Upgrade From TRV900 TO HC7?

Hello,

Would it be worthwhile to upgrade from my Sony TRV900 and Gates housing to a Sony HC7 and Gates housing? I really like my TRV900 setup, but wondering if I should finally make the leap to HD. If I do make the leap, will the 1 chip HC7 be as good/better as the 3 chip TRV900? Is it worth the cost? What types of things should I be thinking about? Thank you!

Scott

It all depends what you want to do with the footage.

I shot with a Sony VX2000 for a long time, which is basically not a lot different from a TRV900. I now shoot with a Sony Z1, which is a top end 3-chip HDV camera, superior to the HC7. In my opinion my VX2000 delivered more attractive underwater footage in just about every aspect except resolution.

HDV is a major pain in the backside to deal with in post-production compared to standard definition DV. Unless you really need high definition, or 16:9 widescreen, I would stick with the TRV900 until it dies for good. And by then you might find that HDV is past it's sell-by date anyway.

The TRV900 is a fantastic underwater camera.

HDV is a major pain in the backside to deal with in post-production compared to standard definition DV. Unless you really need high definition, or 16:9 widescreen, I would stick with the TRV900 until it dies for good.

Thanks for your input, Nick. That's really helpful. Please excuse my ignorance, but why is HD a pain to work with in post production? Is it not fully supported by the different software editing packages yet?

And by then you might find that HDV is past it's sell-by date anyway.

Are you speculating, or is there already a new technology coming down the pipe in the near future that will/could be better than HDV?

The TRV900 is a fantastic underwater camera.

It really is, and I really do like it. I have an HD tv now, and thought it would be nice to shoot HD. It seems more and more people have HD tv's now too. Unless someone can give good reasons/evidence for upgrading now, then I may stick with the TRV900 for the time being.

Does anyone else have any input on this topic? Thanks in advance. Thanks again, Nick.

Regards,

Scott

ps. I love my Gates housing too!

I'm glad you asked the question because I'm in the same position. I have a trip coming up and am wondering if I should sell my TRV900 and Gates Housing and get a Canon HV20 and Ike housing so that I can record the trip (Galapagos) in HD. FWIW I'm using Final Cut Express and a one year old Macbook with 2 gig of ram for editing.

dbl post

Thanks for your input, Nick. That's really helpful. Please excuse my ignorance, but why is HD a pain to work with in post production? Is it not fully supported by the different software editing packages yet?

With DV, every frame is a full frame. With HDV in it's raw .m2t format, the signal is highly compressed to make it fit on the same tape that your DV fitted on, but with the higher resolution. So you're only getting a full frame, known as an "I" frame every 15 frames (if you're shooting 60i) or every 12 frames (if you're shooting 50i). The frames in-between just describe the differences from that I frame. If you want to edit with that raw .m2t signal and a full resolution preview then you can just about do it with a powerful machine such as a quad core and an NLE like Sony Vegas Pro 8. However most editors would convert the HDV, usually on capture, to an intermediate AVI codec such as Cineform or Canopus HQ and then edit with that. There is a very small loss in quality in the conversion, not a big problem really, but the file size is much larger because the signal has been largely uncompressed to make the video much more responsive in your NLE. Personally I edit in native .m2t and also archive in it to keep file sizes small, but in my case this has required a very powerful computer and an extremely tortuous workflow to archive in .m2t without a quality loss. Not to mention a steep learning curve. If you want to archive in something like Cineform or Canopus HQ then you have to plan for much larger storage requirements than DV.

Editing DV is a piece of cake for any modern computer. It's stable, responsive, relatively small file sizes, and there are great, mature tools like Sclive around to make everything straightforward. If you go to HDV, no matter what workflow you choose to follow, you're likely to have substantially more hassle and expense to get the editing job done.

Also I think I'm right in saying the HC7 is not as good in low light as the TRV900, so you could expect more noise due to gain from deeper dives.

Are you speculating, or is there already a new technology coming down the pipe in the near future that will/could be better than HDV?

I'm not the world's expert on up and coming formats but there are new formats encroaching on both the top end (Panasonic DVC-PRO HD, Sony XDCAM EX) and the bottom end (AVCHD etc.). I've read many times on the net that HDV's days are numbered. As a format it does get quite a lot of stick from video pros. However with Sony's recent announcements of new top-end HDV cameras (Z7 etc) it seems there is substantial life left in the format.

It really is, and I really do like it. I have an HD tv now, and thought it would be nice to shoot HD. It seems more and more people have HD tv's now too. Unless someone can give good reasons/evidence for upgrading now, then I may stick with the TRV900 for the time being.

Really, unless you have a compelling reason to upgrade, I would wear the TRV900/Gates combo out first and then see what state the market is in then. If you're still tempted by HDV then spend a good amount of time cruising the forum for your favoured NLE and see what issues people have been having with HDV. Know exactly what computer hardware requirements you're going to need in advance rather than getting burnt further down the line.

Thanks a lot, Nick. I really appreciate the time you spent replying to my question. It was a big help.

Cheers,

Scott

I agree with Nick, HDV has limitations in low light and the results can be a little disappointing. However when shot with enough light the images look bloody great.

Hawkfish; I would stick with what you have for the Galapagos due to darker lighting conditions and at least you know the camera well instead of having to test and learn a camera on a trip and what a trip that will be? Are you shooting a lot of surface footage? HDV would be great for that and would give you a taste of whats involved before you buy housing etc etc.

HD does start to drain the bank account as well on things that you don't bank on;

Fast editing suite

Software

Data Storage

Time to learn all this

Better quality ports, lenses, diopters

Etc etc

Depends on whether you want a new toy or not too

we all love new stuff.

Jon

One slight correction, HDV (codec) is not the reason for limitations in low light. Having 4 1/2 times more pixels on the same size chips (1/4", 1/3", 1/2", etc.) vs standard definition is what will decrease sensitivity. However, there have been major advances in the current chips, electronics and optics. I went from a TRV900 to my current FX1, and IMO did not lose that much in the low light department, but the higher resolution and wider HD color gamut really make a huge difference, especially on an HDTV. Good light is definitely your friend when shooting with a small chip HD camera, but I've gotten stunning footage below 100' with good conditions. As with any camera, the larger the imaging chip, the better the sensitivity. Get a camera with the biggest chips that you can afford. Nick and Jon have been giving you good advice, now it's up to you to decide. BTW, I shot some beautiful footage in the Galapagos (Oct. 2005) with my FX1 that a TRV900 could never compare to. Conditions vary greatly there, sometimes very good vis and sometimes terrible. Watch for the fierce currents around Wolf and Darwin, I've seen air bubbles going down, not up like they're supposed to.

Dan

I agree with all the previous posts. I really miss my TRV900 in low light and with the variable conditions (pretty good chance of low light) in the Galapagos, i would be sticking with the TRV. If you give the HDV guys another year or so, my guess is that they will either have improved the light sensitivity, or dumped HDV altogether for solid state HD (less compression like the Panasonic P2). At the very least, the HC7 and the computer accessories will be a hell of a lot cheaper. Those extras (external harddrives, software, faster computing power) really add up and are often overlooked when we have our eyes fixed on the new camera and housing.

Either way, enjoy the Galapagos!

Thanks for the info, you've convinced me to hang on with my TRV900. I'm looking forward to the Galapagos and getting some footage!

Have a look out for the albino whale shark!!

Very jealous, have a great time.