Get a load of what just arrived at the doorstep of our European HQ -- the world's smallest 1080i camcorder, Sony's
TG3E. Otherwise known as the TG1 in the US, this pup is small and sturdy and definitely looks the part of a Full HD (as it's defined for camcorders) 1080i shooter. Hell, Sony somehow managed to turn that boxy design into something sexy to hold. However, Sanyo's 720p Xacti
DMX-HD700 (in red) still trumps the TG3E in size and weight. Unfortunately, it gives up significant lines of resolution in the process and uses inferior materials to boot. We'll be back later with a full review of this pup as soon as we find a nice, tropical island which can pamper this beast in the luxury a $900 camcorder deserves. So until then, check the gallery and call out in the comments with any questions you'd like us to tackle.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Puneet @ May 2nd 2008 5:19AM
Question:
When you record what format is it in..divx ?
Oh, and 1080HD is 1920x something right ? what is that something ?
thanks :)
Mr.Tech @ May 2nd 2008 5:24AM
It's probably in mpeg format. Divx is usally avi.
mark @ May 2nd 2008 5:31AM
AVCHD, just like it says on the tin
gad get @ May 2nd 2008 5:40AM
1920 x 1080. Thus, Full HD 1080.
LondonConsultant @ May 2nd 2008 6:09AM
@gad get: 1920x1080i is called Full HD, so what is 1920x1080p called? Overfull HD, Superfull HD, Reallyfull HD...
Jack @ May 2nd 2008 6:17AM
Ultra HD!
LondonConsultant @ May 2nd 2008 6:44AM
@Jack: I just Googled "Ultra HD" and it's apparently either 1920x1080p (if you're a salesman) or 7680x4320p (if you're a techie). So, maybe Sony will be adding FullUltra HD labels in 10 years time...
bob @ May 2nd 2008 6:52AM
..or the term HD is just marketing! and available in different resolutions, personally for now i use 720p for everything, its space saving and looks as good as 1080 on any screen i have. and yes its avchd on memory sticks...
HD ; FH (1920x1080i, 16Mbps) / HQ (9Mbps) / SP (7Mbps) / LP (5Mbps) , SD ; HQ (9Mbps) / SP (6Mbps) / LP (3Mbps
Mike @ May 2nd 2008 8:51AM
@LondonConsultant
Yep thats part of it :) They'll also try and convince you that 1440p (the next step after 1080p) is Ultra HD.
@bob
Its VERY noticeable, atleast in my opinion, on a nice 104" wide projector screen :) But I'm wondering if thats the hardware being silly sometimes....
wizzle @ May 2nd 2008 3:19PM
@Mr.Tech
divx (like xvid, h.264, etc.) is mpeg-4. and that only refers to the elementary video stream, which can be contained in avi, mov, mp4, mkv, etc.
@Mike
it's actually more honest to call both 1920 and 1440 full hd. although most "full hd" delivery video streams from cable/satellite/ota is 1920, most CCD/CMOS acquisition in even high end cameras is still 1440 - so your 1920 has likely been scaled from 1440 anyway. this applies mostly to television, though, and not movies.
Information Central @ May 14th 2008 5:55AM
Nobody, but NOBODY should be using interlaced video in this century. Not for any purpose. It's an ancient mistake that should have had no place in our "advanced" television spec. But thank the FCC for allowing a ridiculous 18 picture formats in their "standard."
While 1080i may sound like it has higher resolution vertically than 720p, it's deceiving. Because only every other scan line is drawn during each field, the image must be blurred vertically to prevent twitter. Twitter is the flickering or shimmering of very fine horizontal details, which occurs when those details are only a single scan line in height. Since interlaced video draws each scan line only every other field, a detail only one scan line in height is missing entirely from the next field.
Therefore, the apparent vertical-resolution advantage of 1080i is largely squandered by this vertical filtering. When you combine that with the poor motion rendering and the difficulty in working with interlaced footage for any kind of effects, it adds up to a dinosaur that should have long ago been rendered extinct.
Insist on progressive scan.
M @ May 2nd 2008 5:29AM
Fancy giving it away in a europe only competition?? :D
mayq @ May 2nd 2008 5:59AM
I'm wondering if there's an HD TV that produces images natively in interlaced format.
LondonConsultant @ May 2nd 2008 6:29AM
There are lots of (expensive) CRT HD TVs...
PJK @ May 2nd 2008 6:03AM
What about the Xacti HD1000 , its 1080i , it may be marginally bigger but thats because of the larger lens and with that resolution I'd rather have the better optics thanks. Any chance of a comparison between the two ?
PJK @ May 2nd 2008 6:14AM
I might be missing it but i don't see any headphone or external mic sockets?
bob @ May 2nd 2008 6:48AM
been thinking of preordering one of these for a while but held off as ive only seen one clip from it, need to see how it performs when not so well lit, bring on the review engadget!
Mr. Vage @ May 2nd 2008 7:02AM
I will never use a camera that records to Sony's AVCHD format ever again. It is the most incompatible piece of garbage ever. I've gone through so much trouble to script a converter for AVCHD, because the one that comes with the camera creates 720x480 MPEG-2s (and it doesn't say anywhere that its not converting at 1920x1080). AVCHD is just one more reason for me Sony can't die soon enough.
Peter Kuhlmann @ May 4th 2008 1:17AM
Mr. Vage.
I searched wiki on AVCHD because I am looking at the HF10 or 100.
Those two cameras are supposed to have the ability to shoot in 1080/24p . Yet the wiki site says AVCHD is not capable of recording in 1080/24p. I am just starting out looking for a camera so I do not have much knowledge about this stuff. But the why sell a 1080/24p video camera when the codec is only capable of 1080/60i.
If that's the case, then I would never be able to see the benefits of paying the extra money for the 24p.
