Sanyo Xacti VPC-HD2000 camcorder review

Comments

• 60 fps means fields per second not frames per second.
  
  Also, if they haven't added optical stabilisation then it's still rubbish for anything that isn't tripod based. Posted by Adrian, UK
• "60 fps means fields per second not frames per second."
  It actually does shoot at 60 FRAMES per second - which is one of Sanyo's selling points for this camera.
  
  "...and a hot shoe for adding additional accessories like a directional mic, top light, or any other gadget you can think of. "
  I've also seen where it also comes with a COLD shoe NOT a hot shoe.
  
  "The downside, however, is that you won't be able to connect the VPC-HD2000 any other way."
  I believe it also has component out and USB out on the docking station in addition to the HDMI port.
  
  I'm interested in this camera as it seems to offer alot, but I'd still like to see and download some footage and stills (under various lighting/exposure conditions) to look at so I can properly decide for myself.
  
  As a side note, Canon has had the Powershot TX1 for over a year now, which is as much a "dual camera" IMHO.
  
  Colin Posted by Colin Rootz, Jamaica via USA
• "Also, if they haven't added optical stabilisation then it's still rubbish for anything that isn't tripod based."
  
  Again, it seems as though they have added image stabilisation to this model, but I have yet to hear a report on how it (the OIS) performs...
  
  Colin Posted by Colin Rootz, Jamaica via USA
• It does have optical stabilisation for both the video and still modes Posted by stuartmiles, United Kingdom
• It's electronic image stabilisation - like the HD1010 I own. It's like saying a Mini is a fast car. Compared to nothing it is. Compared to a Ferrari (i.e. Optical IS) it's pants. Optical shifts glass around and Sanyo don't know how to do that yet so they use the computer to lose pixels at the edges to make the image look stationary..
  
  And yes, it's 60 FIELDS PER SECOND. That's the law (whoops, slipped into Judge Dredd mode). 60 FRAMES per second refers to ye-oldie FILM cameras. In this modern digital world it's done in fields per second. And if Sanyo's marketing department say frames then they are plain wrong (and I can't see anywhere Sanyo saying it's frames).
  
  **** Science bit ****
  Progressive and interlaced are how HD video is defined. Interlaced shows alternating fields (or lines for non-techies). Progressive shows each field in order. So 30 FPS interlaced is the same as 60 FPS progressive in the amount of 'frames' captured. Both take 60 fields of information in one second. However if you freeze the image, the 30 FPS shows up as half a picture - every second field (line) is blank. Move to the next image and the same picture is there but what was an image is blank and what was blank is an image. Since they are shown rapidly the human eye sees them as one image. Rapid action though (runners, F1 etc) shows up as jerky action because HD TVs don't do interlaced that well - except for very high kit aka expensive ones. Progressive shows the whole image and results in a better/smoother action. IT also means you can get one frame and make it a digital photo rather than trying to merge two images.
  So, 30 FPS takes 60 IMAGES per second but each image is only half the real picture. 60 FPS takes 60 IMAGES per second which are individually a real picture.
  Goto http://www.sanyo.com/news/2009/01/21-1en.html about half way down, they show what I'm trying to put in words which works better illustrated.
  
  30 FRAMES per second would take only half the images of a 60 FRAME per second camera which in film terms means your roll of film lasts twice as long but movement is not as smooth - so suitable for Gone with the Wind but not for Need for Speed !!!!
  
  **** Science disclaimer - yes I know it's really 29 point something/59 point something but that's just nit-picking isn't it ?
  
  Hope that clears everything up :-) Posted by Adrian, UK
• Thanks Adrian,
  I've worked with cameras and video a bit, so I do grasp the concept of fields vs. frames. I genuinely thought (hoped?) that this camera truly did capture full FRAMES instead of synthesizing them from fields. However, even further to this, it seems you're saying that even higher-end cameras (HVX-200, EX1 etc.) do the same! I'm fairly sure this is NOT true. I've had a look at the article you mentioned on the Sanyo site, and it doesn't seem to shed much light on how they synthesize frames, but rather just shows the difference between frames and fields in an illustration.
  
  The reason for the strange number of frames (29.97 as opposed to 30) is because that missing 0.03 frames are given up in order to send "colour burst" signal data - which higher end equipment used for locking video signals with external equipment (genlock).
  
