "Image blocks" or "read chips" or "converters." Lotsa names for one aspect. I believe a high end handycam can produce a "reasonable" 4 x 6 now. Linked here is a 1920 x 1080 cap'd from Sony Vegas set to Best/Full, shot with a Sony V1U, full end of the lens. Aperture at 5.6, ND2, 1/60shutter, 30P/FPS. It's slightly softer than it would have been had I been shooting with some added sharpness and not at the full end of the lens, and had I been shooting interlaced vs progressive. These guys are roughly 1800-2000 feet from the lens. While I don't believe it's suitable to blow up or print as an 8x10 for professional use, I do believe it's "reasonably" good, and *most* tandem folks would probably be happy with it in a 5 x7 or 4 x 6. This same image from a 2/3" chip cam would be stunning. The V1 is a 1/4" chip cam You'll need to import it to your image editor, convert to 300dpi 4 x 6 to see what you're looking for. You decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shogo 0 #47 February 10, 2007 Wow. Firstly, thanks for the info. “Sony Vegas set to Best/Full, shot with a Sony V1U, full end of the lens. Aperture at 5.6, ND2, 1/60shutter, 30P/FPS” Could you elaborate on this a bit more? You took a still picture with V1U, using most telephoto end, at f5.6. and etc. I did not know you can manually set aperture and shutter speed on V1U. (Can you do the same with FX7?) Just to clarify for my understanding, was this image taken by Vegas from a recorded footage uploaded to a computer, or was the picture taken by camcorder while the tape was played on the camcoder, or you used V1U as a still camera? I didn’t even know V1U could be used as a still camera like HC series. Sony’s Japanese site doesn’t tell much about V1J. Anyway I think the image is great. Good enough. By the way, are the ND settings on V1 controlled by the exposure or are they phisically done by filters that go in front of the sensor? Just curious. I am thinking about buying FX7 successor. Are the image sensors and image processors different between consumer and pro handycams? i.e. HC1 vs A1, FX7 vs V1 etc. What are the differences? Other than microphones and obvious difference in appearances. Are they mechanically different, too? When I played with HC1, I noticed that unless you zoom in and out very slowly, it went out of focus. Is something like that fixed on A1? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 5 #48 February 11, 2007 The V1 can take stills, but I wouldn't use it for such. That's a capture from video, shot progressively. Yes, the V1 and FX7 both offer manual shutter/iris. At the risk of "advertising.." you can get my training DVD on the V1/FX7 from the VASST site. There is no successor to the FX7, it's the newest in their consumer lineup. Sensors are the same on both FX7 and V1. DSP is different. You can set different focus modes on the A1, yes. This is why the PD Factory Team chose the A1 over the HC1. It's not a "fix" but rather a difference between the professional and consumer models. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shogo 0 #49 February 11, 2007 I thank you very much for the information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NoPush 0 #50 February 19, 2007 Anyone know if the HC7 fits in the Cookie HC3 box? It was mentioned earlier in almost fit a box. Who's box? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
IGOLOW 0 #27 January 11, 2007 Thanks for keeping us updated. Your input to this forum is definitely much appreciated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phoenixlpr 0 #28 January 11, 2007 LANC is a wired based electronic remote control. All LANC device is a microcontroller based system which issue/read codes by a given protocol. If you know the codes to issue and someone can design and implement your idea. http://www.boehmel.de/lanc.htm http://www-e2.ijs.si/damir.vrancic/personal/TRV900/Cameras/default.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #29 January 11, 2007 Some semi-useful info Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willyramos 0 #30 January 12, 2007 thanks for the info, I really apreciate it as I'm thinking on getting one soon, let us know how it goes in the sky... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pfortier 0 #31 February 1, 2007 The suspense is killing me! How did it perform in the air? Thanks! