Photos with Sony HC-1

Question

With the still photos being recorded onto the memory stick in 2.8Mega pixel in high definition, is there a difference in still picture quality compared to a SD video camera taking a 2.8mega pixel photo?? Cheers

Answer 1

As promised..
This is a relatively quick'n'dirty test, as I had SO much more to do today (..you can see by the progression of the watch-hands how long it took, plus writing it up..)
I've compared the best stills from the HC1 camcorder, a Fuji 3 megapixel stills camera, a Canon D300 ('Digital Rebel'), an Olympus E500 (..the Canon and Oly set to low resolution, to near-enough match the Fuji and the HC1..), a Sony 3-chip PDX-10 camcorder with a Memory Stick in it for stills, a Sony 3-chip TRV950 camcorder [..virtually the same as the 'professional' PDX-10..] and a Sony 1-chip Digital-8 TRV330 camcorder.
I shot a wristwatch on a table, in front of an open window, with sunlight coming in behind the watch, to give an idea of how good the various lenses are, too: cheaper lenses with fewer anti-reflection coatings within the zoom mechanism can bounce light around between the lens elements (bouncing back up to 2% of incoming light between each piece of glass or plastic) giving a much softer, less contrasty, 'weaker' and less clearly defined image.
I had to move most of the stills cameras closer to the watch, as although the Fuji has a 6x zoom, stills cameras generally don't have the longer zoom range of video camcorders (10x for the HC1, 12x for the PDX-10 and TRV950, 25x for the TRV330). This ensured that the size of the watch face stayed fairly consistent through all the pictures.
I opened up the apertures, or increased the 'backlighting' exposure in all pictures, so that the watch face was sufficiently bright to be seen against the backlighting, and this also gives a rough idea of how well each lens and imaging system gives a sharp image devoid of 'colour fringing' and other failings. (I used a 55-200 zoom on the Canon, as its usual 18-55 lens would have meant moving the camera too near to the watch to give a reasonable match to the other images).
The 1-chip HC1 shoots with 2m effective pixels in 16:9 and 2.7m effective pixels in 4:3 mode, as it uses the full height of the chip as well as the full width. In 16:9 mode it shoots 1920x1080 pixels, in 4:3 mode (which I used for these comparisons) it shoots 1920x1440.
The 3-chip PDX-10 and TRV950 shoot approx 1.07m effective pixels in hi-quality photo mode. The 1-chip TRV330 shoots approx .8m effective pixels in photo mode.
(I couldn't shoot any stills with the HC1's "big brother" 3-chip FX1 camcorder, as that doesn't shoot stills.)
[As a final test, I held a Leitz 90mm lens ..from an old Leica stills camera.. in front of the Olympus to see what kind of picture that excellent prime (i.e; not a zoom) lens would produce. But as I couldn't fit the Leitz lens deep enough into the Olympus body to focus at the appropriate distance, I had to move the camera and lens much closer to the watch to get a sharp image. This nearly filled the viewfinder, but I've included this and the cropped-down central area, just for a very rough comparison. As so much light flooded in around the lens itself, I used "auto levels" in Graphic Converter to reset the brightest and darkest areas to their optima. These "Oly-Leitz" pictures show some camera shake, as I was holding the lens in place by hand. All the pictures, with each camera, were taken in 'self-timer' mode, to avoid camera shake.]
I cut out from each picture the watch face and its immediate surroundings, and I also saved each full picture at a reduced size of 15% of the original ..to give an easy comparison of the relative sizes of the overall shots.
I used 'spot metering' on all of the images to get a clear watch face against the bright background, and then - as the watch faces were still dark - I used manual over exposure to get a clearer, brighter watch face. The Canon shots have still come out rather dark ..my fault. So I adjusted the 'levels' on the Canon shots to 'brighten' up the watch face more, and I've called these shots 'Canon crop2' and 'Canon 15pc2'.
All the series of photos are available from here onwards..
Of all of these pictures, the HC1 has given the largest shot. But don't forget that I scaled down the size at which the digital stills cameras took their pics, to get as near as poss to the HC1's 2.7 megapixel size. The best, or most pleasing, overall shot ..except for the Leitz fixed focal length lens (which was nearer to the watch, but which wasn't even attached to the camera, but just held in front of it against the lens mount!).. seems to be from the HC1, if you disregard the bluish colour fringing produced by shooting into the daylight.
So in this extremely rough-and-ready test, pitting movie cameras against stills cameras (which were set at small pixel counts), in harsh conditions (against bright sunlit backlighting), using a variety of different lenses, I'd say that the HC1 comes out pretty much at the top of the heap for detail, contrast, sharpness - though it does have that severe colour fringing at the top of the case, against the light ..as also do the other Sony movie cameras, especially the 1-chip TRV330.
Here's the original HC1 shot:
Here's the same HC1 shot, with its levels slightly tweaked in Graphic Converter for good brightness and contrast:
Here's the similar shot made with a Leitz (Leica) lens attached to an Olympus E500 digital camera body (also tweaked in Graphic Converter):
Here's the 3-chip PDX-10:
Here's the similar 3-CCD Sony TRV950:
Here's the single-chip Digital-8 Sony TRV330:
Here's the Fuji S602Z 3 megapixel stills camera:
Here's the Canon 300D ('Digital Rebel') stills camera ..slightly tweaked in Graphic Converter:
And here's the Olympus E500 digital stills camera:
I didn't have any other make of movie camera - no Panasonic, JVC, Canon, etc - to test against these Sonys. Sorry.
I saved a version of the cropped HC1 picture, with auto-adjusted contrast/brightness levels as "HC1 crop1L" (and the 15%-sized picture as "HC1 15pcL") and the adjusted picture probably comes closest to the Olympus pic taken with the Leitz lens ..except that the Leitz picture was taken from about three feet (1 metre) away, and the HC1 picture was taken zoomed in from across the room.
So, all in all, Yes! ..The HC1 takes very good stills pics, as well as glorious HDV hi-definition movies. (But its movies are 'grainier' and less quickly focused in low light indoors, than the much bigger, more expensive and cumbersome, 3-chip FX1/Z1.)
..And all of the rest of the pictures run from here to here.
[..Now going off for a cup of tea..]