One more question. What is the best video camera I can buy for $1500 plus or minus.
Thanks
powerlord @ May 2nd 2008 7:31AM
I had an Xacti HD1. It was a piece of crap. terrible quality video. The mpeg4 (non H264) encoding was abysmal. And the digital image stabiliser was useless. Sound rubbish too.
I now have a Sony CX6. It is awesome. Unlike Mr Vage, I worked through the challenges of AVCHD.. not hard really: Sony Vegas (imho the best NLE for video anyway.. been using it since v3) handles them natively no bother at all. I usually deinterlace (smart deinterlace filter) and convert to 720p60 which gives a really sharp picture (no current consumer camera captures anything like 1440x1080 pixels of resolution). This gets me super smooth motion and ability to do sweet slo mos, etc when I am shooting inflight video (fly a paramotor). Also the optical image stabiliser is great.
Even without vegas: virtualdubmod will quickly convert AVCHD to an intermediate format (I suggest cineform) which can then be edited by any NLE.
Charles R Hamilton @ May 2nd 2008 7:56AM
Not overly familiar with the recording format. Does it play well with Mac OSX?
bob @ May 2nd 2008 9:52AM
it should be fine as long as your taking the media straight from the cam or take the whole file system off of the sick. imovie '08 was practically made for avchd, final cut is fine to.
Cassini @ May 2nd 2008 8:04AM
I like the Sony shown here, but no headphone jack = no sale.
The Sanyo Xacti HD1000 has the headphone jack and everything else (no touchscreen though, which is good or bad depending on who you're talking to) and it's proving to be a real winner in terms of design/build and video quality, and overall performance.
Ivan @ May 2nd 2008 8:06AM
thats hot!
Paul @ May 3rd 2008 6:30PM
agreed, looking forward to a review
bassbeast @ May 2nd 2008 9:00AM
We've been playing with the camera for over a week now, and we want to know:
1) What the hell is up with Pastel mode? Can you actually see an image with it? It looked to us like a giant whitewash.
2) Please test it in indoor, moderate light conditions. I found a boatload of dithering.
Outdoors, the images were spectacular, and the 5.1 mic is frighteningly accurate. Please take a look at the two points, which were the biggest two complaints (outside of barely-an-hour recording on a 4 gig memstick in HD)
The New Guy @ May 2nd 2008 9:16AM
Is it just me or is the price $900?????
*gulp*
Cliff @ May 4th 2008 9:30AM
$900 is cheap compared to here in the UK where it's £650 (~$1300)!
Zach Pomerantz @ May 2nd 2008 10:58AM
Are you testing it with a MAC? What is the conversion process like? Simple or sonytastic?
slarity @ May 2nd 2008 11:03AM
Watching HD on my 42" LCD from 11ft away 720p and 1080i look the same. I would pick whichever one of these are cheaper, the Sanyo definatly looks nicer.
required @ May 2nd 2008 12:05PM
Besides 1080i the Xacti HD1000 can do 720p at 60fps
07d+ym3R @ May 2nd 2008 11:47AM
HD, AVCHD, CRT, LCD, 720p, 1080i, 1080p !!! good riddins' i almost feel at home(in the military)
i remember when having a color tv set meant you were filthy rich!!! i think we are over-looking "the REAL picture" but that is just my two and a half cents! personally, if you dont have an imax at home(litterally) then you "aint got nuttin yet!"
LCD and projection screens are something of the past(let them die, or ELSE!!!), go oled!!!! :D
[other news] i cant wait for my 8gb SD card!!! im about to wet my pants!
"one day i will rule the world of infinite storage capacities and provide them FREE for $9,999.99(plus 1 cent, universe tax)" ~my 07d proverb
tiuk @ May 2nd 2008 12:44PM
You're just full of excitement, aren't you?
required @ May 2nd 2008 12:02PM
Why not size it up against the Sanyo Xacti HD1000 (1080i)?
http://sanyodigital.com/product.aspx?v=17
Skorpius @ May 2nd 2008 1:00PM
I cannot shoot without a viewfinder. You have much better control of the picture that way, rather than sloppily holding the camera out.
Jason Collin @ May 2nd 2008 9:54PM
QUESTION: Can the raw video be imported directly into iMovie HD ('06) and Final Cut Express?
I have a Xacti HD700 and really like it, but the video needs to be converted before it can be used in FCE, but works fine in iMovie HD.
And, the video quality from the HD700 in outdoor conditions, especially sunny, is great. Indoors, it gets worse rapidly.
Cliff @ May 4th 2008 10:52AM
Unfortunatly AVCHD is only supported by the latest version of iMovie ('08) and Final Cut Express 4.
I haven't been able to test both camcorders side by side yet (I only have access to the Sony) but from testing the Sony it seems to handle indoor situations with minimal disortion, there is some dithering as described by bassbeast but i didn't feel it was as intrusive as he does.
Hope this helps.
charles @ May 3rd 2008 1:17AM
how is the video quality without optical stablization? I have a canon tx1 and was thinking of getting this but $1000 in canada and no optical I'm skeptical.
Cliff @ May 4th 2008 12:05PM
It does have optical image stabilisation (Super SteadyShot). Quote from Sony UK site under key features: "Super SteadyShot optical image stabilisation for clearer stills and video" http://www.sony.co.uk/view/ShowArticle.action?article=1206545456395&site=odw_en_GB&source=rss
fever @ May 3rd 2008 1:18AM
This Sony thing looks like junk compared to the elegance of the Xacti HD1000. Why even compare it to an HD700? Is Engadget going low-rent, or are the Brits all Sony fanboys?
Elliot Nash @ May 3rd 2008 3:17AM
I agree with others, Sanyo Xacti HD1000 ftw