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #32 February 1, 2007 Very nicely. Exceptionally nicely. I won't say it's oodles better than the HC3, but it is great. The DSP appears to be the only really strong new factor in the HC7 vs HC3, and even there it's not significant. The other place the HC7 is better (and blows the HC3 away) is in very low light conditions. It's slightly softer than the HC3 in low light, but significantly less noisy. It *almosts* fits in an HC3 box, too. Should just be a matter of a few minutes with a Dremel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pfortier 0 #33 February 1, 2007 Have you figured out a way to trigger stills along with video using the LANC interface? It would be SO COOL to just have one camera mounted... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pcalandra 0 #34 February 2, 2007 Thanks for the feedback DSE, it seems to me then that the real significant advantage to the 7 is the microphone input. I was really pissed at myself for missing that on the HC-42, I really want to start playing with a wireless mic on Tandems and maybe even some AFF. Pat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shogo 0 #35 February 8, 2007 Why not take stills from the recorded footage when you get to the ground (video room)? The HC-7 takes 1 mega pixel stills from the recorded footage. Canon's new HV20 takes 2 mega pixels stills. According to their web pages. If they are good enough, that would be great. No more SLRs. I dont think tamdem students really cares. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #36 February 8, 2007 Quote Why not take stills from the recorded footage when you get to the ground (video room)? The HC-7 takes 1 mega pixel stills from the recorded footage. because the camera is capable of taking 4 megapixel photographs while recording HDV! 1mega pixel is not enough for commercial photos and 4 mega pixlels is getting there but bordering being woth while as a eos 400d can produce 10 mega pixels. I also want to buy one but i am waiting on someone that has the knowledge to make it work, I unfortunately do not have such knowledge."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
garywainwright 0 #37 February 8, 2007 Is the HC7 worth the extra money over the HC5?http://www.garywainwright.co.uk Instagram gary_wainwright_uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #38 February 8, 2007 if you want great audio input and better stills, yes. Otherwise, little is to be gained by getting the HC7 vs HC5. Ibought the HC7, because I need to be able to plug mic's into it for non-skydiving purposes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shogo 0 #39 February 8, 2007 yeah, but as far as i know, if you do that the video will not be continuous. 3-10 sec delay after taking a still shot according to the fine print. I guess we still need a still camera. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #40 February 9, 2007 Quote if you do that the video will not be continuous. 3-10 sec delay after taking a still shot according to the fine print. I guess we still need a still camera. stink, that sucks "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #41 February 9, 2007 Guys, it's gonna be a long time before you'll be able to match what a Rebel XT is shooting to what a video camera is capable of. Rolling shutter, lower grade glass, completely different sort of DSP...Video cameras are for vid. True, you can take reasonably high resolution stills with a camcorder these days, but if you're charging for those stills, I hope you're not charging much, cuz they're just not worth much. The bottom line is unfortunately, the bottom line. The stills from these small chip/small format camcorders are good for the web, and little else, even though the resolutions are starting to really climb. At least, that's my nickel's-worth view. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dragon2 2 #42 February 9, 2007 Ditto. I'll stick to my D80 for a great while yet ciel bleu, Saskia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #43 February 10, 2007 Quote Rolling shutter, lower grade glass, completely different sort of DSP...Video cameras are for vid. True, you can take reasonably high resolution stills with a camcorder these days, but if you're charging for those stills, I hope you're not charging much, cuz they're just not worth much. The bottom line is unfortunately, the bottom line. The stills from these small chip/small format camcorders are good for the web, and little else, even though the resolutions are starting to really climb. At least, that's my nickel's-worth view. Glad to see your learning curve is still going strong... See: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2261972;#2261972 ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #44 February 10, 2007 I still stand by what I said then. You can print a 5x7 on good paper and it looks "reasonably" acceptable. It's not anywhere near what a good bit of glass on a Rebel will shoot, but bear in