  Also, I concede that the HD200 DOES NOT have OPTICAL image stabilisation, which is achieved by minute adjustment of actual glass lens elements, but it DOES include ELECTRONIC image stabilisation, which involves minute adjustments to the captured pixel data.
  
  Cheers! Posted by Colin Rootz, Jamaica via USA
• Colin is absolutely correct on the use of "frames" for the correct definition.
  
  I have been a broadcast / electrical engineer since the 1950's and the definition has ALWAYS been frames.
  
  Posted by Larry, USA
• I agree with Colin and Larry. I also work in the industry and it is frames and not fields. The HD2000 records 1080 60p and as far as I am aware is the first camcorder in the world to do this. With interlaced video you get two fields to a frame. Interlaced video has been around for a long time (1930's) and progressive is much more recent (1970's). Progressive was around earlier but interlacing was the adopted technology for movies and TV. It is only since the dawn of computers that progressive has made its comeback. Early broadcast restrictions prohibited 240p (NTSC) & 288p (PAL) in the broadcast environment but this was not the case in a computer environment and hence the return of progressive scan.
  
  Interlaced video also suffers from interline twitter (anti-aliasing), which is different to flicker. e.g. a man wearing a stripey shirt would appear to be wearing a shirt with moving lines. This is because of the way interlaced video is played back. Interlaced video uses intentional blurring to reduce this twitter effect and this is why the picture is not as sharp as the eqivalent progressive scan picture.
  
  Also your old film cameras recorded at 24 frames per second (23.97fps) and not 60 frames per second. PAL records at 25 frames and NTSC 30 frames (29.97fps) Posted by phil, UK
• I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who works in the industry what the difference between fields and frames is. Thanks to Larry and Phil for backing me up on this. There's nothing wrong with being mistaken about this technology as it moves pretty fast and the theory can be a bit confusing. What IS wrong is awarding a prize for an incorrect comment after industry professionals have kindly pointed out that the comment is incorrect! I'm certainly not competing for any prizes by giving information, but it does bother me that the publishers of this article would fail to verify the information they're giving a prize for, and make it seem to their readers that the wrong information is actually correct! Posted by Colin, Jamaica via USA
• Phil,
  I would also qualify your statement:
  "The HD2000 records 1080 60p and as far as I am aware is the first camcorder in the world to do this."
  by adding that it's the first ULTRACOMPACT consumer camcorder to do this, as the Panasonic HVX200 (along with others) has done this since it came out years ago. Posted by Colin Rootz, Jamaica via USA
• This website discredits itself for awarding a prize to tecno-babble which is boldy and erroneously described as "science". Clearly neither Adrian, the prize winner, nor this website judge has the technical background for understanding video. Adrian has it entirely wrong! Posted by Scott, United States
• Thanks everyone for your comments above. We've double checked with Sanyo, who themselves has they tell us double and triple checked the information in the comments and it seems Adrian is wrong.
  
  In light of this we are re-awarding the prize to another commentor on the site.
  
  Basically we screwed up. I could blame the intern but as we don't have one that wouldn't be fair. We try to be as open and honest on Pocket-lint and unfortunately we occasionally get things wrong.
  
  What's great is that there are plenty of people who have sprung to help our readers fine the right answer.
  
  Thank you for your help and support in making Pocket-lint strive to be better.
  
  Stuart Posted by stuartmiles, United Kingdom
• I've heard it has pretty good low light performance. Also a wide angle lens attachment available from Sanyo. I didn't see mention of the high-speed capture modes of which there are 2, however, they are not HD or even SD resolution, but lower: 448 x 336 @240 fps and 192 x 108 @600fps. Posted by Colin Young, Jamaica
• I'm not sure, that I would try to use this to break into Hollywood, but there's some fairly innovative features that make this camera of good use for DI, quick storyboarding or roughcuts.
  
  You could easily use this for proof of concept. Posted by Corey J, United States
• I had the HD1000 and was pretty happy with it: easy handling, acceptable low-light performance, decent video quality and better than expected photo quality. It being my first camcorder I can't compare it to others though.
  
  However, if you're thinking about using this camcorder underwater, then be warned: EPOQUE's EHS-1000HD underwater housing for the HD1000, HD1010 & HD2000 is leak prone and NOT TO BE TRUSTED. Plenty of people have reported floodings with this housing, resulting in the total loss of their camcorder (just check it out on e.g. wetpixel). Mine got wasted after only seven dives. Posted by enceintes pc, france