mind, *most* of my shooting is with very high end glass on HD. Grabs from a 2/3 cam at 2MP look very, very good. But...in this discussion, we're talking about replacing still cams with video cams. If you could jump a 2/3 cam with an Angineaux lens...then you'd probably have the same opinion I do. From a low grade HDV cam with glass composite lenses...not a prayer for any still image not destined for the web. But...I'm still learning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shogo 0 #45 February 10, 2007 By 2/3, you mean something like this? http://www.ecat.sony.co.jp/business/dvcam/products/index.cfm?PD=19622&KM=HDW-750 I guess just having 3 sensors doesnt mean 3x1/4 and 3/4 sensor... For FX7 in this case. Could the highest end handycam produce reasonable 4x6 picture anytime soon? Like in 2-3 years. sorry for damn questions. Video cameras are so complex. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #46 February 10, 2007 Something more like this F950, which is two models newer than what we shoot with. There are quantities of sensors (one or three) and size of sensor (ranging from 1/8" to 2"). A camcorder or camera head may have three 2/3" sensors, or one 1/8 sensor, or any mix in between. The cam may have CMOS sensors or CCD sensors. Sensors are sometimes called "Imagers" or "Image blocks" or "read chips" or "converters." Lotsa names for one aspect. I believe a high end handycam can produce a "reasonable" 4 x 6 now. Linked here is a 1920 x 1080 cap'd from Sony Vegas set to Best/Full, shot with a Sony V1U, full end of the lens. Aperture at 5.6, ND2, 1/60shutter, 30P/FPS. It's slightly softer than it would have been had I been shooting with some added sharpness and not at the full end of the lens, and had I been shooting interlaced vs progressive. These guys are roughly 1800-2000 feet from the lens. While I don't believe it's suitable to blow up or print as an 8x10 for professional use, I do believe it's "reasonably" good, and *most* tandem folks would probably be happy with it in a 5 x7 or 4 x 6. This same image from a 2/3" chip cam would be stunning. The V1 is a 1/4" chip cam You'll need to import it to your image editor, convert to 300dpi 4 x 6 to see what you're looking for. You decide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shogo 0 #47 February 10, 2007 Wow. Firstly, thanks for the info. “Sony Vegas set to Best/Full, shot with a Sony V1U, full end of the lens. Aperture at 5.6, ND2, 1/60shutter, 30P/FPS” Could you elaborate on this a bit more? You took a still picture with V1U, using most telephoto end, at f5.6. and etc. I did not know you can manually set aperture and shutter speed on V1U. (Can you do the same with FX7?) Just to clarify for my understanding, was this image taken by Vegas from a recorded footage uploaded to a computer, or was the picture taken by camcorder while the tape was played on the camcoder, or you used V1U as a still camera? I didn’t even know V1U could be used as a still camera like HC series. Sony’s Japanese site doesn’t tell much about V1J. Anyway I think the image is great. Good enough. By the way, are the ND settings on V1 controlled by the exposure or are they phisically done by filters that go in front of the sensor? Just curious. I am thinking about buying FX7 successor. Are the image sensors and image processors different between consumer and pro handycams? i.e. HC1 vs A1, FX7 vs V1 etc. What are the differences? Other than microphones and obvious difference in appearances. Are they mechanically different, too? When I played with HC1, I noticed that unless you zoom in and out very slowly, it went out of focus. Is something like that fixed on A1? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #48 February 11, 2007 The V1 can take stills, but I wouldn't use it for such. That's a capture from video, shot progressively. Yes, the V1 and FX7 both offer manual shutter/iris. At the risk of "advertising.." you can get my training DVD on the V1/FX7 from the VASST site. There is no successor to the FX7, it's the newest in their consumer lineup. Sensors are the same on both FX7 and V1. DSP is different. You can set different focus modes on the A1, yes. This is why the PD Factory Team chose the A1 over the HC1. It's not a "fix" but rather a difference between the professional and consumer models. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shogo 0 #49 February 11, 2007 I thank you very much for the information. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoPush 0 #50 February 19, 2007 Anyone know if the HC7 fits in the Cookie HC3 box? It was mentioned earlier in almost fit a box. Who's box? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
